We've all heard about the golden ratio and the Fibonacci sequence, at least anyone who's ever studied mathematics or gone to college has learned of this. If you don't know much about it, I suggest you go online and look it up. Then come back to this article because I'd like to throw out a question, one which perhaps has not been proposed previously.
You see, there are many folks who will claim they have found the golden ratio in nearly everything that we can see or touch. Often they go out of their way to make a claim like this with no proof, and they fudge the numbers just to prove their point. Rather than do that, I'd like to merely ask a question, and then go have you figure it out. When I was in my younger days, I was a superstar athlete, I was a runner.
I often competed against the superstar runners from Kenya in the longer distances with occasional moderate success. It often appeared that I just did not have the genetics, or the proper body geometry to compete at their level. One thing I noticed was that their lower leg bones were longer than mine, ratio wise. Many have said that the human body follows the golden ratio. I believe this has been proven false, at least with most humans.
What if those runners from Kenya actually did have the golden ratio as part of their body geometry? Could that account for their incredible abilities as runners? It's quite obvious that weren't the same, and that they had the advantage. It's often been said that those with the longer lower legs had an advantage. It makes sense that they would.
I can tell you that when I ran on my toes while running the mile or even in a 10K, or half marathon that I could run effortlessly, and faster. By running on my toes, or rather the balls of my feet, I was extending the length of my leg, in that case by three or four inches. Would that bring me closer to the golden ratio, and was that why I could run faster and further than other runners that I competed against who did not run on their toes or balls of their feet?
Why does everyone love a woman in high heel shoes? Does it make her more appealing due to the golden ratio? Does it just seem right? It is said that art and beauty, at least as observed by the human eye and our preferences follow the golden ratio. Could there be a reason for this? Is it innate? Does the golden ratio not only have beauty and form, but also the characteristics of pure efficiency in every biological species? Please consider all this and think on it. I don't claim to be the expert, just a man with the questions, and just enough math and science knowledge to pique my curiosity.
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Why We Need a Rail Road Think Tank for Future Innovations
In the United States we have far too many industrial dinosaur industries. I have nothing against the strength of our industrial capacity, but there's no reason to use 19th-century technologies when we now live in the 21st century. Let's talk about the railroad industry in this country. Yes, we can move freight inexpensively on tracks, and we can move a lot of it. It makes sense to do this as it is a good distribution method, especially during periods of drought, and the reality that we don't have large canals moving from market to market over mountains and through the passes.
Still, we can do better than this. The current railroad technology isn't exactly adequate, the track is too narrow, and the railcars are too wide, and they go up too high. They fall over too much to be quite blunt, that is to say they often derail. The railroad also makes too much noise, and the reason that it gets away with all this is because it has been grandfathered into our current rules and regulations. Why you ask, well because the railroad lobby is quite strong, and it is a key element in our economy. It is also controlled by the unions.
Interestingly enough, this is perhaps why Warren Buffett has invested in the railroad. This fits in his scenario of a good investment because it has "motes" around the business model protecting the castle or the company. That is to say there are barriers to entry, and no one can buy up all the land and put down a railroad track to compete. In many cases it's a monopoly or at least duopoly in some places at worst. This is not to say that there isn't at least some innovation in the railroad industry, it's just that there isn't enough. Still, maybe some of that is changing.
In the Austin Business Journal was an interesting article posted on December 12, 2012 titled; "Union Pacific opens tech development center in Austin," by Christopher Calnan which stated;
"Another major company has opened a tech development center in Austin TX. This time it is Union Pacific Corp. the nation's largest railroad operator. The company will open a software development center in Northwest Austin that could employ up to 40 workers."
Yes, software and computer systems can make the railroad more efficient, safer, and eventually all the trains will be autonomous without drivers or in this case conductors. This saves labor costs, and makes the railroad more efficient, but what about everything else? What about all the new materials, why are we still making the tracks and wheels out of steel? Steel rusts, and steel on steel makes too much noise. I think we can do better than this. This is why I believe we need a railroad think tank for future innovations.
Not just for software and the computer systems, but all components. General Electric is making better locomotives, and there are new designs on the horizon, we need not stop there, and so, I hope you will please consider all this and think on it.
Still, we can do better than this. The current railroad technology isn't exactly adequate, the track is too narrow, and the railcars are too wide, and they go up too high. They fall over too much to be quite blunt, that is to say they often derail. The railroad also makes too much noise, and the reason that it gets away with all this is because it has been grandfathered into our current rules and regulations. Why you ask, well because the railroad lobby is quite strong, and it is a key element in our economy. It is also controlled by the unions.
Interestingly enough, this is perhaps why Warren Buffett has invested in the railroad. This fits in his scenario of a good investment because it has "motes" around the business model protecting the castle or the company. That is to say there are barriers to entry, and no one can buy up all the land and put down a railroad track to compete. In many cases it's a monopoly or at least duopoly in some places at worst. This is not to say that there isn't at least some innovation in the railroad industry, it's just that there isn't enough. Still, maybe some of that is changing.
In the Austin Business Journal was an interesting article posted on December 12, 2012 titled; "Union Pacific opens tech development center in Austin," by Christopher Calnan which stated;
"Another major company has opened a tech development center in Austin TX. This time it is Union Pacific Corp. the nation's largest railroad operator. The company will open a software development center in Northwest Austin that could employ up to 40 workers."
Yes, software and computer systems can make the railroad more efficient, safer, and eventually all the trains will be autonomous without drivers or in this case conductors. This saves labor costs, and makes the railroad more efficient, but what about everything else? What about all the new materials, why are we still making the tracks and wheels out of steel? Steel rusts, and steel on steel makes too much noise. I think we can do better than this. This is why I believe we need a railroad think tank for future innovations.
Not just for software and the computer systems, but all components. General Electric is making better locomotives, and there are new designs on the horizon, we need not stop there, and so, I hope you will please consider all this and think on it.
New Speech Recognition Word Processing Interface Software Needed
As a prolific online article writer with some 28,670 articles now, I am always interested in the latest and greatest speech recognition software. The first 10,000 articles I created were pretty much done with my fingers and a keyboard. You can imagine how many laptops I went through wearing off those letters on the plastic keys. Today, I am writing about 75% of my articles using voice recognition software, and I note that I can go two thirds faster in doing so.
Still, I would submit to you that it's time for the software gurus to better these writing tools rather than sitting on their laurels with only small incremental gains between versions. I say that because it seems as soon as you buy the latest speech recognition software, a new version comes out within six months.
They always say it is better than the one the prior, but in reality it's not all that much better, sure, it might be a little better, and you might even notice it, but why don't they take the next leap and skip the next subsequent generations and incremental baby steps of these computer writing tools? Let me explain.
Below, I've listed four things I would like to see in the next generation (giant step) of voice software. Perhaps this can be done at Google X-Labs to interface with their word processing programs, or at Microsoft to interface with Microsoft Word, and hopefully it could be used with Windows 8 on the new Surface Tablet. Perhaps a joint project with Dragon software, or IBM might be another concept. Apple might also get into the game with their "Siri" speech command software. Here is what I would like to see;
- Adjusting Reading Level of Completed Speech Documents
- Change In Word Choices
- Auto Editing Read Back
- Would You Rather Say - Suggestive Option
It would be very nice if as you were preparing a document, editing an Internet radio show, or writing a chapter in an e-book or even an e-mail if the software could read it back to you and then you could reset the reading level where it would give you new word choices, synonyms which would actually work in the sentence and be grammatically correct but be just right for a higher intellectual crowd. Then it would be good if it could read back the correction, and ask you if you accept that are not, all the while saving the previous edition which may be perhaps an eighth grade reading level.
You see, you never know when you are going to swap out audiences, and it would be nice to have both versions. It even be rather cool if the voice software might ask you after a long pause if you wish to change a sentence above, giving you a suggestive option. There's no reason we can't design software to do that, and it would certainly make my job as a writer easier. I'd buy it in a heartbeat, so too would anyone who is serious about writing or attempting to write in English when their native language is from somewhere else. Indeed I hope you will please consider all this and think on it.
Still, I would submit to you that it's time for the software gurus to better these writing tools rather than sitting on their laurels with only small incremental gains between versions. I say that because it seems as soon as you buy the latest speech recognition software, a new version comes out within six months.
They always say it is better than the one the prior, but in reality it's not all that much better, sure, it might be a little better, and you might even notice it, but why don't they take the next leap and skip the next subsequent generations and incremental baby steps of these computer writing tools? Let me explain.
Below, I've listed four things I would like to see in the next generation (giant step) of voice software. Perhaps this can be done at Google X-Labs to interface with their word processing programs, or at Microsoft to interface with Microsoft Word, and hopefully it could be used with Windows 8 on the new Surface Tablet. Perhaps a joint project with Dragon software, or IBM might be another concept. Apple might also get into the game with their "Siri" speech command software. Here is what I would like to see;
- Adjusting Reading Level of Completed Speech Documents
- Change In Word Choices
- Auto Editing Read Back
- Would You Rather Say - Suggestive Option
It would be very nice if as you were preparing a document, editing an Internet radio show, or writing a chapter in an e-book or even an e-mail if the software could read it back to you and then you could reset the reading level where it would give you new word choices, synonyms which would actually work in the sentence and be grammatically correct but be just right for a higher intellectual crowd. Then it would be good if it could read back the correction, and ask you if you accept that are not, all the while saving the previous edition which may be perhaps an eighth grade reading level.
You see, you never know when you are going to swap out audiences, and it would be nice to have both versions. It even be rather cool if the voice software might ask you after a long pause if you wish to change a sentence above, giving you a suggestive option. There's no reason we can't design software to do that, and it would certainly make my job as a writer easier. I'd buy it in a heartbeat, so too would anyone who is serious about writing or attempting to write in English when their native language is from somewhere else. Indeed I hope you will please consider all this and think on it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)