This doesn't come as a surprise

This doesn't come as a surprise to me, but I expect that it does come as a surprise to most persons who want to believe that some day a computer program will be exactly equivalent to a human mind.

And, I expect that it does come as a surprise to most persons who want to believe that the 'Avida' computer program really does prove Darwinism. [The link I have no longer works, else I could point Gentle Reader to an instance of a doctrinaire evolutionist using just this -- then hypothetical, and to him apparently almost unimaginable -- example in a desperate attempt to evade the impact of my argument against the claims being advanced for the 'Avida' computer program.]

Slate: I'll Be Bach -- A computer program is writing great, original works of classical music. Will human composers soon be obsolete?

Now, though I've long expected something like this, and while as a computer programmer applaud the skill and expertise of writing such a program, I still think this would have been better left undone.

Understand, this can't even touch upon what differentiates a mind from an algorithm; it just offends my aesthetic sensibilities (and I’m only mildly interested in classical music -- you know, I think that the reason I detest most modern classical music is that the stuff that is lionized sounds as though it were written to a very bad formula; discordant sounds, but no music).

Still, when one considers pop music, haven't we been listening to mediocre "by the numbers" music for decades? So, perhaps, I'm wrong that this is Not A Good Thing -- perhaps the concept can be adapted to the generation of pop music and the mediocre part can be dropped out.

Vox Day's Problem

In a recent post on his blog, "Vox Day" demonstrates, right out in front of God and all the angels, what his problem is; or, at any rate, what a major one of them is. I'm interested to see if you, Gentle Reader, see what I'm getting at prior to me explicitly spelling out what I mean. And, it shouldn't be too difficult, as only a handful of sentences in the post are his sentences.

"Vox Day:" A wish list


update:
And, for contrast, here is "Vox Day" not displaying "The Trouble with Vox Day:" Mailvox: a humble request

You will not believe this!

Toronto woman sues [phone carrier] after her affair is exposed

Auster on Brewer

Lawrence Auster concerning Janice Brewer: "Brewer's rather colorful maiden name was Janice Kay Drinkwine. So, she went from being a wine drinker to a brewer. Whatever she's drinking, as Lincoln said of Grant, let's find out what it is, because I want to send a barrel of it to every elected official in the country."

Anti-Tipping Manifesto

I don't tip ... and neither should you!

My opposition to tipping, and hence my refusal to tip, is something I worked out 25 to 30 years ago. I've just never yet written up an "anti-tipping manifesto."

First, the immediate background on what prompts me to write up and post this "manifesto" --

Recently, on Facebook, a friend from college (to date us, that was nigh-on 35 years ago) said, joking:

[Concerning] my new haircut and beard trim. The barber said I was starting look like Trotsky. There went his tip...

After some back-and-forth, I said:

You could just do like I do and decline to tip *anyone* -- tipping is a degrading and anti-American custom ... and a scam

Nancy Hartley said:

I don't know you Troy, but if you were a waiter/waitress working for far less than minimum wage and tips were considered part of your salary you might rethink your attitude.

To which I replied:

No, I wouldn't

And, in fact, I have worked those sorts of jobs (and also the fast-food types where no one ever thinks to tip, because there isn't someone telling them they're "supposed" to), both when I was in college and afterward because I wanted more money (for a while, but the added stress wasn't worth the money to me). I've received exactly one tip in my life -- $5 on the very first pizza I delivered as a freshman, ant the pizza itself didn't cost much more than the $5 -- and I *tried* to turn it down, but the guy was drunk, so rather than anger him I finally kept it. The point here is that even before I'd worked out what is wrong with tipping, the whole concept made me uncomfortable.

Come to think of it, I suppose one could say I did receive a few other "tips" -- some women (and a man or two) flashing a bit too much skin, and under-garments, at me when I made the delivery. What? I'm gonna give you a discount (paid for out of my pocket!) because you show me your tits? Which I never even asked to see!

I also recall hearing, and being disgusted by, my sister-in-law ranting because "some guy shafted her," meaning that he didn't give her as much extra (and potentially unreported) income as she figured was her due.

Anyway, Bill (the old friend) said:

you don't tip Troy???? Degrading?? I have a very dear and close friend who works for Otterbein, put herself thru school there it took 11 yrs and she used to be a full time waitress at Bob Evans and now works there part time. Sometimes to help her husband out he's in construction, she'll work 7 days a week all winter. She would give you the shirt off her back and is one of the funniest people i know. She loved my mom too. I can not ever ever think of not tipping her and in cash because BE will take taxes out. She has worked for BE for over 25 yrs and is just now making more then any wait staff at $3.15 an hour, most make a dollar less then that. I always tip at least 20% to anyone even if they are rude to me or I get bad service, you don't what kind of day they're having. I think it's totall unchristain not to tip and inhuman as well.

Nancy Hartley said:

Well said Bill. There are many, many people out there, especially in today's economy, that appreciate our Christian attitude.

Nancy Hartley said:

Troy, my apoligies to you. I did not mean to offend you, if I did, with my message. It is so easy to say things in this format without even knowing the person. One of the few dangers of this advancing technological age.

I have no idea how she turned a terse "No, I wouldn't" into that I took insult. *sigh* I'm a man; men tend to be terse; I am frequently very terse -- the alternative being very verbose, as here.

I said (to Nancy Hartley):

Actually, Bill's near-tirade wasn't "well-said," it was emotive and apropos of nothing I'd said. Tipping is not "Christian." It's degrading, demeaning, insulting ... and it's also a racket

Bill said:

why would paying someone a living wage be degrading troy and it's up to me to believe what is christian or not, that is between me and my higher power. i believe you get out of this life what you give, not tipping comes across as being cheap and selfish. you work for tips every time you service the public, i feel sorry for your wait staff. but I love you no matter what you think or feel Troy and you have the right to your opinion even if I don't agree.

I said:

Bill, if you thought I was coldly logical 30 years ago, I can assure you that I am even more myself now than I was then.

To explain a bit more -- back in those days, some of my friends (including Bill) would express the opinion that I was sometimes "too logical." As though such a thing is possible! Also, in those days, out of friendship, I would bite my tongue when some silly-minded liberal (I'm looking at you, Bill) would accuse me of being "closed-minded" for sticking with the opinions I'd started with ... you know, same as they were doing. I don't bite my tongue any more.

=====
Now, for that "manifesto," for the explanation of why you, too, should decline to tip: "Because I'm always right, of couse!"

OK, if you really need more, let's examine the issue, point by point -- combining the two statements I quoted above, I said that "Tipping is an anti-American custom; it is not "Christian." It's degrading, demeaning, insulting ... and it's also a racket/scam."

And, by the way, I am not saying that these points are exhaustive, only that they examine what I said previously:

1a) Demeaning -- it is demeaning to live off charity. It may be that this or that person cannot avoid reliance upon charity, but it is always demeaning to one's dignity as an adult human being to be reliant upon it. Trying to put tipping into its most positive light, it is charity.

1b) Demeaning -- the second aspect of being demeaning hhich follows from the custom of tipping is reflected in Bill's joke. Now, of course, Bill was just making a joke, and his joke is not the point here. The point is that there are *are* people who use the expectation of a tip to humiliate their waiter or waitress to whatever limit they can push (and, by the way, I expect that considerably more than 50% of such jerks are women).

2) Degrading -- it is also personally degrading to live off charity and hand-outs, but the specific degradation I have in mind is of a different sort than point 1). Here, I have in mind the sort of moral-and-rational degradation which seems always to follow from believing/asserting that others owe one something which they do not, in fact, owe one:
a) such as I mentioned with my former sister-in-law ranting because a customer didn't give her the free income as she just knew was her due (and, by the way, that was reflective of her attitude toward her ex-husband's relatives);
b) or such as we are presently seeing in Europe, for instance, in Greece, where the so-called citizens are rioting to demand that the tax-payers of Germany are obligated to support the Greeks' indolent government-subsidized lifestyles;
c) or such as we are presently seeing in the US, where "public service" union thugs intimidate -- and injure -- taxpayers who object to the gravy-train.

3) Insulting -- Tipping is insulting on multiple levels (such as touched upon above); but it's also insulting that:
a) some customers imagine it is their right and/or duty to second-guess the employment agreement between an employer and his employees -- in truth, it is none of your damned business what they have mutually agreed that her work is worth to her and to his business;
b) some employers are willing to place on their customers the expectation that it is the customers' job to pay his employees some imaginary "fair living wage."

4) Racket/scam -- Tipping is racket or scam as touched upon in point 3b -- the employers and the employees are in on the scam and the marks are their customers. Do you, O Big Spender, tip everyone with whom you come in contact? No, you tip only certain ones whom someone has told you you're "supposed" to tip. Do you, O Big Spender, enquire of your prospective tipee how much she pulled down last week -- you know, does she really "deserve" that big tip because she's so "underpaid?" No, you don't.

Then, there is the temptation to tax-cheating and/or unfairness of it all -- there is the temptation (and the ease of doing so) to not declare all one's tips ... and there is the tax-law assumption that the waiters pull down x% in tips, such that even if he or she doesn't, their employer is still required to tax them on the assumption that they did.

5) Anti-American -- is it really necessary to explain the above is anti-American?

6) not Christian -- is it really necessary to explain the above is not Christian?


Perhaps, later, I'll add some more touching upon the things Bill and Nancy Hartley said; and perhaps explain the labels under which I've categorized this post.

The Lightworker's Prayer

The Lightworker's Prayer --

Our Zero, Who art The Won:
Hollow be Thy Fame;
Thy Kingdom come,
Thy Will be done, in earth as it is in Europe;
Ration this day our health care needs,
and forgive us our carbon debt
as we demonize the "racists" who protest compounding unpayable Debt;
And lead us not into "anti-Government" demonstrations,
but deliver us from Tea Bagg ... er, Partiers;
For Thine is the Hope'n'Change, and the Mandate, and the Nobel, forever.
Amen.

update:
The title of the "prayer" is a reference to this; the content of the "prayer" is reference both to some of the over-the-top adulation of "The One" and to some of the political viciousness of the Partisans of the Ass.

This is the version history, so to speak; Gentle Reader is free to decide what works and what doesn't:

Our Zero, Who art The Won:
Hollow be Thy Fame;
Thy Kingdom come,
Thy Will be done, in earth as it is in Europe;
Ration this day our health care,
and forgive us our carbon dioxide
and forgive us our carbon debt
as we demonize those who speak against You;
as we demonize those who ask to see Your Birth Certificate;
as we demonize those who protest compounding unpayable Debt;
as we demonize the "racists" who protest compounding unpayable Debt;
And lead us not into thinking for ourselves,
And lead us not into questioning Your Policies,
And lead us not into "anti-Government" demonstrations,
but deliver us from Rush Limbaugh;
but deliver us from Tea Bagg ... er, Partiers;
For Thine is the Kingdom, and the Power, and the Glory, forever.
For Thine is the Imperium, and the Mandate, and the Nobel, forever.
For Thine is the Hope'n'Change, and the Mandate, and the Nobel, forever.
Amen.

I wasn't totally satisfied with the last line being straight-up, as in the original version; changing it lead to these other changes.

I Can't Believe I Missed It!

Oh, my goodness! Here it is, May 11, and I've just realized that I missed celebrating "Quatro de Cinco," the new holiday promulgated by Our Zero, The Won.

I propose that right-thinking Americans ought to ensure that "Quatro de Cinco" becomes and remains a cultural icon.

Darwinists' Blind Spot

Over at the 'Uncommon Descent' blog, 'idnet.com.au' has posted an article concerning the continued flogging by the 'modern evolutionary theorists' (aka Darwinists) of that favorite Dead Horse of theirs: "The vertebrate eye is wired 'backwards' ... therefore it isn't designed!" ( see The Blind Leading the Blind )

I wish to share with Gentle Reader a comment he made within the comments-section and my comment upon the comment.

'idnet.com.au' said:

Blind spots are never detected unless one eye is blacked out and even then the blind spot is “filled in” by the brain’s software.

The blind spot is not in the macula (the high visual acuity part of the retina) so where one is actually looking at something, there is no blind spot.

The only blind spot here is in the eyes of the Darwinists who keep insisting that they were right when they made claims based on their own flawed common sense. When they are proven wrong, they still refuse to see design in the eye.

Claiming that they could design the eye better, without backing it up experimentally, makes them look even more lame and pathetic.

My response:

Indeed. It is as though one were to point to the fact that if one were to cut off a man’s right arm, he can no longer write a letter (at any rate, not until he develops fine motor control over his left hand), or that if one cuts off a man’s leg, he can no longer run a race, as evidence of “bad design.”

As 'idnet.com.au' rightly points out:
1) the (in)famous "Blind Spot" resulting from the allegedly backwards wiring of the vertebrate eye is *not* in the field-of-focus of vision, but is rather in the peripheral field of vision. That is, it is in the portion of the field of vision where one cannot really see detail in any event ... when one looks at a thing, the blind-spot has no bearing with respect to what one is focused upon.
2) the blind-spot of one eye is compensated for by the peripheral field of vision of the other eye. Thus, in almost all cases (with two properly working eyes), there *is* no blind-spot at all in one's field of vision.

It's not as though these are previously unknown facts; yet the 'modern evolutionary theorists' continue to mercilessly flog that poor Dead Horse.

But, also read the full post at UD -- the article discusses a Darwinistic/materialistic admission that "... the strange, “backwards” structure of the vertebrate retina actually improves vision" ... which, being so opposite to the Dead Horse they've been flogging all these years, is *still* evidence that "Evolution Done It!"

Truely, "With "Evolution," all things are possible!"

========
edit:
This "Blind Spot" Dead Horse is on an intellectual par (and as intellectually dishonest) as a classroom exchange in the recent episode of the program 'FlashForward" (while this link is still valid, see from the 26:00 mark)

In this scene, the instructor tells his class of highschool students: "You can do what you will, but, at any given moment of your life, you can will only one definite thing; nothing other than that thing. What do you guys think that means?"

And a girl who has obviously been paying attention all semester answers, "That ... free-will is a lie?"

And he answers, "Exactly."

Examine the "reasoning" here -- that you are free to will either 'A' or 'B,' but not 'A' and 'B' simultaneously is "proof" that you never were free to will either 'A' or 'B' in the first place!

It's logically impossible -- which means it's utterly impossible -- to reason with persons who "reason" with such "logic." And that is why it's impossible to have a rational and civil converstaion with most Darwinists (or 'atheists' or "liberals") on any point of disagreement between their worldview and yours -- most members of the three groups "reason" using the same mode of anti-logic as the highschool instructor is using.

By Hook or Crook

Here is a news item concerning a recent "liberal" outrage against reason, decency and society: Ga. Seniors Told They Can't Pray Before Meals

And here is Lawrence Auster's analysis of it:

They have now, in principle, completed the revolution. It was done in three stages:

1. You turn the Constitution on its head by saying that the 14th amendment, which has power over the states, "incorporates" the Bill of Rights, which only has power over Congress. Thus the First Amendment's provision that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," is effectively translated into, "a state shall not establish a religion," changing the Constitution from a limitation on federal power over the states into a mandate for unlimited federal power over the states.

2. Then you redefine "establishment of religion" to mean, not a favored denomination which receives tax dollars and membership in which is required to hold political office, but ANY religious expression, period. With steps one and two in place, all religious expression under the auspices of state and local government is outlawed.

3. Finally, you progressively subsidize the entire society, so that everything in the society is funded by government, and therefore there is no area in the society where any religious expression is allowed. Remaining holdouts are eliminated as the grip of government funding and regulation keeps expanding.

It doesn't matter that most "liberals" are "good people" with "good intentions" -- all "liberals" act as social enablers for the mankind-hating, power-seeking, liberty-denying leftists who set their agendas.

"Liberals" are inconsistent leftists -- it is never leftism itself which they oppose, in principle, but only that they want sometimes to defer or escape some of the logical consequences of leftism. And so, since the "liberals" have no principled opposition to the demands which logically follow from the commitments of leftism, the "hard-core" leftists can always ratched them (and society) ever-leftward, and the "liberals" will always find a way to justify the new outrage.

For, after all, Gentle Reader, the *real* enemy is you and me. And those "wicked" "racist" "angry" "white" "hateful" "ignorant" "teaba-" ... Tea Partiers.

update:
In a bummer development for Waldo, Prayer restored at Port Wentworth Senior Center

Law By Hypertext

Hanns Kuttner on NRO: Another Constitutional Oddity

One other area of the constitution about which Obamacare raises new questions is the presentment clause: “Every Order, Resolution, or Vote . . . shall be presented to the President of the United States” (Article I, Section 7).

Hundreds of pages into the law comes a section about Indian health. The Indian Health Care Improvement Act has been up for reauthorization for some time. Section 10221 of the new law says:

. . . S. 1790, entitled “A bill to amend the Indian Health Care Improvement Act to revise and extend that Act, and for other purposes,” as reported by the Committee on Indian Affairs of the Senate in December 2009, is enacted into law.

This legislation is 276 pages long. For whatever reason, the Senate did not include the full text in the legislation it passed that ultimately made it to President Obama’s desk.

This certainly is a more efficient way to do things. It allows legislation that the president signs to be short and pithy. It conserves paper. Fewer pages to print. If “enactment by reference” became the norm, laws would be ever so short. But does it square with the Constitution?

As the (ahem) lady said: "But, we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it."