Information is like bricks while knowledge is like buildings.
One can make his own bricks from the available mud and then proceed to build his own hut.
Inevitable all bricks made by man will have something in common – after all they are made from the same material, for the same purpose, by individuals belonging to the same species, but will also vary considerably – depending, among others, on the skills of the makers and on the quality of the available mud.
Inevitably the houses will also have something in common – again, they are made for the same broad purpose by individuals belonging to the same species – but they will vary more widely than the bricks do because they have to fulfill a wider selection of purposes in a variety of climates. (All bricks are made to be used as building blocks but buildings are used for many more purposes than simply sleeping in them.)
In conclusion information is something that was gleaned by an individual from his environment while knowledge is a patchwork put together by the same individual using the pieces of information he has acquired previously.
Also please note that while all information is gleaned using one’s senses this process can be a direct one – the senses probe the reality in a direct mode, the observer watches birds in his back yard, or it can be mediated by an information source – the passionate reads, using the ‘same’ eyes as the observer, a book about the same birds.
And any consideration about the difference between information and knowledge would be incomplete if we forget to mention ‘sensations’.
Which are nothing but the raw material – the mud, if you like – from where our brain extracts what we call ‘information’ – which, in its turn, will end up being attached, by the same brain, to the patchwork commonly known as knowledge.

Somebody shared a picture on FB and I finally understood the strange relationship between the American People and their Government.

“One of the things taken out of the curriculum was civics,” Zappa went on to explain. “Civics was a class that used to be required before you could graduate from high school. You were taught what was in the U.S. Constitution. And after all the student rebellions in the Sixties, civics was banished from the student curriculum and was replaced by something called social studies. Here we live in a country that has a fabulous constitution and all these guarantees, a contract between the citizens and the government – nobody knows what’s in it…And so, if you don’t know what your rights are, how can you stand up for them? And furthermore, if you don’t know what’s in the document, how can you care if someone is shredding it?”

The quote belongs to, obviously, Frank Zappa. I found it in an article written by Kevin Courrier and published in CriticsAtLarge.com.

What grabbed my attention was not the fact that a musician is so passionate about politics but the huge confusion that sits at the bottom of his political weltanschauung.
The American Constitution, any constitution for that matter, is not at all a contract between the government and the people but a contract that binds together the citizens that inhabit a country. The government, any government, is ulterior to the signing of that contract so it cannot be a part of that contract.

OK, I can understand how that confusion came to be only I cannot understand how it could survive for so long.
For more than two centuries, that is.
As we all know the US were, at first, British colonies. For the last nine centuries or so Britain was run more or less according to Magna Charta – which is indeed a sort of contract between the Monarchy and the British people. But that is valid for Britain. It is the Great Britain that traces its ‘essence’ back to the idea of a divinely sanctioned Monarch who owned, entirelly, the whole country and who autocratically ruled over all the aspects of its life. And that at a certain point in history the Monarch agreed to sign a contract with his subjects, promising to treat them fairly.

But at an ulterior point in the history of the British Empire the American people had decided that they didn’t want anymore to be subjected to any worldly authority so they had sent the British Governor packing. From there on the essence of the American state was no longer the persona of the Monarch but ‘We, the People’.

That’s why the American Government is, by right, nothing more than an employee of the American People while the British one is a servant – or an employee – of the Monarch.

Let me put it a little differently. America is like a huge corporation while the citizens are its shareholders. The people own the country and the Government who runs it is the Board of Trustees. The people are the employers and the members of the government are the employees.
In Britain the Monarch is the ‘owner’, the people are ‘tenants’ and the government is the administrator of the whole business. The government is employed by the owner and payed by the tenants – who have a say because they are paying the rent, otherwise known as ‘taxes’.

Then how come, two hundred years after the Constitution that settles the conditions of ‘incorporation’ was adopted so many Americans still see the Government as being different from the ‘people’? Could it be that Zappa is right? That too few people have understood that “this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”?

I know, I know… These words are not from the American Constitution – they are widely attributed to Lincoln. But they describe perfectly its spirit, even if some people accuse Lincoln for being a dictator – because he didn’t allow the South to seccede, as if this decision was his to make… You see, the confusion is deep indeed. When people are passionate about something they tend to pick up from the entire picture only the pixels that fit their view of the world…

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Then why so many of the ‘we the people’ still believe that the constitution is a contract between them and their Government?
Or maybe Zappa was (half) right after-all? Civics should indeed be brought back …

PS
Coming back to ‘Government of the people, by the people, for the people’ some people attribute these words to John Wycliffe and still others to Thomas Cooper.

Aceasta era concluzia la care ajunsese multimea adunata aseara in fata Palatului Victoria.

coruptia ucide

Cum am ajuns aici?

Tragedia din “Colectiv” a fost doar unul dintre simptoamele care ne-au tot tras de maneca. Unul suficient de dureros incat sa ne pese.
Cauzele sunt insa mult mai adanci. Ingropate in ceea ce se numeste constiinta colectiva.

Clipul asta a fost incarcat acum doua zile pe Youtube.
Fusese vizionat, la ora la care mi l-a aratat cineva, de 200 000 de oameni. Adica de vreo 10 ori mai multi decat cei care au manifestat aseara in Bucuresti.

Pentru cei care nu au rabdare sa il asculte dar vor sa inteleaga ce mi-a venit voi cita versurile:

“M-am apucat de rele de cand eram mic
Asta a fost solutia sa ma ridic
Viata m-a facut sa nu fiu deloc cuminte
Am facut infractiuni si-am mers inainte

Eu nu dau inapoi Nu cad pe locul doi
Pentru ca seful meu
E numai Dumnezeu
Am facut multe rele
Si-aveam pedepse grele
Dar El nu m-a lasat
Si tot m-a ajutat

Ce aveti dusmanilor ce aveti toti cu mine
Aveti invidie ca imi merge bine
Eu nu v-am facut rau nu v-am deranjat
Am ajuns mare fiindca viata mi-am riscat

Eu nu dau inapoi Nu cad pe locul doi
Pentru ca seful meu
E numai Dumnezeu
Am facut multe rele
Si-aveam pedepse grele
Dar El nu m-a lasat
Si tot m-a ajutat

Doamne ce lume rea n-am putut sa vad
Nu vrea sa ma lase in pace deloc
Se tine scai de mine si mi-ar lua viata
Are invidie pe afacerea mea

Eu nu dau inapoi Nu cad pe locul doi
Pentru ca seful meu
E numai Dumnezeu
Am facut multe rele
Si-aveam pedepse grele
Dar El nu m-a lasat
Si tot m-a ajutat.”

Cu alte cuvinte ‘fac ce vreau, indiferent de ce consecinte au infractiunile savarsite de mine asupra voastra, fraierii din jurul meu’, si asta pentru ca ‘sunt convins ca Dumnezeu tine cu mine’.
Tinand cont de faptul ca Dani Mocanu se bucura de un imens succes de public rezulta ca un numar destul de mare dintre concetatenii nostri sunt de acord cu viziunea lui asupra vietii.
Oare cate tragedii trebuie sa ni se mai intample ca sa ne dam seama ca ne dam singuri foc la valiza?
Si ca, de fapt, cu cat ne credem mai smecheri cu atat mai tare ne lasam fraieriti de cei care sunt mai priceputi in ale inselatoriei decat noi.
Solutia?
Extrem de simpla. Cand iti dai seama ca jocul este masluit singura metoda de a evita sa fii pacalit in continuare este sa iesi cu totul de acolo.
Cam asa e si cu coruptia asta. Pana la urma efectele ei distrug orice urma de incredere intre membrii unei societati. Consecintele fiind exact cele pe care le vedem in jurul nostru.Si ce poate fi mai groaznic decat sa iti arda copilul de viu intr-un club pe care l-ai renovat/controlat chiar tu?
Nu s-a intamplat inca?
Chiar vrem sa asteptam si chestia asta?
Nu e suficient ca din cauza prostiilor intamplate in ultimii 25 de ani copiii nostri nu mai au acces la un invatamant de calitate iar multi dintre medicii de care vom avea atata nevoie chiar noi, atunci cand ne vor ajunge batranetele, au plecat deja sa-i ingrijeasca pe batranii altora?
PS. Daca faceti click pe fotografia de la inceputul postarii puteti vedea mai multe imagini din seara zilei de 3 Noiembrie.

Mă uitam cu soţia mea la telejurnal.

Nu mai spune despre … ca e prost!

OK, voi spune doar ca are o capacitate redusă de a pricepe ce se întâmplă în jurul lui….

Păi da, numai că nimeni nu poate înţelege tot ce se întâmplă în jurul lui…

Tocmai aici este problema. Unii acceptă ca nu le ştiu pe toate iar alţii pretind acest lucru.
Şi atunci cine sunt proştii?

These wrinkly, hairless creatures may help scientists understand more about preventing cancer (Credit: Frans Lanting Studio/Alamy)

Just finished reading an extremelly interesting article in BBC Earth.
I learned that humans, dogs, cats and mice – among many others – do get a lot of cancers while elephants and the rodents depicted above are fairly immune to this disease.

Now, if we remember that humans and mice are the most versatile species on this Earth – we are able to live practically everywhere on the planet, something nobody else can – and that dogs and cats have been bred into a cornucopia of variations could we consider cancer as a cost for our ability to adapt to an extremelly variable environment?

“One day a blonde woman entered an auto body shop claiming that she’d suffered extensive damage to her new car. The mechanic thought he’d have some fun with her so he told her that she didn’t need him to fixed all the dents. He said she could fix them herself by blowing into the tailpipe as hard as she could and they’d all pop out. The woman went home and proceeded to get down on her hands and knees in the driveway. She was blowing into the pipe as hard as she could and her face was turning purple when another blonde woman walked by and asked what she was doing. After hearing the whole story the second blonde pauses for a moment then responds, “Hello! The windows are down”.

What am I to laugh about here? A jerk who misleads a dimwit into believing that blowing up a tailpipe will fix ‘all the dents’? A woman who rightly observes that blowing into a space which is not airtight will accomplish absolutelly nothing?

Or this one:

“A woman yells to a blonde walking along a river, “How do I get on the other side!?” The blonde says, “You are on the other side!”

inner nigger

A twenty year old intern was “fired for posting a photo of herself and a friend in a cotton field with the caption, “Our inner [n–ger] came out today.” She later apologized invoking a “lack of my better judgment.”

Looking from the other side of the Atlantic this is rather exaggerate.
OK, I understand why calling someone a ‘nigger’ could be seen as an insult. But if you refer to yourself as such?

In fact, all what she said was that the two of them were doing work which not so long ago was done by ‘niggers’. While they seemed to be enjoying performing their duties.
I don’t think she erred there. She just doesn’t seem to understand (anymore?) the world as people our age do. Could this be a sign for us to let the old ghosts find some peace?

‘Politically correctness’ hits again, and some of us are not even aware of what’s going on.

I know, it’s easy for me to speak like this. I don’t live there. But what if my emotional detachment from this issue allows me to look deeper into the matter?
And no, we should not simply forget what had happened. Just learn the lesson – so that we’ll never have to repeat it – and move on. If we keep pestering that wound in an inappropriate way (nigger is just a word, we give it its meaning) it will stay open. For as long as we encourage it to fester. Do we really want this?

PS Politically correctness “involves changing or avoiding language that might offend anyone“. If we keep sliding down this slope we’ll soon end up unable to open our mouths. It’s damn hard not to offend ‘anyone’, sooner or later.

Basically, “anarchy” is about everybody for himself. And damn everybody else – even though most forget about this part.

While “secession” is mostly about someone trying to carve a ‘piece of the action’ for himself – and some people (naively?) following him. Maybe hoping that the new ruler would prove to be better than the old one?


globalnews.ca Storms flood roads, cause train derailment in Texas, which awaits remnants of Patricia

Some people maintain that we are in a middle of a ‘Global Warming’ and that, at least partially, we have brought this on our own heads.
Some others say that this is nothing but bullshit while a third group says that yes, it might be possible that the Earth is slowly heating up but that there is no way to demonstrate that ‘we did it’.

When it comes to what to do about it people are divided among totally different lines.
Some say we need to go on burning fossil fuel because it’s the most cost efficient way of producing energy, some-others that ‘we are sorry but we really need to close the economic gap there is between us and the developed nations’ and a few try to convince the rest that the Earth is the only home we’ve got and that we should do everything in our power to keep it as close to habitable as we can.

Where do I stand on this matter?
I’m not going to enter the dispute that tries to convince us that weather and climate are two different things.
I’m not going to pretend that ‘we did all of it’. Not even the most rabid treehuggers go that far.

All I’m going to do is ask this: Are you aware of the fact that burning things produces CO2 and that is a very effective green-house gas?
Do you know that “Currently, humans are emitting around 29 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere per year.”? OK, some of it, about half according to some, is absorbed by the so called ‘carbon sinks’. But the rest? And how long before those sinks become saturated?
Furthermore, determining how much CO2 has been added to the atmosphere – or if any at all – is a rather murky business. Simply because of the seasonality of the plant life, volcanic eruptions and a lot of other variables.

That’s why I’m going to take another tack.
During billions of years in Earth’s history plants and animals have transformed atmospheric CO2 into coal, oil, natural gas and limestone. During this period, climate – and the Earth itself – have suffered huge transformations. Do we really think we can undo, even in part, this process – at a very rapid pace – without bearing at least some consequences?

Even some of those who, until very recently, kept saying that they need to close the development gap are having second thoughts and look for alternative methods.

www.chinatoday.com, A wedding ceremony held during heavy pollution in Beijing (20141021)

Yet another misleading title

OK, I fully understand the editors’ need to grab readers’ attention… I also understand the fact that the readers themselves have become somewhat forgiving… in the sense that most don’t even notice that the title which convinced them to read an article is only vaguely connected to the rest… but how far down this road do we need to go before understanding how dangerous it is?

Most people do not trust the media anymore… could it be that this had been helped by the continuously widening distance between the titillating titles and the actual content of the articles?

How about ‘Men are attracted by smart women but not enough for them to overcome a certain weariness’?

Now, that I’ve hopefully grabbed your attention, let me delve into the matter.

“…more and more research reveals that though the thought of a smart woman is appealing to men, a real, live smart woman standing in front of them is actually a turnoff.”

“Researchers at the University of Buffalo, California Lutheran University, and the University of Texas at Austin” developed a two tiered study to test their hypothesis.
During the first step 105 men where read a “hypothetical scenario in which a woman either outperformed or underperformed them in a math or English course, and then (they were) instructed … to imagine this woman as a romantic partner”. During this step the men who were outperformed tended to describe a more favorable impression about the woman they were compared to than the one offered by the others. And this finding seems to validate another claim made earlier this year: “Men value intelligence in women far above large breasts and long legs.”
During the second step each of the same men were asked to complete something that looked like an intelligence test and then offered the opportunity to meet a woman that had either out or under performed them. Surprisingly (or not?) the men who were going to meet a woman that was smarter than them “distanced themselves more from her, tended to rate her as less attractive, and showed less desire to exchange contact information or plan a date with her,”

This being somewhat inline with the conclusion of another study which finds that: “men’s avoidance of more intelligent or ambitious women could be due to fear of rejection by these higher quality women.”

Can we even try to draw a conclusion? Given so much contradictory information?

Let’s start from here:

“This study also did not take into account men who are already in a relationship with a more intelligent woman.”

Wow! It wasn’t that hard, after all…
Until now we were considering ‘thoughts’ and ‘impressions’ provided by individuals confronted with ‘hypothetical scenarios’ but who had no first hand experience about the real deal…

But do not despair. You haven’t lost precious time reading all this.

Here’s some ‘homework’ you might find challenging:

Why are some men – those who haven’t yet discovered that this situation could be comfortable – avoiding a romantic relationship with a more intelligent/ambitious woman? While so many same sex friendships bond people who display different levels of intelligence/ambition?

Are we that stuck in our old ‘gender roles’? Do males’ egos still tend to be threatened if they are not the alpha member of their household?

Or could it be that some of the males tend to associate female smartness with a variety of rather aggressive feminisms and it’s this that puts them off, not the the intelligence itself?

And why is it that justice is usually depicted as a blindfolded woman instead of an overbearing male?

One-Time
Monthly
Yearly

Make a one-time donation

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount

$5.00
$15.00
$100.00
$5.00
$15.00
$100.00
$5.00
$15.00
$100.00

Or enter a custom amount

$

As much as I love writing, I do have to eat.
And to provide for my family.
Earning money takes time.
If you’d like me to write more, and on a more regular basis, hit the button.
Your contribution will be appreciated!
Another very efficient way to help would be to share my posts.

As much as I love writing, I do have to eat.
And to provide for my family.
Earning money takes time.
If you’d like me to write more, and on a more regular basis, hit the button.
Your contribution will be appreciated!

As much as I love writing, I do have to eat.
And to provide for my family.
Earning money takes time.
If you’d like me to write more, and on a more regular basis, hit the button.
Your contribution will be appreciated!

DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly