Adam's Blog



Atheism v. Agnosticism


This is just a simple post to explain the differences between them.

Agnostic - The state of a superior deity is unknown or unknowable.
Atheist - The knowledge and/or establishment for denial of any quantity of deity's existence is true.

The difference between these is the fact that one takes the scientific approach and states that it's unknown because there is no proof for it, but the lack of proof against is also empty. Stating that the exists/doesn't exist problem is unknown leaves the option open to explore and ponder the question.

Atheists state that the answer to the question that agnostics/theists pose is that there is no deity nor is there any proof for it. This boldly states that because of the lack of proof that the theory defaults to false. This approach is not scientific and often used to bash religion.

Now, I'm an agnostic atheist; this means that I leave the question open to be answered (agnostic), but if you're asking for my opinion on the matter I'm an atheist.

- Adam
adam@ashannon.us



Schrödinger's Cat


Do you ever think about objects maintaining more than one state of existence? Do you think it's possible? Maybe not, maybe so. The [thought] experiment "Schrödinger's Cat" is just a test of that. The idea behind it is to provide you with a real life example of how fundamental (sub-atomic) particles exist and behave.

Schrödinger's Cat is simple, we get a steel box that cannot be seen into or out of (sound proof as well). Then we take and set up a contraption with a poison connected to a hammer. Attached to that hammer we have a device that measures the spin of a particle (we can just think of it as clockwise or anti-clockwise). If the particles spin is one direction the device will release the hammer and release the toxin, otherwise it will do nothing. The trick is that after an hour we have to decide (before we actually check) if the cat is alive, dead, both, or neither.

The answer is both, the state of the cat is alive and dead. We cannot know with specifics and the ratio is exactly 50/50 (this is because particles spin and decay are completely random [TRNG's]). So until we open the box and find out the answer is both.

One interesting tangent that comes from this is the idea that the cat can stay alive for ever. The only trick is to follow the rules of the multiverse, which states that an infinite amount of outcomes are always present. Thus if there is always a situation where the cat is alive, then the cat is still alive.

-Adam
adam@ashannon.us



Randomness of Browsers


Randomness of Browsers
A Trivial and Unscientific finding.

So, I often wondered how random the PRNG (Pseudo Random Number Generators) are in popular browsers. So I set out to see for my self just how they differ, the results are mundane and boring... (Unless you're a nerd)

Details:
- The JS/HTML code used is located here.
- The test is run 5 times in every browser and the results are the mean of the tests. (No outliers are thrown away.)
- Same computer used for all the tests (it doesn't matter what computer was used).

Results:
Internet Explorer 6 - [0.49999, 0.49982, 0.49973, 0.49981, 0.50031] = 0.499932
Internet Explorer 7 - [0.49982, 0.49988, 0.50017, 0.50004, 0.49954] = 0.49989
Internet Explorer 8 - [0.50012, 0.50004, 0.50004, 0.50007, 0.49945] = 0.499944
FireFox 2.0.0.20 - [0.49945, 0.49964, 0.50018, 0.49996, 0.49964] = 0.499774
FireFox 3.5.2 - [0.50001, 0.49990, 0.49952, 0.50004, 0.50045] = 0.499974
FireFox 3.6a2 Alpha - [0.50039, 0.50070, 0.50053, 0.49917, 0.49998] = 0.500154
Opera 10 - [0.49981, 0.49973, 0.50007, 0.49956, 0.49979] = 0.499792
Chrome 4.0.206.1 - [0.50000, 0.50016, 0.49996, 0.50018, 0.49957] = 0.499974
Netscape 9.0.0.6 - [0.50007, 0.49992, 0.49991, 0.50029, 0.50042] = 0.500122

Final:
So, what does this all mean? Not much, just the fact that unless you're in need of very random numbers the general browser PRNG's will suit your needs.


adam@ashannon.us



Free Speech


Everyone in America has the unalienable right to free speech, the fact that Google was forced to turn over the PRIVATE information of an AMERICAN citizen who was using her right of FREE SPEECH is unacceptable. Google had an authority to protect their users and the actress (Liskula Cohen) has no ground to sue Rosemary Port.

The only reason I can see for this is the actress felt that because it was "written down" it somehow held more value or "could remain there forever", honestly she should have just contacted Google and asked for the post to be edited or taken down.

If we cannot type/write/blog/tweet/ect. about how mad we are at someone then we have LOST our first right. Also by Liskula suing Rosemary she has only brought more attention to the entire issue, if she had even let it go then 1/1000th of the people would know it even existed.

People need to let these things go, you will NEVER please everyone so the most you can do is try to please the highest amount you can while retaining your self. If we let these little things get under skin I fear for the generations to come, for they may sue each other in primary school.

"Waa, He made fun of me because I have red hair, make it stop!!!" Grow up...

P.S.
I have a (now) mild speech dis-fluency, I have been bullied (hell I still get an occasional person who laughs at it) and do you know what I do?

I shrug it off.


- Adam
adam@ashannon.us



America Wake Up!


America Wake Up!

Why is it that America can elect a presidential leader (for 4 years) after only knowing about their existence for < ~1 year. Honestly, we should be learning about our LEADERS for at least their proposed term, currently we are electing strangers to LEAD our country.

Yet every 4 years we vote for a new LEADER after only knowing very little about him/her, it's exactly similar to religion we base our vote on faith, faith that they are telling the truth. Then Americans simply accept the facts which are neatly presented to them (and only those which can further each individuals personal neediness).

The general population doesn't seem to care about who they elect, nor do they care what happens, so long as their self "richness" is granted and protected. They could care less about their neighbor or that homeless guy who they pass every day, Americans just want everything to [and for] themselves.

People are opposing UNIVERISAL health care why? Because it would raise their tax dollars and allow the government into their lives. Wow, the government already has complete access to your information (Bush granted it [wiretaps, ect...]) and you're now scared because they know that you broke your arm being a stupid teenager? How sad....

America, it is mathematically IMPOSSIBLE for you to maintain this current state of double standards, you simply cannot take everything and not give back.

Americans, wake up and realize that YOU DON'T MATTER, it's the country that matters. You need to stop grabbing everything for yourself and give back to others. Grow up America...

- adam@ashannon.us

Videos: Cliff - http://vimeo.com/5636364 Human Rights - http://vimeo.com/4324823