Meanderings

The (Apocalyptic) Future is … Now?

2009-06-09T12:27:00.001-05:00

Science fiction writers have, historically, been very accurate seers into mankind’s future, both near and distant. When Jules Verne penned “From the Earth to the Moon” in 1865, he envisioned an event so strikingly similar to the Apollo missions it’s uncanny, and he did it 92 years before Sputnik launched. The following year (1958) saw the movie adaptation of Verne’s adventure and the creation of NASA, but it would take 11 more years before Neil Armstrong would walk on the moon, something Verne saw with crystal clarity 104 years earlier.

Another popular theme of science fiction evolves around a future, post-apocalyptic Earth, with movies like The Road Warrior, Mad Max, Escape from L.A., Terminator (pick one), and Solarbabies (there’s one from the B pile), to name a few. Watch any of them and you’d see the same thing: rusting hulks of old automobiles used like oversized cinder blocks in the creation of walls, barricades, and fortresses. I enjoyed the movies, comforting myself that this was far from reality and could never happen, if for no other reason than where the heck would all the cars come from?

I’m such an idiot at times.

While Chrysler and GM are cutting dealerships left and right, Chrysler’s also not buying back the inventory off the lots. So, we’re going to see dealerships dissolve … and vast lots of cars start to appear … and rust … hmmm. Raw materials for future events?

Think I’m crazy? You may be right … but I have to ask: What does that say about the rash of “natural disaster films” (Day After Tomorrow, 10.5, Nuclear Twister, Earthquake, The Core, Armageddon, Space Cowboys, Outbreak, Volcano, Dante’s Peak, etc.) we’ve been “plagued” with lately?

“That which we call a rose by any other name …

2009-06-03T14:40:00.001-05:00

… would smell as sweet.” – Juliet (Romeo and Juliet, Act 2, Scene 2)

If you look back through history at various mystical or metaphysical belief systems (Pagan, Wiccan, Druid, etc.) you find an interesting common belief: all things, visible and invisible, have 2 names:

The name everyone knows that thing by (rock, tree, wind, sky, etc.)
The “secret” name known only to that thing and the supreme deity.

It’s the secret name (the “name of power”) that interested early mystics, as they believed that once you learned a thing’s secret name, you had total control over the thing. Another example would be knowing the “secret name of God”, and the power that knowledge afforded those who knew that name.

As a species, we’ve carried that belief forward to this day. Look around you:

The words “new and improved” seem to magically make products better.
How often have you found yourself in a discussion where the phrase “I wouldn’t use that term …” has come up?
Doesn’t “pro-life vs. pro-choice” imply that “pro-choice” is “anti-life” (since it’s on the opposite end of the argument?
We have no more handicapped, only “differently abled”.
It’s Windows XP … no Windows 2009 … no Windows 7 … no Windows internal version 6.1 …

In other words (quoting a colleague), “Names is important”. Hold on to that thought as we fast forward to back to the present and current political events.

Newt Gingrich got another 15 minutes in the spot light when he called Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor “racist” (or since she’s Hispanic, a “reverse racist”). He’s since recanted the use of the “R word” but still clings to his fear that her decisions, should she join the highest court in the land, could very well be biased because of her ethnic background (and an ill-played attempt at humor).

While the media (and the GOP, and the DFL, and anyone else who thinks they’re opinion is important to the mass public …) are all having a field day analyzing and speculating, and pointing and counter-pointing, we’re overlooking an important point here: Newt’s opinion of her has not changed … just the term he’d (publicly) use to describe it. Stop and think about that for a moment, and ask yourself the following question:

“Which is more important: The word or it’s definition?”

Many may argue that the word itself is the key. All we have to do is eradicate (or replace) the word and we’ve solved the problem (at least, that’s what Newt seems to be saying). Sound familiar? It should. as it’s the philosophy driving the “politically correct” movement.

George Carlin was a great student of language, repeatedly putting our use of English under his comedic microscope. More than once he opined that words by themselves are just words, having neither innate good nor evil. It’s the associations we tie to them that render them bad or inappropriate. Sadly, we’ve become so wrapped up in the words themselves, we completely ignore the definition that drives them.

So, to say “Sotomayor is not racist” but she could render ethnically-biased opinions is call her potentially racist without every using the word. And, somehow to Newt, that’s alright: don’t use the word and the problem goes away. Idiot.

Looking at it another way, isn’t the act of insinuating that someone could be biased because of their racial background an act of racism itself? In order to make that statement, aren’t you assuming that (since they are of a different race than you) they aren’t as unbiased as you (and your race)?

Perhaps I was wrong, but I thought we were getting away from the “because you don’t think the way I do, you’re un-American, evil, and dangerous” mindset of the last 8 years.

He Who Dealt It Can Now Measure It

2009-06-01T19:37:00.001-05:00

Here is yet more proof that, in spite of the current economic situation, there are people with too much free time. The only thing odder is that it was a final project for a class at Cornell University.

On one hand, I applaud them, because they’ve provided an answer to an age old question: How corrosive is my gas?

On the other hand … I’m afraid.

Yarrgh!

2008-09-19T15:12:00.001-05:00

Anuther year 'as gone, me hearties!

Net Neuter-ality

2008-08-20T08:57:00.001-05:00

In the emotional whirlwind which is our current political campaign cycle, there are many issues that wax and wane with the tide of public opinion. "Net neutrality" has been on the waning side (haven't heard much about it recently) and, because of that, I've not paid much attention.

Lawrence Lessig, on the other hand, has been watching and he's summed up his perspective on John McCain's technology policy brilliantly in this video.

Isn't it curious how the Republicans always serve up geriatric candidates with archaic stances on evolution, while Democrats serve up youthful alternatives interested in changing the world? Now, before you go off whining about one party or the other, I'm not loyal to either of them as I think both have faults. Yes, both parties are generational, both have good basic principals. The problem is neither follow them, though that's as much the fault of the populace as anything else.

But, I digress. Check out Lessig's video and draw your own conclusions. As for me:

John McCain: EPIC FAIL

Barack Obama: Verdict still out

Zen and the Art of the Reply (Part II)

2008-07-23T13:56:00.002-05:00

Yesterday, I wrote about 3 questions you can ask yourself before you respond to someone (to figure out whether a response is needed or warranted). Today, I want to delve deeper and offer a perspective for answering those questions, by using an adaptation of the "Ben Franklin" decision technique.

For those not familiar with it, the "Ben Franklin" technique was a method used by Ben when faced with a complicated issue. With it, he'd boil all the pros and cons of the issue down to a simple question with two possible outcomes. Simply put:

List all the points that support the question.
List all the points that counter the question.
Apply any necessary weighting factors to what's been listed (if certain pros/cons are more important than others)
Look at what you've written, letting the the lists and weights drive the decision.

A very simple example (without weighting) would be:

Take a sheet of paper and draw a line down the middle.
List all the pros down one side of the line, cons down the other. Keep each item to a single line (bullet point).
Which ever side has more bullet points (pro or con), that's the decision to make.

In applying Ben's method to the 3 questions, we get:

Does [what they said] require a response?

What would happen if someone did respond?
What would happen if nobody did?

Does [what they said] require a response from me?

What would happen if I did respond?
What would happen if I did not?

Does [what they said] require a response from me now?

What would happen if I responded now?
What would happen if I waited?

A key thing to remember: "I'd feel a lot better once I ..." isn't necessary the best answer (to any of the questions above). When you finish venting you naturally feel better because you've "run out of steam" and are less stressed than you were at the peak of your vent, but you're still much more stressed than you were before you started. Not everyone is like Mel Gibson's Martin Riggs in Lethal Weapon, who went from wild-eyed, in-your-face-with-a-revolver-under-his-chin to a half-lidded, matter of fact "I'm hungry" in under 5 seconds. Stress takes the rest of us time to work out of our systems, to return to our "resting heart rate" as it were.

So, why stress in the first place? Ask your questions, look at your answers, then decide whether it's worthwhile to pursue things.

Zen and the Art of the Reply

2008-07-22T16:27:00.001-05:00

In this day of multi-channel communications overload, it has become insanely easy to fire off an email (or SMS, Twitter, Tumblr, Jaiku, Plurk, Pownce, Jott, ...), post to your blog (or Facebook, Classmates, Friendster, LinkedIn, Plaxo, LiveJournal, WordPress, Blogger, MySpace, Utterz, Orkutz, an online forum or your choice, ...), or leave a post on someone else's blog (or ... well, you get the picture) ... all without really thinking about what we have to say. Couple that with a general air of intolerance in some online circles (where any reply brings on a "flamewar" as though people were just itching for a fight) and spam shrinks to a trivial (and, for the most part, ignorable) online issue.

In a nutshell: Just because someone else publicly said something (either to/about you or about a topic which you're passionate about) doesn't mean you must engage in what may appear to you as witty repartee but which, in fact, is mindless "oh, yeah? Well, so there!" prattle. To say nothing of the stress created as your blood pressure rises and you focus all your energy on visualizing your online foe being squished between your thumb and forefinger (like the heads of victims of Mr. Tyzik from The Kids in the Hall) . It may feel good, but only for awhile ... and it usually keeps things escalating for no good reason.

I had lunch with my parents this weekend, during which our discussion wandered (as it is want to do) onto the topic of conflict resolution. More specifically, is it really necessary to confront someone who has either said something or sent something (email, etc.) to you, especially if their statement pisses you off?

The simple answer: Not necessarily. If you're having an open and honest dialog, perhaps (but it requires that both parties be willing to both listen and understand the other). However, if you're pretty certain that the speaker will neither understand nor appreciate your response, sometimes it's best not to reply.

But how to know when and when not to continue a dialog? A very good question, and I can answer that by giving you 3 questions to ask yourself when you're in such a situation.

Before you react (or reply, or email, or whatever), ask yourself the following:

Does [what they said] require a response?
Does [what they said] require a response from me?
Does [what they said] require a response from me now?

If you cannot answer "yes" to all three questions, don't respond (if "yes" to just the first 2, then wait a bit). Pretty simple, cuts to the heart of the matter ... but not the way we're programmed to think normally. Think of these as a more detailed interpretation of the old adage:

"If you have nothing constructive to say, say nothing."

I can't take credit for these 3 questions. Kudos here goes to a coworker who uses them to get her through meetings where she finds herself itching to dive into a debate, only to find (after applying the questions) that any input she would have provided would have been misinterpreted and not produced the desired outcome.

I also make no claims about how easy it is to simply let things go when you first try. It's not (believe me, I know), but it does get easier with time. And, with time, you'll find that you become less and less riled up about things you have no interest in discussing. Life gets better, stress goes down.

Try it!

Twitter ... in ... Space ...

2008-06-25T10:21:00.001-05:00

Now this is just completely beyond cool!

Mars Phoenix Mission Twitter Feed

(Don't) Sleep on It!

2008-06-16T10:53:00.001-05:00

A study conducted by the University of Minnesota suggests that if you don't have a consistent, regular sleep habit (i.e. same number of hours, same level of relaxation, same time of night, etc.) you're more likely to have "aging issues" (i.e. you'll die).

There's a part of me that went "duh!?!" when I heard this (it seems intuitively obvious), but then I had to take a step back and rethink things. Is it really your screwed up sleeping habits that adversely affect your health (and, potentially, lead to your death) ...

OR ... is it the waking early and staying up late that affect your health ... or the driving while drunk (because you're out later) and driving hung over (because you were out later the night before) that kills you?

OR ... it that (according to another survey) too little sleep leads to snacking ... which leads to weight gain ... and fat gain, and cholesterol gain ... which leads to health issues?

OR ... is it because we're all getting fatter, and being overweight (which apparently ups the changes of shortened sleeping) has it's own mortality issues?

Bottom line: You can't draw significant conclusions from a study unless the study addresses all possible variables and variations that may affect the outcome.

Oh, and don't go thinking that all you have to do is get a lot of sleep. Too much sleep can also lead to restless nights ... which puts you right back in the same leaking boat.

As for what this all really means, I'll have to get back to you ... after I take a nap.

Things that make you go "WTF?"

2008-06-13T12:25:00.001-05:00

A little buzz among bloggers was kicked off this week by Podnosh (and picked up by Bad Science) around a report published by the Charity Commission stating that (to paraphrase) "wikis and blogs have no educational value". I'm not going to go into a detailed stance here (I'll let the discussion on Podnosh and Bad Science do that for me, they're doing a wonderful job), but I am going to make one observation: What does this mean for the BBC? Let me explain.

If you take a look at who makes up the Charity Commission, you'll find Sharmila Nebhrajani is one of the commissioners. Sharmila is also COO of BBC Future Media & Technology, and this is where I get confused. The commission has a member who runs the BBC department that handles its digital content, website, and (I would assume) blogs and podcasts. The commission doesn't see blogs as educational, yet the BBC continues to support Sharmila's department in spite of a £36 million overspend.

Did I forget to mention that Sharmila also has a Facebook account?

Does this strike anyone as mildly ... well ... odd?

What a Trip!

2008-04-30T10:29:00.001-05:00

Albert Hofmann, "the father of LSD", died yesterday ... at the age of 102! That's one hundred two years old. Makes me wonder about these health nuts and what they espouse. However, that's not the main reason I'm writing.

Think about this: It's a common belief that, as you're "crossing over" you review the events of your life ... they "flash before your eyes". In essence, you have a life-encompassing "flashback" as you leave this plane of existence. The ultimate trip, eh?

Now try this: One side effect of LSD use is the possibility that you will continue to have occasional flashbacks throughout your life, even long after you'd stopped taking the drug. Good trips, bad trips, didn't matter. I had a friend who described his flashbacks as, "I'd be driving along and all of a sudden the sky would turn green, the grass in the median neon blue, and the highway a hot red. I'd be like ... 'cool ... let's see where this goes ...'". Anyway, you get the picture.

Now, here's the final point to ponder: If your life of flashbacks flashes before your eyes as you pass, wouldn't that set up an infinite recursion that would either:

Send you back in time, or
Make you immortal (since you wouldn't finish passing until the recursion collapsed)

???

Technorati Tags: lsd

Yep, I'm older ... like a fine wine

2008-03-14T15:48:00.003-05:00

Today's birthday number 45. Well, if 50's the new 30, then I'm still in my 20's. I've got that going for me. I've received several eCards today from co-workers. Many of us are rigged up on Plaxo, making the process of remembering someone's birthday ridiculously easy:

You receive an email from Plaxo, reminding you of the upcoming event
You click on a link to send a card
You select the card to send, change the default text (if you really want to)
Hit a button and you're good to go

I love it, I use it, it works. Now ... I'm not certain what to make of this, but every eCard I got today was the same template (and I mean EVERY card):

Should I be concerned?

MN politics in action takes my breath away

2008-02-29T12:08:00.001-06:00

Yep, they're at it again. That wacky, madcap band of senators and reps in St. Paul are out to extend our 2nd Amendment rights, and finally give the sellers of ammunition a break (by increasing sales).

I've only one question: I thought it was illegal to discharge a firearm in the city limits. Does this legislation trump that, or do I still get charged with a misdemeanor after killing the frightening clown who was trying to give me a balloon animal?

It seems like we're focusing on the wrong problem

2008-02-15T15:43:00.001-06:00

In his book "When Will Jesus Bring the Pork Chops?", George Carlin explains that "suicide bombers" aren't really committing suicide: suicide is the result of someone believing their life is worthless, while these bombers believe the act of ending their lives matters especially if they can take someone with them (preferably an infidel or two). In reality, they're more "homicide bombers" that get caught up in their own act of mass murder. (If you have an Audible account, get the audiobook version, as it's read by Carlin himself and his delivery, as always, is hilarious).

Maybe we're all looking in the wrong place, or in the wrong direction. In the past week, we've have 5 different incidents of "suicide shootings" within our borders ... in our own schools. Ohio, Louisiana, Tennessee, California, and just yesterday in Illinois. The latest trend in school shootings is to shoot a video, go kill a bunch of people, then kill yourself. If that isn't "suicide terrorism" I don't know what is.

We're so preoccupied with keeping people outside the country from coming in ... are we completely losing perspective on what's happening at home?

And the Award for 'Best Implementation of a Double Standard' goes to ...

2007-10-10T16:16:00.001-05:00

... the American Legal System! And I'm not just talking about judges, lawyers, law enforcement, no sir! I'm including regular American citizens ... specifically Minnesotans! Let me explain:

Supporting Case #1: PhotoCop

In an effort to cut down on people running red lights and causing accidents (like, for instance, the idiot that ran a light and crashed into a schoolbus injuring 6 people), Minneapolis installed automatic cameras at intersections that would snap a picture of any vehicle that ran a red light. The snapped license plate was then used to track down the owner of the car, who was sent a traffic ticket. Makes sense, and it netted the city around $2.5 million in fines ... until people whined and a judge declared the system illegal: Just because the car was breaking the law doesn't mean that the owner of it was behind the wheel and (therefore) should not be held responsible.

Ok ... thinking about that, I can see that logic ... to a point, though frankly, if you gave your car to someone who broke the law, are you really free from blame ... even if only to be blamed as an idiot? And what if you gave your car to the same offender again? How smart does that really make you? But, I digress.

The point: Because you can't see the person behind the wheel to verify that it is indeed the owner of the car, you cannot hold the owner responsible for anything that vehicle is involved in. Hold that thought.

Case #2: Jammie Thomas

In a recent decision by a Duluth, MN, jury, a woman was found guilty of illegally sharing music ... to the tune of $222,000 in fines (I would have linked to the Star Tribune, but they're expecting you to sign up for the content and I don't tolerate those retarded games ... nice one "STrib", you loose to the BBC). Why so much money? Because the RIAA (AKA "Music Mafia Run Amok") claims that the service they enlisted to track down evil music sharers traced illegal peer-2-peer sharing activity back to a certain IP address ... said IP address being further traced to the computer in Jammie's home. Can they prove that she either was physically sitting at the computer performing the illicit act? No. Can the prove that she set up the sharing software? No.

But, apparently, in this case, it's not necessary to be caught in the act. That you own the offending machinery is good enough?

Say what? Doesn't this strike you as even mildly contradictory? It's ok not to be accountable when your vehicle potentially kills someone, yet woe be unto you if the RIAA levels a claim against you they can't prove you physically did. I've always believed that the winters here in Minnesota have an adverse affect on the ability of humans to think rationally.

I can't help but wonder what that Duluth jury was thinking ... assuming they even thought at all about it.

'Tis Talkin' Time Again, Me Lads

2007-09-19T10:18:00.000-05:00

Shiver me timbers, kiss the black spot!

"What's good for the goose ..."

2007-08-28T15:14:00.001-05:00

"... is good for the gander." At least, that's the way the adage goes.

Apparently, the contemporary equivalent is "If it worked for the RIAA and they didn't get busted for extortion, then it should work for the MPAA with the same level of criminal immunity." I think I'm going to be sick.

Can we at least turn the tables? Can we demand that they stop paying Hollywood actors incredible sums of money for crap movies and we promise to still go see them from time to time?

Is it just me ...

2007-08-09T20:57:00.000-05:00

... or has Google Reader become slower than crap lately? Try to add a feed, and it wanders off into no-man's land. Use Firefox, flip between tabs, and it takes upwards of a minute to come back to the Reader tab.

Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

Google ... hello? You been "improving things?"

And I thought the media was bad

2007-08-07T14:26:00.000-05:00

Ok, so I absolutely detest the feeding frenzy the media's been in around last Wednesday's collapse of the 35W bridge here in town. I'm even disappointed with how MPR's gone FoxNews with inanely repetitve reporting, leading questions, and dubious "experts".

But ... that all pales in comparison to this joker, who further reinforces my comprehensive disgust with organized religion.

Fred, got a bit of advice for you: stay the $#@!% away from our city and our state. Your idiotic, moronic, childish, brain-dead, headline-grabbing, pathetic excuse for religious intelligence should stay right where you are, with the rest of the idiots.

Better yet, come on up! Bring your entire congregation of losers, so we can throw your sorry, stupid asses in jail!

I'm fine

2007-08-02T09:26:00.000-05:00

I wasn't near downtown with this happened last evening. While my heart goes out to those who've either lost loved ones or just don't know yet, I'm growing more and more irritated at the media, even public radio, who apparently has decided that the Fox News method of reporting is the most effective way to go. Then again, they're no better or worse than the massive number of gawkers flocking to the site just to watch and hopefully witness a wee bit of carnage (and, even better, if they can film it and get it up on YouTube).

You want a good example of how low our species has started to stoop? Watch the media feeding frenzy, the litigation bloodlust, and the repetitive, inane mutterings of one "expert" after another over the next few weeks.

It's a tragedy, yes. Let's treat it, and those affected by it, with the dignity and respect they deserve, let the authorities get on with the unenviable task of sorting it all out ... and get on with life.

Internet Radio Day of Silence

2007-06-26T14:01:00.000-05:00

If you believe, truly believe, in the RIAA's extortion tactics, bald-faced lies, and petulant "we're protecting the artists" statements ... do nothing today.

If, however, you want to enjoy music the way you want to, not the way some overpaid, under-endowed media mogul wants to sell it to you, call your congressman today and get them to listen to the silence:

Act now, or don't whine when the silence becomes permanent.

Swarm of Angels Trailer

2007-06-18T13:58:00.000-05:00

Yes, I'm one of the swarm. We've just released a trailer for the project. Check it out:

Click To Play

Parking Ramp Morons

2007-05-14T12:32:00.001-05:00

Hmmm ... looks kinda tight:

And, it's not much better on the other side:

What to do? Simple ... climb out through the trunk.

I think SUVs should be banned from parking ramps.

Minnesota "Nice", as in "Nice job parking, idiot"

2007-05-07T14:14:00.001-05:00

I tell ya, some people just have no appreciation for those around them:

I mean please. If you look in the lower left of the picture, the yellow you see below the SUVs bumper is the dividing line of the adjacent parking space. If there hadn't been a cement post on the right of the car (giving me extra room to climb in over the stick shift), I'd have to have gotten into my car through the trunk.

This is the making's of a real good week.

A Moment to Reflect

2007-04-20T10:19:00.001-05:00

The governor of Virginia's declared today a day of morning:

Virginia Tech -- 04.16.2007

I think we all need to stop ... reflect.  If you wish to lend assistance, check out the Virgina Tech Tribute Blog.