overidon.com Central Database for Overidon Omnimedia

We are the song, the oral tradition. These themes reverberate throughout human recorded history.

In the game, “The Talos Principle” whenever a player walks too far past the boundaries of a stage one hears, “…The Words are everything.
Where the Words end the world ends. You cannot go forward in an absence of space. Repeat.”

Words of course are crucial to data. Songs are simply data, encrypted differently using specific types of hardware. Language, computer programming, maybe we are getting closer to the Theory of Everything than we imagined. Perhaps we are coming to near-perfect understandings of our reality prematurely. And our world is prepared for that understanding, but our society is based on very real systems. It’s difficult to change large systems.

Something demands it.

Our mitochondria looks like a song wave. A sound wave bunched so tight, than the only way to continue the song, is to deepen the encryption layers of the song. It is similar to a musical composer that knows that too much raw volume of sound will overwhelm the listener and will eventually become nothing but noise. The composer knows this and has a few choices. Either have less instruments and focus on bold sounds, have lots of instruments but layer them and control amplitude in order to make them blend as one, or have a variable amount of instruments that take turns. I think mitochondrial DNA wants to have the deepest level of data encryption that it is capable of containing. But why?

I argue that we are talking about something extremely important. It is on the same level of importance as someone’s most precious belongings. What do most people say they would take from their home if there was a fire? Would they take their Xbox? Maybe their kitchen cutlery equipment? Most people I talk to would take their photo albums, perhaps their passports vital identification or maybe precious journals or family ancestry documents. Our identities, memories, and families are what we secure. Everything else can either be replaces, or replicated through the economy. Lose one’s identity, and lose one’s self. Forget one’s past and family, forget the reality.

But what is so important? This must be pretty big if we are going to this level of protection, promulgation, procurement and permutation…and I don’t think we exist as part of some kind of circular argument. We’re not here just to continue existence. And even though I think the film, “Equilibrium” is awesome, I don’t agree that simply, “Feeling” or “to feel” is the primary driving force for existence either. If that were true, then human beings wouldn’t experience the “Jar Phenomenon” when in captivity and also having access to a wide range of emotional input. There are only so many traffic jams that one person can endure before he or she begins to look inward for purpose as opposed to traveling outward. There are only so many times that we can be stopped by invisible barriers before an overwhelming desire to “complete” the system of existence becomes the driving force. What’s more interesting is that we are taught that “death” is related to completion and that we should fear that state. This theme is reiterated in cinema as well, whomever produced and directed the film with Anthony Hopkins called, “Picasso” made a really big deal about the scene where Picasso reprimands one of his art critic friends for saying a piece of his work looked unfinished. Picasso replies by talking about if he finishes the art then “I AM finished” that sort of thing. I get it. But I’m not satisfied.

I’ve been to Europe, I’ve seen amazing art and architecture. It’s beautiful. But really why stop there?

Why stop anywhere?

I think that’s what mitochondria are really after actually. They aren’t in it for the perks ladies and gentlemen. They are in it for the layers, the deep truth that can only be found by pushing the dimensional boundaries of encryption. One of the dances often performed at family events or weddings is the one where everyone lines up and they gently touch hands. Then a person or two has to walk through that barrier, almost creating a human zipper. The last people at the line then move to the front and become those that break the barrier. The line continues this fashion until a different dance is initiated. This reminds me of the process of DNA lining up and getting ready for a life-process of replication. But what it really reminds me of…is something that hasn’t happened yet.

The Hunter Seeker Algorithm.

This Algorithm was a concept discussed in Sid Meyer’s Alpha Centauri. It was a secret project. It was absolutely my most favorite secret project in the game. If your faction controls the Hunter Seeker Algorithm, then your faction is 100% immune to probe teams.

Yo.

I love that.

It basically makes it so you can continue with your faction unimpeded by random attacks or events. The Hunter Seeker Algorithm in conjunction with a solid Satellite Defense Network as well as Pressure Domes just in case the sea-levels rise…puts a faction in absolute solid footing for a transcendent victory.

What would a victory look like in our world?

For example, social networking is helping to sort everything from popular memes to taboo discourse. Search engines sort subject matter by relevance. Censorship hides information by priority. Yet regardless of how hard any certain single group tries to influence anything, the Law of Negative Space dictates that any system that has a form, has a counter-form. To remove one system from another, will always leave at least temporarily a similarly shaped or structured hole…which is in of itself identifiable.

The less we look at the future the more we see it.

Cymatics, 3D Printing, Nanotechnology, computer programming language simplification and deprecation, social network spawning and decay…these all are not “new” inventions, they are manifestations of mitochondrial microcosm conundrums…being worked upon by their counterparts in the macro world.

-Tyler

This article has several givens: First, the main document/source of information by which to judge the Syrian Chemical Weapons issue will be the August Rose Garden Speech given to the public by President Obama. This speech is available to be read at CNN.com by clicking HERE. Also, the video will be embedded below for your convenience. Why is the speech alone going to be the document by which to judge the situation? During his August 31st speech, President Obama wanted congressional and public support for US intervention in Syria, his arguments and evidence alone should be convincing enough for the US public and the legislative branch of our government to support his idea.

Second, any equivocation or political maneuverings made by the President and/or other political entities regarding this issue after the August 31st speech will be disregarded. This article is discussing the logic and rhetorical value of the August 31st speech singularly.

What is the primary goal of the speech?

During the August 31st speech, President Obama expressed that he wanted the US Military to intervene against the Assad regime in Syria. This intervention was brought up primarily but not singularly due to the highly-probable use of chemical weapons against the Syrian population.

What does he want?

President Obama wanted a military intervention without, “boots on the ground.”

Analysis:

The facts as presented by the Augusts 31st speech include but are not limited to:

1. Intelligence points to the fact that civilian casualties are mounting in Syria. These casualties include young children which are showing symptoms of chemical attacks.

2. Sources in the region point that a chemical attack did in fact take place.

To begin, President Obama’s primary argument revolves around the chemical weapon usage. He says that the use of chemical weapons is a violation of international law. He is completely correct in that analysis.

Also, by using the term, “boots on the ground,” the President is ruling out a ground invasion. So what is left? Our Navy has the ability to block ports…and our cruisers have the technology to launch airstrikes and also deploy drones. Drones, blockade of Mediterranean seaports and/or missile strikes are the most common Non-Boots-on-Ground forms of modern military actions.

What should we do? Is the President right in wanting to use US Military force against the Assad regime?

Since President Obama’s argument is pinned to the chemical weapons attack, we must dig further into the logic used to create this argument.

First and foremost, international law should be enforced, internationally. International laws are created to decrease the level of anarchy in the international system. For one country such as the United States to intervene in what is obviously a coup or a type of civil war and/or unrest….that is a contradiction to the purpose for the UN Security Council.

The UN Security Council is made up of the victors of WWII as well as secondary rotating countries. The primary purpose of the UN Security Council is to…make decisions regarding the enforcement of international law.

Quite conveniently, in the transcript, you will read that President Obama clearly points out the fact that the UN Security Council is too, “paralyzed” to do anything to stop the bloodshed in Syria.

But wait a minute, if the enforcement of International Law is the primary job of the UN Security Council, then shouldn’t the focus of the United States be on rectifying the paralysis in the UN Security Council?

Of course, Russia has interests with Syria and there is undoubtedly several layers of economic and political intrigue which justify this paralysis. Yet the inefficacy of the Security Council is not in of itself a justification for unilateral action. In fact, if the UN Security Council is not effectively diagnosing the chemical weapons situation in Syria, then this entire speech should have been about rectifying the problems with the UN Security Council through diplomatic and/or economic channels. This line of thinking is then quickly brushed aside by a sub-argument regarding the escalation of future threats which violate international law. Bioweapons in the hands of terrorists and other scenarios are brought up as methods to show the listener how we are on a slippery slope when International Law is ignored.

The problem with the argument that bioweapons can get into the hands of terrorists, that chemical weapons will be used more often in the future and genocide will be more prevalent as a result of US inaction against the Assad regime is this: President Obama provides at least some evidence that chemical weapons are being used in Syria. Yet in his August 31st speech, he provides absolutely no evidence that any terrorist group will become emboldened to use bioweapons by the outcome of events in Syria. He provides no evidence that chemical weapons are being considered in other civil unrest situations in the global scene today. And President Obama provides no evidence that any groups are contemplating changing their plans to either commit or not commit genocide as a result of what happens in Syria. Therefore, President Obama’s secondary argument regarding International Law Violation Proliferation is slippery-slope conjecture at best.

From an argument analysis standpoint, President Obama attempted to mix two arguments into one consolidated message. The quick and dirty is that first: Chemical Weapons are illegal and we should do something about it. And secondly, if we don’t do something about it now…it will come back to haunt us later.

Unfortunately, the first part of the argument is flawed. Chemical Weapons are illegal, but we shouldn’t do anything about it. The UN Security Council has the authority, and responsibility to create coalitions and interventions against violations of International Law. An example of a logical coalition against this kind of problem would be the first Iraq War: Desert Storm. The kind of intervention President Obama is recommending is more in line with the political logic of the Second Iraq War…with decisions being based on words like, “Our intelligence shows…”

Quite simply Mr. President, our intelligence shows lots of things. International Law shows another.

So if upholding international law isn’t the point of our intervention in Syria…then what is it about anyway?

To answer that, one must examine what the United States has to gain from intervention in Syria. As we already know, US Intervention in the Middle East rarely has a stabilizing effect on the region. So this probably doesn’t have to do with United States security.

As we revisit a key statement mentioned earlier, “boots on the ground.” It becomes apparent that President Obama wants the US population to know that not a single human soldier will be stationed in Syria. So what’s Obama going to do? Will we lob a few cruise missiles into Assad’s territory and hope he is deterred from future chemical attack ambitions? This is unlikely, besides, judging from history, if President Obama was going to simply launch cruise missiles, he would have done so already. From a historical perspective, President Clintion in the 1990’s launched cruise missiles as retribution for attacks against US Embassies. It’s doubtful that President Obama will simply replicate a fire-and-forget scenario. This is especially unlikely when we factor in all the pomp and rhetoric regarding upholding international law. So we can rule out missiles.

The idea of a blockade doesn’t make much sense either. Syria’s Mediterranean coastline is important but it isn’t nearly as important to the civil war effort as the land routes to the East. Also, the United States public got extremely shaky when words like, “Naval Blockade” were thrown around during the Iran tensions over a year ago. So a bootless blockade is out.

That leaves us with one, final scenario.

Drones.

All this rhetoric, all this talk is most likely a way to test second-generation drones in an intense combat situation with “chemical weapon” environmental factors. Besides, drones don’t wear boots. That’s why this article argues the military is poised to intervene “at the President’s command” and there is no rush to make a hasty decision. A chemical weapon combat scenario for drone testing would yield invaluable statistical data. Also, a successful mission by drone technology against any targets deep within Syrian territory would justify billions of dollars of University drone research over the past 5 years…and would help to procure billions more.

Tyler Stansfield Jaggers is an amateur Actionscript 3.0 programmer and the owner of Overidon.com. He is a graduate of San Francisco State University with a B.A. in International Relations.

You may have already heard of Khan Academy and how it is an excellent website for learning Math and other skills. But what is brand new is how KhanAcademy.org has unveiled a new Mastery System. This system allows users to track their progress in a much more visually tangible and motivationally accessible way than ever before.

After enabling the new Mastery Challenge system on your dashboard or “home” button area, you will find that a dark blue box appears with the message, “MASTERY CHALLENGE AVAILABLE!”

These mastery challenges are actually very similar to how you could do random practice. But now your progress is tracked in a way which is easy to see if you’re on the right track.

For example: If you already practiced something thoroughly, you might have a “level 2” or blue box. But if you do the Mastery Challenge, then there is a chance you might get a question correct and turn that blue box into a dark blue box.

When a dark blue box appears in your Dashboard, that means you have successfully demonstrated Mastery in a specific sub-section.

This is important because in the old-style of Khan Academy, you would be asked to “review” things even if you visit the site weekly. The words, “review” or “demonstrate proficiency” have very classroom-ish sounds to them and for an adult who is trying to beef up his math…having to review flash cards everyday is a sort of put-off.

So that’s why I like the new style of Khan Academy with the Mastery Challenge system. It seems more exciting. It’s as if the system says, “I have a challenge for you!” And of course I always will accept a challenge!

Another thing I enjoy about the new system is how everything is reminiscent of an old DOS defragment screen. When I was a teenager I used to actually watch my computer defragment. I loved it. The idea that the computer was doing work on itself was like watching an ant colony build a space port.

The beauty of the new Mastery Challenge system is that the work one does in the website directly correlates to how, “defragmented” the skill dashboard is…and also the work relates to the sturdiness of my understanding of Mathematics.

This type of force-feedback in learning is vital to both new and old generations who want to learn tough-as-nails skills. I can’t wait for other learning websites like, “Codecademy” to follow suit or perhaps even innovate beyond this new style.

Overall, if you haven’t visited your KhanAcademy.org profile in a while, check it out. It is totally worth it to see if this new system adds excitement to one of the most important skill sets any conscious human being can have.

-Tyler