Watson wins Jeopardy!

If you missed the historic win of Watson the computer on TV, here is the brief YouTube version, enjoy:

"Mr Watson—Come here—I want to see you"

Did anyone seriously believe that the humans could beat IBM's Watson computer in Jeopardy! last week? Did you seriously think that IBM would screwup the advertising coup of the year to Ken Jennings? I didn't even bother watching, but that does not mean I'm not impressed with the result. This was a major step since IBM's Chess contests with Gary Kasparov in 1996 and 97. Deep Blue beat Kasparov in May 1997, after first losing to him the previous year. That computers can play chess is no big deal these days, but understanding Jeopardy! clues, is another issue.
Next year (2012) is The Alan Turing Year and maybe IBM is planning to crack the Turing Test and win the Loebner Prize for the first computer to fool humans into thinking they are talking to a human, maybe. Passing The Turing Test would be a major step in Artificial Intelligence research and since it took 25 researchers and four years to teach Watson to play Jeopardy!, I have my doubts.
Both chess and Jeopardy! have much in common, they are both games, somewhat predictable with rules, although Jeopardy! is much broader in scope, and more difficult because of the language aspect, neither really compares well to real life situations. However if the "real-life" situation is somewhat confined to a particular occupation, Watson may become an interesting help mate. This link will open a TED webpage that features a discussion with one of Watson's creators and some of the implications of this type of technology.
It seems Canadian medical schools are being accused of bad-mouthing family practitioners at a time when a shortage of this type of physician is possible because of aging boomers like me. Medical schools seem to have a bias to specialties for their students instead of family practice, and as a result less than one-third of medical students show interest in that field.
Here is a possible role for Watson, that is, program it so that it might be able to interact with human patients in a medical practice. Could Watson in real time assist in diagnosing ailments while freeing up physicians to do physical exams or other things? One of the major complaints that I can see in Canadian medicine is face time with physicians so that they can hear the patient's whole story. Of course this is the value of the family practitioner, s/he can discover all aspects of patient health IF they had the time. Furthermore, computers never have bad days, spats with their spouse or partner, headaches or get sidetracked by chatty patients. Computers will execute their program, ask ALL the pertinent questions, and a nuanced computer like a Watson, could get a useful chunk of data that a human doctor could miss. It's a thought anyway, but not that far-fetched as you can see here. 

Welcome to New Hampshire.....

No income tax, no general sales tax, less taxes in general and relatively limited government, if you think like a libertarian, you might like New Hampshire.
ReasonTV has a very interesting interview with one of the producers of a documentary that:  "follows one man who is walking across the country to raise awareness about the Free State Project, another who already moved to New Hampshire and works as an advocate for medical marijuana patients, and a Ron Paul-inspired teenager who decides to leave his friends and family in California to live in New Hampshire."

Behind the scenes at the movie Atlas Shrugged

Enjoy these two short clips of the movie version of Atlas Shrugged Part 1, including interviews from the director, the screen play writer and various actors.  Thanks to ReasonTV.

Do you wonder why government always gets bigger?

Here is why (one reason) governments are going broke all over. Imagine, if we all could work for government, we would all be doing quite well? From the National Post.

Ontario Power Generation: under poor management

Poor management! Without looking at the back story, how else can the dramatic rise of the price of electricity in Ontario be explained? When input fuel costs have actually dropped (natural gas), and other costs have been relatively stable, why is your electrical utility bill more expensive today than one year ago? The pamphlet (at left) attempts to explain the reasons behind the huge price increases. I've always been under the impression that the job of management involves using resources in the most efficient way to achieve the best service for the most competitive price. But when there is no competition, and when management has an agenda that is at odds with the needs of customers, what else can you expect?

The Liberal government of Dalton McGuinty manages the operation of Ontario Power Generation (OPG). Here is what OPG says on its website: OPG is an Ontario-based electricity generation company whose principal business is the generation and sale of electricity in Ontario. OPG was established under the Business Corporations Act (Ontario) in 1999 and is wholly owned by the Province of Ontario. "Wholly owned by the Province of Ontario," the government sets policy, and plans future projects that often require huge amounts of capital investment and sets the course for the future prosperity (or lack thereof) of the Province. Therefore a major component of the wealth of Ontario is centrally planned at Queen's Park, right or wrong, that is a fact. The OPG website says the right things, but somehow their comments are at odds with the McGuinty Liberals: Our focus is on the efficient production and sale of electricity from our generation assets, while operating in a safe, open and environmentally responsible manner. "Efficient production," I beg to differ. Below you see my first YouTube video attempt, which outlines the pricing plans of Dalton McGuinty. I hope to follow this up with others. By the way, a job review (general election) for management comes up on Oct. 6, 2011.

Flag Day in Canada is not......

Today was another unheralded Flag Day here in the Great White North, the 46th since Feb. 15, 1965, barely a mention in the media. The fact that it is unheralded says something interesting about Canadians. I'm not sure what that something is, but I like it. It's certainly not that we aren't patriotic, just cast your thoughts back one year to the Vancouver Olympics and you will change your mind on that.
However, I do know what this day and the flag does NOT say.  It does not say 'country-first,' an irrational phrase often heard in the US. It does not say that we have socialized medicine, it does not say that we take care of each other, in fact when the flag was first introduced the government sector was much smaller, and the welfare state was just in its infancy.
I would hope that the flag says to the world that the individual Canadian is proud, responsible for him/herself, and stands alone like that red maple leaf on the white background (see the first line). Our flag represents a place on a map, where we the inhabitants should cherish a common law that includes protecting the rights of those individuals who live there. It also is an invitation sent to the world, come here and adopt our ways and you can to live in freedom.

Canadian Federal Election? Would anything change?

A Valentine's Day poll produced by Angus Reid and presented in the National Post today, shows the country is falling back in love with Stephen Harper and the Conservatives.
The recent noise coming out of Ottawa that a spring election was imminent, may have been squelched by the ad hominem attacks on Michael Ignatieff. Maybe the ads worked, maybe not.
I've been looking at "Education" with a jaundiced-eye in the last few days and I was intrigued by the poll graphic at left. Take a look at the bottom part: Which party would you support?
It has always been my contention that there really is no difference between the major parties in Canada (or the United States). Of course the main-stream media would never admit this because then they would have very little news to discuss on a daily basis, and polls like this one would be meaningless. Canadian main-stream media like to portray the Harper Conservatives as right wing, the Liberals as centrist, and the NDP as leftists. I think they ALL advocate statism: the principle or policy of concentrating extensive economic, political, and related controls in the state at the cost of individual liberty. All the parties shown in this graphic would use the coercive power of the state to effect their particular pet policies. But I've digressed, back to the bottom of the graphic: Which party would you support?
The 18 to 34 age bracket, those that have most recently come out of schools, and so presumably are still most influenced by what they learned, they would vote quite differently than the rest of the population. This group is fairly evenly split between the three major parties, why is that? Does this mean that this group sees little difference between the parties? Does this mean that this group is not influenced by the mainstream media's portrayal of the three parties? Both of those questions may be true, but also worth noting is that the total shown for this age bracket is only 74%, so 26% of this demographic (a fairly significant chunk) would choose some of the minor parties or no one. Of course this age group (18-34) is the most apathetic in terms of voting. Apathy could mean disinterest, or it could mean resignation, as in it doesn't make a difference. Maybe they know something?

The School Sucks Project - Part 1

Our Prussian Education

I once worked for the largest school board in Canada. Over those many years, I was a part of several curriculum revisions, several attempts to change the way material was presented, other attempts to improve the system, and all sorts of tweaking and adjustments along the way. Always at the back of my mind I wondered why it was, that so late into the 20th Century, the education of our young people had not been perfected. Teachers and administrators were still tinkering with, and trying to perfect our educational model. Huge amounts of money were being spent (much of it misspent in my estimation) and still a significant proportion of our young people fell by the wayside, unable to cope within the system and often left with no other options but to leave. Where else would this type of incompetence be tolerated? Imagine if medicine or industry failed at the same rate as the school systems fails its clients? In Ontario, about 12% of the population do not complete high school, slightly less than the average for Canada. In the United States huge spending increases over the past 40 years do not translate to improvements in Math or Reading scores, according to charts like this one.  One can only conclude that somehow the original model IS the problem.
From a libertarian point-of-view the educational model in North America is wrong by its very nature. How can a system that is coercive at all levels, deliver a service that is tailor-made for individual children? Can our educational model produce individuals who are responsible and qualified to care for themselves? Are these individuals able to maximize their potential abilities and achieve their goals? Why do we tolerate a system that can't deliver that type of service? Can we change it?
All these questions need to be addressed, but first, its worth looking at the origins of the system of education that pervades Canada and The United States and proceed from there. The following video clip is also posted here.

Watch more videos like this at www.quantumshift.tv

The School Sucks Project

Atlas Shrugged Part 1

April 15, 2011

Evolve!

Feb. 12th is Darwin's birthday!

Spontaneous Order

One of my favourite "media guys" is John Stossel. From years ago he did information programs on ABC's 20/20 about Junk Science, that I frequently used as a teaching tool. Today, alas, I can't watch him on television because my cable company does not carry the Fox Business channel (it is a government plot).
Stossel and I have much in common, we share exactly the same birthday (dd/mm/yyyy), ethnic origin, sort of close on religion, and we are both outspoken libertarians. OK, I'm not even close to his level of "outspokenness," but I'm certainly annoying to friends and family. But I digress, the purpose of this posting is to present a clip from a recent STOSSEL about something that is poorly understood by most people who have been schooled by the collectivist educational system in Canada and the United States: Spontaneous Order in economics.
Stossel interviews Larry Reed of FEE and its great stuff, simple, clear and to the point. 

Drugs? - "There's too much money in it!"

Some people say the dumbest things.

The price of democracy?

Muslim Brotherhood logo

"The dark ages are staging a comeback via the age of enlightenment." So begins a column in the National Post where George Jonas muses about the Egyptian Crisis. In Opening a back door to theocracy, Jonas suggests that it may be goodbye Hosni, which leads ultimately to hello Hamas.
Democracies have done this before, yielding to religious or non-religious dictatorships, especially when limits are not adhered to. Yes, Mubarak's 30 years have been dictatorial, but the implication is be careful what you wish for.
Jonas suggests that recent comments by Obama have not helped. Actually it was the comments that Obama didn't make that might lead to problems. Obama didn't say how the current uprising would lead to an orderly transition. He didn't say how the past and present unorganized opposition would suddenly get organized. Most importantly he didn't say how these protests would prevent handing over Egypt to the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood.
Of course we would say that is the price of democracy, the people may choose and sometimes those choices are not wise. In limited democracies where there are checks and balances, where orderly transitions can and do occur, mistakes can be corrected. Just remember, the Muslim Brotherhood needs only to be elected once.   

Unrecorded History?

One reason people find history so boring and difficult to relate to, is that those people, who are portrayed in history books, were the movers and shakers of the world in their time. They were the leaders, the monarchs and nobles, the presidents and prime ministers, the explorers and discoverers, and the dates of their achievements were recorded and transmitted for posterity.
But what was everyone else doing? You know, the common folk. Did they not play a role in shaping their present and their future. Of course they did, but few of them were taking notes, so much of that history - interesting history - is lost.
In the following ReasonTV video clip, author Thaddeus Russell attempts to recover some of that lost history. His new book A Renegade History of the United States could be very interesting. As he says, these people did not write pamphlets or manifestos, they were not explicitly political, they were just living and often "doing things they were not supposed to be doing." In doing that, they have left us all a legacy of freedom, far greater in many cases, than was achieved by the leaders. Of course by extrapolation similar stories were not written every where else.