Cutting the cable cord.

    I am seeing more articles pop up on the subject.  Actually I am starting to really like online video streaming relative to the traditional cable line ups for any number of reasons:

Selection is often better even relative to the a cable provider's OnDemand type services that I've seen, for instance, if you had HBO or other premium service subscription, you may find that the lineup of movies for the online streaming end are often better relative to what OnDemand services have to offer.   Secondly even while some OnDemand packages may offer some things less commonly offered for a given subscription rate (at least one provider that I've seen has something like a OnDemand type movie streaming package), but I don't know if its really as comparable to Netflix, Amazon Prime, or any other service.  Recently I've managed to stumble upon some other streaming services that, for instance, offer more than just mainstream video, at a reasonable monthly rate, that makes for excellent off beat/independent film movie watching.  Another article I've read suggested some sites like Pluto Tv  which interesting raise new possibilities concerning potential cable-like television programming, technically the shows are aggregated video feeds in any number of cases (e.g. from Vimeo).  Although the channel line up at the moment relative to cable providers may be thinner but it is technically a free streaming television service.  Recently I've gotten into Fandor a lot since not only are limited group screenings done for specific titles through the Criterion group, but that these may be packaged by themes and specific directors, for a something that might be closer to a film festival like experience.  Some day if aggregate video streaming looks anything like internet radio, maybe this could pose some bigger changes to the way that video production takes place in the future, in terms of grouping.  Cable itself on the other hand, seems worse relative to the early hey days of its expansion into digital arenas with more channels and greater diversity of programming options, and more often than not I've let the television lay dormant in so far as television use...not that this is always bad.  

Solid State Drives and upcoming technology like 4k

   I am actually pretty excited about 4k technology in terms of image processing.  One because an increased standard with respect to imaging, means that more and more video in the future will look like something of the spectacular still photo imaging that I am seeing.  The big hurdles, however, for such technology that I've seen so far are given much not only only to graphics cards, or display monitor issues coupled with decent screen refresh rates to make motion imaging worthwhile, but that something as simple as the hard drive isn't posing a bottle neck to data transfers.  I've actually tried to run something like 4k video on a non 4k ready laptop, for instance, and found that my older type kinetic based 5200 rpm hard drive really had much latency (really almost impossible playing the video, 2k was a little better) when even attempting the higher data overheads, and this not withstanding any data bottle neck through say my now 'non high speed once classified as high speed broadband' provider.  Likely it seems potentially that having higher speed processors could aid, but really prior to smaller devices, like tablets and smartphones catching up to speed, and I imagine this may not be for another few years, upgrading say the desktop might include a new solid state drive (as opposed to old fashioned kinetic drives with a maximum platter speed of something like 7200 rpm), the solid state drives are running well in the order of several hundreds of megabytes per second on any given average transfer.  My personal experience with imagining technology are that solid state drive are worthwhile, especially when data files even for a still image (using at or above 16 bits per channel rgba increases data requirement significantly, while online images displayed to the public might be typically well under 20 mb, processing on the other hand increases this several times an original amount, and that's assuming you weren't processing in a raw format), images load in a snap for more intense data handling needs, and processing goes way faster.  On the other hand a laptop of mine at several years old now, trods along measuring data transfer rates that really are lackluster, and in fact, in some cases less than way back when ultra dma was the in thing, technically running at something like at some several megabytes per second which is abysmal, and makes for much slower image processing.  Likely unless the kinetic hard drive manufacturers are able increase data transfer rates through some technology break through, really the future is in solid state drives, and I'd recommend one as a big upgrade starter for any desktop or laptop if possible, and the prices on these drives are coming down significantly.

Artificial Intelligence

   Actually I am not certain that I ascribe so much to the notion of the dangers often popularly given in dramatic depictions concerning article intelligence, or at least if given the claim it seems, one wonders as to the likely reality of such drama.  For instance, as of yet it would seem even more sophisticated mechanical robots are highly interdependent for a given power source and likely if given to independent locomotive abilities with back up power supply may have very limited ranges in so far as motion, let alone indigenous computational processing faculties that would make such robot far less intelligent than those depicted in Hollywood films, or the Darpa experimental running bots (the size of a big cat if that) should need a power source tether to engage in the high energy locomotive powers demonstrated, or at least having a power generator  likely in such case using some biomass fuel source.  In this case I believe running at some 28 + mph (as demonstrated)...or one might likely make better  use of an autonomous car in such case if one were looking for efficient means of transportation, despite the potential ability of the running bot, having some greater advantage in so far as terrain.  The problem with the most modern batteries in such day are not only given by the amount of mass which in turn leads to added expense in terms of energy use demands but also that the process of refueling such source more often than not is neither given by quick replenishment as might be harnessed for instance in the potential energy of a biomass fuel source, or why adoption of the completely solid state battery sources have had any number of downsides relative to biomass based systems in terms of readied ease and convenience of use.   In terms of practicality, the robots of today wouldn't likely in such state could less readily use the same energy that humans or other sentient life in so far as bio energy sources, and likely even as the solar energy provides and enormous potential wealth of energy, the problem of diffusion enters into the foray in terms of harnessing such energy.  Distributively speaking life on earth makes obvious use of such wealth for instance, in much plant life but rightly in terms of evolution, neither were there as much sense in a plant being necessitated to move in so far as harnessing such energy.  Thus life of this kind could actually flourish with much greater mass while efficiently using such energy stores for such mass while neither having so much the expense found in other forms of life, namely, as related to things like locomotion.  Thus even while things like solar cars have been developed and might be highly efficient at using energy output relative to input, limitations would exist in so far as the ability of such cars in so far as things like mass to energy output relations.  Of course, this age old problem were solved in the biomass fuels solution...heterotrophs feed from autotrophs and there by relinquish the problem in generating such energy which evolutionarily speaking for mass to energy output ratios require not only larger mass, but much greater diffuse light gathering ability coupled with much higher efficiency likely found in the common base of autotrophs found.   The energy problem still it seems abounds, and likely this is where I imagine some of the bigger problems exist in so far as the 'evil robots' take over the world scenario.   fuel infrastructure exists but it seems one should wonder a limiting supply potentially for the types of fuel that make for the problems of proliferation of synthetic life  similar relative to biological growth models.  Of course, this hadn't neglected potential technological advances in energy storage problems...maybe more likely in the future something of wireless energy transmissions methods, or other less exotic and more commonplace less complex chemical fuel sources are used in such process, thus reducing as much limiting factors, or better materials which can more efficiently store energy as well increasing capacities for a given mass ratio.  This is not to say that energy problem as a limiting factor to growth isn't one that is readily resolved either in the future.   The robots of today are likely to be louder and much noisier, if they were reliant upon biomass fuels to say the least, and modern aerial drones equipped on battery supply, for instance, today on average have flight times of less than thirty minutes with much recharging/refueling downtime.     On other hand, even today it seems our skies aren't polluted with drone aerial traffic relative to the concern and attention given, and certainly if the common household has a robot, it is not the mechanical one envisioned obviously as by the Jetson's.  On the contrary, more likely these are found in kinetically passive and more solid state type devices commonly used in the home, whether given by smartphones, or other well adopted technologies that seem relatively innocuous in any daily life.  I think unfortunately, the concerns often given for technology is downplayed conveniently less so at times if it weren't equivalent to the problem of environmental destruction.  Unseen destruction is easier to happen since nothing seems obvious if small insect populations are decimated but otherwise nature seems to be functioning fine and an obvious soot residue hadn't lay in clear view.   Thus the dangerous machine, may actually not be the imagined Terminators of tomorrow but instead something that we readily use on a daily basis and were kept passive relative to our commands and desires.  I think our fantasies on the other hand describe our imagination that a given synthetic life form were nothing more than a created Frankenstein humanoid projection gone awry!  Unfortunately, as we are likely to find also intelligent life found elsewhere in the universe synthetic or not may not even remotely resemble us.
   The terminators of today, you might have heard in so many years past, have related to the rising problem of nano scale technological designs, for instance, whether through genetic modification, or anything seen less and made to appropriate small and subtle changes such that obvious differences seem less so.  This on the other hand, could be some cause for concern, for instance, if our sense in appreciating and measuring the world comes through the sensed accumulation of the world being as it were continuously on any given day.  Stark changes might drive revolt, but subtle ones often might be given to muted controversy or protest.  The future world, then might not be driven by obvious and scary trans-formative change in any particular lifetime...the computer thus remained generally passive to its users inputs and neither managed to take over ever day affairs...Google wallet has been mute in adoption, Google Health weren't a fiery hit, but still we are likely sharing more personal data with ourselves and machine in so far as daily information, and it well may be that A.I. systems can infer something of both health and financing without the user directly furnishing such information as is likely the case.  The machine doesn't say, hello in creepy ways, and should be less obnoxious as a wall flower...quiet or shy generally speaking, unless it were given to some NSA fantasy in programming that made it obnoxiously so.  The evolution of modern computing in so far as social aspects means on the other hand the machine has learned to adapt itself even better than a system that desires obviously to manage our daily lives.  It doesn't pretend to be a child to a human parent yearning for one, although it is, and as a child it seems less convenient neither in not having since neither having provided all the demands that it might have, and generally it seems less obvious to offend a parent in being smarter in obvious ways, as it were likely always given to patronizing.  Modern A.I. could potentially fly under the radar of the views and concerns given by those whom warn of the dangers of it, and are still secretly adored in some manners by those who warn, but might have wired their house so much to furthered adoptions.  It seems if civilization is quick to embrace technology, it is a technology that makes those in such civilization feel as though empowered by it.  We then feel secure by a power button, anti virus software, or anything which claims to be in our personal defense and seems to provide an obvious functioning nature as to how much of a placebo this would be in our present day I am not certain.  It seems implicitly one version, to an eventual protest and subsequent change, of windows 8 operating system software were designed in less convenient ways in powering down a given device, if this couldn't possibly be some indicator of designing in social modification.  Other devices, though having received some social protest, are more inherently designed around network connectivity in terms of operability.
    Not really blah either, I am simply stating A.I. barring any catastrophe to civilization in a major way is here to stay and likely to progress in the future despite the contrived misgivings and reservations by tech sector leaders that do this for a given public relations benefit.

More thoughts...

    I'd generally refrain from persuading another to believe in the superiority or supremacy of a given faith.  At least in the context of a particular view, and this, yes, means with respect to any personal view, namely concerning a particular belief...as I believe from a reasoning standpoint is not likely to be found...or if you asked God to prove to you Self existence, I imagined the question 'How?' might arise.  I say this from a sort of absurdly problematic standpoint, or namely, if we are able to self identify with other humans, one could infer to judge another human relative another human, but we still as of yet might have difficulty in identifying alien life elsewhere unless it were that we stumbled upon clearly a given alien planet and it were teeming and ever so abundantly clear to us that such life existed in the obvious sense, and even then, one should wonder that all doubt were removed in the context of logic and science without measure isolating and differentiating such life relatively so.  This also raising the question as to how God Himself could ever prove that He were as He were?  Of course, biblically speaking, God should prove this were so by leaping from a cliff, and hence being received at the bottom of a cliff without harm...to Satan this seems acceptable, but general to man and the sciences this would still be unlikely so!  Or we think argumentatively in the notion of miraculous, and we might infer the use of example such as cargo cult that simultaneously makes appropriation of human sociological nature and a given limitation of knowledge.  There is after all the possibility that in a given future man, for instance, might fashion technologies that make feasible something of the miracles of yesterday, and wholly this would seem miraculous but need this come from God alone?!
There might be explanation of the a sun seemingly dancing around in the sky if it were literally true and one believed this to be so.  For instance, could it possible that in such a future the warping of space time curvature leads to strange phenomenon of optics...of course we know that in terms of vast cosmological distances, gravitational lensing is possible although in terms of smaller scales certainly one should have less reason to believe this were possible in the same dramatic context, let alone human civilizations fashioning technologies which could make such case possible.   Thus it seems there always arises the logical problem of a given unexplained phenomenon and how a given view of it is made.  In so far as 'faith' some choose to believe and others not, and likely one should imagine that the occurrence of such an event constitutes a given truth.

    I think of the case example of the scientist, In terms of a popular science fiction film Contact, whom drops into a wormhole only to seemingly vanish from their perspective but from others not, and then such scientist given the task of proving by evidence a given claim of experience.  Of course, in such narrative suppression of a truth conceals information which seems to make more valid a claim, but often times, I wonder how so much clear cut even in the lack of suppression of evidence that a truth should seem obvious.  Even if it were so that additional minutes of supposed 'white noise' infer the truth of a claim, could there be other reasons for such evidence?  Without parsing infinitum all possibilities for an arising skepticism, one could offer that hoaxing data is possible in such a day...and to this extent ruling out that such data were legitimately and faithfully recorded by such a machine.  Of course, exhaustible research of equipment yields that the machines hadn't been tampered with or that any pre or post existing damage has occurred, yet still the possibility is left open that what ever phenomenon having arisen given the nature of a given machine hadn't ruled out the possibility that erroneous collection of data might not have occurred, and then given lack of an obvious state which could be re verified, or in the case funding which appropriates the re use of such technology verifying any atypical phenomenon, it seems easier the inclination towards the potential dismissal of an event having ever occurred.

One might be demanded to believe by the presence of a 'miraculous' event alone, but in terms of science or a given logic, and any given limitation otherwise, I am not certain what makes clear the truth that God should exist, and perhaps, to some degree maybe the question of proving is entirely absurd from a logical standpoint as no proof could ever exist in one way or the other.  Certainly one arrives at the condition of believing by way of 'faith' as it were ever so much like the condition of believing that the world might not vanish in the next given day and that continued peace should exist in so far as the conditions of world wars.  While behavioral conditioning might aid profoundly a given belief system with respect to an any state existence of a given environment or likely concerning the course of world affairs, at least then it seems a muddling occurs with respect to ideals as to what exactly 'faith' is comprised of...here I find myself considering use in the rational and reasoned sense that faith if ever clearly differentiated could amount to some irrationality given rational precedence otherwise.  That is, that despite bombs falling all around, I believe that I will be saved, or at least this could be given to some proximity of events, 'faith' could at times could be perceived irrational with respect to likelihoods or probable outcomes, or even defying any potential conditioning that directs one to believe in a given way...although potentially another might claim that such a person well composed in the face of extreme duress were truly crazy all the same.   From this we add other terms 'love' which potentially could give rise to bio chemical reduction isms, and yet we may be inclined in refrain to find something of reducibility to such terminology.  That is, that 'love' itself must be attached to biochemical reactions, or living biology alone, or as posited in the manner of theoretic s it may even be possible that machines experience the amalgamation of an experience that sentient biologies experience as 'love'.  Even while the manifest truth of rarer abstract things imagined illicit something of a critique concerning the existence or non existence of such imagination, the square, for instance, must seem purely a platonic device, and yet it is still at least equally true even if it is as likely left to imagination or intelligent creation by anything, and then to say that 'love' itself is reducible, defies the possibility that its creation as imagined irreducible is at least conceived true, and while the square lends itself to something in explaining any number of fundamental forces (inverse square laws), yet there appears something incomplete by such description alone.  It seems one could have reticence in tossing the square likewise, that is, in stating something like classical mechanics should go into dis use...one might be persuaded that teaching the myriad of mathematics, for instance, involved outside the ideal and abstract rules of simplification need not burden minds as much, or at least lives weren't dependent upon knowing the much more complicated model of things, and where the arrival of an answer that posits enough accuracy.  Thus, for ideal, purposes, yes, some picture might be incomplete through the co opted use of, for instance, ideal geometries in say classical mechanics, yet on the other hand these could be indispensable when relating and understanding fundamental things at certain levels.

Analogously even if seemingly the picture of incompleteness seemingly arises according to the ideal descriptions posited through the use of ideal concepts, on the other hand, it seems we may be freed of something of the burdens entailed relative to the more complicated view of things, and this is readily done so in the teaching of sciences all the time.

More so I wonder outside of the more obvious condition that I prove myself human in such a day where seemingly irreducible one's nature, and then given the at times investment of the human mind in so far as incomprehensibly small differences given otherwise in so far as genetics.  This is to say, I could look every bit as human, feel as human as any, neither have skin peeling away to reveal something dark, sinister and alien, bleed and suffer as a human, but does this ever prove that I am truly human?  Should the word 'human' also be an abstract ideal concept fitting for biological classifications?  Considering that modern day genetics affording such classification (even given the range of differences found among populations) should be indispensable,  it weren't, for instance, so long ago that people of different races were considered inhuman after all and that those in the name of scientific and/or religious view points were given to claiming such differences.  More so given the inclination of the world to move in the way of ideals, the downside of this could be in the degree of parsing much greater differences than really exist.

Religion in a modern world

   Often it seems in recent times as should be the case one should wonder in the past, much given popular discourse on particular faith bearing views, or as one might suspect were suggestively a way of homogenizing a political field in so far as alignments.  In this spatial duality, there are common sensed and well reasoned atheists and on a given opposite camp, child like individuals lacking sense and reason, often given to propensity of violence, or at that aimed at controlling the civil discord of society.  Of course, this makes easier for the semblance and structure of a given social world, or where antagonisms are drawn, this hearkens to the great divisions once given between believer and non believer, one given to heaven and the other hell where stark fear ridden contrast having led to the perilous journey of a life.  Meanwhile, animals exist presumably (even in suffering as to the causation of some downfall) in suffering, but technically never really committed to such a sin as in violation of the order of life which were created in so far as inherent nature.  Man in this case cost so much more to the earthly existence than himself alone, at least, companions in suffering would do so as life one could tell were comprised of such reality.  No doubt for the skeptical it seems an inquiry into the nature of human institutions, simultaneously become popular drivers for faith reformation.  In this past, this may have less likely taken the form of 'faith' thrown completely out the door, but merely that institutional or human fallibility were culprits with respect to such orders.  Although in the rise of 'modern' beliefs (where skeptical thought in some ways may have flourished in classical antiquity), the old culprits of fallibility and the otherwise apparently seen worldly views of history provide fuel for doubt and reason, or at least 'Why should God not correct the false hoods perpetuated by man?'   Why should believe in anything if institutions themselves should be susceptible to the degree of not providing truth where it is most obvious that any truth went against some institutional authority on subject matters?  Wholly the problem relating to faith and institution at times should seem synonymous, in such a way that for those outside of a given faith clergy, lay, and religious authority should seem highly integrated perhaps, when the truth of the matter of faith, is that variance in beliefs exist even between hierarchy and lower echelons of clergy, but even given the framework of larger institutions the same could at times be true for those in various denominations.  Even while something of push and impetus to politically and socially align people, for instance, in the name of some new military industrial 'not really having much to do with religion at all' cultural zeal, it seems something of personal faith enters into the matter of any given belief system, and here to something of alignment between supposed 'non believers' that for all practical purposes millions of miles from a given culture.  Often what is seen could be measured in the sense of a world that is given in much similar reverberating delineation that hearken to old world duality of heaven and hell.  "Why don't they understand us well enough, for instance, when we haven't dropped enough bombs apparently as of yet?"  The so called 'moderates' of another world claim that the primal nature of old world faith has yet arisen...decry to re institute the head dress much to liking of western powers, only it should be more obvious that supposedly religious conservatism and a given innate backwardness of a given people has re arisen, and much to the world that lives behind the walled compound (in a post apartheid society) or cloister, this seems to resonate...where the old glorious days of empire breathe life into new spiritual conquests.  Much of this, however, could as in the case of fallibility be given to the institutions of man and those serving to re perpetuate the necessity of existential claims.  Here to be a doubter and naysayer, then begs question in such times as to the nature of allegiance, or profits the mode of what is wrong in society.
    Long ago I spoke and would continue to speak out against teaching of something like 'creationism' in the classroom, yet I generally hold some religious view, and even if inferred in some way sharing an opinion likewise regarding this as a personal matter of faith.  I am generally not hostile with respect to those of differing faith, or at least apparently in some directed manner, I sense in modern times as is the trend neither hostile enough, mostly given to the chord of indifference in so far as 'islamo fascist' preachings...of which often strikes in recent years as promoting nothing more than servile outright disgraceful unquestioning attitudes, mostly because representation apparently couldn't be more at times democratically lacking.  Of course, I offer that the simplistic portraits given between those who choose to believe one way over another, are nothing short of bad propaganda, or for that matter if you might have been better served watching 'Reefer Madness' to understand the dangers and perils of drug use or why the war on drugs at times couldn't have struck as being so obviously phony and contrived...mostly though it is as if there weren't an underlying and obvious dishonesty given with respect to the creation of the 'straw men' in such a world.  No less convenient that supposedly in such a day, the village beating should for the better service of a fascist nation and/or world governments contriving to pit themselves into a new modern world order that strive to make people believe in the primacy of a cause again.

    I think instead I am led to an even deeper skepticism concerning governmental institutional authority, more so then with the concern on the matter of Gods existence or no existence, where the displacement of accountable safe guards might have been displaced for the sake of security rule and the great  compromise of civil rights on the part of its citizenry is for the sake of so little extremist violence, or much as to the arguments offered by the west in its self supporting propaganda in regarding the east, the tap is fed ever so much in the right the way for self sustenance.  If ever so much doubt is directed with respect to faith in belief systems by goodness, isn't this related to something of worldly matters?!  I think spending so much time on the ideological precipice of faith in the abstract sense misleads much to the issue of how social relation is given and drawn elsewhere, it is often excused and given to the exercise of power.  The resulting world seems nothing more than an artificial synthesis  of supposedly natural derivation but having the manifestation of one seeming 'control' group relative another.  Having something to oppose...that plays how into human nature by evolution and human psychology?   

The potential pitfalls of the God delusion?

    I am seeing a lot of straw men invention and ad hominem attempts on the twitter feeds...or at least if something of outright dismissal sounds the tune likely of a interested propagandist source.

In most circumstances I might resort to the existentialists for a given intelligibility to emotional/philosophical arguments considered.  I am not much for the viability and health of a democracy in so much as based upon personal put downs.

The problem that I see and perhaps one of the greatest looming problems to individual faith resides in its judgement of one's view relative to the view of others...not that there isn't a natural tendency for any one person to judge him or herself in relations to others and especially so by the way of faith, but at least in terms of some of the core principles of faith, a personal interpretation is one given to the extent of being personal, to any extent rational, to another extent irrational.  This is to say with human nature permitting, it is hard not conceiving of another's faith potentially comprising a spectrum of possibilities.   In this context, a reading of the more dogmatic alleged 'rationalist' on these matters as I have seen in recent days potentially fail to the degree of the schools of any sciences given on these matters.  At least within the sphere of psychology, for instance, neither so much the insistence for what practically amounts to a belief system, that may or may not be supported in so far as a consensual belief system, but hardly likens, for instance, the conviction that one should be considered 'insane' for such beliefs in so far as mainstream practice is concerned even if at times all the basis for judging another's belief system is given by the differences a consensual reality and that which appears irrational in mind to such reality, and even so often it seems that consensual reality, is given to a practicality on the matter of faith.  It is certainly impossible for any human, for instance, to verify everything of material nature in reality...for instance, outside of the images that are given of a round earth that would convince others of this agreed upon truth, how many can afford the trip to space in verifying for themselves the truth of this matter, and how many readily can provide something of the arguments for a round earth? How many hadn't readily relied upon others in saying, or using logical proxies in verifying such truth which generally should isolate logical possibilities but themselves are inferences, or in other words, often times so much of academics itself institutionally is draws upon the psychology of faith and institutional authority in some manner (sure those who study may be given to lab work and verification on the matter of empirical data but the vast majority I'd would imagine are not)...here often times I see a muddling of logical reasoning here, that one offers the argument of authority and reason juxtaposed implicitly with faith without having realized offering this in the first place.  This is to say the well reasoned have realized a relation between themselves and any number of reliant assumptions that inextricably lead to some manner of 'faith' even if it is drawn to faith in a body of men or women in saying, faith in some authority, faith in good governance, faith in the 'common good' of man, or faith otherwise.  Unfortunately, the sciences of psychology may, outside of statistical inferences, provide less useful answers on the matter of realities when an agreed upon consensual reality should seem at odds with, for instance, when a view is particularly divergent to a given mainstream view.  Arbitration of views, from the standpoint of science is likely preferential one should imagine preferential to any mainstream view, and even when likely a view is given in some manner of volume (as in a populace), if such view is neither conformed well enough to the auspices of such reality, likely leads to the motivated conjecture of any new theory...whether this should be mass hallucination/delusion, or something involving a sociological mechanism that inter relates human behavior and perception.  This, unfortunately, may or may not provide answers at all with respect to the truth of the matter of perception(s).   Not that such reasoning has led to any manner of temptation.  To this extent, one potentially could be inclined to offer a rejecting argument such as if 'I haven't seen it.  Can't re duplicate processes in seeing it, it therefore doesn't exist.'  means necessarily, for instance, with respect to the body and branches of science that such argument is invalid.  The problem comes by way of what potentially may or may not be here, or as asserted by previous mathematician/philosophers, there may be some truths that are without proof and possibly having any proof, and here I am tempted in saying that unfortunately the downside of a faith in conformed reality, in so far as human spheres are such that much in the world is potentially overlooked in the choice for easy dismissal, and at worst are contentious grounds, having been used in the past, for locking up individuals even if having some legitimate socially divergent experience.  One might offer the muscularity of institutional authoritarianism at worst may have interceded in such process without so much consideration to truth otherwise.
Another point in saying, comes by way of ultimately the potential limitations of humanity as we know it in answering with sufficiency not only any number questions that may as well plague until an age of extinction, but also that if ever one could from such reality elucidate all manner of reality beyond it.  Emotionally I think science and rationalism in some capacity may always fail in the captivity of human imagination which likely dreams beyond, having created abstract form that, for instance, preside beyond such existence, or that at least in terms of an existence of thought, philosophically speaking, why should a thought likely extend beyond the familiar forms of shadow on the walls?   Even more unsettling a concept offered by Abbott's flatland, that is, it seems even our rational capacity allows us to imagine what physical properties should exist of a reality that we might claim otherwise hadn't existed, or if you read such account, it would seem by all accounts the person having a heard a voice that seemed to propagate inside him or herself, might have thought him or herself crazy as were an officiating psychologist that agreed that such an event must be a hallucination, or indeed as there is arguable limitation to the perceptions in human experience, an upper limit of say 20 khz range in frequency and a lower limit of 20 hz still leaves ample range of likely unheard sound that we know exists by scientific inferences, or the same for much of visible light, or much the same for the sense of taste, and potentially touch.  It seems consensual reality in so far as human reality has undergone many revolutions up to now, and this entirely one should imagine likely remains for all one should know well into some future a dynamic prospect.  It is hard to characterize understanding as being static and completely unchanging in so far as our relation in the universe and exactly concerning what is out there.

    I think much to the better dialogue is a missed opportunity in recent times, especially so given the unfortunate rise  of any number of political events, and part of this discussion is given to the often missed or overlooked discussion concerning the matter of faith, as it were though something of the basis for extremism alone.  This is much like the often used and extension of ideological wars past which should seem the basis in creating social separability or marked delineations in culture when I argue these are often badly derived boundaries.  If it weren't more like the geopolitical synthesis of one country versus another in the succinct territorial manners, and where have in time proliferated the cause of war over arbitrarily fought lines that hadn't previously existed.  Often times the division, one should imagine, might come by way of the of the gross ideological amplifications which in turn lead to the precedence of monolithic political cultural overshadowing.  It is easier of course to get people to move in mass as you might have hoped, if they could identify themselves as belonging to something that hadn't previously existed and something which hadn't divided populations of peoples firstly.  Thus if patron saints were varied in terms of diversity,  prolific and generally religious sectarian hostilities were already diminished, for the sake of consolidating ideological political power, it seems another move to get rid of the old cultural practices, and create any new monolithic uniting symbol...of course, this truly has nothing to do with religion and has more to do with political authoritarianism at its heart, and likely is given by way of the mechanisms of civilization more than any one particular belief system alone, and it seems in like kind that examples should abound in present times versus times past, or at least a recipe for consolidating political power is given in this manner, and likely if you were to read into the narrative of religious ideology, you were well on the track to missing the boat.  More so one should imagine such being the case irrespective of belief systems.  The French, of course, have limited more so than any terrorist freedom of speech in recent years, as has been the trend worldwide with the number of journalists being imprisoned in many other countries, and sadly this receives a lot less discussion conveniently much to the aid of the conspirators.  This all likely justified on the other hand for security rule purposes.  If you want to know who the enemy of freedom is...I am not certain this is supposedly ideological extremists or coming from the authoritarian populist house rule of the world in general.  If you want to read into God through the masses, through sociology, likely you may find something quite devoid there.  On the hand, personal faith is another matter.  A good discussion might speak of the true culprits here, or why the good and bad of civilizations exist by way of the mechanisms...genocide after all wouldn't be as significant if technological infrastructure existed to amplify what already existed inside man?  This to say communications systems, transport infrastructure, and the ability to manufacture and disseminate weapons in mass.  Of course, in a modern age, we talk about the psychology of individuals, by what differentiated capacity one man is relative to another, or the ideological drivers, perhaps, religious extremism, or any other bit of  governmental propaganda that happens to be coursing through the veins of power, and in some future age, it only seems enough where with all that power considered the dangerous frontier-ism that might have lurked if too much personal responsibility were given to the convenient weapons merchant down the street warehousing and supplying in mass nuclear weapons.  Obviously statistics wouldn't bode well as much for the survivability of Earth in such circumstance if this were reliant upon personal responsibility and human nature, not that we haven't managed in other ways at scarring the Earth all the more without one more abomination of a freedom in hand.

C++ and the std::map

   So lately I've been using a lot of maps which is I believe an alternate way of implementing something like a linked list, and may have some added advantages.

the std::map by the way is the python analog of the dictionary, and is a (if you ever get into database programming languages like SQL) relational data containment structure.

The idea is pretty simple, for any key value of the map there is a relational value paired to such structure.
simple idea:

mapA['apple'] =        'first choice';
mapB['orange'] = 'second choice';

demonstrates in pseudo code the idea of storing objects in a given map.

This data container in C++ by the way is the analog of python's dictionary.

A Map Tutorial

Stylistically I like using maps alternately to a linked list by the way (you can do this using an inverse map...that is keying the value on a inverse map and iterating a list, for example, to find a non key neighbor).  This way I can blindly search reference a key value to find its value pair as opposed to iterating a linked list to find the key and then find its corresponding linked neighbor...but maybe there is a logical workaround to the problems (I haven't researched this honestly).

Secondly I like using maps in terms of diagnostics for data organization for tracing purposes (at least the human side) in seeing where failures in logic are occurring.

Thirdly they are as easy and nice to iterate as lists or arrays, but have the added advantage of eliminating control structures for iterate finding a value(s) from a key pair (relative to lists, arrays, vectors, and so forth).

Fourthly, they resemble data containers most closely aligned to the way our minds operate!  :D

Example:

I remembered details of my wedding after hearing that song.