Drinking doesn't solve problems?

As part of the techlash I'm moving away from Big Tech autocracies with their social justice tyranny, so catch me over at Steemit. 

Drinking doesn't solve problems?

For Whom the Bell Curve tolls

I've been procrastinating with debates of a rather dismal level. Some of my trolling efforts may be witnessed at the Occupy South Africa or Operation Ubuntu facebook page. It turns out there are a handful of dyed in the wool NOT reds who are spawning Occupy protest pages at a rate that would almost have gullible people believe that there's a massive uprising in the country.

What does equitable distribution mean?

From one of the commentators:

Direct Democracy is a socio-political element, Distribution is a socio-economic concept. Distribution is a seperate concept to that of Direct Democracy. Currently the distribution of resources cannot exceed the capacity. But current distribution is far from equitable, hence some have far more and others have none. The imbalance in distribution is caused by the system deployed to bridge individuals with resources. The current system is a one size fits all system with salaried employment, or profit motive at it's core. We are proposing a new resource distribution system in which the actual requirements of individuals is the determinant, from a base of acceptance that all humans have equal claim to all resources. Don't confuse the system of distribution with the system of decision making and planning.

The obvious apprehensions are:

1. How does one exceed distribution beyond capacity in any system?


2. What is an equitable distribution?


3. In what way is the current system profit-driven, when it appears that a lack of access to credit is the main concern for much of this occupy movement? Most people do not want to earn profit, they just want to share in what they perceive to be spoils.

It appears that income inequality is one of those things that causes people to yearn for a bed of Procrustes scenario whereby any loose ends are chopped off and piled on the big general resource pile to ensure a more equitable distribution. Most of the movement appears to put great stock in the labour theory of value, so why would anyone want more currency that is already decoupled from an underlying commodity like gold, beer or labour? These grievances aside, I poked some fun with a reply:

For Whom the Bell Curve Tolls

All humans do not have equal claim to all resources. For example, I do not have equal claim to the grapes growing on Rondebosch wine farm than the next bergie has.

• For one, while I am a dipsomaniac enthusiast of their products, I still have most of my own teeth.


• Secondly, I have not nurtured their vineyard and I haven't worked on my tan under the whip of their gentle but firm foreman.

I also have no need for kiddie seats in restaurants, wheelchair access ramps, ATMs where I have to duck or the warnings on coffee containers that the contents may be hot.

At first, this was perplexing, but I soon realised being hot is just one of those things that one could expect when one orders a drink that ordinary is served with a temperature on the tall and thin side of the thermometer. Clearly, there is a great deal of inequity in this world that goes beyond mere income distribution or access to resources.

Pray tell, which god may we thank for the greater glory of the auto-mobile seat belt and would you duct tape one to every rattling public transportation device? What if I've voted in a directly democratic system that I think seat belts are a terrible idea and we should neglect them to cull the herd so the aggregate of height increases to the point where we may lift the ATMs off the ground just far enough so it can look me in the eye while it throws money at me, because when I look down on it throwing money at me I feel like one of the ecdysiastic profession? Now, by show of hands or via the short message telegram it was determined and decreed that we shalt install seat belts everywhere, but I am not happy with this arrangement?

Furthermore, the villagers decided that I am to manufacture these seat belts, because when I was working on the vineyards a lot of wine went missing - and let's face it, everyone wants to work on the vineyards while nobody really wants to perform the grunt work like making seat belts. Now this musical chair labour union has gathered enough dirty hands to sentence me to seat belt and other safety paraphernalia construction.

Would you wear a seat belt manufactured by a disgruntled worker with an axe to grind because you've been rolling in the hay on the wine farm while I was left entirely in command of your safety precautions?


A Rolls Royce Silver Shadow. Better whole than on the dole, I say.

I do realise that you've jumped the gun into the abstract while granting the specific details none more than a cursory glance. For this reason, I implore you to grant them some further attention. While your mechanisations and imaginations may seem grand (and they are grand), ultimately you want to deploy this castle in the sky in terms of bricks and mortar on the ground. This will start with the shiny things like gold, Rolls Royce cars and a few hidden teeth, but short before long you're going to reach the point where everyone has deconstructed the Rolls into nuts and bolts and are now wearing the bling, or one person has a Rolls while another has a Volkswagen Golf and since you've taken money out of the equation, Golf boy better have a few fetching family members or he would have naught to trade for the Rolls.

Oh, and this little minor detail of private property that you've abolished too, so nobody really has any claim to ownership of anything even after they voted who gets what. What do we do now? Do we play musical chairs with the Rolls too?

Why beer should be our currency

Sorry, this blog post has moved to Steemit:

Why Beer Should Be Our Currency.

Pixilation project

This is a pixilation project I did for university. Enjoy!

These boots are made for walking

Pixilation Project from Garg Unzola on Vimeo.

Details

• Camera: Canon PowerShot A430. Tip: Don't try stop motion with a happy snappy. Use some decent hardware.


• Images: about 324. Excluding the ones I had to redo because my Canon gave blurry shots, despite the fact that I'd used a timer and wasn't touching the camera.


• Beer: about 4 l.


• Music: Peaches En Regalia by Frank Zappa. We are allowed to use copyright content for our projects because they are only for evaluation purposes.

Review of Divine Intervention by Slayer

Conclusion

The first real metal album I ever heard, and still probably the best. This is a completely biased review, because I love this album more than I love blonde lesbians making out with me.

I love this album almost as much as I love blonde bisexual girls making out with me. Every metal album I have heard since has been measured by Divine Intervention. The album, not the cow probing or the Elvis Presley U.F.O sightings.



Blonde bisexual girls making out with each other. Just kidding, this is 213 performed live by Slayer. Hell yeah!

Review

This album came out in 1994, the year grunge king Kurt Cobain committed suicide. Grunge was all the rage. Slayer hasn't delivered an album since 1990's Seasons In The Abyss. Since then, they lost a key member – drummer Dave Lombardo. Will Slayer bow down to the slacker grunge mediocrity of Pearl Jam and Nirvana? Nay nay.

Slayer gets new drummer Paul Bostaph to introduce this album with some wild drum rolls. After that, you get some awesome riffs with enough tempo changes to make Yes or King Crimson envious.

The seminal Thrash band is no stranger to controversy. Since the days of Angel of Death, Slayer has endorsed morbid imagery – enough so to cause some critics to accuse them of Satanic and Neo-Nazi views. Slayer adds fuel to the fire with Divine Intervention, firstly with the sleeve. The cover has a skeleton on a pentagram formed by swords – the band's emblem of sorts.

On the disk, you will find the image of a fan with the word 'Slayer' slashed into each wrist. I can just imagine how this lead to much misguided dabbling in Satanism and self-harm.

Various newspaper clippings are portrayed on the inside of the sleeve, with selected words blacked out. In typical anti-censorship, anti-government and anti-religious control stance. Albums like these are like alchemy. They turn you into metal.


Jane Austen, in all her pride and prejudice. Don't let her Victorian dress or her hessian underthings fool you. This lady had a bitter satirical bite. Apparently, she was no Slayer fan either.

Lyrically, this is no Jane Austen novel either.

• SS-3 refers to the license plate number of the car Reinhard Heydrich travelled in when he was shot.


• 213 is based on the dealings of Jeffrey Dahmer. 213 refers to his apartment number.

Reynhard Heydrich. Don't let the fancy suit fool you. This is a wicked, wicked man. Apparently, he's no Jane Austen fan either.

213 also features some of the sickest metal lyrics ever.

Death, love's final embrace
Your cool tenderness
Memories, keep love alive
Memories, will never die

Doesn't look like much, but once you know what the song is about it gets a bit more chilly.

Definitely still one of my favourite metal albums.

Track listing

1. Killing Fields


2. Sex. Murder. Art.


3. Fictional Reality


4. Dittohead


5. Divine Intervention


6. Circle of Beliefs


7. SS-3


8. Serenity in Murder


9. 213


10. Mind Control

Personell

• Tom Araya: bass; vocals.


• Jeff Hannemann: guitar.


• Kerry King: guitar.


• Paul Bostaph: drums.

Rating

DNA proves the existence of God

This is a bold claim by Perry Marshall, whose definitions of code and pattern I have used here. Note that Marshall is not a biologist, but an information specialist.

For this post, I will outline the argument Marshall makes for the existence of God. After that I will prove him wrong. At the time of going to press, God could not be reached for her comment.

The difference between a code and a pattern

A pattern is a random sequence that does not need the aid of a designer. Marshall claims snowflakes and tornadoes are examples of patterns.

Codes are defined as patterns that carry information. Codes we know the origin of are designed by an intelligent designer. Patterns do not have embedded information, whereas codes do carry information. Marshall lists music, computer programs and DNA as examples of codes.


Is this mama? Did aliens design DNA? If they did, why didn't they keep the good DNA for themselves?

Marshall's proof that DNA was designed by a mind

Marshall claims the following for DNA:

• DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern, but an information storage mechanism. Since it is a pattern which carries information, DNA is a code


• codes we know the origin of were created by an intelligence. Codes are created by conscious minds


• therefore, DNA was created by a conscious mind

Marshall then proposes five possible origins of DNA:

1. Humans designed DNA.


2. Aliens designed DNA.


3. DNA occurred randomly and spontaneously.


4. An undiscovered physical law creates information, and by extension DNA.


5. A superintelligence, who Marshall calls God, designed DNA.

Some DNA. Somewhat puzzling. Especially to Perry Marshall.

Consideration Marshall gives each proposal:

1. For humans to design DNA, we would require time travel or infinite generations of humans. Since we have no time travel and according to Marshall, finite generations of humans, this proposal is refuted.


2. Aliens may have designed DNA, but this explanation "only pushes the question back in time".


3. That DNA occurred randomly and spontaneously is a possibility, but it is not a process that could be repeated.


4. An undiscovered natural law could have created DNA, but it would only be proved once someone observes a naturally occurring code.


5. A superintelligence, who Marshall calls God, designed DNA.

Marshall claims scientific reasoning can prove anything, and DNA is proof of its own intelligent designer.

Proof that Marshall is misleading, and by misleading I mean wrong

The syllogism
Marshall's proof that DNA was designed by an intelligent designer rests on a syllogism.

A syllogism is a logical argument that is used to infer a conclusion. The syllogism is comprised of three parts:

• a major premise: "DNA is a code."


• a minor premise: "Codes are created by conscious minds."


• a proposition, in other words a conclusion: "Therefore, DNA was created by a conscious mind."

Fun fact: Aristotle is generally credited with the invention of the syllogism.

There are fundamental flaws in Marshall's syllogism:

• "DNA is a code." That depends on which level you are looking at DNA. From the level of conscious minds, it would appear as if DNA is a code read by cells to produce a magnificent organism.
  
  However, at a molecular level, DNA is a nucleic acid. Genes store a particular sequence of DNA, and this sequence determines how the genes interact with each other and its environment. The DNA sequence is never read or interpreted as information at this level. Physical, chemical properties of DNA determine which traits are conserved, expelled or just there.
  
  An allele is an instance of one of multiple viable possible instances of a gene. To clarify, a gene exists for creating eyes. An allele determines whether your eyes could be blue. The nature of this allele is determined by interaction of the gene with other genes and its environment.
  
  For the sake of Marshall's argument, let us assert that DNA is a code carrying information as he envisages it. The jury is still out on that one, but let's give Marshall the benefit of the doubt.


• The minor premise: "Codes are created by conscious minds." Marshall is not so lucky with this premise. Marshall specifically states that "all codes we know the origin of are created by a conscious mind" (bold text mine). We do not know the origin of DNA.
  Since we do not know the origins of DNA, we can not assume that DNA is a code that was created by a conscious mind.
  
  There are many plausible explanations, mostly pointing to Marshall's third conclusion, namely that DNA occurred randomly and spontaneously. In any event random is not that random upon closer investigation, since as we have seen genes rely on interaction with each other and interaction with their environment to determine exactly how alleles form.
  
  Furthermore, planetary orbit around the sun is not random at all. It is a pattern, but it is still a code, since from our perspective on the third rock from the sun, this movement transfers information we interpret as the passage of time.
  
  We do not know the origins of this pattern, but we do know the origins of this code of time. It is indeed a conscious intelligence.


• The proposition: "Therefore, DNA was created by a conscious mind." The problem with this proposition is that an amoeba has DNA. An amoeba does not have a conscious mind. Amoeba were not created with the intervention of the only conscious minds we know, namely human beings.
  
  Marshall also proposes the idea that aliens created DNA. It should be noted that we have made contact with aliens, but they were cellular organisms. We have not discovered intelligent consciousness besides ours on earth, but we have discovered aliens that came into being without the intervention of intelligent consciousness as we like to define it. Could it be that the process of randomly occurring DNA is repeated, in space no less?

This syllogism suffers from the classic mistake of an illicit minor. This mistake has the following form:

• All A are B ("all DNA is a code")


• All Z are C ("all codes we know the origins of were designed by a conscious mind". If it were "all codes were designed by a conscious mind", the minor would have the correct form All B are C.
  
  At face value, it seems that Mr Marshall proposes the correct form, however his minor is still illicit, because this claim is false. At first, Mr Marshall incorrectly claims that all codes we know the origins of were designed by conscious minds. Then, when it comes to constructing his key argument, he conveniently forgets that his requirement is that we have to know the origins of the code, which we don't for DNA. Either way the words are minced, the minor is an illicit one.)


• Therefore, all A are C ("therefore, DNA was designed by a conscious mind")

In closing, the larger argument here is a classic example of the god of the gaps, as described in layman's terms in the God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. Since we can not disprove that god designed DNA, it has to be true. To mister Marshall: Epic fail. Thank you for playing.

To the rest of us: since we can not disprove that Cthulhu will swallow your soul, it has to be true. Cthulhu Ftaghn!

Related links

• Can you prove that god exists? Convince Jim Randi and get a groovy million benjamins for your efforts in proving a supernatural phenomenon. Thanks to mampara Jacob Zuma, that's worth about eight million "bokke en blare", and it is bound to get more.


• If you can read this, I can prove that God exists. Perry Marshall's reasons for joining the fellowship and tithing. Tithing is the fellowship's reason for accepting you.


• Inmagine stock images, where I got the royalty free stock images.


• The Genetic Genealogist, highly recommended.


• The Wikipedia page on DNA.


• The Wikipedia page on genes.


• The Wikipedia page on illicit treatment of the minor term.


• The Wikipedia page on junk DNA.


• The Wikipedia page on syllogism.

ANCYL seeks to ban liquor advertising in South Africa

Ban alcohol advertising - ANCYL

A newspaper report reveals that the ANCYL sees liquor advertising as a problem [1]. The league proposes the ban of liquor advertising, and they also propose the ban of liquor sales on Sundays, just like we had during apartheid. As reported, the ANCYL sees a correlation between the advertising of alcohol and the moral degeneration of South Africa.

There claims are curious and riddled with loaded assumptions. I was curious to find out exactly how many people have been harmed as a direct result of advertising and liquor advertising in particular. Fortunately, I managed to track down a profile of fatal injuries in South Africa for 2005 [2].

Since an organisation with such a proud tradition as the ANCYL is sure to base its discussions on actual topics garnered from sound evidence, I was shocked not to find a single death attributed to advertising. Not even a case where a roadside billboard fell on someone. However, I did learn other interesting facts from this document.

The most common cause of non-natural fatalities in South Africa is homicide, followed by transport. In 2005, transport related fatalities accounted for 35,5% of non-natural fatalities. By contrast, fatalities attributed to non-transport incidents were on the decline, with the exception of homicide. It is not clear whether culpable homicide is included in the homicide fatality statistic or the transport related fatality statistic.

Since there is a correlation between transport and fatality that far outweighs the statistically non-existent correlation between advertising and fatality, it would perhaps be wiser to ban the use of transport on certain days. The 2005 figures reveal that Saturdays are the days with the most transport related fatalities.

Curiously, Saturdays are also the days with the most homicides. The implication is there is a correlation between homicide and transport. Fuzzy logic dictates that transport makes people homicidal, especially over weekends.

In the absence of any statistic implicating the advertising of liquor in fatality, my questions are thus:

• Homicides and the dangers of transport besides, how does the ANCYL determine that South Africa is in a state of moral degeneration when non-transport and non-homicidal fatalities are clearly in decline?


• What credible evidence does the ANCYL have to implicate the advertising of liquor in fatalities when it is clear that cars are more dangerous than liquor (or any other kind of) advertising?


• The ANCYL poll regarding the sale and use of liquor on Sundays shows an undecided result, with 50% voting yes and 50% voting no [3]. Note that the advertising of liquor and the sale of liquor are two different issues entirely. Nonetheless, with such an indifferent response from within its own ranks, how did the ANCYL determine that the sale or use of liquor on Sundays are pressing issues?


• Weekends are clearly the most fatal, with homicide and transport being the biggest causes of fatalities during these times. Is the ANCYL considering banning the use of transport on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays?

Clearly transport, unlike the voluntary exposure to advertising, is a significant contributor to non-natural fatalities. Transport, not advertising, is the culprit. As transport is implicated in correlating with homicide, our society should rid itself of transport.

Since advertising is not statistically implicated in anything, let alone as a contributor to fatality, perhaps we should accept advertising as a producer practicing his fundamental right of freedom of expression.

Sources

1. Ban liquor advertising - ANCL at IOL.co.za


2. A report of fatal injuries in South Africa during 2005


3. ANCYL poll results