A ma'amor summary

First, I changed my mind on moving to Tumblr.

Second, here is a ma'amor summary I wrote on Facebook:


Alter Rebbe says that people nowadays (meaning 18th/19th century — but this is true also today) think that the philosophers of old were fools. It is the philosophers of today that were able to develop wonderful new technological advances (the Alter Rebbe gives examples of cannons and air balloons) that are the geniuses.

In reality, he says, it's the opposite. People of old were geniuses, but they dealt with inyonim ruchniim — spiritual matters, or abstract concepts. The reason was that it was important to mekadesh (to make holy) the world from top to bottom. That is why the wise of the nations dealt with the abstract concepts, so that Yidden could mekadesh those concepts through their service.

Nowadays, the time has come to mekadesh the gashmius, the lowest aspects of the physical matter. This is why around the time of 17th-19th centuries, there was a revolution both in Chassidus (the ideas in Judaism that explain how dealing with physical things for the purpose of holiness creates "dira b'tachtoinim", Dwelling in the Lower Worlds for G-d) and in material sciences (natural sciences, medicine, economics, etc.) that allowed for more of the physical matter to be in use by the humans, more efficiently, and with greater benefit for the humanity. And economics is very important for this, because it allows literally the whole world to participate in creation of a single pencil.

Now this pencil (or an iPhone or an airplane) can be used for humanity's benefit and for avoidas Hashem. Through study of Chassidus, we are able to elevate the sparks even in the lowest aspects of the matter. Through study of natural sciences, we are able to make those aspects of the matter accessible for elevation. Furthermore, study of the world itself, combined with Chassidus, allows us to understand the greatness of G-d to a higher degree.

Pray for the welfare of electricity monopolies

The government in the US grants monopolies to electric companies. Thankfully, it's not one company per country, but oftentimes, it is one company per state, or per region, or at least per city.

Recently, the electric monopoly of Boston area, NStar, has received a good share of criticism. Most of it has to do with outages resulting from old or badly maintained equipment, personal errors, long response times to electric line damages (thousands of families were without electricity for weeks as a result of a "hurricane" last year — part of the time, during freezing weather), drastically rising costs of service and operation, and environmental mishaps. Basically, every problem that can happen to an electric company has happened to NStar.

I am sure the same is the case with almost every monopoly out there. I remember, when I was living in the South, the same things were said about the local energy company, Entergy.

Some of these things may not be the companies' fault. For instance, rising service costs have to do with rising gas prices, which the companies are hardly responsible for. On the other hand, we simply do not know what the "right" price for electricity in a given region should be, because there is no competition, and a company can charge higher than it would had the energy business existed in a free-market condition. The same goes for response times, equipment maintenance, etc.: all these problems which are blamed by NPR hosts on "greed" have to do with the government creating a monopoly. And also, probably, with greed. And mismanagement. But greed and mismanagement are allowed to flourish and give fruit when there is no competition. Free markets punish for them. Customers punish for them.


All this is beside the point, however. We do all use electricity. Every day, people use it. Hospitals use it. Police and firefighters use it. Businesses use it. Synagogues use it. We use it during the week, on Shabbos (passively) and on Yom Tov. Electricity has greatly transformed our existence, has benefited us immensely. It has allowed us to live more comfortable, more fulfilled, more meaningful, and longer lives. It has allowed us to be (with all other things being equal) better human beings and better Jews. Just today, without electricity I may have suffered great health problems (G-d forbid) as a result of the heat wave.

Therefore, I wish to propose the following two statements:

1. Pray for the welfare of local electricity monopolies. For without them, we would all sit in the dark. We would be cold in the winter and hot in the summer.
2. Even a worst electricity monopoly is better than lack of electricity monopolies, when a man has to sit in the dark and live in the Middle Ages.


Clearly, the two statements are ridiculous. Right?

Without NStar, there would be a different company. If it's a bad electric company, it must fail and be replaced by a better one. Better yet: why not allow electric companies to compete and see which one does a better job or gets a greater share of the market? In fact, let two or more companies co-exist and cater to different customers' preferences. I am currently trying to decide whether to stay with my current Internet service provider (which charges cheaper rates and gives better speed of connection, but whose service outages are more frequent) or switch to a different one. The same kind of choice should exist for electric companies.

And the second statement is silly too. It seems to imply that there are only two choices: NStar or sitting in the dark. But that is clearly not true. There is a middle ground.

(Also, it's not really true that without electricity we would be cold in the winter or hot in the summer. People would come up with some of the obvious alternatives.)


So, why, when the same two statements are said regarding the government (first one is modeled on a Mishna, second — on a rishon's comment to the Mishna), we just gulp them up? I am not saying that we should just discard something that Chazal say, G-d forbid, but perhaps when the statement is strange, we can use a little common sense and logic to try to figure out its meaning and applicability, as opposed to doing Bible-thumping.

Perhaps what Mishna said was that we should value electricity... I mean, law and order — not the actual organization of the government, but the service that it provides. Just like we should value medicine. Without it, people would surely die in many cases. Does this mean there has to be a monopoly on medical decisions in a given geographic area (and, for that matter, as wide an area as possible)?

Perhaps in Mishna's times and the place where it was written, there was no societal concept of anarcho-capitalism (many independent and passively competing sources of law and order coexisting within the same territory). We know that such a thing has existed in the past, but it doesn't mean this concept was available to the specific society of Mishna's times and place (or those of the rishon commenting on the Mishna, even though he was a relative contemporary to medieval Ireland and Iceland).

Political concepts are not much different from technology or medicine or economics. All of them are just ideas about how to do things. Their accumulation and development require research, passage of information down the generations, ability to improvise and experiment, and flexibility to accept change. We shouldn't blame Chazal for working within the political realities of their times any more than we should blame them for working within technological, economic, or medical realities of their times.

But then again: we should be cautious to accept blindly the statements that are so strongly intertwined with the state of the contemporary knowledge as binding to our times, and, worse yet, as some sort of eternal instruction of how to view certain phenomena. That may refer to bleeding or leeching; that may also refer to cornering the markets or the government.

Effect of income tax on technological progress

[A re-post with some new points]

Oftentimes people tell me that science would not flourish as it has in the 20th century had it not been sponsored by income tax. The idea of private sponsorship of science (either in a form of investments, like in any other business, or in a form of donations) would not work, or at least would not work on the same scale as it has under governmental sponsorship. Until recently, I thought so too.

Let’s see if this is true — what effect has income tax (introduced in the late 19th century and made permanent in early 20th century) and, in general, government’s funding of science had on the rate of technological breakthroughs?




I think the effect is pretty clear. Until the end of 19th century, technology has been developing at an extremely high rate. Then, in late 19th – early 20th century, the rate started to slow down and then started to decrease. Saying “look how far we got in 20th century in terms of technology after government started sponsoring its development” is the same as saying “look how far I got walking on my feet after I abandoned my car on the side of the road”.

Recently someone told me that without inflation, there is no growth (apparently, Rick Santorum believes the same). I answered that England and US have grown tremendously in the period of 1700–1900 (when the currency was not only not inflating, but was actually deflating). He said: "yes, but it was the fraction of growth US has experienced in the last thirty years". I challenged him to provide me with evidence that the rate of growth was higher in the 20th century than in the 19th. Meanwhile, Tom Woods claims the opposite:



Going back to the question of governmental funding of science — so, why would private businesses fund science (after all, aren’t they interested in immediate profit?), and why don’t they do so now? Also, even if the businesses did fund science (and of course, they still do), it would be only applied, not fundamental science, right?

This claim is repeated by most scientists I know. No wonder most of them love the government.

Well, think about this: oil companies invest money in geological research that will produce real profit 30 years from now. Sounds to me like investment into fundamental science that gives long-term profit. (I certainly hope that my personal discoveries will provide humanity, iyH, with some practical benefit, in addition to added theoretical knowledge, less than 30 years from now.)

Now, imagine if the government used taxpayers’ money to do the aforementioned geological research? Why would the oil companies spend money to do it then?

Meanwhile, the cost of doing science has risen greatly, because the companies that supply universities with materials know they can raise the prices, since the government will pick up the bill. The same is happening in medicine and education.

At the same time, the quality of service is going down. It is very hard to buy a good antibody nowadays (as opposed to, say, 10 years ago), since the market is full of antibodies that do not work or don’t work well. The companies mass-produce them and sell them, knowing that the government-sponsored labs will buy them no matter what, since they are less careful with their money spending (after all, the government will pick up the bill, and if you run out of one grant, there is always another to be applied for).

And this is just one example...

New Google Maps for Android

For me, the important new features are the ability to have the maps cached to view offline and ability to search for local businesses (and connect to their Google information, with ratings, phone numbers which I can immediately dial, etc.). For gas prices, I use Gas Buddy, linked to Google Maps when I need directions.

The important old features are, of course, synchrony with my saved maps (e.g., I entered the maps for my furniture pick-up route for today in Google Maps on my computer and can see them on my phone), ability to see the traffic levels and transit lines (subway, etc.).

The important feature yet to be created by Google is an easy ability to synchronize my Google Contacts with my Google Maps. I should be able to choose to view the addresses from my “Furniture Pick-Up” group from contacts on the Maps. When I click on each address’s “pin”, I should be able to see all the notes that I made and call them. It’s a very easy thing to create (comparing to everything else that Google has made available), so it’s surprising that Google hasn’t done that yet.

Is it proper for a Jew to have a driver’s license?

[A re-post]

Following the topic of dealing with the outside world, here’s some news from Jerusalem:

Four students were expelled from the Tiferet Israel yeshiva in Jerusalem after it became known that they had obtained driver’s licenses in violation of the yeshiva’s rules.
The decision triggered a heated debate among the ultra-Orthodox public surrounding the question of the legitimacy of owning a license.
After learning that some of their students might have taken driving lessons, the yeshiva heads conducted a thorough investigation and even contacted the Transportation Ministry on the matter.
“Anyone can call the Transportation Ministry, give an ID number and inquire whether that person owns a driver’s license,” one of the students explained.
Following the inquiry, the yeshiva heads convened to discuss the “problematic phenomenon” and eventually decided to immediately expel any student who is in possession of a license.
The rabbis told the students that they could be readmitted once they have their license revoked.
However, one of the expelled students was later readmitted after the rabbis found out that he got the license to help his crippled father.
Most ultra-Orthodox rabbis oppose the notion of a haredi person getting a license. “It’s inappropriate for a person who defines himself learned in the Torah to have a driver’s license,” a prominent rabbi told the yeshiva director when the latter came to consult him on the issue.

From the Rebbe’s book of everyday thoughts, Hayoim Yoim (7th of Kislev):

There are three schools of thought:

1. The discipline of nullification of the material by indicating the repulsive and abhorrent nature of all that is bodily and material. This is the school of Mussar.
2. The school of recognition of the superiority of the “inner form” and the spiritual — the dimension of character-traits and intellectuality — and instruction as to how one may come closer to attaining these. This is the school of Chakira, philosophy.
3. The discipline of predominance of form over matter. This school teaches the unique quality of the material when it is purified, and the unique quality of “form” when integrated with the material; the two are to be so thoroughly fused that one cannot detect where either of them begins or ends — for “Their beginning is wedged into their end, and their end into their beginning”. The One G-d created them both, and for one purpose — to reveal the light of Holiness of His hidden power. Only both of them together will complete the perfection desired by the Creator. This is the school of Chassidus.

From the talk given on motzei Shabbos, parshas Yisroi, 1984:

The last Mishna in the Ethics of the Fathers states: “All the Holy One, blessed be He, created in this world, He created only for His glory.” [...]

This Mishnah answers those who question the use of modern advances in technology for the sake of Torah. They frown upon the use of radio in disseminating Torah, claiming that since their predecessors were able to learn Torah and teach it to others without its use, it should not be used now [...].

Learning Tanya on the radio is a manifestation of the dissemination of the wellsprings of Chassidus to the outside. Through the radio, the actual wellsprings of Chassidus are spread instantly to every place in the world, engulfing the “outside” in the wellsprings — and thereby purifying the “outside”. It is the preparation to the fulfillment of the promise, “The earth shall be full of the knowledge of the L-rd as the waters cover the sea”, for, as was promised to the Baal Shem Tov, Mashiach will come “when your wellsprings shall spread forth to the outside”.

Radio is a comparatively new technology. Only recently has it been utilized by Jews for holy purposes such as learning Tanya, whereas before that it had been used for secular and even unholy purposes. On this basis, say some Jews, Tanya should not be learned on radio, for radio is intrinsically evil.

Such a claim is not only wrong, but totally contradicts Torah and the Jewish faith.

Nothing and nobody but G-d has the ability to create even the smallest thing (Sanhedrin 67b; Yerushalmi Sanhedrin, 7). This is fully recorded in Scripture (Bereishis 1:1): “In the beginning G-d created the heavens and the earth”: “the heavens — to include everything therein, and the earth — to include everything therein” (Rashi, Bereishis, 1:14). Evil cannot create; everything in this universe, including the ability to transmit through radio, is a creation of G-d. In the words if the Alter Rebbe (Tanya, p.260): “He alone has it in His power and ability to create something out of an absolute naught and nothingness.”

If the above applies to even the smallest things, it certainly applies to radio, a powerful force that G-d invested in nature enabling a person’s voice to instantly be heard all over the world.

Since everything in the world was created “for the sake of the Torah and for the sake of Israel” (Rashi, Bereishis 1:1), it is clear that the powerful force of radio was created so that it be utilized for holy matters, such as the dissemination of Torah. Indeed, our Sages explicitly state (Pirkei Avos 6:11): “All that the Holy One, blessed be He, created in His world, He created solely for His glory.”

However, as in all matters, man is given free choice to use radio for good or evil — “Behold, I have set before you this day [a free choice] between life and good and death and evil” (Devarim 30:15). And, says G-d, “Choose life!” (Devarim 30:19). That some people misuse radio for evil purposes is therefore no reason not to utilize it for the purpose for which it was created — “for the sake of the Torah and for the sake of Israel.”

We find a parallel to the above in Mishnah (Avodah Zarah 4:7): “The [Jewish] elders in Rome were asked, ‘If [your G-d] has no desire for idolatry, why does He not abolish it?’ They replied: ‘If people would worship something unnecessary to the world, He would abolish it; but they worship the sun, moon, stars and planets. Should He destroy His universe on account of fools?!’” In our case, because there are fools who use the power of radio for bad purposes, should this prevent the use of it for good purposes?

But, counter those people whose whole delight is to interfere with good and holy projects, the use of radio cannot be compared to the above mishnah. The sun and moon, the purpose of which is to give light, were created before fools began to worship them; therefore it makes sense that G-d should not destroy His world on account of fools. Radio, however, was originally used for secular and even profane purposes. How then can we say that radio was created only “for the sake of the Torah and for the sake of Israel?”

An explicit refutation to this argument is found in a Midrash (Bereishis Rabbah 16:2), which states: “The world was not worthy to use gold. Why then was it created? For the sake of the Mishkan.” Gold was created in the six days of creation and was immediately in evidence, as stated (Bereishis 2:12), “The gold of that land is good.” Yet from creation to the making of the Mishkan there were 26 generations! And even before gold was used for the Mishkan it was used for idolatry, as Rashi says (Devarim 1:1), “They used gold for Baal,” and as the Midrash relates, there were idols of silver and gold in Avraham’s times. Nevertheless, after gold was used for idolatry, it was used for the purpose for which it was created — “for the sake of the Mishkan.”

Hence, although the earliest use of radio was for unclean purposes, this should not prevent Jews for using it for holy purposes — the goal of its creation.

Ironically, those very same people who decry the use of radio to spread Torah use its power for secular things. The telegraph runs on the same principle as radio, and these people use them in their business dealings. To use radio or telegraph to make money is permitted, it appears. But when it is used to disseminate Torah — it is all of a sudden prohibited to use this “evil” means [...].

Whence comes this illogical thinking and this claim that radio is a creation of evil? It is not the use of radio per se that bothers them. It is the dissemination of Chassidus that vexes them; and their chagrin causes them to find any pretext to condemn the spreading of Chassidus as a bad thing — to the extent that they put forward arguments that contradict a basic tenet of the Jewish faith.

We speak of this only because it is necessary to emphasize and adjure that one should not be ashamed because of scoffers. Instead, one must increase as much as possible in the dissemination of Chassidus via all means — including radio. [...]

May it be G-d’s will that all these matters be fulfilled with pleasantness and with peace, with true and full serenity.

Now, I could understand if owning a car (or a driver’s license) was forbidden to a yeshiva bochur, because it may give him ability to leave yeshiva whenever he pleases, etc. (even though I don’t agree with such pedagogical approach, but that’s another matter). But these rabbis, it seems, think that owning a driver’s license is inappropriate for a talmid chochom in and of itself. To this one cannot answer anything clearer than what the Rebbe said. We came into this world to transform it — not to separate ourselves from it. We must engage the world — in a G-dly way and for the purpose of G-dliness alone — but engage nonetheless.

You are my sunshine

Havaya is the sun, and Elokim is the shield.
 — Chassidus

I’ll always love you and make you happy,
If you will only say the same.
But if you leave me and love another,
You’ll regret it all some day.

 — Johnny Cash

These pictures taken by an astrophotographer Alan Friedman had the sunlight reduced so much that we can see the surface of the sun itself more clearly. Click on the link above to see larger versions of the images.

Another picture of the space (source):

Douglas Adams and technology

I like technology. I don’t worship it; nor do I believe it is appropriate for a Jew to do so, but I do respect it as a tool to improve our lives — and not just b’gashmius, but also very much b’ruchnius.

Here is Douglas Adams writing on technology, in his 1999 article “How to Stop Worrying and Learn to Love the Internet”. The article is interesting on multiple levels, as is all the writing of DNA and people like him (in Russia they used to be called intelligentsia, which meant at first the educated, intellectual class, then started to mean eidel, refined people; then it meant Jews, and now — especially if you live in Sheepshead Bay — refers to the people who are not necessarily racist and whose topics of discussion go beyond good places to find parking, brands of liquor, or very expensive chess boards).

I think the bit about trusting sources of information is brilliant and should be read and thought about by all Lubavitchers, frankly.

On shlichus in Alabama

A report of Lag Ba’Omer experiences to follow soon. Meanwhile, a joke I heard on Shabbos:

There was a tzaddik who said that if any of his followers ever finds himself in a difficult place, he should call out the tzaddik’s name, and he will come to save his follower. So, sure enough, one of the tzaddik’s chassidim ends up in Gehennom and calls out the tzaddik’s name. The tzaddik shows up and pulls him out of Gehennom.

So, a Lubavitcher chossid who once heard this somehow ends up in Gehennom himself. He decides to call on the Lubavitcher Rebbe to pull him out. He calls out: “Rebbe, Rebbe!” The Rebbe shows up, sees the chossid and says, giving him a dollar: “Oh, you’re there? Good. I need someone there. Brocho and hatzlocho on your shlichus.”

And now on something completely different:

Socialism on the road

(Ilya Repin, “Volga Boatmen” — click on the image to enlarge)

Reading this passage:

He and three other men, so he said, were sculling a very heavily laden boat up from Maidenhead one evening, and a little above Cookham lock they noticed a fellow and a girl, walking along the towpath, both deep in an apparently interesting and absorbing conversation. They were carrying a boat-hook between them, and, attached to the boat-hook was a tow-line, which trailed behind them, its end in the water. No boat was near, no boat was in sight. There must have been a boat attached to that tow-line at some time or other, that was certain; but what had become of it, what ghastly fate had overtaken it, and those who had been left in it, was buried in mystery. Whatever the accident may have been, however, it had in no way disturbed the young lady and gentleman, who were towing. They had the boat-hook and they had the line, and that seemed to be all that they thought necessary to their work.

George was about to call out and wake them up, but, at that moment, a bright idea flashed across him, and he didn't. He got the hitcher instead, and reached over, and drew in the end of the tow-line; and they made a loop in it, and put it over their mast, and then they tidied up the sculls, and went and sat down in the stern, and lit their pipes.

And that young man and young woman towed those four hulking chaps and a heavy boat up to Marlow.

George said he never saw so much thoughtful sadness concentrated into one glance before, as when, at the lock, that young couple grasped the idea that, for the last two miles, they had been towing the wrong boat. George fancied that, if it had not been for the restraining influence of the sweet woman at his side, the young man might have given way to violent language.

The maiden was the first to recover from her surprise, and, when she did, she clasped her hands, and said, wildly:

"Oh, Henry, then WHERE is auntie?"

— has reminded me of this post by arbat:

Another study in the University of Utah: people are sat in front of a wheel and watched how they drive. Then they are given a phone and watched how their driving changes. It turns out that less than 3% drive the car as well with the phone as without.

I am not worried about the study itself, but by the conclusion that the journalists will make out of it. Or, what’s worse, the politicians cheered on by the journalists. You see, the politicians have a Pavlovian reflex in response to any “scientific” study — to ban something. The obviously idiotic reaction to this study is to ban cell phone in the cars. Completely.

Why do I consider this reflex idiotic? Well, since you’re asking — imagine that such a study were conducted not with cell phones but with radio. Or music. Or a conversation on a topic interesting to the driver.

Imagine we start measuring how a young man’s attention is decreased from having a beautiful girl next to him. Or a woman, who has a husband sitting next to her and giving her advice on how to drive. Imagine you have a child in the back who needs to be told a story. Or two kids who are trying to take the Gameboy away from each other. Or a mother-in-law?

What do you think: will these things end up being less distracting than a cell phone or more? What should we do? Ban having passengers in cars? Ban audios and CD players?

What if a problem is not in the cell phone, but in the boredom of drivers that need to find some distraction?

Or, imagine a person who needs to call somewhere. Check that his child did the homework. Or talk to a client. Or call his wife, because he forgot to tell her that tonight his friends are coming over for a game of poker. Not to call in such situations means consequences. What do you think, should we measure how much his driving skills will deteriorate?

Now, within the last year, I have rear-ended a car once, driving at a slow speed (no damage done), while stuck in traffic on Belt Parkway and looking for a ma’amor on my mp3 player.  Before that, I had almost gotten into an accident several times because of one of the reasons listed above. Also from trying to figure out where exactly my GPS was showing me to go. But never from talking on a cell phone.

Regarding buzz

I don’t really like beer. I just drink it for the buzz.

— A colleague of mine

You know you’re not that cool when the Google Buzz fiasco has no effect on you, since apparently, you don’t have so many friends, enemies, ex-boyfriends, ex-girlfriends and crazy stalkers that total disruption of your privacy affects you that much. (Although, I do care about my privacy a little. I certainly hope no ex-girlfriends of mine read this blog.)

Regardless, a couple cartoons regarding Buzz from Gizmodo (click on the images to enlarge):





Also, an angry review of the Buzz fiasco by one lady who is much cooler than me (what made me think she’s angry?.. well, the title was a bit of a tip-off).

By the way, it’s certainly fun when somebody messes up. It’s especially fun when the giants mess up. As all the non-Roman contemporaries of  Teutoburg Forest massacre know. Of course, when the giant is falling, you start feeling a little sorry for it, as the contemporaries of the Battle of Adrianople can attest.

iPad

The world intelligentsia responds to the new phenomenon. Click on the images to enlarge.

Technology

“Back in the day, the technology was less advanced but more charming.”

That’s what people like me (backward, old-fashioned romantics) like to think. I don’t know if it’s true or not. Reading this and this posts, I am thinking there might just be a chance that people took their jobs more responsibly. But who knows?

Who is to blame? I think PETA.

History (and future) of computing

(Trillions from MAYAnMAYA on Vimeo.)

The essence of the video is: recently we had very few computers. Now we have a lot. In very near future, we will have so many that what we have right now will feel like a kindergarten child’s mid-afternoon fantasy.

So, how are we going to handle this? Trillion(s) of sources of information connected and communicating in a complex, chaotic way? Right now we have no tools to handle this and no idea how to get those tools. But we can ask for advice from Hashem. Or from Nature, whatever view you prefer.

Because if you look at our body, it has trillions of cells (each designed in a much more complicated way and handling much more information than a single computer) communicating with each other and doing so successfully to allow our bodies to live (in fact, so successfully that you go through your day not giving it much thought how much information exchange needs to happen in order for you to do your basic tasks for a minute — forget something as complicated as playing a violin, or giving a lecture, or... I don’t know... fencing).

I mean, we don’t think about it much, and we take it for granted, but that thing between our ears, the human brain, is the most complicated structure in the whole known Universe. And female human brain is probably the most complicated structure in both known and unknown Universe. Think about it... Next time you want to ride a motorcycle, think twice. If not out of respect to yourself, then at least out of respect to your Creator.

P.S. Although, there is something I am probably not getting. How will we have trillions of computers? Right now we have, what, seven, eight billion people on this planet? Let’s say, in the nearest future we will have 10 billion people. So, if we have a trillion computers, that’s 100 computers per person?

If so, kinda cool…

“I Can't Believe I'm Sitting Next to a Republican”

An interesting interview with Harry Stein about the reasons of liberals being so “tolerant” of their conservative brethren. His main point is that when a liberal hears someone is a conservative, he does not think the conservative is wrong, he thinks the conservative is evil.

I myself had an experience of being asked “So, you are a conservative?” in the same tone as “So, your sister is a prostitute?”

I also remember how my rabbi once heard from someone that he would never even consider Orthodox Judaism as having any truth and would not even research or think about it, because Orthodox Judaism apparently limits one’s freedoms, disregards scientific evidence, is outdated, and in general it is close-minded to believe all the things that Orthodox Jews believe, which is why this person would not waste time learning even a little about them. My rabbi’s response was: “So… you closed your mind to stay open-minded?”

You get the same ‘tude in other illuminated places. In this Gizmodo article, the author makes fun of an Orthodox couple who sued a building owner for placing a motion-sensitive light near their apartment and refusing to allow them to pay for it being replaced with a normal light (or something or other). Now, some of the criticism is about people pushing their religious views on others, but most of it is about how ridiculous the idea of not turning light one day a week seems to everyone, how superstitious and outdated. (More particularly, the idea that turning light constitutes creating fire or building something is even more ridiculous to them.)

When one person was accused of disrespecting other people’s beliefs, he answered: “I am all for respecting other people’s religious beliefs, but not crazy superstitions such as these.”

So, with liberals being appaled at someone being a conservative (I am not even talking about being a libertarian — that’s not just a reason for disgust, but grounds for calling 911 and screaming: “There is a devil in my living room”) it’s the same thing.

There is a degree of accepted disagreement within their zone of comfort (e.g., you may disagree with me that Obama is the best candidate and Hillary is not — fine, I disagree with you but respect your opinion), but outside of this zone, you have drifted out of the definition of a normal human being, and no facts, arguments or supporting evidence help. You are either evil (if you are a conservative), nuts (if you are an Orthodox Jew not merely believing in G-d and wearing a white scarf on “Sabbath”, but actually practicing Jewish Law) or both (if you are a politically conservative Jew, who does not like Obama and eats properly shechted chicken on Shabbos with his sons who are circumcised and daughters who are dressed modestly).

Corpse in the living room; a girl’s best friend

Norvezhskiy-Lesnoy says: “Did you ever receive a call from a girl asking you for help with getting rid of a corpse in the living room? I did.”



The text message says: Sweetie, I killed the little fish. I am so sorry :(

This is a second post from the series called “Girl’s Best Friend”. The first one featured this photo:



The sign says: “A girl’s best friend is a fish!” It proceeds to list in a smaller font all the important nutrients found in fish. Just an FYI from Moscow Department of Health (as it says at the top of the sign). Taxpayers’ money put to good use.

Al Gore liked this movie

The digital film is called Oceansize, it’s in German, and its main idea is: Mother Nature strikes back.

Oceansize from Oceansize Team on Vimeo.

Of people and robots

Alter Rebbe says in Tanya that for the most part people do not help other people selflessly (they do it to feel better about themselves, to get something out of it, etc. — which is why it says in Gemara that “kindness of nations is sin”). What about helping small wooden robots?

Tweenbots are human-dependent robots that navigate the city with the help of pedestrians they encounter. Rolling at a constant speed, in a straight line, Tweenbots have a destination displayed on a flag, and rely on people they meet to read this flag and to aim them in the right direction to reach their goal.

Stay connected

(everything was created in opposites; source)

So, I only really just want to share the movie below (and update the blog a little), but since it is always nice to connect something to Torah, I will write three thoughts one can derive from this movie:

1. Unlike in this movie, our Creator did not abandon us. He put us here with a purpose, He knows about our struggles, and He is in control.

2. You should never want to be something you are not. Don’t desire to be like angels. Be Jews — with human guf, both Divine and animal souls, and the Essence of the soul which is part of G-d above, literally. We are better than angels and more fortunate — despite the fact (and especially due to the fact) that we are stuck in this lowly, limited, dark world. We have something they don’t have, perched on a tree in the Upper Realms. We have Hashem’s Essence.

3. Stay connected to your source. Every time you do something against Hashem’s Will (G-d forbid) or even when you do something which has nothing to do with Hashem’s Will, you’re disconnecting yourself. And at that moment, you are not alive — you are dead.

4. Did I say three thoughts? OK, here is a bonus: we do not serve Hashem for rewards. For pleasure. For the Upper Realms or the Lower Realms. Not even for the pleasure of His Essence. We serve Hashem because it pleases Him and because this is the purpose for which we were created. (How is this seen in the movie? Not sure — but it’s true nevertheless.)

Good luck with the marathon on your way to receiving Torah.

And now the movie:

Liberalism with initiative

Recently I wrote a post, in which I said:

There is a Russian saying: “A fool without initiative is better than a fool with initiative.” At least the first fool doesn’t do anything — he is just being an idiot quietly. The second one wracks havoc with his well-intentioned idiocy.

So, after that, I was washing hands in our new building’s bathroom and noticed that the water becomes progressively hotter as you have it on (the water turns on itself when your hands approach the faucet; if you want to wash your hands with cold water only, it’s not an option). To the point that if you wash the hands for too long, it becomes intolerably hot. And, of course, if you just washed hands quite thoroughly, and someone walks to the same faucet right after you, he is greeted with a flow of scalding liquid.

I wandered at that point what every programmer has wondered numerous times while working with Windows OS: is this a bug or a feature? (Somehow this statement always sounds better in Russian — perhaps because “bug” and “feature” are pronounced in English, with heavy Russian accent.) Is this someone making a mistake in plumbing, or is this purposefully designed so that people don’t wash their hands for too long, wasting too much water? In other words, is this a work of a fool without initiative or a fool with initiative?

At the time, I dismissed the second alternative as unlikely. It turns out, I could be right on target with it. Gizmodo reports in “Inflatable Shower Curtain: Be Green or Be Suffocated” —

Sure, there are other methods of conserving water in the shower, but none of them put your life on the line like the inflatable shower curtain from designer Elisabeth Buecher.

My approach to design can sometimes appear shockingly radical but I have got different reasons to legitimize that. An alarm clock is not what we can call a pleasurable object. It is often even painful to be awoken by it. However it is a necessary object, which regulates our lives and the society. That's what I call the "design for pain and for our own good".

Some of my designs seem to constrain people, acting like an alarm clock, awaking people to the consciousness of their behavior and giving them limits. People often need an external signal to behave more. In France the government added thousands of new radars on the roads to fight excessive speed. And it worked: there are far less people killed on the roads of France today. I call it "design of threat and punishment" and I use it as an educational tool.

Yeah, she’s not fooling around here. If you don't wrap things up in a timely fashion the curtain will inflate until you are a naked, shivering prisoner in your own shower. By the looks of things, if you aren't careful the damn thing could completely cut off your air supply. Personally, I would rather go with the Eco-Drop Shower — the philosophy is the same but it's far less deadly.

All I can say is that I am glad I don’t live in France. No, it has nothing to do with the fascist approach to drivers. I am just happy I don’t live in France. Well, yet. If the current government (and the particular group of overgrown children that supports it) has its way, this country will be turned into one giant iPhone. I.e., France.

* * *

In other news: “The Pirate Google Bay Gives the Finger to Record Companies, Studios”. Warms your heart, doesn’t it? Well, it warms mine. Every single victory over copyright fascism does.

Of galaxies and raspberries

I actually don’t know if I like this news, because I never liked raspberries. I was always suspicious of them harboring some alien life forms inside — and a mashgiach friend of mine once confirmed my hunch. In any event, if that is true, now we know why.



By the way, in case you’re wondering what that big gaping darkness in the middle of the galaxy is — yes, it’s a black hole. At least we suspect it is. No one has actually seen it.