Author Archives: Me

Activities of a Clandestine Nature (4 of…

Posted on by under Clandestine Activity, Privacy

Recently I heard a really great argument against clandestine activities: It perpetuates the practice, the habits, the policies, and the systems that facilitate clandestine activities. Being something that we don’t want, systematic clandestine activities should be pointed out, certainly be strictly live-audited by unbiased third parties.

Why is clandestine activities bad? The truth of the matter is that knowledge begotten of clandestine activities are inherently out of context and incomplete information. Why spy on my computer, when you can walk up to me and ask? When you take a small slice of what happens, you will surely miss the whole as the whole is not represented by some of the things that you are able to see as a clandestine agent.

Previously suggested problem that those taking part in clandestine activities will as all things in nature fall into the path of least resistance. Some day, we will just water board every person we suspect, I mean why not? I’m sure there’s an email I sent once that says “I hate you” or “I’m gonna kill you” or “I hope you die”. And my constant opposition of clandestine activities is surely sign that I plan something and desire that no one sees it.

What is the difference between these series acts: passing a secret law that permits some person unknown to me at a time unknown to me read my emails, gather all my past school and employment records, find copies of all emails I’ve ever sent by USPS, and analyze all information about all my past employment and my family and friends, and these second series of acts: passing a secret law that permits some person unknown to me at a time unknown to me knock me out (perhaps it’s already happening in my sleep ? or even on flights, god knows how often I fall asleep quite inexplicably moments before push-off, with two air jets blowing cold air at me and two reading lights shining down! and only to come to quite suddenly for no reason), and torture me and get that information?

Well, you say, there is collateral damage, you feel pain when you are tortured but you do not feel pain when your email is being scanned. This ought to be the most humane way of getting the information from you. Why are you not on your knees thanking all the people whose hard work went into making it so that you are not water boarded? (rightfully or not)

Aha, thank you President Obama! The constitution should save us… Let’s see, according to wiki it implicitly presumes innocent for US citizens until proven guilty, but it provides wide leeway for authorities to investigate when suspicion is arouse.

We cannot pursue it through cruel and unusual punishments(8th amendment) as reading my email can hardly be construed as cruel and unusual… even in my interpretation. Although I can imagine some feel it is cruel.

It appears in the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable search and seizure:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

It also fall under Fifth Amendment of due process:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

There should be a Grand Jury of my peers selected uniformly at random who when presented with evidence agree to the search and seizure of my information. I should not be deprived of my liberty and (privacy) property without due process of law. And of course the Ninth Amendment says that we may have rights beyond those listed

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

I should cover my behind and say, you guys in law enforcement are doing a heck of a job, which is much appreciated by present author. And I really hate all those other people who invade my privacy. It’s just that I might have a small chance by conventional means (law suite, legal protests, policies, etc.) of changing those things you do that I don’t like, and I do not have methods to affect those others.

Everyone who do take part in clandestine activities all feel absolute righteousness as they proceed in invasion of privacy that I do not want them to. Their feeling and their intention absolutely annoys me in addition to their act of invasion. Perhaps we should define invasion of privacy more formally so that these feelings about their feelings are processed rationally. If they can define information theoretic brain death, why can we not define more precisely what invasion of privacy is? What is personal privacy beyond those facts(bits, characters, words, sentences…) whose association with me is information that may cause me harm? regardless of harm, can we take the entropy of those bits and say that is the quantity of privacy lost? Actually, we should take information gain from a representative population and that is the information I lose–those that you gain. The privacy loss as defined (the negative of your information gain by reading my email from knowledge of all emails) actually only qualifies the privacy. It actually does not quantify it sufficiently.

Sadly, this very truthful and fundamental definition takes us a short ways. If you were an English major trying to find new phrasing of something, or if you are a VC looking for new cute company names, this will definitely find information detrimental to those trying to keep it private. But if I am someone plotting next Taliban attack, or someone discussing 21st century is a Marxist century, then the naïve information loss does not help as much as you would like it to (Certainly my email would give away less information under this definition than XYXYXZZZ.com inc) If everyone writes emails using words representing their true meaning equally and every one has same amount of total information(private+public) associated with them then reading your email and reading my email decreases our privacy equally. So we have parameters I_pr for private information, I_pu for public information.

We should compute using Bayes’ rule to compute

P(I_pr|my emails, others’ emails, I_pu) =

P(my emails | I_pr,I_pu, others’ emails)*P(I_pr,I_pu, others’ emails)/P(my emails, others’ emails, I_pu)

and

P(my emails|Others’ emails, I_pu)

and we can then calculate the information

IG(I_pr; my emails|others’ emails, I_pu)

based on these distributions, pending specification of relevant linking functions or mechanisms. But the problem with this much more convincing information gain is that you will never convince anyone that the link functions is representative of you. Too complicated for constitutional purposes for sure, and the courts will surely not be empathetic enough to follow the math… Maybe next century when everyone’s played with IG and done some modeling in grammar school.

For another example the number $54,102,299.14 and the number $14,541,022.99 relieves me of the same character-wise entropy privacy, however are quantitatively different. We need to rely on some oracle magic. Suppose there is a most concise way to describe the entirety of my privacy, say H containing a series of bits an oracle produced. Your knowledge of H would be your complete knowledge about me. ergmum, we should have a vocabulary of engrams, minimal cognitive elements… H is a series of engrams that is the complete knowledge about me–it’s finiteness is not specified. Let’s also suppose that my emails (the thing that you use to access my privacy) is encoded by the same oracle using the same engram language producing E the complete knowledge about my emails. |H| is the theoretic maximum privacy I can lose, H*E is the information that I actually lost (inner product like operation for vector space, TBD for strings, perhaps LCS for a special oracle). It remains only to calculate distance(such as edit_distance(H,E) for strings and euclidian_distance(H,E) for euclidian spaces) which is disinformation you gained by reading my email. H*E/|H| is the ratio of my privacy lost, H*E/|E| is the truthfulness of my emails.

It remains to be seen how to find an oracle, the definition of the engram language, operations over it, campaign to enact law to account and compensate us for the privacy lost, etc. However, I am really really wishing that all these clandestine activities are like zits in the face of growing humanity reaching adulthood and will blow away as our vitalities settle into their respective places.

The Ninja Innovation, Golden Globe, CES, etc.

Posted on by under Uncategorized
Just returned from CES and I’ve been reading Ninja Innovation written and autographed by Gary Shapiro who heads CEA which runs CES which is where I found out about the book. The book goes down like a good scotch. Which is to say it is well aged, taste great, and a little intoxicating.
Also, reading the book I found out about German strategist Carl von Clausewitz. Hehe, I couldn’t help but giggle a little regarding the “dialectic thesis and antithesis of war”… Recalling times long ago, in a land far away, where I first heard of the words “dialectics”, “thesis”, “antithesis” and the “resolution”.
UGH, on second thought, should I post about this? It will surely arouse suspicion of multiple agencies from who knows how many countries monitoring the online postings that mentions these terms. I probably just signed the United States “Wire-tap” Warrant to endlessly monitor and analyze my blog and email and all other personal things, and to retroactively obtain all records of all my private things since birth, by writing about this. Want to give a quick shout out to Jodi Foster(Congrats on being recognized for lifetime achievement at 2013 Golden Globe), I am your fan! I know I’m not a big star since age of three, but still Go Privacy!!! 🙂
hehe, okay, but do let me say, I find that today I am not so attracted to this idea of Hegel’s.

But Clausewitz’s work seem much more interesting. The expression “fog of war” started there. These things that are so obvious today, but probably rarely fully understood, very difficult to clarify in author’s own head, and much more difficult to write in language at that time: Obviously the leadership of military has personalities, and obviously those personalities greatly affect what battles are fought and who wins wars. Obviously war includes clearly distinguishable elements (in fact physically separate aspects) of “force” and “uncertainty” and that their “resolution” would rely on the “creative spirit” of those involved, (aka fascinating trinity, die wunderliche Dreifaltigkeit). It sounds so obvious and so right and needless to write–Obviously, now, that I read it’s summary in Wikipedia after more than two centuries of people reading and summarizing it) But at that time, perhaps nobody has yet fully grasped all these insights and put them together–except for Clausewitz, of course.

The same goes for Ninja Innovation, what’s said seem completely obvious: Of course you need a team of highly specialized people who wants to, are able to, and are willing to work together to, and are willing to wait until the timing is right to accomplish a common goal. But the salience with which this is pointed out through personal experience of highly complex success stories is absolutely critical for the book to be of value to readers, and Shapiro accomplishes that.
Oh, I also want to plug my own blog having similar title called “The Good Business — Ninja’s approach.” I must admit, in I originally used the word Ninja slightly derogatorily–This blog documents many of the business practices the “business ninjas” used successfully, or attempted without negative consequences, on me that are perhaps violate professional ethics. The good thing is that the blog did morph to include various devious ways for me to become a business Ninja. Great minds think alike, and we have both landed on Ninja.

I want to quote a line describing the Ninjas from Shapiro’s book, that they excel at “the art of espionage, sabotage, infiltration, and assassination” OMG, my heart stopped when I read this. This is the kind of people that the above fine print speak of. Those that spies and sabotages in complete secrecy! they infiltrate my work, hack my accounts, befriend my friends, family, and they kill. Powerful! very powerful, very insightful! exhilarating passage!

Link to the book on Amazon: Ninja Innovation: The Ten Killer Strategies of the World’s Most Successful Businesses.

Additional links on Clauswitz’s work:

p.s. note for self: center-of-gravity in these context is center of target of attack.
p.p.s. Next time I visit Vegas for fun, I’d like it to be riding California’s new high speed rails…

The Ethics Hierarchy and More Diagramming

Posted on by under Ethics

I recently learned of the Chomsky hierarchy(aka the Chomsky–Schützenberger hierarchy). It would appear to me that what I have discovered also forms a hierarchy of various ethical maxims. Also, I should mention we have added Laozi‘s 无为 advocating minimized interference both in governance as well as personal improvements. At first glance, it seems very nice that the transitive action space for these maxims fall into proper subset relationships. But as we shall see, this naïve hierarchy only begin to illustrate the relative situation of these maxims in the world.

 Ethical Hiearchy

We have not considered the possibility that I am not able to do some things to others and others may not be able to do some things to me. Let us redraw the Ethics Hierarchy but introduce additional capability regions in the transitive action space. Oh, and we have also introduced color to enhance readability of the picture.

gold versus silver 1 Why is this interesting? Well for one thing we are at a stage where Venn diagram can actually separate all the regions that we are interested in. A second reason is that it makes us realized that the containment relationship visualization using grammar school Venn diagrams that my dad pointed me to was only just the beginning of our exploration. We can draw more circles and see that our world have distinctive sections with different shades of meaning, benefit and possibilities.

For instance, one thing this graph points out is that there are things that Confucius or Jesus recommends us to do that we cannot actually do to others.It also shows us that there are things that we desire that in reality we cannot receive, however we can perform the act onto others. The graph also points out that there are the region of actions space within our desires that others can never give to us.

Lastly from looking at this picture, it seems that actions within realm of possibility that are not recommended by the Jesus action set is small. On the other hand, the actions that Confucius recommend that are not possible is also small. From freehand drawing it would appear that the completely impossible actions inside the Confucius action set is small relative to all Confucius’s recommendations, and similarly the completely possible actions outside of the Jesus set is small compared to the whole Jesus set.

Fascinating!!!

On the sizes of average of ratios

Posted on by under Math, Uncategorized

I once asked this silly question on an interview:

Which is larger, a micro-average or a macro-average?

Not knowing the answer for many years until recently when I sat down and worked it out, in fact in a more general sense, for non-averages as well, let a,b,c,d refer to any real number with d>=b>=0.

(a+c)/(b+d) <= (a/b + c/d)/2

if

a/b >= c/d

equality holds, and inequality inverts, in both simultaneously.

okay okay, all my friends laughing at me, I know this is silly little math exercise you did when you were in a diaper… whatever!!

The impact of this is, if one is to change from one average to another average half way through some testing period, while controlling the denominator of these inequalities, one would technically not be lying when one says the average has gone up. (not stating that the definition of average has changed)

Here is the mnemonic: Smaller Smaller Smaller Bigger: Ratio with the Smaller denominator being Smaller than ratio with the larger denominator means the Smaller average is Bigger than the bigger average,

TODO: generate general case averaging n ratios.

Golden V. Silver Round II.I

Posted on by under Uncategorized

Holiday season 2012, wishing everyone a happy new year. Merry Christmas.

I had a frank conversation with my father and asked him to read Round II. He felt my explanations were unclear. Instead, he drew the following picture to illustrate from my conditionalization of the ethical imperatives. It stems from his ever present grammar school math basics which says that in a set theoretic axiomatic logic system the statement

if P then Q has the following Venn Diagram:

Because Q is true exceeds the situations when P is true, but not vice versa, therefore the containment relationship. After some quick calculation, due to the inversion and making sure the relationship still matches, the golden and silver rule when put into the same “action space” produces the following Venn Diagram:

It takes a moment to convince one’s self that the smallest set “Confucius wants” fits inside what “I want”. But if you image the outside of “Confucius wants” is Q above in the negative space and outside of “I want” is P in negative space and is therefore superset to Q.

This is now indeed very clear. By visualizing the action space over which both ethical imperatives
reside—those things within my ability to do to other and to be done onto–suddenly we find that these sets of actions: things I can do, things jesus wants me to do, things Confucius wants me to do, and things I want to do, have a superset relationship. The large sets are always proper super set of smaller sets unless I want done to me include all possible things or nothing.

It’s kind of surprising that Confucius silver rule recommends doing fewer things than Jesus’s golden rule–But then again, it may make sense, Confucius speaks much of humbleness, about learning from teachers, he puts greater value on meta-knowledge about one’s own knowledge than the knowledge themselves. Perhaps this conservative valuation of self prevents him from doing as much.

Jesus on the other hand, son of god, savior of the world asks follower to do more in pursuit of heaven. Let’s celebrate his birth…

Merry Christmas, everyone!

Golden V. Silver Round II

Posted on by under Uncategorized

I want to revisit the Golden Rule and Silver Rule of ethics comparison.

 Recall that Golden Rule, is most commonly stated as “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you“, where the silver rule is the negated form that most frequently appears as:”己所不欲，勿施于人“

In my previous posts(here, and again here), it would appear that we have written about a result concerning two person one following the golden rule and one following the silver rule benefitting differently based on his or her likes and dislikes.

I should think a second analysis is in order on this Thanksgiving eve of 2012. We begin with the observation that both the golden rule and silver rule appear to be stated for sentences who’s verb is transitive.
A Verb B
Golden rule says if you want to be B of a sentence, then you should always be A of that sentence.
Silver rule says if you do not want to be B of that sentence, then you should never be A of that sentence.
These imperatives are translated into logical conditionals as follows:
Golden: if “I want to be B” then “(Jesus says) always be A” of the action “A verb B”.
Silver: if “I do not want to be B” then “(Confucius says) never be A” of the action “A verb B”.
I want, ->O, Gold, Silver
Y, Y, T, T
Y, N, F, T
N, Y, T, F
N ,N, T,T
So this means under golden rule, the following can take place :
I want, do to O (*)
I don’t want to be done onto, do to O
I don’t want to be done onto, don’t do to O.
under silver rule, the following can take place:
I want, do to O
I want, don’t do to O
I don’t want to be done onto, don’t do to O. (*)
In reality, when there are two outcomes to the same antecedent, we usually cannot both do and do not do Verb onto O. So, a easy simplification, without biasing towards either rule is to take a maximum entropy approach. For the strategic ethicists, here are the strategies for this game of ethics:
Golden rule:
I want, do to O 100%
I don’t want, 50% do to O 50% don’t do to O.
Silver rule:
I don’t want, do not do to O 100%
I do want, 50% do to O, 50% don’t do to O.
With these relaxation in mind we shall commence analysis in a world where there are only two people, one strictly following the golden rule and one strictly following the silver rule. Given any want/don’t want combinations there are several possibilities in the utility a person may take from a situation. 
A verb Me and I want to be verbed:  1
A verb Me and I don’t want to be verbed:  0
A does not verb Me and I want to be verbed:  0
A does not verb Me and I don’t want to be verbed: 0
To person G or S, the utility of A Verb B taking place under these circumstances are
S1: G wants B, S wants B
S2: G wants B, S doesn’t wants B
S3: G doesn’t wants B, S wants B
S4: G doesn’t wants B, S doesn’t wants B
S1: G 0.5, S 1
S2: G 0, S 0
S3: G: 0, S 0.5
S4: G:  0, S 0
Summing everything up, G gets 0.5, s gets 1.5
Here, we will also consider the concept of a winner if in this world, under these rules and these strategies applied according to the rules that the rule’s follower gains higher utility. In this case Silver rule follower wins, by 200%. This is quite interesting, because the golden rule is setup as if one is only rewarded by action when the same is desired, therefore, when Silver rule follower enters, the Golden rule follower suffers. This inspires us to reverse this and create a world where Silver rule follower is disadvantaged:
A verb Me and I want to be verbed:  0
A verb Me and I don’t want to be verbed:  0
A does not verb Me and I want to be verbed:  0
A does not verb Me and I don’t want to be verbed: 1
That is, if the world really is such a way that would cause one to create the silver rule, then what are each party’s utility?
S1: G 0, S 0
S2: G 0, S 0
S3: G: 0.5, S 0
S4: G:  1, S 0.5
Totals G:1.5, S: 0.5
Aha, when the world is such that one would want to create the silver rule, silver rule follower benefits less when interacting with a golden rule follower, again by 200%. These two worlds seem to have produced very intuitive results: in the prior case, our world is one where one is only rewarded when actions on taken onto him only when he himself desires it; in this case silver rule following wins when in presence of gold rule follower, even tho he himself does not act with certainty when he desires it. In the latter case, our world is one where one is only rewarded when he is not done onto when he does not desire it. But in this case Golden rule wins. The conclusion one is tempted to draw from this is that rules are made in a world/society under its reward system to gain the most utility, but when interacting with members following rules from different world with different reward structure, then members of the foreign rule tend to benefit more from world/society than the natives.
Suppose our world is where inaction never create any disutility. And suppose also that doing the opposite thing is only half the damage as reward of doing the right thing:
A verb Me and I want to be verbed:  1
A verb Me and I don’t want to be verbed:  -.5
A does not verb Me and I want to be verbed:  0
A does not verb Me and I don’t want to be verbed: 0
Totals G: 0.25, S: 0.75
So, in this world where inaction does no damage and wrong action is somewhat forgivable then Silver rule follower is 200% better off than Golden rule follower. 
Another interesting case is the inaction world is where one is rewarded for wanting. Even when one doesn’t get what one wants, he is still rewarded, though not as much as getting what he wants.
A verb Me and I want to be verbed:  1
A verb Me and I don’t want to be verbed:  0
A does not verb Me and I want to be verbed:  0.5
A does not verb Me and I don’t want to be verbed: 0
Totals: G: 1.25, S:1.75
In this case, Golden rule follower actually loses by 20% to silver rule.  Similarly if we are slightly rewarded for not wanting even if we get something, the winner is reversed and Silver rule follower loses by 20%. As in the first two cases, the losing rule in a situation tend to be the rule inspired by that world, and that rule will lose when interacting a rule that would have been inspired by the opposite world. It seem to suggest that the society/world that inspired the silver rule would have rewarded members for not wanting where as the opposite is true of the society that inspired the golden rule.
These two widely known rules of moral and ethics known as Golden rule and ethics and Silver rule of ethics arise from different places in the world of different language and culture. Upon closer inspection, we discover that the logical interpretation of their meaning yields an extremely interesting problem regarding what to do in the situation when the rule gives no prescription for what to do. In this analysis we have taken a maximum entropy approach and created a mixed strategy profile for two persons one using golden rule and one using silver rule. In both cases when no prescription is given the follower will do one of two possible actions with 50% probability.
Under this relaxation of both rule, we put two people, one following each rule, together in an artificial world where utilities are assigned for four combination of one wanting to be B of “A verb B” and whether “A verb B” happens. It is found that the world with utility seeming to inspire a rule tend to favor the other rule’s follower, follower of rules inspired by the world seem to suffer and gain less utility in the process of interacting with the other rule’s follower. This would make sense in two ways: when the world rewards for some kind of action, the follower of the rule suffers when he does positive things to others but does not receive the same action in return. And secondly when the world punishes some action, the person coming from a world where there is no such punishment and does not know (from his rules) that he should not avoid it, and is therefore does bad things the native and hurts him.
With this in mind, the winners in two groups of worlds suggest that golden rule comes from a world/society where inaction never creates disutility where as silver rule come from a world where lack of desire (not wanting) is always rewarded.

Things of a Clandestine Nature (3 of…

Posted on by under Clandestine Activity, Privacy, Uncategorized

Money
There should be money value to losses of privacy. Every time an organized clandestine action is done onto me and that their actions is proven wrong, there should be consequence.

Having suspicion is a right, a duty of these law enforcement folks. But acting on an incorrect suspicion(whether justified or not) should carry consequence. Just as they are rewarded for following a hunch and catching a crook, there must be punishment for following a wrong hunch and negatively impacting a person’s life.

In fact, I feel that even the access and analysis of my private information (email, files, my personal space such as my home, the airspace above my head, signals sent into my person and my possessions) these invasions of privacy must be punished when proven to be wrong.

Each violation must state hypothesis and the condition of test requiring invasion of privacy. If test proves hypothesis wrong then a punishment is assessed. If it is proven right then a reward is given.

Every kilobyte of my email you read, you should be paying me $x. If you retain the data then you will be charged $y/year.

This belittles human privacy rights, but it is one way that we can use to quantify, regulate and monitor the clandestine sector.

Things of a Clandestine Nature (2 of…)

Posted on by under Clandestine Activity, Privacy, Uncategorized

What is power? What is privacy?

I am not a very forceful thinker. I find myself thinking of every matter from multiple perspectives. More often than not I argue myself out of my own position.

The organized clandestine activities are organized for a reason. A large enough and powerful enough intelligence has recognized its necessity and has facilitated it’s existence. That originator of this clandestine organization mandates that the clandestine activities be clandestine in all ways I have described in my previous post.

The consequence of this is that the clandestine organization must satisfy a certain level of service. Similar to the concept of an SLA, the clandestine organization must obtain information (in stealth) within a certain time period of it becoming known. When it masquerades, it must succeed in fooling all involved into believing that the party being masqueraded is truly doing it.

This ability is a power. And in effect it is not a power if it cannot be wielded freely. Similar to my right of speech. If I speak, and my voice is interfered with every time, or if my blog is unsearchable by some search engine trick then effectively my right of speech has been impinged upon. Conversely if here is a regulation that restrained the clandestine activity, then it decreases it’s usefulness.

Let me give a simpler example to illustrate. If we are to guarantee the power of these clandestine organizations the ability to masquerade as me typing into my computer, then they can always type into my computer. If the operator (the member of clandestine organization) is have a bad day, if he is having a seizure, if he is unhappy that I oppose the existence of his job, if he made a typo and affect what I type into the computer as I work, then that is allowed.

Because if we regulate these abilities to try to prevent his foul mood or desire to keep his job in affecting my job performance then we have not given these clandestine organizations absolute power, and consequently they cannot function effectively, right? Consequently they are not liable for major failures like 911 right?

If any of the theatrical depiction of clandestine organizations are any where close to reality, it is safe to assume that all of them are insane. They are all paranoid and all able to argue for 100% absolute clandestine power!

Oh, and let me be obnoxious for once, having be target of obnoxious behavior so often… The aurora shooting, why don’t the people watching my screen and analyzing my blog and causing typos in my keyboards and making my mouse fly around weirdly at work and home, why don’t they go and wreck some havoc in an actual bad person’s life? Why don’t you go and prevent a really bad thing from happening? instead of secretly watching my activity?

The Chinese has Infected America Mentality

Posted on by under Uncategorized
It’s Tuesday, 7/30/2012 and there is a small controversy at the Olympics. The American media (see below Google news search result, plus the TV for the past few hours) is reporting that America is complaining that a Chinese women has beat American men in swimming performance. I took a snap of results available to me right now and I cannot see why 4:05.18 gold medal performance in 400m IM by Ryan Lochte is beat by Chinese women Ye Shiwen’s 4:28.43. Her’s is a full 13 seconds slower!! WTF?

The world is about to end… Look at this massive disaster in India where there is more people without electricity than US and Canada population combined… and nearly all of Greenland’s ice cap has melted, but all of that cannot compare to the loss of American individual propaganda free mindset. 
THE CHINESE have had for the past three decades the observation that China is 阴盛阳衰: the Yin prospering and the Yang in decline, or “Weak” according to google translation today. The female Chinese athletes have in the past performed better in the international competitions than the Chinese men, things like soccer, volley ball, tennis… Chinese Men can only compete in Table Tennis and similar small-balled games. 

But today! All of American media have taken this same view and said that Chinese women is faster than American man even when the results are clearly not so. The Chinese women DID NOT JUST BEAT AMERICAN MAN IN SWIMMING. OH! MY!! FUCKING!!! GOD!!!! this is so fucking offensive to me as a Man, an American, and as a Chinese man!! And as an Internet professional that our industry lets this kind of crap seep into it’s mainstream.


The British authorities on the matter have declared that she won that women’s competition dope-free. Yet American media has refused to report on this. Even Google’s automatic algorithm is refusing to pick up the BBC headline on the matter. I mean, I even feel like suggesting that the Brits are just trying to kiss the Chinese’s ass in case it needs the goodwill economically in the near future. I mean, really? Did North Korea’s starving athletes just really won Gold in Judo? REALLY????

But a corrupt Olympic games, athletes and officials is not really a concern to me, as I am not an athlete and I am not uplifted by the Olympic spirit:
 
Citius, Altius, Fortius.
 
and I didn’t get up at 5 this morning to watch Olympics, and I most certainly did not get up early to watch American TV and least of all to read news on the Internet.
This is the end… mark my words…, the loss of Chinese moral, American media integrity, universal symbols of progress and betterment of men.


What to do with all that $$USD ??

Posted on by under Uncategorized

Okay, I recently found out that the Chinese (PRC) government couldn’t stop buying American debt (That is it lends money to the US government which gives it a little bit of interest regularly until sometime in the future when it gives the money back)

There are some attempts, by the Chinese to spend money in the US. Some were blocked blatantly by the US government such as 3Com and UNOCAL, while in other cases, it seemed almost certainly win-win for both sides due to Chinese expertise, manufacturing resources and unique perspective but ultimately failed: Yahoo, Maytag, etc. All this protectionism may or may not be beneficial to the American people. Here for instance is another very very specific case of preventing China from spending all this debt America owes it by way of the “country with special concern” designation which prevents lobbyist from being paid by the PRC. article. Btw, I’ve heard of this from a second radio source as well, but it doesn’t appear to be listed on congressman Wolf’s website.

This, btw, is fantastic news for the people of PRC. The government won’t be spending their tax money on American politicians. AND it is fantastic news for other lobby interests all of whom now have one fewer competitor and therefore has to pay much less.

But let’s for the moment assume that China has too much US $$, and that most avenues of investment: equity in companies, real estate, lobbying, etc. have been ruled out as certain losers. What else can it do with it’s money

Well, let’s see… The one thing that we see the most in America, aside from Chinese restaurants and those evil cult protesters are poor Chinese students. They come to the US having beat everyone else in their own country in their respective arts and sciences or skills, and they often end up delivering food for those aforementioned restaurants or joining evil cults for residency and working rights in the United States. Why doesn’t the Chinese government establish a scholarship for any Chinese student being normally accepted into an American institution so that they can pursue their dreams of excellence in their arts and crafts? Would that not be the most effective investment?? And let me assert that the Chinese government have enough money in the bank to pay for a decent education for all of its students accepted in the to schools in the US. This, btw, is entirely legal in America, even if the funds are managed and disbursed in an American entity.

Oh, WTF, while we are at it, why don’t the PRC. government endow a general scholarship (name it the People’s Republic of China Scholarship for Excellence) that is given to the best candidate of any nationality and race. Imagine some twenty years later, and the president of France, or prime minister of India, or some Nobel laureate proudly thanks American university for an education and China for it’s awesome scholarship. Wouldn’t that be quite an accomplishment ?!!

The money can be spent on establish libraries. They can start a Museum collecting arts of Chinese origin but that have been admired and possessed by non-Chinese. These art are true treasures that have possessed not only their originators but also many other peoples of other race and culture. Wouldn’t that be an awesome museum??!!

Why don’t the Chinese people take all that debt and rent a county; and on that county why don’t they build a university. Build the Chinese University of America. This act not only revitalizes a whole American town, or perhaps a whole state, but also produces jobs, educates new minds, and most of all creates the most perfect nexus of the two cultures and the enlighten minds of the two people. This not only creates jobs in America, it would not only be building American infrastructure, but would also be creating a new believe, a new trust, a new friendship–a new hope for the two people.

Why don’t they spend their money that way?