Fingerprints are not unique
This may shock you because you were likely brought up with parents, teachers, and writers saying otherwise. As always, I find it amazing at how much we [think we] know that we have never even bothered to qualify, prove, or even simply ask why. Why?, should pepper your life. Without it, an observer has less than the meager trimmings they've already assumed were there. I will show you quite inarguably that fingerprints are not unique. I am not saying that Fingerprints cannot identify a criminal, or that they are not vastly complicated, or even that our usage thus far has been wrong. I am quite simply pointing out one simple truth, and this that there is nothing, absolutely nothing, that enforces uniqueness when it comes to the print on your finger.
For the impatient
There is only one question that you need to ask yourself, and that is what would enforce unique designs? When a baby is conceived, it’s DNA does not perform a global database lookup of something along the lines of:
An individual with even a slight grasp of personal dimension should now be thinking, "wow, why have I blindly assumed this my whole life?" Even if some sort of global lookup was performed, and assuming the human race can live forever (on another planet after our sun explodes) you would discover that eventually this great “fingerprint database” would one day give the okay to make a print in the design of a penguin, or a 747 jetliner, would it not? After all, forever is infinite.
Unique: adj. Being the only one of its kind
For the Interested
You are correct, fingerprints are very complicated. In fact, pull out that powerful microscope you keep close by all the time (is that just me?) and check the buggers out – whoa, even more complex than you assumed! Now, let’s ponder some basic fragments so we don't lose anyone along the way.
So, the real question is how many people have ever been born? It is estimated that about 100 billion people have been born. That makes 100 billion people, each with 10 fingers. That makes hmmm, carry the 8… add 4… subtract 4… about One Trillion Fingers! (Incidentally, in high school I happened to have a garage band by that name.)
One trillion designs. wow. Out of the 1 trillion prints in time, how many do you think have been scanned, and compared? Aren’t you adorable :-) Have you even ever bothered to ask what makes them unique? Simple assumption; because of their incredibly detailed designs that can zig and zag and include swoops and swirls and other anomalies, they are, individually, extremely differentiated. So extreme, it is very easy to simply call them unique.
If you believe fingerprints are unique, your reasons fall into one of two categories:
#1. Fingerprints are unique because no two of them are alike. Really, what are you basing this on? Out of 1 trillion prints that have existed, how many have been compared? 1 hundred million? I'm no math wizard, but what is that, .01%?
#2 Fingerprints are unique because there is such a vast amount of designs that can be made with the swoops and swirls. True, but then you (humans) must not be infinite, otherwise the designs would have to be infinite as well. Humans can easily be infinite. Sure an asteroid will one day bash into earth and destroy us all, but when? Surely in a couple hundred years we’ll be able to launch ourselves over to Earth2, setup a Cinemax feed and Bam! A few trillion more fingerprints.
Furthermore, have you seen another persons fingerprint? Now really, it does not look that far off from yours now, does it? The designs are limited, although widely, plain and simple. There is nothing tracking and managing all designs of the last 1,000,000,000,000 fingers, and “issuing” a new unused design for finger # 1,000,000,000,001.
Yes, for our purposes of catching criminals, linking people and places during certain times, with motive, a witness and a few matching areas on a print – Sure, it works, but that is not the subject here.
We are safe to consider the designs differentiated enough for our mundane purposes, but no, biologically, physically, logically, and reality – not unique. Nothing is in place to make them be unique. Do you understand this particular statement? As this is the only thing you need understand.
Vast, and Unique, are completely different.
You can read my original query of this question on Google Answers, in 2003, and see what transpired there.
]]>
I am not for or against abortion. Obviously, if we did not need to have abortions – wonderful! I don’t think there are too many mothers who want to extinguish a life. What I’d like to know is this. If we did make abortions illegal, what do we do with all those babies?
For the impatient
People that are against abortion have absolutely no plan for a grand influx of babies. The people that are against abortion are for the destruction of civilization and desire this worlds situation to go from bad, to worse. Most people do not consider the following:
People always like to say, "Oh, but there are so many people who cannot even get a baby they have to go to China to find one!". Great, that means simply that there is at least one more for demand than is in supply. Unless that is you are saying that americans adopt over 1 million babies every year outside the US alone. Of course your not, however, that is what it would take in order to outlaw abortion and not have it destroy this country.
For the interested
Let’s start with some basic numbers. I have stayed in the US, since worldwide numbers are hard to come by, however, I do know that world wide numbers are tend to be more depressing.
Based on those numbers, if abortion were illegal, one of the following would come true:
Let’s look at each:
Surely you are aware of the many problems within the foster system. Physically and sexually abusive foster parents, and foster parents who are only in it for the additional income from the state. Of course not all foster parents are bad. I am sure there are a grand many who are good people wanting to lend a helping hand. However you have to admit, to a criminal, that is pretty enticing. You are being paid to take children who are already vulnerable, and are probably scared to turn/attack/report evil fosters in fear of not being “fosterable” in the future. I can imagine that it would be in a foster child’s interest to not make waves.
What about if we force the mother to keep the baby? I’m certain a some of the little moms will grow wings and raise their baby wonderfully, however this is not LifeTime, and we all know that it can be rare that parents who even actually want kids do a good job raising them.
It takes a lot of someone to want and to achieve raising a good child. You have to lead by example, everyday. You must love them, and interact with them, everyday. You have to attend to their needs for them to grow, mentally and physically.
The overall effectiveness of each preference class, would be such to have permanent loving parents on top. Under this with regards to effectiveness would be foster care, and then followed by being raised by an unloving parent. Let’s face it, if foster children were all ultra successful and happy, we’d have guru’s telling us to give our children up, for the better of the world.
Our foster system simply cannot handle 1 million more babies each and every year. If it currently cannot handle half a milltion children, what is it going to do with 1.5 million, then 2.5 million the next year? And the next? These unwanted babies would largely go unloved, and un-parented for the majority of their lives. What kind of adults do you think they’ll grow up into? Self starting entrepreneurs who volunteer their time at soup kitchens and listen to Michael Bolton? No, probably more like thousands of small ad-hoc interdependant families, like the ones we come to know as gangs. See, everyone needs love and acceptance – and most everyone gets it, one way or another.
Ask yourself, is this the kind of world that will survive? When, in 13 years from then those first million babies start having relationships, what do you think will happen? Exactly – we grow from 1 million babies each year, to 2 million. After a few more years, and a few more million babies become of age, we start seeing 3, and 4 million unwanted babies each and every year
Just Kidding
Oh geesh guys c’mon. Can’t you take a joke. Here is the real truth: If we did outlaw abortion, those extra million babies would pretty much all be kept by their moms. Obviously, having an actually bundle of joy in their arms, transforms them into the loving mothers we all know and want. Their teeth would become whiter, skin softer, and hair longer. They’d all shower their little babies with much love, and much attention. In fact, so much so that after a decade or so, we’d see these new youngsters start to abstain from sex! Yes, because of the ultra awesome perfect happy mothers this new system automagically created, we’d end up with perfectly balanced and happy children, who were no longer interested in premarital sex.
This is all proven scientific fact, by the way.
In the End:
Surely, after decades of all this debate and protesting, someone has a plan yes?
Oh. that’s peculiar.
]]>
Impossible is a relative condition
This article is about understanding that nothing is impossible. I will start with an example.
Let me ask you what you would think if I said that it were possible for man to grow wings and fly. What would your response be? Many of you would say, that is impossible. Is it? I can think of many ways in which this is entirely possible, even one that does not rely on science that does not exist yet.
The most natural way for man to go about growing wings would be to use evolution to his advantage. Sure, it will take 5 million years, but it is possible, and this is how you'd do it.
First, you'd need to setup a company or government agency, on an island. It cannot be done individually because you need the heredity of focus that a company can provide. This company would need to be profitable via any means related or unrelated to science. However it is profitable, it will need to have the vision to reinvent itself every so often as it's products or services will surely become irrelevant many times over. The idea is that this company needs to sustain the main effort for a very long time, read millions of years. Remember in this scenario we we are not accosting genetics, we are merely guiding it, hence millions of years.
Second, you need to find a group of scientists willing oversee the project knowing that their work will amount to nothing, and they will never be known for any of their accomplishments. We'll call this group, the Guides.
Third, you'll need to find volunteers that are willing to give up all their rights, and the rights of their offspring. Their offspring however would not know, becoming tantamount to Jim Carrey's character in the movie The Truman Show. We'll call this group the Subjects. This group may surprisingly number in the hundreds, even thousands.
The Guides would be tasked with several very boring duties. First, you need to assure the Subjects remain content, happy, and need free. This is of course only until after the initial Subjects die. The Guides will also have to decide which will be the fastest way to provoke evolution. Evolution responds to both good and bad circumstances, however I presume one more quickly than the other. I'm guessing "Survival of the fittest" gives us our nod, as I don't recall the saying "Survival of the most content".
Starting right away, you need to dumb the subjects down. This can be done in many ways, presumably the most logical would be the food or water supply. It should be gradual - again, until after the initial subjects die. The goal here is to make sure they don't try to make and use tools. Another helpful hint will be to start shortening the natural life span of the Subjects. 80 years is superfluous.
You'd need to control the available food supply and materials that are present. Speaking of the environment, I am guessing that it would need to be comprised of disparate steep and narrow mountains, with an abundance (but not an overabundance) of trees. These mountains would be separated by flatlands. The Subjects would need reason to travel from mountain to mountain on a daily basis. This might be done by controlling the mountains that provide shelter, and the mountains that provide nourishment, etc.
Clearly one way to go would be to introduce an underground threat into the Subjects environment. For those of you trying to imagine all of this, keep in mind that the threat does not need to be real, it can be man made, or possibly even a perceived threat. An important feature of the threat is that it would need to be able to instantly kill, without warning, and without being noticed. The last thing you'd want is for the Subjects to be able to fight the threat. Even if they can't win, the mere fact that they can fight it won't be conducive to the goal. You need the Subjects to need a way, not find a way. I recommend when needing to kill, to kill the elderly, but you'll need to kill some young as to keep up the threat, and not create a noticeable pattern.
Humans are creative, patterns can be noticed, and tools can be made from almost anything. The initial Guides will have their work cut out for them to stifle these opportunities.
You won't see any change for the first couple thousand years, but eventually you'll see the Subjects bodies, and more importantly arms, become much lighter and thinner. The Subjects would become very fast. In fact, thinking about it, I'd recommend placing small rocks sporadically on the flat lands. You don't want the Subjects to only become very fast, you want to them to never be fast enough, and have safe havens to understand that - physically.
I think you can see where this is going, so I will stop there. If we perverted the genetics of the Subject, the transition would be even faster.
Not to get too far off the subject but can you imagine if we had several of these "islands?" One could make man breath underwater, another could make us be able to withstand extreme heat, and ultraviolet light. I guess we are all just content with what we are... or maybe we just have not looked at man as a future, instead of as a present.
Back to the impossible
I started out by saying that the impossible is only a condition, and a relative one at that. This is to say that it is impossible for man to grow wings and fly - in my lifetime. This is why we see many things as impossible - because they are impossible to us. You have to remember that everything we think, see, and feel goes through an initial filter, the filter of the observer.
Nothing is impossible, which means that everything is possible. Notice I didn't say that anything is possible, but rather everything. This is an important distinction. You must understand that everything is possible in order to achieve what you think is impossible. When everything is possible, up and down don't just become the same, but still remain the opposite. Positive and negative are equivalent, and nonequivalent. This is why the saying, "life is what you make of it", will always be true.
Many of the rules we feel exist in our world, are completely man made. In fact, my above "experiment" can quite possibly be seen as our life today. Humankind has unwittingly been the Guide, and the Subject. Or, another way to look at is is simply that humankind is the subject, and we are ignorant of the Guides. In many ways your God can be seen as a Guide.
Impossible is of course is a valid condition as long as it is understood to be relative. You might be thinking that if everything is possible, then all mathematical formulas are incorrect. Not at all. Formulas and theorems are merely an instruction pamphlet. In fact, if we create a new need for something that does not yet exist, we can create a formula to to create it. When something is and is not, it really is, and it really is not. So mathematically, you can show that it is and likewise, that it is not. Maybe a good way to look at existence, would be more like the term available.
Why should I believe you?
You shouldn't. However you will. If you have read other parts of this website you would know that I am currently working on a project that will be a huge blow to science - in a good way. In a single moment sometime this next year, all of science will change. One day you will turn on your television and be looking at one of the worlds most impossible possibilities.
]]>
I’ve got some bad news for you. Liking or disliking George Bush, or Republicans for that matter, doesn’t really amount to anything when it comes to having any stance on any war. Let’s face it, the terrorists that produced 9/11 were planning, and starting to come here before George Bush even ran for office. In fact, as I am sure you remember, Bill Clinton was the one who said Iraq (and I quote) “building and stockpiling weapons of mass destruction” and put into policy (and I quote) “a regime change in Iraq”. Oh, you don't remember that? I guess you attribute all that to GW to which I might say, “why have you not done your homework?”. By the way, why is that? Become informed. Don't just go around regurgitating.
9/11. What does this tell you? It tells me that hatred built up to such a high level in the past, that groups decided to secretly send people into the US, to one day try and destroy it.
I have three questions for you.
#1 How many sleeper cells do you think were in the US in the 1980’s?
#2 How many sleeper cells do you think were in the US in the 1990’s?
#3 How many sleeper cells do you think were are the US now?
The only thing that should matter to you is the fact that none of the above have an answer of ZERO. None.
They were coming then, and they are coming now. I am not for or against George Bush as I understand that leaders have to live in the world 100 years from now, and not in just today, like you and I. I am not for or against war. However, unless someone can explain what I did that made countries send people here to specifically kill innocent people, then, well, I guess we’ll have war, won’t we?
I mean let’s face it, the French are assholes, but you don’t see us going to war with them do you? No. We go to war for very good reasons, even though a laymen (someone who thinks protesting is a good, effective action) may not understand it. There are two necessary reasons for war. One is rather obvious, defense. The other is not so obvious.
Have you ever asked yourself why we dropped a nuclear bomb on Japan? I mean, here the Germans are trying to take over the world, murdering defenseless Jews and Poles by the millions. A mighty engineering force and a small country that pacts a punch. It seems mighty logical to drop a bomb on Germany no?
Ok ok, so whatever, you think we should instead drop it on Japan. I’m easy and you’re lucky so fine. Let’s lob on over and have it hit the ocean, near a coast, or maybe an uninhabited island right? Ahhh, hmmm. No, let’s drop on right on Hiroshima and kill 140,000 people. Does that sound like the America you know - when I say it like that? We exterminated what would arguably be the largest loss of life in the shortest amount of time in the history of our planet.
Does anyone know why we dropped the bomb? To end the war early? Good lord people, use some brain power! We could have dropped it in the ocean, or an uninhabited island and send a note saying guess where the next one will be? We could have dropped 20 in the ocean surrounding Japan and they’d have thought we were space gods for decades to come. Why did we not drop one on Germany? Why this smaller threat Japan?
It is very obvious. Everyone does it. We did it after 9/11. It is effective, and has absolutely no substitute. The reason we dropped it on Japan, is because of Pearl Harbor.
As a country, as a leader, you have to view the big picture. The “Why”. Why did this happen? Why did someone think they can come into our home and destroy it. Do others think they can do this too? What steps shall I take to tell them, and other possibly like minded people watching that this is not acceptable?
I know, they can come into our home and destroy innocent people, unprovoked. Then, what we do is stop trading with them. Yes! We’ll not send any cigarettes, and we won’t invite them to any parties, or buy their comic books. No more Japan-US Barbeque’s either, and furthermore we’ll ask Russia to stop sending Japan ink, so they won’t be able to write anymore! Bwhahahahaha! This will certainly deter any other evil doers from thinking they can come here and destroy us.
This is acceptable. If someone killed your spouse, what do we do? Do we stop them from watching TV? No. Why? (ahhh sweet Why) Because that would not be enough, now would it?
So, we now admit, there is an “enough” that we need to come to. What is enough? Forcing them to watch “The View”? possibly not. Sending them to jail? Well, probably not either since most people the get released from jail, offend again. So really… really, what is enough?
Let me pose the following to you.
If someone raped and killed a woman, and was caught and forced to drink three gallons of water every day for a week as a first time punishment, do you think others would rape and kill women? How many more?
If we then, after a year of rapping’s and murders punished offenders by removing their leg? How many people would then desire to rape and murder?
If then after another year, when we caught offenders we removed the legs of all the family members, of those who committed rape and murder? Oh my, zero crime here we come. Every family member would make damn sure everyone in their family is nice and happy. Sounds great eh?
Then we agree. The worse and more widespread the punishment, the better it is for the victim and society. Lesson: Don’t do anything that would bring upon a punishment. Easy, no?
With this new found enlightenment, what should have have done after 9/11? Hunt a few thousand people down in Afghanistan? The enemy is Islamic extremists - do you think the majority of Islamic extremists in the Middle East give a piss about a few thousand Taliban? They don’t know them, and they don’t care. Furthermore, there are just as many Islamic extremists outside of the Middle East, than there are inside!
If, after an unprovoked 9/11 we kill off a few thousand Taliban, what message does that give to all the other people in the world, that have a vast amount of money, and a vast hatred for the western world? “Well, they killed the Taliban”, “They killed the who now?”
Can you imagine something worse? Remember GW gave the Taliban the option to give us Osama? If the Taliban had given us Osama, would have trying him in court and sentencing him to death been the correct response to 9/11? For you? What about for them, and the others like them that don’t value you whatsoever?
I suspect like many other things in life, you really have not thought them out completely. You see what is right in front of you and that is it.
Remember, there are two correct response’s. One says you are not happy about this. The other says don’t ever do this again in such a very long, loud annoying voice, that everyone around you, tries to make sure they don’t in fact, do it again.
IRAQ
And, for those of you pissed off with the Iraq War. Did you ever even bother to read the UN reports on Iraq years before the war? Do you remember what happened in the 15 years prior to the Iraq war and what both the first George Bush and later Bill Clinton were leading up to? Do you remember Iraq DENYING admittance to international nuclear regulators? Open your eyes before your mouth people.
What you probably do not realize is that this planet we are on is not caught in a loop. This record is not skipping. The future is nothing like our past. Things progress at a rate unlike any before. It will not be long at all until weapons of mass destruction are in the hands of those who hate us. Don’t believe me? That’s ok, facts don’t require your belief in them.
Ask yourself. If Osama had nuclear bombs on 9/11 would he have used them? Some people cannot be reasoned with. If you think it is about oil, you are letting yourself be fooled. Oil is a scapegoat for antiwar lemmings. Please don’t think I am for war – not at all. Obviously, war is not a good long term business plan for earth as a whole.
In your area there is a murdering rapist on the lose. He usually strikes at parks. You are at a park, and you see a man in a ski mask, he has a gun, and he is raping a woman near you. Let’s say you have a gun in your backpack. What do you do? Your options are to talk him out of doing what he is doing (diplomacy) or use your gun to stop him (war).
I already knew you were wrong, and that you would agree with me. Resistance to facts, logic, and reality is futile. Don’t try and create your own, then push it on others.
As you know owning a gun is not necessary. Well… I guess what I mean is that if everyone in the world felt owning a gun is not necessary, then they would not be necessary. Excuse me. Using your voice is not necessary. However I have one too, and unless you agree with what I say 100% of the time, I guess you better use yours right? War, is the same as freedom of speech. You are just too underdeveloped to understand this. And yet, that is all you need to understand.
Let me ask you one last thing. For every action there is an opposite and equal reaction. Why is that, and are you suggesting that it is escapable?
]]>
In no way am I an animal lover. Well, if you consider cats as animals then yeah, because I LOVE CATS. They're just so cuddly wuddly wittle bitty warmy OH, sorry... Okay, anyway.
As with many arguments I've seen or participated in, I notice that the people involved are usually so entrenched in one aspect of what they think might be part of the subject, that they tend to lose objectivity. When you lose objectivity you run the risk of following a path that while sounds right, and feels right, is actually not even relevant to the core of the debate. Inhumane animal processing is one of them.
This argument tends to start out with one party stating their disappointment in how human beings end the life of an animal which is to be later processed for food, clothing, or both. While this party might really wish that the animal shouldn't be killed (at all) for these reasons, they acknowledge that that is a completely different subject, and while they themselves might not agree, they at least wish the animals that will be killed, are killed in an humane manner.
The other party however will give his opinion that how they are killed makes no difference, because animals don't feel pain the same way we do. They might say a chicken or fish doesn't feel pain like humans do - maybe even suggest they don't feel pain at all, so however we decide to kill them, there is no inhumane way. He will likely say that the other party is just humanizing animals.
These all seems like a valid arguments. However before we get into exploration of these two sides, maybe we should see if either of these sides even matter at all. How will we find out if they matter at all? As always, it's easy by looking at the 3 modes of humanity.
The Baseline
Let's imagine your mother is laying on the floor. You, are sitting in a chair nearby. There is a third person in the room, and this person does not like your mom. In fact, he is chopping her in little pieces starting with her feet. Pretty bad thought isn't it? Obviously, she's feeling a lot of pain, agony, shock, and horror. She's screaming not only because she is scared, but because she knows she is never going to see you again.
What we have just done is established that a person that is being chopped into little pieces starting from their feet, experiences something that one should never ever have to go through.
The Rub
Now, let's say that your mom has congenital insensitivity to pain. This is a disorder that makes her brain unable to recognize pain, when pain is being experienced.
You are still sitting in the chair, in the room, next to your mom. You mom is still being chopped up, starting from her feet. What do you think she is experiencing now? Is she just ignorantly looking around, smiling at you, as if nothing is happening? The answer is "No", isn't it? She is still screaming for the same reasons as before, even though her brain is not receiving physical pain.
The Twist
Let's take this even further. Let's continue this rub and add in another aspect. Let's blindfold your mom, and place ear plugs on her. You are still sitting next to her in this room, she has no ability to feel the pain, or see or hear what is happening. She is being chopped up into little pieces. What do you think she is experiencing now?
Wow, that last one through you for a loop didn't it? Ready for another? Why do you think you're sitting in the room? You are there for one simple reason - to answer the question.
The Question
Your mom has a disorder that makes her unable to feel pain. She is blindfolded and has ear plugs. She is in a room, being chopped up into little pieces starting with her feet. You are sitting in a chair watching this. You love your mother dearly. The question is, what are you feeling? I believe you are feeling pain, agony, fear, anger, frustration, and horror. Aren't you? Is this something you want to be going through?
Let's not forget about him. Him? Sure, the third person in the room - the guy that is chopping up your mother into little pieces while you watch. What is HE feeling? He might be feeling love and arousal, maybe even pain and horror, maybe everything - I mean there are many reasons why someone would want to chop up another person. I can think of at least three.
The Conclusion
We have discovered experiencing pain, horror, and agony exist in all sorts of forms. Given one simple scenario we can run the gamut of feelings via any character in our play. You don't have to be the one being attacked, you can simply be watching, or even be the one killing. It doesn't even matter if your nerves can't talk to your brain.
Consider This
Under the "The Twist" you may have noticed in this scenario, your mom might very well be pleasantly falling asleep, because she cannot see, hear, or feel what is going on. She is just slowly losing blood, everything might be gone to her. Have I just sided with people that don't care about treating animals inhumanely?
Maybe.
However, my goal was to show you that we all need to look beyond a mere simple issue like does an animal feel pain the way humans do. If something is able to "experience" anything, then it reasons that it is possible that it may also be able to experience everything.
The complexity of the brain matters not. There are many examples of all sorts of animals experiencing fear, imagination, planning, joy, and pain. Do you really know absolutely everything to be able to say any particular animal on subject definitely (100% sure) does not "experience?"
We must never forget that we are an observer. Most humans see things only in relation to themselves. Therefore if someone is indifferent to an animal experiencing something that they themselves would not want to experience, then maybe they were never the person in the chair.
In the end, there should not even be a discussion, no convincing necessary. We were given the gift to be. To be human. As humans, we have chosen our name to be our way, our way is humane.
Me? I believe everything has it's place, even if it's place is to not exist. I will protect what needs protecting, and I fully believe Bob Ewell fell on his knife ;-)
]]>