Going Nuclear!

I'm going to try and hit 2 birds with one stone and talk about Nuclear Technologies...this will cover the past 2 classes! Woohoo!

So, first off, a little history.

I am going to begin with a lesser known scientist who was responsible for the Manhattan Project. Leo Szilard. Szilard was a Hungarian scientist who initially conceived the idea of a nuclear chain reaction. He was working in New York with Enrico Fermi when they successfully executed a chain reaction using uranium.

Einstein, left -- Szilard, right

During this same time, the Germans were also working on developing a chain reaction, which would lead to nuclear weapons. Szilard knew of the danger if the Germans developed this technology first, so he wrote a letter to FDR telling him of this problem and encouraged the development of a program to get there first. Since Szilard wasn't very famous, he approached fellow scientist, Albert Einstein and convinced him to sign the lettter.

"I really only acted as a mail box. They (Szilard, et al) brought me a finished letter and I simply signed it" -- Einstetin to his biographer Antonia Vallentin (source)

With Einstein's fame attached to the project, FDR approved the formation of the Manhattan Project.

la la la ---- scientific stuff happens ----

Now we are in the middle of the second World War. The European Axis have been fighting in Europe for more than 3 years. American enters the war, and launches D Day. The war finally ends in Europe 11 months after D Day with the surrender of Germany.

Unfortunately, Japan was still in the war. Ever since Pearl Harbor in 1941, the US had been fighting them in the Pacific Seas. Those battles had been waging for 4 years, and there was still no clear victor.

Now we get into a bunch of debated history --- Why did we drop the Atom Bomb?

I'll let you decide you're own opinion, but here is the general explanation of why we did:

1. Japan had countless ground troops. An invasion similar to D Day would cause exponential causalities.

In a nutshell, that is the major point. Japan had over 9 million infantry that would be waiting on the beaches if we invaded. If the war in Europe lasted almost 4 years and the war in the Pacific had already lasted 4 years, how long would it take to overcome Japan?

On July 26th, Truman basically told Japan to surrender or else("the inevitable and complete destruction of the Japanese armed forces and just as inevitably the utter devastation of the Japanese homeland"). They rejected the ultimatum 2 days later.

So, we decide to drop a bomb on them. Not just any bomb---a unique, one of a kind bomb. There was literally NONE like it in the world. Dubbed 'Little Boy', it contained only 65 kg (135 lbs) of uranium and 2200+ kg of other stuff. It was dropped, and the world took notice.

The amazing part of the following events was this: Japan DIDN'T SURRENDER!

Again Truman told them to surrender or "they may expect a rain of ruin from the air, the like of which has never been seen on this earth."

Well, they ignored the request for unconditional surrender again...guess what happened....

We dropped another bomb, Fat Man, and after that, Japan surrendered.

Little boy, meet Fat Man

Total, over 250,000 people were killed because of the bombings within the first 4 months after the bombings, with countless more coming the following years.

Will I be able to continue this? If not, here are my random thoughts:

FDR is the man. elected to 4 presidential terms, even with polio.

The reason I am fascinated with the atomic bombs (I write every term paper, free response, research paper on WWII or the atomic bombs) is because the first was dropped on my birthday---40 years earlier.

I also learned about Leo Szilard because I served in Hungary and I like looking for obscure hungarian inventors --- the Rubik's cube, ballpoint pen, and nuclear chain reactor---nice resume

Blog Review -- Bio Mole Reflections

As part of the midterm review, I am reviewing a fellow digital civilization-ite's blog.

Brian Early's Reflections of a Bio Mole

1. understand western civilization in terms of themes, ideas, events, people, and works.

Brian seems to really understand the western civilization aspect of the class. He really caught on with Economics and liken what the history taught him about Keynesian Economics and likened it to the present day troubles and problems. This is only one of the instances of his understanding, I feel he really gets the class in that regard.

2. understand basic computing concepts and digital culture and relate them to history

I really wanted to only positive things in my blog review, but I really couldn't find any instances of Brian understanding basic computing concepts. I think that this criteria is more on a non-blog basis, because I am sure that Brian has understood these things, he just hasn't blogged about it because it isn't his forte. I'm not saying thats a bad thing, I think its great! That's probably why he actually has people comment on his blog as opposed to mine....

3. take control of and manage my own learning in three areas: Create(independently seek out information), Consume(generate varied types of content), Connect (share both in person and online)

Brian has done an excellent job of this. He found additional quotations about Carl Jung, explained moderism using additional sources and trains of thought, likened a book he read to monopoly, connected with the digital world for crowd sourcing techniques, and discussed his final project on localizing our digital labs.

Way to go Brian!

Reflective Post

So here I am, more than a month from my previous reflective blog post. How have I fared?

Looking back, I got really bogged down with the birth of my daughter. I thought that after a couple weeks I would get back into the swing of things, but boy was I wrong!

Not only have I been behind because of a lack of sleep...but I have done job interviews (local and on-site), received job offers, worried about my family's future, worked on other class projects, read a required book about Altruism, began a final project for this class, planned multiple ward activities (as activities committee chair) and successfully fallen behind in all my classes.

Now, I'm not saying this to justify, only to inform. I thought life would get slower, but it has only picked up pace!

Even all that being said, once I made the commitment to write in my blog everyday, I have noticed a significant change. I feel like I am getting more out of my posts, research, and class. I know I know, its taken me long enough, right? I feel that this class is a learning experience even for me.

When we talked about the missionaries who blog from the MTC as their mission, I felt an understanding. Bro Burton talked about how the missionaries take some time to grow into their blogging abilities. It isn't something that most people can just do naturally...it takes work and it takes time. Maybe one of these reflective posts I can claim that I am perfect in this class, blogging, and researching on my own....maybe...

So, here's my criteria for grading myself:

1. understand western civilization in terms of themes, ideas, events, people, and works.

Well...I would say I do this pretty well. I tend to learn a lot from the readings and self directed learning due to my lack of knowledge in the area...and my general distaste for the subject.

2. understand basic computing concepts and digital culture and relate them to history

This is where I rock (at least I think so). I really grasp the computing concepts because its what I do for a living, and I really enjoy it. AND, I seem to notice trends in how they are presented such that I can make correlations to the past from the present.

3. take control of and manage my own learning in three areas: Create(independently seek out information), Consume(generate varied types of content), Connect (share both in person and online)

This is the tough one, at least for me. It is difficult sometimes to find quality information on the internet, because of its broad nature. You tell me to catch a teaspoon of information while turning the fire hose on full blast and pointing it directly at me. I feel that once I am able to find the information and process it, that I have to write a coherent post on everything I learned.

That was my mentality----but it has changed. That mentality got me 10 blog posts behind and uber stressed. What I realized was that I need to know everything! Nor do I have to write everything! I learned about micro blogging. Now most peoples micro blogging are twitter-length blog posts. For me, telling myself I need to micro blog keeps my thought process down and allows to write a good blog post that I don't stress about. Granted, the post is usually longer than a normal micro-blog, but the idea of restricting my mind has helped me to focus the fire hose and get some quality information out of it.

All in all...I feel that I am progressing. I know that was a long explanation to a short question, but I feel that I am getting better with every passing blog post. It is a work in progress and I am far from perfect, but I feel good....although maybe I'll be editing this after the interview and taking my positive words back...

Romanticism and Hacking

I loved what Professor Zappalla said in his blog post about Romanticism and Hacking.
"Hacking really is about beauty...Hackers at heart are idealists. They write code to create beauty. They pursue freedom because proprietary code creates an unaesthetic inefficiency. They believe that they should not have to waste time on trivialities, but devote their full attention to solving hard problems and making the world a better place. They value the authentic achievement over the cheap imitation."

I believe that hackers don't have to be code writers to create this beauty or achieve this freedom. A very important and popular form of hacking is called 'Social Engineering.' No matter how much precautions you put into place around some type of information, the weakest link is the person guarding it. You. This is when you get the information you need from a person, not through hacking the system.

Social Engineering at its best...from here

Kevin Mitnick is considered to be one of the greatest social engineers, and hackers, of the modern era. He used the art of deception, and the weakness of people, to gain access to numerous systems. At the time of his arrest, he was the most wanted computer criminal in the US.

After he served his time, he has become a security consultant and lecturer around the world. Here is a quick video explaing Social engineering. After a short introduction, Kevin himself describes a time he hacked into a Hollywood telephone company central office with a friend.

Computing Intelligence

I wrote a blog post a while back about using Artificial Intelligence for playing chess....

In the past 20 years, as the Information Technology realm has developed, technology has grown by leaps and bounds. In 1981, the first IBM personal computer was launched. It had a whopping 4.77 m Hz processor and anywhere from 16-256 KB of RAM. Now, a little over 20 years later, one can buy a computer for a thousandth of the cost of the first IBM computer that is a thousand times more powerful. The more you learn about machines and computer, the more you wonder how far will the power, capabilities, and intelligence of a computer be pushed. In Abu Dhabi, there lies a computer...rather a network of 64 computers, each with 3.06 G Hz processor and with over 512 GB of RAM called Hydra. These computers all work together for one purpose: Checkmate.



Every since the computer's inception, there have been people trying to code strong chess programs to see how “smart” a computer can be. However, these programs coupled with the speed and available memory of the given computers proved to be no match for the human brain. In as early as the 1960's humans would play computers and would win by a landslide. International Chess master David Levy made a wager of 1250 pounds that no computer could beat him in 10 years. He won that bet, as every computer to come his way was met with defeat over the chessboard. However, technology did catch up with Levy, as he lost his first game to a computer in 1989. Since then, the computers have reigned supreme.

Ross reports a number of world-champion Grandmasters who have lost the battle to computers. Most of them, in fact. Britain's Mickey Adams(ranked 7th in the world), Uzebekistan's Rustam Kasimdzhanov, both fell to computer in the same week. What has caused this change in power? Ross states that “First, the best humans now playing are simply not as good as the former. . . Second, the machines are getting smarter. Their programmers are learning how to counter anti-computer strategies.”(link) These programmers are doing what was unthinkable in the 1960's: programming the computer to think like a human.

The human-computer interface and the idea of AI is a newer part of the Information Technology field, but it is a part nonetheless. The human-computer interface has been relevant for a number of years. However, being able to program a computer that deep and specific is one thing, but going through with it and doing it is something else. A matter of ethics comes into play when this in introduced. Is the human brain just a computer? Can it be simulated? Should it be simulated? These are just a few questions that may arise when facing this decision. This is not an intent to persuade one way or the other, but rather to inform of the sides of this controversy. People may say that technology hasn't gone that far yet. However, Mickey Adams said that, “Hydra plays very well indeed. Very often it plays human-style chess, which is strange.” Also, Bulgaria's Veselin Topalov(ranked 3rd in the world), had this to say after losing to new model of Fritz(a popular program like Hydra), “What have you done to Fritz?”

Hydra (Part 1) - Funny home videos are a click away

For those of you interested....

Cathedral and the Baazar REMIX

My project that I volunteered to lead (mainly because no one else was going to) is working with the Cathedral and the Baazar.

We plan on taking the un-user friendly, bland, flat, and static work that Eric Raymond wrote in the late 90's and integrate it with several modern technologies. Videos, definitions, links, data paging, etc are all in the scope of our project.

Hopefully we can turn this free software classic into a readable and more popular article.

See our google site for more info (as we update)

Econ 110....snore....

I learned last year that I really don't have the capability for economics. Give me a computer program to write with 20,000+ lines of code ANY day over an economics test.

Anyway, I plowed through the readings for today, and I barely understood/got something out of them. I mean, I really can't do economics...in case I haven't mentioned.

The only thing that I can understand is when it's presented clearly and in a way I can understand. Such was the case for John Nash's Nash equilibrium. I researched a little bit on Game Theory, and it brought me to this, and since I kinda understand it, I guess I can write about it for a bit.

And by write about it, I mean give a video:

This example kind of resonates with John Maynard Keynes's work. The best outcome isn't always doing what is best for us as individuals (or governments) but when we think of the group (or country) as a whole.

I stumbled upon a blog that explains the problems in the Hollywood representation of the Nash equilibrium and presents another example.

Presh Talwalkar, said

"The movie is directed so well that it sounds persuasive. But it’s sadly incomplete. It misses the essence of non-cooperative game theory.

A Nash equilibrium is a state where no one person can improve, given what others are doing. This means you are picking the best possible action in response to others—the formal term is you are picking a best response. (For more, see my article on why Nash equilibrium exist).

As an example, let’s analyze whether everyone going for a brunette is a Nash equilibrium. You are given that your three of your friends go for brunettes. What is your best response?

You can either go for the brunette or the blonde. With your friends already going for brunettes, you have no competition to go for the blonde. The answer is clear that you would talk to the blonde. That’s your best response. Incidentally, this is a Nash equilibrium. You are happy, and your friends cannot do better. If your friends try to talk to the blonde, they end up with nothing and give up talking to a brunette. So you see, when Nash told his friends to go for the brunettes in the movie, it really does sound like he was leaving the blonde for himself.

The lesson: advice that sounds good for you might really be better for someone else. Be skeptical of the strategic implications.

Now, in practical matters it will be hard to achieve the equilibrium that only one person goes for a blonde. There is going to be competition and someone in the group will surely sabotage the mission. So there are two ways you might go about it using strategies outside the game. One is to ignore the current group and wait for another group of blondes (the classic “wait and see” strategy). The second is to let a random group member go for the blonde as the others distract the brunettes (also practiced as “wingman theory”).

Buying Used Products

Many personal financial articles tell you to buy used products. Here’s a small sampling:

The Stuff I Never Buy Used

Why First-Rate Folks Love Second-Hand Stuff

This advice sounds good for you, but could it be even better for the writer? Let’s do a thought experiment to find out.

Imagine you and all the readers listen to those people. Suppose enough people really stopped buying new products and created a large demand for used products.

This would in turn make used products priced higher as people recognize unrealized value. Used products would no longer be great bargains, and consequently, new products would relatively become less expensive as their resale value increases—that is, buying new would be the bargain choice.

The first people to recognize this would likely be personal finance experts, who have diverted your attention so they can buy new products without competition (i.e. go for the blonde). After the trend is clear, the advisers would turn around and write articles advising you to buy new products, starting the cycle once again.

The overall point is that friendly financial advice is part of a competitive game. It might be good for you, but better for the adviser. Talk is cheap. Unless I learn some real information or strategy, why should I listen to it?

This is why I am skeptical and consider much personal finance advice to be insulting. So much of it is the equivalent of a friend telling me to go for the brunette."

Boolean Logic

In Computing and Intelligence, we learned about George Boole, who's algebra moved us towards the concept of on/off computing.

Think of a dimmable light. It can have multiple states. Off, slightly on, mostly on, and fully on.

This type of representation is called an analog signal. We all recognize the word analog....analog radio.

With digital signals, a light can only be on or off. This is the signal that computers can understand an interpret.

Taken from Bepop to the Boolean Boogie, by Clive Maxfield, pg 2

This is the basis behind boolean logic. The idea that a signal will be on or off. 1 or 0.

Here is a quick tutorial into boolean logic:

AND --- this will only return a 1 if BOTH or ALL values are a 1

0 AND 0 = 0

0 AND 1 = 0

1 AND 1 = 1

OR --- this will return a 1 if ANY of the values are a 1

0 OR 0 = 0

0 OR 1 = 1

1 OR 1 = 1

NOT -- the opposite of the value given

NOT 0 = 1

NOT 1 = 0

These are the basic logic operators, but you can combine them to form other operators.

NAND -- AND the values together, then NOT the result

0 NAND 0 = 1

NOR -- what do you think this does?

Spreeder

For my next DDL, I have chosen an online application called Spreeder.

The concept behind it is simply. When you read to yourself, you can only read about 200 wpm, which is about what you can read out loud. This is because of the inner voice that reads the text in your mind while reading silently.

This is an incredibly inefficient way of reading, because our mind can process information much more faster than we can read aloud.

Here's a quick review by a fan of Spreeder:

Spreeder simply takes the text you paste into the online application, digitizes it, and replays it in a video at a much faster rate (normally around 300 wpm for beginners, and even 1000+ wpm for faster spreeders).

This application can cause you to understand data much faster than simply reading. If you don't believe me, time your self reading this post, then copy the text into the spreeder application and see how much better it can be.

UX and Psychology

Professor Zapalla did a blog post on exactly what I was going to talk about about!

I took an HCI course from BYU just last semester, and it was eye opening to me how integrated psychology and computers really are. As an IT major, we strive to make our products as user-friendly as possible. The entire class was the least technical of all my major classes. It was mainly about studying the user, how the brain works, and how to make a product easy to use, no matter what the background may be.

Don Norman's book was a required book, and I am happy to say that it is the first book mentioned in class that I have ALREADY read! In fact, I shared a link of Diigo that summarizes all the chapters pretty quickly and efficiently. Go check it out!

While I'm on Don, he gave a great talk in 2003 where he talks about the 3 aspects of design that really make us happy. He takes design to a deeper level than normal, and actually categorizes our emotions and reactions.

There is an 'interactive transcript' with the video here. You just click on a sentence and it takes you to that point in the talk. really cool.

Anyways, HCI (Human Computer Interaction) is all about drawing from the psychology of the human brain and implementing it in a computer product.

Why does almost EVERY program have a menu bar at the top? Why not the side? Why not icons? Why not icons on the bottom? It has a menu bar (with the basic options File, View, Options...etc.) because that is what our brain is used to. It makes the ability of us to learn a new program really easy, because we already know how the menu is like.