Vorlath

Posts tagged with "globalisation"

Computer Models

Sunday, November 21, 2010 4:08:22 AM

On two occasions I have been asked, 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.

- Charles Babbage

We are just past the one year anniversary of Climategate when emails from University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit were released. This is where the HADCRUT dataset for historical temperatures is put together. Phil Jones works there and was at the center of climategate. In the emails, there were a lot of things that raised eyebrows. Jones telling people to delete emails in response to FOI requests. Refusal to hand over datasets. Or alternatively, saying the dataset is out there, but not answering where they were, which ones, and where the meta data was located. The HARRY_README file is also something all programmers should read. It just showed how the temperature dataset is really in shambles.

Before getting into the topic at hand, computer models, I want to say that I'm all for saving the environment and doing what we can because it's the right thing to do. Even back in the 80's, when people got called tree huggers and ridiculed in many other ways, I was always for pushing for recycling and all the rest. Those views have not changed. But up until climategate, I was fooled into believing that catastrophic man made global warming was real. After climategate, having seen the data myself, I can only say that if you're still one of the people who believes in catastrophic man made global warming, please research the data.

There is a long list of items that are not debated by either side.

1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
2. A specific amount of warming per doubling (logarithmic scale) of CO2.
3. CO2 by itself will not cause runaway global warming.
4. We are coming out of the Little Ice Age.
5. Except for Mann and a few holdouts, the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) does exist as did the Roman Warm Period. Contoversy still exists as to how warm it was when the Vikings settled on Greenland.
6. Forcings and feedbacks with respect to CO2 are the only way to achieve runaway global warming.
7. The Urban Heat Island effect is real. This is another one that AGW proponents took a long time to accept.
8. Clouds and water vapour are the primary greenhouse gas that affects the climate of the planet.
9. It has gotten warmer over the past 100 years. See #4.
10. The uncertainties about the forcings and feedbacks are real.

Items #5 and #7 are recent developments. At least when it comes to the public. And those were points being pushed by skeptics. Mann actually tried to erase the MWP all together.

But skeptics and proponents of AGW basically agree on all these points.

A great many AGW proponent are incredulous when they first hear of this. The reason is that questions like "Do you believe in global warming?" is a loaded one. All skeptics believe that the Earth has warmed over the past 100 years. In fact, they will push that the Little Ice Age existed and that the MWP existed before that. So skeptics are very much PRO climate change. They are the ones that brought back the MWP from Mann's graph.

See the near static temperatures for a thousand years and then the sharp uptick in recent years. This is all bogus. This is why many people turn skeptics. This graph has been debunked more times than all UFO events, 9/11 conspiracies and JFK conspiracies put together. Yet, there are still scientists who back it. Why? I really don't know.

Now we can get into the topic of computer models.

A big question that arises is how can a non climate scientist know if the scientists aren't being honest about their claims? Should we not take the scientist's claim over anyone else's that isn't a scientist? And who am I to say that climate scientists are wrong? No, I'm not a climate scientist, but I don't need to be one because there are a few points that are universal when it comes to computer models. Everyone can use them. And you don't need to know squat about the climate.

It all starts with Babbage's famous quote I posted at the top. Here it is again.

On two occasions I have been asked, 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.

- Charles Babbage

This question was asked by government officials if I'm not mistaken. Perhaps senators or congresspeople. I think they were asking if the machine would be able to catch common mistakes that humans do. In any case, Mr. Babbage is quite correct that it's foolish to think that if you put in wrong data that the correct results will come out. You can't balance your budget if you use the wrong figures. That sort of thing.

So right here, everyone and anyone has a very good tool to know if a computation has zero chance of success. It doesn't mean you'll know if the output is correct. But for certain cases, it will tell you with 100% certainty that the output will be wrong. As said earlier, if you see someone use the wrong ledger to input budget information, you don't need to be an accountant to know that the output will be wrong.

RULE #1: Garbage in, garbage out.

Remember it.

We can now go back to Mann's infamous hockey stick graph. Everyone on the planet who knew a little bit of history knew this graph was garbage. There is ample evidence that the MWP existed. This is when the Vikings settled on Greenland. They left as the Little Ice Age was beginning. There was evidence of the MWP all over the globe. Climate scientists were still trying to deny it. But geologists were well aware of this for a long time.

So we knew with 100% certainty that the MWP existed. The above graph was created using a proxy. Instrumental temperature measurements only go back to the 1880's or thereabouts. But historical records and geological evidence was clear that the MWP existed 1000 years ago. So when Mann produced this graph, it was obvious that the input data was wrong. This means that all the research papers that used Mann's graph and data were also wrong.

Rule #1 cannot be avoided. But that did not stop Mann.

He knew his proxies were bad. In fact, the data after 1960's for the proxies showed a decline. What did Mann do? He hid the decline. Spliced it or hid it behind another dataset on the graph. If the proxy isn't valid for certain years, then there is nothing indicating that it would be valid for past years either. It should have been thrown out entirely. More than anything, this is what came out the most from climategate when it was revealed exactly what Mann had done. It wasn't a clever trick. It was sheer dishonest behaviour.

Not only was the MWP proof that his data was wrong, but now we knew that unreliable data was also present. Anything that used this data would now have to play by rule #1. Garbage in, garbage out. So all any skeptic had to do was look if they used Mann's data anywhere and they knew the results of that paper were bogus. So obvious was it that people who knew nothing about climate science were laughing at Mann, Jones, Briffa and all those who supported their data and results.

Climategate wasn't so much a realization that scientists weren't being honest, but rather a revelation as to the extent of what they thought they could get away with. Perhaps they weren't aware of rule #1. I don't know. But it certainly looks that way as most predictions are now done with computer models.

That brings us to the next area I want to talk about. Actual computer models as used by climate scientists. These models have a mindboggling amount of variables. Most of them are very uncertain. What's worse is that you can make the models do anything you wish because the sensitivity to certain variables is so great. With any great uncertainty comes the fact that this data is essentially no data at all. Normally, one would hope that you'd have data that was in the ballpark. But the forcings and feedbacks are a very contentious issue where pro AGW scientists argue amongst themselves. So is it possible that the models are correct? Well, perhaps a few of them if they closely resemble themselves. But there's a good chance that they're all wrong just because of the uncertain input data.

What I find most fascinating is how climate scientists expect people to believe their models because it came from a computer. This isn't the 90's anymore. People use computers. The success and failures are theirs, not the machine's.

Someone reading this might say... "Hold on now. Just because something is uncertain doesn't mean you can't get something relatively close and update it as you gain more information." I completely agree. In fact, this is the way science works. You make a hypothesis. You can make a theory to explain the hypothesis with models and whatever data you have on hand. And over time, you either refine your hypothesis (and models) or you reject the hypothesis outright if it can't be updated.

That gives scientists a LOT of room to wiggle. Again, how can I say their models are bogus? Because the Earth is the only true model. Yes, you can predict certain short term patterns. And yes, you can predict certain long term ones. But one has to understand the view of climate scientists. They don't believe in AGW because they are certain of it. If they were, we could look at the data and go "HOLY SHIT!!!". But even climate scientists don't have the holy grail that would prove them right.

What they have is a lack of alternative explanation.

Read that sentence again. Once more. Do you understand what that means? Read it again. Yes, it means exactly what it says. The ignorance of climate scientists is proof that they are correct. I'm not making that up. In fact, if someone suggests an alternative explanation with any degree of credibility, they will have to research it to prove it wrong. They wouldn't have to do that if they let skeptics also have funding for research, but that's another topic I don't want to get into.

What would it take to simulate the long term behaviour of Earth's climate? How many variables do you think it would take? How much information would you need? At what point would you be able to tell what percentage is due to human activity and what percentage is due to natural variations? The fact that they cannot tell us this at ANY degree of confidence tells us that their models are bogus.

The point I'm making here is not about the input and it's not that they can't tell us a valid result. It's about the model itself. Babbage said he couldn't understand how you could expect to have the correct results with the wrong input. Well, here's another thing that Babbage would not understand either. How can you expect to have the correct result if the algorithm is wrong?

RULE #2: Garbage algorithm, garbage out.

There is just no way you can tell me that they have the correct algorithm. It's impossible. Even if you use the correct data, you will get incorrect results. With the climate, there is much uncertainty not only about the input data, but also about the algorithms used. Heck, we can't even get a decent temperature dataset that doesn't include stations that have moved, are on top of asphalt, have been omitted, vast regions like the polar regions that have virtually no recording stations at all, urban heat island effect, etc. And now we're supposed to believe that they have solved how climate of the Earth works based on this data?

RULE #3: If you can't predict the past, you can't predict the future.

We have past data. As unreliable as most of it is, there is a way to test if some of it is usable. You test your models against two things. The null hypothesis and past results. So if you input random data, the model using actual data should give better and different results. You'd be amazed as to how many models and proxies don't pass the null hypothesis. Take Mann's graph again. It doesn't pass the null hypothesis.

The other test is to take older data and see if you can predict data that is still in the past, but a little in the future from the input data. If you get a good correlation, then you may be onto something. However, you can't cherry pick the data either. For example, most models that actually do this kind of test avoid the 40's to 70's like the plague. This was a cooling period when climate scientists were proclaiming that another ice age was upon us. But predicting this cooling period is a thorn in the side of climate scientists as far as predictive abilities go.

So there you go. When someone says that you're not a climate scientist or <insert title here>, you know that there are certain things that you can tell without knowing a thing about that field. Bogus data, bogus algorithms and not being able to use a model on past data and doesn't give better results than random data are all things that anyone can see right away.

RULE #1: Garbage in, garbage out.
RULE #2: Garbage algorithm, garbage out.
RULE #3: If you can't predict the past, you can't predict the future.

There is nothing here that is specific to any field. These are just facts of causality. If you see any of those three rules happening, then you know that causality has been broken and you need not look any further.

This post is dedicated to all those that aren't affected by causality.

2 comments

Font Patents

Tuesday, July 27, 2010 7:20:42 PM

development, globalisation

Here's an article about how the True Type Bytecode Interpreter patent has expired. So FreeType will be getting better looking fonts, especially for smaller fonts.

I use FreeType in Project V. So I know what this is about. At smaller sizes, the fonts really do look bad. So this will be a really good thing for everyone. What does this bytecode interpreter do? Well, at reduced sizes, you're dealing with PIXELS, not curves. Curves are what's stored in fonts, specifically Cubic and Quadratic Bézier curves. I know, I've actually loaded them up in raw format and computed how it would look on screen. Unfortunately, there was a bug in my code and some of the coordinates for the curves were wrong. I corrected it later on, but it wasn't necessary. Anyhow, there is an image in that last link that show how I shrunk the letter S. Beyond that point, you get into individual pixels where simple scaling no longer works. Well, you can do it. But it's really awful. So I switched to FreeType. It does a better job, but still nothing great. So now FreeType will have the bytecode interpreter enabled by default.

What happens is that True Type fonts have hinting information for what pixels to use at lower sizes. This is information that was manually put together for the most aesthetically pleasing version of the font. This hinting information and the code found in the font files can now be used by FreeType.

While all of this is indeed good news, it's not the end of the road for FreeType. There are other patents that I wish did not exist. These are Microsoft patents for sub-pixel rendering. In Windows, this "technology" is called ClearType. It makes your fonts look smoother overall. With LCD monitors, there are usually three vertical LED's for each pixel sandwiched together. Each vertical LED is for Red, Green and Blue. So what sub pixel rendering does is vary the intensity of these LED's within each pixel to create more definition and resolution on the font. It isn't without its problems though. Some colours (like green) have more effect than either red or blue. So you have to be careful with colour bleeding. But these problems are already solved for the most part.

What happens now is that no one except Microsoft and allies can use this "technology". This is not something that people would never have invented. The 10 or so patents that Microsoft has are useless in making sure that humanity doesn't lose this invention. Someone would have thought of it. In fact, similar technology existed 20 years ago. But fighting patents is a difficult process and enhancements on existing technology (which Microsoft references) can also be protected by patents.

I ran into this myself when I started to use FreeType in Project V. I can enable this feature because FreeType can produce the data. But it is not responsible for rendering onto the screen. So it cannot break that patent. But no one can use the feature. FreeType does support general anti-aliasing. It looks pretty good. And it works great with my DirectX graphics engine. So the point may be moot for me at this point. Still, I never got the chance to explore the possibilities. For text, I can change the way my engine renders images by drawing back to front instead of the usual front to back. Newer video cards could also support a triple alpha channel quite easily. As it is now, all that will have to wait until at least 2015 when the first patents on this start to expire. It may take another 10 years after that for all of them to expire. Will we still be using LCD's by then? Higher resolution will likely make subpixel rendering obsolete, or at least redundant.

Software patents are just plain stupid. I'm all for protecting clever ideas. But don't stop others from coming up with the same ideas. Patents weren't put in place for things that people will create no matter what. Besides, the computing world changes faster than most other fields. Patents can last longer than the devices they are meant to work on. This means that these "inventions" aren't meant for humanity, but for the sole profit of a single organization. Again, not the point of patents.

Many programmers think that patents don't affect them directly. The reason you often don't worry about it is perhaps that you're using an OS from a company that owns all the patents that DO affect you. You're locked in without knowing it. Maybe it's fine for one person. But someone else will want to exercise their freedom to choose an alternative product. That's when it hits them. Directly! Software patents are beyond useless according to their intended purpose. The issues I encountered with FreeType are just one example. Do anything significant and you'll wish they never existed.

No comments

Climategate

Sunday, November 29, 2009 8:40:22 PM

development, globalisation

If you only watch CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, BBC or CBC for your news, you probably didn't hear about one of the biggest scientific, economic and global scandals ever. I'm a big fan of conspiracy theories for their entertainment values, but this has real consequences. Still, it does have a lot of comedic value in some parts. Specifically, the coding part. It's in FORTRAN, but the comment file is the best part.

Here is a link to some parts of it. I'm sure you can find the rest of the emails and code on your own unless Google restricts searches again (yes, it's true). I think there's a torrent with all of it somewhere.

I've heard plenty of people try to dismiss this. Not sure why. In case you haven't heard the story, the IPCC (the agency that advises the UN on climate change) had thousands of emails, code and data released a week ago. It is believed that either a hacker or someone on the inside released them. A BBC reporter found some of his own correspondence within the set of released emails and confirmed that the ones he was included in were authentic, but could not say anything about the others. Apparently, there were scientists at the University of East Anglia who were responsible for much of the data modeling. CRU has since admitted that the original raw data has been dumped and deleted.

Quoted from that article:

Professor Phil Jones, the activist-scientist who maintains the data set, has cited various reasons for refusing to release the raw data. Most famously, Jones told an Australian climate scientist in 2004:
Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.

This is from the head guy at the IPCC back in 2004!

9 comments

Dvorak: The Truth

Monday, January 19, 2009 12:48:50 AM

development, globalisation

I use the Dvorak keyboard layout. I've used it since I first found out about it by a client that I did tech support for back in the early 90's when he gave me a news article about it. It blew my mind and thought I'd give it a try since I had nothing to lose. Do I type fast? No. I can do 60 to 80 wpm if I want to. Mostly, I type at 40-50 wpm. I do this mostly because I program a lot and this requires a different set of keystrokes where Dvorak is not well suited for.

In an article from 1996 I found on reddit titled Typing Error, the author tries to make the case that saying that the Dvorak keyboard is better is not true. It's a fable. An urban legend. A myth. That sort of thing. At one point, this quote really blew me away.

The success of Intel-based computers, in this view, is a tragic piece of bad luck. To accept this view, of course, we need to ignore the fact that DOS was not the first operating system, that consumers did switch away from DOS when they moved to Windows,...

The author does mention other mitigating factors, but Windows 3.1 was not really a NEW OS in the real sense of the word. It still very much had DOS in it. Even Windows XP still had DOS. You can run legacy application in XP even though you might need a tool to correctly handle the audio and video. During this time, most popular apps provided two versions (DOS and WIN3.1).

8 comments

Who Is The Safe Choice For The White House? (Updated May 11, 2008)

Friday, May 9, 2008 8:22:20 AM

globalisation

I wanted to crunch some numbers just for fun. I'm a Canadian and do not care who wins. I'll state up front that I'm a big fan of Bill Clinton. But I wanted to put my personal feelings aside and see who would be the best choice. I've tried to put Hillary at a disadvantage. Even though I think she can win WA and OR, I went strictly with the numbers with a few exceptions explained below.

Here is the map between the Democrats and Republicans this year where each party is certain to win their respective states. Blue is where both Obama and Hillary would win against McCain by 5% or more. Red is where McCain would win by 5% or more against both Obama and Hillary.

(edit May 11, 2008: Hillary now leads by 6% in Oregon. Oregon is now safe Dem)

(US Map taken from WikiMedia commons.)

52 comments

Obama's Hate Speech

Wednesday, March 19, 2008 11:42:58 PM

globalisation

I'm posting about this since it hits home a little too closely. I'm Canadian and I don't want to talk about this, but it's something that needs to be said. I reject and denounce everything that Obama has said in this speech. Sure, some things were ok. His performance was good and all that. But the content was deplorable.

Before I say my short two cents worth, there are three unwritten rules about talking about race or other "groups" that are universal. Since they are unspoken, some people are able to cross this line and get away with it (so it's not really universal, but you get my meaning). I've had more death threats and have been called more things and been involved in more "unpleasant" situations than I can count because of my minority status. But those things aren't worth my attention. What is more upsetting is the constant reminder of false accusations that build up over time and luckily for me, I don't hear much of it anymore. Even so, hate should NEVER be defended. More than anything, if Obama had spoken about the unrelenting hate, how it is indefensible and how we should work to stop those specific people responsible from doing this, I would have agreed with him. He instead chose to defend hate and even threw his own grandmother under the bus because we have since learned that his grandmother's situation isn't as clear cut as Obama would lead us to believe.

13 comments

Save the 2008 American Election TV Show!

Thursday, February 14, 2008 10:04:19 AM

globalisation

I don't normally comment on politics, especially not those of other countries, but I have to ask my American readers to please keep this TV show going. Look, I'm Canadian and was enjoying this reality show called the election/primary season you Americans have. It's great TV. Much better than here. Over here, no campaigning allowed one week before the polls open. You guys have it good. During the election, you can still campaign. But why did the media step in and cancel it? Sure, sure, you still have until November to go, but I already know the ending if the current script keeps going.

Right now, there's the Obama love fest. Especially by Chris Matthews on MSNBC. CNN is also in that bed. And so is Fox. Heck, Fox has people on there supporting Obama directly. Republicans are actually voting for Obama. Anyways, these three Republican news networks support Obama and no one wonders why? (Time/Warner owns CNN and is a long time supporter and contributor to G.W. Bush as is MS and Fox is owned by Rupert Murdoch, 'nuff said.) ABC News (owned by Disney and also Republican supporter) is the only one reporting the Rezko scandal, or anything negative at all about Obama, of which there is a long list to choose from.

Why is this important? Because it's BORING!!! aka predictable. I want the show to continue dammit. You have Republican "news" outlets that support a democrat and they don't tolerate any negative comments about that same democrat? Right there, that's too obvious. I really couldn't care less who wins. It's not my country, but it's on my TV. So dammit, I want good production value. Unfortunately, the show got cancelled. Obama wins and then McCain wins the general election. Done and done. Never mind that it's a bad ending, it just sucks that my favourite TV show is basically over.

So why is it over? It's not personal opinion. It's too damn obvious. And remember, you could elect Rush Limbaugh (though I thought he died in the 80's) or Keith Olbermann and I couldn't care less. Ok, I still can't believe Rush has a radio show, but that's another story. In any case, if he was your president, it'd simply enhance the late night talk show's joke segments and I'd see that as a win. See, that'd be exciting. Imagine Rush as President? That's good TV. McCain? Not so much. And that's why I need Americans to do something to save my favourite TV show.

Ok, to answer the question for real, here it is. Obama is being protected by the news corps. Whether you think they're Republican or not matters little. The fact is that there's a huge Obama love fest going on. It's sickening really. And if Obama could win the general election, I'd love it. That guy has awesome dirt. It'd be fantastic to see what he'd do in the White House if he continued his current style of politics. Guaranteed excitement and scandals. But no, there's simply no way that the news corps will continue to save Obama once he gets the nomination. It's impossible because Democrats ALWAYS get pummelled by the news corps during the general election (Gore and Kerry anyone?). Obama recently got attacked by McCain and you know what Obama's response was? "I respect you." I'm not kidding. WTF was that? Obama's so weak, I turned off the TV in frustration. Hope and Change don't mean squat against McCain. He was a POW. He'll be seen as a guy who can tough it out and come out a winner. You got nothing on HOPE against a POW. NOTHING! And Change? You think a POW doesn't know about wanting his situation to change? Obama's rhetoric is EMPTY against McCain. McCain's already established himself as the war hero with the media. You can bet that's not gonna change no matter how much Obama repeats himself. That means Obama also loses on national security issues. And on the war, Obama never voted against it. He wasn't even in the Senate at the time. He wasn't in the position to make that decision. Back seat voting doesn't count. Besides, he's already said his position and McCain's were basically in alignment back in 2004. McCain will again destroy him. I could go on and on. Needless to say, it'll be a disaster.

The whole world is watching. We want action. We want drama. Most of all, we don't want it to be predictable. Put whoever you want in the White House. Just keep it interesting. And let's be honest. This "YES WE CAN" bullshit doesn't cut it. We've seen it in every damn baseball or sports movie in existence. Only problem is Obama isn't playing baseball.

We all know there's no way either Obama or Hillary is going to take the nomination before it gets to the convention. CNN has a big board that says so and they keep showing this technological marvel so it must be true. That means that the party will be split all the way until the convention on August 28, 2008. I think your general elections are in November if I have that correct. August to November isn't a long time. So from now until August, we all know what's going to happen. Sweet fuck all. Hillary could lose all the way or Obama could lose all the way. Doesn't matter. The only excitement I foresee is the Michigan and Florida debacle. And don't think that Hillary is going to drop out even if she continues to lose because no one can secure the required delegates needed. Obama's the one running on the platform of cleaner politics (hahaha what a laugh), so he's gonna have to be the one to lead by example if he wants anyone to drop out. Anything else and Clinton will be right in saying that Obama only says things when it suits him. Hukabee has a right to keep running. So does Clinton as well as Obama.

Next up is August until November. If Obama wins the nomination, no way he wins the general election. The only way Obama wins is if his opponent drops out. Obama's uncontested. So just think about it for ONE moment. Someone who's NEVER once been opposed by the other party is going to win the Presidency? That's la-la land. And for you Obama supporters that think he's clean... you want to believe that there's such a thing as a clean politician? Do I hear you correctly? Like I said, la-la land. If you stuck any of this in a drama TV show, no one would watch because it's too unrealistic. Though it might work as a comedy, but that's just as bad. It'd be a joke. And realise that this is my point of view. I'm standing on the outside and watching it on TV. It's so unbelievably insane that I'm not really sure what to make of the unwarranted fanatism.

Then there's Hillary. If she gets the nomination, I know she'd be able to do something against McCain because the Clintons are the only ones that the Republican party has never been able to win against. At least, as far back as I can remember. But that would need the Obama supporters to support Clinton and I fear that may be too late. Not to mention that Florida is a factor in the general election and they're not allowed to vote in the primaries. That's gonna tick a few people off.

So either way, what's your plan Democrats? The road you're going down now, whether it's Obama or Clinton, is a predictable one. There's an old saying in politics: The best offence is a divided opposition. Worked for McCain once. No reason why it wouldn't work again. No matter what side you're on (and even if you disagree with EVERYTHING I've said), the ONLY thing Democrats should be talking about is how to select a nominee without going all the way to the convention and I'm not seeing that. Both Obama and Clinton supporters need to realise they're in the same sinking boat and being played by the other side. So change the script. The current one sucks!

4 comments

Bush: Morton's Ass?

Monday, August 6, 2007 1:06:52 AM

globalisation

I normally don't talk about external affairs. Actually, I don't think I've ever said anything about Bush & Co. on this blog, but it shouldn't be too surprising what a Canadian thinks. And I'm commenting today because this affects more than the US. It affects us all hearing and seeing the effects this has around the world. Anyways, I'll try to keep this short.

If you're wondering what the title means, it's a combination of Buridan's ass and Morton's fork. Here's the description of each from wikipedia.

No comments

Province of New Brunswick Enters Dictatorship

Saturday, March 17, 2007 9:43:47 PM

globalisation

I don't usually talk about politics. The whole notion of it disgusts me. But as of today, my home province of New Brunswick finds itself in a dictatorship.

The new Liberal government presented their budget and what always happens is there is a discussion on each item. One item was a $10,000 tuition rebate. After lengthy discussion, the Liberals made a motion to adjourn the discussion. Another item was adjourned before discussion even began. Basically, this effectively stops the purpose of having an Opposition and government itself. The party in power is usually required to defend their position. Without this, the party in power is beyond reproach. This is effectively a dictatorship.

The Opposition walked out in protest for a brief moment. This is something that has never happened before where the party in power does not follow the normal democratic procedures. There was talk about what to do, but decided to end the last 45 minutes of Friday's session for the time being.

I don't know what it is lately, but there seems to be a heck of a lot of self-righteousness. No concern for what their actions mean and what devastation it can produce in the long run. They are right and everyone else is wrong. That's their motto.

I don't care about what party is in power. I hate them both equally. I did vote, but for neither party. But if I want my voice heard, I cannot call my elected MLA because his voice doesn't count either. He (or she in other districts) cannot present the voice of its constituency. As bad as I think the current system is, I don't think shutting out discourse is the way to move forward.

The only reason I'm mentioning this local event is because it's getting more pervasive. Those that get into power seem to go overboard. By a lot. The new party has only been in power a few months and they're already in hot water. They're cutting everything and raising taxes. Any idiot can do this. I'm not sure why this party ran at all if this is all they were gonna do. On top of this, they've allocated $60 million to give to a bank. I'm not joking. We're a tiny, tiny province. Many cities elsewhere have more people than our entire province. I think $60 million to a bank may not be the best use of our assets. Plus, federal government injection of cash isn't present in the current budget in direct contradiction to procedure.

However, I think this is more a common trait in lawyers. They truly do believe they can do anything they want. Some lawyers have told me as much. The system can be as good as you want, but as long as people think they have the right to do anything they want and that no one has the right to question them, things will only get worse. It's happening in the US. It's happening here. It happens in most organisations. It's a trait that is promoted.

Am I worried? Not really. New Brunswick is in bad enough shape. Getting worse is not really possible around here although the little good that was done in recent years will be eroded. Basically, it ends up being one set of lawyers angry with another set of lawyers. They start using lawyer tactics on each other instead of on the general populace. In fact, I'm actually smiling a little that they're getting a little taste of their own medicine. Unfortunately, lawyers never learn. They're only concerned in being right. That's how they are trained. Tomorrow, lawyers will be at it again with something else. I wish I could pass a bill. Lawyers beware if the public ever gets in power. Reality TV just got a whole lot more interesting.

I'll say again that leaving the law to lawyers is a sure way to destroy any country. Lawyers destroy things. Not once has the law ever created anything. Lawyers don't understand this. Neither do they understand that the law is something you use as a last resort and that it'll never, ever define what is morally right, just or what's proper in society. Remember, if someone mentions the law then the situation has degraded so much that there is no other recourse than to use the law. Get out right away. The option of last resort has been used.

One day I hope we'll get rid of lawyers completely. Or at least the fact that they are self-regulated.

No comments

Autism

Thursday, March 15, 2007 6:20:29 PM

globalisation

[Note: This is a first draft. I'll be updating it as I gain more information because I want to make sure I get this right.]

I don't really like to talk about this subject because there's a lot of bad information out there and besides, any conversation about it usually degrades into lies. Having been close to it, I'm going to explain what it is from my point of view. It's an important subject, especially for those in the computing field. Programming takes a certain amount of focus and determination. This is one of the qualities of having autism.

And that brings me to the main point that you almost never see on sites about autism. What is autism from the perspective of someone who is autistic? The first thing to realise is that someone with autism isn't in pain. He isn't unhappy with himself. He doesn't wish he were someone else. There's nothing about his mental states that tell him he's inferior. So there's obviously something very out of whack with the public notion of autism and what is being published in the media and what is actually going on.

First, there are two versions of autism. There's the version that people see. And there's the version that an autistic person sees. They are worlds apart.

Let's start with the usual attributes of autism. There are a lot of them. Not every autistic person has these. Non-autistic people have some of these. Some are more affected than others. Some autistics can get these under control. Some can't.

1. Discomfort in making eye contact.
2. Discomfort in hearing sounds and sometimes specific kinds of sounds like voices. Other senses can also (or instead) be affected.
3. Extreme interest in a particular topic (like programming).
4. Difficulty and anxiety going into new situations, even if that situation is very simple.
5. Difficulty understanding subtle facial expressions.
6. Direct and obvious face expressions can be overwhelming.
7. Difficulty understanding body language.
8. Taking statements too literally.
9. Easily frustrated in a variety of situations where the autistic person's point of view is brushed aside. Other triggers are very much possible.
10. Prefers being alone, but it varies a lot. Autistics very much want to reach out in many cases. Just not for prolonged periods of time and perhaps not to the same intensity as others.
11. Does not lie.
12. Very strong value system.
13. Extremely loyal.
14. Because autistics hold back a lot for fear of repercussions, whenever it is no longer necessary to hold back, they can go to the other extreme and let completely loose. Sometimes obsessive behaviour is seen because it becomes too difficult to reach a middle ground since the autistic person has no idea where this middle ground is.
15. Speech may be impaired or non-existent. (This can be voluntary, but usually comes about by some kind of negative external stimuli.)
16. Meltdowns. This is when they need a break and they're not given the chance to take one.
17. Stims. Usually some kind of rocking motion or hand flapping. It takes their minds off any topic or situation and they can concentrate on the motion or whatever else. It's a calming behaviour. If they're not allowed to do this, a meltdown can ensue.
18. Does not like the accepted communication style of useless or obvious information like asking how you are or if you think it's a nice day out. They have no reason to want to know your feelings and if you have eyes, you can figure out on your own if it's a nice day. So there's no point in discussing it.
19. Are very logical. Logic is used for everything and thus takes up most of their mental processes. Rarely does anyone, autistic or not, have all the information necessary, so on occasions this leads to incorrect assumptions and is very awkward for the autistic person. If their logic fails, they have no backup.
20. Can be unaware of dangers or repercussions of situations. (Could be because they assume the area they are in should be safe or put their trust in the people around them.)
21. Their facial expressions are not always linked to their internal moods. This is why you are most likely wrong if you think an autistic person is unhappy if you see what you believe to be a sad face.

There's probably more, but that should give you an idea. Everyone has some of these. Autistics have more of them. People who have many of the above, yet can function in society are usually diagnosed as having AS or Asperger's Syndrome. This can happen even if you don't have autism. This will have drastic consequences.

There are many things to take note here. First, not all the items above are negative. More than that, some of the positives actually end up being negatives in the real world. They are too trusting. So sometimes they can be tricked rather easily. Lying in the real world is a must. From an autistic person's point of view, it is impossible to have the simplest of conversations without lying. Even if the conversation is honest, you can end up with something like this:

Q1: "Nice day out, eh?"
A1: "Are you saying I can't tell? That I'm stupid? That maybe I wouldn't be able to figure this out on my own if you hadn't pointed it out?"

They may not actually say this. But I'm sure it crosses their minds. The reason is that it's wasteful. There's no point to it. Autistics have a hard enough time with actual needs and want for persanal time that maybe this doesn't rank too high on their list of topics. I don't know for sure. But there's nothing they can do about the weather. This happens in a lot of situations that seem to baffle parents and non-autistics. For example, if an autistic child and mother are outside somewhere and the mother falls, it's quite possible the child will say nothing, seemingly uncaring. But an autistic child is probably thinking that asking if her mother is all right is an insult because it's quite obvious. The autistic child may think that it'd be rubbing it in. It depends on past experience. Also, if the mother wants the child to do something to help, it's highly likely that the mother will tell the child what to do. The autistic child knows this. So not knowing what to say, an autistic could likely stand there with no facial expression and not say a word. But they are not uncaring. They will think about all these things. In their view, not saying anything is usually the best way to not to get in trouble.

And that's something that I think most people don't get. Most everything that an autistic child does is wrong in popular culture. They are demonized. So if an autistic child gets a whiff of this and doesn't see an out, then watch out. He may as well act it out if there's no other option. The public view however, tends to focus on the outbursts. Look at this Jerry Springer style description. Scary, huh? I can tell you that this is not the norm. This is either a VERY extreme case, or there's something we're not being told.

Note that in the list, I haven't mentioned that autistics have communication problems unlike official diagnosis. Why? Because it's not specific enough. There's pronunciation aptitude and there's ability to converse. So if you're talking about pronunciation. This does happen on occasion. It can often be completely resolved with assistance. Just remember that if a child pronounced certain words incorrectly for an extended period of time, he will not know that he's not pronouncing it correctly afterwards no matter how much you try and get him to pronounce it a different way. Make sure you tell him that he's not pronouncing it like everyone else. He will likely not believe you, so it may take some convincing. Maybe telling him that just for now, pronounce it like you do. Give him a reason to do this. Reward him, or just tell him it's a favour. Whatever. Splitting up syllables and them recombining them also helps. So there's a whole gamut of scenarios that we don't hear about in the media. I'm not sure what kind of information parents get either.

Now we get to conversation. Conversation to an autistic happens at a different level. They do not wish to converse like others do. Here's what I mean. Let's say two people (your non-autistic friends maybe) are talking to each other and they don't understand each other on a particular topic. Who is guilty for the communication problem? Take any situation. If two people who talk different languages don't understand each other, who's fault is it? Because there are more non-autistics, the conversation style that is the norm is that one. Autistics must adapt if they are to interact in the real world. So they must understand the nuances, reading between the lines and all that stuff where they have difficulty. They must also try and understand the speaker's frame of mind in order to predict and understand the context of the conversation. So what you hear about autistics, especially those with severe autism, that they cannot understand another person's frame of mind is completely false. In fact, they spend a great amount of time dealing with this.

Here, it gets tricky though. What does the word 'understand' mean? It can mean several things. I can understand why a black person doesn't like the N word. But I can never understand what it is to be in their shoes. So this term 'understand' deserves more explanation. An autistic person can understand how someone else might react or what they might like or what their situation is and why. But they likely would not understand what it's like to be in their shoes because no one really can. And they certainly don't feel obligated to visibly react to any given situation either. Plus, autistics are at a disadvantage because they will likely think differently than the rest of the population. So there is less to base a common frame of reference. So yeah, you can say there's a problem with communication, but is the fact that someone thinks differently reason enough to say this? This is how an autistic person sees this. They see it as unfair that one view is held as the standard just because it's the majority. It's always up to the autistic person to adapt. Sometimes, it'd be nice if parents and others tried to see it from the autistic's point of view once in a while. I think anyone who tries this would be amazed at the results.

Autistics use logic for most of what they do. It should now be obvious why many of them gravitate towards technical fields. Combined with an autistic's ability for prolonged focus on one subject, this can make for enhanced abilities. There are many articles that talk about this in Silicon Valley. Autism is something that will only become more important in this field and should be discussed with a little more truth in it.

When we turn to look in the news, many sites like Autism Speak and Cure Autism Now are seen on par with the holocaust to many people with autism. I am not linking these sites because I personally agree with this view. I believe it's one thing to help with an autistic's ability to function, but it's another to exterminate them. Besides, I see autistic tendencies in over 70% of the population. This is a personal view. But look at the list at the top of this blog entry. Do you have one? Two? Three? Five of these? Many of these, if taken individually, aren't bad. Some are really good attributes. And they are found in ALL the population. So what will it take to cure autism? Extermination of our entire race, autistics and non-autistics alike? So it's more that I believe that autism is a product of humanity than anything else.

What a lot of people don't understand, especially so-called experts, is that autism isn't the above list of attributes. Those are quantifiable properties. But get rid of all these things, and a person will still be autistic. It's just likely that he'd be a really good actor. He's understood what behaviour non-autistics expect and will start to act that way. Eventually, it can become natural. But the person is and always will be autistic. Autism is pervasive. It's who that person is. It cannot be removed or cured from an existing person. I don't believe that experts understand this. Actually, I don't think experts understand anything about autism from what I've read online.

I want to switch gears and reiterate a story I've told many times. I forget if I've spoken about it on this blog, but here it is anyhow. When I was younger, we'd often find ourselves in groups to talk. This could be at school, at work or at the mall. If we were all French speaking, we'd speak French. If just one person showed up who spoke English, but didn't understand French, we'd all switch languages. What happened is that we weren't the only ones doing this. Most French speaking people would switch to English if someone couldn't understand French. Later, more and more, we started to hear that French was unnecessary. That many who only spoke English said they've never been in a situation where they needed French. When this became a pervasive view, most everyone I knew who speaks French stopped switching languages. We were hurting ourselves by switching. It was quite a situation telling good friends to learn French if they want to take part. We made sure that they only needed to try and we'd help them out. Some were very upset. Many wanted a reason why we wouldn't switch since we could all speak English. We always said we can't ask everyone to switch just for one or two people. It shows a lack of respect. If you join a group, you are initially a guest. When in Rome, do as the Romans do. Personally, I still don't do enough to promote my language. I hope I can do more in the future.

The point of this is that if you do everything for other people, they won't see the need to do it themselves. When you believe someone needs help, if you do everything, it may backfire on you. They may expect that you'll always do everything for them. Every situation is different, but if you're always speaking for your autistic child or you let them get away with pointing and not speaking, then you're promoting this behaviour. Like I said, every situation is different. I do know that some autistic children find speaking repulsive rather than not being able to do it. I also know that sometimes speech only becomes possible later on. So it varies a lot. All I'm trying to say is that if you've found yourself doing things for an autistic child for years, you may want to check if this couldn't change. Sometimes, certain skills are latent and only become available later. Sometimes, they're available right away. An autistic child's behaviour is very much a product of the people around him. Not for everything. But it's something to keep in mind. Please don't consider this as blaming anyone. Like my story said, sometimes we just don't realise what is actually going on and opportunities can slip by unnoticed.

Something I notice that parents are very concerned with is when a child doesn't respond when you call their name. Parents must understand that a name contains no question to be answered. There is nothing there for the child to respond. An autistic child also feels no need to answer a question. He's perfectly comfortable leaving it dangle. This is often done when an autistic person feels the question has already been answered or when it's something that is felt is obvious or unnecessary. Calling a child's name is probably one of the most devoid and annoying things for an autistic person. I can't be sure about this, but I'd be interested in knowing if there'd be some (I repeat SOME) different responses if you asked a question or worded it in a way to entice the child to respond instead of just calling his name. Give them a reason why they should answer. And by 'reason', I mean a reason for the child. Not a reason for you. Give them a benefit for answering even if it's just a bargain such as asking them to respond in exchange for things you've done in the past (or that minute) for them that they like. Sometimes just explaining why you want them to answer works wonders. This can work for everything. Explain to them why you like certain things like hugs. If you don't tell them, there's no way they can know.

One of the worst things you can probably do to an autistic person is ask them why they are down, why they're quiet or why they're not trying. First, they were likely super happy before you asked them why they are down. After this question, they will most certainly be very upset. Facial expression is not always correlated to their feelings. If they're really involved in what they are doing, it's likely they will forget to link their facial expressions to their feelings. Yes, it's true. This is not always automatic. It has to be manually handled in some cases. Second, they're probably quiet because they're enjoying what people have to say and is processing it to try and come up with something to say at the right time. Third, they may well be trying their hardest, or maybe not, and no one told them that what they are doing isn't up to calibre. The teacher likely only tells his parents later on or after the fact. Lots of good that does. If you want to bring down an autistic person, ask them one of those three things.

This brings me to the next item. Depression. It's very common with autistics. Depression is NOT an autistic trait, yet many of them have it. The reason they have it is because of all the negativity surrounding autism. Autism need not be negative. It can be very positive. Actually, this should be the publicly accepted view of autism. But no. We have freak show descriptions, statements that autistics are ill and that they are a burden. I've heard people ask sarcastically if we should lie about the situation. I say that we're already lying to them. The public view is a wrong one. If you want to help someone, you don't tell them they're a burden and that they're ill and defective. If you believe it, keep it to yourself. What's an autistic child supposed to do after you've repeated this a million times? He can't change who he is. He will be autistic for life and proud of it. If he's ashamed of being autistic, then something went drastically wrong somewhere.

The common view is how traumatising it is for the parents upon the news that their child has autism. Whatever you do, NEVER let your child see this or get a sense of this. EVER! You should always be proud of your child. You have to defend him (or her) at every chance. Your child should be proud to be autistic. But he should also understand the differences and the problems that will arise and what behaviour is expected and how to cope. Reasons, reasons and more reasons. Even the simple ones that you take for granted. Inside, your child should feel like he's a normal human being, but one that is different from most others. This is a much better view than telling your child he's defective and is ill. Telling your child he's ill or defective is just plain sick. You have to be pretty demented to do this. Rememeber, a child with autism will not feel bad about autism unless the people around them feel bad about it. This negative feeling about autism in a child is 100% from your and others reactions to it.

Each case is different. Each situation deserves its own assessment. Remember that an autistic person is a real person with feelings. I'd like to see more descriptions about how the autistic children (and even adults) are feeling and how different things affect their situation. Most public reactions are always about how the parents feel. I always say that the children should come first. Not that I don't empathise with the parents, but that they should not be the focus of attention for getting benefits. It should be about the child's needs. The public deionisation of autism must stop. The attempts at genocide must stop.

Many autistics, even severe cases, can end up holding jobs and functioning adequately in society. Highly intelligent and artistic people in our society have been autistic. Autistic people have a great sense of humour. They are very artistic. They have fascinating ideas. They are very creative. They are intelligent. They have a warm soul. They are our brothers and sisters. Yes, there are negative aspects to autism. No one's denying that. But looking at it from a positive perspective will do untold good. If it makes just one more autistic person happier, then it'll be worth it. I'm no expert. This is just some of what I've seen personally and I've yet to see it reported in any constructive way. I will admit I could be completely wrong. But one thing I do know is that things must change. We cannot continue to have such a negative view of autism if we are to help those that are here now. Be proud of who you are.

The voice of the autistic community comes from people who have autism. They are the ones we need to listen to.

The Real Voice of Autism
The Evil in Preventing Autism
Don't Mourn for Us
Getting the Truth Out (read at least to page 10)
What Happens to Someone Normal With Wrong Diagnosis

This has been my humble attempt at seeing the light and listening to the autistic community. Those who are actually autistic. Those whose voices are so often drowned in lies.

3 comments

1 2 3 Next »