User:Zaereth

For my part I deem those blessed to whom, by favour of the gods, it has been granted either to do what is worth writing of, or to write what is worth reading,... --Pliny the younger, nephew of Gaius Plinius Secundus, the father of the modern encyclopedia

Note: Wikipedia is not my job. It's just a hobby; something to do when I'm on hold. I am very busy in real life and spend very little to almost none of my time on the computer/phone. So far, Wikipedia is the only worthwhile thing I've found to do on the entire internet, but my time here is limited to those few moments when I'm simply stuck with nothing better to do. I try to be helpful and respond to any question I can answer, offer refs, or point people in the right direction whenever I can, but my focus here is on producing quality, not quantity. (I will never be a quantity editor, because, as my grandpa used to say, "Don't do anything half-ass. Give it the whole ass or no ass at all".) Therefore, I may not respond to questions or comments in a timely manner, but will reply sooner or later ... eventually. Zaereth (talk) 23:44, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Zaereth

Hi! Welcome!

My call sign is Zaereth and I am a proud citizen of Anchorage Alaska, USA. I have some experience in several areas, to include metallurgy, forging, lasers, glass working, fluid dynamics, hydraulics, fishing, and more. Please feel free to hang out. Below are some pictures to help brighten up the place. All of my photos have been released into public domain, so feel free to use them.

I joined Wikipedia in an effort to improve accuracy and understandabiliy. I believe that Wikipedia policy is fundamentally flawed, and should state that Wikipedia is about reporting all truths that are significant, verifiable, and reliably sourced. Facts are not opinions, but nearly the polar opposite. I am truly frightened by the media's tendency lately to blur the line between them, (Wikipedia included).

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Everyone is not entitled to their own facts." --FCC Commissioner Michael J. Copps (From Bill Moyers journal, discussing Net Neutrality and the demise of investigative journalism.)

I've contemplated leaving Wikipedia over this, but have decided to continue helping to provide high quality information written in a proper encyclopedic format. However, since I have no interest in "reinventing the wheel", I will steer clear of helping out on policy and guideline pages. (Sometimes history needs to repeat itself, so people can learn it the hard way ... again.) I will continue to hold myself to the higher standards of which a paper encyclopedia would expect.

I love technical articles, but often find them mired in extraneous explanations filled with unnecessarily large words and undecipherable math. One of my favorite quotes is:

An average English word is four letters and a half. By hard, honest labor I've dug all the large words out of my vocabulary and shaved it down till the average is three and a half... I never write "metropolis" for seven cents, because I can get the same money for "city." I never write "policeman," because I can get the same price for "cop."... I never write "valetudinarian" at all, for not even hunger and wretchedness can humble me to the point where I will do a word like that for seven cents; I wouldn't do it for fifteen. --Mark Twain

I also like this quote very much:

A sufficiently paranoid conspiracy theory can never be disproven. --User:Fluzwup/scot

The problem with conspiracy theorists is that they can explain away any fact.

My philosophy can be summed up simply enough:

Empty your mind, be formless. Shapeless, like water. If you put water into a cup, it becomes the cup. You put water into a bottle and it becomes the bottle. You put it in a teapot it becomes the teapot. Now, water can flow or it can crash. Be water my friend... Be like water making its way through cracks. Do not be assertive, but adjust to the object, and you shall find a way round or through it... If nothing within you stays rigid, outward things will disclose themselves. Moving, be like water. Still, be like a mirror. Respond like an echo. --Bruce Lee

My methodology can also be summed up by the great Bruce Lee:

The localization of the mind means its freezing. When it ceases to flow freely as it is needed, it is no more the mind in its suchness... Turn into a doll made of wood: it has no ego, it thinks nothing, it is not grasping or sticky. Let the body and limbs work themselves out in accordance with the discipline they have undergone... I'm moving and not moving at all. I'm like the moon underneath the waves that ever go on rolling and rocking. It is not, "I am doing this," but rather, an inner realization that "this is happening through me," or "it is doing this for me." The consciousness of self is the greatest hindrance to the proper execution of all physical action. --Bruce Lee

And even my thoughts about WP:NPOV:

Give up thinking as though not giving it up. Observe techniques as though not observing... Eliminate "not clear" thinking and function from your root... The perfect way is only difficult for those who pick and choose. Do not like, do not dislike; all will then be clear. Make a hairbreadth difference and heaven and earth are set apart; if you want the truth to stand clear before you, never be for or against. The struggle between "for" and "against" is the mind's worst disease... To see a thing uncoloured by one's own personal preferences and desires is to see it in its own pristine simplicity. --Bruce Lee

He has also affected my thoughts about life in general:

Wisdom does not consist of trying to wrest the good from the evil but in learning to "ride" them as a cork adapts itself to the crests and troughs of the waves... The point is [the] doing of them rather than the accomplishments. There is no actor but the action; there is no experiencer but the experience... Those who gain, lose. Do not precede others, always follow them... Do not run away; let go. Do not seek, for it will come when least expected... All vague notions must fall before a pupil can call himself a master... After all, all knowledge simply means self-knowledge. --Bruce Lee

This is where I live.

User:Zaereth/Writing tips for the amateur writer -- Some brief insights to the many different aspects which are involved in creating coherent prose, and to the underlying reasons behind many of the rules used in the style of encyclopedic writing.

"If you criminalize guns, only criminals will have guns." This old saying is far more profound than it appears on the surface. The fact is, anytime something is made illegal it opens up a criminal enterprise. Just look at the so-called war on drugs. Was the fallacy of Prohibition not enough of a lesson? If guns become illegal, criminal organizations will grow a hundred fold more than the law already allows.

"We join our hero, the courageous Spaceman Spiff, as he flees the awful bug beings of Zartron-9! Spiff's only chance is a daring strategy of head-to-head combat! Our hero swings around and readies his computer-guided Death Ray Blaster!

"Tum te tum tum...

"I wish this booted up faster. C'mon c'mon.

"There we go. Let's see. Get the file icon... Double click on "Blaster"...

"Hmm. Pull down "Settings"... Get the dialog box... Click on "Rays"... Select "Death"... Hit "Ok". Hey, what's the matter? Why didn't my screen change?!

"Hit "F1" for "Help"... "About blasters"... Nope... "Calibrating blasters"... Nope... "Charging the fizzler"... No... "Fizzling the charger"... No... "Incineration guidelines"... Oh, this is annoying!

"Oh wait, I didn't enter the number of volts! That's it! Type in "Gazillion". Hit "Ok". What?! "Invalid setting." Darn! Go back to "Volts", highlight "Gazillion", press "Delete", type in...

"Spiff is hit! He's going down!" --Calvin

When I go into a fight, I begin with a few small taps to the tip of my opponent's sword. If his grip is solid and rigid, I know my victory is assured, but if his sword is loose but firm, and gives to my touch, I quickly run away. --An unnamed Samurai, circa 1500s

Personally, I've never cared much for guns. They're great for hunting and self-protection I guess, but then again a bow and arrow tends to be a more accurate and effective tool, doesn't scare off other game or give away your location, and, if done right, there's a good chance the prey will never feel it at all, beyond a slight "pinch" and a "what the hell was that" look on their face as the arrow passes through, never realizing it's been fatally wounded. Better just to go back to eating and then fall asleep. Besides, adrenaline gives a gamey taste to meat.

Any child or fool can pull a trigger. I say, if we're going to fight wars, then I think it should be up close and personal. It's one thing to shoot silhouettes from a half-mile away, but a completely different thing to fight face to face and blade to blade. There's a reason things like chivalry, bushido, or other codes of honor and integrity developed.

Don't believe everything you see in the movies. A real swordfight, where both opponents are actually trying to take out the other, is not like a choreographed movie or Renaissance fair. A real swordfight is fast. An average swordfight lasts one to three seconds. Five seconds would be long. A full ten seconds would be an extremely long fight. It's quiet. Swords don't ring like a bell, or, at least, good ones don't. (That ringing is like a jackhammer beating against your knuckles.) At best, a few dull "thunk"s are all you'll hear. It's brutal. No amount of coffee will wake you up like a person coming at you with a sharp blade. There are three stages to any fight: 1.) Tip to tip - this is where most of the fighting is done, and you'd better be quick, fast, agile, and accurate, because you won't get a second chance. 2.) Blade to blade - by the time the fight has progressed to this point, the outcome has long been decided. 3.) Blade to body - the outcome has arrived.

The thing that differentiates a real swordfight from a movie is that a real fight is not about hitting the other guy's sword. A real fight makes for boring cinematography, but life isn't a poorly acted, "reality" TV show either. In a real fight, the goal is to try as best as possible to bypass the first two stages and go directly to the third. Interestingly, this same principle can be applied to any form of dispute, as wonderfully demonstrated by the great Sun Tzu, or by Bruce Lee's heavy incorporation of fencing tactics, strategies, and moves in his Jeet Kune Do. Don't believe everything you see on TV or in the movies. Real combat has more to do with using your head over your hands, and avoiding conflict whenever possible. It can be easy to forget that words can sometimes cut deeper than any blade, and it's not about hitting blades together.

"But why should I object to that term, sir? You see, in our century, we've learned not to fear words." --Lieutenant Uhura

When I was little, I thought my brain was like a video recorder. I thought, if I could just try hard enough, I could simply rewind back to any point in time and remember every detail.

The brain and the mind are fascinating things; separate yet inextricably linked. Roughly one half of the human brain is devoted strictly to processing visual images (unlike dogs, in which roughly the equivalent is devoted to smell). Information enters through the optical nerve, and branches in two. One goes to the cerebellum, or "lower brain", which only processes peripheral movement for unconscious, reflex reactions. The other goes to the visual cortex in the back of the cerebrum, where the information is split into different areas. One area is solely dedicated to processing colors, whereas another processes shapes, and another depth, etc... A fairly large portion processes facial expressions. The info divides along two distinct paths: the what path and the how path, with the former being more for recognition and the latter for navigation and orientation. At no point do all these things come back together to form the image as our consciousness perceives it (eg: there is no single point of consciousness; no homunculus watching a "movie screen and projector" in there anywhere).

This is all combined with information from our other senses, our memories, and imagination, to form a rough approximation; a perception of time and space that our minds can make sense of --all in a matter of milliseconds! This is our Umwelt; our sensory-perceptual world. But it's all too much for the "upper brain" (the prefrontal cortex) to deal with. It's at this point that the information passes through the amygdala, or the emotional center of the brain. The amygdala works just like a filter, in some ways "compressing files" like a Winzip program while in others working like a triage nurse on a battlefield. It decides which information to keep and which to delete, and it does this based solely upon emotional saliency, or how much of an emotional reaction the information invokes.

It turns out, well over 90% of all the information our brain receives (both from within and without) is deleted in that first millisecond or two, before the brain ever has a chance to consciously process it. What's left is sent to the prefrontal cortex, where we can consciously process it, in what is known as "working memory", lasting from a few seconds to up to a minute. Then the info is sent back to the amygdala, where it bounces around in short-term memory for five or ten minutes, and, if we never call it back to working memory, more than 90 to as much as 100% gets deleted again before being passed on to long-term memory in the hippocampus, or the memory storage area of the brain (which are rather small, relatively speaking).

So, instead of being an infallible recording device, it turns out that the brain is very subjective in its procurement, analyses, storage, and recollection of information. Try as we might to deny it, we all have our "rose-colored glasses" and it's all based upon our emotions. The amygdala itself works as a sort of categorizer, stripping away details and putting everything in neatly labeled, tidy little boxes. For example, when you drive through a forest, you can never remember each and every tree. The amygdala deletes these images almost instantly, and replaces them with generic "trees", like the background in a Bugs Bunny cartoon. Only those things with the greatest emotional saliency truly get through all of this filtering to reach the memory banks.

Categorization is very necessary for processing the world around us, but, because it is so linked to emotion and memory filtering, it is an extremely dangerous thing when misused. Categorization is the root of all stereotyping, which in turn is the root of all prejudice. Just check any good psychology book if you don't believe me. It is an extremely powerful propaganda tool. There is great humor in the stereotypes themselves, especially when a person has the ability to laugh at themselves, but to categorize a real person is to define them solely by the label of that category, and that has led to some of the greatest atrocities ever to occur. We all have a tendency to put people in little boxes --today more than ever in my lifetime-- and this problem is not limited to any single race, skin color, political or sexual orientation, etc. (In my opinion, the biggest fueler of racism in the modern age is the mainstream media, and to some degree, by association, Wikipedia, because they make their money by preying on this very weakness of humans.) On Wikipedia, we need to be extremely careful when categorizing people, because even with the best of intentions, it often has a terrible way of backfiring.

"The rat's in the cellar. You know who you are ... or do you?" --Iron Maiden

"People quit reading that paper 'cause, uh, you reporters can't keep your politics to yourselves." --Kyle Cushing

By its very nature, the significance of information should be self-evident. If the information cannot demonstrate its own significance, then how can it be information? Words count for nothing and intentions even less. Action tells the whole story. and it is through the action alone that information is exchanged, and people can really learn about each other and their surroundings.

Likewise, unlike stupidity, ignorance is self-ignorant. Stupidity implies an inability to comprehend, which for some may be truer than others. Thus, a stupid person cannot help being stupid because, for whatever reason, the information is simply beyond their ability to grasp, whereas an ignorant person is capable of understanding, but chooses to ignore available information. Which is worse?

We are all stupid. The stupider we are, the smarter we think we are. Only those who realize they are stupid can truely be called wise. --Zaereth

In other words:

No one knows less than he who knows everything. No one is wise but he who understands his ignorance. No one is blind but he who sees not his own fault. --St Cattwg, circa 497 A.D.

We have awoken. We can solve all the worlds problems at the stroke of our keys. What a wonderful time we live in. Prejudice and hate will soon be a thing of the past, and all we have to do is eliminate the source. It's us against them, but we will prevail, because we have righteousness on our side. We will eliminate anything we find offensive, because when nobody is offended there will be no reason to fight. We will replace their flags with our, their words with ours, and cleanse our society and our history of all its filth. We'll change any name that offends us, and tear down any monument that reminds of the tragic side of history. Then we will burn the books ... and we all know what happens after the books burn.

We have awoken, like we have awoken so many times before. Perhaps this time, instead of cleansing the world and our pasts, and blaming all our problems and everything that offends us on everyone else, we should take a good, deep, hard look inside ourselves. That's where the real offense is, and where fixing the real problems of the world begins. History never repeats itself, but it does have a tendency to run through the same hills and valleys, and watching it all reach a pinnacle in the 1990s and then take a turn completely backwards has me scared. With the political, journalistic, and social climate resembling the early 1900s, I am truly afraid of what's on the horizon. There is more intolerance today than I have ever seen in my lifetime. Yet the one constant is that the self-righteous always have a funny way of turning into the very thing they fight against.

The greatest hindrance to the progress of science has always been the belief that all current theories are absolute.

Religion has the same flaw. (Perhaps it's a human flaw?)

Truth is a matter of mind, and to become locked into one set of ideas or theories is a sign of the very narrow-minded. The moment someone begins preaching to me that their version of "truth" is the only possibility, I know I have an extremist whack-job on my hands, and find it best to put as much distance between us as possible. Personally, I've always found that too much agreement makes for boring conversation, but so many people cannot handle the slightest bit of disagreement, for that would shatter their narrow ideals of what truth may be. "Truth is beyond all fixed, set patterns."

In my experience, when a person accuses another person of something, 99% of the time they are unconsciously describing those things they hate about themselves, and unwittingly letting everyone else know. Psychology's a funny thing.

"The races are on, a spectacle which has not the slightest attraction for me. It lacks novelty and variety. If you have seen it once, then there is nothing left for you to see. So it amazes me that thousands and thousands of grown men should act like children, wanting to look at horses running and men standing on chariots over and over again. If it was the speed of the horses or the skill of the drivers that attracted them, there would be some sense in it - but in fact it is simply the color. That is what they back and that is what fascinates them." --Pliny

And as it was, so shall it be. Red or Blue? That's all that really matters, right? It's the only way to tell the difference.

Idealism without foresight and morality, or morality and foresight without idealism? I don't know. Is there a third choice?

The only way to give voters a real voice is to include "none of the above" as a valid choice. (Voter turn-out would be through the roof.)

Here's a simple question: Name an object with three sides. How about four sides? Five sides?

When asked to do this, most people will pick a triangle, square, and pentagon. Now, name an object with two sides. How about only one side? When thinking about it two-dimensionally, these questions will have most people stumped. However, some brilliant thinkers may say a circle has only two sides (an inside and an outside) and a Mobius strip has only one.

In reality, a triangle has five sides; three edges plus a front and a back. A square has six sides. The circle actually has three sides. For a hollowed-out circle (ring) there must be an inside, in which case there are four. Even the famous Mobius strip has, in fact, two sides; a wide side and a thin side. This is how the world is viewed in three-dimensional thinking. For an object with only one side, you only have to look to the nearest ball, while a hollow sphere has only two sides.

Science fiction rarely gets it right, but why should we expect it of them? They're fiction writers. People often seem to get too hung up on the so-called "science" of things like Star Trek or Star Wars, forgetting that the story is all about the people, not the setting. Star Wars (one of my favorite movies ... at least two of them anyhow) is really a Western, just in a futuristic locale, having all the makings of a complete mythology. Jung would be proud. Thus, who cares if the science is not real, because it's just fun to watch, unless you start using that as your reference point for science and start putting it up on Wikipedia.

In space, there is no traveling in a straight line. Angular momentum is always conserved. Any lateral motion will not be corrected by your "wings", because there is no atmosphere to cause your forward momentum to dominate. In space, you're always following a curved path.

Space is not flat. You're always going either uphill or downhill. Gravity is everywhere. You can't escape it. You can leave the Earth's gravity only to find yourself in the sun's. Leave that and you're still in the galaxy's. When flying above the Earth, we look up at the sun and down at the Earth. When flying through the Solar System, you look down at the sun and up at the Milky Way. When flying through the galaxy, you're looking down at the big black-hole in the center waiting to swallow you up. In space, the only way to fly straight and level is to get yourself into a circular orbit, which is the closest thing to flying a straight line as you can get. Thus, you are only weightless when in orbit, or in a free fall toward a larger body. Whenever hovering above, or climbing away from that body, you will feel its gravity, however strong or faint it may be.

Everything is moving constantly and there is no coming to a full stop. (No such thing as absolute-zero speed.) And nothing is where it appears; you can fly to that star but it won't be there when you arrive, it's already somewhere else. However, you may crash into that other star that wasn't supposed to be in your way. Everything in space is relative to your particular frame of reference.

Space is not cold. Space is not a total vacuum. Our local region of space is quite unusual in its extremely-low pressures, but better vacuums have been created here on Earth --by a full order of magnitude! It's pretty damn close, though. Vacuum is the absolute best insulation available. Flasks called Dewars are insulated with vacuum and can keep liquid nitrogen cold for up to a year. "Cold" is something you feel from thermal conduction, that is, from the air or a cold piece of metal. In space, the problem is often dissipating heat rather than storing it, which almost solely happens through blackbody radiation. In direct sunlight, space can get extremely hot without some method of reflecting that energy. Sure, if you suddenly blow an airlock you'll get adiabatic cooling, as all the heat from a small space is suddenly spread out over a wide area, and water evaporating from a body will cool it to extreme temperatures very fast. The atmosphere of Pluto is extremely cold and will freeze your butt in a second, but space itself really has no temperature beyond radiative.

Assigning female qualities to ships is an old tradition that goes back to the Viking Age, and perhaps beyond. Even the Romans and Phoenicians did it. It's not uncommon to assign human characteristics to inanimate objects, but is that really the case.

In the modern age, we talk a lot about male and female as being properties of the brain, and in many, very human ways it is. However, in all of this it's easy to forget that the concept of male and female is a universal one, based on mechanics and plumbing. Anytime parts mate together, the one that fits into the other is male, and the one being fitted into is female. A bolt is male. A nut is female. A pipe is male, while a coupler is female. There are occasions where things can be both (flowers) or neither (yeast), but mostly they are one or the other.

All planes contain their pilots, thus all planes are female.

If you believe the Theory of Relativity, then gravity is nothing more than the universe trying to minimize its surface area. This is the reason everything large enough to overcome its own structural integrity assumes a spherical shape, like a bubble in the water. The same way those last few Cheerios, floating in your milk, will all clump together in groups, when you jump up its the universe itself that pushes you back down, not the other way around. Likewise, our ability to perceive and record time is based upon the speed of light, so as you enter a gravity "well" or approach the speed of light, time appears to slow and, at the extremes, come to a stop. Thus, the Theory of Relativity actually predicts that the refractive index of the universe itself changes within a gravity field, the speed of light slows, and time (or what we perceive as time) changes because the speed of light changes. So what does this really tell us about the universe and about our reality, both to what it really is and how we perceive it?

Nothing natural in the universe is complex. Everything that happens does so because it is the easiest way. Complexity occurs when the human mind becomes involved. When we see something, we tie our brains in knots trying to define it in some meaningful way. We concentrate on a problem endlessly, all the while narrowing our viewpoint to the exclusion of all the information involved.

The art of Jeet Kune Do (the Way of the Intercepting Fist) teaches us to resolve complex issues by avoiding the complexity of the mind, which narrows focus. Jeet Kune Do teaches us to cut through the irrelevant, to flow around obstructions, and strike directly at the heart of the matter, eliminating these things before they become obstacles. Jeet Kune Do teaches us to overcome by adapting ourselves to the problem, rather than trying to make the problem adapt to us. Jeet Kune Do broadens the focus of the conscious mind, allowing a clear view of the entire picture, all at once. This allows the mind to avoid over-conceptualizing the situation, but to simply react to it. At rest, Jeet Kune Do teaches us to mirror the problem; to unconsciously study the problem; to mentally become the problem. In action, it teaches us to surmount the problem by avoiding the obstacles caused by our own conscious-complexity.

Have you ever wondered why the mind operates using two completely separate langages, all at once? Have you ever wondered why the "wordless language" is so quick and precise, far exceeding our speed in the language of words? Humans often seem to have a backward way of looking at things. We assume the Earth is flat. We assume that being lazy makes us less tired. We assume that charity rather than work enriches people's lives. We naturally assume that, when a baseball player throws a pitch, his mind is somehow making all of the necessary calculations of speed and trajectory. We do this even when our common experience tells us the opposite is happening.

Another assumption is that the brain is wired and operates like a computer. That's an aweful big assumption, considering the brain evolved from tiny, microscopic organisms which we assume have no consciousness of their own. If this is true, then it is difficult to explain how consciousness ever evolved; we should be mindless blobs of yogurt.

We like to think of ourselves as individuals but, in actuality, we each are a colony containing trillions of individual animals (cells). In order to survive, such a colony needs to be able to defend itself from attackers, feed its members, ensure the proper flow of goods and services, and repair any consequential damage to its structure. In an ideal colony, everyone has a job, everyone does their job, and everyone gets a decent living from their job, or else criminal enterprises will form (cancer). To ensure the colony can maintain all of its interests, there naturally needs to be a central government, linking all of the various areas into one central hub; a place where everyone can have their complaints resolved, and there needs to be very strong lines of communication between the colony and the government to make this happen (pain). The governing part of the body must deal with external problems as well (senses), which is vital to the entire colony, but which most members are probably not aware. The colony itself, on the other hand, can operate almost independently of the governing body, fending off diseases and repairing damage, etc, in processes the mind is completely unaware of.

This is a very interesting theory on how consciousness evolved from the single-celled organism into what we know today, called the single-cell theory of consciousness. New research emerging is beginning to show that the cytoskeletons of each cell may possess a quantum-computational power which exceeds what we currently think our brains are capable of --by a full order of magnitude. It also shows that such a computer/brain is capable of switching in the nanosecond range, rather than on the order of milliseconds, which is the rate at which the human synapse switches. If each neuron is an entire quantum-brain within itself, then this would not only explain the need for the two separate languages, but also the different operating speeds of the conscious and unconscious minds. (It also explodes the brains computational capacity by many, many orders of magnitude.) In this theory, each cell experiences our consciousness, and each has a pretty strong say in what happens. Not only that, it is quite possible that such a connection could extend past the cells called neurons, and into the cells of the body itself.

Keep in mind that consciousness (waking consciousness) is a very, very --extremely small part of the human mind. However, it is an interesting fact that the body can survive without the mind, but the mind cannot survive without the body.

"So, uh, we have a little different way of dealing with operational conflicts. We actually have a systematic way of dealing with them that is just kind of engrained in what we do and, and it's a very simple, four-step process: If you see a problem, you get the person's attention, and to get their attention you use their name. "Joe," or "Captain," or "Doctor," or whatever. You state the problem --clearly. But here's where things fall apart. If you state the problem and stop there, you're nagging, but if you propose a solution, that's different. So if you've got a valid solution, you've made the next step. Finally, you have to seek agreement, because that kind of seals the deal; that closes the deal for you. Because, when you ask somebody, when you say, "Here's what I see as the problem. Here's what I see is the solution. Don't you agree?" They gotta say yes or no, and once they say yes they're committed. It's a very tried-and-true method to get things done." --Patrick Mendenhall

Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges. (The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws.) --Cornelius Tacitus (55-117 A.D.)

People often claim that we're going to destroy the environment. I think this shows the great egocentric nature of humanity; we still think we're the center of the universe. On the other hand, history seems to indicate that the environment has suffered far greater disasters than humanity, and each time, although the environment changed forever, it has always survived. It is certainly encouraging to realize that the environment will continue long after humanity is gone. However, at the same time, the discouragement comes upon the realization that we may have already outlived our usefulness to it. We are part of the environment and, through our own actions, it may yet destroy us.

The rising numbers in bear attacks and maulings in Alaska have left me wondering, what is wrong with people? In nearly 95% of all attacks, it can be demonstrated that the human did something stupid. Unlike in modern society, out in the wilderness stupidity is often deadly. A wild animal will rarely give you sympathy or a second chance. I've spent most of my life out in the wild; usually without a gun nor anything but my wits to keep me alive, and had many, very close encounters with animals of all sorts. The most dangerous animal in the Alaskan wild is not a bear at all, but the moose. Despite their looks, moose are mean and ornery, and (except during hunting season) they show no fear of humans.

Predators like bears and wolves are different. (Wolves are very shy, and you'd be lucky to ever see one in the wild.) With very rare exceptions, most predators do not eat other predators. (The meat is generally tough and gamey.) A black bear may eat a human in the fall if it is really hungry, trying to fatten-up for the winter, but only as a matter of opportunity. Who knows, maybe the increased number of vegetarians has simply made us more tender and tasty, but the only bear known to actively stalk and hunt humans is the polar bear. (If you ever find yourself in Barrow in the winter, stay off the beaches. You will be hunted by an almost invisible bear.) In most cases, if a bear knows you are in the area, it will go out of its way to avoid you. (I've seen so many people walk right past a bear and never know it was there.) The best evidence of a bear is usually the signs it leaves, such as scat, trees with the bark clawed off, or the smell. A bear has a terrible scent, and if you can smell it, that means it's upwind and can't smell you.

A bear's sense of smell is about a million times better than the best bloodhound, they have acute hearing, but poor eyesight. The best way to avoid one in the wilderness is to make lots of noise. A few years ago a young lady was mauled by a black bear. She was part of a mountain-bike race through the woods. I had been hiking that trail with my brother the day prior, and there was much evidence of a black bear in the area, including fresh poop and the bear's own smell. Oblivious, these mountain-bikers ride down the trail in complete silence. They would sneak right up on us before we even knew they were there, which is the absolute worst thing you could do to a bear. My brother and I both agreed that someone would get mauled; it was not a matter of if but when. Sure enough, the very next day, someone did.

While it is advisable to make a lot of noise, to avoid surprising a bear, it must be human noise. About ten years ago , a tourist at a local park saw a bear. He heard that he should make noise, so he started rustling tree branches. The bear, with its poor eyesight, became curious at the sound, and ran over to investigate. The rest you can figure out.

The best way to avoid any kind of harm in the wild is with education. A few years back a guy decided to spend the whole summer camping at Denali. He spent most of the summer eating the natural plants that grow in the area, such as dandelions, fireweed, and the wild peas that grow everywhere. Unfortunately, of the nearly 40 species of peas that grow in Alaska, nearly all are poisonous. In our modern society, where nothing seems to be anyone's fault for fear of offending someone, humans can forgive stupidity, but nature rarely does.

Good intentions without proper foresight has led many straight to hell. (Please don't take us with you.)

The Vikings had the right idea ... if not the tact.

Har answered, "A wise man would not ask such a question, for all are able to tell this, but if you alone have become so stupid that you have not heard of it, then I would forgive you for asking unwisely once than that you should go any longer in ignorance of what you ought to know." --The Prose Edda

I treat them the same way. Although I try to be more courteous, I think it's very helpful to answer questions, but in a very thoughtful yet direct way. The following are some stupid questions and their answers:

• Q: Why did the chicken cross the road? A: Because it was in her way.
• Q: What came first, the chicken or the egg? A: Eggs were around for millions of years before chickens.
• Q: You have an orange, an apple, and a grape. Which one's the raisin? A: None of them.
• Q: Which is heavier, a pound of lead or a pound of gold? A: Neither, they both weigh a pound.
• Q Who invented Reese's Peanut Butter Cups? A If you can't answer this without looking it up on Wikipedia, you just failed your IQ test. (Don't worry, 100 out of 100 people asked couldn't answer it either.)

When quick to attack, you expose your weakness. When quick to retaliate, you display your fear. When quick to pass judgement, you show your prejudice. When quick to accuse, you share your guilt. Always when you are easily offended will you reveal your shame.

When facing adversity, you display your courage. When remaining amiable, you show your strength. When overcoming problems, you reveal your cunning. When reaching out to compromise, you share your wisdom. Only when you are content with yourself can nothing insult you.

It does seem interesting to me that speakers of British English work so diligently to preserve French spellings, but who am I to judge. (In French, however, it is actually pronounced "colour.")Most of these words existed long before spelling did, so I guess it little matters, except that articles should use one or the other for neatness.

Time may or may not be linear. For all I know, it is distance divided by speed, so time may simply be the "stopped" reference-frame by which we measure speed (the face of the clock rather than the hands). Time may not move at all. Interestingly, the Greek symbol for time was the period, and the symbol of Chronos, depicting past, present, future and uncertainty, became the basis for most of our modern punctuation. (Ancient Greek did not use punctuation, and the mystery of its arrival is highly debated.) However, one thing seems clear, and that is: Our perception of time is not linear, but exponential.

The fist thing to understand about time is that it exists in two parts: What it actually is and what our limited perspective perceives it as being.

In some schools of thought, our perception of time is simply the brain's interpretation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics; that is, everything changes and some changes are irreversible. Time appears to be relative to the amount of time we've experienced, and progresses in an accelerating fashion. When a person is an hour old, an hour is a lifetime. (A sense of time doesn't seem to develop until a person has experienced about 20,000 hours.) To a five year old, an hour may as well be a week. (This is one reason I was shocked at so many doctors prescribing Ritalin for kids, just to slow them down to the parent's level. For kids I know who took it, it destroyed something inside they needed in later life, like the incredible speed at which they learn.) The older you get, the shorter those hours become. If we lived forever, time would begin moving so fast that we could never keep up with it. Therefore, perhaps death is simply the resetting of the genetic clock, allowing us to move, grow as a species, and evolve with the times. From this perception, no matter how long you live, you will have lived a lifetime.

The past is an illusion of memory. The future is an illusion of imagination. Both are predictable with varying degrees of certainty, becoming less predictable the further they move from the present. (i.e.: A person could rarely predict they'll be in a car wreck a few days in advance, but a few seconds in advance it may become certain.) The only time truly known to exist is now. The only place you can affect your future, and therefore your past, is right in this moment. Live in the moment.

The time has long past that people can deny evolution. The old notion that everything God makes is perfect and permanent has been proved to be a human notion. In the words of Niels Bohr (talking to Einstein), it may be time for us to "stop telling God what to do." God's universe is apparently still a work-in-progress.

The old, Darwinian view of evolution is also an outdated one. Unlike many people believe, Darwin never said humans evolved from monkeys, but that we both share a common ancestor. Science has in fact shown that all mammals can be traced back to the therapsids; the mammal-like reptiles. Darwin theorized that evolution occurred over long periods of time due to certain minute traits (genetic anomalies) that were either beneficial or harmful. His process of natural selection claimed that the beneficial traits would survive and the harmful ones would die off. In part, this has been proven, but that is only a small part of the story. Since the 1980s, science has shown that our DNA is not just a rigid map of the body, but something more like a computer chip; full of switches that can be turned on or off. Evolution partly works though the slow process of genetic anomalies, but it also works through the reprogramming of the DNA as well, which is much more dramatic.

The most striking aspect is that evolution, it turns out, is not a slow process at all. Life doesn't show a great tendency for change until it is forced to do so. The driving force of this change is environmental, and occurs very quickly on a cellular level. The cells themselves can sense their environment, and then alter their own DNA expression at will, creating a new organism that is better suited to the new environment. For example, when an astronaut goes into space, the cells in his body sense the loss of gravity. Almost immediately, the cells in his kidneys begin to change. The kidneys weren't designed to function in zero-g, so they begin altering to be more effective in the new environment. Bones don't need such strength, so they begin weakening. Legs are useless, so they begin shortening almost immediately. Evolution expert Adrian Lister believes that if humans spent just a few generations in space we'd quickly look something like the alien from the movie E.T. Thus, evolution has been shown to be not a slow process, but a rather fast one.

The good news is that we are not mere slaves to our DNA. The map that we begin with is not the same one we die with or pass on to our children, as our lives and environment all play a role in shaping our genetic make-up.

Here's a mysterious term. It's easily described mathematically, but try and translate that to English. Like temperature and heat capacity, entropy is a part of all thermodynamic problems, and, since thermodynamics is how everything happens, it extends to all things that happen, including everything from information storage to aerial combat to building an encyclopedia.

When people think of heat, they naturally think of temperature. Temperature is the only useful part of heat, the only way you can extract energy from it, and what you feel when you burn your finger. But heat is much more than temperature.Temperature is a surface quality, meaning you can only measure or extract that energy at the interface of a surface. Entropy, in turn, seems more like a volume quality, but it's not that either. Energy is actually a volume quantity. In a way, entropy seems like an intensity quality, like power, but then again, not really. To really understand it, it's necessary to think outside the standard three-dimensional problem.

Entropy is more related to the order or disorder of that volume of energy. When you put a thermometer in your coffee, surface A is hot while surface B is cold. There is great order to the state and direction of the energy. Most of the energy transfer then becomes unidirectional, as energy rushes to heat the thermometer and cool the coffee. As the thermometer heats up, the transfer of energy slows, the state of that energy at any given point is less known and becomes more chaotic (hot and cold spots may form within, which is why your coffee steams), and energy transfer becomes more multidirectional. Instead of transferring, more and more energy is lost as waste, until, eventually, the thermometer will come into thermal equilibrium with the coffee. Then total randomness takes over and the transfer of energy becomes omnidirectional, radiating from the thermometer as from the cup in all directions, thus no more work gets done. Voila, lots of energy but total entropy.

Who would follow a God that is so weak he needs humans to fight his battles for him? A God so vain he needs people to bow down and worship him? A God so insecure that a mere mortal can insult him? If this describes your God, you can have him. More likely, however, this describes you, because we all make our Gods in our own image.

Everything has its equal share of benefits and drawbacks. No good is ever gained without an equal loss in some other respect. This makes technology highly adaptable for specific situations, while completely unsuitable for others. For example, examine the technology of a Japanese katana. It is an extremely effective weapon when used in the Japanese style of fighting, where the fighter rarely makes blade-to-blade contact but goes directly for the kill. However, it is a poor weapon in the sword-and-buckler combat of European-style fighting, and visa-versa. The very benefits that make it good for one become detrimental for the other.

Modern technology is no different. Digital music was a wonderful invention, but the signal is incremental rather than the smooth flow in pitch and tone produced by an analog signal. Analog may be prone to signal degradation, such as noise or static, but can still be very understandable with an extremely bad signal. On the other hand, digital produces a very clear reception, but the signal must be very strong or else the receiver can not interpret the data and the TV pixelates or the CD starts skip-skip-skip-skipping. (You can see this on DTV all the time, where it literally gets confused, going "uh, uh, uh, uh, Brrrrr, th-th-th, I don't understand, uh, uh...") The human mind is far more capable of interpreting data than any machine.

The effect technology has on humans is very comparable. Technology, without a doubt, makes our lives easier. However, a hundred years ago, only athletes needed to go to a gym. Forty years ago, most airline pilots could recover manual flight during a flight-system failure. Just twenty years ago, most people could remember at least five important phone numbers. Both the body and the mind need exercise and, without it, we become weak and frail. What's more, these traits are carried on evolutionarily. The key to the survival of any species is its adaptability to change, and the human genus has excelled at this for a relatively short period of time. We owe much of this to our growing technology. The real problem, of course, is that our technology may have grown to the point that we cannot survive without it. Thus, the irony is that the very technology that makes us so adaptable may yet drive us to extinction, because we may be unadaptable to its sudden loss. (See Mad Max.)

For these reasons I believe it is useful to remember the benefits our old technology provided, lest they become lost forever. Just because something is new doesn't necessarily make it better. It is simply a change in the benefits and drawbacks. Like many species who came before us, we have found a niche, and that niche relies on a very narrow set of parameters in order to function. Like many species before us, we may be lost when those parameters are upset and our niche falls apart.

Which sounds better? Let's say, I pay you $100.00 today, or give you two pennies today, doubling it every day for 30 days. Many people will jump at that hundred dollars. However, if you calculate it out, 2³⁰ comes out to just about 11 million dollars. All that from just two pennies and 30 days. That's the power of exponentials! There really isn't much of an increase until those last few days, and then it skyrockets.

The population of the Earth is growing at an exponential rate, and we are reaching the point where the curve on the graph is nearly vertical. It has been a mere 60 generations since Christ, and just 3000 generations from our oldest known ancestor, and in these last few generations we have experienced an unprecedented amount of growth which will only increase in the future. At this rate, in a few more generations Earth will be "standing-room only." All of the alternate technologies and all the king's men will never be able to quell the need all of this life has for energy. Nor will the Earth sufficiently be able to dissipate all of the energy/entropy we use/lose, which is the real problem. (We concern ourselves so much with where to get energy that we pay no attention to where it goes when we're through.)

It may be impossible to solve the problem of climate change. Once the bell is rung it can't be un-rung. Only in comic books can people control the weather. However, only one thing is going to solve our contribution to its change, and that is to solve to problem of overpopulation. In the past, balance was maintained through war; as humans are the only natural predator of humans. In the future, balance must be restored, but perhaps we can find more peaceful means. Unfortunately, China is the only country that has ever come up with a logical plan to combat climate change. If we don't do something, nature will surely restore the balance for us, and we may not like the results.

Dogs are some of the best people on the planet. They are very simple in their needs and desires, extremely loyal and honest, and love unconditionally. The one question I constantly get asked is, "How do I train my dog." I usually don't have time to go into detail, so my answer always comes back the same, "Consistency and persistency." Unfortunately, the real answer to this question depends on many factors, such as, what will the dog be trained for? How much time and dedication are you willing to put into it? Do you even have the personality for it? How smart is the dog? Is it smarter than you? All of these factors and more need to be considered before deciding on an appropriate course of training. The dog's breed and even its individual personality all play a role.

Not everyone is cut out for training, nor (in my personal opinion) even owning a dog. Someone with a short temper, who is impatient or quick to anger will have nothing but poor results, and quite frankly may ruin a dog's spirit. Similarly, those who are flighty and are not able to focus their full attention on the dog will also have a lousy outcome, because the dog will assume the role of "alpha" whenever it sees an opportunity. What is really needed is patience, understanding, vigilance, and a willingness to see things from the dog's point of view; to get inside their heads, if you will. Similarly, people who regard their dogs as being more human than not also have poor results.

It's easier to think like a dog than to expect the dog to think like a human. I always start at birth, building a vocabulary for them. It's very simple at first, but slowly add to it as they grow. I keep track of the words which I am positive they understand, but try to be aware that they may understand far more than I realize. (All dogs are con-artists that are masters at playing dumb or preying on your emotions when it suits them.) Some dogs can have a vocabulary of tens of words, while others may be upwards of several hundred. The thing to always remember, no matter how smart your dog is, it will never comprehend things any more than ... say, a one or two year-old child. They have only the most rudimentary understanding of our language, and often rely more on body language much more than spoken words. Some may understand two or three-word combinations, and seem like they can understand full sentences, but they really can't. That doesn't mean you shouldn't talk to them in full sentences. They love that, even if they don't understand, but you'd be surprised what they can pick up on. Commands need to be simple.

Dogs don't really seem to be able to grasp the concept of a word or name as being a symbol or even a property of things. At best, they are calls to action. Even their own names, which they may respond to, are more of a "Hey you" than something that uniquely identifies it, and it takes great training for even the smartest dog to realize its name somehow distinguishes it from other dogs. To this degree they can seem to understand synonyms but have no concept of homonyms. In other words, one thing can have many different names (ie: Charlie, Charles, Chaz, Chuck, Dog Number Four...), but one name cannot have more than one meaning. This is important when building a vocabulary, because "down" (off the couch or down the hill) cannot have another meaning, such as "down" (lay down). For that, another word will need to be chosen, such as "lay."

The dog's breed and individual personality all play a role. Some breeds, such as German Shepherds, thrive on training. They love being given a task and being praised upon completion. The German Shepherd knows its place as your companion and helper, and would have it no other way. To the contrary, a bloodhound thinks it is the owner and you are its pet. You almost have to use reverse psychology. They will usually do whatever you ask them ... as long as you are asking. The moment you try to force them to do something, they will resist with every ounce of strength they can muster.

Most important is the personality of the owner. Like children, dogs learn more by example than by any training, so they often take on personalities similar to their owners, or rather, who their owner really is in private. Therefore, if your dog is an a-hole, chances are great that you may just be an a-hole too. Also like children, dogs go through many different phases of growth, especially in the months between adolescence and adulthood, and it's impossible to teach them not to do something until they first attempt it. They need to be socialized with other humans and dogs often and from a very young age, so they can learn the proper social skill when interacting with others. Dogs don't respond well to anger or violence, no matter if its a police dog, military, guard dog, or whatever. Training and work should always be fun. Dogs respond mostly to positive reinforcement. The biggest mistake people make is to continually focus on what the dog does wrong, and pay no attention to what it does right. Dogs need constant praise for their feats, because that is what motivates them. Discipline should be stern but never angry, and very sparingly doled out. Most of the time a stern look or glower is all that is needed to get the point across. (Just imagine any good boss you've ever had. Would you have respected them if they yelled and screamed? But you can definitely respect the ones who can show they mean business with a simple glance.)

The thing people are often shocked to find out, when they go to a professional, is that training a dog mostly consists of training the owner. Training a working dog is a never-ending job, but for a household pet, they key thing is to always use the same words and commands for the same things, keep the rules straight-forward and always the same, keep on top of things, and learn to anticipate what the dog will do and correct it before the dog gets into trouble. Consistency and persistency. Above all, don't try to control, change or humanize the dog too much. Let it be a dog.

Have you ever wondered what your dog is actually saying when it barks, growls, or makes other sounds? The following are some brief insights and translations of the typical "dog speak":

Bark -- Translation: "Hey!"

Angry bark -- "HEY!!!!"

Rapid barking -- "Hey! Hey! Hey! Hey! Hey!"

Low growl -- "heyyyyyyyyyyyy."

Whine -- "Heyyy. Hey, hey. Heyyyyy."

Sigh -- "Sigh"

Yipe -- "HeyHeyHeyHeyHey!"

It has long been known that a large group or organization of people will begin to behave as a single entity, taking on a consciousness and will of its own. This consciousness may completely contradict the minds and wills of the individual members. Often referred to as mob-mentality, groupthink, lemming logic, or herd-mentality, the group itself takes on aspects of an entity with a personality that is completely removed from its human components. Lacking in morality, manipulative, often outwardly charming, untruthful and insincere, destructive to itself and others, and rife with antisocial behavior, such a group invariably begins to behave as a single consciousness without a single conscience. In other words, the group as a whole begins to display all the hallmarks of a sociopath. This has been seen in groups throughout history, from governments to political parties, from corporations to news outlets, and from courtrooms to lynch mobs.

In all of this, Wikipedia stands out as the group with a conscience. The why of this is still a mystery, but Wikipedia is one of the few groups where people collaborate with civility for a single cause, and people with opposing views can rationally discuss their opinions and come to a consensus. This may be due to a large number of dedicated editors working tirelessly to ensure we do so without compromising morality and integrity. Somewhere in here may be a lesson for us all, but we'll just have to wait and see how it unfolds. It is one of the few organizations a person can truly be proud of and honored to be a part of.

You make your own position seem worse than it actually is when you mischaracterize the position of your opponents. (The difference between Wikipedia and sound-bite politics, I hope, is that we should try really hard to avoid cute statements that misrepresent the facts.) ...having a biography with a statement like this is precisely what gives rise to the perception that anyone can write any old nonsense into Wikipedia they want. We need to insist on higher quality. --Jimbo Wales

I see great potential in Wikipedia, but find it to be somewhat stuck in a rut. The well intended policy has become overly detailed, convoluted, and hard to follow. Words now have their own definitions, and the spirit of the policies are undermined by their complexity. Wikipedia itself is often just as cluttered and disorganized. There is a simple writing structure that is used by encyclopedias that is not found here. There is rarely double checking of facts, and often opinions are portrayed as fact. Plagiarism seems to be commonplace, which is the cardinal sin of writing. (Even self-plagiarism is frowned upon.) I take writing very seriously, so I apologize if I get a little passionate about it.

Stagnation occurs when the old fails to flow out and the new fails to flow in. Any closed system will eventually increase in it's randomness and disorder. There is a natural human tendency to become stagnant in one's own ideas, and Wikipedia is not immune to this form of entropy. (See below for more on entropy.)

Wikipedia is often a collaboration of one. The usual method is for someone to add something, then someone else reverts it, and maybe after an edit war, argue about it on the talk page. The discussion pages are rather useless for seeking advice, as most arguments tend to boil down to, "It must go in." "It must never go in." The various sides become entrenched in their own viewpoints, and discussions can become like a World War One battlefield. Often, the differences between the two sides is as mundane as "deletionist" versus "inclusionist," or "republican" versus "democrat," making it nearly impossible for someone to reach that middle-ground. No man's land. Collaboration for wording, structure and placement of information is a rarity here. In most cases, no response on a talk page is about as close to a green light as one can expect. The response to most problems that an article, guideline, or policy may have is to add more and more words while giving less information.

Nothing I could say on the subject beats the advice given by Clarence A. Phipps, from the book Fundamentals of electrical control

The problem with the original circuit was worsened by additional relays the engineer had added to "compensate" for the apparent fault. We are not inferring that the engineer was incompetent, he had just become too involved with his original logic to look at it objectively. This illustrates the point that all of us occasionally "cannot see the forest for the trees," and should consider asking someone else to take a fresh look at a problem that has us puzzled. There should be no shame in having someone look over your shoulder when you hit a snag in the system you are working on. In this case history, a simple change in the input hardware allowed us to remove the problem, instead of correcting it with more circuitry.

As a student of the English language, I despise the form of writing known as legalese, (and even its technical cousin, which I will call "techniqese"). This sneaky language consists of altering the definitions of words slightly to achieve a very specific meaning which is not apparent to the untrained observer. Lawyers become politicians as a means of job security, so they can make laws which no one except a lawyer can understand, littered with loopholes and other tricks. Wikipedia policy is falling into this trap of instruction creep. We are told on the policy pages that "verifiability" does not mean the same thing as the dictionary definition. If Wikipedia is about reliable sourcing, then my suggestion would be to find the proper word, and to make sure that policy definitions match reliable sourcing, so that all who come here will be able to understand.

Structure is really very simple. It's one of the first things taught in writing. Start with a lead, (often spelled lede in writing). This should very briefly cover the entire article at about a sixth grade level, and is only concerned with answering the question what. Next comes an introduction section. The intro is really an expanded lede, covering the entire article in a bit more depth, at about a tenth grade level, briefly answering the questions what, where, when and who. Further sections get into higher, college level explanations, covering all questions, including technical questions, such as how, and the opinion seeking questions, why and do/does. There should be a summary section, summarizing the article at about a tenth grade level. Except the lede, each section should have an intro paragraph, content paragraphs, and a summary paragraph. Each paragraph should have an intro sentence, content, and a summary sentence. All questions should be answered in this order: what, where, when, who, how, why, and does/do.

Of course, writing is not necessarily so rigid, but this is the way in which the human brain categorizes and stores information. Once mastering this simple format, a person's writing will become clearer and their articles more enjoyable to read.

These are often treated as separate things to be used as mere arguing points, as if each are some how loopholes intended to circumvent the others. These things need to work together for Wikipedia to ever be considered reliable. The definitions of these nouns are very clear, which can be summed up as "factuality," "authority testament," "balanced opinion," and "significance." Facts, and even the facts surrounding an opinion, can be verified by the authority testament found in reliable sources. These facts need to be significant to achieve notability, and opinions need to be balanced with opposing opinions, where they exist. This balance must be in proportion to the notability of the information, and delivered in a dispassionate tone to achieve neutrality. It is all really just that simple.

Wikipedia is full of many useful policies and guidelines, showing how to correctly compose a readable, understandable, accurate, and neutral article. Unfortunately, this tends to be used as an exact model of how every article should look, but sometimes different subjects require a different approach or level of care. These policies and guidelines are as essential to an encyclopedia as building and electrical laws are to contractors. However, all of these things are the minimal conditions that must be met. They don't mean that we can't do better; they simply mean that we can do no worse.

This not so simple thing is vital to improving the quality of Wikipedia. Facts, (even the facts about opinions), are verifiable, and can be found in reliable sources. However, information is often wrong, even from the best source. Sometimes meanings are lost in translation, such as, an author who reads a scientific study may translate something wrong. A magazine reporter may read the book, and further mistranslate information, and so on. It becomes sort of a "heard it through the grapevine" effect. Some sources, such as a university study or book, just do much more thorough research than others, such as television or magazines. News outlets do their best, but are bound by very short deadlines. There becomes an obvious order to the reliability of sources. The most reliable sources are those which offer a list of their own references. (I learned when building lasers that most people who write about it have never tried to build one of their own.) Checking for accuracy can actually be fun, but may lead to some arguments. Wikipedia policy should encourage the use of multiple sources, focusing on the three most reliable concurring references for disputed lines, to help avoid unnecessary edit warring. Experts should be encouraged to help, for they usually have access to the best sources, but they should be discouraged from providing unsourced expertise. (No original research, which goes straight to reliable sourcing.)

The old preacher's trick has been used since the dawn of time. Take a paragraph out of context and combine it with another to lead the reader to enlightenment, and you are engaging in synthesis. (Does the Bible really say the first person was Adam, or did he call himself something else? Was Adam just one person, or a people? Go back and read it carefully, in context.) The word quite literally translates from the ancient Greek, syn-theos-sis, meaning: Making-up God's actions. (A "syn" by Christian standards.) Synthesis occurs anytime an author tries to convey their own ideas and theories, using the work of one or several others as supporting evidence. This "evidence" is often taken out of context, as the conclusion which the writer is aiming for is not usually supported by the conclusions of the sources. Synthesis is practical when forming a hypothesis and is often used by teachers, but it has no place in an encyclopedia. It is of vital importance that Wikipedia should never lead readers to a conclusion. An encyclopedia's purpose is to provide information to be used when learning about a subject, but never to teach that subject.

I think the internet is providing more evidence to back up Darwin's theory. In a world without consequences, even grown men and women will behave as monkeys. Why is it that the people who always cry "civility" are the ones who never display any? I have absolutely no tolerance for rudeness and childish behavior, and believe that Wikipedia is far too lenient on such matters. That, I fear, is just a new product of the internet environment. I can only try to treat others with the respect and dignity that I would if we were working together in a professional office, and not to cower behind my keyboard spouting insults that I would never dare have the guts to say to someone's face. If someone witnesses incivility toward another, it is not a violation of the Wikipedia:Assume good faith policy to point out their misconduct, but rather, it is our duty as the community to do so.

From: http://vicktorya.com/?p=579

In 1972, Irving Janis, in his book Victims of Groupthink, added a new dimension to the study of group behavior and group dynamics when he described “groupthink” as:

“… a quick and easy way to refer to a mode of thinking that people engage in when they are involved in a cohesive in-group; when the members’ strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative course of action… Groupthink refers to a deterioration of mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgment that results from in-group pressures.” --(Janis, 1972, p. 9)

Early in his book, Janis gives the following story as an example of groupthink:

“Twelve middle-class American men and women wanted to stop smoking, and attended weekly meetings at a clinic to discuss the problem. Early in the sessions, two people stood up and declared that cigarette smoking was an almost incurable addiction. The group agreed. The, one man stood up and said “I have stopped smoking and, with a little willpower, so can the rest of you.” Immediately, the other group members began to abuse him verbally, and the meeting ended in chaos. The following week, the dissident stood up again and said that he could not both attend all of the required meetings and stop smoking; so he had returned to smoking two packs of cigarettes as day. The other members welcomed him back into the fold with enthusiasm but no one mentioned that the original purpose of the group was to help each other stop [emphasis in original] smoking. Their new aim was maintaining the status quo at any cost.” --(Ibid, p. 9)

To me, these standpoints are ridiculous. So are most arguments about censorship. Obviously, there is certain information that should be included and some that should not. Usually this is on the grounds of notable versus trivia. More often, however, the argument should be about presentation and organization. It is possible to present any information professionally. It is not censorship to leave out excessively graphic images and to use a more clinical type of analysis. It is also not censorship to leave out information that does not specifically define the subject. Information that is notable but irrelevant to the subject can still be used, but should be put in its proper place, and that sometimes means under a different subject. Finally, the information should be presented as a summary. This means leaving out excessively boring details and concentrating on the overall meaning intended by the sources; the nitty-gritty. All of this requires editorial judgment. The goal should be to create the best introduction to the sources that we can, always keeping the reader in mind. When writing or editing an article, keep in mind the presentation and the organization of the information. Ask yourself, is it easy to read and understand? Is the information necessary to define the subject. Does it convey the overall meaning with as little detail as possible? Does it show good taste and avoid pandering to lurid curiosity?

An editor thinks something might be wrong with this page. That editor won't actually make any effort to fix it, but can rest assured that they've done their encyclopedic duty by sticking on a tag. Please allow this tag to languish indefinitely at the top of the page, since nobody knows exactly what the tagging editor was worked up about.

Personally, I view tagging as a complete waste of time; time which could better be spent improving articles. In all of my time here, I've never seen an article helped by the placement of an ambiguous tag at the top. Perhaps this is due to the possibility that, due to over-exposure, society in general is becoming immune to advertisements. Perhaps it is just that tags are far too general to provide anyone with a clue as to what exactly needs to be improved. What I do know is that I tend to ignore all tags. I neither add them nor remove them ... come to think of it, I don't even look at them. When I find an article that has a problem, I usually bring it up on the talk page. Sometimes people respond, and the great process of collaboration can take place. If no response comes forth, I usually make the changes myself, rather than waste time tagging the article. Many times I find a specific comment or question that I can answer, and will usually get around to including that information at some point. Toward the benefit of the encyclopedia, I find that tagging has the opposite effect that is usually intended. At best, it gives the appearance of laziness; at worst, it promotes laziness.

The one exception to this seems to be the inline "citation needed" tags, which show exactly what needs to be done. These are probably the most helpful tags Wikipedia has.

Not surprisingly, Wikipedia is open to the same form of attacks that undermine the US government: Lobbying and filibustering. Lobbying is simply a paid-advocacy group paying someone to push their cause. Filibustering is the hijacking of a discussion with endless statements (walls of text), circular arguments, rationalizations and, when all else fails, personal attacks.

Wikipedia is made up of many, many good editors and writers alike. This includes code writers, debuggers, and the like. One of the best things about participating in Wikipedia is getting to meet so many people with such high integrity. Unfortunately, most of the world is not that way. Assuming good faith is a great way to promote a friendly environment, but too often will lead to others taking advantage of that policy. In the real world, people quickly find out that misguided trust is often not in our best interest. This is why we lock our doors and avoid dark alleys. In the real world, trust must usually be earned, and, once someone's trust is lost, it's almost impossible to earn it back.

Assume good faith does not mean that we should continue to assume good faith once bad faith has been demonstrated.

The problem with lobbying is that it cannot possibly be done in good faith. No matter how one tries to rationalize it, when your pay depends upon your work, your only incentive is to please your employer. This means, no matter how trustworthy you may be, you can never be any more trustworthy than your employer. Every profressional writer or editor has an intrinsic bias that cannot be avoided, although many will try to ratioalize it (which is more or less lying to themselves). This is why professional writers are very careful in choosing their publishers by reputation.

Wikipedia is different, becsqause most of us are not getting paid by anybody. Therefore, we can automatically assume our intentions are good and be judged solely on the value of our contributions. The problem is: Nearly all of us have day jobs and cannot afford to spend all day lobbying for our particular cause. Unfortunately, those who are getting paid can afford to do just that, and this imbalances the whole system. Suddenly, the rest of us have no voice, because the lobbyists can dominate the conversation with endless rounds of filibustering. Allowing this type of behavior will surely destroy the reputation of Wikipedia in the eyes of public opinion, just as it has done to the government's.

Hi. My name is not important, but, for ease in communication, you can call me Zaereth. If you've come looking to get to know me better, I am honored. There is really not much to tell. I am a man in my early 40s, living in Anchorage Alaska. I grew up in a very different world, where dogs ran free and as such were friendly, all the wild was my home, we all celebrated our differences, and racism was some strange concept from a far-away land that they taught you about in school. My childhood can be summed up in two words, Wapos Bay. (The resemblance to my life is uncanny --I would swear they based this show on my neighborhood. I grew up with every single character; only the names and hairstyles are different. Just toss in a couple of white kids to be best friends with T-Bear and Devon, and that was my life.) For an analogy of my teenage years, see: Wayne's World (I knew all those guys too, except Wayne and Garth).

I've been writing and dealing with editors all of my life. I am an avid bike rider. (In fact, stand on any road in Anchorage long enough, and sooner or later I'll come riding by on my 10-speed.) However, I'm not one of those who rides out in the street with the cars --on their side of the white line-- 1.) because I try to be courteous rather than a lane-crowding asshole, and 2.) because I have the sense God gave a mosquito to know that they're big enough to smash the hell out of me. (I've seen the results of 200 lbs. of spandex and 10-speed doing 20 mph against 2000 lbs. of truck doing 60 --on a four-lane highway in the middle of rush hour (with a bike path right next to him!)-- and it ain't pretty.) My favorite part of hiking is running down the mountain as fast as possible, leaping from out-crop to out-crop. I like to rock-climb without a rope. I never take the same trail back. I prefer to ride snowmachine (snowmobile) much faster than most people are comfortable with. I love German Shepherds, and find them to be the most versatile dogs, taking to military-style training just as well as seeing-eye work, or just as a family companion.

Of the sixteen personality types, mine is ISTP (Introverted Sensing Thinking Percieving). A good but quick description, from here is: "Quiet and reserved, interested in how and why things work. Excellent skills with mechanical things. Risk-takers who they live for the moment. Usually interested in and talented at extreme sports. Uncomplicated in their desires. Loyal to their peers and to their internal value systems, but not overly concerned with respecting laws and rules if they get in the way of getting something done. Detached and analytical, they excel at finding solutions to practical problems."

I was raised a presbyterian, but no longer affiliate myself with that religion. I study all forms of religion as mythology. I find insight in all of them, but none seem complete to me. As a believer in Jung's "collective conscious," I've been fascinated by the correlation between stories such as Genesis, Chaos, and Ragnarok, and how these seem to match the current scientific view when taken symbolically. It seems to me that, if someone truely believes in an all-powerful God, then surely they must concede that there is more to him than can ever be written in any book, religion, science, or philosophy, and should be open to learning about him from every aspect. Like all evolution, any science or religion that is unadaptable to change will be doomed to eventually fail.

I am a pragmatist. I believe that knowledge is only as good as the results it produces. I believe in using the highest quality sources, for I don't want to look like an idiot when someone comes to double check my work. I desire to know all things, from every point of view.

I am a believer in the theory of evolution, and in Einstein's theory of gravity. I often pick on these subjects, because I prefer to use examples of things which I have studied in great detail. I am a believer in Tao, and find that the philosophy fits very closely with scientific theory and quantum mechanics. I believe that, if there is some "ultimate truth," it will always be beyond our ability to conceive. The best any good encyclopedia can hope for is to present all of the various "truths" in a fair and accurate manner.

I hate politics. I am neither democrat nor republican, and am with George Washington in my belief that a party system is detrimental to any government, creating an "us against them" environment rather than a sense of unity. (The Divided States of America?) I will not vote based on any party, but based on the character of the individual. While I am all for conservation, I believe that to be a conservative generally means that someone is a prude, while to be a liberal means that someone is a waste. I'm also with Andy Rooney in my belief that if people don't care enough to research the issues, then they shouldn't be encouraged to vote.

I am a firm believer in a person's right to privacy, and agree with the Society of Professional Journalists, in that, "only an overriding public need can justify an intrusion into anyone's privacy." As such, I do not post my personal information on the computer. I prefer to let my quality of workmanship be the measure of my integrity. It is that philosophy which is the cornerstone of writing, beyond the realm of Wikipedia. I will never be a quantity editor, but will focus my efforts on quality, even though only the former is recognized around here.

The main principles of Tao are as follows:

1. Indefinability - Tao encompasses all things and there is nothing to compare it to. While the effects of Tao can be measured, Tao itself can not. In other words -- "There is a limit to the accuracy with which reality can be measured." --see: The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

2. Inexplicablilty - While Tao can be known, it can never be fully understood or adequately explained. -- "Any logical model of reality is incomplete and possibly inconsistent, and must be continuously refined in the face of new observations." --see: Godel's Incompleteness Theorem

3. Oneness - Tao is everything, nothing and always. All things are Tao, as all things are always within Tao. -- "Energy and matter can neither be created or destroyed, but can only change place and form." --see: The First law of thermodynamics.

4. Cyclicity - Tao creates balance. The greater the effort to upset the balance of Tao; the greater the loss will be when balance is restored. -- "The entropy of any closed system always tends to increase, and thus the nature of any given system is continuously changing even as efforts are directed toward maintaining it in its original form." --see: The Second law of thermodynamics.

5. Harmony - Tao maintains balance. When an imbalance is created, an opposite imbalance is also created, so that the overall balance of the universe is maintained. -- "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction." see The Third law of motion.

I guess its customary to list some of the article to which I've contributed.

Absolute scale, Falling leaf, Mangalloy, Slow roll, Structural integrity, Telluric iron, Wingover

Aileron roll, Barrel roll, Basic fighter maneuvers, Differential heat treatment, Flashtube, Hamon (swordsmithing), Heat treating, Ironsand, Tempering (metallurgy)

Air combat maneuvering, Alloy, Dye laser, Forge welding, History of Anchorage, Alaska, Laser pumping, Optical flat, Phosphorescence, Ruby laser, Vergence (optics)

Aerodynamic braking, Arc flash, Brinelling, Capacitor, Crucible steel, Dogfight, Diffraction grating, Electric spark, Energy conversion efficiency, Galling, Glycerol, Fuller (weapon), Honey, Horand von Grafrath, Japanese swordsmithing, Liquid, Mirror, Moose, Output coupler, Potential energy, Precession (mechanical), Swaging, Thin-film interference, Welding

Ablation, Aconitum, Aerobatic maneuver, Alloy wheel, Amorphous metal, Anchorage, Alaska, Anti-reflective coating, Area rule, Arc lamp, Arthur Leonard Schawlow, Austenite, Beam splitter, Biofilm, Bobby Beausoleil, Carol Burnett, Case hardening, Ceramic, Cosmology, Cow parsnip, Denali, Devil's club, Dichroic filter, Drawknife, Dream Pool Essays, Electric arc, Electric glow discharge, Fluorescent light, Flydubai Flight 981, Fused quartz, Gas discharge lamp, Harmonic analysis, Hebron glass, Incandescent light bulb, Infraparticle, Iridescence, Japanese sword polishing, Kelvin, Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor, Mount Foraker, Mount Hunter (Alaska), Multiple-prism dispersion theory, Nd:YAG laser, Non-ferrous metal, Pattern welding, Petrolsoft Corporation, Phosphorescence, Pressure measurement, Pulse forming network, Reynolds number, Rhodamine 6G, Slip (aerodynamics), Speckle pattern, Spectralon, Spin (aerodynamics), Stacking-fault energy, Surface roughness, Tatara (furnace), Template:Steels, Torr, Venus flytrap, Vikings, Viking swords, Viscosity, Wedge prism, Widmanstatten pattern, Wolverine, Xenon arc lamp

Glass, Glass transition, Kim Kardashian, Mary Kay Letourneau, Physics of glass, Sarah Palin, Solid, Viking

I have spent nearly my entire time here working at the WP:Biographies of living persons/noticeboard, so feel free to ask any questions. I have spent much of the same time avoiding boards like WP:ANI or WP:ARBCOM like the plague.