The Cupboard was Bare Because….

The cupboard was bare because she had already given it all away. 

AVT (May, 2013)

Mother Hubbard Clause

See: Luthi v Evans, 223 Kan 622, 576 P2d 1064 (1978)

To Slay a ‘Law’ – Papachristou Style. VC 22400

So the stage was set.  The duel was soon to begin.  It would be to the bitter end.  NO quarter would be given. NO prisoners taken.

Today, I was prepared to lay waste to a ‘law.’  Accentuated by vagueness, I had it in my sights, dead-to-right.  While I may have preferred to be doing otherwise, given the ‘law’ as it currently stood, I was envisioning its righteous slaying – I must admit.  Nevertheless, I continued to tell myself to hold steady and not fire until I could see the whites of this section of the code’s eyes.  When it would all come to fruition, maybe years down the road, I was convinced there would be nothing but mincemeat of those words that were once part of the VC, ... VC 22400 to be specific.  I planned to rip it from the  books.    

As I entered the venue which appeared as an amusement ride or a house of horrors – depending on one’s perspective, I had all I could do to hold my enthusiasm and maintain control on my nerves.  I did not want reveal my intentions or apprehensions relevant to the upcoming battle – as battle was the whole reason we had come to be together on this morning.  But concurrently I could not help but to think if there would be repercussions for the killing of this ‘law’ or ‘code.’  For instance, would the system seek retribution against me if I forcibly ripped a page from its ‘official book,’ I had to wonder?

As the roller-coaster slowly clinked and clanked its way up to the summit, I began to become more nervous in anticipation of the outrageous ride and wild descent that was surely soon to follow.  I worried, what if there were reinforcements afoot to aid this section of code of which I had not discovered and what if these same reinforcements were lying in wait to ambush me –  as if a trap?  I began to wonder if I were in fact the reluctant hunter as I had believed or if I was soon to become but another of this ‘code’s’ endless prey?  Nevertheless, I further entrenched my resolve to not go on the offensive until I could out-fox the system into displaying more of this ‘law’s’ weakness to me.  At which point, I would unleash my assault. 

As the coaster came to rest and sat on top of the high peak, all were in anticipation to see who would be the first to squeal in fear.  I remember turning away to collect myself for a moment and, for a split second at least, enjoy the view from the summit as well.  I again quickly reviewed my weaponry.  Red button exposed?  Check!  I thought, “I’m ready as I’ll ever be and…,  here we go…,’ I was thinking to myself. 

“Wait until the g-forces really start to multiply at which point the arrogance of this ‘law’ will surely further expose its own weaknesses,” I continued to repeat to myself.  At that unknown and most intense point of the ride – and probably not a moment before – I was convinced I would have my best shot to forever rid the citizenry of this menace – especially given how it is currently written, interpreted, and enforced. 

But the roller coaster didn’t go!  For what seemed like forever…, we sat at the peak waiting for the free-fall to begin.  But it didn’t move forward.

I remember waiting in eager anticipation.  Then, all of a sudden, it was if something changed.  I wasn’t really sure what was happening, but it was if the system had somehow become wise to my plans and it had not anticipated the carnage that could potentially follow the battle which was about to be had.  I mean…, surely the ‘section of the code’ had the power and  ability to return fire and fight back and possibly even overwhelm me and my stealth plans.  But I was sure that I had an invincible argument. 

However, again, it was if the system suddenly realized the damage I possibly could do to the enforcement of this ‘law’ and the hole that would be left in its books. That is to say, while in the end this ‘law’ could just as likely laid waste to me and my plans, it was almost just as likely, if not more likely, that it would be this ‘law’ that would be the casualty of the legal battle that was on the verge of raging.   And one thing of which we can all rest-assured, once set in motion, I had no intentions of stopping the carnage until this ‘law’ had become of less worth than the paper upon which it was enacted.  Either way, it would be a fairly good bet that this ‘law’ would likely be unrecognizable to its present form after the carnage.  Surely, only a shell would remain of what this ‘section of the code’ had historically represented to the system, and maybe the system didn’t like the thought of it all.  

And with that, all of a sudden, the roller coaster apparently disengaged and the machine clinked and clanked its way backwards from the peak and returned to the boarding platform.  At which point, the system assured me of my restitution – which is not the worst of possible endings, of course.  And the system then told me to “get out” and "leave."

Now, somewhat frustratingly, I had no battle to fight on this ‘law.’  As it remains then, I may no longer have standing to fight the battle anyhow, even if I had desired to do so.  One could liken it all to the oxygen being removed from a fire.  Like…, being all dressed-up for a big to-do only to have the happening cancelled at the last moment. 

I was well-prepared and heavily-armed with weighty precedents to fight the battle – which was to transpire on-board the speeding coaster as it whipped through space and time.  However, the system suddenly seemed to realize – or maybe it knew all along – that its best offensive against me was its own denial of any issue between us.  That…, or maybe it possibly came to like or respect me, and/or maybe it merely chose to be nice to me instead.  Either way, I suppose I will probably never really know for sure.

But should the reader of this blog find yourself or a friend in a similar situation where you are pitted against this ‘law’ or ‘section of the code,’ feel free to contact me.  ‘Cause, I might feel inclined to carry through with my plans of removing that ‘law’ from the public concern.

AVT  (beginning of April, 2013)

See:

Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156, 92 S.Ct. 839 (1972).

V C Section 22400 Minimum Speed Law

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc22400.htm
(or:  https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/?1dmy&urile=wcm:path:/dmv_content_en/dmv/pubs/vctop/vc/d11/c7/a2/22400  )

Tool - The Pot.   (cool tune and kind’a bizarre unofficial video:)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2F_hGwD26g

 

(Note of May 14, 2022.  Try to see the infamous unofficial Tool video here, while it lasts anyhow. https://www.pinkbike.com/video/154728/  It’s worth a look.  Maybe search my other blog entries for some thoughts on copyright laws too. )   : ) 

 

Protons Chasing Electrons or Electrons Chasing Protons

 

March 15th, 2013

Protons Chasing Electrons or Electrons Chasing Protons – maybe anyhow…

http://tornadotamer.org/

http://tornadotamer.blogspot.com/

AVT

The peril of perjury and error is latent in the spoken promise.

The peril of perjury and error is latent in the spoken promise.

  - Cordozo.  (Burns v. McCormick,  233 N.Y. 230, 234 (1922).)

I’m with Grotius – and maybe with Dodds too, but not with Dickerson.

November 14th, 2012

I agree with Grotius – the 17th century Dutch jurist, in that one can freely revoke their offer to agree/contract.  To expand on his sentiment, one should be able revoke an offer even after it has been accepted, in my opinion.  Moreover, I view an offer and an acceptance as just furthering the negotiation process until a definite agreement has been stated – which of course would be when the situation becomes a win-win for both parties; or so the possibility exists, anyhow.  If you find the last point blasphemous, hear this:  Until the point where products or money or whatever valuable consideration begins to change hands and does change hands, everything is still up in the air.  Larger and more long-term deals may have some problems with this sentiment of mine, but even there, nearly all terms of an agreement should be open to re-negotiation at any time. 

One should be able to revoke an offer at anytime, because such seems to happen all the time anyhow.  Let’s say A has a couple of tickets to the big show this evening.  He can’t attend or wants to sell the tickets for the money, or whatever.  B has expressed an interest in buying the tickets.  A says he wants $100 each to sell.  B hesitates and says he will get back to A with his decision in a little while.  B decides to buy and contacts A attempting to accept A’s offer of $100 each for the tickets.  A now declines to sell saying he wants $175 each.  For the purists in the crowd, assume this is not a face to face discussion (let’s make it an email or cell phone text offer or fax or something) and maybe A has received another offer for more money than his initial $100 dollar offer in the interim since the time A made the initial offer to B.  Anyway, in this hypothetical, no valid offer would have been apparent according to the proposed doctrine and A is free to take the higher offer for the tickets. 

AVT

Superbowl Power Outage: Cyber Attack or Typical Gov’t Ineptitude?

Feb 3rd, 2013 - Superbowl Sunday.

Bravo to the Baltimore Ravens for winning the big game.  However, the extended electrical power outage at New Orleans' SuperDome was quite disturbing.  If the outage was a result of the usual matter of our aging infrastructure or as a result of our typical government ineptitude or government sponsored monopoly’s ineptitude, that’s one thing – as I’ve blogged many times before. 

But…, if it all turns out that the power outage was a result of some type of Chinese cyber attack or the likes, that’s another story!  ‘Cause they can kill our presidents and steal our money, but if anyone f…’s with our Superbowl, it’s likely time for war!!!

Then again, we have seen this before with 49ers games…  See:  Power Outage at the 49ers v. Steelers Monday Night Football Game at http://engineeringandcommerce.blogspot.com/2011/12/power-outage-at-49ers-v-steelers-monday.html.

   Maybe the reach of PG&E (49ers fans) is much more potent than we could have imagined.  

It will be interesting to see what they tell us and what they don’t tell us about this Superbowl power outage, no doubt!

AVT, P.E.

PS.  Oh..., prbbly worth mentioning, I ain't really no retard.  Of course I am aware that the types of lights they have in stadiums can have a significant strike time. The question is what made the lights go off?

Superdome power outage halts Super Bowl XLVII

http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/03/us/super-bowl-power-outage/index.html

US mulls action against China cyberattacks

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2013/01/31/us-mulls-action-against-china-cyberattacks/

Chinese cyber attacks on West are widespread, experts say

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/02/01/tech/china-cyber-attacks/?hpt=hp_c1

Like..., would they tell us the truth anyhow?

Is the Nation Under Siege? Could We Trust the Nation’s Press to Tell Us?

http://adamvernontrotter.blogspot.com/2010/05/is-nation-under-siege-could-we-trust.html

Whether 6 ÷ 2(1 + 2) = 1 or 6 ÷ 2(1 + 2) = 9 depends on….

Subjective Intent in Mathematics.

January 5th, 2013

Whether 6 ÷ 2(1 + 2) = 1 or 6 ÷ 2(1 + 2) = 9 depends on who is asking and why.  Ultimately, the answer depends on the subjective intent of the person who wrote the equation.  Subjective intent in mathematics is something we obviously don’t hear very often, especially when speaking of mathematical equations and mathematical operators. 

For the various arguments involved as to whether the answer is nine (9) or one (1), the best place to look is Ask a Mathematician / Ask a Physicist at http://www.askamathematician.com/2011/04/q-how-do-you-calculate-6212-or-48293-whats-the-deal-with-this-orders-of-operation-business/.   Also, Wikipedia has a good synopsis on the order of operations in mathematics which seems to be correct, located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_operations.  By any reader of this blog entry reviewing the arguments at those other sites listed above saves me the trouble of having to repeat it all here, by the way.  :)  Nevertheless, as we can see, this matter appears as a heated debate among the internet mathematicians. 

A.  The ultimate answer depends on who is asking, why they are asking, and who or what is performing the mathematical operations.

Starting in reverse order:

1.  The answer is dependant on who or what is performing the mathematical operations represented by the equation.  As in the real world we mostly have been taught to clear the parentheses first and then proceed on from there - additionally, it is likely that a second set of parentheses is implied surrounding the two (2) multiplying the quantity of one plus two, ie: 6 ÷ (2 (1+2)).  This would yield an answer of one (1).  But a computer program would likely proceed from left to right and would divide six (6) by two (2) and then multiply by three (3, or 2 + 1 as given in the equation) which would then yield an answer of nine (9).  :)   But then again, a computer program would likely need a mathematical operator to be inserted between the two (2) and the parenthetical sum of two plus one (2 + 1).  Also, the operation represented by the division sign would likely be an issue for a computer program as well - as most programming languages use a slash for the division operator.

2.  Then we have to look at why someone is asking this question regarding the numerical answer of this poorly written equation and in light of the confusing notation of this equation as well.  Are they asking because they have a genuine need to decipher the poorly constructed equation or are they asking because it’s a trick?  Most likely they are asking because it is all a trick and therefore the answer they are seeking would probably be nine (9).  Because as I said above, the typical answer in the real world to humans would probably be one (1).  So if one were being asked by a jokester or trickster, the trickster would likely be looking for the answer of nine (9).

3.  Ultimately, the answer is dependent on who is asking or who wrote this equation because it all depends on the subjective intent of the individual who wrote or transcribed the equation.  What did they intend to be the order of the operations when they wrote the equation?  As I mentioned above, in the human world, such notation probably intends an answer of one (1).

But this all begs the question that in math, there can only be one right answer.  Right?  If math is done properly, shouldn’t we all get the same answer?  Well, maybe, but maybe not – as displayed by this equation in this matter/blog.

So, in this blogger’s mathematical world, the answer could be one (1) or nine (9).  But most likely to us humans the answer would normally be one (1).  That is to say, if a human wrote this poorly clarified equation, he/she probably was looking for an answer of one (1), unless they are a trickster as explained in paragraph A.2. above.  But if a computer displayed this equation, regardless of the syntax errors for the typical computer program, the answer could be nine (9) as contrasted in paragraph A.1. above. 

The answer is particularly and ultimately dependent on the subjective intent of the creator of the equation, as discussed in paragraph A.3. above.   So, to make an analogy for those who were told there was no math involved in blog reading, it’s sort of like the use of certain punctuation (and wording) in grammar.  With such an analogy being, when is it proper to use a comma, when is it not, and when is it up to the discretion of the writer as to use of the comma (or colon, or question mark).     

Therefore and as such, the answer is:  It depends.  Start at the top of this blog and reiterate through the paragraphs herein again, if this answer bothers you.  If so, it will probably only bother you more as you repeat any iterations of this blog.  :) 

AVT

6 ÷ 2(1 + 2)
6 / 2(1 + 2)