Gestalt: Law of Similarity

The law of similarity is one of four visual perception laws as theorized by Gestalt psychologists. Paul Martin Lester, the author of Visual Communication, an expert in the field wrote: The law of similarity states that, given a choice by the brain, you will select the simplest and most stable form to concentrate on. This law stresses the importance of basic shapes in the form of squares, circles, and triangles.

What does this mean? We tend to group similar shapes together and often times, we try to attach some type of meaning to them. For instance, if we see a row of small triangles, we tend to perceive them as a row or line. We are less inclined to regard them as separate triangles, but we are more inclined to view them as a line of triangles.

Another factor about the law of similarity has to do with what we identify first when viewing shapes and Forms. We are prone to notice matching shapes, colors, and Forms (as opposed to looking for what isnt similar). Our human minds quickly identify patterns faster than the separate parts of the pattern. We like to look at how the pattern flows together. We love designs with repeating shapes, Forms, colors, and textures.

The Gestalt theory refers to how we see things in general. The Gestalt laws refer to how we typically assimilate visual information particularly from the onset. This does not mean that we do this all the time and never wish to look at things more in depth either. However , understanding the Gestalt laws are of benefit to graphic designers, because this knowledge teaches us to incorporate similarities in our layouts.

Another place where the law of similarity is at its peak is seen in retail stores. When retailers set up displays where the same product designs are repeated over and over, it looks really smart to us. In fact, sometimes the repeated patterns look grand! When consumers separate the product from the display and throw it into their carts, most often, the magic is gone!

Graphic designers are concerned with how information is received. Many of us receive visual information quickly and effortlessly as we gather information. If a graphic artist understands the law of similarity, they can anticipate what their viewers are noticing at a quick half-hearted glance. Graphic designers will anticipate how the product will look when grouped together in the store where the law of similarity is capitalized. This information can impro ve visual communication and save corporations millions of dollars on their advertising campaigns. (revised 2/15/2006)

Debbie Jensen, Graphic Designer and Photographer http://www.debjensendesigns.com

Author:: Debbie Jensen
Keywords:: Gestalt, law of similarity, Forms, Gestalt theory, visual communication, sensual theories, d jensen,
Post by History of the Computer | Computer safety tips

How Small Is Small?

It may not be quite obvious but the word Small is indeterminate. It is relative not only because it has to refer to some physical attribute but also it has a large range to it. There are Small stars and there are Small insects. It is even difficult to define the range, especially its lower end.

It had been clear even to the ancients that if you keep dividing something into Smaller and Smaller parts, ultimately it ceases to be a physical thing. It becomes an idea or a concept. The philosophers believed that all the multiplicity of things in the universe could be traced back to a single entity. Leucippus and Democritus thought that this entity was the Atom, which was eternal, indivisible, and indestructible. Much earlier a school of ancient Indian philosophy (vaisheshik) had stated the same idea that the Atom (Sanskrit word kana) was the elementary unit from which everything in the universe was made. Vedanta went a step further and did not even bother about the Smalles t entity. It proclaimed that the ultimate reality behind all existence was Smaller than the Smallest, thus making it formless and nonmaterial.

Not too long ago the Atom was considered indivisible even in science. We now know that the Atom is divisible. It consists of electrons, protons, and neutrons. Even protons and neutrons are composed of other particles known as quarks. In fact there are no elementary particles now; they all result from different configurations of vibrations (energy). Even though these particles (energy packets) combine in different ways to form matter in diverse forms, they are not objects in the usual sense of the word. They are merely concepts. Yet all physical phenomena can be correctly explained through these. The behavior of concepts cannot be described by everyday language and that is why the language of mathematics is needed for their exact description.

When we talk of division the first thing that comes to mind is a set of numbers. T he simplest division is division into two parts and the process can be repeated indefinitely. Take any number and performing this continued division you keep getting Smaller and Smaller numbers; thus you can get as close to Zero as you want but can never actually get there. At some point therefore it becomes meaningless to continue the process.

This is exactly what happened in particle physics. When it got to electrons, photons, and quarks there was no further splitting. Since everything is ultimately described in terms of wave functions, waves (or energy) must be the end point. The string theory in different versions simply leads to the conclusion that energy is the prime entity which gives rise to everything in the universe. Energy is all pervading and cannot be divided. In that sense it is also infinit e. It is both the beginning and the end.

The equivalence of matter and energy is an established fact. The transformation of matter into energy is well understood. The challenge to science now is to find how energy is transformed into matter. Ancient philosophies (Vedanta, Sankhya) have suggested ways in which this transformation occurs. These are, of course, qualitative suggestions and as yet there is no way to test them. But in physics also this is only a concept and the process of production of particles from string vibrations is yet to be demonstrated.

Dharmbir Rai Sharma is a retired professor with electrical engineering and physics background. He obtained his M.S. degree in physics in India and Ph.D. in electrical engineering at Cornell University. He has taught in universities here and also in Brazil, where he spent sometime. He maintains a website http://www.cosmosebooks.com devoted mainly to philosophy and science.

Author:: Dharmbir Sharma
Key words:: Small, Smallness, Atom, Zero, Limit to Smallness
Post by History of the Computer | Computer safety tips

An Overview Of Sacred Geometry

Sacred Geometry is the theory of dimensional evolution which assumes the universe is a living system kept together by the existence of a sacred geometry that encompasses the entire cosmos and makes for the blueprint for the manifestation of what we know as our material universe and in addition organizes the context through which all love evolves.

Our universe was designed to be highly efficient and is capable of performing a wide range of multiple functions at the same time. The very same geometry which provides structure to physical reality also allows for the perceptual environments that people and civilizations must move through as part of a systematic learning process on the path towards evolution.

Each dimension of this sacred geometry holds a unique place of perceptual space and a context of learning both for personal and social evolution. As each new dimension appears a new set of perceptions and potentials is awakened which we are free to accept and act ualize or ignore. It is in understanding the dimensional structure which exists all around us that allows us to be able to understand the path and direction of personal and social evolution.

Even though our modern science generally believes there is nothing of deeper meaning to the dimensional geometry of the universe other than the actual physical aspects, there is a view that is almost diametrically opposed to this that began with the Greek philosopher Pythagoras in 500 B.C. Pythagoras believed and taught the theory or belief that all of the mathematical patterns in the universe were actually expressions of divine intelligence and signified a divine intention.

According to Pythagoras, we are surrounded by organizational intelligence that is shown in its purest from through mathematical formulas and musical harmonies and allowing ourselves to be at the center of our experience; we can know and share the organizing patterns and principles that pervade the univers e. This is a thought that was even held by Albert Einstein, who stated that he received his greatest breakthroughs after praying and sleeping. The answers to the questions he was seeking came to him from the Universe while he slept! This is also the way that it can be explained for someone who is blind to be able to sculpt and for a deaf person, such as Beethoven to be able to compose intricate musical scores.

Plato, who taught over a hundred years after Pythagoras, continued in the teachings of Pythagorean thought in espousing that the universe or cosmos as Pythagoras termed it was a place of harmonious and beautiful order and placed such a high regard on geometry that he placed a sign above the door to his academy stating, Let no one unacquainted with geometry enter here.

Gregg Hall is a consultant for online and offline businesses and lives in Navarre Florida. Get more information on sacred geometry at http://www.emerald-energies.com

Author:: Gregg Ha ll
Keywords:: sacred geometry
Post by History of the Computer | Computer safety tips

Industrial Labor Versus Domestic Labor

Introduction

When an economic treatise is composed, there is almost no doubt that it is one based on a system of free, or somewhat limited, trade. The reason for that is quite easy to understand. Economics is a siocological study: it seeks to grasp and understand the fluctuation and mechanics of the interaction between people of the same society. In an economic system wheret he people are free to buy or sell anything they own at any price they want, there is a fervent interest of sociologists to understand what the rules of exchange are -- such sociologists who are known as economists. Questions will be raised: Why does this person sell this at this price? We must understand the interests of other parties: consumers, workers, competitors, and the rules that give economic strength to one party or another, or what causes one party to increase or decrease in the number of members.

The nature of people, in groups, a society, is studied by Economics. In a Comm unist economy, many of these questions are mute. While it may be examined by sociologists, to understand what kind of society it would be, it is almost completely ignored (and even despised) by economists. Why is that? Because the elements often traditional in economic study, such as competition or rent trends or price fluctuation, are gone. Private interest being able to regulate the entire economy is the basis of a Capitalist economy. In a Communist economy, the price, production, distribution, and consumption of goods is decided by public interest. The primary element of economic study, private interests, is eliminated, for the most part. But, in a Communist economy, the exchange of wealth between members can still be discussed. It is in this treatise that I hope to expand upon the idea of Communist Economics.

The Treatise: The Question of the Allocation of Labor

Before continuing in this treatise, I feel that it is important to define a Communist syst em accurately. By a Communist economy, I mean a system of production and distribution, where each person is paid according to the value of their labor. All of this is being regulated by the public, instead of being regulated by the private interest -- as would be the case if it was a Capitalist economy. With that said, I continue with this economic treatise of Communism.

When something is produced and sold as a commodity, it can be sold in various forms. Of the particular form that I am talking about, I mean the readiness of its use. Several hundred planks of wood and one or two tons of cement are less ready to use than a house; frozen vegetables are less ready to be eaten than a warm, cooked meal. Thus we have a variety of forms of readiness to consume when an item is sold. The production that goes into a commodity when produced to be distributed, such as a person cooking their own meal, this production I have decided to call domestic labor.

The importance of comparing these types of labor can be seen in a Communist economy. Since it is the collective that determines what types of industry to erect, they must choose whether to sell houses, or only the materials to build a house -- whether to sell clothes or only fabric. When examining the effectiveness of industrial labor versus domestic labor, there is no doubt that industrial labor tends to be much more productive. However, materials to produce something else - while of lesser exchange value - it may still be more desired. For example, a great deal of preparable food is probably more desired than already cooked food when going on a trip or a journey for days. Also, a person may find pleasure in building their own home, or cooking their own food. Sometimes those things which are considered irksome labor to some are actually a joy or routine happiness for others.

Increasing the preparedness of a commodity means the more industrial labor must be done by the whole. Allow me to demonstrate with an example. In one region, there are 2,000 members of the work force, half working in agriculture and the other half in manufacturing. Each worker works 1 and 1/2 hours a day, but no product is sold ready to consume -- it requires domestic labor to make it consummable (and by consume here, I mean use). Food is sold frozen, cloth and sewing materials are sold, and perhaps to avoid selling an unprepared commodity that not everyone is capable fo preparing themselves, apartments are rented. In the agricultural industry, there are four sectors: two producing wheat, those producing vegetables, and those producing fruit. Each sector has 250 workers. The manufacturing industry is similarly divided into four sectors: one sector converting food (such as wheat) into a more consummable form, one sector in extracting and refining metals, and 2 sectors producing a variety of goods, such as bicycles, toys, street signs, and other goods. Each sector has 250 laborers. In both industries, all sectors, each worker works 1.5 hours.

Each agricultural worker is capable of producing 3 meals for every half hour of labor, thus totalling 9 meals a day for their labor. This means 4.5 meals are available to each agricultural worker and 4.5 meals are available to each manufacturing worker (since 1,000 workers working 1.5 hours each day to produce 9 meals a day, that means 9,000 meals a day to the 2,000 working population). And though it is true that agriculture usually reaps its harvest not everyday, but at one time in the year, I am overlooking this fact to simplify my scenario.

Each industrial worker is capable of producing 3 pairs of clothes, 3 moderately valuable items of enjoyment (such as a toy or an electronic device), or 3 pieces of furniture every half hour of labor. Since each industrial labor works 1 and 1/2 hours, they will produce roughly: 9 pairs of clothing per textile worker per day, 9 toys per worker per day, and 9 pieces of furniture per worker per day. Again, I admit this may seem overly simplified, but if this is the impression the reader is getting, understand it is only because I do not want to draw a too complicated scenario. So, for 1,000 industrial laborers, each day, there is produced, 3,000 pairs of clothing, 3,000 items of enjoyment, and 3,000 pieces of furnuter. 1,500 of each item is distributed to the industrialist workers and 1,5000 of each item is distributed to the agricultural laborers.

Thus we have a vision of an economy in which each person is satisfied. Though each person's indsutry, of 1 and 1/2 hours of labor each day, each person has their needs satisfied. But, to demonstrate what economic fluctuation means in a Communist economy, let's throw in some variables to this scenario I above described.

Imagine that a new need is universally desired by this hypothetical Communist economy. Let's say that each person gains an interest in music , a very strong interest. Let's say that a factory by this population is activated to produce music CDs. Whatever the production rate and whatever the desire to consume is, let's say that it requires 500 laborers -- musicians, producers, manufacturing workers, etc.. The agricultural industry loses 250 workers and so does the manufacturing industry. What is the end result? Well, each industry of manufacturing and agriculture still need to produce the same amount with fewer workers. With 1,000 workers working 1.5 hours each or 1,500 labor hours a day, each industry is capable of satisfying the needs of society. Now each industry has 750 workers, and if they worked 1.5 hours each day, then they only have 1,125 labor hours each day, not satisfying the needs of the population by 375 work hours per day. Each person would have to work 2 hours a day, an additional 1/2 hour. Of course, they are trading this additional half hour for more luxury, particularly what the other 50 0 workers are doing to produce music products. Here we can see the obvious fluctuation of the economy among a Communist society. Perhaps the next year, technology will take a leap, and each worker must work only 1 hour. Or perhaps a natural disaster stirkes, and for 2 months, they need to work 3 hours a day to rebuild. Maybe the interest of society in a product or service will wax or wane.

I have accurately described the relation of industrial labor to other industrial labor. But, as the title of this treatise denotes, we must understand industrial labor versus domestic labor. For satisfying the need of food, an industrial laborer -- with the aid of technology and specialization -- would require 2 minutes of labor to perpare food. In a home, a meal of adequate satisfaction would require 15 to 20 minutes, possibly more, to prepare, that is to say, with the use of domestic labor. The question concerning how accurate this hypothetical comparison is should need not much be addressed. It is overwhelmingly clear that industrial labor is by far more productive than domestic labor. One man cooking food will perhaps be able to make 20 or 30 meals in one day, if he works every hour. But only a few people with the aid of technology and specialization will be able to make hundreds or thousands in one day -- such is the case with fast food restaurants. So, then, if this society, of 2,000 people requires 3 meals a day, in terms of domestic labor, this means 1 hour of personal labor a day. However, if each meal is produced via industrial labor, this means 6 minutes of labor per person per day. In total, this is 2,000 hours (120,00 minutes) of domestic labor for 2,000 people. But, if industrial labor was employed, it would be a total of 200 hours (12,000 minutes) of industrial labor for the 2,000 people. However, if the population opted to have all of their food prepared by industrial labor, thus saving them a great deal of labor and incr easing productivity by ten times, then each person must labor more industrially. A small force of people would be working to prepare this food and that means others in those other industries must work more, just like I demonstrated in the section where a music industry sprang up in this society. A person's total labor (domestic and industrial) might be 5 hours a day, if they prepared their own meals, but if food was prepared industrially, a person's total labor might be only 4 hours a day -- thus, saving them time and increasing productivity.

The next question that arrises is whether society would want to do solely industrial labor and no domestic labor. For some individuals, the normal, routine of day-to-day life make up desirable acts. Marx once said...

What he [the worker produces for himself is wages; and the silk, the gold, and the palace are resolved for him into a certain quantity of necessaries of life, perhaps into a cotton jacket, into copper coins, and into a basement dwelling. And the labourer who for 12 hours long, weaves, spins, bores, turns, builds, shovels, breaks stone, carries hods, and so on - is this 12 hours' weaving, spinning, boring, turning, building, shovelling, stone-breaking, regarded by him as a manifestation of life, as life? Quite the contrary. Life for him begins where this activity ceases, at the table, at the tavern, in bed. The 12 hours' work, on the other hand, has no meaning for him as weaving, spinning, boring, and so on, but only as earnings, which enable him to sit down at a table, to take his seat in the tavern, and to lie down in a bed. If the silk-worm's object in spinning were to prolong its existence as caterpillar, it would be a perfect example of a wage-worker. [Wage Labour and Capital, by Karl Marx, December of 1847, edited by Friedrich Engels, chapter 3: What are Wages? How are they Determined?

The worker's day does not start when he wakes, but it starts once his industrial l abor ends. Those acts of domestic labor, with cooking, cleaning, and maintenance of house, car, or items make up a part of their life. Perhaps those 6 minutes of industrial are less desirable than 1 hour of domestic labor, because the industrial labor is purely irksome (for most) and domestic labor is part of day-to-day life. Of course, the opposite may be true. A person may know that domestic labor is unproductive and believe that only through industrial labor should we work, as a sort of work pride ethic. But, then again, all workers must realize that every moment not working, whether industrial or domestic, is a moment to let them relax, enjoy themselves, on engage in some hobby or recreational activity -- or, something to challenge themselves in. There is a fact here that must be recognized. Communism must be practised with a respect to the fact that every human being is different, with different lifestyles and interests. To force people to live in a way that doe s not recognize them as different, is unjust and without appeal to either reason or justice. To quote Karl Marx again...

In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly -- only then then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs! (Italics mine.) [Critique of the Gotha Programme, by Karl Marx, 1875, part 1.

Thus brings me to my last scenario to be brought up with the Communist economy. In this economy of 2,000 workers, the previous fact must be realized and understood: each person is different, with different needs. One person may be very Thoreau-like in their needs: they only wneed sustenance and no luxury items. Being allowed to explore a natural world and indulge in all emotions as all that they need to feel happy and live their lives contently. Some people need a low amount of lxury produced by industrial labor, and are easily pleased by it. Others need a moderate amount, while still others want large amounts, and finally some want estates of luxury to feel content and happy in their life. Each person is different in their needs. Now, assuming that the extremes of needs for luxury contain the least amount of people and the moderate levels of the need for luxury is where most people can be found. With all this set, what would the economy in this Communist society look like?

With 2,000 people, let's say that 100 of them desire no luxury and 100 desire estates of wealth -- this accounts for both ends of the sp ectrum. Then for those who require only a small amount of luxury, there are 400, and those who require large amounts are also 400. Then, finally, there are 1,000 who want only moderate amounts.

Those who want nothing but sustenance work 1 hour, those wo want a little luxury work 2 hours, moderate luxury 3 hours, high luxury 4 hours, extreme high luxury 5 hours, totalling 5,000 industrial labor hours a day from these 2,000 varied laborers. Now, let's examine the output of each class of laborers. Those who want nothing but the bare sustenance of living work 1 hour each day. If in agriculture, that means 6 meals a day. That means they eat the 3 meals, and the other 3 meals are traded for necessities like clothing or housing (obviously money -- as much as it is detested by the labor groups -- will allow for easier exchanges). If these bare sustenance workers labored in manufacturing for 1 hour a day, that would mean 6 manufacturing items, of which 3 they keep and th e other 3 are traded for food. The 3 that they do keep are, most likely, necessities such as clothing and housing. Those who want minimal luxury work 2 hours a day. If in agriculture, that means 12 meals a day. That means they eat 3 to 6 meals, and the the rest are traded for necessities and luxuries. The translation would mean 6 to 9 manufacturing products, 3 necessities, the other 3 to 6 being items of luxury. If in manufacturing, the 2 hours a day of labor would translate into 12 products. Some are kept, others are traded for food and other necessities. Those who want moderate wealth, the largest class, will be working 3 hours a day. In agriculture, that will translate to 18 meals, most of it probably exchanged for luxury items. In manufacturing, that will translate to 18 products, some of it exchanged for food. Those who desire much wealth will be working 4 hours a day. In agriculture, that means 24 meals, most of it exchanged. In manufacturing, 24 items, so me of it exchanged. And, finally, those who want large estates of wealth work 5 hours a day. In agriculture, producing 30 meals, or in manufacturing, producing 30 products, all of which may be exchanged.

The essential ethic of a Communist society would be this: you will be proportionately rewarded for the work that you do. Those who do little work will receive little pay, as those who do much work will receive much pay. The premises that I operate upon are based on justice and fairness. With this treatise complete, I hope I have offered a good theoretical consideration of a Communist economy: its fluctuations, its dynamics, and its very basic mechanics.

www.punkerslut.com

For Life,

Punkerslut (or Andy Carloff) has been writing essays and poetry on social issues which have caught his attention for several years. His website http://www.punkerslut.com provides a complete list of all of these writings. His life experience includes homelessness, squat ing in New Orleans and LA, dropping out of high school, getting expelled from college for subversive activities, and a myriad of other revolutionary actions.

Author:: Andy Carloff
Keywords:: Economics, foreign policy, international trade, Globalization, domestic economy, macroEconomics
Post by History of the Computer | Computer safety tips

Guerrilla Mythbusting: 5 Snappy Rules For Spotting and Exposing Popular Nonsense

College students tend to wax enthusiastic about the lessons they pick up in class. Curiously, this very admirable trait, a thirst for knowledge, has a downside to it. When one learns at a rate best described as alarming, which college students often must do, little time exists to sit and sift through all that new material carefully. And this burdensome task would mandate yet more study time, which luxury few students can afford.

This means that, for very practical reasons, they will tend to accept readily the sermons that echo from academic pulpits. Consumers of media information have nearly the same problem -- a large flow of information thrust at them, and little time to sort through it. Election years only magnify this problem, and political candidates can grind axes with the best of them. When a scandal breaks out, the media blitz can sometimes blind even the more critical viewers. So we have done some of the extra homework for these groups to help them make the best of this unhappy situation. Here, we offer a clear-headed set of rules to disperse the fog quickly, adding daylight to the topic at hand.

As a first step in adopting a cautiously critical posture, we would like to introduce the rule, take careful notes and develop a long memory by referring back to them now and again. Spin-doctors count on the fact -- a most unhappy truth -- that most people do not remember what the sales script said that they fed to the masses last week. This way, when they later change the story, you can call them on it. If it's a political speech in question, Tivo it, so you can play it back when later when spin proponents deny that their guy ever said it in the first place.

Second, isolate the parts of the speech or lecture that seem to form the main points of the argument. Often this or that advocate will avoid stating the main points of his argument explicitly, only implying them. Make the implied parts explicit yourself by asking, what assumption(s), does this depend upon that he has not stated openly? Then write them down. For instance, if one were to argue, We had to attack his country because the guy is a tyrant, then note that this assumes -- unless otherwise qualified -- that we must attack all countries where tyrants rule. Given today's political climate, this would not promote a very promising course of action. So stated, we would have to attack almost everyone, starting with the I.R.S.

So remember to make a list of the important claims in question -- whether the speaker or writer has stated, implied, or simply assumed them.

Third, Always examine a claim by itself first.

This provides a fast and easy way to prevent reckless professors, for instance, from hoodwinking students into bogus philosophies (as is their custom). For instance, consider the popular claim, There are no moral absolutes. This would mean that claims about morality necessarily have exceptions. Evaluating this cla im by its own words, however, quickly reveals that it provides to us an example of a moral absolute. It allows no exception, while speaking to the topic of morality.

Ironically, then, the claim instances an example of just what it denies. The claim cannot be true on ITS OWN terms. Such claims would play the roles of felon AND whistleblower all at once. They represent a form of logical or propositional suicide, since they affirm by example, and yet forbid by principle, the very same thing. Look for these and you will find more than you imagine might suffuse popular chatter.

Fourth, compare and contrast these claims, assumptions, and implied assertions with one another, asking, Are these logically consistent with each other, or do they get along like Larry, Moe and Curly when the ladder-swinging begins, and the paintbrushes start to fly? Sometimes speakers will utter logically incompatible sayings within a very short span. So you will need to learn to identify them to note when this happens. Here, you will have located spin, exaggeration, unwarranted claims, or even outright lies. You might even get two-for-one.

For instance, when the U.S. invaded Iraq, it did so against the voice of the U.N. inspectors, who wanted more time. This shows that the U.S. (or at least the current administration) believes it proper to ignore whatever authority the U.N. might have when it deems it necessary. Yet when Iraq defied the very same U.N. authority (Saddam, as we say, dissed the U.N. inspectors) the Bush administration claimed that this provided grounds to invade Iraq. The Okay for us, but not for them trick is called the fallacy of self-exception. One commits this error in reasoning when he lays down a rule for everyone or every argument, and then arbitrarily excuses himself (or his position) from following, or being subject to, the same rule.

Finally, spin-doctors notoriously create mind-fog by abusing langauge. Sometimes they utter de liberately vague or ambiguous sayings. Sometimes they simply make fine-sounding claims and offer no proof. You have heard this many times: Our product delivers twice the chocolatey goodness and only half the calories!! (And Joe Fried-potato, who happens to be wider than your dining room, AGREES!!). The simple way to fight mind-fog comes from asking questions that clarify.

For instance, in your criminology course, you might ask Professor Plumb, Professor, you said something about a candlestick in a library. Precisely what did you mean by candlestick, and did you mean to refer to this literally, or as some sort of symbol that stands for something else? Press the point, when you feel that someone tries to sell you something, as it were, under-the-table -- and make them sell it over-the-counter instead. Make them say just what they mean, clearly and precisely.

Once you have a clearer idea of the nature of the claim he wishes to promote, you can toss it into the pool of noted claims to compare and contrast, first measuring that claim by itself, and then by checking it against the other claims in the pool. Some claims will swim, while others will plunge like the Titanic at an iceberg party.

Here, just below, we have collected a few of our favorite sayings popular on college campuses, most of which we have heard Professor Spin mumble more than once from his academic pulpit. Not only do most of these refute themselves, but they also don't get along with each other very well, as we will see. Our helpful and irreverent responses to these appear in brackets.

1. No one can really know anything for sure, when all is said and done. [Really? Are you certain?

2. All religions are equally valid [Most, but not all, religions deny this [But we are absolutely sure this is true anyway.

3. We must tolerate all views [except those which deny this[Which includes most, but not all, religions [but we are absolutely sure that the disse nting religions are all equally wrong[And, of course, we will not tolerate those dogmatic religions.

4. There are no ethical absolutes [And we mean absolutely none [Note: This claim contradicts #1, 2, and 3 also.

5. Slavery is wrong [Although this is true, we put it here so you would notice that it contradicts #1, #2, #3 and #4, which shows that claims 1-4 are false, but popular enough anyway.

6. Education is the key to solving the world's problems [Unless we count all the logical problems created by educated people (see above) who say impossible things. [Note: this also contradicts #1, #2, and #4.

7. Your western views are too binary [You see, there are only binary views, and non-binary ones -- which is itself a binary view -- oops [hint: all views logically exclude some other views [Which, of course, shows that NOT all views are equally valid [Some views, like the earth is flat are just goofy, and these are only equally vaild with other stupid ideas .

8. Religion is responsible for killing too many people [which implies that murder is wrong, even though this sounds like a moral absolute [This also contradicts claims #1-4, and #7. [And note that, if this statement were true, it would render all religions equally bad, not equally valid, whatever that might mean.

9. Bible-thumping Christians are too dogmatic. [It is written: Thou shalt not be dogmatic! [And we are sure of this [So, follow instead OUR dogma, even though it refutes itself [Which means that BTC's should not be tolerated, contrary to #3 above [And that their religion is not equally valid with non-thumping religions, contrary to #2.

We could go on, and have great fun doing it, but you get the point. This band of hired accusers failed to coordinate their testimonies in advance. And so many of the views promulgated from academic pulpits turn out just a little nuttier than Jif. Just because a confused-but-confident professor, politician, or spin- doctor says it loudly and often -- this doesn't make it true. So when she says, question authority, you might want to take her at her word, and start by putting her own claims on the chopping block first.

In any case, by keeping these five rules handy, you can arm yourself against all manner of rhetorical shenanigans and verbal skullduggery.

Carson Day has written some 1.3 gazillion Articles and essays on all manner of topics. These aim to glorify God and offer people real help to live wisely and well. You can visit Carson's websites at http://ophirgold.blogspot.com (The Omniblog, where Carson blogs everything) or http://extremeprofit.blogspot.com (Carson's Day Trading Outpost). Thanks for stopping by.

Author:: Carson C. Day
Keywords:: popular errors, college myths, clear thinkin g, identify fallacies, common myths, critical thinking
Post by History of the Computer | Computer safety tips

Lay Vicheka's Quotes on Humanity

Everything is not that serious; Want to be a singer; make fun about being singling, want to be a philosopher; joy with being philosophized.

Being educated is always better, because at least you feel guilty and conscious about your mistake.

Who and what can make a difference? That power lies within you.

Success means perspiration, so to be successful means to be perspired, and the more you perspire, the more you are successful.

Betterment only prevails when you urge and perspire for it.

Your teacher never tells you that you can challenge him/her, but you are entitled to aspire for betterment.

One of the lessons never taught in school is to be a leader. only you can teach yourself to be a leader.

Research is the best answer to anything, because it explains the issue based on reasons currently applied.

Learn to be a critic, because nothing is meticulous.

Commit yourself to sovereignty, not just independent.

No matter how the technology develops, human mentality will never be totally demolished; always be humanly sentimental.

Lawyer shall to taught to be a philosopher.

Question: Why education?
Lay Vichekas answer: To diversity you.

Question: Why mathematic formula is hard to remember?
Lay Vichekas answer: Because you are not the one who develops and invent it as the pioneer.

Question: What is the unique advantage of law?
Lay Vichekas answer: Systematize and generalize you daily conduct.

Question: Law never brings justice, but why do we need it?
Lay Vichekas answer: Never totally just, because the one who creates it is human and the one who place sanctions on the wrongdoer is anew; human. But if we do not have law, more injustice who apply to all of us, because the injustice applied to me may be different to yours. And of course if that injustice is equally applied to the leaders, philosopher, lawyer, commoner; all those called human, it would then be just.

Question: Why is it too hard to answer my teachers question?
Lay Vichekas answer: Because you are not the one creates the question as well as not the one who already bears the question in mind.

Question: I always to be educated, but up to today, I have never called educated, why?
Lay Vichekas answer: Because you think of wanting to be educated, but you never genuinely do it.

Question: You say that everyone can be a philosopher, but why not everyone can be a countrys leader?
Lay Vichekas answer: Because learning is free from everywhere, even from the sky, and because everyone is free to think as the path to learning. The answer that not everyone can be a leader, because there is only one position amongst all the population, but the position to be educated is limitless.

Lay Vicheka is a translator for the most celebrated translation agency in the Kingdom of Cambodia, Pyramid Translation Co.Ltd.. He is now hoding other two prof essions: freelance writer for Search Newspaper; focusing on social issues and students' issues and Media Liaison Officer for Cambodia's first on-line IELTS consultation website. Lay Vicheka is the expert author for ezine and prolific article contributor to other websites around the world such as articlecity, 365Articles, spiderden, talesofasia, etc (Just google him). He is also a volunteer Cambodian-newspapers columnist (Rasmey Kampuchea and Kampuchea Thmey). Lay Vicheka has great experience in law and politics, as he used to be legal and English-language assistant to a Cambodian member of parliament, migration experience (home-based business) and in writing. He is also member of a New York-based research company. Posting address: 221H Street 93, Tuol Sangke quarter, Russey Keo district, Phnom Penh, Cam bodia. Tel: 855 11 268 445, vichekalay@yahoo.com

Author:: Vicheka Lay
Keywords:: Philosophical quotes
Post by History of the Computer | Computer safety tips

Dabbling in Infinity

In continuation of my discussion on Infinity and its implications with the divine, I should mention that the concept of there existing infinities beyond imagination is quite difficult to comprehend. If you read my poem, How Can this Be? you read in verse the proof that shows clearly that there is no such thing as one kind of Infinity. (See my ezine article How Can this Be) The extension of this most curious fact is that there are actually an infinite number of infinities!

Occasionally I wax metaphysical in conversations with my uncle and the other evening we were discussing some points regarding the spiritual realms. In passing, I brought up the topic of Infinity and I asked him his impression of it. His response, which is typical of most people, is that Infinity is just thatInfinity: something that never ends. But how do we make this vague notion somewhat more concrete? I pointed my uncles attention to the set of natural, or counting numbers. This set comprise s the familiar numbers 1, 2, 3, .... The numbers go on and on, falling like dominoes, and never reaching a biggest one. This process is easy to grasp and presents no ordinary difficulty for the average person. What does become difficult to understand is why the Infinity typified by this set of numbers is not unique.

Now lets delve a little more deeply into this curious set of numbers and the topic of Infinity in general. This set of counting numbers obviously never ends. If you have ever seen a chronometer counting hundredths of a second, then you have seen how fast the digits representing the hundredths of a second whiz by, not appearing for any length of time sufficient to allow recognition of the appropriate digit. And this is for hundredths of a second. Imagine the same chronometer counting off thousandths of a second. Now imagine this going on from, let us say, ten thousand years ago and continuing for another ten thousand years, starting with 1 and such t hat each thousandth of a second would represent the next sequential counting number. Think of how far along in the set of counting numbers you would be. We could actually compute the number but we are only interested in trying to conceptualize how large potential Infinity could be.

Now that we have this huge number in hand, we could do whatever we wanted with it to project ourselves much further out in the set of counting numbers. We could multiply it by itself ten times (the mathematical way of saying we can raise the number to the tenth power); we could multiply it by itself a hundred times, a thousand times, and so on. We could then take the largest product and do the same process all over again. How big is this set?

This set is so largenever ending in factthat we should be able to use it to compare to anything else that is infinite, right? Wrong. And in a continuing article on this most fascinating subject, I will discuss how this notion of one univers al Infinity is completely wrong. Thus, if Sets of numbers can shatter our preconceived notions of a concept like Infinity, which is more or less universally accepted as something that is real, what more can we uncover by plunging into the mysteries of numbers and Mathematics in general? Stay tuned......

Joe is a prolific writer of self-help and educational material and an award-winning former teacher of both college and high school Mathematics. Under the penname, JC Page, Joe authored Arithmetic Magic, the little classic on the ABCs of arithmetic. Joe is also author of the charming self-help ebook, Making a Good Impression Every Time: The Secret to Instant Popularity, the original collection of poetry, Poems for the Mathematically Insecure, and the short but highly effective fraction troubleshooter Fractions for the Faint of Heart. The diverse genre of his writings (novel, short story, essay, script, and poetry)?particularly in regard to its educcational flavor ? continues to captivate readers and to earn him recognition.&

Joe propagates his teaching philosophy through his articles and books and is dedicated to helping educate children living in impoverished countries. Toward this end, he donates a portion of the proceeds from the sale of every ebook. For more information go to http://www.mathbyjoe.com

Author:: Joe Pagano
Keywords:: Counting numbers, natural numbers, Infinity, Mathematics, set theory, Sets, Calculus, Cardinality
Post by History of the Computer | Computer safety tips