Yesterday was not a good day for JF. I wasted most of the day. Part of the day was wasted uploading the previous two MOJFs. The other part of the day was wasted trying to get my evil computer to work. When I stopped working with that, I decided to go lo-tech. I skimmed my calculus book. I read the chapter of Feynman's rigid body physics. It made me very confused. Then I tried to apply it or something. I drew what you see above and wondered why I needed physics to draw it. Well. I don't really. Knowing that gravity is working on this model doesn't do much. It would tell me whether this model will fall over if I had it in 3d and new a few things about it. That doesn't really do much. How about animation? Hmm... Why would I need physics to animate it? Because a movement in the arm will influence a movement in the shoulders and visa-versa? Well, we know that angular momentum is conserved, so knowing that would be useful for animation. However, the human muscles account for almost all human movement. Adding in angular momentum and gravity is like making a program that calculates what time the sun will come up tomorrow. Well heck, it comes up at 6 AM, we all know that. So instead of just saying 6 AM, we calculate the position of all the planets, and say 6:01:12 AM. Sounds like a plan, right? What about inverse kinematics via physics? Err, that's not how IK is done. It's a math thing. It has nothing to do with acceleration. However, we can use math to do IK. Then I would use physics to interpolate correctly. But I don't think that's a good idea. So what is this whole physics of video game programming stuff? Well, it will work for motion of particles. A person going from point A to point B will take a straight line, but they certainly won't accelerate at 100 m/s/s. They'll accelerate at a human pace to their walking speed and they'll arrive by pushing their feet against the ground (but not break-neck speed).

I read more of Ayn Rand's Fountainhead. I like the book, but it'd be a terrible lesson for kids. It's all about elitism by way of motivation. All but one of the main cast of characters (the main character) are rich losers. They epitomise just what is wrong with living the bushiouse lifestyle. The main character is poor throughout the entire book, but not for lack of trying. It's for lack of common sense. He wants to build buildings, but he doesn't want to dirty them with useless facades. He also doesn't want to copy structures made by ancient people who didn't have the luxury of steel or reinforced concrete. With steel, bullet-resistant glass, earthquake resistant buildings, and reinforced concrete, you can make a structure that is very modern art without worrying if it is going to fall over. This guy would be a hero to the free-spirits of the world that only want to cook with raw vegetables or that only want to draw 3d models. But he has many vices. The first is that he lacks emotion. The simple fact of lacking emotion makes him impossible to talk to. Sadly, I am one in the same with him on that fact. He is a semi-nihilist in his attitude. He doesn't care about anything except buildings. That's a pretty narrow scope of life, especially when his style is fifty years ahead of its time. But he's way too proud for being a lowly nihilist architect. His attitude towards this one woman is in key with attitude of nihilist elitism. The two together do not work. The problem is that most every character is similar in this attitude (except the socialist, but he does it from time to time also). The four characters talk to each other as if they know what each other is thinking (and they are happy to point this out also) and the rest of the world is full of mindless drones. Why do I like this book? Because it is an accurate portrayal of the fight between individual elitism and socialism in intelligent and wealthy people (a very bad combination, I'd like to add). Rand supports elitism.

Why does an anarchist need to understand this book? "Know your enemy." There are many influental in today's society that covertly agree with her. They pay their workers substandard wages for no other reason than it profits them more even when they need no more. They are known as the globalizationists and multinational corporation CEOs. They are in favor of business controlling the government. These people are the common enemy of every person exploited by these people: approx. a billion people. There are also people who support socialism covertly. These people are dangerous. Not to be confused with the people who support socialism openly, these people are beareaucrats who line their pockets with the taxes of mainly rich people. Their taxes cost working-class people far more than rich people, but you get the idea. These people wish to stifle individualism by creating a police state. Sadly, the stupid businesspeople are in line with these people as far as a police state goes. A police state keeps profits high, damages low, and workers in line. But the socialists don't just want a police state, they want it to control business. The only way for government to control business is a police state where rights are completely removed. So how does an anarchist deal with these two extremely powerful, extremely well-armed foes? Multinational corporations can be defeated by the capitalist system as it stands now. No joke, ask me how. It must be done before the socialists get their way and start controlling businesses. That's about 5 years away, I estimate. Watch specifically the UN. But to defeat the multinational corporations, it will take about 5 years. So the time is now unless we *want* a violent revolution five years from now. People with respect for their fellow human beings as well as themselves can stop these two forces with their minds and their hands alone.