Nicholsclan.com : a dimension of mind...

Cheeseburger in a Can

This is either the crowning achievement of mankind... or a sign of the impending apocalypse. We report. You decide.

The Psychology of Anonymity

Historically, anonymity required at least of modicum of investment and effort. You could opt for the spandex suit and the horn rim glasses of Clark Kent's Superman (or is that Superman's Clark Kent?). You could ride into town as the tall dark stranger with the ominous six-gun such that no one dared speak to you, much less ask your name. Or at the very least you needed a grassy knoll to snipe from, or a car from which to flip a finger. But the Internet today provides options for anonymity with unprecedented ease. The result has been an opportunity to study some fascinating aspects of human psychology. Not to mention the opportunity for some interesting dinnertime conversations.

Specifically, the conversation was on Flame Baiters. This is the name given to Internet users who post on websites or send emails that are intentionally rude and insulting to a person or a group. The writing is often completely off-topic, but seems intent only on eliciting an emotional response. The Flame Baiter is most always anonymous.

The obvious first question is, why? What motivates Flame Baiters? The answers are already pretty well documented as Flame Baiters are simply online bullies. By causing someone to lose emotional control through a response to the bait, they exert their own control over them, and in this way fulfill their unsatiated need to feel empowered. This sense of empowerment can also come from the baiter's duality should they also know their target in person. Online, they abuse their target, possibly even hinting they know the target personally, then in person they feign friendliness. This knowledge, and the resultant suspicion they hope the target will feel toward their friends serves to further the baiter's sense of control.

So the Flame Baiter, like all bullies, has issues... likely issues they are not even aware of at a conscious level. It's a pitiable situation, but in the greater scheme of groups in need of help, I'm not going to lose any sleep over the lack of a telethon for these people. I am intrigued though about the implication of this behavior. What does it say about the practitioners of Flame Baiting and who they are as people? What other behaviors might we expect of them?

First, I would contend that there are far more "cyber" bullies out there than there are "in-person" bullies. And while I think those who would bully to your face are likely and capable of bullying online, I suspect the converse is not true. I think the reason is simply fear and/or insecurity. It's said that bullies don't lack self-esteem because without it they could not bring themselves to confront and taunt people. But Flame Baiting requires no such risk. It's somewhat tailor-made for the insecure or closet bully, and I suspect this is the sort of person that makes up the majority of the rank. So the Flame Baiter is basically revealing a hidden side of their personality. And I would claim, the truer side. By virtue of what amounts to fear, they have learned to suppress this bullying behavior when dealing with people in person. But now comes an opportunity for them to express this repressed personality without fear of physical or social retribution.

I would assert that we are never so true to our nature as when we know no one is watching. The Flame Baiter, by way of their anonymity, is not being watched, and is revealing their true self in a way that is safe for them. It seems not a big leap to expect that this same sort of person would engage in other self-serving behaviors when not under a watchful eye. I wouldn't be surprised to find this person shoplifting, or running stop signs at deserted intersections. And while this is not abhorrent behavior, it is inherently anti-social. These people are placing their own self-interest above the needs of the whole. They play by the rules when being watched, but freely serve themselves when they feel there are no consequences.

In some ways, you could argue that this sort of behavior is more corrosive to society that the in-your-face social deviance exhibited by the conventional bully. The conventional bully is known as such and is often treated carefully and usually not trusted by society. Whereas the Flame Baiter is a wolf in sheep's clothing. Earning your trust by day, and stealthily thwarting you by cover of darkness.

All of which brings me (curiously but unsurprisingly) to God, and why despite being an atheist I do not want to live in a world without him. God is the ultimate security camera. We are told he watches all we do and makes us accountable for those actions. And while this is often a disconcerting notion in the bathroom, I think it is absolutely the thing that keeps many would-be social deviants (of many flavors) from acting on their impulses and being their true selves. The idea of God acts as a brake on the wheel or as a lid on the pot. It gives many believers the idea that there are consequences for their actions, even if no one is watching. Without this constraint, there would be many many more people doing many worse things than Flame Baiting. There are frankly an uncomfortable number of social deviants even with a population who professes to be over 4/5 Christian. It makes me wonder how many "heretics in Christian clothing" are already out there, attending services and feigning Christian values by day, and acting on their less than Christian impulses by night.

Dawkins and Hitchens are wrong. We do not want religion to go away. The vast majority of the population is not psychologically suited for that. If anything, religion needs to strengthen its role in many people's personal lives (maybe it could devote less time to politics?). I think the notion of a perpetual father figure might keep a few more people in line.

Waxing Political

I've been staying largely on the sidelines of the seemingly never ending run-up to the 2008 Presidential election. Watching and waiting for some of the dust to settle. The problem is, that I'm not a rabid fan of anyone running, and I don't believe anyone else entering the race at this point has any reasonable prospect of winning. But it's time to weigh in. Not that I'm endorsing anyone. I'm not quite ready for that. But I do have some opinions that are forming based on the the current campaigns, debates, caucuses, and primaries. And in the spirit of this blog's mission to publicize the musings in my head, I thought I'd share.

First, a confession of my bias. It's no secret to any (either?) of my regular readers that I consider the Bush administration to be probably the most destructive in history. We have been "reaping" the rewards of a failed foreign policy for years now, exacerbated by a virtual lack of an energy policy. And now we are feeling the results of the misguided resurgence of Reaganomics coupled with some of the most radical de-regulation of industry in the modern era. These policies are abject failures, and as a result, it would be very difficult for me to rationalize a vote for a Republican, almost regardless of the person. And this is a difficult position for me. I tend not to be a partisan voter, but I think federal politics has become so partisan, and the pendulum has swung so far in one direction, that it needs to be countered in the other direction. I say this in full awareness that I won't be happy if it swings too far back either, but we need to establish momentum in that direction.

To that end, the Republican ticket has become almost irrelevant to me, except for considering how scared I should be if any of them get elected. To that end, it's also worth considering how they stack up as opponents of potential Democratic nominees.

Fortunately, flash-in-the-pan Fred has winked out. And while Ron Paul is great fun to watch, he is arguably the Ross Perot of this campaign. He has no chance at the Republican convention, but he makes the debates interesting. I do think that he has enough grass-roots support though that he could be a wild-card. I think it's possible that he could be drafted as an Independent candidate. This would put him in the position of being the Ralph Nader of the Republicans. Someone without danger of being elected, but who could draw enough votes from the Republican candidate to influence the overall election results. Go Ron!

Rudy is a might scary prospect, but hopefully he's also on the way out. He seems most intent on continuing the Bush strategies. He doesn't say so directly as invoking Bush's name is somewhat political suicide at the moment, even for members of his own party. But many of his backers and handlers are ex-Bushies, and if you listen to his policy proposals, they amount to more of the same. However, while he's one of the scariest prospects to be President, he's probably the most beatable in the general election as his Bush allegiance could be leveraged against him.

Rev. Huckabee is another scary prospect. He's an extremely likable guy. He knows how to give a speech, has a great sense of humor, and a populist message. The trouble is, he's also a raving Evangelical. He sees no problem with codifying his religious views into law. He's also a Young-Earth Creationist. He accurately argues this shouldn't matter as he believes educational curricula are the domain of the states. But while this does potentially protect our students, it doesn't bode well for his decision making process. Like it or not, professing a literal belief in a 6000 year old planet means that as a person you are willing to disregard mountains of data, the opinions of experts in their fields, and 100s of years of wisdom in order to preserve your world-view. This is not a leadership position I want to follow. We need a leader who's willing to make decisions based on things that actually are, not things that he feels are correct. The good news is that Huckabee's funding is fading and maybe he'll burn out. But it's way to early to write him off yet.

This brings us to McCain and Romney. There is a lot to like about John McCain. He does seem to be honest and straightforward with his opinions. I get the sense that we actually know where he stands on the issues. His relatively centrist views on most issues honestly make him a somewhat appealing candidate for me. Unfortunately, he's adamant about "the war on terror" and won't back away from the preemption policy Bush started. This is the key reason, bolstered by my current aversions to the Republican party in general, that I can't get behind him. However, this makes him the biggest challenge to the Democratic nominee - whomever that is.

Romney is the big unknown. He is the Gumby of the Republican slate. The only thing that's really clear to me is that he will adopt whatever position is required to get him elected - regardless of its anatomical improbability. I don't believe he has any personal convictions whatsoever. I'm pretty sure that he could just as easily have chosen to run on the Democratic side, and would be just as comfortable pandering to that party's base. This scares me for a whole different reason. If elected, he'll likely continue to bend with the political breezes. But we need a fundamental directional change at this point, and that will require a leader who's willing to paddle upstream. That isn't Mitt. The danger is, Mitt "looks" presidential. He's a good speaker, and with the proper propaganda machine behind him, he will be appealing to many voters who aren't really paying too much attention to anything other than the sound bites - and unfortunately, that's most of them.

The Democrats are honestly easier to talk about, but mostly because they have self-selected down to three already. Some would claim, it's already down to two. But I hope that's not true. The reason is that I think Obama and Clinton both have some serious issues.

Hillary is, in many respects, the ultimate political machine. She's a smart and capable woman, and she's maybe the most politically astute candidate running in either party. She knows how to play the system to get a result. On the one hand this is a little scary. It's hard to tell exactly where she stands, but in many respects, she's most likely to actually get something done. The problem is, she carries a lot of baggage. A third of voters say the country isn't ready for a woman to be President. And her personal negatives as a Clinton approach half the electorate. The Clinton legacy carries another anchor too - Bill. At least recently, Bill has dropped the facade of elder statesman in favor of rabid politician. He speaks in plural tones of Hillary's election. It would seem he wants back in the White House, one way or the other. While many Bill fans may welcome a de-facto third term of Bill Clinton, I think the negatives of this approach will outweigh the positives in the general election. He would do well to take a page from Poppy Bush's book. Let it be Hillary's campaign, and be the quiet strength behind her. In the end though, while it may not be fair, but the reality is that come November, she is the most likely candidate to be beaten. I think McCain will trounce her, and Romney will likely will out as well. Her best hope is to have to face Rudy or Mike, but that's unlikely.

Obama has similar problems. He also stands against a third of the electorate who (in this case) do not feel the country is ready for a Black President. Should race be an issue? No. But that doesn't mean it isn't. And the Dems can't afford to lose this election for a matter of principle. However, if that were the only liability, I'd be willing to roll the dice. Obama has a high likability factor. He's an eloquent speaker and a charismatic individual. But what will he actually do as President? It's hard to tell. The policies he espouses are largely recasts of Clinton's and Edwards' policies. He hasn't led with any policy introductions, nor identified anything that really distinguishes him from the others. Further, I get the impression that he thinks his charisma and likability will aid him in getting things done as he'll just get everyone to come together and get along. I think he underestimates the forces against him. I think he runs the risk of being enormously ineffectual. Granted, given the proper handlers and supporting cast, his oratory skills could be used to great effect. But basically we're then left to vote for a bunch of unknown appointees who would surround him in office. In this sense, he's very much like Romney. I'd rather have a clearer direction from the start. Still, he doesn't carry the baggage of Hillary, and I think would put up a better fight in the general election. But he's hardly a shoe-in.

Which brings us to Edwards, the dark horse. Edwards has a strong populist message. He's railed against the injustices of the corporate driven federal policies of years past, and seems arguably the strongest advocate of the middle class. He's politically young though, and it's not entirely clear he'll play the game enough to accomplish what he's setting out to do. But that may be a good thing to a degree. I can't quite get behind some of the isolationist policies and some of the almost socialist policies he's purporting, but he's pushing the pendulum in the right direction, and pushing hard. I think the existing Congressional and lobbiest structure in place will keep the pendulum from moving too far left. I also think that some of his policies will moderate in the general election, as right now he's desperately trying to distinguish himself from the Democratic front runners. Is he electable in the general election? Yes, I think so. He has no big negatives. I doubt the Republicans can Swift-boat him on a $400 hair cut. Arguably, I think he has the best chance to defeat any of the Republican candidates. Edwards' problem is that he's unlikely to survive the Democratic Convention.

But why can't the Edwards campaign get traction? He's claiming this is because of a lack of media coverage. And I think he's right. My unscientific poll of friends and neighbors indicate that an appalling number are not following the campaigns or the candidates. They listen and respond to the media sound bites and the emails forwarded from their friends. This means the media does have a disproportionate influence on voters. If the networks aren't running stories on Edwards, then he's invisible to an absurd portion of the electorate.

Some are accusing the news media of having political agendas. That because of Edwards' anti-corporate positions, the big businesses that own the news media have black-balled him. But I don't think it's anything that sinister or premeditated. I think it's simply that networks are looking for stories that resonate with viewers. Edwards can spout policy all day, and that will not be as interesting to people as who Oprah is stumping for or whether or not Hillary had the right to invoke the name of Martin Luther King. These are the same media outlets providing us daily updates on the death-spiral of the Spears family. It's sad, but in some ways it would be really beneficial for John Edwards if his wife had waited to have cancer until now. It would make him news, and he desperately needs that.

Where are we? Not in a pretty place. Mostly I think we have demonstrated that our vaunted democratic process is inexorably broken. Despite having access to more information than any population in history, we are possibly the most ignorant. The election of the so-called leader of the free world has devolved into little more than a national student council election. Still, as Jefferson said, democracy is the worst of all possible political systems, except for all the rest. So I guess we make do.

Eroding His 15 Minutes

Spencerport soundly defeated E. Irondequoit in yesterday's swim meet. But the big news is that my son placed first in the 100 Backstroke, so he gets his name in the paper. Woo Hoo!!

Need a Refund on My Engineering Degree

2" Steel Tube frame for 24'x12' boat shelter = $675



Form fitting tarp for boat shelter = $300


Neglecting to calculate that 15" of wet snow over 192 sq. ft. weighs 4000 pounds...

Priceless...

Lethal Logic

The U.S. Supreme Court this week heard oral arguments challenging the use of lethal injections to carry out executions in the United States. The case under consideration comes from Kentucky, where two death row inmates argue that the three-drug-injection-method used widely in executions across the country can cause unnecessary pain and suffering.

Now let me make sure I have this straight. The same country that defends its right to waterboard prisoners is worried that killers it sentences to death are going to suffer first? So prisoners we expect to live can suffer, but those who we're going to kill anyway should be spared any agony?

There are lots of good reasons to oppose the death penalty, but for argument's sake, let's assume that as a people we are intent to kill bad people.Why are we concerned that their final moments might be in agony? I'm sure their victims didn't get 3-drug cocktails and die painless deaths. Isn't the whole eye-for-an-eye mentality the death penalty is based on founded on the notion of making criminals suffer in retaliation for their crimes?

And while I'm on a rant, something else about this doesn't make sense. I've (unfortunately) been to the vet on several occasions where I had to have a beloved pet put to sleep. The animal gets a single injection and within seconds passes peacefully. The physiology isn't so different that this same procedure can't work on a human. If humanely dispatching criminals is the real goal here, why not just take them to the vet?

Santa Tech

The following has been roaming the Internet since before the first web browser was built. It examines why Santa doesn't exist from a hard science point of view.

How Engineers Spoil Christmas

There are approximately two billion children (persons under 18) in the world. However, since Santa does not visit children of Muslim, Hindu, Jewish or Buddhist (except maybe in Japan) religions, this reduces the workload for Christmas night to 15% of the total, or 378 million (according to the population reference bureau).

At an average (census) rate of 3.5 children per household, that comes to 108 million homes, presuming there is at least one good child in each. Santa has about 31 hours of Christmas to work with, thanks to the different time zones and the rotation of the earth, assuming east to west (which seems logical). This works out to 967.7 visits per second. This is to say that for each Christian household with a good child, Santa has around 1/1000th of a second to park the sleigh, hop out, jump down the chimney, fill the stocking, distribute the remaining presents under the tree, eat whatever snacks have been left for him to get back up the chimney, into the sleigh and get onto the next house. This, of course, would explain why no one has ever seen him.

Assuming that each of these 108 million stops is evenly distributed around the earth (which, of course, we know to be false, but will accept for the purposes of our calculations), we are now talking about 0.78 miles per household; a total trip of 75.5 million miles, not counting bathroom stops or breaks.

This means Santa's sleigh is moving at 650 miles per second or 3,000 times the speed of sound. For purposes of comparison, the fastest man made vehicle, the Ulysses space probe, moves at a pokey 27.4 miles per second, and a conventional reindeer can run (at best) 15 miles per hour.

The payload of the sleigh adds another interesting element. Assuming that each child gets nothing more than a medium sized LEGO set (two pounds), the sleigh is carrying over 500 thousand tons, not counting Santa himself. On land, a conventional reindeer can pull no more than 300 pounds. Even granting that the "flying" reindeer can pull 10 times the normal amount, the job can't be done with eight or even nine of them - Santa would need 360,000 of them. This increases the payload, not counting the weight of the sleigh, another 54,000 tons, or roughly seven times the weight of the Queen Elizabeth (the ship, not the monarch).

A mass of nearly 600,000 tons traveling at 650 miles per second creates enormous air resistance, which would heat up the reindeer in the same fashion as a spacecraft re-entering the earth's atmosphere. The lead pair of reindeer would absorb 14.3 quintillion joules of energy per second each. In short, they would burst into flames almost instantaneously, exposing the reindeer behind them and creating deafening sonic booms in their wake. The entire reindeer team would be vaporized within 4.26 thousandths of a second, or right about the time Santa reached the fifth house on his trip.

Not that it matters, however, since Santa, as a result of accelerating from a dead stop to 650 mps in .001 seconds, would be subjected to acceleration forces of 17,000 g's. A 250 pound Santa (which seems ludicrous considering all the high calorie snacks he must have consumed over the years) would be pinned to the back of the sleigh by 4,315,015 pounds of force, instantly crushing his bones and organs and reducing him to a quivering blob of pink goo.

Therefore, if Santa did exist, he's dead now.

Merry Christmas

Also, back before the dawn of modern computing, I wrote a rebuttal to this which was posted on what was then "net news". It too has been roaming the Internet ever since, and was even printed by the San Jose Mercury Sun Times newspaper back around 1993. For the sake of completeness, or maybe just old times... I'll reprint it here:

YES DEANNA, THERE IS A SANTA CLAUS
- Tim Nichols

I feel it necessary to respond to the attack on the existance of Santa circulating the net lately. The attack argued using Newtonian physics that Santa couldn't exist given the sheer volume of gifts to be delivered in the time allowed. I find that view myopic.

What if Santa were in fact a time traveller from the 24th century? What if he wound up on our present day Earth by having his shuttlecraft fall through a temporal distortion? (This is a very probable happening as television tells us space is just rife with this sort of plot device.)

Our traveller chose to land and live at the North Pole as he didn't want to risk influencing the present and hence disrupt his own future. But boredom set in as it will, and based on his extensive knowledge of history he decided to bring the myth of Santa to life.

In an effort to look really cool, he gave the shuttle a rag-top conversion and a red paint job and called it his sleigh. The National Geographic photographers in the area bought this, but then they'd been out in the cold for a very long time. "Santa" explained the warp nacelles as magic runners on his sleigh. (After all, as the Paclids say, "They make him go.")

Now, with his Warp 2 capable sleigh he was more than able to visit all the children in one night. Force fields explain away all the heat dissipation difficulties, and the inertial dampers solve all those nasty acceleration problems. (My nephew calls them "inertial dampeners" but I think that's just another name for your bladder.)

Of course he doesn't haul all those toys from the North Pole. He simply replicates them using the on-board matter replicator. This makes more sense than trying to justify how elves make Nintendo cartidges anyway.

I'm not certain of the point of the reindeer. Perhaps they are just 8 plastic lawn ornaments he's using as dashboard clutter. Kind of the 24th century equivalent of the plastic Jesus. I've never really understood geezer-cool anyway.

The only remaining hole is trying to figure out how Santa knows what you want for Christmas. Hmmmm... Well judging by the reported girth of Santa and the well known beard, I might speculate that Santa is really Commander Riker. This could make Counselor Troy Mrs. Claus. With her empathic abilities she could sense whether you've been bad or good and know what to get you in either case. The fact she's only half empath could also explain why sometimes Santa's insight is a little fuzzy and you get socks when what you really wanted was Hot Wheels.

So you see, Santa can exist. He just needs better technology.

Waking the Monster

We took our annual getaway weekend sans kids this past weekend. Just a quick trip to Niagara Falls to walk among the Christmas Lights and feel the icy mist on our faces. We stayed at the Fallsview hotel with a beautiful room overlooking, not surprisingly, the Falls.

The hotel was connected to several adjacent buildings containing shops, restaurants, an arcade, an indoor waterpark (why didn't we bring the kids again?), and of course, Casino Niagara.

The first day there we walked through the casino to get to the comedy club's box office where we got tickets for the following night. On the way through, Kim went on explaining how she didn't get the whole gambling thing. Why did people think it was fun? And how could all these people possibly be having a good time. So I popped $5 in a slot machine and had her sit. She pushed the buttons and pulled the lever over and over, but there were no bells and lights so she left non-plussed.

So the next day, after touring Ripley's museum and a collection of the world's most notorious criminals... A side note... With the exception of Jack the Ripper apparently all the world's most notorious criminals are Americans. None are Canadian. Just an interesting tidbit I learned in Canada. It was also a bit odd to see all the shop signs saying "US money accepted at par". My how far we've fallen. But I digress.

We had a lovely dinner and headed toward the comedy club for the show. We were a bit early so I popped $10 into a video poker machine and she watched as I played. I hit a couple of good hands and was soon up to $22. She was aglow. I cashed out and we went to the show. But only after assuring her we could come back out and play again afterwards. We did. And she cheered out loud every time she won more than a $1, much to the delight of the people sitting near her. We finished the evening up a total of $2, which I consider a pretty good evening, providing you exclude my bar tab.

Now back home, as we parted, she made a point of saying that maybe we could go to the casino again sometime. Oh what evil have I done?