Winning the battle and losing the war

Winning the battle and losing the war

I rarely watch football games.  And when I do, it's usually the disappointing Detroit Lions that have me perpetually hoping.

Yesterday, I caught the fourth quarter of the Ravens / Steelers game.  The Ravens needed a win to help their playoff chances.  The Steelers, with a win, would guarantee a playoff spot.

With just over a minute to play, the Ravens were trailing the Steelers by three points, had a third down with one yard to go on the Steeler's 10 yard line, and had the momentum required to tie or win the game.

I'm sure the Ravens' strategy was to burn as much of the clock as possible by getting that first down, and running down the clock to the point where they would either score the winning touchdown or at worst, score the tying field goal with no time left to play.

Instead, the Ravens got a "heroic" second and even third effort from Kyle Juszcyzk on that third down play, and somehow, he found his way to the end zone for the go-ahead touchdown.

With that touchdown, the Ravens handed Ben Roethlisberger the ball with 1:38 on the clock, and the rest, as they say, is history.

To be fair, Juszcyzk did what players are supposed to do.  Play hard, strive for the goal line, and put forth that extra effort.  But sometimes, players need to have a better situational awareness of the game, and sacrifice their own personal glory for the overall benefit of the team.  Had Juszcyzk gotten the first down and not scored on that play, odds are the Ravens would have eventually scored and won the game.  But, we'll never know for sure.

That's fast

That's fast

Computers can work with very big numbers, and large computers (a.k.a. supercomputers) can do things the mind cannot comprehend.

I just took a look at the latest list of the world's fastest supercomputers.  The fastest is from China.  The second is also from China.  Third place goes to the United States.

What makes this list so fascinating is that the fastest is three times quicker than number two.  And number two is twice as fast as number three.  From that point, capabilities of individual computers relative to their nearest competitor is measured in a few percentage points.

So, just how fast is the fastest supercomputer?

Let's see if I can put it into perspective.  The speed of light is 186,000 miles per second!  There are 5,280 feet in a mile, so the speed of light is 982,080,000 feet per second.  Express that in inches, and the speed of light is 11,784,960,000 inches per second!  That's nearly 12 billion inches per second.

How fast is the fastest supercomputer?  Speeds of supercomputers are measured in the number of mathematical computations they can perform in a single second.

The fastest supercomputer is capable of performing  93,014,600,000,000,000 calculations per second.  I'm not sure how to pronounce that number, but it's over 93,000 trillion calculations per second.

That's fast.  Of course, there is no single computer that can run that fast.  Supercomputers are built by combining many individual computers into a cluster that shares computational duties among themselves.  The fastest supercomputer has a cluster of 10,649,600 individual computers working in unison.

Using computers of this speed, is it any wonder that some scientists believe computers can be programmed to mimic human behaviour, or break any password you might be able to come up with?

I wonder if any of the security analysts in the "western world" are concerned that China's fastest computer is six times faster than the "western world's" fastest computer?  Are you?

Is this what it feels like to have alzheimer's

Is this what it feels like to have alzheimer's

Right this minute, as I write this post, I am suffering from memory loss.  Hopefully, it's fleeting.

One sentence into this post, I've already changed what I wanted to say, because the words to express what I'm really feeling elude me.  I was in the middle of reading an online news story on the Canadian Jewish News website about a Water-themed art exhibit in my home town.  The photo accompanying the story showed many members of the community - virtually all who are familiar to me.

And I couldn't remember a single person's name.  I have this memory trick for remembering names.  I close my eyes, and go through the entire alphabet, visualizing people's names as if they appeared in a Rolodex.  It never fails to work - if I don't remember someone's name (assuming I was familiar with them - not just a casual acquaintance) this method always works.

Indeed, it worked today as well.  But working your way through the alphabet is only useful if you're trying to remember one or two names.  This photo featured nearly 20 people, most of whom I should know, and the names just weren't popping into my head.

In the time it has taken me to get this far in the post, my memory has returned.  Even though I'm not looking at the photo, the images are now coming to me, including everyone's name.

That was scary.

Trumped up charges

Trumped up charges

Before I begin, let me confess I am a right-leaning Liberal.  What does that mean, exactly?  It means I agree with elements of both Liberal and Conservative political agendas.  I want a government that will not let me go wanting for the necessities of life (and I include government paid healthcare in that definition).  While I personally don't agree with a woman choosing to have an abortion, I do believe it's her right to decide that for herself.

I believe in the American's constitutional right to bear arms, but don't think that should include all classes of arms.

So, you get the idea.

When Donald Trump announced he was running as a Republican candidate, I chuckled.  Like so many others, I felt he didn't have the experience, grace and wisdom to be successful.  And like so many others, I was proven wrong.

After eight years of milktoast Democratic leadership, I wanted the Republicans to win the election.  And as I saw Trump defeating all other comers one-by-one, I hoped he would regain his sanity and unite the Republican party going foward toward the election.

You may remember, earlier in the primary season, when Trump declared he might run as an independent if he didn't win the Republican nomination.  And then he signed a pledge stating he would not run as an independent after all.  Despite winning the Republican nomination, it could be said that Trump has decided to run as an independent regardless.  How else do you explain his audacious behaviour and total lack of concern at the embarrassment he is causing within his own party?

We are at a point in history where the US needs a "crazy man" at the helm - much like the tough-talking Ronald Reagan who saved the US from the humiliation of the Carter presidency.  I just don't know if Donald Trump is too crazy for the role as commander in chief of the deadliest army on the planet.

Believe it or not, I still want Trump to win - that's just how disillusioned I am with the prospect of Hillary Clinton in the Whitehouse.  Still, although history is mostly against the probability of a democratic presidential hopeful succeeding a two-term democratic incumbent, having Donald Trump as the alternative tends to cancel that improbability.

This will certainly be the strangest and most entertaining election of my lifetime.  God help us all - no matter who wins!

Chevy Malibu Commercial Should be Pulled

Chevy Malibu Bait-and-Switch Commercials Should Be Banned

Chevrolet has been running "real people - not actors" commercials for the past few months.  The one featuring kids who are pleased to learn that Chevy cross-overs have individual wi-fi capabilities for seven passengers is SO FAKE.  How many times will you find a group of kids who will say in unison "Oh my GOSH"?  Yea, right...

But by far the most annoying and frankly dishonest commercial being aired lately is the one about the Chevy Malibu.  There are two variants.  In one, a car without any badging is being shown to "real people" who, based on the features, try to guess the manufacturer and price.  In the other variant, the announcer shows a Chevy Malibu to a group of people, who are very impressed with the feature set.

In both variants, one of the real people after discovering all these features says "... and it sells for?" to which the narrator replies "It starts at $23,495" at which point one incredulous member of the group exclaims "What!!??" and another says "Wow!!!".

Well, those people should be incredulous, because the car shown to the group actually costs $35,345 (plus lots of additional expenses - like taxes, licensing and other fees).  This actual cost is revealed in the small print on the screen and is more than 50% higher than the price quoted by the narrator.

Unfortunately, there is nothing illegal about this ad, since the actual "price as shown" is displayed in the ad.  What is offensive is the narrator's extremely misleading answer to the very direct question "... and it sells for?".

Ford Motor Company, to its credit, has decided that their advertisements will feature vehicles that include commonly requested features and option packages, and the prices they display in the ads will be for the vehicle as shown.  That is a commendable step.  I hope it gains the respect and admiration of the viewing public.  Who knows... this may start a trend where prices for goods and services will actually be accurately depicted in ads.  Wouldn't that be refreshing!

Nationalism and the Race for American President

Nationalism and the Race for American President

The news this past week has been about Senator Cruz and the fact he was born in Canada.  While most believe that the idea of a "natural citizen" includes not only those people born in the US, but also those who were born outside the US but to a U.S. citizen; there is still some question about whether those born outside the country should be allowed to run for office.

As a non-American, I have no say in their politics, but I do have an opinion about this.  First, let's examine why this is an issue at all.  At the time of the U.S. becoming a nation, they were under the thumb of the British.  The framers of the constitution reasoned that a person born in the U.S. (or at least, born of U.S. parents) is assumed to be free of the influences of a foreign government.  There were other provisions to cover the initial period of American Constitutional Law (in other words, at the time the U.S. became a nation, nobody had been born in the "U.S.").  So, anyone who had been born in the "colonies" was considered a natural-born U.S. citizen.

Let's get back to something more recent.  Senator Cruz was born in Canada, and I think his family moved to the U.S. when he was four years old.  His mother was born in the U.S., making Ted Cruz a U.S. citizen by birth.  However, since he was born in Canada, and Canada allows dual citizenship, he actually maintained his Canadian citizenship until renouncing it in 2014.  From what I've read, most constitutional experts agree that Cruz is eligible to run for president.

Now, consider three "what-if" scenarios.

What if Cruz (or any candidate) was born in a country unfriendly to the U.S.  What if he had been born in Russia, or Iran, or Cuba - still to a U.S. born mother?  And what if he had moved to the U.S. at the age of 20 (instead of age 4)?  According to the U.S. laws, he would still have been considered a natural born American; and providing he had a minimum of 14 years of residency in the U.S. and was at or above the age of 35 (those last two items both being requirements to serve as president) he would be just as eligible to run for President as he is now (a Canadian born, who has been a resident of the U.S. since age 4).

Here's another scenario.  What if Ted Cruz had been born in the U.S. to non-U.S. citizens?  And what if those non-U.S. citizens were spies for an unfriendly foreign government and had been grooming their child for just such an intrusion into the government?  According to current rules, Cruz would be totally eligible to run (having been born in the U.S. and lived here for more than 14 years)?  Although not spies, this second scenario does fit the parentage of a second contender for President:  Senator Marco Rubio.

My final scenario pertains to future lands that become part of the United States.  Prior to Alaska and Hawaii becoming states of the union (both of these happening during my lifetime), would persons born in those places *before* amalgamation with the U.S. have been considered eligible to run for President?  How is this applied for future lands that may become part of the U.S.?

What I'm trying to point out is that the rules for eligibility for President have very little to do with the "qualifications" and "personality" necessary to be an effective leader.  Maybe some day, these rules will be replaced with more reasonable requirements - such as basic citizenship and a declared allegiance to the country.  Time will tell.