A friend of mine has asked for some tutoring on the standard CS undergrad course. This post is my syllabus for my work with him.
Theory of Computation
Lectures
Harvard Extension Course CSCI E-207
accessible via http://www.seas.harvard.edu/courses/cs121/
Syllabus
The syllabus to match the Harvard Extension lectures can be found at
http://www.seas.harvard.edu/courses/cs121/syllabus.html
Schedule
The schedule may need to be adjusted to accomodate your availability but here is a tentative plan:
There are 24 lectures. Ideally you would view 2 a week making it a 12 week course. But this would probably require meeting twice a week for discussion. This would be a minimum of 4 hours a week and that may be too much for your schedule. I suspect we will start and proceed as long as you have the time and patience and then stop once either has been exhausted.
Text
Introduction to the Theory of Computation, by Michael Sipser, first edition, 1997, Thomson Course Technology
Homework
None planned but may be required to work through important concepts
Thursday, June 7, 2012
Saturday, June 2, 2012
drug demand management
I have a friend who is committed to the challenge of reducing the demand for drugs in the world. I support her effort but we have our differences of opinion. She'd be happy to know that she has opened my eyes to the broader scope of this at the world-level. However from my perspective I still think that many agencies are still blind to some basic human issues that politicize this struggle to mitigate the harm from these substances. What is needed is a clear-eyed acceptance of the limits any agency will have in changing human desires and vice.
When it comes to any other drug other than marijuana (M), I am happy with her position. To various degrees, these other drugs lead to significant health problems, whether physical or mental, and have various degrees of addiction. While I am not always in favor of prosecuting and incarcerating harmless drug users, I will accept a certain amount of social harm in the broader war against these drugs. What I cannot accept is how the war against drugs sweeps up M and its users into this broad attempt. What I hope to do in this essay is lay out my view clearly.
We accept that human nature includes some vices. Alcohol and tobacco have been accepted substances for many generations and are well known to have negative affects on health. We have made considerable progress in reducing the use of one but not the other over the past few generations. This progress has been in spite of the legal status and even active promotion of these substances. The promotion of a healthy and responsible lifestyle does not seem to require the force of law. Is it really necessary for M?
Being a member of the boomer generation and probably the first generation that saw a widespread acceptance of drugs, I cannot say that I have seen much of a change in demand among young people for M in my lifetime. I cannot speak for generations before me and I may not have the best evidence for the generations younger than me. However I have known a great number of people who used M in their youth and many who continued the habit well into adulthood. I have witnessed a general reduction of use with age but no appreciable change in attitude about the drug.
This intimate knowledge of long-term users has done nothing to make me believe that there is any severe long-term damage done by the use of M. Any damage seems to be far less than for either alcohol or tobacco. Yet each user is a criminal and occasionally is caught up in the legal system due to this use. What appears to be even worse is that class increases the chance that a user will be caught up in a legal process and have their lives ruined or at least dramatically impacted by this use. It is a sad commentary on our society that money insulates you from the law and gives you far greater opportunities to indulge your vices. The poor and disadvantaged in our society have far more pressure on them to lead faultless lives and conform to the most strict moral codes if they are to have any chance of advancement for themselves or their children. Money confers great opportunities. But there are some opportunities that should not be bought and the opportunity to indulge our vices should not be one of them. As long as drug laws are not enforced as effectively against the privileged to the same extent they are among the poor, I see them as immoral more than the immorality of the drug use itself. As I said already, I can accept this for the other drugs but its use as justified tool in the war on drugs for M is beyond the pale in my opinion.
If you make something illegal that everyone uses, you make criminals of them all. While M use is hardly universal, it is so prevalent in our society that it strains reason to see why there should be a law against it. While enforcement is careful not to antagonize the influential people in society with their heavy handed tactics, the poor are often targeted as a tactic as a way of leveraging information and access to their real targets. So you not only force all citizens to resort to illegal distributors to gain a product that has high demand but you selectively alienate a segment of the population who are either otherwise innocent users of the drug or who engage in petty distribution of it for a profit. Either way, when use and demand is so widespread and police forces do not have the means or will to truly stop the use of the drug, you make a mockery of the law and inure people to their law breaking. For me, this in itself is a serious problem if you expect people to respect the other laws.
I begin to strenuously object to our current policies when I look at their consequences. A common justification for including M in the category of illegal drugs is that it is a gateway drug to harder drugs. I believe this has twisted the true cause and effect. By forcing people to procure their product from illegal distributors, you empower these distributors to promote other, higher profit products. If you are already buying M from a dealer, it is likely that deal also promotes E, C and many other substances that he can get from his supplier. Why do we want to put our citizens in harms way in this manner? Isn't it enough that we are powerless to help people live healthy, profitable lives and avoid the effects of alcohol and tobacco (to say nothing of fast food and sugary drinks)? Why must we also force them to be tempted to try yet another harmful substance and risk serious health consequences?
Pushing otherwise law abiding citizens into the arms of an criminal distribution chain also has the unintended consequence of strengthening this distribution chain. We already see the harmful effects of corruption and violence that these criminal enterprises bring. M is a major component of this profit. With every illegal purchase made by some suburban skateboard kid we are putting money into the pockets of a violent and unreachable criminal class that corrupts the rule of law and morality for a large number of people throughout this distribution chain. You may argue that there is harm to the teenager by his use of M. But what of the harm to the mules, and peasants who see their local police corrupted by the bribes and intimidation from these criminals? Are our suburban children really so precious that we must countenance the wholesale corruption of entire societies that are unable to afford the kind of enforcement to control the supply chain? Why must our desire to reduce demand for M be borne by people who are struggling for basic necessities?
I can appreciate how abhorrent the idea of legalization of M is to many people. But what is the more honest and moral choice? To continue this epic battle that has become a stalemate? or to accept this as a public health issue and a call to accept humanity with its faults rather than struggle to remake people into the puritan mold we wish they could fit into? There are so many benefits to this reasonable step that I scarcely know where to begin.
The criminal elements than ensure the smooth transportation of product from growth to consumption derives a significant portion of their revenue from this product. If the product becomes legal, this revenue source is eliminated and the enterprise will be forced to shrink. This will lead to fewer criminals, fewer guns, fewer pushers, fewer arrests, fewer prosecutions. The savings to the public treasury could be either used to reduce taxation or to fund new programs to discourage the use of the product. What is even more important is that making it legal creates the opportunity to regulate and tax the product. Demand can be manipulated by taxation and regulation of supply. As long as the taxation and ultimate street price remains close to or below the prior illegal price, the criminal distribution chain must either accept a reduced profit from the sale of M even as they see many of their consumers move to the legal channels of distribution. The most likely result will be their exit from the market.
Another concern that is relieved with the introduction of a legal distribution chain is the control over the purity and strength of the product. In my lifetime I have seen an unbelievable growth in the strength of the product available on the street. Longer distribution chains from exotic locations, the application of agricultural techniques to improve yield and potency have all but eradicated the M that I grew up with in the mid-west. Even worse, there are many stories of unscrupulous vendors who have adulterated their products or unwittingly promoted such products. The hard inherent in these trends and practices are eliminated by the creation of a legal source.
The biggest objection to legalization is a slippery slope argument. I will not even bother shooting this down. But a more cogent objection comes from the shape of the legal distribution channel. People who cynically see big business moving into to capitalize on this large market for a high-profit product rightly fear what could be brought forth. I share their concern but do not see it as a destiny. The legal advertising for hard liquor is a recent phenomenon. Many states till maintain package stores which are the only source of liquor. If such restrictions can be maintained for liquor, I fail to see how public policy would fail in the introduction of a controversial product. Perhaps in some future where the societal concerns are found baseless will we see M marketed on billboards with slick campaigns. But in the short term I don't see this as anything more than fear mongering.
I don't see the legalization of M in the US market as being the fearsome thing its opponent suggest. I think it would do us tremendous good in our relationship with Mexico and the other Latin American countries who are bearing the brunt of our poorly conceived and executed "war on drugs". It should lead to an immediate reduction in the crimes that sap our judicial system and make the true use of the common substance more visible and hopefully lead to a better balance between approbation and condemnation. It will also lead to safer streets in the towns in Mexico most embroiled in the war between the narco-traffikers. Yes, the puritans will recoil. But in the end we are ensuring a more moral world and an honest acceptance of our faults and not a continued adherence to some romantic and hypocritical ideal we will never achieve.
When it comes to any other drug other than marijuana (M), I am happy with her position. To various degrees, these other drugs lead to significant health problems, whether physical or mental, and have various degrees of addiction. While I am not always in favor of prosecuting and incarcerating harmless drug users, I will accept a certain amount of social harm in the broader war against these drugs. What I cannot accept is how the war against drugs sweeps up M and its users into this broad attempt. What I hope to do in this essay is lay out my view clearly.
We accept that human nature includes some vices. Alcohol and tobacco have been accepted substances for many generations and are well known to have negative affects on health. We have made considerable progress in reducing the use of one but not the other over the past few generations. This progress has been in spite of the legal status and even active promotion of these substances. The promotion of a healthy and responsible lifestyle does not seem to require the force of law. Is it really necessary for M?
Being a member of the boomer generation and probably the first generation that saw a widespread acceptance of drugs, I cannot say that I have seen much of a change in demand among young people for M in my lifetime. I cannot speak for generations before me and I may not have the best evidence for the generations younger than me. However I have known a great number of people who used M in their youth and many who continued the habit well into adulthood. I have witnessed a general reduction of use with age but no appreciable change in attitude about the drug.
This intimate knowledge of long-term users has done nothing to make me believe that there is any severe long-term damage done by the use of M. Any damage seems to be far less than for either alcohol or tobacco. Yet each user is a criminal and occasionally is caught up in the legal system due to this use. What appears to be even worse is that class increases the chance that a user will be caught up in a legal process and have their lives ruined or at least dramatically impacted by this use. It is a sad commentary on our society that money insulates you from the law and gives you far greater opportunities to indulge your vices. The poor and disadvantaged in our society have far more pressure on them to lead faultless lives and conform to the most strict moral codes if they are to have any chance of advancement for themselves or their children. Money confers great opportunities. But there are some opportunities that should not be bought and the opportunity to indulge our vices should not be one of them. As long as drug laws are not enforced as effectively against the privileged to the same extent they are among the poor, I see them as immoral more than the immorality of the drug use itself. As I said already, I can accept this for the other drugs but its use as justified tool in the war on drugs for M is beyond the pale in my opinion.
If you make something illegal that everyone uses, you make criminals of them all. While M use is hardly universal, it is so prevalent in our society that it strains reason to see why there should be a law against it. While enforcement is careful not to antagonize the influential people in society with their heavy handed tactics, the poor are often targeted as a tactic as a way of leveraging information and access to their real targets. So you not only force all citizens to resort to illegal distributors to gain a product that has high demand but you selectively alienate a segment of the population who are either otherwise innocent users of the drug or who engage in petty distribution of it for a profit. Either way, when use and demand is so widespread and police forces do not have the means or will to truly stop the use of the drug, you make a mockery of the law and inure people to their law breaking. For me, this in itself is a serious problem if you expect people to respect the other laws.
I begin to strenuously object to our current policies when I look at their consequences. A common justification for including M in the category of illegal drugs is that it is a gateway drug to harder drugs. I believe this has twisted the true cause and effect. By forcing people to procure their product from illegal distributors, you empower these distributors to promote other, higher profit products. If you are already buying M from a dealer, it is likely that deal also promotes E, C and many other substances that he can get from his supplier. Why do we want to put our citizens in harms way in this manner? Isn't it enough that we are powerless to help people live healthy, profitable lives and avoid the effects of alcohol and tobacco (to say nothing of fast food and sugary drinks)? Why must we also force them to be tempted to try yet another harmful substance and risk serious health consequences?
Pushing otherwise law abiding citizens into the arms of an criminal distribution chain also has the unintended consequence of strengthening this distribution chain. We already see the harmful effects of corruption and violence that these criminal enterprises bring. M is a major component of this profit. With every illegal purchase made by some suburban skateboard kid we are putting money into the pockets of a violent and unreachable criminal class that corrupts the rule of law and morality for a large number of people throughout this distribution chain. You may argue that there is harm to the teenager by his use of M. But what of the harm to the mules, and peasants who see their local police corrupted by the bribes and intimidation from these criminals? Are our suburban children really so precious that we must countenance the wholesale corruption of entire societies that are unable to afford the kind of enforcement to control the supply chain? Why must our desire to reduce demand for M be borne by people who are struggling for basic necessities?
I can appreciate how abhorrent the idea of legalization of M is to many people. But what is the more honest and moral choice? To continue this epic battle that has become a stalemate? or to accept this as a public health issue and a call to accept humanity with its faults rather than struggle to remake people into the puritan mold we wish they could fit into? There are so many benefits to this reasonable step that I scarcely know where to begin.
The criminal elements than ensure the smooth transportation of product from growth to consumption derives a significant portion of their revenue from this product. If the product becomes legal, this revenue source is eliminated and the enterprise will be forced to shrink. This will lead to fewer criminals, fewer guns, fewer pushers, fewer arrests, fewer prosecutions. The savings to the public treasury could be either used to reduce taxation or to fund new programs to discourage the use of the product. What is even more important is that making it legal creates the opportunity to regulate and tax the product. Demand can be manipulated by taxation and regulation of supply. As long as the taxation and ultimate street price remains close to or below the prior illegal price, the criminal distribution chain must either accept a reduced profit from the sale of M even as they see many of their consumers move to the legal channels of distribution. The most likely result will be their exit from the market.
Another concern that is relieved with the introduction of a legal distribution chain is the control over the purity and strength of the product. In my lifetime I have seen an unbelievable growth in the strength of the product available on the street. Longer distribution chains from exotic locations, the application of agricultural techniques to improve yield and potency have all but eradicated the M that I grew up with in the mid-west. Even worse, there are many stories of unscrupulous vendors who have adulterated their products or unwittingly promoted such products. The hard inherent in these trends and practices are eliminated by the creation of a legal source.
The biggest objection to legalization is a slippery slope argument. I will not even bother shooting this down. But a more cogent objection comes from the shape of the legal distribution channel. People who cynically see big business moving into to capitalize on this large market for a high-profit product rightly fear what could be brought forth. I share their concern but do not see it as a destiny. The legal advertising for hard liquor is a recent phenomenon. Many states till maintain package stores which are the only source of liquor. If such restrictions can be maintained for liquor, I fail to see how public policy would fail in the introduction of a controversial product. Perhaps in some future where the societal concerns are found baseless will we see M marketed on billboards with slick campaigns. But in the short term I don't see this as anything more than fear mongering.
I don't see the legalization of M in the US market as being the fearsome thing its opponent suggest. I think it would do us tremendous good in our relationship with Mexico and the other Latin American countries who are bearing the brunt of our poorly conceived and executed "war on drugs". It should lead to an immediate reduction in the crimes that sap our judicial system and make the true use of the common substance more visible and hopefully lead to a better balance between approbation and condemnation. It will also lead to safer streets in the towns in Mexico most embroiled in the war between the narco-traffikers. Yes, the puritans will recoil. But in the end we are ensuring a more moral world and an honest acceptance of our faults and not a continued adherence to some romantic and hypocritical ideal we will never achieve.
Saturday, January 21, 2012
Mind the Gap
For anyone who has visited London, the title immediately brings to mind that continual reminder that the London subway system was built many years ago and there are sometimes some very significant gaps between the platform and the train. An unwary traveler can easily step into that gap and find themselves embarrassed at a minimum or even seriously injured as they fall halfway to the tracks. While it is drummed into your sub-consciousness in your time spent in their "tubes", I don't recall ever hearing that message on a continuous loop. But here in a airport in Pittsburg, built at least a century after the earliest London line, I hear a comparable warning on a continuous loop to no effect except to annoy people waiting nearby. I find this a sadly common situation in American society and design and I would like to find a name for it.
An innovation in airports and other transportation centers is the addition of moving walkways. It is hard to believe that there is still an American citizen left who isn't familiar with them by now. Yet the walkway near my gate has speakers at the end of each walkway that plays the loop "Caution...moving walk is nearing its end. Please watch your step." with only a two second pause between repetitions. Now when someone is on the walkway near its end, it makes perfect sense. However this system has no sensor so the loop plays even though there are no walkers, and in fact have not been for more than 10 minutes. I can just imagine why this has come to be and it is that image that keeps me at a slow burn with each repetition.
A continual theme from the political right is the nanny state. While I disagree on where this came from,
An innovation in airports and other transportation centers is the addition of moving walkways. It is hard to believe that there is still an American citizen left who isn't familiar with them by now. Yet the walkway near my gate has speakers at the end of each walkway that plays the loop "Caution...moving walk is nearing its end. Please watch your step." with only a two second pause between repetitions. Now when someone is on the walkway near its end, it makes perfect sense. However this system has no sensor so the loop plays even though there are no walkers, and in fact have not been for more than 10 minutes. I can just imagine why this has come to be and it is that image that keeps me at a slow burn with each repetition.
A continual theme from the political right is the nanny state. While I disagree on where this came from,
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)