This is our March, 2007 editorial
Our editorials are often provocative; if we offend you, do not read them - Doug.
Go directly to 2007 March News
Would you vote for a male presidential candidate whose wife is an amateur prostitute?
Doug - 22Feb2007.
Hillarious and Slick don't want to be politically attacked based upon their personal records as individuals representing highest office in USA.
If you are a public person, if you are a celebrity, you have no rights to any privacy which, given your celebrity and 'public service,' affects all other individuals in your constituency. For example, if you privately are a pedophile or a rapist, you are unelectable, in Doug's opine. If you live with someone like that and protect their 'privacy' while expecting to be elected to public service, you are a deceiver and a hypocrite, an actor whose façade is false. You are like a 'family' or 'church' which covers for a father, a bishop, a 'catholic' priest, even a cardinal, a reverend, a minister who abuses children. As a 'public' servant, quintessentially, you have n¤ privacy 'rights.'
Ensembles of individuals which public servants refer 'the public,' must vigilantly "trust but verify," those who covet public office. Individuals' freedoms of speakings are crucial to any "trust but verify" regimen defense against you. (note that there is n¤ such beast as a 'catholic' monastic singular freedom of speech; and such freedoms are n¤t given by 'monastic authority,' rather taken by individuals who p¤ssæss quantum~gn¤stic free will...)
Bill Clinton, you are untrustworthy! We have your impeachment and character dissembling as evidence. Hilary Clinton you are untrustworthy! We have, at least, your cloaking of Bill's dissembling as evidence. Both of you have already 'proven' your untrustworthyness.
Of all candidates we know, both Clintons deserve more than anyone else to be disapproved verbally and in print, and vigorously at that, indeed based upon their personal behaviors in office! If situation were turned around that is what they would do and most of us intuit that as implicit and putative their natures.
Of course if you want your children to grow up to be individual political degenerates like Clintons, you clearly offer another topic for omniscussion.
What d¤ you want? What will you d¤?
See Doug's (n¤t so) humourous list of requisites for becoming a politically degenerate President of USA.
Doug - 22-27Feb2007.
Go, go, go: Barack, Geffen, and Dowd!
Let's hear it like it may be could be can be, n¤t as Clintonistas would have us hear it their version of like it is their version of like it was.
Howard Wolfson's schtick is about as wide as his pin stripes, err...ummm, skid marks.
Doug - 22Feb2007.
What about Wolfson's 'stripes?' How can he be so arrogant to threaten those of us who want to expose Clintonistas for what they really are?
Recall those FBI dossiers which Clintons illegally accumulated when they were in office? They still have them, and probably have data-based and cross-referenced them thoroughly.
That's one way they plan to get back, to get even with their conceived enemies! If you believe they won't use high office to take retribution on their enemies... Just watch and just hope they don't have a dossier on you. And be assured, if you fight them, they will accumulate a dossier on you.
Of course www is our source of 'fbi files.' WWW is our dossier on Clintonistas. There is enough on www to keep all 'pundits' busy indefinitely and certainly enough for build-up to 2008 election.
For sure, more Belinda Bubba-eruptions are imminent. Belinda (~conservative) is a very neat quantumesque~woman; at least Wullard, sometimes, exhibits good taste...but does Belinda?
And as suggested recently, Wullard won't resist future 'opportunities,' and some of those, possibly including Belinda, will talk: with perfect storm timing.
Just a thought of that is gratifying and assures us that they will save us from them.
A test: what decent woe~man would live with this? Hilary? Nag Hilirary?
Watch out Clintonistas! 'Da Cliton imperfect-storming Broads are coming!
Sampson (Judges 13-16) is about to get a hair cut. If we elect them, he may squeeze our pillars and bring our whole country down. (Is that a kind of plausible intra terrrorism?)
We've had eight years of inept and incompetent republikan't neokan't pond scum. We neither want n¤r need four to eight more years of white house petri dish politico-socialist necrolieb slime scene degeneration.
Quantonics Political HotMeme Legacy is a terrible thing to elect! Quantonics Political HotMeme
With minimum due diligence so far it's feeling to Doug, just now (1st qtr,, 2007), we may see Obama versus Giuliani in 2008. WASP-C males have had it (especially those 'evangelical' 'promise keepers,' and 'catholic' patriarchal hegemons, while perhaps excepting likes of Chuck Hagel of Nebraska). They lie, cheat, mislead, dictate, exclude, dissemble, distort, cover-up, and reduce USA to a banana republic state-of-us as a homogenized the people, the public. Enough!
Doug really and sincerely likes Obama except for two issues: his middle name and Jesse "Hymietown" Jackson as one of his "best pals," both of which concern greatly us. Why is Doug bothered by Obama's middle name? Isn't that a trivial issue? Putatively, yes, however Muslims as a group, as a global political-religious force, have yet to condemn terrorism and act to stop it. From Doug's view that questions Islam's integrity as a global power. It puts all Muslims one encounters in doubt, who do not exoterically and exegetically decry terrorism, even if their only Muslim artefact is a middle name. Again, "trust but verify." But what if they lie? We'll find out!
We can imagine those issues disturb countless other Americans of all colors and creeds. We look to Obama to exegetize both issues in a decent way.
His intuitions about our Iraq 'war' are impeccable. His positive message is fresh pneuma. His apparently black~gnostic foundations, make us proud, and really excite us. We infer a wonderful "do not do what you hate" implicate Obama individual Value system. A great example here is Rosa Parks. If, later, we hear him say "do not do what we hate," Doug will change his mind instantly.
(If you do not grasp Doug's semantics in that last paragraph read Thomas' Gospel #6. Elaine Pagels' opus, especially her The Gnostic Gospels, describes Gn¤stic Jesus saying "Do not do what you hate" as individual and decrying "Do not do what we hate" as social. Gn¤stic Jesus also said individuals should look within themselves to find G¤d, essentially implying that society does n¤t (may n¤t) k~n¤w G¤d. We agree! Modern world-society is dialectical. Dialectic blinds society, and individuals who wors(e)hip society, to G¤d. Amazingly, this is very quantum: quantum reality EIMA~animately says, "It is ihn us and we are ihn It." Here, we may view Gn¤stic G¤d as It.)
Doug has been arguing vociferously for a means for US public to recall any president and any political representative "willy-nilly." A great example is: hypothetically, what if Obama really is a Muslim undercover for terrorism? Doug does n¤t believe that! In n¤ way does Doug believe that. But what if Doug were wrong and we elect him and then find out he IS? We need a way to remove people like that and people like Bu()sh(), Cheney, and their 'administration.'
But we have a chance, via elections, to prevent people like Clintonistas from ever being elected, don't we? We had a chance to do that with Bu()sh() second term, but we fuxed up, didn't we?
Doug - 24-25Feb2007.
Genetically female is 23 pairs of XX chromosomes. X is a female chromosome. Females are pure XX, pure female.
Genetically male is 23 pairs of XY chromosomes. Y is a male chromosome. Males are, genetically, half male and half female.
In cuneiform V represents female and | represents male (ponder how | AKA Sheffer's stroke is classicism's ultimate symbol for dialectic...it turns out, males are the progenitors of dialectic). XX has four cuneiform Vs. XY has three cuneiform Vs and one |.
Genetically 23XX,23XY represents a full humanoid hermaphrodite! Simply we show it: XXXY
In cuneiform XXXY has seven Vs and one |.
Anyway you look at it males are in some sense impure, even say half hermaphroditic!
As you may choose to see human (and other mammalian) sexuality isn't a classical dialectical either male or female. Technically its either pure female and impure male.
To Doug, this manifests not male superiority, rather male inferiority. But Doug's view can easily be argued otherwise.
If you study ancient religious texts you will find that God, to ancients, is hermaphroditic.
Quantum reality says that sex is stochastic. All statistics tend to have modalities. Female sexuality then is single mode: a, for example, Gaussian single humped curve. Male sexuality, statistically, for example, is a Gaussian double humped curve.
In quantum reality, though, all modalities and omnistributions are possible. No sexual combination, no sexual preference combination, is ruled out. That's real!
To claim that sexuality is ideally, dialectically either male or female is just nuts! But countless 'physicians' insist on it. Fundamentalists insist on it.
Now we may k~now who all those real nut cases really are: dialecticians!
If you look at evolution of human genetic code, you will find that poly, bi, and mono-somial-extensions (-degenerations) of 'male' type (e.g., XYY (tri) instead of XY (bi: "common" 'male' modalities) or Y (mono) ) tend apparently to extreme harm (mono is usually deadly) of a resulting genome. It is interesting that pure hermaphrodites (i.e., 23XX,23XY, sometimes shown as 46XX,46XY) with full complements of male and female genitalia suffer little but social harm borne of an ideal expectation of a ideal male-female dichotomy. (WWW search mono and tri somia; monosomy, trisomy.)
Wide variations in human sexuality are stochastically 'normal.' Careful though, we must qualify and say, "Male (XY) and female (XX) sexuality are more plausible." Yet we must be even more carful and further qualify: "Too, our human genome is evolving rapidly now as we write." (In Doug's quantum sensibilities, tri lobes and tri, possibly Y corpora collosa are imminent in neo sapiens.)
We must learn to disavow dialectical notions of stable, state-ic genetic and preferential sexuality as classically, formally, Platonically, immutably ideal.
Males aren't sexually ideal, are they? They are n¤t classically, dialectically-either male -or female! They are quantum~both male ~and female! They are pneumatically (see topos) and genetically half male EIMA half female. A quantum both~and, a quanton(female,male) n¤t a either-or dichon(male, female). If we adhere ideal dialectic we must disavow males as dialectically impure. Dialectically "there is no Mu!" And "Tertium non datur!" Do you see why Doug screams and rants relentlessly that dialectic is bogus?
But, but, but are "Males dialectically impure?"
Is that what you want (what we wants is quantumly irrelevant)? Yeah, yeah, I know some feminists would love it. But is it any more 'right' to 'di' scriminate sexuality and sexual preference than it is to 'di' scriminate skin color, race, creed, culture? If you insist on either male or female as ideal you argue against sexual diversity. If you believe in cultural diversity, then... Ditto ethnic diversity, epistemic diversity, legal diversity, and moral-ethical diversity...
As always, Doug's answer to this (only) classical conundrum, irony, paradox, oxymoron is: Dialectic is impure! Dialectic is bogus!
By-the-way, Doug wholly avows quantum~omniscrimination. That is mostly what makes us individually human, adaptive, and potentially survivable. Omniscrimination, in any sense any view any complementarospective, is our qua. Having said that we must also say that dialectic is innately and intrinsically anti-human, anti-adaptive, and thus n¤n-survivable! We just showed you that. Do you finally get it now? Do you get that? Do you get that? Do you get that?
Our built-in intrinsic and innate subjective quantum~stage~stochastics permit and enable said qua.
Society carefully teaches us and dialectically trains us to forego our natural quantum selves. In that regard, classical society is d'evil when compared to its many quantum~alternative complements.
Again, given what you have just learned, "What will you do?"
Doug - 25-28Feb2007.
G¤d, dear G¤d please protect us from idiots who endlessly say "absolutely" as they used to say, "ya know."
"Ya know, ya know, ya know, but ya know, ya know, and it is so ya know, ya know, absolutely!"
Dialectically certain rap crap!
English language abused is so tired and dumb and lite rally stupid...
Doug - 28Feb2007.
December, 2006 through November, 2007 TQS News Archive of Prior Years' News
|JAN||FEB||MAR||APR||MAY MAY SE||JUN||JUL||AUG||SEP||OCT||NOV||DEC|
You are here:
|Topics:||A Novel Philosophy in Town...
|Parallels on MACInTao,
Latest Review Efforts,
Quantum Computing Breakthrough,
State of Union Lies...
|Apple-TV Network Hologram,
Wheeler's Delayed Double-Slit,
Should String Theory Predict?
|Light as Gn¤stic Choice, Gn¤stic Ch¤¤sings,
William James' on "Pessimism vav Optimism,"
|G5 Quad Increased Performance,
Elgato's EyeTV Hybrid
|Doug shouldn't beat up on Hillary Clinton, says Mitch in
Australia and other criticisms, and
A response to Mitch from DMD.
|A Quantum Love Affair, Elgato
Females in Medicine
FireFox Issue, A letter from Rick,
Doug saved best for last...
|Doug's Review Progress||Jolly's Fast VNC,
Dionne's Liberal Moment, and Defining Wisdom.
|On A Super Weapon against Earth, On Apple's OS X Leopard,||Pirsig vis-à-vis Dewey and Hume "...embraces radical scepticism..." ?|
March, 2007 News:
On Doug's Quantum Heuristics of Steve Job's Apple TV ... (See Doug's 30Mar2007 update and Neural Net m¤dal addition just below here...)
This is kinda clunky since Doug wrote it off top of his head, so to speak. No layout or plan or mental picture of a larger whole was involved. It just happened. As you already know Doug isn't as good a writer, perhaps, as he is a thinker. We think it's a fun read anyway. Clearly Doug is no Cringely and Doug isn't trying, nor does he want to be. Cringely is excellent at this stuff, and he evoked Doug's need to emit here.
Turn your quantum stages on... enable h-bar... throw away your dialectic... allow your thoughts to open, flower, and widely copulate promiscuously your many other thoughts...
Integrate memes of "hologra of video" as a precursor of "quanta as quantum computing with pictures..."
Analogize FireFox's recent update: incremental, fast, application restartable...
We are big fans of Robert Cringely's I, Cringely website and his work. We link to it on our Quantonics site index page.
You may have noticed Bob's 16Feb2007 article titled, Appeerances Can Be Deceiving: What's that 40-gig hard drive doing inside my Apple TV?
Teasing Bob, calling him "doctor," Doug left this brief note, 19Feb2007, on his busy forum:
Steve is creating a digita analogue of a quantum hologram!
You just described it perfectly!
Only once has Bob ever responded to a Doug comment, but not this time.
If you search that 16Feb2007 forum you will find only one occurrence of 'hologram.'
Take time to read Bob's article. Then ask yourself, "Did Doug nail Bob's description of Apple TV's architecture as hologra: a digita analogue of a quantum hologram?" (Notice an quantonics' ontology here: digita, then hologra, then quanta. It is analogous classical-formal-digital: a crude quantitative model of formal hologra (c. 2007: current bits and bytes classical 'digital' von Neumannesque architectures), thence formal-emulation of quantum~hologra (c. 2012 swag: of quasi~quantum computing with stochastic digita ensemble modelings as wave~hologra), and eventually real quantum~hologra as quanta (c. 2020 wag: of quantum~computing with qualitative quantum~hologra 'pictures' in quantum~reality every photon is a quantum picturing of quantum reality: a hologral~quantum and real time hologra~omnitoring 'video') )
For Doug digita is a classical analogue of quantum hologra. Architecture vis-à-vis emerscitecture. What Doug is conjecturing is that Steve Jobs and people who work at Apple are intuitive emerscitects. All Apple products express those intuitions re: product emerscitecture. Currently, they are limited to using mostly classical means to do that, but we see anticipation of great change in their efforts. Doug is writing this March, 2007 TQS News segment in an effort to demonstrate a possibility that his conjecture re: Jobs and Apple folk are intuitive emerscitects, and to re~interpret, hermeneut and heurist content and possible implications of Cringely's article. Doug has felt this for about 5-7 years and has been looking for an excuse to write about it. Cringely plated and served an excuse...
Doug isn't saying that we have a new emerscitecture in WWW now, rather that we can use its current generation as though it were a new emerscitecture. We might call what we are describing as potential Jobsian innovative exploitation with a view to future quantum adaptations from classical technology and techniques toward higher qua quantology and quantiques. Clearly though Apple TV offers Jobs a proprietary subnet opportunity to go beyond what we currently conceive as internet qua. We might view current WWW as an interstate ramp into a more holographic Jobsland. We are only pretending, a la Cringely, what we think Jobs and Apple might be doing. We are anticipating qualitative better in light of our personal experiences and observations of Apple's recent growth and rapid progress. Jobs is showing his competition, in our view, that quality is naturally above quantity, and that subjectivity is naturally above objectivity. Semper flux Jobslandicity over status stux Gatesicity. Bravo! Just like Pirsig taught us: "Value is Quality!" We intuit from Pirsig's SODV paper that quantum waves (hologra as phasicityings) are Value!
Cringely is worrying about why Jobs' Apple TV has a 40GHD.
Too, and longer than recently, Cringely has worried about bandwidth issues of WWW and how HDTV 1080 i(nterleaved scan) and p(rogressive scan) two hour videos can be sold and delivered real time to a market of 10s of millions of viewers world-wide. Perhaps only near real time. (If you think about this awhile, you begin to see an enormity of issues. Doug's position is that if we thinkq about WWW as a huge interrelationshipings network which can act like a hologram,...
...rather than thingk-king of WWW as a classical mechanism of dialectical pipes and 'highways,' those issues mitigate massively. Trying to do Apple TV using classical notions will fail consumer real-time and video quality expectations, in Doug's view.)
Brute force, an answer is to just hugely increase WWW mechanical bandwidth capacity. Cringely has had some great ideas, mostly involving Google and optical real estate, on how to do that.
But we think Jobs is taking an omnifferent tack. Let's be clear! What Doug is saying here is simply his own conjecture, his own heuristics. Doug thinks and believes that Steve Jobs is one of Earth's brightest folk. Given that, shouldn't we attribute much more innovative data emerscitecture than what Cringely is supposing? Yes, even more than Doug is guessing here?
Doug thinks we should view Jobs as a consumer electronics' emerscitechtonic. And we owe it to ourselves to, like Cringely, even though we are always uncertain, attempt to fathom possible approaches, even mimic Jobs. Two big reasons: it helps us understand, and it helps others keep competitive pressure high. Humanity benefits in evolving its own qua when we do that. But first Doug wants to offer three bits of history and potential future.
But Jobs needs to deliver movies now and as close to real time as possible with great potential for rapid improvement. What Cringely didn't appear to put together is an "better than brute force" answer to How? and its intellectual property proximity to Apple TV's 40Gbyte HD.
Last night (21Feb2007) Doug, via cable modem, downloaded an OS X 10.4.8+ update. It is a single 89.2 Mbyte file. It took about 3 minutes and 14 seconds to download. Our cable modem link has a max throughput of 550k bytes per second. That download used ~460k bytes per second, net, sustained for over three minutes. Not bad! Considering packet protocol overhead and parity, etc., we probably had most of our 550k.
But what if that had been a 2-hour video? How much bandwidth would that require? Depends. Screen area and color depth affect our estimate. Actual length of movie. Error coding and parity. Protocol overhead. Optimum packet size overhead. Progressive scan vis-à-vis interleaved scan. Compression. There are many factors. So we need to just make some assumptions and we can scale any factors to generalize our approach. Let's say that with compression our 2-hour 1080p movie is one gigabyte. Now that presents a problem for Jobs, actually for anyone, if s~he wants to deliver it quasi real time, given current www limitations. Notice that a 1080i approach will divide roughly by two on bandwidth since interleaving duplicates a pair of lines where every progressive line is theoretically unique. (Compression, if done line-by-line can take interleaving to multiline extremes. One meme which makes Doug's approach here even more enticing is that our holographic networking approach can be used intra video to do video compression which is even more capable than current classical and formal approaches. So, Doug's hologra meme as emerscitecture modality, especially as quantum emerscitecture modality, scales qua. A scaling lower limit example is intra qubit compression. Example: squeezing a photon, which in Quantonics is like saying "squeezing a fuzzon.") Have an epiphany. Imagine squeezing this
What is a key aspect of your epiphany? Your approach must be recursive, fractal!
Anyway, at 460k bytes per second sustained, how long will a 1Gbyte file take? 2225 seconds (assuming our bandwidth with ideal network conditions and no lower bandwidth bottlenecks, which Cringely appropriately worries much about) which is 2225/3600 hours or about or about 0.618 hours! (Notice how our 'God Number' Phi somehow magically appears. Wow! Really, it's just a coincidence...but fun to notice. If you like this stuff, see movie Pi. Is "the God Number" a fractal tell? Does it hint at an epiphany of quantum recursion?)
But should we assume that we can sustain that data rate? Should we assume that everyone has cable net? Should we assume everyone has Doug's bandwidth? Some have more, some less. Do people want 1080p HDTV quality? Full screen? As we can see, there are abundant issues.
So, assuming Steve Jobs is really brilliant and really innovative, and wholly aware of technology growth rates and adaptation issues...
Doug just thought to himself after reading Cringely, that Jobs would go hologra. And Doug sent that brief forum note to Bob.
But why did Doug think that, that Jobs should~would go hologra?
What is WWW today, at least in its own intrinsic qua? If you think about it, it is a huge formal, dialectical hologram. We just don't 'use' it like that. But we could! Since that is how quantum~wireless will intrinsically work, that is how we should be thinking about it and developing our products, using hologra memes now and anticipating a full quantum~holographic future. Recall Y2K? Going hologra now is a tad like someone deciding to use full computer program date and time codes in 1965.
What if Jobs wanted to just go ahead and create his own holographic subnet? How would~could~should he do that? Answer: Apple-TV! What an enormous proprietary product opportunity! And it beats bloody hell out of Cringely's BlockBuster video store real estate reuse approach. (Object-oriented reuse just propagates 'standard' (read ESQ) digital objects. Quantum reality simply isn't objective, n¤r 'standard,' regardless how one observes it. That is only one of many 'reasons' why Doug says, "Digital is dead!" To be even more general "All standards are dead!" and "MBO is dead!" (See Doug's proprietary wMBU.) "Architecture is dead!" and "Science is dead!" All classical dialectical accoutrements and penchants and human proclivities are dead! Doug - 23-27Feb2007.)
What if Steve has 500 movies to sell and deliver to, let's presume an initial public ownership of, two million users (which will rapidly grow to 10s and even 100s of times that many).
What if Steve takes those 500 movies and turns them into digita holograms, something pretty close to what we are describing as hologra?
"Doug, why would he ever do that?"
How does a hologram work? Oversimply, if we take a 2D holograph and project it we get a superb Bohmian "hologramic" reproduction of a 3D 'whatever.' If we take that 2D holograph and cut it up into (any number of) rows and columns, and take just one of those arbitrarily diminutive 'cells' and holographically 'project' it whats happens? We get a full 3D 'projection' of our original, but its resolution is reduced roughly proportionally to cellsize divided by fullpixsize. Now, use that as a metaphor of what Doug intends when he urges Apple TV should "go hologra..." Quantumly, allow us to think of a 'cell' as a partial said of a much larger and yet unsaid.
For Steve's movies and that long list of technical variables, we choose a cell size which optimizes delivery (and too, cell size may be variable). But we are n¤t talking about optimizing digita delivery now! We are talking about optimizing hologra delivery. Digita delivery is classically packetized, serial and EEMD. Hologra delivery is [interim classico-]quantumly packetized, parallel, and EIMA. If Jobs has to do digita delivery he has an enormous server problem, right? What does he do when 100,000 people all order same move within a 10 second window? (just considering his server farm...) digita can't! (by eliminating, er...ummm... redeploying it...) his server farm...) hologra can!
"Where are movies' said and unsaid hologra, Doug?" Post bootstrap (we estimate less than a month or two for minimum boot), steady state, on all those 2,000,000+ Apple TVs' 40Gb HDs all of whom have minimum said for all 500 movies and partial unsaids distributed randomly over others. Nobody gets a full hologram to start out. When we order a movie, it starts with said while other (net proximate, minimum latency) Apple TVs serve us (perhaps with some redundancy; redundants may be immediately reserved) incrementally, but not necessarily serially, all unsaid for that movie which we ordered, and do so faster than any homogeneous stream delivery could possibly do it. Streaming, apparently, not required! (we're guessing a total market in 100s of millions of units with 'razor blade' movie sales bringing another, at least, $25B in revenue beyond that...) To bootstrap this hologra approach, until whatever minimum number of Apple TVs are required to support hologra delivery, Apple will have to provide those units or emulations of those units on temporary servers. Google? Mayhaps. But when that crucial level is reached Apple TVs' client population will hologra~serve partial movies. What happens when Apple has new movies to offer. It simply downloads them according to their proprietary scheme to their Apple TV clients' HDs.
Our guess is that those could be 100Gb HDs whose controllers make them look like 40Gb drives. Other 60Gb is used for hologra prestorage of random cells of said and unsaid portions of Steve's 500 movies.
Now all Apple TVs become video servers who hologra~EIMA~serve video cells to whichever other 'nodes' have just ordered a movie! Benefits of using a hologra approach extend beyond what we have discussed so far including innate pseudo~random encryption. Too, it can be carried recursively to further depths within each cell offering opportunities for other kinds of encoding beneficial to sellers and buyers alike. Too, until quantum wireless arrives, this approach is both scalable and extensible. With quantum wireless, it becomes 'nonsense,' given quantum wireless is (will be) zero latency, unlimited bandwidth, self~cloaking, et al.
If you didn't see last month's piece on photonics.com's breakthrough, you should.
Doug took a simple approach to this assuming all customers could sustain about 250kbytes per second with no compression and this will work. With compression and a few other innovations this can be done well with much less bandwidth.
To do this approach, Doug mentally imagined each Apple-TV as a quantonics fuzzon. Said fuzzon becomes an attractor for a given movie when it places an order. Other fuzzons quantum~coherently feed needed cells from their preloaded partial cell sets to attractor. Let's assume attractor already has a preload of part of all 500+ videos that Apple is selling. All will have contiguous first minute or so of video and random other cells up to percentage which optimizes bandwidth and delivery time for any given movie under a wide variety of conditions.
Apple would like to ideally do fuzzons like this, but WWW is formal, mechanical, so...
We can classically model a fuzzon like this. We're assuming a fuzzon with eight hologra attractors. Each attractor is a QLO like we used in our epiphany graphic above.
Doug views IBM's cell chip as almost ideal for emulating fuzzons.
What does our hologra Apple TV net look like? This is a sub-sub-net delivering videos to a local area.
Jobs doesn't need a movie server for all. He needs an order server for all. His Apple-TVs become a mutual cooperation multi~society which spontaneously serves movie cells as needed to any attractor, with preferences for local subnet constituents.
Generally, this approach applies to almost any situation one may imagine, e.g., iVoting with implicit multi verification.
Since Doug thought of this, and doesn't know of anyone else who has thought of it, it seems elegant to Doug. If we guessed well, it might have seemed elegant to Steve Jobs too.
Of course, and again, this is all just heuristic conjecture on Doug's part.
We did this in a sense of wanting to offer a better interpretation of what Jobs might be doing. Apple-TVs are due for commercial delivery soon within Feb-Mar time frame, we believe. Clearly, no later than May-June, 2007.
Without Cringely, none of this would have been written. Thank you sir with our respect and compliments for evoking Doug's rant.
On Wheeler's Delayed Double-Slit ...
Doug has been a member of AAAS for decades. Though we do not hold their top level management in high esteem, their scientists and peer reviewers are excellent, though mechanical in tenor. Compared to some other science organizations AAAS, in Doug's view is an apex provider of near state of art scientific progress. A Report from AAAS' Science Journal is subject of a Doug critical review. Except for objective, quantitative language and dialectical classical thing-king there is little to criticize. Authors validate Wheeler's conjectures about how to fathom whether and while a peregrinating photon is atemporally, arelativistically (i.e., Einsteinian "invariant geometric interval" relativity, n¤t Quantonics' quantum~flux~relativity...), and superluminally aware of its whole environment in real timings. As students may imagine, this report is for Doug, simply fabulous. It jibes incredibly last month's announcement at photonics.com how all photons, independently in real timings hologrally and qubitally omnitor a QLOistic holographic quantum~phasicityings dynamic view of their whole environment. Photonics holographically-projected that single photon's view by slowing a photon down. It begs a quantum reality and puts another nail in Einsteinian relativity's coffin (via animate superluminal EIMA quantum~awareness of a photon).
At least one author of this report is a decades long genuine quantum~celebrity in Doug's opinion. What a thrill to see names like that sharing space and mentorship with younger folk. Excellence!
Report Title: 'Experimental Realization of Wheeler's Delayed-Choice Gedanken Experiment'
Experiment Performed at Laboratoire de Photonique Quantique
et Moléculaire, Ecole Normale Supérieure de Cachan,
UMR CNRS 8537, 94235 Cachan, France.
By Report Authors: Vincent Jacques, E. Wu, Frédéric Grosshans, François Treussart, Philippe Grangier, Alain Aspect, and Jean-François Roch (official contact at Ecole Normale)
REPORT locus: www.sciencemag.org, Science, VOL
315, 16February2007, pp. 966-968
Supporting Online Material:
Readers may notice that this experiment, based upon Wheeler's gedankenment, was performed at Henri Louis Bergson's alma mater! (See Doug's full text quantum reviews of Bergson's Creative Evolution, Time and Free Will, and An Introduction to Metaphysics.)
Doug considers this report extremely important for students of Quantonics. It weighs in, towards better for and on behalf of Quantonics via exegesis of Wheeler's analogues of some advanced quantum heuristics we offer our students.
Be aware that authors of this report are what Doug refers as "quantum classicists." Semantic? Classicists who believe in quantum theory, but only in its 'material,' mechanical, dialectical interpretation. You will read said authors and discover their-them using 'particle,' 'state,' 'entry,' 'ideal,' 'quantitative,' 'predicts,' 'perfect,' 'measured,' 'position and time [quantum reality imposes complementary n¤ncommutation of measurables],' 'separated,' 'events,' 'effect,' just in our brief quotes below. Of course, all of those terms are classical and in Quantonics they are problematic since our view of quantum reality is almost wholly n¤n mechanical.
Yet what their experiment discloses, even classically, lends credence to what we offer in a complementary n¤n classical quantum perspective. That is mostly why we want you to spend some time with this report. Authors say it like this,
"The striking feature is that the phenomenon of interference, interpreted as a wave following two paths simultaneously, is incompatible with our common sense representation of a particle following one route or the other but not both." p. 966. (Classical objective particularity is a misnomer, since quantum reality issi n¤t 'objective.' Doug - 28Feb2007.)
Doug effaced all intratext footnotes and diagrams, and only quotes above sentence plus three small, but crucial, text segments. Doug neglects descriptions of experiment's confirmation (as a superb way to verify test set-up; this is great reading for novices since classical maths for anticorrelation are given) of non delayed photon choice experiments. We encourage students and interested readers to read full text at home if you have a subscription to Science, at a library or at your place of work. Those of you unfamiliar with quantum mechanics' approaches to problems like this should read and reread this report. It will gradually "sink in." Our minds (quantum stages) are quantum~simple holographic self~organizing networks. Said self~organizing networks need time and exposure recapitulation. Do it. Show yourself what Doug says is so. See our QTMs.
Our first partial quote illustrates said Report's experimenters' motivations for their effort on Wheeler's gedankenment.
"...several delayed choice experiments have been reported. None of them fully followed the original scheme, which required the use of the single-particle quantum state as well as relativistic space-like separation between the choice of interferometer configuration and the entry of the particle into the interferometer. We report the realization of such a delayed-choice experiment in a scheme close to the ideal original proposal."
Classically an experimental set-up is mechanical. Classically, all observables are objective and mechanical too. If so, when a photon enters an experimental environment its mechanical behaviour should be unitemporally 1:1 correspondently predictable, absolutely.
Quantum reality simply does n¤t adhere classicists' canonic admonitions. This experiment shows that. Bottom line: classical 'laws' do n¤t work, in general, are n¤t viable in quantum reality!
Classicists want to be able to predict what happens to a photon when it travels through some experimental environment. For example, they want to predict which path a photon travels if it has two or more mechanical options. Too, when classicists refer a photon as "particle," they belie their assumption that a photon is classically objective. Rather, photons, as Philip R. Wallace in his Paradox Lost suggested are macroscopic phenomena, not point-like projectiles. Dirac's tourmaline experiment illustrates Wallace's conjecture well. Wallace also conjectures that targets are macroscopic too. See Doug's more recent June-September, 2007 efforts on photonic quantum~scintillation.
This report's authors attempt to mitigate issues of macroscopicity and classical relativity by these methods (following bullets oversimply describe this experiment's test environment):
Result is that experiment shows a resounding quantum violation of classical anticorrelation maths.
"Violation of this inequality thus gives a quantitative criterion that characterizes nonclassical behavior. For a single-photon wavepacket, quantum optics predicts perfect anticorrelation (i.e., a = 0) in agreement with the intuitive image that a single particle cannot be detected simultaneously in the two paths of the interferometer." p. 968.
. . .
"Our realization of Wheeler's delayed-choice danken experiment demonstrates that the behavior of the photon in the interferometer depends on the choice of the observable that is measured, even when that choice is made at a position and a time such that it is separated from the entrance of the photon into the interferometer by a space-like interval. In Wheeler's words, as no signal traveling at a velocity less than that of light can connect these two events, "we have a strange inversion of the normal order of time. We, now, by moving the mirror in or out have an unavoidable effect on what we have a right to say about the already past history of that photon." Once more, we find that nature behaves in agreement with the predictions of quantum mechanics even in surprising situations where a tension with relativity seems to appear."
Doug has a lot more to say about this. For now, let it sink in. Soak in it, mentally, for awhile. Ask yourself, "Is it appropriate for authors to view a photon objectively?" "Is it appropriate for 'science' to deny a photons' experimentally~apparent quantum~awareness?" "Isn't quantum~awareness one of nature's most nascent and proemial artefacts?" If you want more detail now, you cannot wait, see Doug's efforts on quantum scintillation.
Again, read this report! Still, she asks Doug, "Does this affirm quantonics?"
Yæs, m'l¤væ, yæs!
A science~correlative~religious afterthought, with Jesus as light, Jesus as ph¤t¤ns:
"John says that we can experience God only
through the divine light embodied [monistically, monastically,
objectively, catholically] in Jesus. But certain passages in Thomas's
gospel draw a quite different conclusion:
that the divine light Jesus embodied is shared by humanity, since we are all made [quantum~holographically c¤with~] in the image of God.'
Thus Thomas expresses what would become a central theme of Jewish and later Christian mysticism
a thousand years later: that the 'image of God' is hidden within
everyone, although most people remain
unaware of its presence.
"What might have been [quantum~] complementary
interpretations of God's presence on earth became, instead, [dialectical]
rival ones; for by claiming
[in Doug's view wrongly] that Jesus alone embodies the divine light, John challenges Thomas's claim that this light may be present
in everyone. John's views, of course, [under Irenæann and Constantinian Roman Catholic anti heretical duress
and orthodoxy] prevailed, and have shaped [warped] Christian thought ever since. For after
John's teaching was collected along with three other gospels into the New
Testament, his view of Jesus came to dominate and even
to define what we mean by Christian
[actually anti Christian]
by Elaine Pagels,
Readers please be apprised that Elaine Pagels was wife of Heinz Pagels a superb quantum physicist and one-time director of NYAS. Both Pagels are among Doug's favorite authors.
Pagels, et al., show us elsewhere that Jesus was Essene: quantum~Gn¤stic. Jesus practiced quantum~Gn¤sis!
Doug added a link, brackets, and bold.
Why show Elaine Pagels' paragraphs after a Science Report on Wheelers' Delayed Choice gedankenment?
Classical science is wr¤ng about light as particulate~photonically objective. Modern Christianity is dialectically wr¤ng about Light as Jesuit~only objective!
In a sense, both scientifically and religiously Light is reality!
Doug - 28Feb2007.
Watch for updates to this News segment. It is crucial in its relevance, its assisting Quantonics as relevant.
On Classical Complaints That String Theory has Made No Predictions ...
People who don't like and do not believe in string theory make a major complaint that string theory in over 40 years of its life has made 'no predictions.'
Financial Times 24-25Feb2007 issue, 'Weekender,' reviews a book by Lee Smolin titled The Trouble with Physics, 'The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science and What Comes Next.'
FT's Alan Crane reviews said text.
Critics of string theory are dialectical mechanics. When they develop a theory it is always formal, dialectical, mechanical and objective. Only formal, linear algorithms can claim to 'predict' single events.
Formal stochastic algorithms can 'predict' probabilities, but they cannot predict single events with Einsteinian ideal probabilities of either 'zero or one,' 'false or true,' 'wrong or right' answers.
So far science has limited itself to mechanical systems: classical mechanics, relativity (special and general), quantum mechanics (wave and matrix), and string theory.
Quantum mechanics and string theory both essentially disagree with classical mechanics and relativity. Quantum mechanics predicts probabilities. String theory doesn't predict.
Do we see an evolutionary ontology here? Doug believes and thinks that we do.
Mechanics (classical science) is failing for a simple reason: reality isn't ideally dialectical, formal, mechanical, etc.
But why does quantum mechanics offer superior results? It introduces subjectivity into a mechanical model of reality. It's that simple. What does that mean? Reality is genuinely subjective (radically stochastic) and only apparently objective (radically determinate).
What is it that classical scientists have hated about quantum mechanics since its inception? Its, as Einstein called it, Bohrian "subjectivity." Einstein and all his classical pals hate subjectivity and fight it and call it their enemy. They hate nature! Feynman called nature "absurd."
So when string theory solves problems without making predictions is that better? Is that worse? Classically its worse. Quantum really its better. Quantum reality is hermeneutic. It's animate, included~middle, and everywhere~associative. Classical science's canonic mechanics cannot describe such a reality well since it assumes reality is stable, excluded-middle, and everywhere-dissociative. What is one word that describes our penultimate sentence? H¤l¤graphic!
If you look at a string theory garden hose model of reality, as described in Greene's famous text, it looks something like this (we borrowed Greene's diagram from his original text):
Here we see simple strings representing reality's actual components.
How can we use that to enable string theory to quantumly anticipate outcomes? See that Möbius string?
What do we quantumly know about a Möbius string? It represents, it describes a fermion. A fermion represents waves (actually a pendulum's 720° spin 1/2 asymmetric flux pattern). Matter, then, is waves just as Prince Louis de Broglie anticipated. How do we mechanically represent waves (say, a wave)? A monotonic transverse wave is a probability~probability 'di-' omni-stribution. Let's show our Möbius as a local network of probability omnistributions:
We have just shown how to represent Möbius strings as a network of four probabilities- a fermion.
So, if we use quantum theory, a subjective quantum theory, we should be capable of expressing strings in such a way as to string~quantumly anticipate probable outcomes.
We must, first learn to dump dialectic and take up subjective quantum rhetoric. Why? Classical science is dead because it uses dialectic! See our acronym CTM for Classical Thingking Method. Real science has yet to do due diligence and show that to itself.
As Crane suggests, if you are a classicist, physics (science in general) no longer has a place for you. You are obsolete. Your rule is over. Your classical empires are crumbling...
That comment applies to more than physics and hard sciences, though. It applies to artificial intelligence, anthropology, biology, biononology, chemistry, biochemistry, cosmology, education, engineering, epistemology, ethnology, geology, government, law, medicine (huge near term impact here which is almost universally unanticipated), mathematics, metaphysics, nanology, paleontology, philosophy, physiology, psychology, politics, religion, sociology, and so on...
A quantum tsunami is cusping as we write and read this,
Doug 24Feb2007. (Minor typos, corrections, and updates - Doug - 25Jun2007.)
Thank you for reading,
Doug - 1Mar2007.
See you here again in early April, 2007!