Hot sauce: Blair’s 16 Million
Blair’s 16 Million Product Review | Hot Sauce Blog: "I decided to mix one crystal into tomato soup. I took a can of standard condensed tomato soup, mixed with one can of water and brought it to a boil. The capsaicin crystal will not mix like any of the other Blair’s A.M. line, which makes perfect sense, since it’s a dry crystal and not an oil based extract. So the only way to liquify this stuff is to heat it up. So using tweezers and gloves, I picked up the tiny crystal, and into the pot of soup it goes. First bite was not that hot, so I had the wife take a bite. She threatened divorce once she could speak again."
Image: Evstafiev-Soviet-soldier-Afghanistan
I just really liked this photo of a Soviet soldier in Afghanistan.
JOGL vs Java3D
A small skirmish flaired up on the OCJUG mailing list revolving around Java OpenGL libraries. In paticular, which to use: JOGL or Java3D?
JOGL is a thin wrapper around the OpenGL C libraries - much like how GWT and SWT is a thin wrapper around platform native widgets (or DOM), relying on another layer of code to provide platform-independence. JOGL is being actively developed by Sun's "Game Technology Group" (I couldn't find a link to that organization within Sun, though.) It was used to code Aerith, a scorchingly hot Java demo that uses some great UI design, and some remarkable Java2D and JOGL compositing.
Java3D is a thick system, similar to AWT. It supports both DirectX and OpenGL rendering, and supports a much higher level of functionality than JOGL. But it has mostly been abandoned by Sun. It's story is a sad story.
What is the conflict? It revolves around whether Java3D was ever justified in the first place. So essentially it is a battle over historical interpretation. One side claims that Java3D had some real utility when OpenGL was not ubiquitous and DirectX needed support, and when limitations of JVM performance made "retained mode scene graph" APIs desirable because they push processing out of the VM [I'm not really sure how that works, though].
One things for certain: JOGL is not for the feint of heart. It is low-level and definitely not object-oriented. According to this article "the GL class' Javadocs list 2,433 fields and 1,856 methods!" That's a lot of members! This leads me to believe that JOGL is a necessary but not sufficient condition for writing 3D applications in Java. More abstraction is necessary, and that abstraction may well turn out to look like Java3D.
Those looking to write 3D games in Java would do well to check out Bytonic Software's port of Quake 2 to Java. The Quake 2 game engine was open-sourced (GPL) by id software in 2001. Now it has been ported by a group of industrious German students to Java - and they even have a working webstart deployment. Of course, they used JOGL. I haven't looked at the code, but even if it's a mess, it seems like a better place to start than from scratch.
JOGL is a thin wrapper around the OpenGL C libraries - much like how GWT and SWT is a thin wrapper around platform native widgets (or DOM), relying on another layer of code to provide platform-independence. JOGL is being actively developed by Sun's "Game Technology Group" (I couldn't find a link to that organization within Sun, though.) It was used to code Aerith, a scorchingly hot Java demo that uses some great UI design, and some remarkable Java2D and JOGL compositing.
Java3D is a thick system, similar to AWT. It supports both DirectX and OpenGL rendering, and supports a much higher level of functionality than JOGL. But it has mostly been abandoned by Sun. It's story is a sad story.
What is the conflict? It revolves around whether Java3D was ever justified in the first place. So essentially it is a battle over historical interpretation. One side claims that Java3D had some real utility when OpenGL was not ubiquitous and DirectX needed support, and when limitations of JVM performance made "retained mode scene graph" APIs desirable because they push processing out of the VM [I'm not really sure how that works, though].
One things for certain: JOGL is not for the feint of heart. It is low-level and definitely not object-oriented. According to this article "the GL class' Javadocs list 2,433 fields and 1,856 methods!" That's a lot of members! This leads me to believe that JOGL is a necessary but not sufficient condition for writing 3D applications in Java. More abstraction is necessary, and that abstraction may well turn out to look like Java3D.
Those looking to write 3D games in Java would do well to check out Bytonic Software's port of Quake 2 to Java. The Quake 2 game engine was open-sourced (GPL) by id software in 2001. Now it has been ported by a group of industrious German students to Java - and they even have a working webstart deployment. Of course, they used JOGL. I haven't looked at the code, but even if it's a mess, it seems like a better place to start than from scratch.
Scott Ferguson on epolling: just use threads
From the Resin interest mailing list:
On Dec 26, 2006, at 9:59 AM, Serge Knystautas wrote:
> Steve Z wrote:
>> Hi
>> Sun JRE nio has supported epoll from JDK5.0_up9,JDK6.0 at
>> bottom, I wanna know whether it meaned resin support epoll now?
>> thanks.
>
> Resin does not use nio, so how the Sun JVM implements NIO is not
> significant.
>
> This is an interesting read on the matter from when epoll was a new
> feature: http://www.theserverside.com/discussions/thread.tss?
> thread_id=26700
Yep. Threads aren't all that bad, especially on recent operating
systems. Remember, that any epoll/nio solution has extra overhead
associated with detaching/attaching the thread.
A poll/epoll is essentially the same as an operating system block,
but handled at the user level (and so requires several extra system
calls). OS blocks essentially do the exact same thing, but are
handled by the kernel, which is far more efficient.
The problem at the moment is really 32-bit memory limitations. Since
threads take up virtual memory, lots of threads take up lots of
memory. In a 64-bit system, that's not an issue. But we're running
up to the limits of 32-bit virtual memory with lots of threads.
That issue will go away in the next 3-5 years as we transition to 64-
bits. At that point, it would make sense to just stick with lots of
threads and avoid the epoll issue entirely.
On Dec 26, 2006, at 9:59 AM, Serge Knystautas wrote:
> Steve Z wrote:
>> Hi
>> Sun JRE nio has supported epoll from JDK5.0_up9,JDK6.0 at
>> bottom, I wanna know whether it meaned resin support epoll now?
>> thanks.
>
> Resin does not use nio, so how the Sun JVM implements NIO is not
> significant.
>
> This is an interesting read on the matter from when epoll was a new
> feature: http://www.theserverside.com/discussions/thread.tss?
> thread_id=26700
Yep. Threads aren't all that bad, especially on recent operating
systems. Remember, that any epoll/nio solution has extra overhead
associated with detaching/attaching the thread.
A poll/epoll is essentially the same as an operating system block,
but handled at the user level (and so requires several extra system
calls). OS blocks essentially do the exact same thing, but are
handled by the kernel, which is far more efficient.
The problem at the moment is really 32-bit memory limitations. Since
threads take up virtual memory, lots of threads take up lots of
memory. In a 64-bit system, that's not an issue. But we're running
up to the limits of 32-bit virtual memory with lots of threads.
That issue will go away in the next 3-5 years as we transition to 64-
bits. At that point, it would make sense to just stick with lots of
threads and avoid the epoll issue entirely.
The War on Photographers
It's a scary time. Since my interest in photography has increased, I've been hassled several times for photographing architecture. For example, I was hassled for taking this shot:
A kind soul commented on this photo and pointed me to the flickr photomob group where some kind soul posted a link to PopPhoto's article The War on Photographers.
We should be very concerned when the police start enforcing non-existent laws. When there are too many laws to keep track of, things like this are bound to happen.
A kind soul commented on this photo and pointed me to the flickr photomob group where some kind soul posted a link to PopPhoto's article The War on Photographers.
We should be very concerned when the police start enforcing non-existent laws. When there are too many laws to keep track of, things like this are bound to happen.
Vista bad; OS design good; Linux Desktop almost ready
Reading about Windows Vista I decided that I would not upgrade. There is nothing in that operating system for me, as I expected.
It got me reading about Mac OS/X. I was particularly interested to discover that OS/X uses a Mach 3 kernel under the hood. This was interesting because it reminded me that back in high-school when I was working as IT support for a large company, that they were doing POS terminal development using Mach.
But what's even more fascinating is reading about the differences between Mach and Monokernels, and realizing how similar the operating system problem is to the enterprise application problem. There are similar forces at work: defining responsibilities, dealing with coupling, messaging, etc. Heck, the microkernel is even referred to as a "server" and the IPC mechanism uses "pipes". I might be able to find inspiration (and cautionary tales) in OS research and design.
(Of course, I couldn't help but read about Ubuntu and specifically gNewSense (the completely 'Free Software' alternative). Ubuntu is a lovely Linux distribution; I've used it before and liked it. Alas, it is still not as lovely as Windows running all of my favorite utilities and applications. But I have half a mind to start using it, and maybe even trying to contribute.)
It got me reading about Mac OS/X. I was particularly interested to discover that OS/X uses a Mach 3 kernel under the hood. This was interesting because it reminded me that back in high-school when I was working as IT support for a large company, that they were doing POS terminal development using Mach.
But what's even more fascinating is reading about the differences between Mach and Monokernels, and realizing how similar the operating system problem is to the enterprise application problem. There are similar forces at work: defining responsibilities, dealing with coupling, messaging, etc. Heck, the microkernel is even referred to as a "server" and the IPC mechanism uses "pipes". I might be able to find inspiration (and cautionary tales) in OS research and design.
(Of course, I couldn't help but read about Ubuntu and specifically gNewSense (the completely 'Free Software' alternative). Ubuntu is a lovely Linux distribution; I've used it before and liked it. Alas, it is still not as lovely as Windows running all of my favorite utilities and applications. But I have half a mind to start using it, and maybe even trying to contribute.)
Using foreign translations of a novel to solve plot puzzles
The seventh Harry Potter: A fan's questions: "How R A B, the initials of the mysterious character who is also hunting the Dark Lord's soul secrets, changed in the Dutch translation of the novel, where Regulus Black is called Regulus Zwarts and the initials read R A Z. In the Norwegian edition, apparently, Regulus has the surname Svaart, and the initials R A S. In the Finnish translation, I can tell you with knowledge gleaned from wikipedia, Regulus Black is called Regulus Musta, and the initials are R A M."
Stuff: Picco Z RTF Electric RC Mini Helicopter 2007 Version 3
This little helicopter is quite cool! 6" long and about 5g in wieght, 100' range on the radio. Pretty sweet.
Heartwrenching stories from Iraq
BBC News has put together exerpts from a variety of Iraqi blogs. It's heartwrenching:
BBC NEWS | Have Your Say | Iraqi bloggers react to the violence
BBC NEWS | Have Your Say | Iraqi bloggers react to the violence
Saparmurat Niyazov - who will mourn?
Reading about Saparmurat Niyazov's exploits begs the question: was he close buddies with Kim-Jung Il? Did they compare notes and share ideas on how to express their authoritarian vision more clearly, more forcefully, more completely?
But consider: was Mr. Niyazov actually evil? Sure he is repressive and brain-washed and isolated his country, but maybe by doing so he averted greater tragedy, such as civil war or sectarian strife. Sometimes in order to save a nation you have to destroy it, right?
But consider: was Mr. Niyazov actually evil? Sure he is repressive and brain-washed and isolated his country, but maybe by doing so he averted greater tragedy, such as civil war or sectarian strife. Sometimes in order to save a nation you have to destroy it, right?
Privacy In the Workplace
The discussion must assume benign intent on the part of the employer. Otherwise, defensiveness will result.
Surveillance is installed to protect people and property. People can be protected from each other in various ways: to deter physical assault, other kinds of abuse, and to deter fraud (particularly one person using another person's computer). Another minor usage is to find people.
Property is protected in various ways. Presumably there is a deterrant effect on theft, and if theft does occur, the video record can assist with recovery.
Given all of that, why is video surveillance of the office workplace wrong? The reductionist argument is that the information could be abused to cause personal harm. The coherentist argument is simpler: it's just wrong. (Check out this article which explains the difference.
Employers have every right (even duty) to continuously and electronically inspect anything and everything having to do with the work. But what about inspecting *me*?
"On Bloustein's view it is possible to give a general theory of individual privacy that reconciles its divergent strands, and 'inviolate personality' is the social value protected by privacy. It defines one's essence as a human being and it includes individual dignity and integrity, personal autonomy and independence. Respect for these values is what grounds and unifies the concept of privacy."
Surveillance is installed to protect people and property. People can be protected from each other in various ways: to deter physical assault, other kinds of abuse, and to deter fraud (particularly one person using another person's computer). Another minor usage is to find people.
Property is protected in various ways. Presumably there is a deterrant effect on theft, and if theft does occur, the video record can assist with recovery.
Given all of that, why is video surveillance of the office workplace wrong? The reductionist argument is that the information could be abused to cause personal harm. The coherentist argument is simpler: it's just wrong. (Check out this article which explains the difference.
Employers have every right (even duty) to continuously and electronically inspect anything and everything having to do with the work. But what about inspecting *me*?
"On Bloustein's view it is possible to give a general theory of individual privacy that reconciles its divergent strands, and 'inviolate personality' is the social value protected by privacy. It defines one's essence as a human being and it includes individual dignity and integrity, personal autonomy and independence. Respect for these values is what grounds and unifies the concept of privacy."
The joy of saying "no"
In a great conversation I had years ago with Richard Kim, we discussed the question "what is art?" After some initial stabs at the question, I came up with a definition which, to this day, I haven't found an exception to:
Art is constraint.
My initial inspiration for the definition was the fact that, if you put *anything* in a picture frame, you can legitamately call it art.
But why isn't a pile of sand, in and of itself, art? (Some people claim that it is, but I don't for the practical reason that allowing anything to be art renders the term useless)
It turns out that, from whereever you look at it, creativity is constraint. By constraining wood and steal and plaster to occupy certain positions in space, we create houses. "Constraint" is an important word here, because of it's strong association with "restraint", or to inhibit or keep within bounds. Constraint is a denial of many possibilities, and committing to one.
In life we are presented with infinite options. This is especially true the wealthier we are, and the more prosperous the society is in which we live. As our lives become less about the fight for survival, where instinct and reaction are important, and more about the fight for something more (self-realization, enlightenment, etc) we have to say "no" more. We might say "no" to dessert. We say "no" to drugs. Some of us say "no" to watching TV, or to premarital sex, or to fast food, or to pornography, or....
We are awash in oppurtunity to do wrong. And right. I daresay that the former outwieghs the later considerably. This array of choice *is* freedom. Because freedom is so frought with risk, some people don't like it. It's because they don't understand the joy of contraining their own behavior, the joy saying "no".
When you constrain yourself, when you say no, you are creating something. You're choosing. You're creating yourself. That is freedom.
Art is constraint.
My initial inspiration for the definition was the fact that, if you put *anything* in a picture frame, you can legitamately call it art.
But why isn't a pile of sand, in and of itself, art? (Some people claim that it is, but I don't for the practical reason that allowing anything to be art renders the term useless)
It turns out that, from whereever you look at it, creativity is constraint. By constraining wood and steal and plaster to occupy certain positions in space, we create houses. "Constraint" is an important word here, because of it's strong association with "restraint", or to inhibit or keep within bounds. Constraint is a denial of many possibilities, and committing to one.
In life we are presented with infinite options. This is especially true the wealthier we are, and the more prosperous the society is in which we live. As our lives become less about the fight for survival, where instinct and reaction are important, and more about the fight for something more (self-realization, enlightenment, etc) we have to say "no" more. We might say "no" to dessert. We say "no" to drugs. Some of us say "no" to watching TV, or to premarital sex, or to fast food, or to pornography, or....
We are awash in oppurtunity to do wrong. And right. I daresay that the former outwieghs the later considerably. This array of choice *is* freedom. Because freedom is so frought with risk, some people don't like it. It's because they don't understand the joy of contraining their own behavior, the joy saying "no".
When you constrain yourself, when you say no, you are creating something. You're choosing. You're creating yourself. That is freedom.
Movie Review: Princess Mononoke (1997)
Princess Mononoke // Nausicaa.net: "Set during the Muromachi Period (1333-1568) of Japan, Mononoke Hime is a story about a mystic fight between the Animal Gods of the forest and humans."
This doesn't really do this delightful film justice. Then again, neither did the voicing on the dubbed over American release.
This is an epic heroic fantasy story by writer/director Hayao Miyazaki. His signature plot complexity and visual wierdness delight many but is offputting to some. The story is thematically strong but unusually ambiguous.
Ashitaka is the hero, nobly born, who is mortally wounded defending his remote village from a demon of the forest. He is exiled, not unkindly, by the village elders according to the law of the clan, and Ashitaka goes without complaint into the west to meet his doom, riding his faithful red elk Yakkul.
Ashitaka is told that his cursed wound will certainly kill him, but that he might at least face his fate with courage in the west.
To make a long story short, he comes across "Iron Town", a human stronghold run by the strong and confident Lady Eboshi. There is a long-running struggle between the town and the spirits of the forest: Eboshi wants to cut down the forest and mine the ore of the mountain, and the forest spirits don't want their home destroyed. Complicating matters is the existance of one "Princess Mononoke" who has been raised by the wolf-god and who is not quite all human herself. Ashitaka immediately falls in love with her, and despite a difficult courtship that involves death threats from Mononoke, she ends up feeling the same way.
Ashitaka is a warrior, and, although very reluctant to do so, is able to kick some serious ass. He is fearless, generous, strong, and seems to have a good sense of perspective on things. A good role-model, I think.
This doesn't really do this delightful film justice. Then again, neither did the voicing on the dubbed over American release.
This is an epic heroic fantasy story by writer/director Hayao Miyazaki. His signature plot complexity and visual wierdness delight many but is offputting to some. The story is thematically strong but unusually ambiguous.
Ashitaka is the hero, nobly born, who is mortally wounded defending his remote village from a demon of the forest. He is exiled, not unkindly, by the village elders according to the law of the clan, and Ashitaka goes without complaint into the west to meet his doom, riding his faithful red elk Yakkul.
Ashitaka is told that his cursed wound will certainly kill him, but that he might at least face his fate with courage in the west.
To make a long story short, he comes across "Iron Town", a human stronghold run by the strong and confident Lady Eboshi. There is a long-running struggle between the town and the spirits of the forest: Eboshi wants to cut down the forest and mine the ore of the mountain, and the forest spirits don't want their home destroyed. Complicating matters is the existance of one "Princess Mononoke" who has been raised by the wolf-god and who is not quite all human herself. Ashitaka immediately falls in love with her, and despite a difficult courtship that involves death threats from Mononoke, she ends up feeling the same way.
Ashitaka is a warrior, and, although very reluctant to do so, is able to kick some serious ass. He is fearless, generous, strong, and seems to have a good sense of perspective on things. A good role-model, I think.
Movie Review: Casino Royale (2006)
I find myself not wanting to dwell on this movie any longer than necessary. It haswell-crafted action, but the move towards realism disturbs me. Bond films are always dangerous because they present a hero with extreme positive and negative attributes. My problem is not with the unrealistic action or technology, but with the character construction itself. The movie holds up this man as a hero, imbuing him with impeccable manners and taste in clothing, extraordinary daring, confidence, and fighting ability. They even have him fighting to protect the innocent from harm.
What's there not to like? I find it impossible to believe that a casual killer could remain "good" for long. (It's kind of like in "Lord of the Rings" where to use the One Ring would essentially turn it's wielder into another Sauron.) To associate so many positive qualities with so many negative ones is confusing - is James Bond a role-model or not? The Astin-Martins, impeccable clothing, rich life-style, and beautiful women ensure that audiences will err on the side of "James Bond *is* a role-model". I find that unfortunate.
But this is a man who kills a *lot* of people. Some of them in cold blood. When did assasins and spies - professional liars and killers - become role models?
Previous Bond films (not to mention countless other films in the same vein, especially the Bourne series) all had this same issue. But they also were so over-the-top that it was easy to accept as a cartoon. This latest installment, for the very reasons that the critics seem to laud, blurs that line and becomes more dangerous.
In many other respects the movie shines. Eva Green (of "The Dreamers" fame) is really gorgeous and exudes both with and smoldering sensuality. The action is shot with great skill - especially the opening "Precinct 13" inspired foot chase through a Madagascar construction site.
There is no doubt this will be a big hit. I just hope that people get entertained and think "I'm glad I don't have to be James Bond!" rather than "I really want to be James Bond!"
What's there not to like? I find it impossible to believe that a casual killer could remain "good" for long. (It's kind of like in "Lord of the Rings" where to use the One Ring would essentially turn it's wielder into another Sauron.) To associate so many positive qualities with so many negative ones is confusing - is James Bond a role-model or not? The Astin-Martins, impeccable clothing, rich life-style, and beautiful women ensure that audiences will err on the side of "James Bond *is* a role-model". I find that unfortunate.
But this is a man who kills a *lot* of people. Some of them in cold blood. When did assasins and spies - professional liars and killers - become role models?
Previous Bond films (not to mention countless other films in the same vein, especially the Bourne series) all had this same issue. But they also were so over-the-top that it was easy to accept as a cartoon. This latest installment, for the very reasons that the critics seem to laud, blurs that line and becomes more dangerous.
In many other respects the movie shines. Eva Green (of "The Dreamers" fame) is really gorgeous and exudes both with and smoldering sensuality. The action is shot with great skill - especially the opening "Precinct 13" inspired foot chase through a Madagascar construction site.
There is no doubt this will be a big hit. I just hope that people get entertained and think "I'm glad I don't have to be James Bond!" rather than "I really want to be James Bond!"
Capitalism's good side
Okay, I think it's pretty cool that a golf company paid to have a cosmonaught smack a golf ball from the International Space Station. I mean, why not?
Let's avoid giving too much credit to Iraqi hoodlums
When I read articles like this one I shake my head. "Coordinated attack by insurgents" makes it sound like these peddlers of senseless violence are more than ignorant thugs. I am against using words like "assault" and saying that the "timing is significant". These people are filled with ignorance and hatred and the timing is dictated by the ebb and flow of emotion more likely than not.
The preemptive invasion of Iraq was wrong, but the reaction of the Iraqi people to the overthrow of Saddam has been even more foolish. Instead of accepting billions of dollars of aid (handed to them on a platter curtesy of we American taxpayers) and a helping hand to freedom, they decide that now that daddy's out of the house it's time to play that same game that's held the region back for centuries, but has only recently been given the "American Idol" treatment. The game is called "kill my muslim brother" and now it's done not just for personal hatred, but for kicks and a desire to be famous. The arab world may not embrace western values in general, but they sure have embraced the whole "stardom" thing.
There is no sense in the violence going on; not even bad sense. Iraqis could have made the best out of a bad situation, accepted huge gifts from America (yes, even with some strings), and instead have abandoned all self-restraint to indulge in an orgy of atrocious violence.
Grow up, Iraq. Mohammad would be ashamed of you all.
The preemptive invasion of Iraq was wrong, but the reaction of the Iraqi people to the overthrow of Saddam has been even more foolish. Instead of accepting billions of dollars of aid (handed to them on a platter curtesy of we American taxpayers) and a helping hand to freedom, they decide that now that daddy's out of the house it's time to play that same game that's held the region back for centuries, but has only recently been given the "American Idol" treatment. The game is called "kill my muslim brother" and now it's done not just for personal hatred, but for kicks and a desire to be famous. The arab world may not embrace western values in general, but they sure have embraced the whole "stardom" thing.
There is no sense in the violence going on; not even bad sense. Iraqis could have made the best out of a bad situation, accepted huge gifts from America (yes, even with some strings), and instead have abandoned all self-restraint to indulge in an orgy of atrocious violence.
Grow up, Iraq. Mohammad would be ashamed of you all.
Surveillance, privacy rights, and the 4th Amendment
"Why do you care if we watch you if you have nothing to hide?" This is a tough question to answer, but it's not even clear if this is the right question, or a fair one.
Privacy rights are not mentioned in the Constitution, but it's hard not to take that as the gist of the 4th Amendment:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
I think it has something to do with not setting up an antagonistic relationship between the state and the individual. There is a tacit agreement that perfect enforcement of the law is not always desirable. This is, at least in part, the point of Orwell's _1984_. Enforcement should require effort on the part of the state. (This is why I don't like cameras at intersections and why the public would never allow speed monitors on cars (which would automatically deduct cash from your bank account when you cross the speed limit).)
It's not that I think that speeding laws are bad, or even that I shouldn't follow the law. It's just that I am human and I know that means I will make mistakes. The requirement that another fallable human being must be there to pursue 'justice' is a good one - there is a certain balance. It also means that I don't have to live up to a machine's (impossible) standards.
(Interestingly, I would be more in favor of speed-limited cars than automatic fines. At least you're not given the rope to hang yourself with. It would be draconian and wrong, but automatic fines are sneakily evil. It's the state saying "we know you will mess up, and when you do we will profit from your weakness.")
The wiki article on privacy is a good one, but it doesn't specifically address the annoying pro-invasion-of-privacy argument above. The closest it comes is when it says that "information is power, and so information can be used to dominate the individual." But it's not clear in what way.
I need to think some more about this. Ah, here is another article, written in 1890, that is quite lucid. I find it interesting that the technology of concern of that period was the photograph and the newspaper!
Privacy rights are not mentioned in the Constitution, but it's hard not to take that as the gist of the 4th Amendment:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
I think it has something to do with not setting up an antagonistic relationship between the state and the individual. There is a tacit agreement that perfect enforcement of the law is not always desirable. This is, at least in part, the point of Orwell's _1984_. Enforcement should require effort on the part of the state. (This is why I don't like cameras at intersections and why the public would never allow speed monitors on cars (which would automatically deduct cash from your bank account when you cross the speed limit).)
It's not that I think that speeding laws are bad, or even that I shouldn't follow the law. It's just that I am human and I know that means I will make mistakes. The requirement that another fallable human being must be there to pursue 'justice' is a good one - there is a certain balance. It also means that I don't have to live up to a machine's (impossible) standards.
(Interestingly, I would be more in favor of speed-limited cars than automatic fines. At least you're not given the rope to hang yourself with. It would be draconian and wrong, but automatic fines are sneakily evil. It's the state saying "we know you will mess up, and when you do we will profit from your weakness.")
The wiki article on privacy is a good one, but it doesn't specifically address the annoying pro-invasion-of-privacy argument above. The closest it comes is when it says that "information is power, and so information can be used to dominate the individual." But it's not clear in what way.
I need to think some more about this. Ah, here is another article, written in 1890, that is quite lucid. I find it interesting that the technology of concern of that period was the photograph and the newspaper!
Zune and the triumph of the Biased Product Review
Zune really isn't that interesting to me: I own an iPod and am fairly happy with it. (It could stand to drive my Sennheiser headphones a bit better, though).
What is interesting is the oppurtunity this affords a biased media, and the revelation that, frankly, the readership doesn't care one way or the other.
Here's a comment about the iLounge Review: "You can call [the review] biased if you want, but like it or not, Jeremy nailed the reality of the current situation right squarely on the head. Great article."
So really, iPod advocates like "lancetx" don't really care about bias as long as they agree with it.
I am bothered more by this irresponsible attitude than any specific position on any specific topic, be they political or technical. Bias is not acceptible whether you agree with it or not. Indeed, agreeable bias should be unacceptable because eventually it weakens an otherwise sound position.
What is interesting is the oppurtunity this affords a biased media, and the revelation that, frankly, the readership doesn't care one way or the other.
Here's a comment about the iLounge Review: "You can call [the review] biased if you want, but like it or not, Jeremy nailed the reality of the current situation right squarely on the head. Great article."
So really, iPod advocates like "lancetx" don't really care about bias as long as they agree with it.
I am bothered more by this irresponsible attitude than any specific position on any specific topic, be they political or technical. Bias is not acceptible whether you agree with it or not. Indeed, agreeable bias should be unacceptable because eventually it weakens an otherwise sound position.
Movie Review: Primer (2004)
Thumbs down for Primer (2004), a science-fiction time travel film. This might suprise people who know me (as it suprised me) as this film has lots of attributes I normally like: hard sf, cerebral, independantly made.
It's been a while since I've seen this film, and I've avoided a review because I couldn't quite figure out why I didn't like it (I'm waiting to review "Borat!" for the same reason). Fundamentally it's because I didn't like the characters. They are too mumbly-clever. They are not circumspect enough. They are embedded in this gedanken-experiment and never look up from the problems assigned to them in their cubicles. They are walking, talking corporate cogs (there's that word again) set to spin in a different sort of box.
This image is reenforced by the omnipresent shirts and ties. That, although friends, the two principle characters are primarily related through commercial relationship. Is it any wonder that this incredible device rips through their already thread-bare relationship and pokes holes in their paper-thin personalities?
I listend to some of the director's commentary to get a better handle on what was intended with this film. Shane Carruth wrote (and directed) this picture to explore how special circumstances can occastion the disintegration of trust between friends. I don't know why he picked garage-inventors, people who, to be frank, don't have a great reputation for trusting others to begin with, and who's motivation is even more greed-based than most. Good heavens, you could strain that sort of relationship by raising the price of gas and have one partner feel resentful that the lab isn't in *his* garage.
I suppose too that there is a lack of range-of-emotion that matches the flat colors of the picture. Cerebral tension and anxiety displace any oppurtunity to display warmer emotion. One of the main characters, Aaron, has a wife and kid who we see once. We never see the effect of increasing strain and anxiety on that relationship.
There is a strong message here, though, and that is: Leave well enough alone! Even if you have the power to do something, sometimes the best thing to do is nothing.
It's been a while since I've seen this film, and I've avoided a review because I couldn't quite figure out why I didn't like it (I'm waiting to review "Borat!" for the same reason). Fundamentally it's because I didn't like the characters. They are too mumbly-clever. They are not circumspect enough. They are embedded in this gedanken-experiment and never look up from the problems assigned to them in their cubicles. They are walking, talking corporate cogs (there's that word again) set to spin in a different sort of box.
This image is reenforced by the omnipresent shirts and ties. That, although friends, the two principle characters are primarily related through commercial relationship. Is it any wonder that this incredible device rips through their already thread-bare relationship and pokes holes in their paper-thin personalities?
I listend to some of the director's commentary to get a better handle on what was intended with this film. Shane Carruth wrote (and directed) this picture to explore how special circumstances can occastion the disintegration of trust between friends. I don't know why he picked garage-inventors, people who, to be frank, don't have a great reputation for trusting others to begin with, and who's motivation is even more greed-based than most. Good heavens, you could strain that sort of relationship by raising the price of gas and have one partner feel resentful that the lab isn't in *his* garage.
I suppose too that there is a lack of range-of-emotion that matches the flat colors of the picture. Cerebral tension and anxiety displace any oppurtunity to display warmer emotion. One of the main characters, Aaron, has a wife and kid who we see once. We never see the effect of increasing strain and anxiety on that relationship.
There is a strong message here, though, and that is: Leave well enough alone! Even if you have the power to do something, sometimes the best thing to do is nothing.
Movie Review: Constantine (2005)
(this review contains spoilers)
Constantine (2005) was quite entertaining, and I found myself really touched by two performances in particular: Tilda Swinton playing Gabriel-gone-awry, and Peter Stormare in a wonderful Satan role. (Keanu Reeves does his normal thing, and Rachael Weisz, looking as gorgeous as usual, phones it in). The rest of the movie is predictable super-natural action.
Stormare's Satan has about 2 minutes of screen time, but he captures the essence of Satan in that one moment when he looks at God. The sadness and loss is palpable on his face. The story of Satan is the ultimate cautionary tale, that of an angel who has badly lost his way, who is so wracked with terrible cravings and emotion that he is forever driven away from the peace and harmony of God. In that one moment when Satan lifts his red-rimmed eyes (due to all-night partying, no doubt) to the Light, Satan as the ultmate evil-doer ultimately deserves our pity.
I've liked Swinton since her turn in the otherwise poor "The Beach". Here, she paints a subtly *wrong* angel Gabriel - and that wrongness is rooted firmly in hubris. It turns out that Gabriel *wants* hell-on-earth because "only when faced with horror does mankind show his nobility." So this is an example of the "we had to destroy the villiage to save it" sort of reasoning. (As an aside, Gabriel is absolutely wrong as nobility can be shown, or not shown, in any circumstance. Hopefully real angels, if they exist, are better thinkers than the script-writers of this movie.)
Swinton exudes a variety of emotion in her too-brief screen time: arrogance, jealousy, a kind of do-gooder superior snideness. She portrays the kind of person (or angel) who is far to certain that they are right, and who suffers for it in the end. (Although, to be fair, it is only the conceit of the storyteller that things end up for the best when Gabriel is thwarted. The author would be within their rights to claim that Gabriel's plan was a good one, one requiring daring and great confidence, and that if successful mankind would indeed be better off spiritually if not materially. I guess my only retort is that such a conceit would *suck*.)
Constantine (2005) was quite entertaining, and I found myself really touched by two performances in particular: Tilda Swinton playing Gabriel-gone-awry, and Peter Stormare in a wonderful Satan role. (Keanu Reeves does his normal thing, and Rachael Weisz, looking as gorgeous as usual, phones it in). The rest of the movie is predictable super-natural action.
Stormare's Satan has about 2 minutes of screen time, but he captures the essence of Satan in that one moment when he looks at God. The sadness and loss is palpable on his face. The story of Satan is the ultimate cautionary tale, that of an angel who has badly lost his way, who is so wracked with terrible cravings and emotion that he is forever driven away from the peace and harmony of God. In that one moment when Satan lifts his red-rimmed eyes (due to all-night partying, no doubt) to the Light, Satan as the ultmate evil-doer ultimately deserves our pity.
I've liked Swinton since her turn in the otherwise poor "The Beach". Here, she paints a subtly *wrong* angel Gabriel - and that wrongness is rooted firmly in hubris. It turns out that Gabriel *wants* hell-on-earth because "only when faced with horror does mankind show his nobility." So this is an example of the "we had to destroy the villiage to save it" sort of reasoning. (As an aside, Gabriel is absolutely wrong as nobility can be shown, or not shown, in any circumstance. Hopefully real angels, if they exist, are better thinkers than the script-writers of this movie.)
Swinton exudes a variety of emotion in her too-brief screen time: arrogance, jealousy, a kind of do-gooder superior snideness. She portrays the kind of person (or angel) who is far to certain that they are right, and who suffers for it in the end. (Although, to be fair, it is only the conceit of the storyteller that things end up for the best when Gabriel is thwarted. The author would be within their rights to claim that Gabriel's plan was a good one, one requiring daring and great confidence, and that if successful mankind would indeed be better off spiritually if not materially. I guess my only retort is that such a conceit would *suck*.)
Monarch of the Glen (painting) - connecting an aristocratic past with a corporate present
Monarch of the Glen is a gorgeous painting. Perhaps watching "The Corporation" leaves me sensitive to such issues, but the fact that this painting is being used as a logo for both Glenfiddich (alchohol) and Hartford Financial Services Group (insurance) strikes me as somehow disturbing.Perhaps I don't understand Landseer's purpose with this piece. It was commissioned to depict "subjects connected with the chase". If I was a landed gentry sipping brandy in the House of Lords gazing on this piece, how on Earth would it inspire me to go out and kill a stag of my own? "My word, what a majestic beast; shall we go out and kill one of our own?" "Old boy, what a capital idea. I shall have my man make the arrangements."
I think the disturbing thing is that it's use as corporate logo fits quite neatly with how *I* see the piece: it is an example of certain fine qualities: strength, vigor, majesty, with perhaps a touch of arrogance but guided by a certain deep wisdom. In addition, the painting is percieved today as quite traditional with strong undertones of conservativism, stability, and reliability.
(Glenfiddich using this princely beast as a logo disturbs me less than Citibank using the Rolling Stones "I'm Free" to sell consumer credit or Cadillac using Led Zeppelin ("Misty Mountain Hop"?) to sell cars.
What's up with those classic rocker sellouts anyway? Gee whiz, it's one thing to have 99% of baby boomer hippies turn Republican, but it's quite another when even their iconic standard bearers sell out to The Man. When Joni Mitchell's "Pave paradise" is used non-ironically in an Caterpillar ad, my disappointment will be complete.)
Note to self: evaluate this product
Servoy - smart technology for smart clients
This was an ad that came up in gmail while I was reading a message about Ruby/Rails. The site certainly looks nice, but I want to evaluate the product, too.
This was an ad that came up in gmail while I was reading a message about Ruby/Rails. The site certainly looks nice, but I want to evaluate the product, too.
Movie Review: The Corporation (2003)
The Corporation is a thought-provoking documentary that brings many disturbing facts to light about the history of the modern corporation, especially corporate abuse of public welfare via "externalities" (side effects of a business transaction that affect people not directly involved; things like pollution).
This was shocking, and I think more people should know this information. However, I disagree with the documentary's assertion that the proper way to deal with this is by using government institutions to exert greater control over corporations.
The way to solve the problem, I think, is to have a perfectly informed customer. In this way, the customer can decide what is important to them. Another good solution is to provide customers with ways to aggregate their concerns: frankly, I think companies would act a lot better if there were more class-action suits.
I have a lot more to say about this movie, especially the irony I felt watching it on my IBM laptop having ordered it through Netflix, and knowing that a "corporation" provided virtually all of Noam Chomsky's wardrobe, the movie cameras, and every technical aspect of the filming. How is it that a man (or woman) who sees a need and creates a product or service to meet that need is not evil and yet when that person creates an organization it becomes evil? Why is the freelance masseuse advertising on craigslist any better than GM or BMW? (In short, they are not: it's just that they are less of a risk; they weild less power and therefore even if they make immoral decisions they will have little effect. Furthermore, they are criminally liable for their 'companies' acts, although it still doesn't address the "externalities" problem. Good heavens, that masseuse is, like, totally polluting when they drive their VW bug to your house, not to mention that VW was Hitler's creation.)
The bottom line: good cautionary info, but bad conclusions. The government is not a magical entity is just like normal people but smarter, more moral, or more effective. It's an organization just like the corporation and in many ways even worse: after being funded, a government has NO accountability, not even to "shareholders".
This was shocking, and I think more people should know this information. However, I disagree with the documentary's assertion that the proper way to deal with this is by using government institutions to exert greater control over corporations.
The way to solve the problem, I think, is to have a perfectly informed customer. In this way, the customer can decide what is important to them. Another good solution is to provide customers with ways to aggregate their concerns: frankly, I think companies would act a lot better if there were more class-action suits.
I have a lot more to say about this movie, especially the irony I felt watching it on my IBM laptop having ordered it through Netflix, and knowing that a "corporation" provided virtually all of Noam Chomsky's wardrobe, the movie cameras, and every technical aspect of the filming. How is it that a man (or woman) who sees a need and creates a product or service to meet that need is not evil and yet when that person creates an organization it becomes evil? Why is the freelance masseuse advertising on craigslist any better than GM or BMW? (In short, they are not: it's just that they are less of a risk; they weild less power and therefore even if they make immoral decisions they will have little effect. Furthermore, they are criminally liable for their 'companies' acts, although it still doesn't address the "externalities" problem. Good heavens, that masseuse is, like, totally polluting when they drive their VW bug to your house, not to mention that VW was Hitler's creation.)
The bottom line: good cautionary info, but bad conclusions. The government is not a magical entity is just like normal people but smarter, more moral, or more effective. It's an organization just like the corporation and in many ways even worse: after being funded, a government has NO accountability, not even to "shareholders".
The definition of magic
What is magic? This question is not just idle speculation, but rests at the heart of understanding our own attitudes towards people who believe (or do not believe) in what is normally considered magical phenomena. This is particularly important for me since I tend to be very anti-magic and have a barely concealed disdain for believers which I am not proud of and endeavor to leave behind. It is not that I think I'm wrong to think that magic is silly, it is that negative emotional reaction that is undignified (not to mention ineffective when trying to persuade others).
This usenet discussion inspired this new tack on an old subject. My approach is motivated by a desire to be more effective rather than some pedantic need to be right, so I would give more emphasis to social aspects.
In my view, the assertion that something is magical implies certain intellectual immobility on the part of the speaker. (It could also asserted for entertainment, but we are limiting ourselves to credulous assertions). They are asserting that the phenomena cannot be explained further, and refuse to even try. This immobility can be caused by laziness or ignorance.
There are plenty of things that science cannot explain: the interior structure of an electron, high-temperature superconductivity, how gravity works at the microscopic level, etc. But there is no scientist worth his salt who would ever say, "this phenomena cannot be probed further, that we have reached the limit of what is knowable". There is immobility at the limits of science, too, but the scientist has the strong intention to push past it, and that makes all the difference.
What sorts of ignorance can sap the drive to know and turn magical? The nature of the ignorance is dependant on the nature of the belief. Perhaps the belief represents some wanted view that gives comfort. Perhaps the belief is held out of fear that one will be harmed if it is not held. I'm sure that you can think of many examples of these sorts of beliefs in the fields of religion, holistic healthcare, and others.
What is interesting (and unique, as far as I know) is that the actual belief doesn't matter: it's the intention behind the belief. One can have a scientific belief in the healing power of crystals, or one can have a magical belief in the healing power of crystals. The former thinks the phenomena is real, can be measured, and probably has some explanation which is consistent with the rest of science. That latter believes the phenomena is "real", but does not think it can be measured or explained (and indeed would probably prefer if it didn't).
There is a very subtle argument in favor of magical belief, which is that such beliefs can have real positive impact. For example, if you believe that a talisman has some protective power over you, and this helps you to ride a motorcycle with confidence. It is well known that confident riders are less likely to crash. So what's the problem with this belief?
Honestly, there is no big problem with it. There are potentially small problems: perhaps the person has unjustified confidence, perhpas they loose the talisman, etc. But such a belief is harmless and in fact might do some good.
What about the case of a healing crystal? Someone with a magical belief in the crystal my find it helpful to have an external reminder of positive emotions that are well-known to be actually healing. The difference here is that some disease is going on, and the crystal will have a positive mental effect on the believer, but the disease will remain mostly unaffected (good spirits boosting the immune system aside). There is a great possibility of harm here.
What about the case of the devout Christian? He has the magical belief that Jesus died for his sins, and that if he doesn't accept Jesus as the savior that he will spend eternity in hell. Again, in and of itself there is no great harm here. But there is harm when this devout Christian seeks to force others to share his belief "for their own good".
What about the case of the snake oil merchant? He himself does not have a magical or scientific belief in the efficacy of his wares, but knows that his customers do. He realizes that in order to be effective (and profitable) he must decieve his customers and tell them that this oil has certain properties. The positive mental attitude kicks in, and some of his claims become true simply because he made the claim and was believed. Where is the harm here?
Deception is wrong, of course, but that's just the beginning of the harm. The simple fact is there is a limit to how much healing one person can affect via positive mental attitude. This places a strict limit on the snake oil merchant's claims. So as long as he stays within that limit, there is little harm. Once he makes outlandish claims that are easily checked, he runs into trouble.
The mechanism that complicates this is that the salesman might claim that it didn't work because of some failing of the customer. Or that they need to buy more of the oil, and believe harder. In the end, this helps the snake oil salesman make a living off of the sick yet credulous people of his community. This is, of course, despicable, and it's why the meeting place between spirituality and commerce is such a tricky place.
I believe there is magic in the world. We do magic every day when we create intricate machines that actually work, and when we organize our thoughts and create artwork. That I can concieve of something and then create it, using an understanding of the laws of nature and working with them patiently and persistently: how is this not magical? We live in a world which is elegant and beautiful in every respect. To work with it, shape it, understand it is to unveil ever more intricate magic. I think if more people understood this remarkable universe they would be too busy getting excited and poking around nature to have time to visit the snake oil salesman. Well, perhaps they would go to him and ask him if he'd like to participate in a clinical trial, at which point he would almost certainly move on to another town. :)
This usenet discussion inspired this new tack on an old subject. My approach is motivated by a desire to be more effective rather than some pedantic need to be right, so I would give more emphasis to social aspects.
In my view, the assertion that something is magical implies certain intellectual immobility on the part of the speaker. (It could also asserted for entertainment, but we are limiting ourselves to credulous assertions). They are asserting that the phenomena cannot be explained further, and refuse to even try. This immobility can be caused by laziness or ignorance.
There are plenty of things that science cannot explain: the interior structure of an electron, high-temperature superconductivity, how gravity works at the microscopic level, etc. But there is no scientist worth his salt who would ever say, "this phenomena cannot be probed further, that we have reached the limit of what is knowable". There is immobility at the limits of science, too, but the scientist has the strong intention to push past it, and that makes all the difference.
What sorts of ignorance can sap the drive to know and turn magical? The nature of the ignorance is dependant on the nature of the belief. Perhaps the belief represents some wanted view that gives comfort. Perhaps the belief is held out of fear that one will be harmed if it is not held. I'm sure that you can think of many examples of these sorts of beliefs in the fields of religion, holistic healthcare, and others.
What is interesting (and unique, as far as I know) is that the actual belief doesn't matter: it's the intention behind the belief. One can have a scientific belief in the healing power of crystals, or one can have a magical belief in the healing power of crystals. The former thinks the phenomena is real, can be measured, and probably has some explanation which is consistent with the rest of science. That latter believes the phenomena is "real", but does not think it can be measured or explained (and indeed would probably prefer if it didn't).
There is a very subtle argument in favor of magical belief, which is that such beliefs can have real positive impact. For example, if you believe that a talisman has some protective power over you, and this helps you to ride a motorcycle with confidence. It is well known that confident riders are less likely to crash. So what's the problem with this belief?
Honestly, there is no big problem with it. There are potentially small problems: perhaps the person has unjustified confidence, perhpas they loose the talisman, etc. But such a belief is harmless and in fact might do some good.
What about the case of a healing crystal? Someone with a magical belief in the crystal my find it helpful to have an external reminder of positive emotions that are well-known to be actually healing. The difference here is that some disease is going on, and the crystal will have a positive mental effect on the believer, but the disease will remain mostly unaffected (good spirits boosting the immune system aside). There is a great possibility of harm here.
What about the case of the devout Christian? He has the magical belief that Jesus died for his sins, and that if he doesn't accept Jesus as the savior that he will spend eternity in hell. Again, in and of itself there is no great harm here. But there is harm when this devout Christian seeks to force others to share his belief "for their own good".
What about the case of the snake oil merchant? He himself does not have a magical or scientific belief in the efficacy of his wares, but knows that his customers do. He realizes that in order to be effective (and profitable) he must decieve his customers and tell them that this oil has certain properties. The positive mental attitude kicks in, and some of his claims become true simply because he made the claim and was believed. Where is the harm here?
Deception is wrong, of course, but that's just the beginning of the harm. The simple fact is there is a limit to how much healing one person can affect via positive mental attitude. This places a strict limit on the snake oil merchant's claims. So as long as he stays within that limit, there is little harm. Once he makes outlandish claims that are easily checked, he runs into trouble.
The mechanism that complicates this is that the salesman might claim that it didn't work because of some failing of the customer. Or that they need to buy more of the oil, and believe harder. In the end, this helps the snake oil salesman make a living off of the sick yet credulous people of his community. This is, of course, despicable, and it's why the meeting place between spirituality and commerce is such a tricky place.
I believe there is magic in the world. We do magic every day when we create intricate machines that actually work, and when we organize our thoughts and create artwork. That I can concieve of something and then create it, using an understanding of the laws of nature and working with them patiently and persistently: how is this not magical? We live in a world which is elegant and beautiful in every respect. To work with it, shape it, understand it is to unveil ever more intricate magic. I think if more people understood this remarkable universe they would be too busy getting excited and poking around nature to have time to visit the snake oil salesman. Well, perhaps they would go to him and ask him if he'd like to participate in a clinical trial, at which point he would almost certainly move on to another town. :)
Costco SanDisk 1GB Ultra II Secure Digital PLUS USB 2.0 Flash Drive
Costco SanDisk 1GB Ultra II Secure Digital PLUS USB 2.0 Flash Drive: "combines USB and SD functionality in a single card" via a hinged lid.
This is handy for digital cameras (being able to download anywhere) and for ultraportables with only SD slots, like my X41 - this is an ideal "sneakernet" device. It's better than a thumb drive for the simple fact that it doesn't "stick out" and could stay in the computer until needed.
This is handy for digital cameras (being able to download anywhere) and for ultraportables with only SD slots, like my X41 - this is an ideal "sneakernet" device. It's better than a thumb drive for the simple fact that it doesn't "stick out" and could stay in the computer until needed.
2GB Stainless Steel USB Watch Drive
This is a cool product. The Edge™ 2GB Stainless Steel USB Watch Drive is a sharp looking watch with a secret: there's a USB drive in there. One could store things like private keys, important documents, or software that is useful to have (perhaps a bootable knoppix image?)
Voice of the Beehive "Honey Lingers"
I forgot about this album Honey Lingers: Music: Voice of the Beehive from 1991 but it has influenced my ear for pop. It is quite listenable, if a bit sweet for my tastes these days. The instrumentation definitely makes me smile. (I ran into a bootleg recording while mastering some old cassette tapes. I had completely forgotten that this band exists.)
Hard to believe it's been 15 years since this albums release.
Hard to believe it's been 15 years since this albums release.
Of mornings
This morning it struck me how like to birth the morning is. Perhaps that is why people are so friendly in the morning - the night has washed away a layer of memory, early dew has perhaps washed away a layer of grime. The day is young, unformed, full of promise, waiting to be shaped.
A corallary to the simile is that the evening is like to death. I feel a reluctance to draw this parallel because death has some very negative associations with evil in this culture. But honesty compels me to do so; and perhaps some of the positive aspects of death can be explored. "Cessation" is not, in and of itself, a bad thing. Consider the cessation of pain, or the disappation of a toxic spill.
Indeed, one could say that the little oblivion that the night and sleep provide is the basis of early morning joy. "Ignorance is bliss" is often said ironically, but there is a hint of truth to it. A good rest gives a particular kind of wholesome "ignorance" - the ability to ignore our desires and fears to see the past for what it is, a useful store of information which is static and passive.
To claim that the morning is better than the evening seems silly when you understand their interdependancy. What does this imply about birth and death?
A corallary to the simile is that the evening is like to death. I feel a reluctance to draw this parallel because death has some very negative associations with evil in this culture. But honesty compels me to do so; and perhaps some of the positive aspects of death can be explored. "Cessation" is not, in and of itself, a bad thing. Consider the cessation of pain, or the disappation of a toxic spill.
Indeed, one could say that the little oblivion that the night and sleep provide is the basis of early morning joy. "Ignorance is bliss" is often said ironically, but there is a hint of truth to it. A good rest gives a particular kind of wholesome "ignorance" - the ability to ignore our desires and fears to see the past for what it is, a useful store of information which is static and passive.
To claim that the morning is better than the evening seems silly when you understand their interdependancy. What does this imply about birth and death?
Kerry Please just Go Away Now
Kerry Apologizes for Iraq Remark - New York Times: "At the rally, Mr. Kerry said: 'You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.'"
A bit steamed
I'm a bit steamed after being told I failed a screening test on the Java language. The employer shall remain nameless. But I wanted to recount some interesting thoughts about this.
First, getting steamed is never the right move. It might be understandable, even expected, but it's wrong. At the very least it makes life momentarily unpleasent for the irritated person.
I got steamed because I was told I had to do "a little better" before I would be considered for the position. In other words, I failed. It never feels good to fail, and I think I was partly angry over that simple fact. But...
This test was extremely odd. It tested very edge-casey aspects of the Java language and Java Virtual Machine. It tested wierd stuff that I've never had reason to look at. Interesting stuff.
Interesting yes, but useful in picking out "senior Java developers?" I have my doubts, and that's another reason why I got steamed - thatI failed a test that didn't measure what the position actually requires.
Of course, that is the folly of the employer, not me. So why should I be steamed?
Really, it's because I don't like to fail, because I don't want to see myself as a failure. I am attached to my image as a senior Java developer, and if someone says that's not what I am, then I get angry at that someone and suggest there is something wrong with *them*.
This is not uncommon, or unusual, but it is unhealthy. Let's say that they are wrong: it does much less good to point out a flaw in anger than to point out a flaw with a genuine spirit of helpfulness and dare I say, humility.
What I would like is for a developer from that employer to contact me and explain how the knowledge tested is applicable in a real-world situation. That would be very useful to me, because, astonishingly, there might be real gaps in my knowledge that might impact the quality of my work. And if there is no such explaination (which I strongly suspect!) then I know that there is something amiss with the nameless employer, and not with me. In any event there is no occasion for anger.
Lessons learned: it hurts to be humble, it takes control, but do it anyway. Humility is especially powerful when you are right. Anger, even (especially?) rightous anger, is never useful. It blinds you to oppurtunities in an otherwise unwanted situation.
First, getting steamed is never the right move. It might be understandable, even expected, but it's wrong. At the very least it makes life momentarily unpleasent for the irritated person.
I got steamed because I was told I had to do "a little better" before I would be considered for the position. In other words, I failed. It never feels good to fail, and I think I was partly angry over that simple fact. But...
This test was extremely odd. It tested very edge-casey aspects of the Java language and Java Virtual Machine. It tested wierd stuff that I've never had reason to look at. Interesting stuff.
Interesting yes, but useful in picking out "senior Java developers?" I have my doubts, and that's another reason why I got steamed - thatI failed a test that didn't measure what the position actually requires.
Of course, that is the folly of the employer, not me. So why should I be steamed?
Really, it's because I don't like to fail, because I don't want to see myself as a failure. I am attached to my image as a senior Java developer, and if someone says that's not what I am, then I get angry at that someone and suggest there is something wrong with *them*.
This is not uncommon, or unusual, but it is unhealthy. Let's say that they are wrong: it does much less good to point out a flaw in anger than to point out a flaw with a genuine spirit of helpfulness and dare I say, humility.
What I would like is for a developer from that employer to contact me and explain how the knowledge tested is applicable in a real-world situation. That would be very useful to me, because, astonishingly, there might be real gaps in my knowledge that might impact the quality of my work. And if there is no such explaination (which I strongly suspect!) then I know that there is something amiss with the nameless employer, and not with me. In any event there is no occasion for anger.
Lessons learned: it hurts to be humble, it takes control, but do it anyway. Humility is especially powerful when you are right. Anger, even (especially?) rightous anger, is never useful. It blinds you to oppurtunities in an otherwise unwanted situation.
Putting teeth into anti-consumerism
BBC News has an article about the Stern Review which predicts the following issues if action is not taken now:
What we can do
Wise consumption is not only good for your soul, but it's practical, too. The problem does indeed begin with consumers not being aware of the impact of their consumption on the world. This is because of how divorced they are from the source of the elements in what they are buying. Where does the plastic come from? The paper? The metal? Where do they come from? What is the by product created by the factory?
One excellent move would be to encourage more factory production and raw-material harvesting here. This would save shipping costs. It would provide low-skilled jobs to those that need them. It would also force us to tackle the ugliness of consumption because production would be occuring right in our backyard. Let's face it, wealthy people love to export the dirty work; it happens on a personal level (dry-cleaners, car-wash, body shop) and it also happens on a global level.
The juggernaught of capitalism will not turn on a dime. It will be hard for distributors and retailers to find alternatives to China, India, and Brazil for their wares. But I truly do not understand why an American can't go into a Target, pick out any item on the shelves, and go start a factory that produces a better version for less right here.
The answer is too often dismissed as "wages are so much less over there". But there is also the issue of complexity: there are many rules and regulations that must be complied with. Enforcing those rules and regulations takes time. Just building a structure can take months waiting for plans to be approved by a county or city. Then there are byzantine laws that govern salaries, etc. All of this complexity takes intelligent specialists to handle, each of which costs a great deal of money to hire.
I propose a reality-TV experiment to do just that: grab an American entrepenuer or two and tell them to go into a Wall-Mart or Target and pick an item. Give them some money and let them attempt to compete with the Chinese supplier. See if it can be done.
- Melting glaciers will increase flood risk
- Crop yields will decline, particularly in Africa
- Rising sea levels could leave 200 million people permanently displaced
- Up to 40% of species could face extinction
- There will be more examples of extreme weather patterns
What we can do
- Reduce consumer demand for heavily polluting goods and services
- Make global energy supply more efficient
- Act on non-energy emissions - preventing further deforestation would go a long way towards alleviating this source of carbon emissions
- Promote cleaner energy and transport technology, with non-fossil fuels accounting for 60% of energy output by 2050
Wise consumption is not only good for your soul, but it's practical, too. The problem does indeed begin with consumers not being aware of the impact of their consumption on the world. This is because of how divorced they are from the source of the elements in what they are buying. Where does the plastic come from? The paper? The metal? Where do they come from? What is the by product created by the factory?
One excellent move would be to encourage more factory production and raw-material harvesting here. This would save shipping costs. It would provide low-skilled jobs to those that need them. It would also force us to tackle the ugliness of consumption because production would be occuring right in our backyard. Let's face it, wealthy people love to export the dirty work; it happens on a personal level (dry-cleaners, car-wash, body shop) and it also happens on a global level.
The juggernaught of capitalism will not turn on a dime. It will be hard for distributors and retailers to find alternatives to China, India, and Brazil for their wares. But I truly do not understand why an American can't go into a Target, pick out any item on the shelves, and go start a factory that produces a better version for less right here.
The answer is too often dismissed as "wages are so much less over there". But there is also the issue of complexity: there are many rules and regulations that must be complied with. Enforcing those rules and regulations takes time. Just building a structure can take months waiting for plans to be approved by a county or city. Then there are byzantine laws that govern salaries, etc. All of this complexity takes intelligent specialists to handle, each of which costs a great deal of money to hire.
I propose a reality-TV experiment to do just that: grab an American entrepenuer or two and tell them to go into a Wall-Mart or Target and pick an item. Give them some money and let them attempt to compete with the Chinese supplier. See if it can be done.
Southpark World of Warcraft Episode
Just in case I ever forget why I refuse to play these kind of games:
South Park - Make Love, No Warcraft
South Park - Make Love, No Warcraft
The bright side to 6 billion
The way I figure it, is with 6 billion people on the planet that means that I can upset several billion people before I run out of people with whom I can hope to have a reasonable relationship.
Practically speaking, I'm more likely to forge relationships with people in my own area, who speak my own language etc. So the recent news that the US population will pass 300 million is quite welcome.
America at 300 Million
Practically speaking, I'm more likely to forge relationships with people in my own area, who speak my own language etc. So the recent news that the US population will pass 300 million is quite welcome.
America at 300 Million
How to play the Dreidel game
An important FYI.
Hanukkah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: "The dreidel is the centerpiece of a game which is often played after the lighting of the Hanukkah menorah, to keep the children interested during the short time the candles are burning. Each player starts out with 10 or 15 coins, nuts or other markers, and places one marker into the 'pot'. The first player spins the dreidel, which lands with one of its symbols facing up, indicating the appropriate action to be taken, corresponding to one of the following Yiddish words:
* Nun - nisht - 'not' - the next player spins
* Gimel - gants - 'all' - the player takes the entire pot
* Hey - halb - 'half' - the player takes half of the pot, rounding up if there is an odd number
* Shin - shtel ayn - 'put in' - the player puts one or two markers in the pot
Another version differs in that nun is nem - 'take', while gimel is gib - 'give'. The game may last until one person has won everything."
"A song so awful it hurts the mind."
A song so awful it hurts the mind. - By Hua Hsu - Slate Magazine: "Consider the Los Angeles hip-hop quartet the Black Eyed Peas. Their current single, 'My Humps,' is one of the most popular hit singles in history. It is also proof that a song can be so bad as to veer toward evil."
+1
(I think it goes a bit deeper. There's certainly a positive aspect of not taking yourself seriously - this song can be seen as a parody of R&B's values. Certainly the lampooning videos on the web highlight this aspect, like this example:
But still, the song is quite terrible. It's even more terrible that there is no video of a female Quasimodo doing this song. That is something I might have to rectify.)
+1
(I think it goes a bit deeper. There's certainly a positive aspect of not taking yourself seriously - this song can be seen as a parody of R&B's values. Certainly the lampooning videos on the web highlight this aspect, like this example:
But still, the song is quite terrible. It's even more terrible that there is no video of a female Quasimodo doing this song. That is something I might have to rectify.)
FireFox 2.0 - modifying the close buttons
Mozilla Releases Firefox 2.0 - Security Fix: "Abe -
You can modify the close buttons. Type about:config in the address bar, then filter the list for 'browser.tabs.closebuttons'. You can modify the tabs in two ways: by changing the value to '0', the close button will be placed only on the active tab. Changing it to '3' will move it to the far right like in previous versions.
Hope this helps, Dovi"
Thanks Dovi, because I for one a) didn't know about the middle click thing (although I do use CTRL-W alot) and b) was about to pass on Firefox 2.0 simply because of this feature, but since you tell us how to turn it off I will try it.
Thanks again.
You can modify the close buttons. Type about:config in the address bar, then filter the list for 'browser.tabs.closebuttons'. You can modify the tabs in two ways: by changing the value to '0', the close button will be placed only on the active tab. Changing it to '3' will move it to the far right like in previous versions.
Hope this helps, Dovi"
Thanks Dovi, because I for one a) didn't know about the middle click thing (although I do use CTRL-W alot) and b) was about to pass on Firefox 2.0 simply because of this feature, but since you tell us how to turn it off I will try it.
Thanks again.
An example of justice
The OC register has an article today about Shyima, a 17-year-old girl who was used as a domestic slave between the ages of 10 and 12. A neighbor noticed her taking out the trash one day and called the police. Shamiya's living conditions are a horror to read.
The parents were heavily fined, imprisoned, and will be deported back to Egypt when they've served their sentence.
Good.
Article - News - Domestic prisoner prevails
The parents were heavily fined, imprisoned, and will be deported back to Egypt when they've served their sentence.
Good.
Article - News - Domestic prisoner prevails
Check out Nic Harcourt
The New York times had an interesting article on Nic last year. He's the DJ of my favorite music show on the radio, Morning Becomes Eclectic.
(Some of the tapes I am dubbing are recordings of KROQ circa 1992 - when KCRW played innovative and thoughtful new music. I stopped listening to that station when they started with the hardcore and rap; it wasn't until 2004 that I discovered KCRW thanks to the advice of a kind graphic designer at Citysearch.)
(Some of the tapes I am dubbing are recordings of KROQ circa 1992 - when KCRW played innovative and thoughtful new music. I stopped listening to that station when they started with the hardcore and rap; it wasn't until 2004 that I discovered KCRW thanks to the advice of a kind graphic designer at Citysearch.)
My Audio Dubbing setup
So I've got my $5 cassette deck playing into the Tascam US-122
external audio interface going into the Thinkpad X41 running Cubase LE
in "Mastering Mode". In the forground is a notepad where I'm keeping
track of interesting stuff. Honestly, there is very little really good
stuff on these tapes so far. But when it's good, its really really
good so I'm not complaining.
Eventually when I consolidate all the computer data I have (which
includes some of the old MIDI files I put together) I might be able to
re-record some of the good stuff.
external audio interface going into the Thinkpad X41 running Cubase LE
in "Mastering Mode". In the forground is a notepad where I'm keeping
track of interesting stuff. Honestly, there is very little really good
stuff on these tapes so far. But when it's good, its really really
good so I'm not complaining.
Eventually when I consolidate all the computer data I have (which
includes some of the old MIDI files I put together) I might be able to
re-record some of the good stuff.
State Dept. Official Apologizes for Criticism of Iraq Policy - New York Times
The only good thing to happen in Iraq for a long time, and the guy was pressured to apologize for it: State Dept. Official Apologizes for Criticism of Iraq Policy - New York Times
An admission of error would not only be (obviously) valid, but would also go a long way in securing the support of moderate Iraqis. Admitting of arrogance is a good first step toward being more humble, something that would be genuinely appreciated by the Arab world IMHO.
An admission of error would not only be (obviously) valid, but would also go a long way in securing the support of moderate Iraqis. Admitting of arrogance is a good first step toward being more humble, something that would be genuinely appreciated by the Arab world IMHO.
The Death of American Innovation.
AT&T Labs vs. Google Labs: not your grandfather's R&D: "There's no doubt that the information economy continues to create a lot of wealth, but I think it's fair to ask if it's also creating enough science to replenish the stock of scientific capital that it's still burning through."
It's not clear that this op-ed piece is anything more than a vain attempt to articulate one guy's vague misgivings about rapid change.
But the point that hit home the most was, "...new start-ups are being actively locked out of the market by means of patent and trade secrets litigation so that a combination of old and new interests can fight over what's left of the shrinking pie."
This article hints at a possible pattern, a yin-yang of monolithic scientific progress: the beast you fund will create ideas, but the beast will cause problems in it's death throws. Unfortunately we live in the era of those death throws, making it harder, but not impossible, to innovate independantly. The way I figure it, at a minimum, you need a people-savvy MBA, and a crack lawyer, enough money to keep the lights on and the promise of great riches. With that, you can innovate even now.
Business Week has a related article essentially decrying the state of big telco R&D.
It's not clear that this op-ed piece is anything more than a vain attempt to articulate one guy's vague misgivings about rapid change.
But the point that hit home the most was, "...new start-ups are being actively locked out of the market by means of patent and trade secrets litigation so that a combination of old and new interests can fight over what's left of the shrinking pie."
This article hints at a possible pattern, a yin-yang of monolithic scientific progress: the beast you fund will create ideas, but the beast will cause problems in it's death throws. Unfortunately we live in the era of those death throws, making it harder, but not impossible, to innovate independantly. The way I figure it, at a minimum, you need a people-savvy MBA, and a crack lawyer, enough money to keep the lights on and the promise of great riches. With that, you can innovate even now.
Business Week has a related article essentially decrying the state of big telco R&D.
A criticism of critics
Entertainment has a lot of critics: books, movies, television, broadway, dance, etc. Critics can be useful in consensus (as shown by rottentomatoes.com).
Sometimes critics come off as bitter wannabes: obviously intelligent and interested in the field, they couldn't make it in the business so they make a living criticising their more successful peers, etc. Catty prose, inordinate focus on the negative, and unjustified confidence in one's own opinion. Reviews tend to be excessive exercises in hyperbole and melodrama. One often gets the feeling the reviewer makes specific assertions merely because it makes the review read better or offers an oppurtunity for witticism.
But those are the bad critics (or good critics having a bad day). Good criticism is thoughtful, conclusions are solidly supported. Good critics have no axe to grind - they are merely sharing their opinion. One walks away from a good critic thinking, "Perhaps I don't agree, but I respect where they are coming from."
I find myself doing criticism every day: of myself, of others, of art, of ideas. While it's good to be in contact with my own opinion, I think it's important not to get too caught up in that opinion. But if the urge to opine arises, to at least make sure that the review, even if only mentally drawn, is solidly supported.
Sometimes critics come off as bitter wannabes: obviously intelligent and interested in the field, they couldn't make it in the business so they make a living criticising their more successful peers, etc. Catty prose, inordinate focus on the negative, and unjustified confidence in one's own opinion. Reviews tend to be excessive exercises in hyperbole and melodrama. One often gets the feeling the reviewer makes specific assertions merely because it makes the review read better or offers an oppurtunity for witticism.
But those are the bad critics (or good critics having a bad day). Good criticism is thoughtful, conclusions are solidly supported. Good critics have no axe to grind - they are merely sharing their opinion. One walks away from a good critic thinking, "Perhaps I don't agree, but I respect where they are coming from."
I find myself doing criticism every day: of myself, of others, of art, of ideas. While it's good to be in contact with my own opinion, I think it's important not to get too caught up in that opinion. But if the urge to opine arises, to at least make sure that the review, even if only mentally drawn, is solidly supported.
A free alternative to Norton Antivirus: AVG
AVG Free is the personal edition of their commercial product. Norton Antivirus was installed on my T43 laptop when I purchased it, and lately the program has been quite forward about reminding me my subscription is about to expire.
If the subscription renewal process was clean, direct, and devoid of scare-inducing sophistry, I would simply pay the $30. But the renewal process is riddled with questionable upselling tactics.
The icing on the cake is that the utility gives the user two choices: renew now, or renew later. I will be taking the third choice, not listed: uninstall Symantec Antivirus, install AVG.
If the subscription renewal process was clean, direct, and devoid of scare-inducing sophistry, I would simply pay the $30. But the renewal process is riddled with questionable upselling tactics.
The icing on the cake is that the utility gives the user two choices: renew now, or renew later. I will be taking the third choice, not listed: uninstall Symantec Antivirus, install AVG.
BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Beast in sediment is photo winner
BBC News has a wonderful little story about some great BBC wildlife photography.
First place went to a photograph of a 3rd stage guild navigator, er, I mean walrus feeding on clams:
For comparison, consider the 3rd stage guild navigator from the Dune movie:
First place went to a photograph of a 3rd stage guild navigator, er, I mean walrus feeding on clams:
For comparison, consider the 3rd stage guild navigator from the Dune movie:
My Mysterious Tablet
ThinkPad X41 Tablet 1866-3RU
Pentium M 758(1.5GHz)LV, 1.5GB RAM, 60GB 4200rpm HDD, 12.1in 1024x768 LCD, Intel 900, Intel 802.11abg wireless, Modem, 1Gb Ethernet, Secure Chip, 8 cell Li-Ion batt, WinXP Tablet 2005
Pentium M 758(1.5GHz)LV, 1.5GB RAM, 60GB 4200rpm HDD, 12.1in 1024x768 LCD, Intel 900, Intel 802.11abg wireless, Modem, 1Gb Ethernet, Secure Chip, 8 cell Li-Ion batt, WinXP Tablet 2005
Web Style Guide: EDITORIAL STYLE
I have to give credit where credit is due, this quote comes from Web Style Guide:
"First we thought the PC was a calculator. Then we found out how to turn numbers into letters with ASCII — and we thought it was a typewriter. Then we discovered graphics, and we thought it was a television. With the World Wide Web, we've realized it's a brochure."
— Douglas Adams
Sometimes I really miss that guy.
"First we thought the PC was a calculator. Then we found out how to turn numbers into letters with ASCII — and we thought it was a typewriter. Then we discovered graphics, and we thought it was a television. With the World Wide Web, we've realized it's a brochure."
— Douglas Adams
Sometimes I really miss that guy.
Idea for simplifying craigslist ad posting from Flickr
craigslist ads should really be easier to write. I would like a chunk of HTML generated for me at some point in the process that puts a bunch of (suibtably linked) images in a nice layout. I'm thinking that this could most easily be done as a Greasemonkey script on either a Flickr or Craigslist page. It should probably be on the Flickr "set" page - "generate cl ad" and the product is a new browser window with a) the HTML, b) a search window (for product info to be inserted in the HTML) and c) a cl "post page". (The process can't be completely automated because of the word verification feature.)
A Better Oppurtunity for Linux than ESR thinks
Eric S. Raymond has joined Linux distribution company Freespire because (to paraphrase) "the upcoming shift to 64-bit CPUs offers Linux a golden oppurtunity to gain market (and mind)share".
I would say that the upcomming transition to Windows Vista and McAfees concerns about security, users concerns about vendor lock-in, and other bad press presents an even better oppurtunity for Linux penetration on the desktop. Especially when combined with the rise of the wonderful distribution and highly popular Ubuntu.
(I would add that my recent experience running Ubuntu 6.06 on my T43 went quite well, however I was missing some of my favorite applications - Picasa, Photoshop - and there are many little convenience utils which are generally not available. Also, multi-head support is lacking by default - although supported by Xinerama - and that's a feature I've come to rely on highly.)
P.S. At this point I'm quite aware that I am blograstinating. Back to work!
I would say that the upcomming transition to Windows Vista and McAfees concerns about security, users concerns about vendor lock-in, and other bad press presents an even better oppurtunity for Linux penetration on the desktop. Especially when combined with the rise of the wonderful distribution and highly popular Ubuntu.
(I would add that my recent experience running Ubuntu 6.06 on my T43 went quite well, however I was missing some of my favorite applications - Picasa, Photoshop - and there are many little convenience utils which are generally not available. Also, multi-head support is lacking by default - although supported by Xinerama - and that's a feature I've come to rely on highly.)
P.S. At this point I'm quite aware that I am blograstinating. Back to work!
OCJUG Logo Ideas
I shot some photos for a new OCJUG logo. Here they are (click to see a larger version with notes):
Or I will super-impose the JUG badge onto an orange:
Or I will super-impose the JUG badge onto an orange:
A beautiful autumn day!
Sunny, bright, with the wind creating a lushly vibrant ruslting sound in the trees, this day reminds me strongly of the past; of school, and hot playground asphault, and dusty trips to the desert to visit family. It is beautiful and dry, with a crackling energy that, ironically, inspires somnolence more than activity. A strong sense of *something* about to happen is in the air. Something big. With any luck, something good.
Bad News: Photoshop cannot sense pressure changes from a Thinkpad X41 tablet
One of the reasons I got a tablet is so that I could use art programs more efficiently. From my perspective, a Tablet PC is a smarter alternative to the Wacom Cintiq.
I just recieved an email response from Adobe stating that "Windows Tablet PC Edition" is not one of the system requirements, so I'm basically on my own when it comes to supporting this feature.
It's not just that I can't modify brush attributes by pressure or pen tilt, but also there is appreciable mouse-lag. This affects photoshop and hand-writing recognition.
It's time to sell the tablet I'm afraid.
I just recieved an email response from Adobe stating that "Windows Tablet PC Edition" is not one of the system requirements, so I'm basically on my own when it comes to supporting this feature.
It's not just that I can't modify brush attributes by pressure or pen tilt, but also there is appreciable mouse-lag. This affects photoshop and hand-writing recognition.
It's time to sell the tablet I'm afraid.
Worth1000.com | Photoshop Contests | Are you Worthy™ | home page
These images might make you think twice about meat - in a humurous way.
Tina Blaine's Overview of 21st Century Hyperinstruments
There is a lot going on in the field of music, technology, gaming and audiovisualization.
Fred Miranda's Rolling Stone
Apart from hosting one of the most active and well respected photography forums on the internet, Fred Miranda is a pretty good photographer in his own right. For example
I'd love to simulate this photo. Looks like a very wide angle (17mm?) high f-stop (because of the tremendous DOF). Camera is just off the ground, probably hand-held. I don't know what the location is. Could be a desert almost anywhere.
I'd love to simulate this photo. Looks like a very wide angle (17mm?) high f-stop (because of the tremendous DOF). Camera is just off the ground, probably hand-held. I don't know what the location is. Could be a desert almost anywhere.
Azzam the American now "Most Wanted" - it's a crying shame
Adam Gadahn is a fool and probably much worse, but to put him on the most wanted list for video tapes he made is a dangerous encroachment on free speech. What happens when the FBI deides that criticizing George W. Bush is "giving material aid and comfort" to the enemy?
The Student Operated Press
The Student Operated Press
Is Saddam's trial a farce?
News organizations periodically report on the trial of Saddam Hussein. I find that my patience wears thin such that I no longer wish to read these stories. It is nothing if not predictable that Saddam will use whatever means necessary to beat a rap which is, by all accounts, going to be pretty bad. It is not clear to me why he is allowed to be present at his trial given his grandstanding. Or, if present, why he is not gagged.
But this begs the question: is it even possible to hold a trial like this in a country where violence is so prevalent? When the defendent and his lawyers do not recognize the legitamacy of the court? When judges and prosecutors are slain and forced to resign? Can the (relatively) reasoned discourse of a legal trial make sense amidst wider chaos?
Legal trials must occur amidst relative peace and calm. The ability to have a trial, rather than resort to violence, is a hallmark of civilization.
But this begs the question: is it even possible to hold a trial like this in a country where violence is so prevalent? When the defendent and his lawyers do not recognize the legitamacy of the court? When judges and prosecutors are slain and forced to resign? Can the (relatively) reasoned discourse of a legal trial make sense amidst wider chaos?
Legal trials must occur amidst relative peace and calm. The ability to have a trial, rather than resort to violence, is a hallmark of civilization.
Is Saddam's trial a farce?
News organizations periodically report on the trial of Saddam Hussein. I find that my patience wears thin such that I no longer wish to read these stories. It is nothing if not predictable that Saddam will use whatever means necessary to beat a rap which is, by all accounts, going to be pretty bad. It is not clear to me why he is allowed to be present at his trial given his grandstanding. Or, if present, why he is not gagged.
But this begs the question: is it even possible to hold a trial like this in a country where violence is so prevalent? When the defendent and his lawyers do not recognize the legitamacy of the court? When judges and prosecutors are slain and forced to resign? Can the (relatively) reasoned discourse of a legal trial make sense amidst wider chaos?
Legal trials must occur amidst relative peace and calm. The ability to have a trial, rather than resort to violence, is a hallmark of civilization.
But this begs the question: is it even possible to hold a trial like this in a country where violence is so prevalent? When the defendent and his lawyers do not recognize the legitamacy of the court? When judges and prosecutors are slain and forced to resign? Can the (relatively) reasoned discourse of a legal trial make sense amidst wider chaos?
Legal trials must occur amidst relative peace and calm. The ability to have a trial, rather than resort to violence, is a hallmark of civilization.
Basic Life Maintenance Made Easy
I had some motorcycle gear collecting dust in the closet. I photographed it, posted an ad on craigslist, and sold it all within 24 hours. Is technology the answer to clutter?
Thanks craigslist!
Thanks craigslist!
Confronting Laziness
The antidote for laziness is a combination of definite intention and will.
It is through meditation that one discovers how to discern between a definite intention and that which is hazy or blurry: it is learned by association (ah, my perception is quite distinct, this must be "definite") and more-or-less impossible to accurately describe. Let's just say that it is a feeling of immersion in the subject, a lack of distraction, and an unspoken certainty that there is, in fact, no distraction.
If one learns to recognize the difference between hazy and distinct intention, one can then monitor oneself for distinctness. If one's actions become hazy and indistinct, it is important to shore up one's efforts and refocus. There are many ways to do this, but all methods are founded on the principle that it is always possible to focus on something at some level. One simply picks an object that is more amenable to focus. This is usually a smaller, more clearly delinated object than the one which is giving you trouble. For example, one is having trouble focusing on a complex project, so one takes a moment to focus on breathing.
I like photography, so I will use a photography analogy. If you are having trouble focusing on a moving target, say in sports photography, it often helps to stop and focus on a stationary target. Once focus is dialed in you can reframe your moving subject in that location and be assured of a well focused shot.
There is no reason why every action in your day should not be indiviudally distinct. Everything from washing dishes to creating a blog post can be sharp, distinct, and purposeful. I am sharing an observation with the world with my blog. I am washing dishes. It's not terribly important for the purpose of definiteness to believe that what one is doing is the *right* thing to do, but it helps if at some level you believe this is the best possible action you could be taking in this moment.
An important impediment to focus is not knowing what to focus on. This is troublesome because of the wide array of options we have in any instant. Many people solve the problem by merely reacting to their environment in an instinctive way. This strategy works as long as your luck holds out, but environements have a way of changing into something that doesn't match instinct! At that point one needs a more thoughtful, adaptable way to select a subject.
This "subject" correction is much more difficult than a "focus" correction because it requires a much more general awareness than merely that of "my state of focus". Indeed, my own understanding of this sort of correction is still undergoing change (and may never settle into some fixed set of rules). However, for the moment, there is a combination of "stepping back" and looking at the world and my place in it objectively, and "stepping in" and observing my own mind: this cooresponds to examination of long-held beliefs and momentary mood, respectively. I am essentially asking the questions "where am I itching?", "how can I scratch?", and "should I scratch". That first question ("where are the itches") cooresponds to simple open-minded awareness of one's own mental state. The second ("how can I scratch") implies a learned, practical understanding of what it will take in terms of time resoures to scratch. The third question ("should I scratch?") is both a practical and moral question: some scratches are easier to itch than others, and common sense must drive prioritization. Morally, some itches should not be scratched (a burning desire for crack cocaine, for example). (This raises the interesting, but ancillary, question of how we choose our moral code. I believe that a rational person decides between systems of belief based on how well that system minimizes the absolute number of itches on experiences.)
In this way, living one's life can be seen as a kind of programming loop whereby one 1. focuses on goals, 2.corrects that focus when it waivers, 3.examines all possible goals for worthiness, 4. picks a new one if necessary, and 5.goto step 1.
This is a healthy process. The unhealthy process is one in which the person remains ignorant of the importance to focus, and never considers the choices one has in terms of picking their goals. Meditation is a simple, mechanical activity that will yield awareness of one's own current state of definiteness. One uses this definiteness to probe deeper into the situations that make one happy or unhappy and gains knowledge about why one state or the other arises. One sees the fruit of remaining sharp, and being sharp becomes a primary "meta-goal" in life, and the positive, self-correcting process outlined above is started.
It is through meditation that one discovers how to discern between a definite intention and that which is hazy or blurry: it is learned by association (ah, my perception is quite distinct, this must be "definite") and more-or-less impossible to accurately describe. Let's just say that it is a feeling of immersion in the subject, a lack of distraction, and an unspoken certainty that there is, in fact, no distraction.
If one learns to recognize the difference between hazy and distinct intention, one can then monitor oneself for distinctness. If one's actions become hazy and indistinct, it is important to shore up one's efforts and refocus. There are many ways to do this, but all methods are founded on the principle that it is always possible to focus on something at some level. One simply picks an object that is more amenable to focus. This is usually a smaller, more clearly delinated object than the one which is giving you trouble. For example, one is having trouble focusing on a complex project, so one takes a moment to focus on breathing.
I like photography, so I will use a photography analogy. If you are having trouble focusing on a moving target, say in sports photography, it often helps to stop and focus on a stationary target. Once focus is dialed in you can reframe your moving subject in that location and be assured of a well focused shot.
There is no reason why every action in your day should not be indiviudally distinct. Everything from washing dishes to creating a blog post can be sharp, distinct, and purposeful. I am sharing an observation with the world with my blog. I am washing dishes. It's not terribly important for the purpose of definiteness to believe that what one is doing is the *right* thing to do, but it helps if at some level you believe this is the best possible action you could be taking in this moment.
An important impediment to focus is not knowing what to focus on. This is troublesome because of the wide array of options we have in any instant. Many people solve the problem by merely reacting to their environment in an instinctive way. This strategy works as long as your luck holds out, but environements have a way of changing into something that doesn't match instinct! At that point one needs a more thoughtful, adaptable way to select a subject.
This "subject" correction is much more difficult than a "focus" correction because it requires a much more general awareness than merely that of "my state of focus". Indeed, my own understanding of this sort of correction is still undergoing change (and may never settle into some fixed set of rules). However, for the moment, there is a combination of "stepping back" and looking at the world and my place in it objectively, and "stepping in" and observing my own mind: this cooresponds to examination of long-held beliefs and momentary mood, respectively. I am essentially asking the questions "where am I itching?", "how can I scratch?", and "should I scratch". That first question ("where are the itches") cooresponds to simple open-minded awareness of one's own mental state. The second ("how can I scratch") implies a learned, practical understanding of what it will take in terms of time resoures to scratch. The third question ("should I scratch?") is both a practical and moral question: some scratches are easier to itch than others, and common sense must drive prioritization. Morally, some itches should not be scratched (a burning desire for crack cocaine, for example). (This raises the interesting, but ancillary, question of how we choose our moral code. I believe that a rational person decides between systems of belief based on how well that system minimizes the absolute number of itches on experiences.)
In this way, living one's life can be seen as a kind of programming loop whereby one 1. focuses on goals, 2.corrects that focus when it waivers, 3.examines all possible goals for worthiness, 4. picks a new one if necessary, and 5.goto step 1.
This is a healthy process. The unhealthy process is one in which the person remains ignorant of the importance to focus, and never considers the choices one has in terms of picking their goals. Meditation is a simple, mechanical activity that will yield awareness of one's own current state of definiteness. One uses this definiteness to probe deeper into the situations that make one happy or unhappy and gains knowledge about why one state or the other arises. One sees the fruit of remaining sharp, and being sharp becomes a primary "meta-goal" in life, and the positive, self-correcting process outlined above is started.
The Inner Loop approach to personal task management
So often we are interrupted, sometimes with "nested" tasks. It is important to complete the inner task before resuming the outer one.
Ancient Indian atheists - the Carvakas
Carvaka is probably not a school of thought you'll hear a lot about in yoga class: "Carvakas cultivated a philosophy wherein theology and what they called 'speculative metaphysics' were to be avoided. The Carvakas accepted direct perception as the surest method to prove the truth of anything."
They didn't believe in an afterlife, reincarnation or even "aether". They had a rather cynical belief that the brahmans created elborate funereal rituals merely to stay employed, and that the Hindu caste system itself was corrupt and 'unreal'. They also appear to support women's rights. To enjoy this life to the fullest is the right aim.
Unfortunately there are not many remaining records of this school of thought, as the wikipedia article suggests.
To me, the Carvakas are only stating what everyone already knows. But, at some point one realizes that "to live life to the fullest" requires the cessation of the creation of harm to those around you and to yourself. This requires a certain amount of vital self-control, combined with an overriding sense of love. These attributes of a well-lived life are conventionally called "spirituality".
I would almost call the Carvakas doctrine, as I understand it, a sort of subset of Buddhism that is a "holding pattern for the householder" who is, for the moment, flush with relative success.
They didn't believe in an afterlife, reincarnation or even "aether". They had a rather cynical belief that the brahmans created elborate funereal rituals merely to stay employed, and that the Hindu caste system itself was corrupt and 'unreal'. They also appear to support women's rights. To enjoy this life to the fullest is the right aim.
Unfortunately there are not many remaining records of this school of thought, as the wikipedia article suggests.
To me, the Carvakas are only stating what everyone already knows. But, at some point one realizes that "to live life to the fullest" requires the cessation of the creation of harm to those around you and to yourself. This requires a certain amount of vital self-control, combined with an overriding sense of love. These attributes of a well-lived life are conventionally called "spirituality".
I would almost call the Carvakas doctrine, as I understand it, a sort of subset of Buddhism that is a "holding pattern for the householder" who is, for the moment, flush with relative success.
that remarkable language, HTML
HTML is a remarkable language. With only a few lines of text, one can create beautiful graphic designs. With a few images, properly applied, even more can be achieved (and less). One does not require a network to learn HTML - merely a computer that can interpret it.
The immediacy of HTML is a unique feature. With nothing more than a web browser and a basic text editr I can learn and practice what I've learned.
There are many other technologies which are almost as accessible - scripting environments in particular (Python, Ruby, Perl). The issue is that the output is not pretty. The behavior of these languages is more traditionally "comp sci" and the effect of learning is not as immediate.
Make no mistake - HTML is a computer language. It tells the browser how to lay out a page. Whether I say:
Document.addParagraph("Hello World!")
or type:
the effect is the same. Indeed, with the advent of CSS (in particular CSS selectors), the data structure of HTML is laid even more bare.
(CSS is 10 years old in December.)
A text editor and a browser is certainly enough to get going with HTML. Two other items are quite handy. A *really good* text editor (in particular and editor with syntax highlighting) can save time and trouble by showing your mistakes before testing in the browser (missing bracket, misspelled keyword, etc). Another item is a browser tool that gives insight into what the browser is doing, and what graphical objects it has created in response to your pithy text. Both of these items are freely available in the form of various editors (jEdit being perhaps the most accessible) and Firefox plugins.
I encourage everyone to learn HTML! It is quite a clever language, and its accessibility is unique so take advantage!
The immediacy of HTML is a unique feature. With nothing more than a web browser and a basic text editr I can learn and practice what I've learned.
There are many other technologies which are almost as accessible - scripting environments in particular (Python, Ruby, Perl). The issue is that the output is not pretty. The behavior of these languages is more traditionally "comp sci" and the effect of learning is not as immediate.
Make no mistake - HTML is a computer language. It tells the browser how to lay out a page. Whether I say:
Document.addParagraph("Hello World!")
or type:
Hello World
the effect is the same. Indeed, with the advent of CSS (in particular CSS selectors), the data structure of HTML is laid even more bare.
(CSS is 10 years old in December.)
A text editor and a browser is certainly enough to get going with HTML. Two other items are quite handy. A *really good* text editor (in particular and editor with syntax highlighting) can save time and trouble by showing your mistakes before testing in the browser (missing bracket, misspelled keyword, etc). Another item is a browser tool that gives insight into what the browser is doing, and what graphical objects it has created in response to your pithy text. Both of these items are freely available in the form of various editors (jEdit being perhaps the most accessible) and Firefox plugins.
I encourage everyone to learn HTML! It is quite a clever language, and its accessibility is unique so take advantage!
Another horse in the Home Recording Studio Race
I friendly chap by the name of TK Wyley popped into Bogart's Coffee today, and we got to talking about recording. TK happens to be intimately involved with SAWStudio which appears to be a highly optimized SAW (software audio workstation) for Windows. The full version is quite expensive ($2500) but it's quite impressive.
TK regalled me with tales of "remote mixing" - apparently the makers of SAW Studio will allow an engineer in the audience of a live gig to remotely control a PC mixer sitting on stage. They are using a custom protocol rather than VNC to make the system more responsive. In a similiar vein, ADR (alternative dialogue recording) engineers are using sawstudio to do remote recording, remotely controlling parameters of the mix. This saves a plane trip. The audio is streamed over the internet - latency is present but is rarely a problem. Of course, bandwidth (186k/s) is not generally a problem even on residential broadband.
He was also quite helpful in recommending some hardware to reduce the latency I've been experiencing and increase the number of simultaneously recorded tracks. The M-Audio Firewire 410 offers 4 inputs, 10 outs, and 1 MIDI port. (Unfortunately my X41 doesn't have a firewire port but adding one via Cardbus is a definite option). Perhaps I will sell my Tascam US-122 and get this thing.
Certainly it was nice to see a viable alternative to Cubase, Cakewalk, and ProTools! I admire small software companies for their tenacity and innovation. If TK is correct, then SAW Studio can "run circles" around a much more expensive Pro Tools rig. That's a very serious claim, and one I look forward to testing.
TK regalled me with tales of "remote mixing" - apparently the makers of SAW Studio will allow an engineer in the audience of a live gig to remotely control a PC mixer sitting on stage. They are using a custom protocol rather than VNC to make the system more responsive. In a similiar vein, ADR (alternative dialogue recording) engineers are using sawstudio to do remote recording, remotely controlling parameters of the mix. This saves a plane trip. The audio is streamed over the internet - latency is present but is rarely a problem. Of course, bandwidth (186k/s) is not generally a problem even on residential broadband.
He was also quite helpful in recommending some hardware to reduce the latency I've been experiencing and increase the number of simultaneously recorded tracks. The M-Audio Firewire 410 offers 4 inputs, 10 outs, and 1 MIDI port. (Unfortunately my X41 doesn't have a firewire port but adding one via Cardbus is a definite option). Perhaps I will sell my Tascam US-122 and get this thing.
Certainly it was nice to see a viable alternative to Cubase, Cakewalk, and ProTools! I admire small software companies for their tenacity and innovation. If TK is correct, then SAW Studio can "run circles" around a much more expensive Pro Tools rig. That's a very serious claim, and one I look forward to testing.
A Designer Universe?
Physicist Steven Weinberg says it best:
A Designer Universe?: "I have been asked to comment on whether the universe shows signs of having been designed.1 I don't see how it's possible to talk about this without having at least some vague idea of what a designer would be like. Any possible universe could be explained as the work of some sort of designer. Even a universe that is completely chaotic, without any laws or regularities at all, could be supposed to have been designed by an idiot. "
A Designer Universe?: "I have been asked to comment on whether the universe shows signs of having been designed.1 I don't see how it's possible to talk about this without having at least some vague idea of what a designer would be like. Any possible universe could be explained as the work of some sort of designer. Even a universe that is completely chaotic, without any laws or regularities at all, could be supposed to have been designed by an idiot. "
The Perfect Day
Stop for a moment to consider your day. Has it been a perfect one? If so, what made it so? If not, why not?
If it has not been a perfect day, then why not work toward it's perfection *right now*. Calm your mind, and act forcefully on the insights provided to you by the best part of yourself. Choose actions to which you are particularly suited. Choose a pace which can be maintained. Work diligently for your own perfection.
If it has not been a perfect day, then why not work toward it's perfection *right now*. Calm your mind, and act forcefully on the insights provided to you by the best part of yourself. Choose actions to which you are particularly suited. Choose a pace which can be maintained. Work diligently for your own perfection.
A possible reason for the rampages
The Amish shooting incident and others seem to beg for an explaination. There is probably no single reason. One possibility is a percieved decline in the reliability of institutions. That decline is harkened by myriad new stories: House representative Foley's sexual perversions, doping in Major League Baseball, accounting irregularities at HP (and the stock option scandal, and Enron, and...), Bob Woodwards book about the incompetency of George Bush, stories about vote fixing (in the US), Catholic bishops stealing millions of dollars from their churches (and raping young boys), police misuse of force in Louisiana and elsewhere.
I'm sure I've forgotten a few (indeed, I've left out a slew of ethical allegation stories, like those involving Wal-Mart's labor practices, the oil companies polluting our environment and profiteering on political events, the car-makers and their SUVs, etc). The sheer bulk of these stories has raised the level of cynicism in me to uncomfortable hieghts. I feel like I can't trust any institution.
This is in stark contrast to my youth. I think it was because of my mothers incessant (and annoying, embarrasing) complaints at my school. The administrators and teachers were no doubt unhappy about this, but underneath all of that was the faith that my mother had that she could work in the system to change it. And more often than not, she did. If those administrators had stopped to consider the alternative, they too would have been overjoyed to deal with my mother.
These child shooters in school were undoubtadly overcome with rage. But why did the rage get so bad? Could it be that they simply didn't have faith that the system could help them? Could it be that working with the system is a way to let that anger out in a nonviolent way?
When you can't trust the police, or your employer, or the government, or your church, or even your church where do you turn for succor? Friends and family. And when you're a teen struggling with friends and family? You turn to no-one, let the anger build to fever pitch, and then do the unthinkable.
I'm sure I've forgotten a few (indeed, I've left out a slew of ethical allegation stories, like those involving Wal-Mart's labor practices, the oil companies polluting our environment and profiteering on political events, the car-makers and their SUVs, etc). The sheer bulk of these stories has raised the level of cynicism in me to uncomfortable hieghts. I feel like I can't trust any institution.
This is in stark contrast to my youth. I think it was because of my mothers incessant (and annoying, embarrasing) complaints at my school. The administrators and teachers were no doubt unhappy about this, but underneath all of that was the faith that my mother had that she could work in the system to change it. And more often than not, she did. If those administrators had stopped to consider the alternative, they too would have been overjoyed to deal with my mother.
These child shooters in school were undoubtadly overcome with rage. But why did the rage get so bad? Could it be that they simply didn't have faith that the system could help them? Could it be that working with the system is a way to let that anger out in a nonviolent way?
When you can't trust the police, or your employer, or the government, or your church, or even your church where do you turn for succor? Friends and family. And when you're a teen struggling with friends and family? You turn to no-one, let the anger build to fever pitch, and then do the unthinkable.
New Insights into George W. Bush
I've long held that GWB is not an evil man, that he is obviously not very intelligent, and well meaning in his way. I've lauded his boldness and even his stubbornness. I've also criticized his unwillingness to admit error or failure.
A combination of recent events has led me to change my mind. I believe that GWB is so extraordinarily ignorant as to present a serious danger to himself and his nation. This is a man who repeatedly demonstrates a single-minded determination to destroy the USA.
He wants warrantless wiretaps of Americans. He wants to sanction American torture.
This is a man who does not understand the concept that, like any human institution, is potentially abusive and therefore it's power must remain in check. There is no self-examination evident - there is only "we want more power and authority and leeway to protect the American people." Protect the American people AT ANY cost. Including the cost of losing our freedom, our liberty, and our pride at being American.
The current news item is this: GWB has called his own intelligence reports "naive" that claim that the war in Iraq is causing more harm than good; check out this story: Dubya labels his own intelligence info 'naive'
This president needs to be impeached immediately for 1) initiating the first pre-emptive war in American history, 2) repeated violations of the Geneva Convention (and attempting to legitamize these breaches in US court), and 3) repeatedly attempting to circumvent the United States Constitution (warrantless wiretapping) in his single-minded, rabidly focused goal of "protecting the American people."
This man is a danger to himself and others, and he must be stopped.
A combination of recent events has led me to change my mind. I believe that GWB is so extraordinarily ignorant as to present a serious danger to himself and his nation. This is a man who repeatedly demonstrates a single-minded determination to destroy the USA.
He wants warrantless wiretaps of Americans. He wants to sanction American torture.
This is a man who does not understand the concept that, like any human institution, is potentially abusive and therefore it's power must remain in check. There is no self-examination evident - there is only "we want more power and authority and leeway to protect the American people." Protect the American people AT ANY cost. Including the cost of losing our freedom, our liberty, and our pride at being American.
The current news item is this: GWB has called his own intelligence reports "naive" that claim that the war in Iraq is causing more harm than good; check out this story: Dubya labels his own intelligence info 'naive'
This president needs to be impeached immediately for 1) initiating the first pre-emptive war in American history, 2) repeated violations of the Geneva Convention (and attempting to legitamize these breaches in US court), and 3) repeatedly attempting to circumvent the United States Constitution (warrantless wiretapping) in his single-minded, rabidly focused goal of "protecting the American people."
This man is a danger to himself and others, and he must be stopped.
OKCupid! The What Chess Piece Are You Test
Well I took this 14 question survey and was pegged a "black knight". I can't say I'm unhappy with the result. The knight is one of my favorite pieces. Come on, it's a horse!
A Black Knight You scored 3 Power-Finesse, 2 Leader-Follower, 4 Unique-Ordinary, and 2 Offense-Defense! |
The rules don't really apply to you, do they? Impediments for you are opportunities, not obstacles. You are dashing and flamboyant, and you like to be right in the middle of the action. You like to protect your team and your King and Queen, by fighting off those who would dare to threaten them. In the long run, however, you cannot win the game alone. It is impossible for you to checkmate your opponent all by yourself, so you appreciate and value your teammates. |
 |
My test tracked 4 variables How you compared to other people your age and gender:
|
| Link: The What Chess Piece Are You Test written by Gundark27 on OkCupid Free Online Dating, home of the The Dating Persona Test |
Rigamarole: TsunamiReady
The National Weather service has a strange little thing called "Tsunami Ready". Lt. Tim Colins of the Seal Beach PD presented on this breifly. I was most impressed by the fact that his Powerpoint was repleat with "tm" symbols. It looked like bearucratic nonsense.
TsunamiReady Information from NWS
TsunamiReady Information from NWS
The Dreaded Friend Critique...Overheard!
The Dreaded Friend Critique. I just (over)heard one being given to someone here in the coffee shop. Interestingly, it was quite similiar to some friend critiques I've receieved over the years, so I listened closely.
The DFC usually begins as a concerned sounding friend criticizing some behavior. In this case, person B let person A know that they behave arrogantly. It began as a concerned, selfless sort of thing, but ended in rising anger and leaving the coffee shop.
I obtained two peices of wisdom from observing this. First, that the arrogance of this person stems from the fact that they are quite self-interested and that this drives the topic of conversation. Person A uses his friends as sounding boards and mirrors. He isn't really interested in them, per se. The second piece of wisdom is that person B made the mistake of becoming agitated by this behavior. He failed to love his friend, warts and all.
There is some more wisdom here. It is impossible to criticize when you're even a little angry. Just listening to the conversation, as civil as it was, made my stomache turn. Now, perhaps this was the anxiety of recognition, but I think it was more that I was sensing person B's hostility. It also begs the question: why do people hang out and have friends? What is their motivation? Is it a simple "safety in numbers" sort of instinct?
I am tempted to say that the most serious problems occur when there is no meaningful reason behind the relationship. There is neither great love nor is there great practical forces brining the people together. If it is just a basic, vague instinct to have friends, people to hang out with to avoid feeling lonely, then you are skating on thin ice! The slightest difficulty will cause problems!
Once you become interested in other people's welfare, you can become interested in their interests and needs. At that point you can shape your conversation into a pleasent combination of what will nourish your needs and theirs. Some are born with this skill, but for others it must be learned.
The failure I observed was simply that person A is not aware of person B's needs. Person B is only aware that his own needs are not being satisfied, and opted for direct confrontation rather than modifying communication to get what he needs. In that particular instance, one modification of the conversation would be to ask lots of questions. People like person A find "what do you think?" sorts of questions absolutely irresistable. The English language is flexible enough that by simply prepending "what do you think..." in front of statements about other people's feelings (for example) Person A would not be able to ignore it.
The DFC usually begins as a concerned sounding friend criticizing some behavior. In this case, person B let person A know that they behave arrogantly. It began as a concerned, selfless sort of thing, but ended in rising anger and leaving the coffee shop.
I obtained two peices of wisdom from observing this. First, that the arrogance of this person stems from the fact that they are quite self-interested and that this drives the topic of conversation. Person A uses his friends as sounding boards and mirrors. He isn't really interested in them, per se. The second piece of wisdom is that person B made the mistake of becoming agitated by this behavior. He failed to love his friend, warts and all.
There is some more wisdom here. It is impossible to criticize when you're even a little angry. Just listening to the conversation, as civil as it was, made my stomache turn. Now, perhaps this was the anxiety of recognition, but I think it was more that I was sensing person B's hostility. It also begs the question: why do people hang out and have friends? What is their motivation? Is it a simple "safety in numbers" sort of instinct?
I am tempted to say that the most serious problems occur when there is no meaningful reason behind the relationship. There is neither great love nor is there great practical forces brining the people together. If it is just a basic, vague instinct to have friends, people to hang out with to avoid feeling lonely, then you are skating on thin ice! The slightest difficulty will cause problems!
Once you become interested in other people's welfare, you can become interested in their interests and needs. At that point you can shape your conversation into a pleasent combination of what will nourish your needs and theirs. Some are born with this skill, but for others it must be learned.
The failure I observed was simply that person A is not aware of person B's needs. Person B is only aware that his own needs are not being satisfied, and opted for direct confrontation rather than modifying communication to get what he needs. In that particular instance, one modification of the conversation would be to ask lots of questions. People like person A find "what do you think?" sorts of questions absolutely irresistable. The English language is flexible enough that by simply prepending "what do you think..." in front of statements about other people's feelings (for example) Person A would not be able to ignore it.
Java Logging in J2SE 1.4
Jason Hunter (of Servlets fame) wrote a nice piece on J2SE 1.4 logging. A topic like this should only require a page or two of explaination, and that's what you get here.
In fact, he also has a good introduction to NIO on the Oracle site as well.
In fact, he also has a good introduction to NIO on the Oracle site as well.
Islamic Democracy
Has the phrase "Islamic Democracy" ever been uttered by Pres. Bush? It seems to me that this phrase has a lot going for it if it is to be accepted by Middle Eastern folks.
Democracy, unqualified, is scary. It would seem to lead to a McCulture, something noone really wants. But a democratic, freedom loving state that is wholy and proudly Islamic - now that's something everyone can look forward to, and be proud of when it comes.
ABC News: Bush Pushes Democracy in U.N. Speech
Democracy, unqualified, is scary. It would seem to lead to a McCulture, something noone really wants. But a democratic, freedom loving state that is wholy and proudly Islamic - now that's something everyone can look forward to, and be proud of when it comes.
ABC News: Bush Pushes Democracy in U.N. Speech
Weird Web App Design ... from Google
I'm a big fan of Google Desktop. Hit CTRL twice and I can type in the name of any program or document on my computer to access it. Oddly, this doesn't seem to be what Google intends Desktop to do: it intends it to be much more, a host for various "Gadgets" to take up screen real-estate.
Consider the email gadget: it gives some useful features, namely the Microsoft Outlook inspired popup on recepiet of new mail. This can be quite handy, but it can also be distracting. But lets say this is a good feature. The weird thing about the gmail gadget is that when you open a message, gmail comes up with just that message, and no context. You can't get to other messages through the newly popped up web interface. This is frustrating because you've been trained to use the application in one way, and now the gmail gadget is forcing you to use it in another way.
I can understand the reasoning: don't confuse users by transferring "application level" control over to another interface (namely, the browser) when the application level control is handled somewhere else (namely, the gadget). This is indeed a cleaner approach from a programmer's point of view: it is a perfect seperation of responsibilities. Gadget gets app level control, the browser shows a single message. No one steps on each others toes, and the functionality is orthogonal.
But it sucks from a usability standpoint. Users (or this user, at least) am used to seeing a message in the context of an "inbox" and, without changing interfaces, moving "forward" and "backward" through a list of recieved messages.
Admittedly, Gmail, GDesktop, and this particular gadget are "beta". But since everything google makes, apparently, is still in beta and will remain so for the indefinite future, doesn't that sort of reduce to meaninglessness the "beta" moniker?
Consider the email gadget: it gives some useful features, namely the Microsoft Outlook inspired popup on recepiet of new mail. This can be quite handy, but it can also be distracting. But lets say this is a good feature. The weird thing about the gmail gadget is that when you open a message, gmail comes up with just that message, and no context. You can't get to other messages through the newly popped up web interface. This is frustrating because you've been trained to use the application in one way, and now the gmail gadget is forcing you to use it in another way.
I can understand the reasoning: don't confuse users by transferring "application level" control over to another interface (namely, the browser) when the application level control is handled somewhere else (namely, the gadget). This is indeed a cleaner approach from a programmer's point of view: it is a perfect seperation of responsibilities. Gadget gets app level control, the browser shows a single message. No one steps on each others toes, and the functionality is orthogonal.
But it sucks from a usability standpoint. Users (or this user, at least) am used to seeing a message in the context of an "inbox" and, without changing interfaces, moving "forward" and "backward" through a list of recieved messages.
Admittedly, Gmail, GDesktop, and this particular gadget are "beta". But since everything google makes, apparently, is still in beta and will remain so for the indefinite future, doesn't that sort of reduce to meaninglessness the "beta" moniker?
Anousheh Ansari, Just in Time
Anousheh Ansari flys into space just in time to show us the absurdity of ethnic and religious conflict between the Middle East and the West. Ansari is a poke in the eye of an Iranian regime that degrades women. She is a poke in the eye to Western bigots who think that all Middle Easterners are good at is being over sensitive to percieved religious slights. She is an example of the best of what this Earth can produce: a powerful dreamer who can warp reality to match her own dream.
She did it with the X-Prize. She is doing it now with the ISS. Robert Heinlien (himself a great proponent of privatly funded spaceflight) would have been suprised, but I daresay not displeased, that THE leading figure of the privatization of space flight effort today would be of Iranian descent, and a woman.
You go, girl.
She did it with the X-Prize. She is doing it now with the ISS. Robert Heinlien (himself a great proponent of privatly funded spaceflight) would have been suprised, but I daresay not displeased, that THE leading figure of the privatization of space flight effort today would be of Iranian descent, and a woman.
You go, girl.
Pope Bendict XVI's Speech that caused the furor
Here is the speech.
Once again I am exasperated by the violent Muslim response. Personally, I think the quote was used in poor taste and was indeed inflammatory. But that doesn't really matter: they are *words*. They aren't even words used to set policy for dealing with or ruling Muslims. They were thoughtless and insensitive, no matter if they were quoted, but they are not worth killing nuns over.
The very essence of civilization is the ability to react nonviolently to the things that other people do or say that we don't like. With the Danish cartoons and now with this, many Muslims, including those in power who should know better, have shown that they don't understand how to be civilized. These uncivilized violent reactions shame Islam, Muslims, and the Prophet infinitely more than what even the most virulent detractor has to say about the religion. A restrained reaction speaks volumes about a group's character. So does a violent reaction.
Once again I am exasperated by the violent Muslim response. Personally, I think the quote was used in poor taste and was indeed inflammatory. But that doesn't really matter: they are *words*. They aren't even words used to set policy for dealing with or ruling Muslims. They were thoughtless and insensitive, no matter if they were quoted, but they are not worth killing nuns over.
The very essence of civilization is the ability to react nonviolently to the things that other people do or say that we don't like. With the Danish cartoons and now with this, many Muslims, including those in power who should know better, have shown that they don't understand how to be civilized. These uncivilized violent reactions shame Islam, Muslims, and the Prophet infinitely more than what even the most virulent detractor has to say about the religion. A restrained reaction speaks volumes about a group's character. So does a violent reaction.
My McDermott Cue
According to the McDermott Pool Cue Guide my cue is an E-D6 made in '90 or '92 and worth around $190. Cool! I think it was closer to a '92 model, as I only started shooting seriously in college.
Rant: Evil Cell-Phone Companies (T-Mobile)
I got very angry today when I opened my phone bill to discover that T-Mobile has billed me $128.34 for last month's usage. That is more than double my normal bill ($48). This is because I used 721 minutes during "peak" times rather than the 600 allowed in my plan. T-Mobile charges $0.40/minute of airtime - calls going in or out.
250 minutes were used calling another T-Mobile customer.
60 minutes were used calling my own voicemail.
At first I didn't understand this. It just didn't make sense. The woman patiently explained that I had just been raped by her company. Oh, and did she forget to mention that I am currently over-limit this month as well? Oh, you don't know how to typ 3829# to check your minutes?
Then this woman had the gall to do me the "favor" of offering a new plan - 1000 minutes for $50/month. She would even do me the "favor" of applying it to the current bill. Sorry, can't be applied to the actual bill I was calling about. Just can't be done, sorry.
I mentioned something about extortion, and she cooed sympathetically. I finally agreed to the change. Then she drops the bomb - oh, changing your plan means renewing your contract.
The anger at that point was overwhelming. It came like a wave of heat or a flash of lightening. I said something like "F--- you you f---ing b---h" and hung up the phone.
It took a while for the anger to subside. I walked on the beach, trying to think about something besides this petty injustice. But my mind kept coming back to it. The situation sucks because if I refuse to pay the bill, it will just go to collections and then on my credit report. Obviously there is no way T-Mobile will reverse the charges. There is no hope for this situation - but is there hope for the future to prevent such things from happening?
What is the nature of this problem? How did cell phone companies get to be this way? Why is good wireless phone service so problematic?
Of course, this is just a variation on a theme: big companies use automation (computers) to enforce impossible-to-follow rules on fallable humans. The humans are, to a man, too stupid to realize what they are agreeing to in these contracts, and that it will be impossible to comply.
In this case, there are two problems: first, the contract between me and T-Mobile is completely written by them, and modified by them without my consent. *Of course* they're going to manipulate it to maximize profits. In addition, I am set up so that I don't know I'm in the danger zone until it's too late: my phone doesn't let me know I'm over my limit, or even approaching the limit. My phone doesn't tell me whether I'm in peak or off-peak periods. Wouldn't this be a simple change that would protect consumers in this asymmetrical relationship? Wouldn't it be a touch of automation for the little guy?
If these features are so valuable to consumers, why hasn't the market responded? Speaking of which, why is it that all cell-phone companies seem to have exactly the same terms and conditions?
There are several problems that I can see. First, people don't like to change phone numbers, and because of this they don't change carriers. A long, stable phone number is a good thing. Changing numbers can be a sign of flakiness. If that number is associated with a single service provider, then you have a huge barrier to overcome to change carriers. Therefore, phone numbers should be carrier independant.
The end result of these barriers-to-switching is that companies can "turn up the heat" and whip their own customers several times (and quite severely) before they actually leave. (If they were to rape a customer too hard though they'd leave immediately.)
What can I do? I really want to dump T-Mobile like a bad habit. They absolutely suck. And yet, the competition isn't any better. So really I want to dump my cell phone. This would be inconvenient. Ideally I would continue having my cell phone and a) reverse these beatings and b) prevent the beatings from occuring ever again to anyone.
Or, start a company that will obtain city money to run a public wifi network over which specially designed wifi phones could operate, free.
250 minutes were used calling another T-Mobile customer.
60 minutes were used calling my own voicemail.
At first I didn't understand this. It just didn't make sense. The woman patiently explained that I had just been raped by her company. Oh, and did she forget to mention that I am currently over-limit this month as well? Oh, you don't know how to typ 3829# to check your minutes?
Then this woman had the gall to do me the "favor" of offering a new plan - 1000 minutes for $50/month. She would even do me the "favor" of applying it to the current bill. Sorry, can't be applied to the actual bill I was calling about. Just can't be done, sorry.
I mentioned something about extortion, and she cooed sympathetically. I finally agreed to the change. Then she drops the bomb - oh, changing your plan means renewing your contract.
The anger at that point was overwhelming. It came like a wave of heat or a flash of lightening. I said something like "F--- you you f---ing b---h" and hung up the phone.
It took a while for the anger to subside. I walked on the beach, trying to think about something besides this petty injustice. But my mind kept coming back to it. The situation sucks because if I refuse to pay the bill, it will just go to collections and then on my credit report. Obviously there is no way T-Mobile will reverse the charges. There is no hope for this situation - but is there hope for the future to prevent such things from happening?
What is the nature of this problem? How did cell phone companies get to be this way? Why is good wireless phone service so problematic?
Of course, this is just a variation on a theme: big companies use automation (computers) to enforce impossible-to-follow rules on fallable humans. The humans are, to a man, too stupid to realize what they are agreeing to in these contracts, and that it will be impossible to comply.
In this case, there are two problems: first, the contract between me and T-Mobile is completely written by them, and modified by them without my consent. *Of course* they're going to manipulate it to maximize profits. In addition, I am set up so that I don't know I'm in the danger zone until it's too late: my phone doesn't let me know I'm over my limit, or even approaching the limit. My phone doesn't tell me whether I'm in peak or off-peak periods. Wouldn't this be a simple change that would protect consumers in this asymmetrical relationship? Wouldn't it be a touch of automation for the little guy?
If these features are so valuable to consumers, why hasn't the market responded? Speaking of which, why is it that all cell-phone companies seem to have exactly the same terms and conditions?
There are several problems that I can see. First, people don't like to change phone numbers, and because of this they don't change carriers. A long, stable phone number is a good thing. Changing numbers can be a sign of flakiness. If that number is associated with a single service provider, then you have a huge barrier to overcome to change carriers. Therefore, phone numbers should be carrier independant.
The end result of these barriers-to-switching is that companies can "turn up the heat" and whip their own customers several times (and quite severely) before they actually leave. (If they were to rape a customer too hard though they'd leave immediately.)
What can I do? I really want to dump T-Mobile like a bad habit. They absolutely suck. And yet, the competition isn't any better. So really I want to dump my cell phone. This would be inconvenient. Ideally I would continue having my cell phone and a) reverse these beatings and b) prevent the beatings from occuring ever again to anyone.
Or, start a company that will obtain city money to run a public wifi network over which specially designed wifi phones could operate, free.
Potato-Chips for the Mind
I'm going to blog about not using my computer.
For the next 2 weeks I will only use a computer to:
- Message once a day. This includes email, aim, and snail mail.
- Look up a phone number, address, or map (yellowpages).
- Create something - (song, story, art, etc)
(I was tempted to add "To learn about a specific subject" but I think that would be too risky. That's what the public library is for.)
All computer usage will be blogged. This inlcudes the content of whatever I create.
I was walking along the beach tonight and realized, I'm tired of the news. It gets me down because it seems like things are getting worse for the first time in my life. Things in general seemed to be getting better for so long, I kind of took it for granted that it would continue. The amount of violence is appalling. In addition, I'm tired of getting sucked into long bouts of surfing that seem fun at the time but leave me feeling empty. The internet is like a giant bag of impossible-to-resist mental potato-chips, and my mind needs something more nutritious.
Certain practical aspects of this experiment have yet to be decided. That is as it should be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)