Archive for the ‘Trivia’ Category

Full emancipation

June 19, 2017

In a certain country, it eventually came to pass, that women gained equal rights to men.

Every man was still allowed up to 4 wives, but now each woman was also allowed up to 4 husbands.

This led to some complex situations arising and a few additional rules had to be introduced.

Marriage was defined as between men and women. Men could not be wives and women were not eligible as husbands. Same-sex relationships were perfectly acceptable but did not constitute a formal marriage.

In each marriage the parties had to be designated in hierarchy (first wife, second husband, third husband, fourth wife and so on). Spousal points were introduced. Being first spouse gave 4 points to the partner, being second spouse loaded the partner with 3 points, being third gave 2 points and being a fourth spouse gave 1 point. No person could have more than 4 spouses and no person could accrue more than 10 spousal points. A person’s spouses took their spousal hierarchies in sequence. (A person could not take a third spouse without first taking spouses one and two). No person could have two partners having the same spousal hierarchy (having two first husbands or two third wives was not permitted). But a man could be first husband to two different women and fourth husband to two others. Similarly, a wife could be first wife to two different men but then could not be greater than a third wife to just one other husband or a fourth wife to two more.  A man could be second husband to three women or, third or fourth husband to four women, if he (and they) so chose.

Monogamous relationships were permitted but considered mildly anti-social. Generally having two spouses or less was considered a sign of eccentricity or social failure.

On the demise of a spouse, changes to the hierarchy of the surviving spouses was permitted – provided there was consent from all affected parties. In practice, such consent was impossible to obtain and hierarchy changes rarely took place. For example, suppose that a first husband to one woman died or was divorced.  In theory she could then elevate her second husband (or fourth, for that matter) to be her new first husband. However, such an elevation could (would), in turn, affect the hierarchy of that husband’s wives and their husbands. Such elevations could lead to the spousal points exceeding ten. Exceeding the 10 spousal-point rule required the shedding (by divorce) of a spouse (also by consent of all affected parties) for compliance. The lowest ranked spouse usually had to be shed first but this was not obligatory. Shedding by murder was not permitted.

Divorce was, of course, permitted as the right of every person on demand and whenever spouse-shedding had to be exercised.

A household was required to be registered to an individual (joint ownership was not permitted). However while every individual could only be responsible for one household, he or she could also belong to a household registered to his or her spouse. Each person’s assets or liabilities devolved first to surviving spouses in proportion to their spousal points (a death then leaving 40% of assets or liabilities to the first spouse, 30% to the second spouse and so on) and to surviving offspring only if no spouses were surviving and in the very rare cases they could be unambiguously identified.

While the mothers of children could generally be identified, determining the father was a little more difficult. All children were therefor made wards of the State and were transferred to State custody at the age of 12 months. Naming of children after their parents or relatives became impossible so the State allocated numbers to all people. This was a simple 16 digit, unique identification number (an 8 digit gene-scan id and 8 digits for the date of birth).

Inherited wealth virtually disappeared.

It soon became established practice for young people to begin married life as the third or fourth spouse of a much older partner and progress, with experience, to be higher ranked spouses of other partners.


 

Number theory was probably more dependent upon live goats than on raindrops

June 14, 2017

It used to be called arithmetic but it sounds so much more modern and scientific when it is called number theory. It is the branch of mathematics which deals with the integers and the relationships between them. Its origins (whether one wants to call it a discovery or an invention) lie with the invention of counting itself. It is from where all the various branches of mathematics derive. The origin of counting can be said to be with the naming of the integers, and is intimately tied to the development of language and of writing and perhaps goes back some 50,000 years (since the oldest known tally sticks date from some 30,000 years ago).

How and why did the naming of the integers come about?  Why were they found necessary (necessity being the cause of the invention)? Integers are whole numbers, indivisible, complete in themselves. Integers don’t recognise a continuum between themselves. There are no partials allowed here. They are separate and discrete and number theory could as well be called quantum counting.

Quite possibly the need came from counting their livestock or their prey. If arithmetic took off in the fertile crescent it well may have been the need for trading their live goats among themselves (integral goats for integral numbers of wives or beads or whatever else they traded) which generated the need for counting integers. Counting would have come about to fit their empirical observations. Live goats rather than carcasses, I think, because a carcass can be cut into bits and is not quite so dependent upon integers.  Quanta of live goat, however, would not permit fractions. It might have been that they needed integers to count living people (number of children, number of wives …..) where fractions of a person were not politically correct.

The rules of arithmetic – the logic – could only be discovered after the integers had been named and counting could go forth. The commutative, associative and distributive properties of integers inevitably followed. And the rest is history.

But I wonder how mathematics would have developed if the need had been to count raindrops.

After all:

2 goats + 2 goats = 4 goats, and it then follows that

2 short people + 2 short people = 4 short people.

But if instead counting had been inspired by counting raindrops, they would have observed that

2 little raindrops + 2 little raindrops = 1 big raindrop.

They might then have concluded that

2 short people + 2 short people = one tall person

and history would then have been very different.


 

Human evolution wish list

May 9, 2017

Evolution is reactive and has no direction. Evolution only gives the good-enough. If it can be said to have a goal it is the growth in numbers of the surviving population. “Quality of life” is irrelevant to evolution. But if it favoured excellence it could have been much more focused on the “improvement” of humans rather than just the increase of population.

My top ten wish-list.

  1. Inheritable memory
  2. Eyes with light sources
  3. Third eye for uv
  4. Telescopic limbs
  5. Hard-wired translation in the brain
  6. “Intelligence” based fertility
  7. Scent producing organ
  8. Direct absorption of light and heat energy by skin
  9. Organs for production and detection of radio waves
  10. X-ray sight

 

Back to the future

April 2, 2017


 

Divine cooking pairs

March 12, 2017

There are some spices/herbs which seem to go particularly well together. I am sure there is some very intricate chemistry together with our taste discernment which makes this so. In any case some pairings seem to be divinely matched and produce “heavenly combinations”.

These are my favourite ten – not in any particular order – and no doubt there are many more:

1: Onions and red chillies

2: Ginger and garlic

3: Coriander and green chillies

4: Asafoetida (hing) and crushed tomatoes

5: Cumin (jeera) and black pepper

6: Cardamom and cinnamon

7. Coconut and coriander

8. Turmeric and poppy seeds (khus-khus)

9: Cinnamon and cloves

10: Saffron on rice


 

Conundrums

February 24, 2017

Not that these keep me awake at night, but they do irritate.

conundrums-1


 

The US Cultural Revolution (as seen from 2050)

February 5, 2017

Paraphrasing freely from a Wikipedia entry:

The US Cultural Revolution, was a sociopolitical movement that took place in the United States from 2016 until 2028. It was set into motion by Donald Trump, when he became President of the United States (ostensibly representing the Republican Party), with the intent to “Make America Great Again”. His stated goal was to preserve ‘true’ American freedoms by reducing the size of government and by purging the leftist and liberal elements that had infiltrated US society and the media, and to re-impose the ideals of freedom of thought as the dominant ideology within the country. The Revolution marked the return of right-of center thought to the mainstream of the United States establishment. 

The Revolution was launched in November 2016, when he was elected President. On assuming office in January 2017,  Trump alleged that leftist elements had infiltrated the government and society at large, aiming to promote a socialist-leaning, “world government”. He insisted that this “wrong thinking” be purged through a reversal of the over-permissive laws of the US. To this end he ensured a majority of right leaning justices in the Supreme Court. He attacked the traditional establishment media by promoting the alternative media channels developing through the internet. Liberal bureaucrats were isolated and marginalized wherever they could not be sacked. Left leaning institutions were starved of government funds. The American heartland responded to Trump’s appeal by voting those considered “too liberal” out of office, all around the country. After the Republicans dominated the elections of 2018, the movement received widespread support from the military, urban workers, and the Republican Party leadership itself. During the same period Trump’s personality cult grew to immense proportions.

Trump officially declared the US Cultural Revolution to have ended after his first term as President in 2020 but its active phase lasted until the end of his successor’s term in 2028. The Trump era coincided (2017-2024) with the economic boom which followed the economic crisis that had persisted all through his predecessor’s term of office (2008-2016). After Trump’s era ended, he was succeeded by another Republican (“Trump’s 3rd term”) and the US began a slow movement back towards the center. However the Trump era saw an irreversible shift away from “big government” and some of the more permissive practices and laws that had crept into the mainstream of US society in the 40 years before Trump.

In 2035, the Republican Party declared that Donald Trump and his US Cultural Revolution was “responsible for the rebirth of the Party, and a return for the country, to the principles of the founding fathers of the United States”.


 

Ninja Turtle and the cowardly cows

January 25, 2017


 

The US intellegentsia

January 20, 2017

 

 


 

Hollywood’s aversion to Trump is Chinese funded

January 20, 2017

It’s not too surprising to see all the Hollywood “stars” dancing to the tune of their Chinese masters.

Wanda’s Wang Jianlin Warns Against U.S. Protectionism in Entertainment Sector

“If China were to retaliate it would be bad for both parties — I do not wish to see that scenario materializing,” China’s richest man said during a Q&A session in Davos.

Addressing the global elite in Davos, Switzerland, China’s richest man urged the U.S. not to erect barriers against Chinese investment into Hollywood.

“That would be a step back,” Wang Jianlin, chairman of property and entertainment conglomerate Dalian Wanda Group, said during a Q&A session at the World Economic Forum on Wednesday. “That will be about protectionism emerging in the U.S.,” he added.

Wanda’s ongoing buying spree in Hollywood, including last year’s acquisitions of Legendary Entertainment and Dick Clark Productions, has raised alarm among some U.S. politicians. Bipartisan lawmakers, including the incoming Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer, have called for closer scrutiny of such deals to see whether they are being directed by Chinese government interests.

Wang argued that his investments in the U.S. have been “a good thing,” however. “We don’t interfere with the content — I just want the profit,” he said.

China Secretly Purchases Hollywood

Media industry analysts have warned that Hollywood has become so awash with Chinese funding that China now essentially owns and controls most of the Hollywood entertainment industry.  

A Beijing-based purchase of US film studio Legendary Pictures by Dalian Wanda Group represents the largest-ever film industry takeover by a Chinese company, with $3.5 billion spent on allowing China to become the second biggest box officer player in Hollywood.

Yahoo News reports: Legendary, the maker of “Jurassic World,” “Godzilla” and the latest Batman trilogy, has grossed more than $11 billion worldwide since it was founded in 2005, mostly with the kind of big-budget blockbusters popular with Chinese audiences.

“It’s a win-win situation… because the China market is really incredibly taking off and Hollywood has a real interest in that,” Stanley Rosen, a political science professor at the University of Southern California, told AFP. It is an arrangement that benefits both sides financially, with movies becoming increasingly expensive to produce but the Chinese hungry for Western-made films.

But China, which has yet to make a global hit, is also buying expertise. “Hollywood has what China lacks, which is storytelling ability, marketing, distribution,” Rosen told AFP. Wanda owner Wang Jianlin, who burst into the international spotlight in 2012 by buying US cinema chain AMC Entertainment for $2.6 billion, says the Legendary deal makes his company the highest revenue-generating movie unit in the world. It also gives future Legendary films direct access to China’s booming market, which has become crucial to foreign filmmakers, with North American ticket sales stagnant.

PricewaterhouseCoopers has projected China’s box office to rise from $4.3 billion in 2014 to $8.9 billion in 2019, meaning it would outstrip the US within two years. ……

…… Cumulative Chinese investment in the US since 2000 reached $63 billion in 2015, with a $4 billion going to the entertainment industry, according to research firm Rhodium Group. The trend looks set to accelerate, with Huayi Brothers planning to produce at least 18 films with LA studio STX Entertainment, and Shanghai-based Fosun International taking a stake in US media company Studio 8. Both Wanda and tech firm Alibaba have been touted as possible minority investors in Paramount, while Hunan TV has signed a $1.5 billion deal to fund Lionsgate movies and Perfect World Pictures is investing $250 million in Universal’s slate over five years.


 


%d bloggers like this: