Str_Fry's Xanga

Thursday, December 22, 2005

Thu, 22 Dec 2005 12:18:27 GMT

[From the Str Fry department of unabashed cynicism…]

Life’s a Dynamic, Stochastic Program (and a bitch)

On a recent trip to the airport, it was pointed out to me by an esteemed person that finding a parking space is a dynamic program. You forgo empty parking spaces that are further away in the hopes of finding an empty parking space closer to the airport. Therefore, you could select some number such that when you get closer than this number of parking spaces from the airport you take the next available space. If you choose this number too high, you will likely find an empty space but have to walk inordinately far. Too low and you may not find an empty space at all. But there is some optimal number that strikes a balance between these two outcomes, and this can be found with dynamic programming.

Str Fry has done a lot of research on dynamic programming lately and, in particular, stochastic dynamic programming. The “stochastic” part means there’s uncertainty—like the uncertainty associated with empty parking spaces. Hours locked in a room doing research makes one introspective; thereby, turning one’s mind to questions about life, death, and purpose. One conclusion that I’ve reached is that if one were to classify the human mind, or the mind of any creature, it could best be described as a computer that solves a giant dynamic, stochastic program: life. Some people take satisfaction in their careers, others in their families, hobbies, friends, sports, etc. Most people get satisfaction from combinations of all. The human mind makes decisions to ultimately maximize its total expected lifetime utility (or satisfaction).

Think about how wickedly complex this is. A single man who works instead of going to a bar has decided that the expected monetary or professional gain from working is greater than the expected gain of finding a mate. On the other hand, if he spends all his time at bars, he won’t have a job and won’t be able to attract a mate. So objectives not only compete, but interact. A person who spends all their money when they’re young and doesn’t save is at risk of having a decreased overall utility because he’s impoverished in old age. In the exact opposite case, people who save and forgo fun are at risk of either dying before they can enjoy their money or receiving less utility in old age from comparable experiences. For every person with a given life expectancy and value-set, there should be some theoretical optimal balance between all sources of utility.

A person who is “irresponsible” just has a myopic policy. They don’t look far into the future and only plan to maximize their utility over short time periods. They take the largest, immediate utility at the expense of a decision that will lead to a larger, albeit delayed, reward. If our life expectancies were short, we would be most successful being “irresponsible”; however, it would then be a misnomer to give it that name. As a person ages and has less time to live, it would make sense that they look bigger risks and took a more irresponsible policy to maximize immediate utility. It is interesting to note that this is in contradiction to the more conservative, cautious way elderly people behave.

Everyone’s mind has its own time-horizon capacity over which it can plan. Perhaps a mid-life crisis occurs when a person’s mind looks far enough ahead to fully-resolve their death and adjusts decisions accordingly for a decreasing time-horizon. Differences in the minds of animals can be viewed as a combination of both the complexity of their value systems and the time-horizon over which they can plan. Insects are just concerned with bare survival and reproduction with a planning horizon of a few seconds. Elephants have social interactions and a time-horizon of years. Humans surpass all—not only in our time horizon but also the richness and complexity of our utility system.

Trying view every aspect of life as a dynamic, stochastic program is too complex and obfuscating. However, a particularly excellent case-study is dating. For simplicity we’ll assume people just get married once, and there is some “compatibility” (utility) associated with a mate. We’ll also assume that a person meets prospective mates one at a time. The latter assumption is realistic even if you meet a group of the opposite sex as you can only get to know each person individually. Finally, it is assumed there is some time limit after which you will not get married.

Our assumptions in place, let us turn back to the airport parking lot problem. The policy of the parking lot problem is known as a threshold policy because there is a threshold that, once crossed, we select a space. Let’s consider a young person who sees arrivals of the opposite sex. In this case, only someone who is almost perfectly compatible will be selected because selecting someone of inferior-compatibility would almost certainly mean forgoing someone of greater compatibility who arrives later. So the threshold level of compatibility is high. Now let’s consider someone near the time-limit. In this case, the person expects to experience only a few arrivals in the remaining time period. Therefore, someone who is less-than-perfectly compatible may be selected as there is little chance of a person of equal or higher compatibility arriving in the remaining time. So the threshold for compatibility is lowered. Thus, the optimal policy for dating can be viewed as a compatibility threshold monotonically decreasing with time.

This leads to such gut-wrenching decisions as: Should you ever settle for less? If so, when? When do you release someone to chance that someone of greater compatibility will arrive? The first two can only be answered by looking at marriage as a part of total utility. In an extreme case of a person whose only source of utility is via marriage, the answer is yes; it is always better to settle. For most people, it’s a convoluted decision requiring computation of the tradeoffs between the utility of marriage and the lost utility due to incompatibilities. The last question of letting go is a crap-shoot and hard-luck judgment call.

Life viewed as a dynamic, stochastic program is both intriguing and depressing. It gives insights into our actions, but forces us to confront the finite nature of our existance. And if you’ve read this and don’t hope God exists, then you don’t understand what I’ve written.

\\Signed\\

(Introspectively)

Dr. Str Fry

Monday, December 19, 2005

Mon, 19 Dec 2005 09:35:52 GMT

[From the Str Fry department of movie criticism…]

Movie Reviews:

Last Wednesday I marked the end of the quarter by handing in a take-home final. Finding myself with a mounting head cold and nothing to do, I headed to Blockbuster and picked up five movies. Little did I know that by the time I went to sleep that night I would have watched all of them. In order of viewing, reviews for each are as follows:

Riding Giants (4/5) – This is actually a documentary about surfing and, in particular, big wave surfing. It gives the entire history of surfing. Starting with the ancient Hawaiians, it was banned by Calvinist missionaries and brought back in Hawaii as a tourist gimmick. Of course it really took off in the 1950’s and has been going ever since. Hawaii is the Mecca for big wave surfing, but other locals include Northern California and Fiji. There’s lots of footage of monster waves and bone-crushing wipeouts interwoven with an awesome soundtrack. You understand the passion of professional surfers. It made me want to head into the line-up and take-off on a gnarly wave!

Murderball (4/5) – A documentary made by MTV Productions about quadriplegic rugby players. A common misconception is that quadriplegic means a person can’t move his arms or legs, but it actually means impaired use of all four limbs. None of the players can walk, but all have some use of their arms. Murderball, as quad-rugby is called, takes place on a basketball court. Players have supped-up wheelchairs that they use to knock their opponents down. Unlike the gee-it’s-nice-you-guys-try aspect of most handicapped sports, both the players and coaches of Murderball are out for blood. The documentary focuses on the Team Canada coach, a man so hyper-competitive that ludes might drop him down to the level of Vince Lombardi. Quad-rugby is his life, and it’s sad to see his wife and son orbit as peripheral elements. Murderball will light a competitive fire in anyone and leave those who can walk thankful they can.

Heights (4.5/5) – Heights explores the relationships amongst a group cosmopolitan New Yorkers. The characters appear random and unrelated, but the arcs of their lives intersect as the story progresses. The films settings are intriguing and provide glimpses into very foreign aspects of big-city culture. Anyone who likes character studies will appreciate Heights, but it’s not a movie to watch just to munch popcorn and kill time. Heights is about blown opportunities and uncertainty, and all but the most stoic will be left melancholy and circumspect.

Happy Endings (3.5/5) – Maybe it was because this was the fourth movie in the line-up and my attention was faltering, but this movie left me in a lurch. It stars Lisa Kudrow, and I don’t know how to summarize it. It’s a dark-comedy and not uncreative. I could tell it was a good movie, but it wasn’t at my personal resonance frequency. While it hummed, I remained silent.

High Tension (2/5) – A French horror movie. I didn’t know this when I rented it, but the European license plates and asynchronous voice to mouth movement tipped me off. I refuse to watch dubbed movies, so I switched to subtitles. In French even people getting eviscerated sounds classy. The movie has a twist, so I don’t want to say too much. Let’s just say two college girls go to one of their parents’ homes in the country, and there’s an unwelcome visitor. This is a horror movie for anyone who likes horror movies! I didn’t get many laughs in the last movie, but this one more than made up for it. Say what you will about the French; but when it comes to blood and gore, this is the piesta résistance. One notable scene is when the unwelcome visitor first makes an entrance. The father, who opens the door, gets sliced and falls backward on a staircase. The unwelcome visitor appears to step on his head, but he is actually trying to put it between the banister rails. Having succeeded, the visitor stands behind a heavy, antique piece of furniture and pushes it along the banister shearing off the victim’s head—a scene no doubt inspired by the French guillotine! Copious amounts of spurting blood follow. If you don’t find that funny, what the hell can you laugh at? High Tension is an entertaining movie that is a broad plain with a few very high peaks. The twist is also implausible and borders on cheating.

Watched more recently—

xx/xy (4.5/5) – Three things to say: WOW, WOW, and WOW!!!

Friday, December 16, 2005

Fri, 16 Dec 2005 11:44:48 GMT

[From the Str Fry department of economics…]

It’s called capitalism, stupid!

Several weeks ago we witnessed those greedy oil executives being hauled to Capital Hill to answer for their sins. With oil and natural gas prices at nosebleed levels, oil companies posted record profits. Just prior to the hearing, Exxon announced a quarterly profit of $10 billion—more than any other U.S. company has earned in a 3-month period….ever. Far from being lauded for his success, Exxon CEO Lee Raymond was called onto the carpet to explain to a panel of senators how:

1) As CEO of a publicly owned corporation…

2) In one of the most capitalistic countries in the world…

…he is not really trying to maximize profits. This in itself is kind of funny because in a recent Fortune magazine article Raymond responded to the interviewer’s question by saying if given the choice between lowering oil prices or making more money, he would always choose more money—far different from the demure tone taken before the senators in which Raymond disavowed trying to maintain high oil prices. This is most likely a half-truth as his real goal was not to maintain high prices, but to do what any good CEO would: maximize profits. High oil prices were incidental.

It’s easy to understand why the politicians were so outraged. Private enterprise had just bested the government in responding to hurricane Katrina. Wal-Mart, anticipating the hurricane and routing goods to its stores that would be highly demanded in post-hurricane conditions, was operational and dispensing supplies long before the anemic FEMA. FedEx was also operational throughout the gulf coast shortly after the storm passed. Additionally, with the government hemorrhaging money almost as fast as its administration was approval ratings, the oil companies added even more insult to injury—they didn’t lose money. In an almost show-trial atmosphere, Democrat and Republican senators appeared united, boldly showing their outrage that anyone would dare infringe on their constituents’ rights to inexpensive gas. This was expected from the Democrats, who have been about as supportive of free-enterprise as Joseph Stalin was of free-press. But to see the Republicans, long the champion of big business and old money, gladly joining in was disturbing, but sadly, not surprising.

For years Republicans were known as the pragmatic, common sense party often lambasting the Democrats for their pie-in-the-sky social and economic ideals. Now it is the Democrats, in a reversal, who are appealing to common sense against the Republicans’ democracy by force strategy. It is only fitting that the Republican Party, if it can still be called that, is deviating from its fundamental economic ideals as well. Was it not just a few years ago that the current administration implemented tariffs—one of the most prohibitive of all economic measures—against European steel?

But like CEOs seek to maximize profits, politicians seek to maximize votes. Both Democrats and Republicans lambasted the oil executives based on principals—the Democrats acting on theirs, the Republicans acting in spite of theirs. This is a special case of a more endemic phenomenon associated with capitalism in the United States which is how selectively capitalist Americans are. Lots of people rail against Wal-Mart, the “evil empire.” After all Wal-Mart has put thousands of mom and pop stores out of business in small towns throughout the country. But did it? Wasn’t it the consumers who shopped at Wal-Mart instead of the local shops who put them out of business? And we all hate the sight of twelve-year-olds in third-world countries working in sweatshops, but who is willing to pay twice as much for clothing? The free-market is what it is. Wal-Mart puts smaller stores out of business because it is more efficient. No one wants to see children slaving away in sweatshops, but would anyone complain if the alternative was prostitution (which many times it is)?

I’m certainly not for allowing the gears of capitalism to grind men up as the book “The Jungle” alludes to; however, more times than not, interfering with capitalism and free-markets creates more problems than it solves. Take a situation in which almost everyone would agree interference is a necessity. For example the gas station owner who charges hurricane victims twelve dollars per gallon for gas. Clearly such profiteering is against any sort of human decency, or is it? Charging a normal price for gas, let’s say $2/gallon, means practically everyone can afford it. Therefore, a person who has a critical need for gasoline and is willing to pay $12/gallon to satisfy that need will be forced to enter a line with people who value gasoline based on their needs at $11/gallon, $8/gallon, $3/gallon, etc. The end result is the advent of huge, two-hour-long lines for gasoline. Instead of the highest needs getting satisfied first, they get no preference at all. Everyone can buy more gas than they actually need, and it gets wasted. The gas station owner being a profiteer is a necessary condition for efficient distribution of limited resources. The gas station owner should be considered a hero, not a criminal.

Many other examples of interference exists: minimum wage—artificially raises prices and unemployment, anti-trust intervention—punishes efficient organizations, Federal Reserve interest rates—incorrectly assesses the demand for money. There is an old Vietnam War era saying: “America—Love it or leave it.” I always felt this was the most myopically, patriotic statement I ever heard. It tells Americans to shut up and support their country when it is exactly their ability to be critical that defines America. As much as it pains me, I almost have to say: “Capitalism—Love it or leave it.” Under a free-economy, it can be win-lose or win-win; but very seldom is it lose-lose, if ever. Instead of criticizing free-enterprise every time we end up on the losing end, perhaps we should just let the free-market do what it does and say to ourselves: It’s called capitalism, stupid!

Friday, November 04, 2005

Fri, 04 Nov 2005 12:01:46 GMT

REFORM SOCIAL SECURITY: KILL YOUR PARENTS

Earlier this year, we all stood by and watched the pitched battle over Social Security reform take place in congress. Socialistic Democrats were for sticking with the old system—believing that everyone is entitled to a dollop of money upon reaching a certain gilded age. Sounds good? WRONG! There is scarcely enough money in the coffers to sustain this social utopia. Far worse, the Republicans were trying to push these seemingly innocuous things called “Personal Retirement Accounts” on us Gen X and Y’ers. The promise of a system that won’t deliver is bad enough, but the very idea of personal retirement accounts threatens to end our American way of life as we know it. Why? Because they purport that we Gen X and Y’ers, as individuals, are responsible for our own financial well-being.

How can this be? It’s our turn now to take center stage, and we should be able to reap the fruits of hyper consumerism just as much as the Baby Boomers before us. There’s more stuff to be had, more places to go, and more bling to fill our pockets with than ever before. Life experiences can be had with the swipe of a credit card, and credit cards can be had with no life experience. We have the ways and the means to get everything, and more! But it may never come to pass in a world of personal retirement accounts. While we are driving to work every day in our 3+ year old cars and slaving away behind computers trying to save money, our parents will be on the dole, kicking back with their monthly payments of OUR rightful money. Imagine never owning a house with granite countertops or a personal jet-tub. Scary, isn’t it? So what do you do about it? It’s easy—just kill your parents.

I know. I know. It sounds terrible. Your parents loved you, raised you to be an upstanding person, and maybe even sent you to college. (And if your parents did none these things, then you have no excuse for not killing them.) But did you ever think that maybe they did all this just so you’d make more money to kick back into their pockets later on? Aha, you didn’t, did you? Yes, they may well have spent 18 years raising you, but many of them will live off your money much longer than that. What we are is the sucker in a big scam. Liquidating the Baby Boomer generation will, not only ensure social security coffers stay filled to the brim, but also let us enjoy the life we deserve without fear of financial insolvency. Yes, we the hunted can become the hunters living off future generation’s money. As long as we play it smooth [and destroy this document], we can be long in our graves laughing by the time our children realize they’ve been had. So the problem is acute, and the solution is clear. The holidays are coming up, and that means there’s no scarcity of targets. You might want to even think about taking out a few grandparents as this can only help matters. If you feel a tinge of regret, just remember—there’s no sorrow so deep that a little splurge can’t cure it.

Monday, October 31, 2005

Mon, 31 Oct 2005 05:38:37 GMT

STR FRY'S DATING ADVICE RELEASED--FULL EXERPT BELOW

(FOX) – In what some are calling the most brilliant political move since Prime Minister Winston Churchill rallied the British during the Blitz, President Bush used his executive powers to attain Str Fry’s dating advice. “As a sovereign nation we have sovereignty, and sovereignty means exactly that—sovereignty,” were the President’s words upon announcing the end of what he dubbed “The Weekend of Terror.” Analysts believe that the final event that set the President in motion was striking of thousands of young, male disgruntled tech workers in Mumbai under the belief that, without Str Fry’s advice, they would never be able to get married. This threatened to drive the U.S. economy to a screeching halt as businesses could no longer get technical support for their Dell computers. In order to advert this, CIA operatives stormed Str Fry’s palatial mansion acquiring his much sought after dating advice. From a source close to the White House, Fox was able to learn the name of one of the operatives and get this exclusive text:

…Yes, but if I were gay, would I still talk to YOU?...

It seems like more and more the topic of conversation with my friends centers around the difficulties of dating. It’s the usual stuff….Girl’s can’t find Mr. Right; guy’s can’t find Pamela Anderson. This brings me to my point. Mr. Right is usually kind, funny, sweet, good with children, and then handsome (sometimes with a lot of $$$). Pamela Anderson is…well…Pamela Anderson might be a nice person too.

I myself have been stymied in the dating arena. For years, much to my consternation, I’ve repeatedly found myself attracted to girls with whom I have nothing in common only to wonder why later. I could sit down and logically think why I shouldn’t be attracted to a girl; but like a moth driven toward fire, I could not break the attraction despite my best efforts. I’d hear dating advice and advice about relationships, but nothing would help. Then, after a period of utmost and extended contemplation, I found the answer: Most dating advice assumes emotional sophistication.

Of course it wasn’t working. Like most [all] (straight) men, I am stuck with a stove-piped, slightly-above-par-reptilian brain. Hardwired as a seeker-killer, my brain has difficulty differentiating between its physical attraction for the opposite sex and its emotional attraction. It’s like two transparencies containing line drawings are placed atop one another on an overhead projector. Let’s say one is a picture of a Tyrannosaurs Rex with palm trees and a volcano in the background. The other one is….hmm….Pamela Anderson….and….a…..a….a giant beer can. It would be difficult to say which curves belonged to the Tyrannosaurs Rex and which to Pamela Anderson. By a similar supposition, the palm trees might confuse the lettering on the beer can in which case you couldn’t tell whether it was light beer which sucks! As an analogy, if we let one transparency represent the physical attraction to a female and let the other represent emotional attraction, that is how confused the male brain can get as to whether the attraction is physical or emotional.

This was a major breakthrough! I had finally found the problem. No wonder no helpful advice existed, what guy [present writer excluded] would write crap like that! The male brain just wasn’t sophisticated enough to break out the emotional attraction separately from the physical attraction. By comparison, women’s dating problems seemed small. At least they had the hardware to deal with the problem. But despite my breakthrough of revolutionary proportions, finding the problem wasn’t good enough; I also had to find a solution, thereby, helping millions of fellow men.

Foolishly I thought my new found knowledge by itself was enough to solve the problem. Sadly, I was wrong. I would go to a girl I had nothing in common with, sense the dearth of personality attraction, and yet helplessly watch my physical attraction take control as I became hopelessly enamored with her. For months I stood at the drawing board. I couldn’t sleep [more than 8 hours]; I couldn’t eat [more than three meals a day + small snack]. What to do? Then I had another breakthrough. Watching a reality TV show, I noticed that a couple of the male contestants were gay. Filled with derision, I was about to change the channel when I noticed that they tended to think more like females. But so what? I couldn’t just make myself gay, or could I?

The implications were serious. No man would want to make himself gay. But if it was for an instant and impeccably timed it might…it might…work. Such a thing had never been attempted. Would it work? Would it leave me permanently damaged wanting to buy a copy of “Fools Rush In”? Bravely, I made all the preparations to undertake the experiment. There could be no margin for error.

Test day came. I felt nervous. A cold sweat coursed down my face and my knuckles were white. I saw an attractive girl I had nothing in common with, and the experiment began. The physical attraction was extremely intense. I was enamored with her; I wanted to marry her; I loved her. No way could this technique possibly work. But I was committed. For one pico-second, I imagined I was gay and had no physical attraction for women. My physical attraction gone, I entered into despair. I was bored; I was listless. I got the hell out of there. Unbelievably, the test was a success!

So, that is the solution, gentlemen. To see whether you’re really attracted to a woman for the right reasons, just pretend you’re gay for an instant. This will benefit both sexes as women won’t have to waste time with guys who just want to sleep with them. But like all good solutions, conditions must be given under which this can be used. After all, the atomic bomb was a good solution to WWII; but we can’t just have everyone running around with nuclear weapons, can we?

So, here are the conditions for use of the “Gay Technique” (G.T.):

1. The G.T. shall not be used for any longer than 10^-8 second.

2. The G.T. shall not be used unless clearance from the nearest male is at least eight feet.

3. The G.T. shall not, under any conditions, be used in San Francisco.

4. The G.T. shall not be used more than 3 times in a 24 hr. period.

5. The G.T. shall not be used unless sober and drug free.

6. The G.T. shall not be used in prisons (why would you want to anyway?).

7. The use of the G.T. in the Middle East may result in stoning.

8. The use of the G.T. in Texas may result in stoning.

9. The G.T. shall be used at Super Bowl parties only if an ex-girlfriend, ex-fiancée, or ex-wife is present.

10. The G.T. shall never be used during gladiator movies.

I hope this solves much of the dating problems I’ve been hearing about. It feels wonderful not only help out my friends but also to make such a great contribution to humanity!

\\Signed\\

--Dr. Str Fry

Saturday, October 29, 2005

Sat, 29 Oct 2005 12:57:13 GMT

U.S. and North Korea Face Off for War!

(REUTERS) – The situation continues to worsen and has escalated to a global level. North Korean dictator Kim Jong II informed the United States government that he was training his nuclear arsenal on their country. Excerpts of the official communication are as follows:

“…As [you] well know, we are capable of the nuclear destruction of your country…You can impose your pitiful sanctions, but you will not prevent me from attaining Str Fry's dating advice and finding a meaningful relationship with a woman!”

The reaction from the White House was swift. Vice President Cheney made a recommendation for military action against North Korea to President Bush. Less than an hour later President Bush called a closed meeting of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Sources close to the White House don’t expect military action is emanate as it will take sometime to transfer the necessary troops and supplies from Iraq.

Meanwhile, Beijing has not been silent on the recent developments. The idea of United States military operations in North Korea was appalling to Chinese President Hu Jintao. In a rare and impassioned broadcast to the Chinese people, President Jintao called on them to strike down North Korea because: “If the U.S. stops expending resources in Iraq, we’ll never be more powerful then them. I don’t personally care about dating. Why do you think you people can only have one kid?” Several top-ranking Chinese military officials were remanded from exile and charged with planning an invasion. However, they were given death sentences upon reporting that an invasion was impossible as China’s vast population was not sufficient to drown enough bodies in the Yellow Sea to form a land bridge with North Korea. Later it was discovered that China is already connected to North Korea by land.

Friday, October 28, 2005

Fri, 28 Oct 2005 09:05:29 GMT

STR FRY'S DATING ADVICE DELAYED! RIOTS ENSUE!

(AP) - A press release was issued early this morning announcing that Str Fry's dating advice would be released a day later than anticipated. Many people had been waiting in line outside bookstores since early the evening before. Upon hearing the announcement, the crowds became enraged and began tearing up and looting much of the local businesses. Police Chief Robertson said, "It made the Ninth Ward look like a Sunday garden party."

One man interviewed voiced his disgust, "Everyone knows Str Fry solves all sorts of problems. My dating life has been in dire straits for the past nine years. Come on man, I'm fucking desperate." The man, who asked his name not be released, was just one of many voicing the same concerns. The much anticipated work, provocatively titled: "Yes, but if I were gay, would I still talk to YOU?" has been claimed to completely solve the problems men face with meeting bad women. But men weren't the only ones tipping over cars, many women shared equal outrage. "I am tired of meeting asshole men. If Str Fry can eliminate those problems, then it should be released for the public good. Why doesn't the President do something?" The White House was contacted but did not return this reporter's call.

Thursday, October 27, 2005

Thu, 27 Oct 2005 06:41:59 GMT

I wanted to put this movie as currently watching, but I coudn't find it on the list. It's a Japanese movie I rented a week-and-a-half ago. It's about a sexually dysfunctional, married couple who have an encounter with a stalker. The wife works as a suicide hotline counselor and saves a man's life who, surprise, becomes the stalker. The husband is a typical Japanese company man who is also a compulsive clean-freak. The stalker, actually played by the movie's director, "repays" the wife by blackmailing her with pictures of her sexual forays and coerces her to do sexual things (not to/with other people). He also manipulates the husband. Although it is indeterminate whether the stalker is "good" or "bad," the ultimate repayment is closure of the sexual gap in their marriage.

The movie had interesting imagery and background music to support it. It also helps (in certain scenes) that the wife, played by Asuka Kurosawa, is hot! I like Asian movies (Japanese/Korean, not Chinese because of censorship) because they tend to be blunt and don't feel compelled to water things down or sugarcoat them to make them acceptable to audiences. It's a take it or leave it attitude. Some American films are like this (most recently "Sin City"); however, I still see movies attempting to explain or justify excesses instead of just presenting them.

Enough on that crap....Str Fry has recently tackled the evolution issue. In keeping with tough issues, tomorrow Str Fry will present a piece that addresses a much more difficult and complicated topic: Dating. Yes, Str Fry will step away from his world of fast cars and fashionable clothing to offer an unparalleled glimpse into his inner soul. So stay tuned as everyone's problems are solved...

Wednesday, October 26, 2005

Wed, 26 Oct 2005 07:12:49 GMT

...Out In The Freezing Cold With Intelligent Design...

One morning last week, just like any other morning, I emerged from my apartment to go running. As I opened the door, a frigid mass of air enveloped me; and I realized that it was the first cold day of fall. More depressingly, I thought about how a couple months from now this would be comparatively warm. Hurriedly putting on my running shoes and thinking about what pace would generate enough heat for survival, I chanced to glance at the billboard across the street. The billboard has been home to many an advertisement since my stay at this particular apartment. Fast food restaurants, community colleges, and most recently Combined Federal Campaign have all found a home for their advertisements here. And lo’ and behold it had changed yet again. Excitedly, I looked at it. It said:

“Education Matters”

And below:

www.intelligentdesignohio.com

I barely had time to contemplate this before I had to tear out in a sprint to generate that much desired body heat. But since then, I’ve been able to stare across the street at my new friend. Angled just so, it’s almost directly facing my apartment as if to beckon me. Intrigued, I went to the aforementioned website for answers. I found a very professionally done webpage featuring a hi-res graphic of a monkey holding a human skull. Obviously some money was put into the site. Above is a message saying, “Everyone Deserves a Classic Education….It’s coming to Dayton November 1^st, 2005 at 10:00am.” So what does it mean…

“Education Matters”

My guess is this refers to the intelligent design theory movement. I still leave myself a margin of error. Perhaps it is an advertisement for an intelligent industrial design lecture run by brilliant intelligent designers, like those who designed the iPod. Or it could just be saying that education matters to design something intelligently. If either of these are true, then I guess I’ve written the rest of this in vain. However, on the off chance that it is indeed referring to intelligent design theory, then, indeed, education does matter. And that is because it takes a certain style education to accept bad science which intelligent design clearly is.

Without bogging things down with a complete, painstaking overview of Darwinian evolutionary theory and intelligent design, I’ll just stick to the main (perhaps slightly simplified) points. Darwin’s theory posits that life forms evolved stepwise from through random mutations that gradually develop into more complex systems, organs, etc. Intelligent design says this is impossible because of a notion called irreducible complexity. (Somewhat simplified) A machine is irreducibly complex if it cannot function without all its parts. Therefore, how could each part of a life form come into place in a stepwise fashion when they serve no advantage until all are in place? Hence, Darwinian evolution isn’t possible and life was designed by an intelligent force/being.

Hold on…..granted irreducible complexity is a hitch to Darwinian evolution—no arguments there. So why is intelligent design bad science? Because it jumps instantly to the conclusion that evolution is impossible, and life was designed by an intelligent force. No consideration is given to the fact that perhaps Darwin’s theory needs to be modified to incorporate other mechanisms or that maybe we just haven’t acquired enough knowledge of genetics and biochemistry to explain it. For example, already evidence suggests many of the proteins in the complex blood clotting process could have developed from digestive enzymes. If a thousand years from now we have found no way to explain the problem of irreducible complexity, then perhaps the theory of an intelligent being designing life is, indeed, acceptable. However, this is a case of people using bad science, postulating something that doesn’t lend itself to experimental confirmation, and jumping to an unmerited conclusion based on the merits of their desired, not scientific evidence.

Science is the realm of the empirical, and hypothesizing things based on “intelligent forces” is bad science. How can you experimentally test or disprove the presence of an intelligent being. In physics no one has been able to explain the presence of dark matter; that is, most of the mass of the universe cannot be explained by the presence of stars, galaxies, and known particles—matter you can see. There is an unseen, undetectable “dark matter” that makes up most of the universes mass. So why doesn’t anyone say that dark matter is the presence of a spirit entity throughout the universe? My guess is that it’s because physics has never trampled on religious beliefs like evolution has (at least since Galileo), so the same slipshod conclusions and arguments are not applied. Also, evolution is softer science and less mathematically rigorous, so it’s easier to disguise poor logic in conclusions. I’ve always believed that the world is self-similar historically. The same people who oppose evolution would have opposed Galileo and his conclusion of a non-Earth centric universe. After all, what was more earth-shattering: Galileo’s observations or Darwin’s? I think the former.