Are we Gods experiment?

The major religions follow a similar line. Only the faithful shall enter the Kingdom of God. Whether it be Christianity, Judaism, Islam or many of the other major religions (excluding Buddhism and Hinduism).

But each religion makes exclusions. I mean I am faithful, I am faithful to my wife, I have faith that the sun shall rise tomorrow yada yada. yet I don’t qualify because I don’t follow their brand of faith. I must have faith in not just God but their brand of God!

They all claim to speak the mind of God, So they must be right.

So what’s the logical conclusion to this?

There is almost 7 Billion people in the world now, but they don’t all follow the same religious belief. The top ones can be broken down into a multitude of sometimes mutually exclusive sects.

Not everyone follows the same brand of religion, and according to the adherents only their own secular faith gets the right of entry into heaven. That means of the 7 billion or so people only very few actually have the right to go to heaven.

And that doesn’t include those who have already passed on.

What can this possibly mean?

Lets make some religious based assumptions.

1/ God is all knowing

Ok because of this God knew from the very beginning that he was creating people where the huge majority will end up in hell (at least Catholic Christians believe this).

2/ God is loving

What could the purpose of this be? Why would a supposedly loving God create man knowing at best most will be cast aside or at worst spend eternity in hell.

3/ God gave man free will

What does this even mean? How can you have free will when the outcome is already known?

Lets assume instead of there being one outcome there are innumerable outcomes all based on man exercising his free will.

If we assume there are as many different outcomes as there are people. So if we actually do the math on this a rough approximation is 7Billion factorial. wolphramalpha gives us

1.2550874172367861035137264048483017925786069073982… × 10^65875624912

 

Ok given the subject is God we can assume this number is a mere trifling and God can see all of those possible outcomes. In actual fact the number of outcomes tends a lot closer to infinity the above enormous number only relates to each person exercising their will only once in their lifetime. Given that each person exercises their will countless times in a day you can see how this number becomes even daunting for a god.

What have we learnt so far?

  • God created man knowing most will die wasting their life or will be punished just for being God’s creation.
  • Gods love doesn’t encompass those he considers unworthy. Plenty examples in the bible of God destroying those he dislikes.
  • God is truly great with numbers

If we can be so bold as to consider what God’s plans are and I don’t see an issue with this as if you ever ask a Christian or Muslim or whatever about God they are more than willing to tell you what they think gods plans are. So why should we be barred from considering the same question?

So assuming we wont be burned at the stake for doing what religious folk do every day we will attempt to consider what all of the proceeding means?

With so many possible outcomes what can be the ultimate goal?
With so many discarded lives what can be the ultimate goal?

To be honest I can only come up with one plausible answer. We are Gods experiment, God is trying to build the perfect human and each failed life is just one more experimental miss, discarded as the worthless life it was.

Eventually God will find that perfect being.

What then. Will God continue looking for another perfect being or will he be satisfied and turn off all of creation?

 

Where do YOU fit, Are you that perfect being?

 

 


Conspiracist Ideation and censorship

Conspiracy theorists attempt to censor research into their actions

This article on Ars Technica discusses the removal of a study into conspiracy theories due to pressure from the conspiracy theorist blogs themselves.

Here is the original now removed article. Fortunately the University of Western Australia is not so easily cowed by such threats.

http://websites.psychology.uwa.edu.au/labs/cogscience/Publications/LskyetalRecursiveFury4UWA.pdf

Now lets watch the Streisand effect do its work.

This article also introduced me to the term “Conspiracist Ideation” A great term :)


md5 is still good enough for passwords

I read a lot about how md5 is hacked and don’t use it for passwords blah blah blah

It is true that finding collisions in md5 is easy enough and brute forcing them with modern day computers is trivial.

But are they useless?

I Don’t Think So!

The following is based on someone getting access to your database because say you left the door open and they were able to inject some sql which revealed your user accounts. Sadly a very common occurrence.

The reasoning for not using md5′s as password hashes goes like this. I can brute force 5 Billion Hashes a second therefore I can crack all your passwords within minutes therefore md5 is terminally broken.

Well Yeah, That is correct if you don’t salt your hashes and you should! What is salting? Salting is adding random characters to the password to increase its complexity. It is done by the webserver or whatever program is using the password

It goes like this..

instead of

hash = md5(password);

you have

hash = md5(password . salt) ;// . means concatenate

Now if the cracker doesn’t have the salt he cannot brute force your password and rainbow tables and collisions are also out.  (rainbow tables are massive precomputed tables of cracked hashes)

The trouble with the above solution is two users with the same password have the same hash. That little leakage of information could be enough to crack the password.

So what you need to do is to add a unique salt, one per password. This then prevents two passwords having the same hash.

hash = md5(password  .  unique salt);

But this means you need to store your unique salt with your password. So if your database is hacked then your salts are also known! But it does give the bad hacker a headache they still need to brute force every password in your database with a different salt for each password. It makes it exponentially harder.

How about we add another salt to the system will that help? Yes it will!

If you add a third common salt to the system so that your algorithm now becomes

hash = md5(password . unique salt . common salt);

Then the bad hacker needs all three. As long as the hacker does not get the common salt then your passwords are safe. BUT DO NOT STORE THE COMMON SALT IN THE DATABASE!

If they have the database and get your common salt because you were silly enough to store it there then you are back to the salt plus unique level of complexity. Good but not great!

Remember this too, as a developer we can do all we want to protect our users passwords. But if users are stupid enough to use simple passwords and then share them across multiple sites then they deserve to get hacked.

To protect them from themselves when setting passwords for users always set a minimum complexity.

So go ahead and use md5 in the knowledge you are reasonably safe. Of course if they get access to your server then once again you are in trouble!

So the solution is two salts a unique and a common salt stored in a different media (configuration file)

AND insist on minimum complexity passwords.

md5 Is fast and that’s why its still a good choice for a busy server.

Of course you may have different reasoning so I’d love to hear it.

P.S. If you really want to give your bad hacker a hard time then add a counter to your hashing algorithm.

hash = md5(password . unique salt . common salt);
for (i = 0 to 1000000) {
           hash = md5(hash);
}

Big Bang – What triggered it?

The currently accepted theory for the beginning of the universe is “The Big Bang” where the universe was once crammed into a space immeasurably small, called the singularity. It then exploded and the resulting plasma from the explosion expanded and cooled and then coalesced into what we now call the known universe.

I have a problem with this. Go figure hey I have a problem with much of science!

Not that I want to hand a gimme to creationists but I have to ask the question “What triggered the Big Bang?”

Let me explain further.

Physicists tell us we can ignore the laws of physics at the start of the universe that the laws that describe our universe didn’t come into being until after the Big Bang, not long after but most importantly they didn’t exist in the singularity.

They say this because our physical laws don’t make sense within a singularity. Too many impossibilities are raised. but in doing so they admit to one rule still applying. the rule of logic.

If the rule of logic applies. Hence we can discuss the singularity then surely we can discuss what gave rise to the Big Bang.

So now that we have defined it is ok to even discuss the Big Bang or more precisely the singularity that ‘existed’ before the Big Bang then we can discuss the trigger.

When something changes, no matter what it is, whether it be the path of a molecule of air or the thoughts of a blogger or an nuclear explosion. it must be triggered by something. That something can be a lit fuse or a new thought or butterfly flapping its wings or a fracture or an impurity.  Nothing changes without something triggering that change.

So what changed that caused the singularity to suddenly destabilise the singularity and make it burst?

The Heisenberg uncertainty principle states that we cannot know both the speed and position of an element at the same time we can know one and only approximate the other. What is not clear is that the element does have a speed and a position we just can’t measure it.

Can this principle apply to the singularity. I don’t think so. From outside the singularity nothing exists and therefore there is no reference frame to make any measurement or observation from.

The logical necessity of a trigger, an external influence on the singularity necessitates that there must be an external force acting on it, that the singularity cannot just come into being and then once it has come into being spontaneously explode.

It is my contention this precludes a singularity, that there was no Big Bang.

That only leaves alternatives. Interestingly it gives us a view at the end of the universe, if the universe did not arise from a singularity perhaps it arose from a big crunch. That the universe is constantly expanding and contracting, this is an old theory that  many discount but this oscillating universe does not need a singularity.

 

 

 

 


Googles Instant Pages

Google Instant Page

Amit Singhal, Google’s head of search ranking, announces Instant Search at an event in San Francisco

 

Googles Instant Pages

“Google is ready to make waiting for Web pages to load a thing of the past—at least for those pages found using its search engine and the company’s Chrome browser. As a user peruses the list of results returned in response to a query, the browser will fetch and load in the background the page it considers most relevant. If a person does click that result, the page will load instantaneously.” src – technology review

What’s Special about this?

Firefox has had prefetch for a long time now. It was damn annoying. If you had a slow connection or limited bandwidth this could become very expensive.
I disabled prefetch a long time ago because it was detrimental to my surfing.
Rarely is google so good that the first result is the one you want. Therefore it will often be fetching something you don’t need. This smacks of an apple/microsoft like announcement. More marketing than truth.
If you believe google is so good then just click I am feeling lucky. which send you to the first website in the search results.

SEO (search engine optimisation)

From SEO point of view it means a site would get inflated hit figures for hits they never actually received because the user decided to click the second or subsequent link

Malicious Sites

Malicious sites could conceivably give you a virus even though you look at the result and think “Hey I ain’t going there it looks suss to me”

Cookies and Privacy

When google and Firefox combined in the past to do this I was tipped off by sites requesting to place cookies on my machine. even though I never visited the sites. I never accept third party cookies, to me this was an invasion of privacy, Hence the main reason I disabled it.

 

Dumb move Google and even dumber announcement. it so smacks of Steve Jobs*. Was he hired as a consultant on this?

 

* In case you didn’t realise it this article was written before Steve Jobs passed away


More Proof of Gods Existence – Morality

Another supposed proof of gods existence is morality. The claim is somehow that without God there would be no morality.

 

How Fucking insulting. I mean Really Fuck you, you cunts. Since when has religion meant morality.

 

Murder, Rape, Genocide done in the name of God, and that’s just in the last few years. Look back into history and tell me morality proves the existence of God. There has been more carnage, violence and lies in the name of God than for any other reason.

Hypocrisy now that may have been created by God, perhaps it is proof of Gods existence. Most practitioners of religion practice hypocrisy all the time. Take for example the false morality of Violence and Sex.  Violence is OK, just look at the western world video culture for proof of that. Its OK for a TV show to depict the gruesome mutilation of a human body, as long as no breast or genitalia is shown. The God fearing majority in America don’t seem to get it (other countries to a lesser extent).

Why is that? Its because the purveyors of religion use Violence and Sex to manipulate and control. If someone doesn’t do as you wish its OK to be violent. its acceptable. If you want to make up a reason to punish someone with violence, you use sex as the crime. Therefore Sex is bad and Violence is good. How fucking sick and twisted and hypocritical is that?

Do you believe forcing your beliefs on another human being is moral? I think it is the most immoral thing of all. Yet most religions consider it their duty to force their version of the truth onto others. Entire countries have been invaded to ‘save’ them. Even if it meant killing them in the process. Today’s terrorism is nothing more than the crusades of old.

Morality and Immorality are part of our nature. Evolution is more a driver of morality (as it is for love) than any external creator. To survive as a species we must develop morality otherwise we would tear each other to pieces. undermine others and therefore they would undermine us. Immorality must be set aside for a society to grow.

One only needs to look at godless faiths to see the folly in the claim that Morality Proves Gods Existence. Many of you might not know that Buddhism explicitly denies the existence of a creator. Surely then that godless lot counting in their hundreds of millions must be the most immoral society on earth (forgetting for a moment, countless creatures ignorant of Gods non existence).

In fact I would say Buddhist are the most moral of all ‘Religions’.

 

 


Why do your children resemble you?

In a world where religion rules and genetics don’t apply. You must ask the question…

Why do your children look like you? where do the traits they display in their looks and their actions come from?


Proof Of God’s Existence

When you talk to someone of a christian religious persuasion and ask them. How do they know god exists? their argument follows a fairly predictable path.

This image outlines how the logic works.

Proof of God

This is known as a circular argument and only proves that the reasoner is delusional.


Christianity and the path to proof (or why the rapture never came)

The cornerstone of all Christian belief is the bible.

Their claim is that the bible was written by God and is the sole source of truth. I am not going to dispute that today. its not my purpose.

No, the purpose of this little post is to question their interpretation of the bible. Being just mere men or woman how do they know that they have interpreted the meaning of the bible correctly.

Of course they have an answer for that. Their answer is always. ‘God told me”. In other words they are saying God spoke to them personally and told them how to interpret the passage they just read out of his book.

I am fine with that … until … They get it wrong!

Getting it wrong

As a topical example lets look at Californian preacher Harold Camping. He was the preacher who recently rose to prominence with his claim that the Rapture was to occur on May 21 2011. He is now advocating Oct 21 2011 as the correct date.

He came to the earlier claim based on his study of the Bible. Now assuming he is like every other christian I have ever met and I have met a lot. Then he believes he was right because God spoke to him or guided him in his study.

So and you can see where I am going with this, Why was he wrong?

Either…

  1. God made a mistake.
  2. God was not involved at all.
  3. God deliberately mislead.

God doesn’t make mistakes

Now of course God cannot make mistakes so we will discount the first possibility, A misleading God? no, which only leaves the second.

Christians are Genuine

If God was not involved did Mr Camping deliberately lie? or did he believe God was guiding him?

Again I draw on my experience of my time with Christians. That is that they are genuine. They genuinely believe in what they say and what is told to them by other members of the church and their elders.

Because they genuinely believe in what they say and what they interpret from the bible, and they genuinely believe that God speaks to them. Then I believe that both Mr Camping believed God guided him and Mr Camping was wrong, God in fact was not involved at all.

If such a devout christian as Mr Camping can be so wrong and still believe God guides his action. Then I must say he is delusional. Can their be any other conclusion?

So where does this leave Christianity as a whole? This is the point of my precis. They too believe God is guiding them, but as I have carefully explained above they can be wrong. Which sort of overwhelmingly points to them all being delusional. Don’t you think?

And the Bible?

So now I am going to break my my own little promise above. Ask any christian HOW they knows the bible is correct, and not just a collection of stories put together over time.

They will answer you. “Because God told them so”. But as I have already pointed out they are delusional. Then where does the bible stand as the basis of all truth?

I’ll let you the dear reader consider that question.


Too many idiots in the world

http://aaronmurakami.com/blog/2011/02/12/magnetic-fuel-saver-debunking-mainstream-pseudoscience/#comment-207

To the author of the above rubbish…

Your an idiot and the only possible purpose of this article is to sucker people into buying junk.

Normal ceramic magnets do not contain anywhere near sufficient energy to be able to pull hydrocarbons apart. to do so even a little bit requires a lot of energy. which is where the energy comes from to propel the car. also pulling the molecules apart even a little bit or a lot means nothing. Its a chemical reaction increasing the surface area of individual molecules will do little if anything.

Ok you want proof. Don’t be a moron do some empirical testing. Get some fuel the best quality you can, place it into a test tube (please observer safety precautions) support it in a stable manner. Very Very carefully mark the level of the fuel. Now place the strongest magnets you can in whatever configuration you think works. Now measure the level of the fuel again. Provided the temperature hasn’t changed (fuel readily expands with temperature) or none has evaporated off. you will notice no difference. Nada, Zilch. yet if the molecules were pulling apart then you must see an increase in the level of fuel because it would take more volume wouldn’t it?

Yes it’s true every material has magnetic properties.. plastic does, cows hide does even little green frogs do. Now if the hydrocarbons had any magnetic properties above that which all non ferrous materials have your should also see the fuel react to the presence of the magnetic field, perhaps creep up the side of the test tube. don’t you think?

 

Simply chemistry tells us there are no ortho or para hydrogen bonds in hydrocarbons. They occur when two hydrogen atoms form h2 as a hydrogen atom has only one bond it can bond to itself or something else it cant bond to itself AND something else. your diagrams of so called para and ortho hydrogen are not diagrams of them at all but is in fact a diagram of methane, in other words ch4.

Before you insult the world with your total lack of knowledge at least do some real chemistry


  •  

    August 2014
    M T W T F S S
    « Apr    
     123
    45678910
    11121314151617
    18192021222324
    25262728293031
  • Copyright © 1996-2010 Yada Yada Yada Blah Blah Blah. All rights reserved.
    iDream theme by Templates Next | Powered by WordPress
    Greeting cards, prints, gifts | Webcams | Carbide Tools | Add Link