Wikipedia Scholar

Overview:  In this blog, I describe what I call Wikipedia Scholar.  If it is ever implemented, Wikipedia Scholar would be a way for academics to link their works to Wikipedia articles.  The methods I explain will simultaneously make academic research easier to conduct, increase public access to peer-reviewed journal information, and provide a means for everyday people to ensure they have reliable information.

Wikipedia is already a great way to peruse information on various topics, so I think it makes sense to augment the current Wikipedia format with a "scholar" option that would allow researchers to connect a piece of work to the topics it related to.  The underlying idea is to add an additional layer to Wikipedia reserved for academic papers.  There really isn't anything preventing this layer from operating as an independent website, but I think it would catch on quicker if it was officially recognized by Wikipedia.

The way this layer would work is that researchers could link their work to associated Wikipedia articles.  These articles can be connected to others through the use of keywords and citations, as is standard, but also through their links to hyper-articles.  A hyper-article is a standard Wikipedia page that concerns a more general topic for which the linked article addresses a specific sub-topic.  Similarly, a hypo-article is an article that falls under a given hyper-article.  

As an example, assume someone is interested in natural language processing (NLP), i.e. how we get computers to "understand" what people say.  Some example hyper-articles for NLP could be artificial intelligence (AI) and linguistics in general.  Some example hypo-articles under NLP could be automatic machine translation (translating one spoken language to another), automatic summarization of text documents, and parsing (splitting sentences up into nouns, verbs, etc.).

While searching, say the person becomes interested in doing research on parsing text.  To this end, they could check the Wikipedia articles linked with this hyper-article by clicking on that node in the network.  The network can be presented in a Collapsible Force Layout (from the D3 Website) so that users can expand or collapse branches to the desired degree.  The size of the displayed network can be controlled by collapsing the rest of the network apart from one expanded dot.  Additionally, articles can be clustered together into article communities to help organize them as well as keep the total number of expanded nodes down to a minimum.  As an example to illustrate why forming such communities is necessary, there are over 40,000 articles related to parsing and NLP accessible from Google Scholar; it simply is not practical to have them all displayed at once.

What I can personally do:  This clustering process is a task my academic background would be well suited for.  I am familiar with natural language processing techniques, and a chapter of my PhD thesis was on community detection in networks.  

Expanding the network all the way down to the articles would allow researchers (or whoever really) to see what are open research topics (ideally represented as Wikipedia articles) and the papers connected to them.  The representation of these articles can be set so that the size of the dot reflects the PageRank value of the article with respect to the local citation network (as defined below) the article is a component of.

Local Citation Network:  The local citation network for a Wikipedia Scholar article should focus on articles linked to the same hyper-article.  When expanding the network around a given article, the network representation should include:  articles citing the article being expanded, articles cited by the article being expanded, and the counts for the inlinks and outlinks for all of those articles.

The dots for articles can be augmented with Wordle  to help convey the content of each dot.  Below is an example Wordle image for the introductory paragraph of the Wikipedia article on NLP; ideally this should all be within the NLP dot, but it is just for illustration purposes.  For articles, this should pull the text from the abstract and conclusions sections as well as the keywords.  To make this easier to visually parse, the words can be color coded in the Wordle with different fonts to help differentiate what is what; e.g., keywords in black, abstract in cold colors, and conclusions in warm colors.

Altogether, I think this would be a substantially better research tool than the current way academic search engines (e.g., Google Scholar) operate; this allows for a quick overview of the surrounding field of interest and allows one to quickly extract important features of an article (e.g., PageRank value, and keywords) in a visual manner.  Additionally, this would allow everyday folks to see if the information presented in Wikipedia has any academic backing; it is a method to help people ensure they are getting reliable information.

Implementation

-  Scholar users upload pdf documents of their papers.  Additionally, they provide the following information:  keywords, citations, hypernym links.

-  Each submission is saved, and further edits can also be submitted.  Each iteration of the paper is stored to make its development transparent.

-  A citation network is formed from the set of articles

-  Can also have a Y!A-like feature so that Scholar users can ask/answer questions in a game like fashion that allows them to get feedback on their work.  This Y!A-like feature can also be extended to non-Scholar Wikipedia users so that everyday folks can get better feedback on questions they have.  

Peer Review / Q&A Feature

Overview:  We want a way for people to get information that is factually reliable.  To this end, we can create a Q&A network that allows Wikipedia users to ask questions and get feedback containing links to additional information.  The idea is so that researchers can get feedback from other researchers with pointers to additional information / potential papers of interest.  This can also serve as the peer review of the article, with the individual reviewers voting on the academic merit of the article.  This review can include aspects such as:  novelty, reliability of information (to take care of crackpots who post to the site), sections needing clarification,

Instant Messaging

Advanced Communication Processes

In this essay, I am going to describe a method that seems to be capable of sending signals across spacial distances instantly, and also describe how this can then be used to send messages backwards through time.  Although sending messages instantaneously should be something that will be realized within our lifetimes, the engineering challenges involved in sending information back in time will likely take centuries to overcome.

Instantaneous Message Transmission

The method revolves around using entangled quantons (e.g., photons, electrons, protons, etc.) to transmit information.  Quantum entanglement refers to a situation where two quantons are in a state such that the properties of one depend on the properties of the other, and this dependency holds regardless of the spatial separation of the particles.

There is a common belief that quantum entanglement cannot be used to send information because it could, in principle, be used violate causality.  Basically, causality means that causes always precede their resulting effects.  If you can send information faster than the speed of light, then the special theory of relativity shows us that there are reference frames (ways of perceiving spacetime), in which the message was received before it was sent.  This would imply that there would be ways of perceiving the universe where causality is violated.

The usual explanation given in physics classes as to why it's impossible to use entanglement to send information is that knowing what a wave function collapsed to doesn't change the fact that it does so randomly, and thus cannot transmit information [No Communication Theorem].

My understanding of the theorem is this.  If A and B are entangled quantons, and you measure A, this collapses A's wavefunction.  Because B is entangled with A, B's wavefunction also collapses.  However, B's wavefunction does so in a way that is indistinguishable whether A is being measured or not.

The thing I do not understand is why not use the fact that the state has collapsed at all, not what it has collapsed to, as the means to send information?

To be specific on how this would work, I'll link a YouTube video explaining the quantum eraser experiment.  You only need to watch the first minute and a half to understand what I am talking about:  Quantum Eraser Experiment.  If you would like more details, see the Wikipedia article: More Information on Quantum Eraser Experiment.

I will describe how instantaneous transmission of information is possible using the experimental set up in the video.  A person at M1 could send information via Morse code to another person at M2.  Specifically, have switching M1 on and off play the role of the on-off tone for Morse code, and send information that way (fringes vs no fringes).

To clearly distinguish between the on and off distributions, it can be mutually agreed upon that the particles will be sent in packets of N (where N is a number high enough to resolve which distribution is being formed).  This way, the slate is wiped clean every N particles and there is no serious confusion as to whether M1 is sending an on or off tone.  We will call a series of such packets of quantons a quanton message packet for the sake of discussion.  As an example, a quanton message packet can be used to encode messages of the form {On, Off, On On On, Off} by having the first N quantons in collapsed states, the next N in uncollapsed states, the next 3N quantons in collapsed states, and the last N quantons in uncollapsed states.  The On state would correspond to a dot (or a 0), and the On On On state would correspond to a dash (or a 1).

This would allow for information to be sent at a rate that is nearly instantaneous, primarily only being limited by the rate at which the Morse code representation of the information can be encoded/decoded.  However, if one can send information faster than the speed of light, then causality no longer applies; effects can be perceived which precede their causes.

Sending Messages Back in Time

Although a little tricky, in principle the instant communication process can be used to propagate information back in time.

To understand how this works, you will need to have a pretty good grip on is what simultaneous events look like in spacetime diagrams.  In case you need a refresher / would like an introduction to this topic, here is a link to the basics of special relativity and another for the video in the series specifically on the  relativity of simultaneity.  The important point to take away is that events that are simultaneous in reference frame A are not simultaneous in reference frame B, if B is moving relative to A.  As a coupled wavefunction (presumably) collapses instantaneously with respect to the reference frame making the measurement, these events need not be simultaneous in other reference frames.  This is what we are going to use to bounce a message backwards through time.

Consider the spacetime diagram presented below for a situation where there are two observers, O1 and O2, and the quanton emitter is placed slightly closer to O2 than O1.  On this diagram, time and space are measured in the same units, so light rays are represented as lines making a 45 degree angle with the axes.  Packets of coupled quantons will be denoted by green lines making (almost) a 45 degree angle with the axes.  Although this would be technologically very difficult to accomplish (almost 45 degree angles mean the quantons are moving at relativistic speeds; which is only easy to do for photons), it is still physically possible.

Note that although the wave function collapse is instantaneous, it still takes a finite additional amount of time for the collapsed quantons to reach the receiver.  However, this additional amount of time can be made arbitrarily small by having the emitter located arbitrarily close to the midpoint between the two observers.  This is what is meant to be conveyed by the red text.  In the limit that the emitter is as close as is possible to the center of the two while still being closer to one than the other, it effectively transmits information instantaneously.

Setting up a pair of systems, one with the emitter slightly closer to O1 and another with the emitter slightly closer to O2 would then allow O1 and O2 to communicate instantaneously with each other, we will call such a system an IMS (Instant Messaging System) for the sake of discussion.

To send messages back in time, we will also need apparatuses that will call observer stations.  An observer station is basically just a long room with an observer at each end.  This room has an IMS system so the two observers can instantly communicate with each other, but also has two windows (labelled 'a' and 'b') that can accept quantum message packets from the outside.

Consider the spacetime diagram below of a purple observer station (of length L) and a blue observer station (of length 2L) that are moving relative to one another.  The purple observer station is identical to the one pictured above, where the two lines on the spacetime diagram correspond to the observers in the station.  The situational set up for the blue observer station is analogous.  To be clear, getting macroscopic objects, such as observer stations, up to relativistic speeds is very far outside of our current technological capability.  Still, this is situational set up is physically possible in principle.  All of the smaller dots in the diagram represent the spacetime location of the events described below.

Now, for how this can be used to send information back in time.  Consider the following set of events, that allow for a generic message, that we'll refer to as X, to be sent back in time with respect to the reference frame that initially sends it.

a)  Coupled quanton packet "a" is sent out

b)  Coupled quanton packet "b" is sent out

1)  O1 collapses packet b to encode message X.

Following the purple line from (1,b) to (b,2), we reach

2)  O3 receives message X from collapsed packet b

Following the blue line from 2 to 3,

3)  O3 instantly transmists X to O4 using the station's IMS.

Following the blue line from 3 to 4,

4)  O4 collapses packet a to encode message X.

Following the blue line from 4 to 5,

5)  Wave packet a collapses and contains X simultaneous with (4) in O4's reference frame.

Following the thin blue line from 5 to 6,

6)  Packet a with X reaches O2.

Following the purple line between 6 and 7,

7)  O2 instantly transmits X to O1 using the station's IMS.

Following this chain of events, O1 recieves X at a point in its timeline before the message was sent; this information was sent back in time.

It would require technology we will probably never see in our lifetimes, but I do not see any reason why it wouldn't work.  That said, I am not well versed in relativistic quantum mechanics (just special relativity and quantum mechanics separately), and I feel I may be missing something.

The reason I feel a sense of doubt is because of the following issue.  Assume that X can take on the values 0 or 1.  If O1 receives X=0 at event 7, then what would prevent it from sending X=1 at event 1?

I cannot think of anything, but this is not logically consistent with respect to the model that gave an explanation as to why X=0 was received (namely, because it was the message sent out at event 1).

By "logically consistent" I mean that it does not produce both statements of the form "Z is true" and "Z is not true".  In the framework of a logically consistent system, only one of those statements can be true.  However, in our case, we would have that X=0 was sent at event 1 inferrable to O1 from the fact that it was received at event 7, but O1 can choose to send X=1 at event 1 instead.  However, if O1 chooses to sent X=1 instead at event 1, then O1 has direct observational evidence of this.  This then leads to a situation where O1 can infer that both X=0 at event 1 is a true statement and X=1 at event 1 (i.e. "X=0 at event 1" is not true) is also a true statement.  This is not consistent.

However, this logical inconsistency within a given timeline can be avoided if what we normally consider to be the universe (i.e. the set of all physically accessible spacetime points) is just one instantiation of a greater multiverse (i.e. the set of all possible universes).  In this case, the timeline/universe of O1 that sends X=0 at event 1 would not be the same timeline/universe as the case where O1 sends X=1 at event 1; the universe where X=0 is a true statement is not the same universe where it is a false statement [THIS NEEDS MORE FLESHING OUT].





[ Return to Parent Essay ]



[Previous blog on this topic]

On Communities and Citizenship

[JUST BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION]





There should be a distinction made between human beings simply existing in a community that do not contribute and human beings that actively contribute to their community structure.  Maybe call them "citizens" and "civilians" as they did in the movie Starship Troopers.


What do I see as the most basic human rights?

Right:  Access to knowledge of the world they are a part of.
How Right is Enforced:  Nation wide internet access.

Right:  A potential to fill any available niche in society; everyone should at least have a chance to achieve their dreams.
How Right is Enforced:  Every person should be given the resources they need to reach a point where the majority of their peers can sustain themselves.  There should be a point of evaluation, say 95% of the population at age 25; call this the age of adulthood.

Right:  The ability to influence the rules that govern them.
How Right is Enforced:  Every adult (everyone over the age of adulthood) should be able to make their voice heard on any issue.

Right:  The ability to defend one's self.
How Right is Enforced:  Every adult should be armed or have access to arms.  There would obviously be basic competency classes in weapon handling.

More thoughts:  The fact is that if everyone is armed, there literally is no way to forcibly control all of them.  I think this is important; it provides the ability to forcibly splinter off and form a separate society if needed.






-  Why not have a segmented, but intermingled, society?  Could a co-mingled money system lead to this?  We are moving more and more to electronic money tracking, so there really is not an issue.  You can have say "democrat" dollars and "republican" dollars; the citizenship of an individual to differing communities could be determined by the number of dollars they possess within that community.


What do I see as earned rights?

Right:  Education.
How Right is Earned:  Participating in the education process; mixed grades on different days where odd numbered grades help teach the grade below them on (e.g.) MW and even numbered grades help teach the grade below them on TR.  Fridays could be spent with classes progressing on their own (or maybe do topics appropriate for a mixture of 4 grades).
How Right is Enforced:

Right:  Food.
How Right is Earned:  Work on government farms for F years after the age of adulthood.
How Right is Enforced:  Anyone who has worked on the government farms has access to government farm goods.  These goods are distributed to major grocery store chains.  The distribution cost should take into consideration:  effectively free advertising for the store, cost of housing, cost of transportation, ...
-  advertising:  ?
-  transportation:  The cost of shipping the goods would need to be covered.  Shipping goods would involve private industry, so I think it would be fair that they are treated as
-  housing:  Goods are shipped every X days, and any goods left over from the previous shipment past those X days are free to be sold for profit for the store.  Stores should be encouraged to price fix on these to try to get the most profit profitable (maybe have a website for it or something).

Right:  Property.
How Right is Earned:  Property is anything bought with money; money is still earned in the traditional sense.
How Right is Enforced:

Right:  Personal security.
How Right is Earned:
How Right is Enforced:

Right:  Property security.
How Right is Earned:
How Right is Enforced:  People have the right to defend their property, and to ask for government assistance if desired.




What do I see as things every citizen has a right to?

-  A healthy existence:  nutritious food, access to medical care

-  Propagation of mental self:  freedom of speech/communication, access to communication with the world outside of the community they live in (e.g. internet and phone access)


How does one earn citizenship?

Through contributing to the society they are a part of.

 was an inborn right in the past, I am not sure that this is still appropriate for the times we live in.

Connecting People of Like Interests

[UNDER CONSTRUCTION.
Also, make blog for: Connect search history to Google maps; show keyword search similarities by area so people can see where other people like them congregate.  Idk, just an idea].

Overview:  Technology such as Google Glass is going to let us see reality through a lens augmented by the internet.  In time, I can see this leading to a world where we have the capability to see through the eyes of others.  The topic of this blog is on how we can use Google Glass to help connect people of like interests.

Auras:  Basic Idea

Once Google Glass is more common place, we could create a Common Interests website where users can list things they are interested in connecting with other people on.  These can be things like books they've read, movies they like, political affiliations, etc.  These can also be mined from things like Facebook accounts if users want to link them.

To illustrate the concept, consider the following example.

Assume that Person A has the following set of likes/dislikes.

Likes:  Puppies, Skiing, Dancing
Loves:  Tacos, Burritos
Dislikes:  Kitties, Spinach
Hates:  Sushi, Rap Music


Assume that Person B has the following set of likes/dislikes.

Likes:  Puppies, Skiing, Video Games
Loves:  Tacos, Cheeseburgers
Dislikes:  Kitties, Trigonometry
Hates:  Sushi, Country Music

A caricature of what Person A would see when viewing Person B (and vice versa) is depicted below.

Figure 1.  What would be seen through Google Glass when the people in the example view each other.

The visual is comprised of the overlap between the likes and dislikes of the two individuals, so that they only see what they have in common.  This could additionally be used to help with dating, as there is nothing preventing incorporating whether or not someone is single and what they are looking for.

Identifying Objects in the Real World

-  We could use 3D barcode labels to identify objects we encounter in the real world; these objects can be things like the faces of individuals.  Input a 2D projection of the 3D barcode, check to see if that projection is a possible projection of the 3D label, if it passes the check, link the information for the 3D label to the 2D representation of the object as depicted on the screen.

Problem:  You need 3 such (random) projections to uniquely identify the object

Solution:  OK, so just take 3 random projections before doing the check; not a big deal.


Problem: Both the 3D representation and 2D representation are at the same scale (i.e. one isn't how the object would look a mile away, and the other an inch away?)

Solution:  We would need to construct the 3D image from light rays hitting the 3D label being examined.  But what would define the boundaries of the label?  We could do community detection on groups of adjacent pixels.  Make a network where each pixel is connected to each adjacent pixel, and treat it as a community detection problem.

As an example, consider the following 3 pictures of a hat.

We can detect shadows by cataloging light sources and the types of light they produce.  We can check what kind of light source we are looking at by aggregating clusters of pixels based on both spacial location and color value.  We can do this by treating each pixel as a node in a network that is connected to adjacent pixels.  These edges should be weighted according to a similarity measure based on color values, and we can pull out aggregates using a network oriented community detection algorithm.  We should be able to detect shadows by checking variations in color values within communities.  Light color would be indicated by the variations in color+intensity space along sequences of adjacent pixels.

Once we know what color the light source(s) is(are), we should be able to reconstruct their location in physical space by using the configuration of shadows in the picture.  Once we have done that, we should then be able to construct a 3D representation of the image we are looking at.

Cyber Aided Democracy

Tribes

Cyber Aided Democracy

[UNDER CONSTRUCTION]



Overview:  We live in a dramatically different age than the one our form of democracy was born in, and I think we would all be for the better if we come to grips with that fact.  With computers and the internet, we can make people's voices directly heard in the process that governs them.  To this end, why not create a webpage + app that allows individuals to tell their personal government representatives how they would like them to vote?


Structure of Webpage:

The webpage will revolve around what I will call topics of interest (TOI's), and comments about TOI's.

Example Topics of Interest:

-  Upcoming issues to be voted on by the house/senate.  These should be able to be mined from the US Senate Calendar webpage and the US House of Representatives webpage.

-  Upcoming elections.



Examples of Commenting:

-  Voting as to whether you are for/against/neutral regarding a TOI.

-  Providing your personal input on a TOI.



Problem:  How are TOI's generated?

Solution:  Allow anyone to post a TOI. To try to gain contributors, one TOI can be linked to another TOI so that users can browse the TOI's linked to something they are already interested in.  We want the impact of TOI's to scale with the number of contributors it has, so the amount of points that can be awarded with it should scale with the number of contributors.  Maybe have this again be on a scale of 1-10, where TOI's are worth max(1, log(number of contributors) )





Problem:  How do you prevent people from making uninformed decisions?

Solution:  Only allow users to be able to cast their vote on an issue once they've earned enough points (say 10 points) through that issue.  The idea is that we want as much input from as many different angles, so this should be an easy goal to reach.

How to earn Points (in progress):

-  Provide a comment (1 point)

-  Provide a comment with a reliable information link (3 points)

-  Vote on a comment with thumbs up, thumbs down, or neutral (2 points)

-  Have a comment upvoted (2 points per upvote)





Problem:  How to keep people interested?

Solution:  Make a game out of it.  Have leader boards that effectively reset with 2 year election process so people must stay active to stay on top.  We also want to keep diligent users on board, so maybe have their total lifetime point accumulation affect their standing.  Have a bonus of X points for each new season based on their lifetime point accumulation.

Factors that Should Effect X:

-  How many projected points for the season (X should not be more than 20% of this)

-  Lifetime points should be labeled by season; only have the last 2 seasons count (4 years worth of voting).





Problem:  How to get people to band together in their voting strategies?

Solution:  Make a tribal aspect to the game; allow people to link up to form tribes in order to gain additional points per vote (same idea as in Clash of Clans).  This will create a pressure to form tribes comprised of people with similar voting patterns; when one wins, they all win.  Allow people to join up to Y(points) number of tribes.


Factors that Should Effect Y:

-  Personal activity in the previous two weeks (weighted the most)

-  Personal activity in the previous six months

-  Overall lifetime personal activity (weighted the least)





Problem:  How should the tribe dynamic work?

Solution:

-  Tribe leaders can pick Z(tribal points) issues per 3 month period as tribal issues.

-  When tribal issues win, those members get additional points.  There are no negative effects from losing a vote.





Problem:  How should the point system work?

Solution: There should be point categories for:  3 month period, 2 year period, and lifetime.

3 Month Points:

-  Tribal votes won

-  Personal comments (unbounded)

-  Personal votes cast where issue won (2 bonus points per)

-  Rank of tribes which they are a member of


2 Year Period:

-  Personal votes cast (10 points per)

-  Rank of tribes belonged to over the season (keep track of all tribes belonged to per user)

-


Lifetime:

-  All points accumulated.

On Heaven

I see "heaven" and "god" as pretty fuzzy terms, so I want to define what I mean by these words at the outset.

Heaven:  I think the basic idea the word "heaven" is trying to capture is an environment ideally adapted to those who occupy it; one where everyone's needs are met at all levels.  When I say Heaven (with a capital "H"), I am referring to such a utopian reality that is suited to human beings.

God:  I see a "god" as a word we use to describe a higher order living system that influences a set of lower order living systems in ways those individual lower order systems are incapable of.  I see "God" (with a capital "G") as a word used to describe the universal living system for which any other living systems is a subcomponent of.

The reason I see heavens and gods as real is because I see those as appropriate terms to describe most biological systems.

For example, each of our bodies is a collection of cells, living systems that work together to create an environment where all their needs are met.  The end to which our brains / minds evolved is to control the intake of resources necessary to fulfill all our body's needs; although none of our individual cells can perceive the outside world directly, our self awareness can.

The point being, using the senses of the words as defined above, our bodies are examples of heavens and our minds are examples of gods.

Seeing heavens and gods in everyday living things makes me inclined to believe that Heaven is in fact a real place, and that it exists here.  Finding our Heaven is a matter of continuing to unlock it from our present environment; the same basic process underlying how we keep unlocking new technologies.  The potential for the technologies was always here, and unlocking them is the process of us actualizing that potential.

The reason that I believe this is more than just wishful thinking stems from a basic observation on how human beings operate.  In any given environment, we seek to optimize that environment with respect to what we perceive as our self.  If we are hungry, we try to find something to eat.  If we are cold, we try to bring warmth.  If a friend or family member is sad, we do our best to try to comfort them.  In all of these cases, we are trying to bring our present environment closer to our personal views of Heaven.  At the species level, this creates a selective pressure for our environment to become optimized with respect to how the species as a whole perceives Heaven.

Through this process I believe that we, as human beings, will eventually come to form a collective of interacting living systems that operate as one, similar to how our body/mind relationship operates.

The reason I believe this will come to fruition is because it is readily apparent that we are already doing this to some extent.  Our societies are living systems with a collective willpower which guides its further evolution in a way none of its individual parts can.  Things like Google and Twitter are information networks linking us together; these types of systems are the not so rudimentary beginnings to the equivalent of a central nervous system for our species.  When the interpersonal networks connecting us to one another evolves to the point where we can react as a species in a manner equivalent to how a single organism would, I see this as creating a new form of god.  Although I'm not sure I would call this god "God", I at least think that creating it would bring us as a whole one step closer to perceiving God.

Although what I am talking about in regards to unlocking Heaven may seem like a long ways off, I believe that just trying to be a good person as you see the world is the biggest thing anyone can do towards this end.  Below, I've listed a few additional ideas that I am kicking around, which I believe could help the process along.



-  Cyber Aided Democracy (under construction):  I think it would be in everyone's best interests to make the representatives in our democracy more representative.  This link explains one way we could make this happen.

-  Connecting People of Like Interests:   I think pretty much everyone likes being able to connect to others with similar interests.  This link explains a few ideas on how to help us towards that end.

-  Wikipedia Scholarly Publications:

-  Google Scholar visualization (under construction):

-  Buyers unions network (under construction):

-  Sending Information Back In Time  (under construction):  In this link, I explain a method I originally came up with back in my undergraduate days as a physics student that seems to be capable of sending messages instantaneously.  I also explain how this can then be used to send messages back in time.  This isn't something I see as being physically doable any time soon, but I see it as an important concept because it would (in principle) lead to us having the capability to avoid nearly any potential disaster.



[  Return to Parent Essay  ]