2nd post in as many days, this is what the election has done to me.
I think the current state of British politics is dismal. I have my own thoughts about where the country should go. Who should be PM and thoughts on the dissolved UK state?
The SNP member Angus Robinson made an interesting point today. He stated that LibDems should side with Labour due to the fact that Scotland and Wales voted for Labour and that Scotland won't be able to accept a coalition who became 3rd and 4th in Scotland. All 3 main party leaders have said that they should be doing what is best in the national interest. I have a question as to which nation they are talking to. The SNP are talking more about Scotland than UK but do Nick and Dave mean England rather than UK. I assume Gordon would be talking about UK as he is Scottish.
Scotland will not accept a Conservative government in any sense. It will provide the SNP and the Scots greater ammo to make Scotland independant which will be reflected in the Scottish elections next year. Scotland will not accept Conservatives making decisions on the economy and the issues that concern Scotland that are still held by the UK parliament. Scotland will not accept a minority of English people deciding on the Scottish economy, foreign issues and some home issues etc. This reminds me of Edward VIII manipulating John Balliol into the Scottish Monarchy. That didn't end well for the English.
I can't speak for Wales, i'm not Welsh and i don't know the Welsh feelings.
Whoever comes into a power - there should be a referendum on the state of the UK dissolved state. I would expect a referendum to ask the people of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland on whether:
- things stay the same.
- England get a dissolved parliament and a parliament for UK issues
- All countries become independent
- All countries become united. One parliament
I think with this referendum there needs to be a referendum on the voting system and not just FPTP and AV. That's like asking the country, do you want this undemocratic system or this potentially more undemocratic system. Let's face it in 2005 would have gained a higher majority in parliament with the same minority of votes(35.5%).
As for what should happen as a result of this election, i think David Cameron should be PM but only allowed a majority on English issues only but for a Labour-LibDem coalition on UK issues. That is I believe what is in the national interest both England's interest and UK's national interest.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Monday, May 10, 2010
Brown Resigns
The general election was on Thursday and i've been following it avidly.
For the record, i'm a supporter of the liberal democrats.
The latest news is that Gordon Brown, Prime Minister and current leader of the Labour party has resigned as leader of the Labour party. Gordon Brown in his statement said that he wants a new leader in place by the party conference in September. Labour are going to enter into discussions with the Liberal Democrats.
The Liberal Democrats and Conservatives talks are going well. The Liberal Democrats have asked for clarification on some key points on which any agreement will be based upon such as economic stability, the pupil premium, taxes and voting reform. William Hague of the Conservatives have said that the Conservatives are willing to offer the Liberal Democrats a referendum on the Alternate Vote(AV) system.
The AV system can reproduce a more undemocratic parliament than the current First-past-the-post system. In fact if the AV system was applied to the 2005 election system, Labour would have had a larger majority in parliament than they did with the same 35.5% of the vote.
The AV system means that any candidate in a constituency would have to receive 50% of the votes and if no candidate reaches that then voters 2nd preferences will be taken into account.
As a Liberal Democrat supporter, i would prefer an agreement with Conservative but i don't mind a coalition with Labour - that would be legitimate as 52% of the electorate voted for Labour/LibDem but my concern with a Labour/LibDem coalition is that the Prime Minister of that coalition is unknown and that the LibDems do not know who they will be working with once a knew leader is chosen for the Labour party by the Labour party.
Yesterday, i became concerned when Former Home Secretary David Blunket said that he was "bewildered" by Clegg's fascination with electoral reform because then we would be in this situation after every election. From my point of view, Blunket said that he was bewildered by the fact that the Clegg wants a democracy. The First=past-the-post system in my opinion does not provide a democratic society. It provides a majority government the majority of the time voted for by a minority of the public and oppresses a number of political opinion. IMO, the current system returns a system that is almost a dictatorship masquerading as a democratic society.
The one thing that all the main parties are saying is that they want a stable government - we have never had a stable government. There is nothing stable about oscillating between Conservative and Labour every 5-10years. The only reasons the country oscillate between Conservative and Labour is because the majority of the country don't want Labour or Conservative in power so a sufficient proportion of the electorate will swing between Labour and Conservative don't want either of them in power but due to the voting system no other party is likely to gain enough support to overthrow Labour and Conservatives.
For the record, i'm a supporter of the liberal democrats.
The latest news is that Gordon Brown, Prime Minister and current leader of the Labour party has resigned as leader of the Labour party. Gordon Brown in his statement said that he wants a new leader in place by the party conference in September. Labour are going to enter into discussions with the Liberal Democrats.
The Liberal Democrats and Conservatives talks are going well. The Liberal Democrats have asked for clarification on some key points on which any agreement will be based upon such as economic stability, the pupil premium, taxes and voting reform. William Hague of the Conservatives have said that the Conservatives are willing to offer the Liberal Democrats a referendum on the Alternate Vote(AV) system.
The AV system can reproduce a more undemocratic parliament than the current First-past-the-post system. In fact if the AV system was applied to the 2005 election system, Labour would have had a larger majority in parliament than they did with the same 35.5% of the vote.
The AV system means that any candidate in a constituency would have to receive 50% of the votes and if no candidate reaches that then voters 2nd preferences will be taken into account.
As a Liberal Democrat supporter, i would prefer an agreement with Conservative but i don't mind a coalition with Labour - that would be legitimate as 52% of the electorate voted for Labour/LibDem but my concern with a Labour/LibDem coalition is that the Prime Minister of that coalition is unknown and that the LibDems do not know who they will be working with once a knew leader is chosen for the Labour party by the Labour party.
Yesterday, i became concerned when Former Home Secretary David Blunket said that he was "bewildered" by Clegg's fascination with electoral reform because then we would be in this situation after every election. From my point of view, Blunket said that he was bewildered by the fact that the Clegg wants a democracy. The First=past-the-post system in my opinion does not provide a democratic society. It provides a majority government the majority of the time voted for by a minority of the public and oppresses a number of political opinion. IMO, the current system returns a system that is almost a dictatorship masquerading as a democratic society.
The one thing that all the main parties are saying is that they want a stable government - we have never had a stable government. There is nothing stable about oscillating between Conservative and Labour every 5-10years. The only reasons the country oscillate between Conservative and Labour is because the majority of the country don't want Labour or Conservative in power so a sufficient proportion of the electorate will swing between Labour and Conservative don't want either of them in power but due to the voting system no other party is likely to gain enough support to overthrow Labour and Conservatives.
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Memristors!
A couple of weeks ago, i came across this and this article in New Scientist magazine. Of course it intrigued me.
This incredible circuit element, the memristor has been around theoretically since 1971. I say theoretically because the guy who proposed the idea, Leon Chua presented a paper to the IEEE Transactions on Circuit theory and the idea lay dormant until Stan Williams of Hewlett-Packard Labs in California created a memristor quite by accident in 2008, when they drew up their equations they found the circuit element that Chua had predicted over 30 years earlier.
The memristor is a resistor with a memory i.e. it can remember the last voltage you sent through it. When you switch the circuit off, the resistors state stays the same so when you switch the circuit back on you return to where you just left off. The amount of resistance is dependant on the last voltage that was sent through it.
The most intriguing thing for me about this missing circuit element is that it can "learn". A team sent three voltage pulses through a memristor and even without a fourth pulse, the memristor had "learnt" a pattern and produced an electrical current without a voltage stimulus. This happens within our own electrical circuits, the neurons that send the analog sound coming in to our brain will fire an electrical current even without a stimulus present.
This circuit element behaves like a synapse in the brain. I mean finally we could possibly model the brain, we could actually figure out the way we process sound, images. We could even get as far as figuring out what conscious thought is.
I play tennis quite a bit when I'm at home. I occasionally go into "The Zone" - i would love to know what that "Zone" actually is. I know I'm not consciously thinking and my body is essentially on auto-pilot although i sometimes i get a random conscious thought when i'm in this heightened state which will tell me what shot to hit. I hit it well who am I to argue with the Zone? The majority of the time these are shots that i have no business making yet everytime I'm in the Zone, i make them.
Finally we may be able to figure out the answer, finally we may be able to build a brain-like computer. But in order to be able to build a brain we'll have to model it in software first using a computer that isn't quite up to scratch.
Now, i think the race is on to find a practical memcapacitor and meminductor for these theoretical devices can actually store energy. These could be the way the brain stores our memories.
This incredible circuit element, the memristor has been around theoretically since 1971. I say theoretically because the guy who proposed the idea, Leon Chua presented a paper to the IEEE Transactions on Circuit theory and the idea lay dormant until Stan Williams of Hewlett-Packard Labs in California created a memristor quite by accident in 2008, when they drew up their equations they found the circuit element that Chua had predicted over 30 years earlier.
The memristor is a resistor with a memory i.e. it can remember the last voltage you sent through it. When you switch the circuit off, the resistors state stays the same so when you switch the circuit back on you return to where you just left off. The amount of resistance is dependant on the last voltage that was sent through it.
The most intriguing thing for me about this missing circuit element is that it can "learn". A team sent three voltage pulses through a memristor and even without a fourth pulse, the memristor had "learnt" a pattern and produced an electrical current without a voltage stimulus. This happens within our own electrical circuits, the neurons that send the analog sound coming in to our brain will fire an electrical current even without a stimulus present.
This circuit element behaves like a synapse in the brain. I mean finally we could possibly model the brain, we could actually figure out the way we process sound, images. We could even get as far as figuring out what conscious thought is.
I play tennis quite a bit when I'm at home. I occasionally go into "The Zone" - i would love to know what that "Zone" actually is. I know I'm not consciously thinking and my body is essentially on auto-pilot although i sometimes i get a random conscious thought when i'm in this heightened state which will tell me what shot to hit. I hit it well who am I to argue with the Zone? The majority of the time these are shots that i have no business making yet everytime I'm in the Zone, i make them.
Finally we may be able to figure out the answer, finally we may be able to build a brain-like computer. But in order to be able to build a brain we'll have to model it in software first using a computer that isn't quite up to scratch.
Now, i think the race is on to find a practical memcapacitor and meminductor for these theoretical devices can actually store energy. These could be the way the brain stores our memories.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Space, Time, Gravity and the Universe
So I've been meaning to write a blog post for ages. I'm going to try and post more often.
Today's topic is inspired by one of my mate's blogs. Have a read here.
I've been reading about time and space quite a bit recently because it is one of those fascinating subjects that if i see a blog post, a TED video or a tweet about it, i can't resist opening the link and finding out a little bit more about how the Universe goes a long.
One such TED video is by Sean Carroll on the arrow of time. Part 1 of the video can be seen here.
By the way Sean Carroll has a book out called "Eternity to Here" which I am itching to read but as I'm changing country in a couple of months, i'm trying to resist the itch.
The most popular scientific theory is that the Universe is expanding and that expansion is accelerating. Now that means not only does the Universe have an edge which is almost hard to perceive as when we look out into the heavens all i see is the Universe going on forever yet i would also perceive like the early astronomers that the Earth is the centre of the Universe when its a mere speck in a picture of our galaxy the milky way. That's just the milky way not even the Universe. I understand why astronomers come back and say we are insignificant yet we are here in a seemingly lifeless Universe and we are striding out amongst the stars. That can't be insignificant. The achievements of the men and women before me have been astounding. I hope i can live up to them and seem just as amazing to future generations.
Of course there are many other theories, Sean Carroll goes into some of them in his video. he talks about the universe being one of many, which is possibly what i believe in. Its an enchanting idea isn't it? That somewhere out there there are not just other worlds but other universes. Now that would be amazing if it could be proven. Who will be clever enough to do that is the question?
Did time exist outside of the Universe, my mate thinks not, coz how can you have time without matter but then again there is this dark matter which makes up 90% of the Universe which we know nothing about, perhaps that is there before the big bang or whatever happened to create the Universe. Something had to create the universe after all. I mean you can't create something out of nothing so something had to exist before this Universe.
The reason why i called this blog Space, Time and Gravity is because of my own little pet theory. Einstein made Space Time a continuum in his theory of General Relativity but in his description of space and time being curved and shaped he mentions that gravity is a property of space time and not a force like we all believe. My theory goes beyond that and says that space, time and gravity are linked in a 3Dimensional shape. Due to space being 3Dimensional, i believe that time and gravity are also 3 dimensional. What these extra dimensions are, i'm not quite sure. Whether the extra dimensions in time are past, present and future perhaps the key to this is in Einstein's General and Special Relativity. He says that space is shaped which suggests time is also shaped and due to time being relative that would suggest that again time is shaped. This hints at the 3 dimensions of time being the past, present and future but then again this is confusing because time seems to travel in one direction but then again if you were an ant on a tightrope - there is no up, down, left or right. The other thing that is confusing about those dimensions of time is how can you travel along the past, how can you travel along the present or travel along the future?
Because of this i believe time travel is possible. I believe that space, time and gravity can represent the body, mind and soul or the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. I also believe that there is a 3rd dimension to mathematics. For those who don't know, we have the set of real numbers which are the numbers we use in everyday life and we have the set of complex numbers that are so complex we call them imaginary numbers. These complex numbers fall on the y axis of a 2 dimensional graph so we have the ability to rotate numbers into 2 dimensions but i believe there to be a 3rd set of numbers which would allow us to rotate numbers into a 3rd dimension.
Sorry for the long, rambling post with nothing particularly clear.
Today's topic is inspired by one of my mate's blogs. Have a read here.
I've been reading about time and space quite a bit recently because it is one of those fascinating subjects that if i see a blog post, a TED video or a tweet about it, i can't resist opening the link and finding out a little bit more about how the Universe goes a long.
One such TED video is by Sean Carroll on the arrow of time. Part 1 of the video can be seen here.
By the way Sean Carroll has a book out called "Eternity to Here" which I am itching to read but as I'm changing country in a couple of months, i'm trying to resist the itch.
The most popular scientific theory is that the Universe is expanding and that expansion is accelerating. Now that means not only does the Universe have an edge which is almost hard to perceive as when we look out into the heavens all i see is the Universe going on forever yet i would also perceive like the early astronomers that the Earth is the centre of the Universe when its a mere speck in a picture of our galaxy the milky way. That's just the milky way not even the Universe. I understand why astronomers come back and say we are insignificant yet we are here in a seemingly lifeless Universe and we are striding out amongst the stars. That can't be insignificant. The achievements of the men and women before me have been astounding. I hope i can live up to them and seem just as amazing to future generations.
Of course there are many other theories, Sean Carroll goes into some of them in his video. he talks about the universe being one of many, which is possibly what i believe in. Its an enchanting idea isn't it? That somewhere out there there are not just other worlds but other universes. Now that would be amazing if it could be proven. Who will be clever enough to do that is the question?
Did time exist outside of the Universe, my mate thinks not, coz how can you have time without matter but then again there is this dark matter which makes up 90% of the Universe which we know nothing about, perhaps that is there before the big bang or whatever happened to create the Universe. Something had to create the universe after all. I mean you can't create something out of nothing so something had to exist before this Universe.
The reason why i called this blog Space, Time and Gravity is because of my own little pet theory. Einstein made Space Time a continuum in his theory of General Relativity but in his description of space and time being curved and shaped he mentions that gravity is a property of space time and not a force like we all believe. My theory goes beyond that and says that space, time and gravity are linked in a 3Dimensional shape. Due to space being 3Dimensional, i believe that time and gravity are also 3 dimensional. What these extra dimensions are, i'm not quite sure. Whether the extra dimensions in time are past, present and future perhaps the key to this is in Einstein's General and Special Relativity. He says that space is shaped which suggests time is also shaped and due to time being relative that would suggest that again time is shaped. This hints at the 3 dimensions of time being the past, present and future but then again this is confusing because time seems to travel in one direction but then again if you were an ant on a tightrope - there is no up, down, left or right. The other thing that is confusing about those dimensions of time is how can you travel along the past, how can you travel along the present or travel along the future?
Because of this i believe time travel is possible. I believe that space, time and gravity can represent the body, mind and soul or the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. I also believe that there is a 3rd dimension to mathematics. For those who don't know, we have the set of real numbers which are the numbers we use in everyday life and we have the set of complex numbers that are so complex we call them imaginary numbers. These complex numbers fall on the y axis of a 2 dimensional graph so we have the ability to rotate numbers into 2 dimensions but i believe there to be a 3rd set of numbers which would allow us to rotate numbers into a 3rd dimension.
Sorry for the long, rambling post with nothing particularly clear.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Ideas?
I've recently had the idea to create/make a robot similar to Andrew Martin in The Bicentennial Man and Sonny in I, Robot.
Now there are walking, learning, ping ponging robots out there. Whether the robots can do all three is probably debatable. I'm talking about the ASIMO's of Honda and TOPIO of Tosy.
Well, i plan my robot to be able to play tennis, cook, learn, clean. Ok, so that is a daunting task - seeing the only thing i've programmed are little programs for the computer - not making things move. I guess, i shall just have to learn then, won't I?
I'll let you know, how i get on. If you know anything about robotics, mechanics or programming please get in touch.
Now there are walking, learning, ping ponging robots out there. Whether the robots can do all three is probably debatable. I'm talking about the ASIMO's of Honda and TOPIO of Tosy.
Well, i plan my robot to be able to play tennis, cook, learn, clean. Ok, so that is a daunting task - seeing the only thing i've programmed are little programs for the computer - not making things move. I guess, i shall just have to learn then, won't I?
I'll let you know, how i get on. If you know anything about robotics, mechanics or programming please get in touch.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
The iPad - Why?
Unless you've been living under a rock or somewhere that doesn't have internet then you would have heard that Apple have just announced their latest product the iPad - www.apple.com/ipad
The iPad is supposed to deliver everything people love about the iPhone/iPod touch to a bigger screen and thats exactly what it is. A less portable, iPod touch. Now, i have an iPhone 3GS, a MacBook 13-inch and a Time Capsule. I'm an apple nerd but when i saw the iPad, i was like "Is that it?" the answer is yes. While it may be better for watching movies due to the bigger screen and with the new iBooks, possibly good for reading books but these are the only things that it has going for it.
There are several e-readers out there and whilst they can't surf the web, play movies, music and games on them or even have colour pictures, most of the e-readers today are paper like i.e. they are not back-lit so they don't strain the eyes and you can read them in bright sunlight. They are just easier to read.
As for the video player, well its as good as the iPhone and iPod touch and can play almost HD movies/tv shows. I don't tend to watch movies on my iPhone and i'm wondering where i might watch it, at a friends house, on the train/tube/bus/plane. The one drawback for the video player is that the iPad doesn't have an HDMI outlet for hooking it up to the TV, usb or firewire for watching or storing videos from an external drive. I have an external hard drive with loads of videos on and to be able to watch them on the move i'll have to hook the hard drive up to my MacBook, import to iTunes and if they are not mp4 i'll have to convert them and then download them onto my iPad. Yeah, thats real user-friendly. Even my videos on my time capsule even though they both have wifi i'm guessing that the iPad won't like anything other than mp4 just like the iPhone and iPod touch because its the same OS. Again, i'll have to do it the long way round.
I have no idea what apple thinks the market for the iPad is, presumably the same as the iPod touch/iPhone market but to anyone considering an iPad, i'd either suggest the iPod touch/iPhone for the portability or a MacBook but if you want a 10-inch screen go for a netbook, its more powerful than the iPad. If you want an e-reader i'd go for kindle or the Sony. Kindle 2 is half the price of the iPad.
Another thing the iPad is lacking is a camera, even the iPod Nano's have camera's. So you can't do a video conference call or for all the vloggers out there - you can't do a vlog on the fly. If you love your home movies you can't make a movie on the go but you have to remember your camera whether it be on any one of the other portable Apple devices or one of those small camera's like the flip.
The iPad is sitting in the middle of digital nowhere land. Its not quite as good as a computer, not quite as easy to read as the kindle/sony e-readers, not quite as portable as the iPhone/iPod touch where you can have the internet in your pocket. Not quite as user-friendly as Apple likes to think it is.
Will i be getting an iPad? No, thanks. I'll stick to my MacBook, iPhone & Books thanks.
I just wonder how this got passed Apple's cooldar.
Wednesday, January 06, 2010
Andy Murray following Henman being sponsored by adidas?
Andy Murray has been playing tennis this week in the Hopman Cup. He is playing in team Britain with the young Brit Laura Robson. I have seen thanks to BBC that Murray seems to have a new clothing sponsorship with Adidas. It looks like he has left Fred Perry, the last British male to win Wimbledon clothing line and follow Tim henman and being sponsored by Adidas.
All images courtesy of the BBC. The adidas logo can clearly be seen on the above pictures. Andy Murray's website www.andymurray.com is still saying he is sponsored by Fred Perry. Is this a one off? i guess only time will tell for now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
