Using Metered Connection Setting To Block Windows Major Updates

Windows Updates are potentially dangerous if done on Microsoft's schedule. The Fall 2018 Windows Update resulted in a substantial number of people experiencing file loss. With an earlier update, one of my computers would have experienced startup issues due to a standard chip which was incompatible with the update if I had not been able to delay the update until Microsoft fixed the issue.

Windows 10 Professional has a means to set update delays. But Microsoft decided to not include that in the Home version. With the well publicized issues with their updates, it would seem that adding that feature to Windows 10 Home would be seen as a publicity boost to Microsoft. But that is not the case. But Windows Spring and Fall updates have been way too unpredictable.  At least one update was even problematic with Microsoft's own Surface line. So it is important to have a means to block the updates.

I use the metered connection option on my computers with the Home version. This option was intended as a means to decrease data usage on connections with data limits. But it is effective with blocking the major Windows updates. A recent update did change the block to allow security updates on metered connections. But I don't find security updates to be problematic. Plus security updates are important. So the metered connection setting blocks the major updates while allowing the security to be maintained.

The initial metered connection setting for each wi-fi connection has to be manually set. That being said, the setting is automatic once initially set. Here is how the metered connection is set.

Click on the internet access icon in the right side of the task bar. Select the properties link for the network which you want to set as a metered connection. In the settings window for the connection, scroll down until you see the metered connection section. Turn "set as metered connection" on. Then close the settings window. Windows major updates are now blocked for this specific connection. As noted, this has to be done for every connection to avoid the updates. But that's OK since the major updates take a substantial amount of time to download and it only takes a few seconds to turn the metered connection on.

Another Windows mess - automatically start apps open when computer last shut down

Google Chrome started to open every time I turned on my computer. Although a minor thing, I decided to look into why.  It turns out that it is due to a half-baked new Windows 10 feature. Microsoft decided that it made sense to automatically open applications which were open when the computer was shut down. I agree that this isn't a completely bad idea since computers can accidentally be shut down. But there are issues which Microsoft did not anticipate.

The issue which affects Chrome appears to be background processes. It appears that Windows is interpreting Google background processes as being the Chrome browser. Even after I changed Chrome settings to not run background processes after the browser is closed, Chrome still opens on Windows startup. It is thought that this is due to my use of Google Drive. Windows may be interpreting Google Drive as part of Chrome so it reopens Chrome on startup.

Another issue which doesn't directly affect me but may be problematic is when an application actually causes problems which require Windows to be forced to shut down. I've seen multiple causes for this but a virus is one of the reasons. If Windows automatically opens applications which were previously open, the application which caused the shutdown will be opened again.

It seems to me that Windows should have made better settings for this. There should be a means to exclude specific applications. There should also be a means to turn the feature completely off. There is one setting which turns the feature off for Store apps but not desktop apps.

I am getting Windows update fatigue. Between features which are not adequately developed before launch to updates actually causing problems which specific computers, I've become quite frustrated with Windows updates. For a while, I prevented non-security Windows updates by designating all wifi connections as metered. This was because the spring update had issues with each of my computers. I eventually updated 2 of the 3 computers. But the issues with updates are just too much. So I am convinced more than ever that I get more negatives out of the major Windows updates that I get positives.

By the way, 2 of my 3 Windows 10 devices are high end computers. One is actually a Surface Pro 4 yet Microsoft can't even get their upgrades to be consistently clean with Surface devices.

My fears of religions

Fear is not necessarily phobia. A phobia is an extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something. Yes, that fits the fear which some people have. But I believe that there are some specific fears of religions which are rational and valid. This is not a comprehensive list nor one in any particular order.  This is just some thoughts which I wanted to write in response to a recent event. I may add to this when I have time. That being said, the first one is probably my biggest fear. In a way, the fears which follow interconnect with the first one.

Fear of laws controlled by religion
There are countries with the death penalty for homosexuality. These are mostly based on Islamic law.  But homosexuality is illegal in Uganda based on Christian influence of law. As a bisexual, I would be killed in some areas. Some counties will kill a person like me who changes from the state religion. My atheism will get me killed in some countries. The anti-abortion motivations are mostly based on interpretations of religion. There's even heavy bias against general birth control based on supernatural beliefs. In addition to these things, limited rights of women, slavery and currently the separation of children from immigrant families have been justified by referencing the Bible.

Fear for women's rights
The texts of the Judaeo-Christian regions are male centric in the lighter areas and downright harsh toward women in other areas. Religion has been used to legally suppress women. The tide has turned in secular run countries. But religious states, especially the ones controlled by laws derived from the Abrahamic religions, are almost universally oppressive to women.

Fear for education
A lot of people believe that their "holy books" are absolutely accurate and without error. Any scientific or historical discoveries which contradict these writings are considered wrong and suppressible. Some people believe that biblical views should be taught on equal terms while others support outright bans of contradictory information. People have been executed for differing opinions.

Fear for the environment
Air and water pollution were very bad in many areas of the United States when I was a kid. There was resistance to laws to clean things up and keep them clean. Some of the opposition came from religious groups. I asked someone about his opposition. He replied that it's all wasted expense because the end times prophesied in Revelations are close. Recently, there have been movements by some Christians to promote the idea that striving for a clean environment is biblical. Other Christian groups were opposed to that and even claimed that environmentalism is sinful. Some oil companies saw the latter groups as potential allies and funded them.

Fear of the restriction and loss of critical thinking
Religion, by its very nature, relies on people not thinking through things. There are concerns by some religionists that they are on the losing side. That's not yet happened, in part because people are prevented from or conditioned to avoid seeing contradictory information. Of course, that is not exclusive to religion. But most promoters of religion have it in their best interests to hide facts and masquerade their own regressive perspectives as truth.

A problem with discussing Islam

There have been so much extreme anti-Muslim expression that it is difficult to discuss criticism of Islam without fear of being branded a hater. I believe that there are legitimate issues with Islam as I believe that there are issues with all supernatural beliefs, especially those which have been codified.

There are a wide range of people who call themselves Muslim. I have met people who were more general Muslims in that they did not believe in literal interpretation and adherence. I've known some who adhere to the core rituals but have modern interpretations regarding a number of subjects. Yet I have also encountered extremist Muslims. But the same range occur with Christians and followers of Judaism. The religions and their influence on people's actions are quite similar. So a lot of my criticism is toward religion and supernatural beliefs in general. But each religion does have their particular issues.

But some progressive folks who want to discuss issues specific to Islam are branded as Islamophobes and lumped in with the right-wingers. But there really are differences between critics of the religion and the people who believe.  When I discuss issues which I believe to exist with particular belief systems, I am not expressing hate for the believers. How I feel about the people is dependent on the specifics of what attitudes and actions result from their beliefs. Unfortunately, there have been so much irrational and ugly anti-Muslim expressions that the rest of the discussion gets muzzled.

About Dreams

I often have vivid dreams. They are often story style dreams but sometimes with impossible shifts and events in the stories. I occasionally have dreams which appear very realistic in my waking memory of them. Some were so vivid and realistic that my brain stores them as memories as if they were real events. An example is a dream or series of dreams where I stole cars. I had these dreams in my 20's. I know as fact that I never stole any cars. Yet the memories are there like half forgotten events.

I can definitely see how people can think that dreams as spiritually or dimensionally significance. I recall reading a book by a guy who even claimed that he traveled to other dimensions when he slept. My interpretations of dreams used to lean toward giving high significance to dreams. But, as I did with other matters in my life, I decided to take a more physical approach to dreams. My personal analysis and reading supplied the idea that there are multiple neurological causes for dreams.

The brain is complex. But it can generally be understood that we have cognitive functions and autonomic functions in the brain. A lot of the brain activity during sleep is autonomic. However, cognitive functions during sleep are suppressed rather than completely shut down. This is important to understand relating to the types of dreams. One of the autonomic functions of the brain during sleep is the processing of memories, which include activities, conversions and even thoughts which occur during waking times. I've read that the brain doesn't just transfer memories from short term memory to long term memory. The brain sort of replays the memories in order to associate them with related long term memories. This relates to dreams because the suppressed cognitive functions perceives some of the memory activity and tries to make sense of  it. But we cannot usually think in a conscious way during sleep so the suppressed cognitive functions have difficulties making sense of what is going on. So sort of an unconscious imagination comes into play to interpret the memory replay. People who can remember their dreams can see how the dreams usually change based on changing conscious attitudes and experiences. For example, I tend to have more science fiction oriented dreams when I watch or read science fiction. Horror style dreams sometimes occur after watching a horror movie. When I was younger, I tended to have supernatural type dreams when I had religious and supernatural beliefs. A lot of my current dreams relate to travel because I think a lot and have planning related to the cross-country trip which I will do in less than 3 years from now. I also have work related dreams both relating to my current work and what I might do after the trip.

A second aspect of dreams relates to physical conditions during sleep. If I have the need to get up and use the bathroom, the dream which I have at the time will incorporate bathroom use in the dream. If I don't wake up when the urge initially comes, bathroom events will become repetitive in the dream until I wake up. Sounds which occur while sleeping can get incorporated in the dreams, sometimes as sounds and sometimes as shifts in the dream. Getting tangled in my bed sheets can result in some kind of entanglement in my dreams.

So 2 primary causes of dreams are memory (processing of memories which the suppressed cognition tries to interpret) and conditional (what is happening physically). A 3rd aspect of dreams can relate to the suppressed consciousness continuing thoughts which might have occurred during the day. I can sometimes generate specific styles of dreams based on what I am thinking about as I go to sleep. Sort of a 4th aspect to dreaming, which I think accounts for some of the more bizarre or chaotic dreams, is the merging of the other aspects of dreaming. Since cognition is suppressed, the sometimes conflicting dream elements generated by the different functions of the brain can result in odd twists, turns, shifts and even overlapping dream elements.

Another factor in dreams is neurochemistry. Different activities release different chemicals and nerve impulses. Sleep requires specific neurochemistry. However, certain dream activity can confuse the nervous system and cause a release of some neurochemical activity which normally occurs with wakeful activity. Since the body has limited mobility during sleep, the neurochemistry affected by dream activity can further affect the states of the dreams.

I find dreams entertaining and sometimes interesting. But I feel that the specifics of dreams have limited importance since a primary factor in dreams is suppressed cognition. But there is one thing which I find useful about dreams. Since an aspect of dreams relates to memories which come from occurrences and mental states during conscious times, some patterns in dreams can be useful to understanding our conscious states. But this can have a lot of misinterpretations so I mainly use dreams as a reference tool rather than a diagnostic tool.

Further reading:

Human Brain Still Awake, Even During Deep Sleep
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081008101740.htm

What Happens in the Brain During Sleep?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-happens-in-the-brain-during-sleep1/

Why Do We Dream? Recent Developments In Neuroscience May Have The Answer.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2016/10/04/why-do-we-dream-recent-developments-in-neuroscience-may-have-the-answer/#212156055451

Cognitive neuroscience of dreams
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_neuroscience_of_dreams

How Sleep Works - Neurological Mechanisms of Sleep
https://www.howsleepworks.com/how_neurological.html

Dreams - Introduction
https://www.howsleepworks.com/dreams.html

Some of my thoughts on abortion

I am pro-choice. I am also pro-abortion. I will go as far as saying that abortion is moral. In the majority of cases, the procedures done are chemical abortions in early stages of pregnancy. There is very little risk to the women and the fetus does not feel anything. Also, I do not believe in considering the fetus as an individual until way late in the pregnancy. Abortion is not the killing of humans but simply ending the potential of one. 

Speaking of potential, a lot of behavior, both good and bad, can be traced to conditions and events from childhood. That is a major reason why I am pro-abortion. I personally have known people whose childhood environment and experiences negatively impacted their adult lives. In some cases, bad childhoods have a direct thread to harm which these people had done to others. The quality of adult life is increased when children are exposed to positive conditions and experiences. Birth control is best for controlling when and where children are born, which in turn often supplies more positive experiences for the children. But abortion is a reasonable option. This is especially the case with the morning after pill. In fact, I believe it's time to make all contraceptives, including the morning after pill universally free. That would have a positive affect on the quality of life, including the victims of people who were raised in ways which affected their negative behaviors toward others. Although indecisive about whether abortions should be free, I do believe that abortion options should be universally available.

I do not believe in a soul so there's no need to consider when that nonexistent thing becomes part of a fetus. Contrary to propaganda to the contrary, science shows that fetuses up to 6 months do not feel pain. Through experience and education, I know how much childhood affects adulthood. This is a primary reason why I believe in free contraceptives and am leaning toward free abortions. I certainly believe that contraceptives and abortion options should be highly promoted. Couples or people around them need to be cognizant of how much the timing of a birth is critically important for the child and future adult. I had a pretty wild period when a girlfriend got pregnant. Neither of us were in adequate financial and psychological states to become parents. We knew the risks were high that we would make critical mistakes which would have long term consequences. We considered the idea that maybe having the child would motivate us to do better. But that seemed selfish to us. We chose abortion. I paid for it completely since I had a better income that she did.

I knew a crazy couple who had a child who was ultimately taken away from them. I knew the man more than the woman. He was basically a stoner who hung around some groups which I was sometimes in. The woman was disliked by a lot of people because she tended to pick fights. She often talked shit about everyone. The 2 people were very different. Probably a common factor was a lack of sex, not that they never had sex but neither of their current mental states supported it. So that may have been a factor. Also, they both were on SSI. After they got together, the guy was bragging about getting the woman pregnant. After the birth, they managed to get an apartment where they immediately began to have parties. I briefly went to one but refused to hangout or go to others because I thought that the level of pot and cigarette smoke with the presence of the child amounted to child abuse. Plus the woman still tended to yell at people. Within a few months, the child was taken away but was returned with the couple's promise to get help. The child was taken again when he was around a year old. I heard that protective services saw enough problems that the couple may not have gotten the child back if it weren't for a "liberal" lawyer who took the case. It took several months but they regained custody. But they lost custody again by the time that the child was 3. At that point, the couple separated. I don't know what ultimately became of the person born into such a crazy environment. But the child and whatever kind of adult it became deserved a better start than it was given.

A factor relating to the importance of contraception and abortion is that a lot more people with a wide range of mental states have the ability to have kids. Some of these folks have inadequate capabilities to be parents. Too many of these people are having kids. Think Forrest Gump. That movie painted a rosy picture of the situation. But I know from personal experience of being raised by a mentally handicapped mother and with a mentally handicapped brother that things can be hazardous for the child of parents who are not ready or even capable of parenting. There are limits to what can be done in the worst cases but people smart enough to decide that they aren't ready should definitely have all opportunities to avoid bringing children into bad or hazardous environments. Those opportunities should include abortion.

There are also medical reasons why abortion can be the moral think to do. Some biologically disadvantage conditions can be determined in early to middle term pregnancies. Down syndrome can be diagnosed in the first trimester. There are also probability factors for genetic disorders which might motivate parents to consider abortions. It seems to me that it is a moral right of the parents to decide not to give birth to a child with a high probability of a biologically damaged life.

In closing, I want to note the slippery slope which we are on with the current state of anti-abortion politics and governance. Although I have discussed abortion and contraceptives side by side, they really are different. But there are some religionist folks who lump both abortion and contraception together as immoral acts. As laws get enacted which force abortion services and even discussion of abortion by some doctors to end, the financial resources are getting diverted to groups which are not only against abortion but are against contraception. This is a regressive direction which will have dire consequences. Where does it stop?

In the US, most republicans are anti-abortion. Yet 2 groups of progressives are culpable in allowing these social conservative republicans in office. One group are the flip-flop voters. These are the generally progressive people who vote for candidates based on "need for change" or some other feelings which conflict with the voter's socially progressive ideals. It's time for all social progressives to become a solid block against social regressive politics. This segways to the other group who unintentionally let social conservatives gain control. These are the people who either don't vote or vote only during presidential election years. I'm not saying that everyone should necessarily vote. I have a relative in his 80's who feels that his mental state is not adequate anymore. I respect his decision to not vote. But such a small percentage of the capable population do vote. Yet social conservatives have some extra resources to drive their people to vote. There are also other factors not relevant to this article which create a substantial number of people who consistently vote and do so based on regressive ideas. This is a factor why some of the most regressive laws go on the ballot during the years when there tends to be lower voter turnout.

I, for one, vote every year because I see the dangers which are developing due to low voter turnout.

Physical Morals

Preface

I would like to first state that this work is based on my personal understanding.  This is not intended as an authoritative piece of work. It is more of a general outline which I hope will be useful to others.

Some people will question why a topic about physically defined morals is needed.  I see multiple reasons. One reason is because too many people’s ethics are tied to supernatural beliefs.  Some even go as far as to say that morality requires religion. But this is false. There are lots of people who have a sense of ethics without religion.  Also, there are common morals across some quite different religions, which removes exclusivity from any one religion. Another reason is that morals tied closely to supernatural beliefs are inconsistent and unstable.  A reason why some religions have a spectrum of people from fanatical killers to peaceful non-violent folks is because many religions’ scriptures support both. For Christianity, some people claim that the old testament laws are superseded by Christ’s sacrifice while others point to his statements about all the old laws being valid.

A confusing factor is about post-religionist morals.  People who go through an “immoral” period after they leave a religion are used as evidence for the religious beliefs.  But I believe that this shows the opposite. Using religion to teach morals is tenuous at best. Not only are the old morals difficult to modernize with new knowledge (Religionists’ perspective on gays as example) but people sometimes have to regain ethical footing after leaving a belief system.  Ethics are more consistent over time and more easily maintained by people as their beliefs change if the ethics are grounded in the physical. This is because the ethics are independent of the changing beliefs. Unethical behaviors not based in religion have little to hide from when the supernatural or god cards are not played.

I believe that humanity needs to wholly embrace ethics with physical origins. All religions have changed over time while most have internal conflicts.  Even the gods change over time, including the judeo-christian ones (plural intended). Additionally, the morals written down are those held by the authors at the time of the writings.  Regardless of what religionists claim, the morals in the texts of religions are based on people’s perceptions and information, often full of biases and inaccuracies. As new information needing new ethics and understanding of behaviors becomes better, the ancient morals can’t keep up.  But physically based ethics can grow with modern understanding of things. Physical ethics can use new knowledge to remove the harmful ethics and add new ones as needed.

So, how am I doing with regards to ethics.  In a way, I can be compared to how our societies are transitioning from supernatural authority to physical reality for ethics.  I was once a devout Christian. I read the Bible from beginning to end 3 times by the time I was 17 years old. But experiences in my late teens challenged my beliefs.  I struggled with attempts to believe in a god, the soul and so on for some time. But I eventually realized that the only constant is the physical. So I reoriented my perspective to a purely physical one.  Since my morality was so closely associated with the religion of my youth, I made some ethical mistakes. The process is not complete. But I strive to be a fully ethical person based on the physical model. My biggest shortfall is in the personal category.  The personal ethics include balanced exercise and a healthy diet. I’m still working on those things.

-----------------------------------------------

Although I will be discussing ethical categories, ethics in 1 category affect other categories.  For instance, how we treat ourselves can affect chemical states in the brain. This, in turn, can affect our emotions which can then affect our social ethics.  Personal knowledge can also affect social ethics. A lack of understanding as to why we react in certain ways can lead to behavioral patterns which negatively impact our social ethics.

PERSONAL ETHICS

How we treat ourselves

Three key ethics in this category are fitness, diet and self awareness.  Of these 3, I want to primarily discuss personal awareness. Self awareness affects the fitness, diet and other personal ethics.  For example, I didn’t notice how much I was getting out of shape. But self awareness affects the other ethical categories. I can contrast 2 people who illustrate this.  One guy was quick to anger. When people would point out that his anger seemed out of proportion, he would get angrier. While I knew him, he never realized how his anger issues were due to something in him.  He believed that it was always the stupidity of others which sparked his anger. Another guy had similar anger issues. He said that he once tended to be angry all the time. But he realized that his anger was not proportional to the stuff which angered him.  He sought psychological and medical help. It was eventually found that there was a neurological cause to his rages which could be addressed with medication. These are examples of how self awareness affects social ethics. But self awareness is also socially useful for general purposes.  Being aware of the nature of our reactions helps us understand that our reactions may not match the stuff being reacted to. For instance, some people tend to have more negative reactions to things which are different. But an adequately self aware person will look at the differences independent of his or her reactions.  Good fitness and diet can have effects beyond the personal as well. Fitness and diet can affect mood, which then affects how others are treated.

SOCIAL ETHICS
How we treat others and their stuff

A physical starting point supports a more socially progressive approach to ethics.  We can examine differences based on their real effects on people. Certain standards remain, such as avoidance of theft and violence.  But we can appreciate diversity more from a physical perspective. We can distinguish between real harm from imaginary harm. Our social ethics evolve as our understanding does.  And we do endeavor to understand. We don’t assume that ancient restrictions are valid just because they are still taught. We don’t assume that our initial reactions are necessarily correct.  We emphasize empathy. We look at our impact on others. As a community of people, we sometimes have to alter what we want if it negatively impacts others. But we don’t restrict other people’s wants if they have no negative impact.  

ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS

What we put into the air and water has consequences.  Those consequences require new ethics which we have been ill prepared to deal with.  It’s rather enlightening to read about environmental history. Human difficulties with modifying behavior to ensure a healthy environment have existed since before written history.  But the environmental degradation was more localized than current times. Since earth is a mostly closed system, the impacts are accumulating. We’ve made corrections but we continue to make excuses for not being cleaner.  It doesn’t seem to matter that people’s health and lives are impacted. Environmental ethics take a back seat to economics and convenience. My physical perspective shows me that I need to do better at a personal level. But the responsibility for keeping Earth a healthy place requires changes by all peoples, companies and countries.  We can rebuild a healthy environment. We have the technology and knowledge. We have the capability to create environments which are better for the current and future generations. But it requires more use of our cognitive abilities and more intellectual honesty.

COGNITIVE ETHICS

I believe that there are also cognitive ethics which affect all the rest.  This may seem obvious to some people. But I believe that how we process information and understand things are factors which are hugely neglected.  I am an example. I was raised in an environment which was rather intellectually stunted. Religion was a factor in this. But it went beyond that. There were a lot of topics which I was misinformed about.  The adults did not intentionally deceive me. They believed the things which they passed on. And I was taught to take too much stuff at face value. But there was also the “gut” mentality. You’ve probably heard it.  “Go with your gut feelings”. “First impressions are often right”. And so on. But I came to realize that misinformation breeds misinformation. And there is no such thing as first impressions. How we judge things are often based on a combination of past experiences, what we are taught and neurological factors.  I had kind of a personal cognitive revolution. I learned to look a bit more thoroughly at things. My opinions changed as I learned, as did my behaviors. I am still working on these things. But that is part of the point. I acknowledge that my information is imperfect and my judgements may be flawed. I, for one, am still endeavoring to do better, to be better, to ask questions and learn… to evolve.

I read some interesting points regarding intellectual honesty which fit my discoveries.

• One’s sense of conviction should be in proportion to the level of clear evidence assembled
• Be willing to acknowledge and question one’s own assumptions and biases
• Be willing to acknowledge where your information is weak
• Be willing to acknowledge when you are wrong
• Be willing to realize when your opinions are colored by emotion
• Issues go beyond the individuals who are discussing them
• Be careful how you fill in the gaps
• Commit to critical thinking
• Be willing to look at ideas contrary to your own but be fact based

Perception is not more important than reality

This is a response to something I read recently.

Ivanka Trump wrote in The Trump Card, “Perception is more important than reality. If someone perceives something to be true, it is more important than if it is fact”.  This illustrates a multi-generational issue. As far as the Trumps go, her statement fits with much of how her father campaigned and is now acting as president. It has amazed me how so many people still believe that he is truthful, even with so many sources of information which contradict his statements.  He’s even contradicting himself. Yet so many people have such a huge misperception of him. This is not a commentary about Trump. It’s about a psychological condition which he and his daughter illustrate. You can use politifact.com and other fact checker websites to see how much of Donald Trump is unfactual.  

Putting a higher priority on perception over reality is not new nor even a few generations old.  Ancient kings, pharaohs and shamans manipulated people’s perceptions. But I think that it’s nearly an epidemic today.  Every form of media has a substantial amount of fallacies masquerading as fact. We have ads making products look better or more essential than they are.  Companies make false and misleading statements about other companies. Politicians misleading and lying to the public. Pseudoscience and false medical advice abound. And general people intentionally and unintentionally spreading the fallacies.

In the early period of the internet, I was excited about the possibilities for a new method of making facts available.  Yes, we had a huge number of misleading commercial endeavors on the web. But I believed that the internet would become a great means for research and fact finding.  People probably had similar ideas about radio and TV. Now, the internet does have great resources. But there are a lot of fake facts. And I’m not talking about Trump’s spin about fake news.  I’m talking about how so many people put out so much false information.

Of course, it’s not just the internet and other media.  Heck, we have businesses whose whole model is manipulating perception.  I started this off with the Trumps rather than others who have said variations on the theme because it illustrates how we are at a critical state.  With all the means to pass on false information, it is becoming critical that we become critical of what people say. I believe that we need to turn the tables.  Make facts important again. This envelops all ethical categories. I think that we cannot be adequately ethical if we prioritize perception over reality, as Ivanka suggests.  

That’s all for now.  Until next time, get out there.

Belief & Knowledge

I read about Donald Trump’s 2017 commencement address at Liberty University.  I want to comment on some of the things which he said.

Trump said, “...did we just go along with convention, swim downstream, so easily with the current and just give in because it was the easy way, it was the traditional way or it was the accepted way? … Following your convictions means you must be willing to face criticism from those who lack the same courage to do what is right.”  

My response: It’s the Christians and other religionist who follow conventions and take the easy way.  Region has been the conventional way. And it is far easier for many people to continue the beliefs than to accept that they may be wrong and look at reality from a different perspective.

Trump said, “I know that each of you will be a warrior for the truth.”  

My response:  Truth is such a misused and overused word.  Even the dictionary definition has become overly generalized.  Although the word is defined as involving fact, it also is defined as involving belief.  But that almost makes the word useless since fact and belief do not necessarily coincide.  In Trump’s case, he is referring to belief. And the use of the word “warrior” brings to mind the overused “fight for what you believe”.  I really think that this sentiment sucks. There’s been centuries of wars where people fought and killed each other for differing beliefs.  And the militant muslims are doing that now. There are things worth standing for. But we need to be careful about what we “fight” for. And belief is not often a good enough indicator for what to get violent about.

Trump said, “A small group of failed voices who think they know everything and understand everyone want to tell everybody else how to live and what to do and how to think.”  

My response: Although he’s not talking about Christians, these are more often the people who push their beliefs hard on others, even with deadly consequences.

Trump said, “But you aren't going to let other people tell you what you believe, especially when you know that you're right.”  

My response: Again, he’s pulling a trumpism here.  It’s primarily the religionists who try and force their beliefs on others.  And how exactly do people “know” what is right? Look at the facts and modify beliefs based on the facts.  And this also means looking at the facts of what is not wrong. This segways back to looking at things first from a physical starting point.  Religionists’ top down approach gets a lot wrong because they start from an unknowable and base far too much on the unknowable, even to the point of killing people who don’t believe in the unknowns or do things which are contrary to what the unknown forces supposedly want.

Artificial Intelligence and Robots

I saw a video about another group of people who are working on human like robots.  The model being demonstrated had the general appearance of a woman even with human-like skin tones and expressions.  It was limited. The back was connected via wiring to a main computer. So it could only be in a sitting position. I’ve seen a couple of other groups working on similar robots.  The main designer said that he envisioned a time when robots would be fully human-like.

This got me thinking about my opinions regarding the attempts to program human mindsets into robots.  I think that it’s problematic. I had an early experience with beta testing a pre-AI interface. It was pre-AI in the sense that all the responses were completely canned. But I could have a conversation with it.  This was before Seri. I initially found it fascinating. But I discovered that various human biases were programmed into it. The most disturbing was its responses to questions about religion. It responded as if it was a Christian.  I contacted the developers about why it would program human religious biases into the interface. They said that they wanted to market it in a wide range of markets. They believed that programming local beliefs in the computer would make it more relatable.  I thought that this was a terrible idea. It answered very matter-of-fact as if the beliefs were absolutely true. I tried to explain how I believe that we should leave out these kind of biases for a couple of reasons. For one, kids would use the interface and could think that local beliefs are verified as true because the computer says so.  But a larger problem is the problem of the base framework potentially corrupting the computer intelligence if it eventually evolved into a truer AI.

I believe that we should keep computers factual.  Today, you ask Google’s audio interface or Cortana if they believe in a god, they either answer with variations of “I don’t know” or run a web search.  That is as it should be. But I see other answers to be troubling because they are basically lies. Ask Cortana how if feels and it answers, “splendid”.  But that isn’t true because it does not “feel”. There are other questions which will trigger false statements. Right now, these are harmless things probably intended more for humor than anything.  But I think that it’s a bad beginning because further advances will be built on the framework of what is programmed today. If computers make false statements or treats cultural beliefs as fact now, these things are basically passing human problems to the computers.  Although some human traits such as empathy and a sense of ethical behavior probably need to be part of the programming, I think that human cognitive foibles need to be kept out of the programming.

Until next time, get out there.

Guns: My Experiences & Perspectives

I have some experience with guns. In the Navy, I qualified with a .45 caliber handgun and a semiautomatic rifle for which I don't remember the designation. As a civilian, I have done target practices with guns. But I never had the desire for owning a gun. There was one occasion during a wilderness adventure when I thought that a gun might be handy. I saw a bear following me during a back country trip in Colorado. But I turned out to not be in danger. I think that it was just observing me. I did get a bigger knife later but the logistics of gun ownership while I was traveling outweighed the potential benefits. In the woods, I got by fine with supplies, fishing and some trapping. So hunting was unnecessary. Also, I never had a predatorial animal get close enough to be a threat. Although I had experienced dangers among humans, I also never felt that any of my experiences with people warranted a gun. But I had experiences which illustrates the dangers with some people owning guns.

Isla Vista, CA has a bike path which runs between the town and the UCSB campus. In the 1980's, the path was not very well lit. I had been living in Isla Vista for some time so I was use to the path. I once was walking along the path and was walking faster than a woman ahead of me. It was simply due to my natural pace. I had not previously encountered anyone on that path who showed signs of concern. Plus there were houses with patios facing the path. As I was about to walk past the woman, she suddenly sprayed mace point blank into my eyes. As painful as that was, I remember thinking how it was fortunately not a gun. Whether or not she would have been as reactionary with a lethal weapon is indeterminate. But this illustrates how people can be too reactionary. In her case, that may have been a one off event. But some people tend to be too emotionally reactive to situations. When I think of this event, I wonder if there ought to be some kind of tests to see if potential gun owners are emotionally stable enough.

I had an acquaintance who had always been nice to me but had a violent pattern when he drank alcohol. I initially did not know this because I was not in the same party circles. I stayed on his boat for a while when I was in between apartments. He would occasionally come by with his face in rather bad shape. These were due to fights which he would get in when he drank too much. He said that he usually doesn't remember much after the fights. When talking about it, he said that he got rid of a gun which he had because he did remember an incident where he was so outraged during a fight that he was on his way to getting the gun and shooting the guy who he had fought. But he changed his mind once he had gotten home. The next day, he got rid of the gun so that he would never be tempted like that again. A web search for "drunken shooting" lists a lot of cases where the drunks did use their guns while drunk. Might it be useful to restrict gun ownership when there is a pattern of violence, regardless of conviction?

A resident at a small apartment complex where I once lived opened her apartment up for a Christmas party. There was one guy who was a cousin or something of one of the residents. He didn't pace his alcohol consumption very well. By the early evening, he was quite drunk. With slurred speech, he began to wax affectionately about his gun collection. He pulled a picture out of his wallet. It was of his home vault of weapons. It showed a mix of handguns, shotguns, regular and assault style rifles. At some point, we realized that he wasn't around. We were concerned that he may have decided to drive. One of the people still at the party knew his car. We looked for it. It was gone. We checked with the neighbor who was related to him. The drunken guy wasn't there and did not answer his phone. It turns out that the guy has driven drunk before but the neighbor forgot about it. The neighbor described him as "not being all there". So the guy is irresponsible with a potentially deadly vehicle and also has an arsenal of weapons. This got me thinking that there could be a legal qualifier relating to drunk driving and gun use.

I was walking on a sidewalk. I looked to see if any cars were coming or going before I crossed an entrance to a strip mall. When I was halfway across, a truck came speeding into the parking lot so close that I had to stop walking and was able to reach out and tap the side of the truck. I was one or two steps from being hit by the truck. The driver stopped, got angrily out of the car and asked why I touched his truck. I told him because he carelessly sped into the parking lot in front of me. He could have easily have turned behind me or waited a moment in the turn lane. He was insistent that I was in the wrong and said that he had something in his car which would teach me a lesson. I didn't want to find out what he had so I ran.

There are a range of people with mental or emotional conditions who should not have access to guns. That is the reality of our situation. No amount of nearly religious interpretation of the second amendment gets around that. There are more qualifications for using vehicles and some work equipment than for guns, which are build with the intend to injure or kill.

There are good reasons why the default position is no for driving until people qualify for a license. And it is good that conditions exist where the license to drive can be revoked. It's unfortunate that it's easier to legally get guns and harder to revoke the "right" to guns than it is with drivers' licenses.

I like what I recently heard about the Japanese laws for gun ownership. People can own guns but the default position is no, as it is for a drivers license. People need to pass tests and other requirements before being licensed to own guns. Then owners need to requalify every few years. There are also restrictions based on a person's history and mental state. So there are people who own guns. But far fewer of the gun owners have issues which may influence bad use of the guns. Gun violence and crimes involving guns are extremely low.

As our population continues to increase and more people live in denser environments, it is logical and reasonable that we look more closely at gun qualifications.

Music Appreciation: Tears For Fears Trilogy

This article refers to the following albums:


The Hurting (1983)


Songs from the Big Chair (1985)


The Seeds of Love (1989)

There have been later albums. One of the duo used the band name for some of his work. Also, the duo reunited in the early 2000's. I am certainly not knocking the music during these periods. But I find the original trilogy of albums to be their best. And the 3 albums work together as a good set to listen in chronological order. Each album builds on elements from the previous one while moving into new territory, with The Seeds of Love being the pinnacle. I also think that the albums have aged quite well, especially The Seeds of Love.