Iraq and Afghanistan: worth another $190 billion? - Los Angeles Times: " Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates has announced that the Bush administration will request $190 billion for fiscal year 2008 for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. "
That's a lot of money.
Saving Burma the right way?
Saving Burma the right way - Los Angeles Times: "The war, poverty and repression are all interlinked; progress on all these fronts needs to happen together."
Thant Myint-U makes a strong plea for reducing sanctions against Burma. He makes the point that, even if the junta were removed, who will be there to take it's place? The west can undermine the junta with prosperity and education. This is a viewpoint worth considering.
Thant Myint-U makes a strong plea for reducing sanctions against Burma. He makes the point that, even if the junta were removed, who will be there to take it's place? The west can undermine the junta with prosperity and education. This is a viewpoint worth considering.
Alan Greenspan's The Age of Turbulence - a book review
For better or worse, I've been reading The Age of Turbulence by Alan Greenspan. The book is quite remarkable in several respects, not the least of which is what is left out. Were there no true personal conundrums to be faced during his 14 year tenure at the Fed? Personal friends who asked for favors, and had to be turned down? Legal but ethically questionable conflicts of interest that may have even taken Mr. Greenspan by surprise? Having to deal with friends directly and seriously affected by his own decisions? All of these questions are unanswered, and it's hard to believe that "Mr. Chairman" didn't step on any of his (very) powerful friends toes in all of those years.
In truth, I can't help but admire the man. He presents himself as fundamentally a technician, something that I find very easy to believe. That this lower-middle class Jewish kid from Brooklyn rose to be one of the most powerful men in the nation makes for stunning revelation in it's simplicity: you just have to be a genius, psychologically stable, and have an interest in something powerful people also have an interest in, money. It doesn't even seem to require any ambition: apparently, with these ingredients, positions of ever increasing influence and power will simply be offered to you. And while some readers may think the same thing with irony, I do not. I believe that Greenspan is an idealist, and humble in his single-minded pursuit of the perfection of his econometric models, and worldly success to him is, at best, a happy side-effect of his interest.
The sheer lack of shrillness in his book speaks highly of his character. True, some sections sound a bit defensive (such as those describing his infamous address to Congress regarding the 2001 Bush Jr. tax cut). But over all, here is a guy who truly believes in the value of capitalism, and doesn't shy away from expressing opinion, but takes care to do so in a way grounded in observable fact. I think that's good.
He makes a very good point toward the end of the book, that the more perfect a market, the more stress "creative destruction" creates for people. And yet this is the price we all pay for increasing material affluence. He makes the further point that some cultures choose less material affluence in return for less stress - citing Germany as one example. Greenspan's personal bias clearly seems to be for "more stress, more materialism" but I'm glad that he lays out the choice so clearly.
Of course, reading this book can't help but make me think about financial markets, and why Greenspan is constantly talking about making them more "flexible". I can't help but think he's been influenced by brokerage firms who make money in proportion to fluidity of markets. I mean, these firms make money on every dollar transfer from point a to point b, right? Therefore, it's in their best interest to keep money moving from point a to point b, then back again, and then back again.... So there's an incentive to do even more "creative destruction" than is strictly necessary, just to make money on the transfers of vast wealth. I read the book quite carefully and never heard this question answered.
The book fails for the lay reader (like me) by getting a bit too technical. Some of the terms I am unfamiliar with, as well as some of the dynamics he sites. But even so one gets a sense of the thought process behind a US$300m/year enterprise (The Federal Reserve) who's primary work is to produce a single number (the long term federal interest rate) every month. I would have liked more of a backgrounder on certain topics, maybe not even in the narrative but in a side bar or even an accompanying website.
I find it remarkable how homogenous Greenspan sees the world. He can abstract whole nations (and their histories) as a set of numbers: GDP, per capita income, productivity levels, exchange rates, authoritarian/democratic, etc. This kind of analysis is so relentless in the book, and I can't help but feel a kind of pull of simplicity - maybe the world isn't such a big, unfathomable place after all! Maybe it can all be understood (at the right level of abstraction) in a way that really matters. And yet, on the other hand, such homogeneity seems to presuppose a globalization process that has already completed - in Alan Greenspan's head.
Globalization is one of those contentious issues that Greenspan addresses briefly, but for the most part takes as an assumed worthy goal. This is easy to understand coming from an ardent Objectivist (he attended Ayn Rand's funeral). He never specifically addresses the workplace problems in third world countries creating textiles, for example.
Another contentious issue is whether or not the world really has gotten better as the result of capitalism. This is not a point of fact that is universally accepted, and yet Greenspan presents it without much evidence. Frankly, my personal inclination is that he's right, but time and time again I've discovered that my anecdotal experience cannot be relied upon to present an accurate global picture! From one very smart person, for example, I've even heard it claimed that the "dark ages" weren't really that dark, and that peasants actually had it pretty good. That seems possible to me, but since it goes against the mainstream it kind of requires a bit of proof.
There's a claim in the book that populist measures don't work. Now, I agree with that just because it seems like history shows it to be true. However, I'm not sure if I buy the explanation: that if you fix an imbalance in one area that you create several imbalances elsewhere. If that holds true for macro economics, why doesn't it hold true for individuals? And if it holds true for individuals, doesn't this mean that we shouldn't ever try to help people, including ourselves, for fear of generating other imbalances in the system? In other words, the fear of taking action because of inadvertently created imbalances seems to be a more general principle.
Greenspan makes a big point that the collapse of the Soviet Union showed empirically that centrally planned economies do not work. I would be curious to know how information technology could be used to potentially solve the problems that plagued central planning. I would have liked Greenspan to address this intriguing possibility.
My overall reaction to this book was quite mixed. Intellectually I found it quite stimulating and interesting - I've always wondered "where the money goes" when I deposit money into the bank, and get a bit cross-eyed when I hear financial news, and this book shed a bit of light on how the game is played at the highest levels. And yet, I can't help but notice the mild depression that hit me as I was reading the book. I'm not sure exactly what caused that - perhaps it was watching as a brilliant man retold his entire long eighty year life mostly in terms of numbers and endless meetings wearing a suit and tie. Greenspan doesn't like the noisy music of the 20th century, and yet that's the culture he helped to create. Could Schumann have lived today? Is it possible to put a dollar amount on peaceful, slower-paced living? What irony that Greenspan is advocating the acceleration of a world in which his favorite art forms could never have been created.
How can capitalism go wrong? Check this out:
In truth, I can't help but admire the man. He presents himself as fundamentally a technician, something that I find very easy to believe. That this lower-middle class Jewish kid from Brooklyn rose to be one of the most powerful men in the nation makes for stunning revelation in it's simplicity: you just have to be a genius, psychologically stable, and have an interest in something powerful people also have an interest in, money. It doesn't even seem to require any ambition: apparently, with these ingredients, positions of ever increasing influence and power will simply be offered to you. And while some readers may think the same thing with irony, I do not. I believe that Greenspan is an idealist, and humble in his single-minded pursuit of the perfection of his econometric models, and worldly success to him is, at best, a happy side-effect of his interest.
The sheer lack of shrillness in his book speaks highly of his character. True, some sections sound a bit defensive (such as those describing his infamous address to Congress regarding the 2001 Bush Jr. tax cut). But over all, here is a guy who truly believes in the value of capitalism, and doesn't shy away from expressing opinion, but takes care to do so in a way grounded in observable fact. I think that's good.
He makes a very good point toward the end of the book, that the more perfect a market, the more stress "creative destruction" creates for people. And yet this is the price we all pay for increasing material affluence. He makes the further point that some cultures choose less material affluence in return for less stress - citing Germany as one example. Greenspan's personal bias clearly seems to be for "more stress, more materialism" but I'm glad that he lays out the choice so clearly.
Of course, reading this book can't help but make me think about financial markets, and why Greenspan is constantly talking about making them more "flexible". I can't help but think he's been influenced by brokerage firms who make money in proportion to fluidity of markets. I mean, these firms make money on every dollar transfer from point a to point b, right? Therefore, it's in their best interest to keep money moving from point a to point b, then back again, and then back again.... So there's an incentive to do even more "creative destruction" than is strictly necessary, just to make money on the transfers of vast wealth. I read the book quite carefully and never heard this question answered.
The book fails for the lay reader (like me) by getting a bit too technical. Some of the terms I am unfamiliar with, as well as some of the dynamics he sites. But even so one gets a sense of the thought process behind a US$300m/year enterprise (The Federal Reserve) who's primary work is to produce a single number (the long term federal interest rate) every month. I would have liked more of a backgrounder on certain topics, maybe not even in the narrative but in a side bar or even an accompanying website.
I find it remarkable how homogenous Greenspan sees the world. He can abstract whole nations (and their histories) as a set of numbers: GDP, per capita income, productivity levels, exchange rates, authoritarian/democratic, etc. This kind of analysis is so relentless in the book, and I can't help but feel a kind of pull of simplicity - maybe the world isn't such a big, unfathomable place after all! Maybe it can all be understood (at the right level of abstraction) in a way that really matters. And yet, on the other hand, such homogeneity seems to presuppose a globalization process that has already completed - in Alan Greenspan's head.
Globalization is one of those contentious issues that Greenspan addresses briefly, but for the most part takes as an assumed worthy goal. This is easy to understand coming from an ardent Objectivist (he attended Ayn Rand's funeral). He never specifically addresses the workplace problems in third world countries creating textiles, for example.
Another contentious issue is whether or not the world really has gotten better as the result of capitalism. This is not a point of fact that is universally accepted, and yet Greenspan presents it without much evidence. Frankly, my personal inclination is that he's right, but time and time again I've discovered that my anecdotal experience cannot be relied upon to present an accurate global picture! From one very smart person, for example, I've even heard it claimed that the "dark ages" weren't really that dark, and that peasants actually had it pretty good. That seems possible to me, but since it goes against the mainstream it kind of requires a bit of proof.
There's a claim in the book that populist measures don't work. Now, I agree with that just because it seems like history shows it to be true. However, I'm not sure if I buy the explanation: that if you fix an imbalance in one area that you create several imbalances elsewhere. If that holds true for macro economics, why doesn't it hold true for individuals? And if it holds true for individuals, doesn't this mean that we shouldn't ever try to help people, including ourselves, for fear of generating other imbalances in the system? In other words, the fear of taking action because of inadvertently created imbalances seems to be a more general principle.
Greenspan makes a big point that the collapse of the Soviet Union showed empirically that centrally planned economies do not work. I would be curious to know how information technology could be used to potentially solve the problems that plagued central planning. I would have liked Greenspan to address this intriguing possibility.
My overall reaction to this book was quite mixed. Intellectually I found it quite stimulating and interesting - I've always wondered "where the money goes" when I deposit money into the bank, and get a bit cross-eyed when I hear financial news, and this book shed a bit of light on how the game is played at the highest levels. And yet, I can't help but notice the mild depression that hit me as I was reading the book. I'm not sure exactly what caused that - perhaps it was watching as a brilliant man retold his entire long eighty year life mostly in terms of numbers and endless meetings wearing a suit and tie. Greenspan doesn't like the noisy music of the 20th century, and yet that's the culture he helped to create. Could Schumann have lived today? Is it possible to put a dollar amount on peaceful, slower-paced living? What irony that Greenspan is advocating the acceleration of a world in which his favorite art forms could never have been created.
How can capitalism go wrong? Check this out:
Funny or Die Videos
Funny or Die Videos is actually very funny. A good time waster for those without a TV (like me).
The secret to a happy marriage
Ben Stiller Loses Heart - TIME: "'Sit back, relax and wait for the sweet embrace of death'"
I don't plan on seeing this movie, but that advice for marital happiness is fucking hilarious.
I don't plan on seeing this movie, but that advice for marital happiness is fucking hilarious.
Burma on the cusp of freedom
There have been growing protests in Burma (aka Myanmar) led by Buddhist monks. Burma is a country close to my heart because a great meditation teacher, S.N. Goenka, calls that country home and credits the land and it's people with maintaining "pure" Buddhist meditation (esp Vipassana) practice for 2500 years. It has always saddened me to know that Burma, the land of beautiful therevada Buddhism, could be home to one of the most oppressive military dictatorships in the world. The quality of a teaching can be judged by the action of it's students, and for a country that's 90% Buddhist to be ruled by a corrupt military junta presents a problem for those considering the teaching as a practical guide to living.
But the Buddhist monks have finally begun to act, and we see how powerful the winds of change can be. The monks have ceased accepting alms from government workers (a hugely shameful thing for them to endure) and have actually taken to the streets in peaceful protest. Hopefully the end result of this protest will be the release of Aung San Suu Kyi and her rightful installment as Burma's democratically elected leader. Suu Kyi is an amazing human being and I don't doubt that Burma's fortunes would change drastically for the better. I mean, I'm really excited! Indeed, the region is so rich in natural resources one could see a more enlightened Burma not only correcting it's current economic woes (the avg yearly income is $175) and loss of freedom (the media is universally pre-censored), but actually growing into a world player. Think Singapore, but with heart.
I for one will be meditating and praying for the success of this peaceful and righteous "insurrection". I hope dearly that the everyday men and women of the repressive, unjust government regime abandon their posts and join in with the protests, and that no blood is spilled. Burma deserves much better than she's gotten over the last 40 years, and by golly I think she's finally going to be set free!
Jim Carrey has a wonderful little video about Aung Sun Suu Kyi, and there are some links to help.
I am not familiar with these organizations, and cannot vouch for them. But they are mentioned in the video and I link them here for your convenience:
humanrightsactioncenter.org
uscampaignforburma.org
Also, send an encouraging email to the UN Secretary General. The UN Security Council needs to get involved.
But the Buddhist monks have finally begun to act, and we see how powerful the winds of change can be. The monks have ceased accepting alms from government workers (a hugely shameful thing for them to endure) and have actually taken to the streets in peaceful protest. Hopefully the end result of this protest will be the release of Aung San Suu Kyi and her rightful installment as Burma's democratically elected leader. Suu Kyi is an amazing human being and I don't doubt that Burma's fortunes would change drastically for the better. I mean, I'm really excited! Indeed, the region is so rich in natural resources one could see a more enlightened Burma not only correcting it's current economic woes (the avg yearly income is $175) and loss of freedom (the media is universally pre-censored), but actually growing into a world player. Think Singapore, but with heart.
I for one will be meditating and praying for the success of this peaceful and righteous "insurrection". I hope dearly that the everyday men and women of the repressive, unjust government regime abandon their posts and join in with the protests, and that no blood is spilled. Burma deserves much better than she's gotten over the last 40 years, and by golly I think she's finally going to be set free!
Jim Carrey has a wonderful little video about Aung Sun Suu Kyi, and there are some links to help.
I am not familiar with these organizations, and cannot vouch for them. But they are mentioned in the video and I link them here for your convenience:
humanrightsactioncenter.org
uscampaignforburma.org
Also, send an encouraging email to the UN Secretary General. The UN Security Council needs to get involved.
"The Keys to my Heart" - according to blogthings.com
I don't normally take those survey things, but this one piqued my interest and the answer was fairly accurate (as far as I can tell).
The Keys to Your Heart |
 You are attracted to those who are unbridled, untrammeled, and free. In love, you feel the most alive when your lover is creative and never lets you feel bored. You'd like to your lover to think you are optimistic and happy. You would be forced to break up with someone who was insecure and in constant need of reassurance. Your ideal relationship is lasting. You want a relationship that looks to the future... one you can grow with. Your risk of cheating is zero. You care about society and morality. You would never break a commitment. You think of marriage something you've always wanted... though you haven't really thought about it. In this moment, you think of love as commitment. Love only works when both people are totally devoted. |
Flickr Foibles
A while back I wrote about Flickr's photo hostage thing. I eventually succumbed, and paid up. Now it's happened again. I need a good solution for this. Electronic data is so fragile, and delicate, and yet so useful in electronic form. Perhaps it really is worth $25/year - not just because they host and store my pictures fairly reliably, but because it keeps my pictures safe from my foolishness. In other words, it actually of value to me to limit my own interaction with my data. I wonder if that concept can be applied elsewhere?
The parable of the shoulders
Parable: "A parable is a brief, succinct story, in prose or verse, that illustrates a moral or religious lesson."
(Okay, this isn't really a parable. If I really wanted to write one, I'd talk about a Zebra or Rabbit with tight shoulders, going to two different gurus (perhaps a Gorilla and a Giraffe?) getting different advice. I'm a huge fan of Rudyard Kipling and his Just So Stories, but I find it easier to speak plainly.)
For many, tight shoulders indicate stress. The shoulders ride up against the ears in a universal sign of worry or tension. There are two ways to correct this. The first is to consciously pull the shoulders back and down away from the ears, using the muscles of the back. The other is to identify and eradicate the tension such that the shoulders fall of their own accord.
The former method requires strength, energy, and constant awareness. It is a bit like a dead-man switch, in that when your attention wanders, the shoulders hike up again. However, the benefit is twofold- first, an immediate change is noticed which feels good. Second, one experiences a configuration of the body that is new, and which is now no longer scary.
Of course, this is not a very good long term solution. In particular, one might start causing strain in the back. Eliminating tension is ideal, but a much more subtle task. It is possible! One addresses the psychosomatic cause of the hiked shoulder at the systematic level. It's a bit like taking a systemic pain killer to address pain in just one part of the body.
Meditation is a good way to address this sort of tension. The nice thing about meditation is that it can often address problems you did not previously notice. The body is constantly ravaged by tension, conscious and unconscious, and these knots, hiked shoulders, headaches, etc are evidence of their accumulation.
My own experience with meditation has shown me that one passes through several stages of relaxation. Even if one feels like further relaxation is impossible, one discovers the truth - there was still tension hiding. And this might happen several times during a good sit. Tension and strain like to hide in the deepest places in our body and mind.
(Okay, this isn't really a parable. If I really wanted to write one, I'd talk about a Zebra or Rabbit with tight shoulders, going to two different gurus (perhaps a Gorilla and a Giraffe?) getting different advice. I'm a huge fan of Rudyard Kipling and his Just So Stories, but I find it easier to speak plainly.)
For many, tight shoulders indicate stress. The shoulders ride up against the ears in a universal sign of worry or tension. There are two ways to correct this. The first is to consciously pull the shoulders back and down away from the ears, using the muscles of the back. The other is to identify and eradicate the tension such that the shoulders fall of their own accord.
The former method requires strength, energy, and constant awareness. It is a bit like a dead-man switch, in that when your attention wanders, the shoulders hike up again. However, the benefit is twofold- first, an immediate change is noticed which feels good. Second, one experiences a configuration of the body that is new, and which is now no longer scary.
Of course, this is not a very good long term solution. In particular, one might start causing strain in the back. Eliminating tension is ideal, but a much more subtle task. It is possible! One addresses the psychosomatic cause of the hiked shoulder at the systematic level. It's a bit like taking a systemic pain killer to address pain in just one part of the body.
Meditation is a good way to address this sort of tension. The nice thing about meditation is that it can often address problems you did not previously notice. The body is constantly ravaged by tension, conscious and unconscious, and these knots, hiked shoulders, headaches, etc are evidence of their accumulation.
My own experience with meditation has shown me that one passes through several stages of relaxation. Even if one feels like further relaxation is impossible, one discovers the truth - there was still tension hiding. And this might happen several times during a good sit. Tension and strain like to hide in the deepest places in our body and mind.
A band rediscovered: Lush
For a while now, I've had the office to myself. It's been wonderful. It's so nice being able to concentrate on the task at hand. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy pleasant social distraction as much as the next guy, but I enjoy playing in "happy fun space" (to use Ian Bank's term) with these abstract puzzles just as much. And to be honest, I'm paid to play with those abstractions more than with others.
Oddly enough, this delicious seclusion has made me get more into my music collection. In particular, I rediscovered Lush, a nineties shoegaze band who's kinda dreamy, but perhaps a bit more up-tempo than most shoegaze. (It's an interesting question as to why having a closed door would make me more into my music rather than less. I think it's because I don't have to worry about people sneaking up on me, so I groove out, get focused on the problem and code away.)
I also discovered Outkast. That's a band I don't quite know what to do with. Are they serious? Are they kidding? Do I care? It is, for the most part, incredibly raunchy and low-brow music of the sort that I never like to listen to.
Ok, I'm skipping around a bit, but perhaps this kind of deep concentration is exactly what agile programming hopes to eliminate. If it takes concentration to create, it will take concentration to maintain, and concentration is in precious short supply. Companies don't want to shell out for private workspaces, even for senior people. My normal stance is that this is a sad foolishness - I work better with privacy, and if you want your money's worth, then just give me some privacy. But maybe there's some method to this madness. You don't want your best developers loosing everyone in the dust. How to slow them down? Put them in bullpens, and treat them like bulls.
Oddly enough, this delicious seclusion has made me get more into my music collection. In particular, I rediscovered Lush, a nineties shoegaze band who's kinda dreamy, but perhaps a bit more up-tempo than most shoegaze. (It's an interesting question as to why having a closed door would make me more into my music rather than less. I think it's because I don't have to worry about people sneaking up on me, so I groove out, get focused on the problem and code away.)
I also discovered Outkast. That's a band I don't quite know what to do with. Are they serious? Are they kidding? Do I care? It is, for the most part, incredibly raunchy and low-brow music of the sort that I never like to listen to.
Ok, I'm skipping around a bit, but perhaps this kind of deep concentration is exactly what agile programming hopes to eliminate. If it takes concentration to create, it will take concentration to maintain, and concentration is in precious short supply. Companies don't want to shell out for private workspaces, even for senior people. My normal stance is that this is a sad foolishness - I work better with privacy, and if you want your money's worth, then just give me some privacy. But maybe there's some method to this madness. You don't want your best developers loosing everyone in the dust. How to slow them down? Put them in bullpens, and treat them like bulls.
Performance tuning Subversion (for binaries)
Performance tuning Subversion: "The performance conclusions in this article are broadly applicable to most any system using Subversion to store and retrieve binary files. The decision of how to optimize Subversion must, however, be based on the circumstances and resources of a given system. For example, in the case of the system under test, time was a much higher priority than server space. It made sense, therefore, to store binaries as compressed tar files before importing them into and exporting them out of Subversion. Compressing the binaries yields the shortest possible wait times, thus meeting the requirements of the project. The repercussions for server space usage are negligible to the system, and in any case compressed tar files take up only a little more space than using efficient check-in."
Justin Webb comments on faith in the US
BBC NEWS | Programmes | From Our Own Correspondent | America's great faith divide: "There is a reason, I think, why theocracy will never fly in the United States and it has been touched on, inadvertently, by George Bush himself."
I would add that his anecdote about the parents being outraged by a moment of silence is dead-on. Why is silence such a bad thing, even if it really is an attempt by certain religious people to be more publically religious? As I grow older, I feel more and more an affinity with silence, and it really seems to me that the slippery slope truly stops there. Silence is NOT a precursor to an abortion ban. So don't worry about it!
I would add that his anecdote about the parents being outraged by a moment of silence is dead-on. Why is silence such a bad thing, even if it really is an attempt by certain religious people to be more publically religious? As I grow older, I feel more and more an affinity with silence, and it really seems to me that the slippery slope truly stops there. Silence is NOT a precursor to an abortion ban. So don't worry about it!
Multi-touch computer interfaces.
Now, my idea was the "Computer Aided Gaming Table" and relied on sound to do multi-point positioning (I have no idea what they use). Also, my surface was to be shared by several people, and I thought that, in order to save money, I would project the image onto a large surface.
But these guys actually made it work. This is the most exciting computer hardware advance I've seen...ever.
BTW, some would draw paralells with the fake UI in the movie "Minority Report" but I think that doesn't do the Multi-touch idea justice. The fake MR interface used far too many large body motions, which just aren't useful.
Article - Money - Blizzard makes WoW wish virtual reality
Article - Money - Blizzard makes WoW wish virtual reality: "WoW players should keep an eye out for Chatterton's creations: the rare, flame-shooting crossbow, a quest from a graying Tauren named Ahab Wheathoof and his frenzied dog, Kyle. Blizzard will add Ezra's changes to the game in the next four weeks."
A nice utility - ctrl2cap
I do not use caps lock hardly ever. I do use control all of the time. And yet caps lock is much closer to your fingers than control. This can be fixed with a HANDY UTILITY.
Technorati Tags: utility
Technorati Tags: utility
Something to help with the Blog - ScribeFire
I am testing this new Firefox plugin that promises to make writing blogs a snap. Kind of a "Blog It!" button on steroids. See all preview images
Powered by ScribeFire.
Blizzard Fan Art Program
Blizzard Fan Art Program: The fans of WoW (and all the Blizzard IP) are extremely talented. Just look at this pic of Illidan, a major character in the Warcraft universe. Fantastic.
Here's another great one.
Here's another great one.
Updated: Open Firefox JavaScript Console in a Sidebar
Updated: Open Firefox JavaScript Console in a Sidebar: "The above rules make use of the *!important* property value to override any rules that may already exist within the page that is being loaded."
Useful tip on getting some Javascript debugging information in Firefox (no plugin needed, even!) And I keep seeing this !important css thing everywhere. It's been around forever, but I guess it's use is more common now.
Useful tip on getting some Javascript debugging information in Firefox (no plugin needed, even!) And I keep seeing this !important css thing everywhere. It's been around forever, but I guess it's use is more common now.
Some wisdom
I'm really in no position to dispense advice to anyone (indeed, much of the time I find the concept of giving people advice to be a task both daunting and ridiculous). But I would like to record a small insight. It is possible, at any moment in time, to ask oneself: what is the foolish course of action? What is the wise course of action? It is also possible to pick one or the other. Within this deceptively simple observation lies the essence of freedom, which is choice.
I don't know enough to say whether or not choosing the wise course becomes easier over time. (I actually don't think it does; what happens is that the kinds of choices you make become harder and harder, so that while making wise choices at one level becomes easy, making wise choices at higher levels remains harder).
Some people say that doing the right thing is easy; other's say it's hard. I think that there is a fine are to knowing whether or not you're strong enough to be wise right now. But, the first step in learning that art is asking the question - what is the wise path? What is the foolish path? And when I say ask the question, I don't say ask it with a derisive eye toward's the foolish path. No! The foolish path must be understood and described with dispassion and care. Indeed, derision of the fool's path connotes a certain ego, a hubris, which is a kind of foolishness in itself. No, it's almost treating yourself as a character in a story that you are writing. (Yes, there is a small problem with recursion there, but ignore that for now!)
This question can be asked of small things ("the fool would go out drinking, the wise person would stay in and read this wonderful book") or large things ("a fool would pursue wealth, the wise would pursue self-knowledge").
So asking the question is the first step. It is purely descriptive. Deciding which path to walk is a completely separate issue. On what basis do we make such a decision? Why don't we always choose the path of wisdom? I don't know the answer to this. Our minds are constructs that have their own shape and rhythm, and tend to move in certain mysterious ways. Thoughts come and go and flit and flitter in beautiful patterns. And really, when you're watching them, that's all there is. Fascination. Patience. Absorption. On waking there comes the disturbance, the extrapolation of the experience that one's thought is not oneself. What is it then? Where do these thoughts come from?
Of course, there is great danger in following the implication of a fact. So much beauty in the world stems from people's insistence on not following an implication to it's logical end. So much beauty comes from the questions that people don't ask. Entertainment and the 'suspension of disbelief' is perhaps the most visible example. Questions restructure the domain in which they are asked. Questions shape the problem. This is why so many of the holistic healing kinds of people I know have at least a mild antipathy for science: the questions that science asks seem to ruin the joy of the problem. Of course, science is so perverted these days, with kids being taught by rote what gravity is and that we're all made of cells and that the solar system has 9 planets (or however many they've decided on) that they don't have a chance to do science. Science is looking, and thinking. Science is about following implications, but they should be your own implications. Scientific questions do shape the problem a bit too effectively; there are countless isomorphisms to these problems, which might not be as efficient or terse as modern science, but perhaps these isomorphisms have some other benefits. I just think that kids (and adults) should be encouraged to do science and not be forced to explain observations they've never made with concepts that have never meant anything to them. (This is why I think all of science should be told in novel form, recapitulating someone's quest for understanding, documenting all the wrong paths and crazy ideas. The modern science curriculum is so obsessed with efficiency, and cohesion, and information density that it becomes quite unscientific!)
When is it wise to follow the implication of a fact, and when is it folly? It depends on the fact, and it depends on you. There have been times when I knew, way deep down in my bones, that I had thought the wrong question. That the answer really and truly didn't matter. There was some sort of category error implicit in the asking, and no response would be appropriate. Best to let the question's residue die off, and hopefully something more useful will arise in it's place. It is truly a shame to continue asking questions like this, because eventually you convince yourself that it's worth asking (and worse, answering). Does this mean that there is a limit to discourse? Yes! This is something that western philosophers are loathe to hear, but yes, there are real limits to what can be hashed out in word play. Sometimes (arguably, most of the time) it is better to stop and think and do, rather than to speak (or write, as I am reminding myself!).
The wise path right now is to wrap up this post and go to sleep. Good night!
I don't know enough to say whether or not choosing the wise course becomes easier over time. (I actually don't think it does; what happens is that the kinds of choices you make become harder and harder, so that while making wise choices at one level becomes easy, making wise choices at higher levels remains harder).
Some people say that doing the right thing is easy; other's say it's hard. I think that there is a fine are to knowing whether or not you're strong enough to be wise right now. But, the first step in learning that art is asking the question - what is the wise path? What is the foolish path? And when I say ask the question, I don't say ask it with a derisive eye toward's the foolish path. No! The foolish path must be understood and described with dispassion and care. Indeed, derision of the fool's path connotes a certain ego, a hubris, which is a kind of foolishness in itself. No, it's almost treating yourself as a character in a story that you are writing. (Yes, there is a small problem with recursion there, but ignore that for now!)
This question can be asked of small things ("the fool would go out drinking, the wise person would stay in and read this wonderful book") or large things ("a fool would pursue wealth, the wise would pursue self-knowledge").
So asking the question is the first step. It is purely descriptive. Deciding which path to walk is a completely separate issue. On what basis do we make such a decision? Why don't we always choose the path of wisdom? I don't know the answer to this. Our minds are constructs that have their own shape and rhythm, and tend to move in certain mysterious ways. Thoughts come and go and flit and flitter in beautiful patterns. And really, when you're watching them, that's all there is. Fascination. Patience. Absorption. On waking there comes the disturbance, the extrapolation of the experience that one's thought is not oneself. What is it then? Where do these thoughts come from?
Of course, there is great danger in following the implication of a fact. So much beauty in the world stems from people's insistence on not following an implication to it's logical end. So much beauty comes from the questions that people don't ask. Entertainment and the 'suspension of disbelief' is perhaps the most visible example. Questions restructure the domain in which they are asked. Questions shape the problem. This is why so many of the holistic healing kinds of people I know have at least a mild antipathy for science: the questions that science asks seem to ruin the joy of the problem. Of course, science is so perverted these days, with kids being taught by rote what gravity is and that we're all made of cells and that the solar system has 9 planets (or however many they've decided on) that they don't have a chance to do science. Science is looking, and thinking. Science is about following implications, but they should be your own implications. Scientific questions do shape the problem a bit too effectively; there are countless isomorphisms to these problems, which might not be as efficient or terse as modern science, but perhaps these isomorphisms have some other benefits. I just think that kids (and adults) should be encouraged to do science and not be forced to explain observations they've never made with concepts that have never meant anything to them. (This is why I think all of science should be told in novel form, recapitulating someone's quest for understanding, documenting all the wrong paths and crazy ideas. The modern science curriculum is so obsessed with efficiency, and cohesion, and information density that it becomes quite unscientific!)
When is it wise to follow the implication of a fact, and when is it folly? It depends on the fact, and it depends on you. There have been times when I knew, way deep down in my bones, that I had thought the wrong question. That the answer really and truly didn't matter. There was some sort of category error implicit in the asking, and no response would be appropriate. Best to let the question's residue die off, and hopefully something more useful will arise in it's place. It is truly a shame to continue asking questions like this, because eventually you convince yourself that it's worth asking (and worse, answering). Does this mean that there is a limit to discourse? Yes! This is something that western philosophers are loathe to hear, but yes, there are real limits to what can be hashed out in word play. Sometimes (arguably, most of the time) it is better to stop and think and do, rather than to speak (or write, as I am reminding myself!).
The wise path right now is to wrap up this post and go to sleep. Good night!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)