Tobias Davis

Patenting Newton's Laws

noreply@blogger.com (Tobias Davis) — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 04:42:00 +0000

During my first week of the current semester I had the privilege of spare time, and this time I spent doing some final research on some scientific stuff that I won't bore you with here. During the process I came across some boxes in the Engineering Library at UNL, these boxes were the size of a paper sheet and about 3" tall. On the front of each of the boxes was the label "Plant Patents".

"Plant Patents?", I wondered to myself, "Maybe manufacturing plants?"

But there were about 100 of these boxes, and that would be a strange way to save manufacturing blueprints, so I popped one open. Inside each box I found about 300 little 'pagelets'. Two pages stapled together, on one was a color picture of a flower or vine or some other plant, and on the other page was the patent text.

Chrysanthemum Gloria Speakum Latinum, said one, and it's description was just as interesting: "Stamen is more red than the standard breed" and also "Leaves have a more waxy feel than Crysanthemum Gloria Nospeakum Latinum".

I looked at about a dozen of these "patents" and they were all the same: Somebody got a patent on some plant that they bred with another plant. Not through generations of successive breeding even, just one breeding attempt. It's like the flower guys went patent happy "Hahahaha! Let's patent everything!"

Also this week I had a class about mechanisms. Little gears, swing arms, and all that stuff. Things like the Archimedes screw and gear teeth are thousands of years old but still in wide use today, and I get to study them. In fact, there are at least a few mechanisms that are so widely known, and go so far back in history that they are almost considered physical laws. They will never cease to exist until the earth ceases to exist.

But in looking at some mechanisms, I noticed that some of them were patented. And I'm not talking about the mechanism in the Ferrari engine, I'm talking about a bar swinging on a pivot. Something kids make with their Tinker Toys. Patented.

Maybe you aren't as amazed at this as I am, so let me try an analogy:

When you have two objects sitting on your table, they are both attracted to the ground. In fact, they are actually attracted to each other, but in such a small way that you can't tell unless you have a really expensive detector. In physics we call this magical attraction the "gravitational force". It's the force that holds you to the earth and keeps satellites up in the sky just the right way.

Well, the reason you can't detect the two bowling balls being attracted together is because you have to have a big object to really notice. A very smart man, Isaac Newton, figured out an equation a long time ago that showed how much that force depends on the size of something. I'll write it here: F=G*M*m/d2

All that really matters about that equation is that it's been used in just about everything you have ever seen built. Skyscrapers, houses, bridges, cars, you name it, everybody uses that equation to understand the universe.

So here is a question: What would have happened if Isaac Newton had patented his equations? Right now I could come up with an equation which explained how everything in the universe worked, and with it people could maybe make teleportation and flying cars and all the other things nerds dream about, but if I patented it, no one could use it without my permission.

Even if someone did years of research and came up with the same equations as me, they couldn't use them because I already patented them.

That's the stupidest thing I've heard in years.

I'm an engineer, and I will likely put years of research into figuring something out, but I am totally against patent law.

A Year in Review

noreply@blogger.com (Tobias Davis) — Fri, 01 Jan 2010 04:27:00 +0000

It is good, I think, to periodically review one’s past life. Not to wallow in self-pity or regret, and not to be filled with pride over how many challenges one has accomplished, but to take take note of one’s “inner man”, to seek to understand.

So here it is, nearing midnight, and I am reflecting on another year gone by. Another year of failures and regrets, of life half spent and inner conflicts never resolved. Another year of should haves, of would haves, of broken promises and empty dreams.

And yet there is within me a hope and a peace that burns fiercer than any earthly fire.

There is an anticipation for more, a quickening of my heart, when I look forward.

I have purpose, and it is being directed by someone who is far wiser than myself.

“A man’s heart plans his way, but the Lord directs his steps.” (Proverbs 16:9)

Money is hard to come by

noreply@blogger.com (Tobias Davis) — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 10:21:00 +0000

So right about now I'm starting to worry about my finances. I have, I don't know, about 20$ on me. Maybe less. It's hard to get around with that little of money, I'm noticing.

But here's the thing: I have plenty of potential money. I mean, I have a car that I'll be selling this weekend, Kelly Blue Book estimates it's value at 1200$. I have a pretty cool cell phone I can sell for about 25 bucks, once this part comes in. I have a laptop that I'm selling for a couple hundred. I could even sell my netbook for a little over a hundred, and with a little work I could sell my other car for about 1000$.

So it's not that I don't have capital, it's that I don't have Federal Reserve Notes. The almighty dollar. And that's where it counts, don't it?

It's not that I'm doing badly, it's just that I don't have 10 million in untraceable dollars sitting around in my bedroom.

Because that's what I want: 10,000,000$

Ten million smackers. Ten million.

I guess if it was in gold bullion I wouldn't complain, but it's hard to buy things with gold. It's hard for me to go out and buy a 12-axis CNC machine with gold.

How on earth do mad scientists get their funding? I'm sure it's through some illegal means, but it's never talked about and I want to find out so I can follow in the steps of the mad.

It is very late.

noreply@blogger.com (Tobias Davis) — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 04:55:00 +0000

It's nearly midnight here, and I should be getting in bed so I can enjoy the Sabbath tomorrow. Thankfully I slept in today, so I can stay up for another few hours and be fine. I mean, be mostly fine.

Lately I have been accosted by many troubling situations, mostly by friends who, I found out, no longer consider themselves to be "Christian". These are people who have, at least to my general knowledge, been reasonably active "Christians", and people who I never would have suspected to desert "the faith".

You will notice I put a few choice words in quotation marks, and perhaps you wonder why I did that? I have been thinking, since this happened, about how several of my friends currently attend church, and if pressed would probably say they are "Christian", but in reality I would not be able to tell. What I mean is, I think a disturbingly large percentage of youth presently attending church have not made a conscious decision to believe the need for God's saving sacrifice.

Many times I have even become dissapointed by the lack of commitment shown in the current "youth" of the church, and I wonder why it is that this could happen.

In a large part, I would place the blame on the previous generation, for not raising their children as they ought. I have spoken against public education before, and the more I study the Bible the more strongly I conclude that public education is a sin. Not just "a bad idea" but a sin, and like murder and theft it has far-reaching results. While this may be a conversation for another time, I would place the blame for the failure of this generation on the failure of the previous generation to actively take part in their childrens education.

Bit I digress.

When I see all of these people, and don't know if they are saved or not, it makes me wonder: "Do they know that I am a Christian, or do they just assume?" Must I always say "I am a Christian" when I see people? Certainly I must not be ashamed to say it, but should I say it all the time, just to remind everyone?

These are the things which keep me awake late at night.

That and wondering if I could assemble a Victorian era suit for a reasonable price.

Found: 105 year old letter, very sad.

noreply@blogger.com (Tobias Davis) — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 23:53:00 +0000

Today I was trying to clean up my room (nice try) when I found an old Bible that I had picked up at an auction a few years ago. I had decided to throw it away, since the binding is falling apart and it's in such bad shape, but then I decided to see how old it actually was.

The earliest marked date inside is 1894, making the Bible itself at least 115 years old. I couldn't find a printing date on it, so I had to rely on the writings inside to date it.

While flipping through the pages, I found a letter dated February 1, 1904, which I am reproducing as best I can here. It is a sad letter about death: Family members, wishing for it, and more.

The writing is in a difficult cursive, so there are several words I can't make out, my apologies. Additionally, the punctuation, capitalization, and line breaks have been preserved.

Feb 1, 1904
my Dear friend my
heart has been going
out for you ever since
I heard of your little
girl would of liked to saw
her we have had two
such little girls in my
family my oldest brothers
girl and a sisters girl
are lived to be fourteen
and a constant suffer
at the time until death
released her the other are
is living and is 46 years
old she was helped so she
does not suffer but is
cripple and I have heard
her say she did not see
why they did not let her
die when she was little as
long as they knew she had
to be a cripple we carried
her on pillow for year and
half and when she would
??? we would ??? to
now sister what is your
loss is her gain she is
a bright star for your
??? try and be ???
and live to meat hes in
that better world.
I will come and see you
as soon as I can and if
you came to Perkins ever
come and see me
I thank you for the little
dress and I shall always
keep it yours very Lovingly Mrs E P Coats

I can't make out a few of the words, sorry, the cursive was very difficult to read!

When it says "if you ever come to Perkins", I wondered if there was a Perkins, Nebraska? Surprise! I doubt it meant Perkins the Restaraunt.

One strange thing: When I was helping my brother on a house in Ashland, I found a short hand written note with the same exact style of handwriting! The letter formation was systematically the same: I would give the letter formation and stroke pattern an 85-92% similarity. Additionally, the paper was the same type and fiber, although it could have been a common peper back in 1904. When I can, I will see if I can find the Ashland document and do a more thorough comparison.

The letter is rather sad, and on the last page there appears to be a tear spot. From the ink movement I think it was from the person who recieved the letter.

The letter was not addressed to anyone except "my Dear friend", but inside the Bible were the following names:

Charlotte Christine Spurgeon
Family Bible, died Sep 1923
WilliamMadison Spurgeon
died 1906-
Allen Faradome? Spurgeon
died Nov 18 - 1945-
Ca_etti_ Stockton Spurgeon
died Nov 10 - 1947-
Given to Dorothy Ann Johnson
Christmas time Dec 1969
By Myrtle Bentlty [76 yrs old]
after having this Bible in
her preession a number of
years.

That is all.

Edit: Here is a picture.

How things are going

noreply@blogger.com (Tobias Davis) — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 16:03:00 +0000

A little update: I have started classes again, this morning I started with a class on ordinary differential equations. It is a real blast so far, I am pretty excited to learn this. Also, a friend's husband is in the same class, so that should be fun.

I have been thinking about yesterday's (Sunday) sermon, where Rodney talked about Ecclesiastes. The first verse says that the book is the "words of the Preacher", which is the normal translation. But Rodney was saying how the word (qoheleth) also means something like "collector of information", which would roughly translate to a modern "scientist". Then he talked about how one could view the whole book as a sort of "white paper", that is, as a scientific analysis of (from 2:3) "what was good for the sons of men to do under heaven all their days".

I started rereading the book of Ecclesiastes in this light -- as a sort of research paper -- and it makes a lot more sense to me, of course with a little help noticing some terms from Rodney. So basically, Solomon spent many years of his life doing research, trying to figure out what it was that people were supposed to be doing with their lives. He spends some time on gaining possessions, some on building beautiful architecture, some on developing art, and at all of these things he says he excelled greater than anyone.

But in the end, Solomon grows bitter and despondent over his failed experiment. But notice the two terms "under heaven" and "under the sun". The former is used twice at the beginning of the book, when he tells what his goal is "what was good for the sons of men to do under heaven all their days", but all the mentions of "under the sun" have negative connotations. In a word, Solomon was trying this experiment without living his life "under heaven", that is, under God's direction.

Like many scientists of our day, Solomon thought that truth could be gained while completely divorced from anything spiritual. This is simply not the case, and Solomon's failed experiment serves as a lesson to us. Much like all scientific experiments, even if they fail they serve as something that you don't need to do: Someone already tried that, don't bother it won't work.

Solomon tried living life apart from God, and he failed. He grew bitter at his wisdom and wealth, despondent over the fact that it would be inherited by some fool later, bothered that everybody just seems to die in the end.

But in the end, I think Solomon reconciled to God, since at the end he says:

Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God and keep His commandments, for this is man's all. For God will bring every work into judgement, including every secret thing, whether good or evil.

I found a 1889 World-Herald

noreply@blogger.com (Tobias Davis) — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 05:27:00 +0000

I have in my possession an "Omaha Daily World-Herald" newspaper from July 15, 1889 (yes you read that right), which is quite awesome to behold. The paper itself is yellowed and slightly brittle, the top edges showing the effect of time and oxidation, and the ink has nearly been worn off at the creases.

What is most interesting to note, at least to me, is the actual news articles. They are generally short, concise, and lacking the general left/right-wing political barbs. Try this one on for size (front page news, mind you:

McCook, Neb., July 14-[Special.]-The Catholic church and the dwelling of Banker Shaw, which were simultaneously struck and set on fire during the electric storm of Saturday morning, have been found badly damaged, and but for the prompt work of the fire department would have been completely burned. The former is damaged to the extent of $800, and the latter to $1,200, both covered by insurance.

The whole thing was well written and concise and it's pretty neat and to the point. Here's one of my favorites, it's about some lady who saw some dude beating his wife, so this lady tells him he should be ashamed. It ends with guns, so awesome:

Baltimore, Md., July 14-[Special]-Another murder is added to Baltimore's list. Elizabeth Ellen Gross shot and killed James E. Coates early this morning. The Gross woman states that Coates was beating his wife and she (Gross) told him he should be ashamed. Coates said he would kill her. Shortly after Coates whipped out a razor and used threatening language to the Gross woman, when she took her histol out of her pocket and shot him dead.

Now, I'm not a big fan of people getting shot, and I don't know what the outcome of the trial was (assuming there was one), but it sure seems to me like the guy had it coming. First of all, he was beating his wife. This in itself is not a crime punishable by death, but is certainly a bad thing, and a sure sign of uncontrolled physical aggression. Second, he threatened "the Gross woman", a statement which makes me chuckle, even though it is serious. Finally, he pulls out a razor and (I like to imagine) starts walking toward the woman.

Times have sure changed, haven't they? Used to be a woman could be counted on to carry a pistol for emergencies, but what do we have now? Guys in Congress passing laws making it harder for a woman to defend herself, that's what, those spineless bast...

Anyways, the real thing I wanted to show you was this next piece, note that this also was on the front page of the Omaha World Herald. I'm only typing out part of it, so here's the backdrop: In Charleston, S.C., this dude McDow confesses to adultery and murder, but a jury ("a packed jury, as some claim") acquitted him. The World-Herald prints a piece of a sermon preached by one of a group of preachers who are denouncing McDow. Below you will find most of that sermon reprinted. May I remind you, this was on the front page. I don't think that would happen anytime soon. Also keep in mind, this was 1889, so the word choice is a bit different, though perfectly readable to most of my home-school friends:

Bad neighborhood and covetousness, two ill-favored children of sin and grand children of lust; already born. Where, surely, will this base conditioned family end, and the devilish meaness of this spirit of coveteousness; who can fitly characterize it. It coveted what? The pearl of womanhood; all that goes to make woman woman, her chastity. With snake-like sinuousity and treachery it invades the neighbor's home, makes a breach upon the household in the absence of their lawful protectors and besieges a peculiarly defenseless woman to posess this pearl. A man's house you say is his castle. His maid servant by the law of the Tenth commandment is for all obligations of defense his.Now who, self-confessedly, was the first invader of the house, the castle, the home. And such an invasion for a purpose so base. What are the moral, and what should be the legal deserts of such an invader. If the well being of society is ever to be established, vindicated, with what holy anger, what burning moral indignation should such a spirit and conduct be clearly and strongly reprobated.

Lust when crossed, exposed, reproved or hopelessly baffled, is prone to kill. Call it in the courts by whatever name you will, in accordance with the evidence adduced, whether self defense, manslaughter or murder--lust leads to the fatal conclusion--death. Bloodshed, killing, is the outcome; a result dependent upon the firstwooings of lust, which never would or could have occured if the sinful course of lust had not been entered upon. Hence, morally, sensual lust, or rather the one guilty of indulging in it is at first hand responsible.

In the natural and moral order the Apostle James, in the utterance of the text, is right where he says, "When lust hath concieved, it bringeth forth sin; and sin when it is full grown, bringeth forth death," and however on one occasion one may be legally, from doubt or lack of evidence, acquitted, whose sensual, lustful course has led to the slaying of another, yet must it ever be logically truethat sensual lust, when allowed freely to run its full course, may end in the gallows as it's goal.

Sermon Notes: [Un]Acceptable Anger - 28 June 2009

noreply@blogger.com (Tobias Davis) — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 04:17:00 +0000

I won't be seeing the DCC group much, since I am going to be attending the Living Stones church plant. To keep an eye on what's going on at DCC, and to keep myself a bit more accountable, I decided what I will do is listen to the sermon online and make some comments and thoughts about it. So here is the first installation, which is from the last sermon I attended at DCC:

Sunday's sermon was based on Matthew 5:21-26, where Jesus reminds us that anger is a very serious sin, even to the point of saying that someone who is angry at his "brother" and says "You fool!" is in danger of hell fire!

In my own life I must confess that I have been very angry in my youth. I could probably think of a thousand reasons for why I was angry, from being bullied by my church peers to my family aggravating me, and so on. However, were these righteous causes for anger? Some may have been, I suppose, but I think that most of those times my anger has been an unrighteous one.

I realized this problem of anger stemmed from a serious lack of patience, and so one summer I prayed that God would teach me patience. In all honesty, this can seem like a dangerous move, since it seems God may teach you patience through tribulations. Of course, He will do it in what way you will best learn. Now I have learned patience, and have lost my former anger.

Sinful anger is manifested in three general ways, each sinful:
When it says in verse 22 that "whoever is angry with his brother" it is an emotion of anger which is shown as sin. We can't just say "I would never yell at someone" and excuse our anger, since even the thought of anger is sinful.
When it says "whoever says to his brother" it is the word of anger which is shown as a sin. When we speak in anger to someone, it is a sin. We might want to call it ten thousand different things, a popular one being "venting", but speaking to someone in anger is also a sin.
Finally, we have angry actions as well.

We should be careful to catch the sin of anger when it starts, when it is in the heart. If we don't catch it there, it will manifest as words, and then as actions. Later, you might find yourself beating your spouse, but remember it starts in the heart. "Whoever is angry at his brother without cause" means the sin of anger starts in the heart.

Of course, there are righteous causes for anger. That is: Not all anger is sinful, since it says "whoever is angry at his brother without cause." What are the general principles found in righteous or Godly anger?

The anger is "God-like", that is, it is angry at things God is angry at. Anger that abortion runs unchecked, and that many in the church support lawlessness? That is anger for the right reason.
Godly anger is "legal", it is in accordance with God's law. When you become angry that someone stole your motorcycle, you can't go out seeking vigilante justice, breaking the thief's car tires.
Godly anger is not explosive, but is only slowly provoked. When a parent suddenly blows up at their child, even if it is for a right reason, it is not Godly anger. God has great compassion, and is slow to anger. We should be as well.
Godly anger does not take pleasure in wrath or judgement. A parent should take no pleasure in spanking their child; An employee should not find glee in the firing of an annoying co-worker.

One thing I took note of was the statement: "If it is worth getting angry over, it is worth resolving." Too many times I have got myself worked up over something, but not taken the time to properly resolve the issue.

That's my thoughts on the issue, thanks for reading!

The Stronghold

noreply@blogger.com (Tobias Davis) — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 06:14:00 +0000

I have been reading through the book "Holiness by Grace", by Bryan Chapell, and I came across this section which I thought was worth repeating.

Pg. 135, par. 4 and following:

   Consider the pressures that face modern Christians despite centuries of refining biblical thought and fighting for biblical principles. The fortresses of fundamentalism that artificially kept potential temptations at arm's bay by demonizing all forms of alcohol, tobacco, card playing, and theatre going are crumbling throughout the evangelical world. At the same time, the accessibility and allurement of the Internet have put sexual temptation, material indulgence, gambling entertainment, personal disengagement, and ungodly communications within a mouse-click of persons of every age and social station. The expectations of business travel, the interactivity of genders in the workplace, the "freedoms" of the pill, the isolation provided by closed-apartment lifestyles (even when living in million dollar homes), the personal anonymity allowed by multi-thousand seat worship centers, the enticements of consumerism endlessly promoted by amoral Western prosperity--all combine to create a culture where sin is nearer to the door of even the most socially respectable than ever before.

   At the same time that these winds of external change blast us, changing patterns of family and church relationships make our spiritual footing unsure. A short list of the cultural gales that have swept over our traditional centers of spiritual development would include: divorce frequency, domestic partnership acceptability, single-parent families, two-parent paychecks, abortion availability, day care, the busyness of soccer-moms and career- or hobby dads, the media preoccupation of teens, the recreation orientation of Sunday, and the decline of biblical literacy. The breakdown of traditional structures that nurture faith not only have robbed us of models of how to live godly lives, but have also removed even from Christians the ordinary restraints against temptation that past generations of believers had built (sometimes through inappropriate legalism) into their lives.

   Combating this cultural mix of libertine tendencies with the gospel of God's unconditional love is counter intuitive. Strong assurance of God's unearned affection would seem almost assured to lead to abuse (and excuse) of grace in order to pursue freedoms contrary to Scripture. When religious opponents argued with John Bunyan in prison, they urged him not to assure his Christian friends of God's unswerving love. "If you keep assuring the people of God's love," the opponents argued, "they will do whatever they want." Replied Bunyan, "If I assure God's people of his love, then they will do whatever he wants."

   Of course, there are those who will try to take advantage of God's mercy to excuse their wrongdoing. However, those who truly love God and have their renewed hearts continually warmed by reminders of his mercy, desire to please him. Due to the limitations of our humanity this desire does ebb, but is refueled both by the scriptural promises of God's care and by the observation of what occurs to those who depart from his ways.

   The consequence of wandering from God's path are evident in the moral "freedoms" of our fracturing society. With all this personal liberty, we have discovered great bondage--not merely to occasional temptation, but to ingrained patterns of biblical violation, unhealthy thought, and spiritually destructive behavior. Our slavery becomes apparent in our prayers for release from compulsive, addictive, and repeated sin. We pray, "God, please help me to stop ... to stand against this temptation ... to resist this sin ... to change this habit ... to act differently ... to be rid of this compulsion ... not to fall again, to yield again, or to be this way again ..."

   Our release from the perception that we must live according to the law of merit does not end our longing for freedom from personal indulgence and selfishness. We want our identity in Christ to become the foundation of a life that is not shackled to the world's empty promises of happiness, pleasure, and fulfillment.

Got myself some work

noreply@blogger.com (Tobias Davis) — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 05:41:00 +0000

I started my new temporary job today: revamping a mission groups web-site, you can view the original here. I really appreciate their ministry, and they offered me the work Friday last week.

I have some ideas about the back-end, how to make the "Resources" more searchable and workable, change the layout to be more intuitive, and a little changes in color scheme (mostly I hope to define the gray/blue/brown spectrums more definitively). This work should only take me a couple weeks, and by then I will be working with my brother on his new acquisition: A house in Ashland! (The link is a Google Street View, it may take a while to load)

Also, The Religious Politic is going well-ish, I have a very large pile of writings that I drafted, my hope is to be able to write an article once per week on a consistant basis. I have considered posting a writing each week about the previous Sunday sermon, I just think it might not fit into the Religious Politic scheme, so it might go here or I might devote a new blog to it.

The house is still a mess, mostly my stuff-to-get-rid-of is piled up in the livinig room. I had originally wanted to host a garage sale, but I haven't really had time on the weekends, so I might pile most of it into the car and drive it to some charity thrift store.

Hopefully soon I will have a camera, that is my next planned purchase after I get money and pay off bills. With a camera I will be able to take pictures of my car project, viewable here. The lack of camera is actually what has been holding me back on working on the car. That and money, actually.

I got my piano moved into the new house finally, and have not really practiced on it much since then. I also borrowed my Father's trumpet today, I might be able to actually play it within a few weeks: The lip stress is a bit more than I imagined earlier.

Okay, that's about it! Take care, write if you get work, hang by your toes!

A movie review of Constantine

noreply@blogger.com (Tobias Davis) — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 06:35:00 +0000

I know the movie has been out a while, but Saturday night I watched Constantine, starring Keanu "I Know Kung-Fu" Reaves, and some other woman who is not really important. It had the person who played Jadis, the Narnian witch who was oppressing those of color other animals. Of course, starring Keanu Reaves is alright, it just means we can already predict the general feel of the movie. (Hint: Reaves is a typecast actor.) The movie is based on a DC Comics version, but I never read it so I can't say much about that.

In general, I think the movie was pretty well done, the story was reasonably captivating and the special effects blended pretty well into the background. The general story plot is that John Constantine (Reaves) is trying to buy his way into heaven by doing the "dirty work" of sending meddling demons back into hell. I'm not that knowledgeable of Catholic tradition, so I don't know how accurately it follows that, although I'm sure as a movie it takes some liberties.

Throughout the movie, John is shown as a man trying to earn his way into heaven. He speaks with Gabriel, pointing out the list of rules humans must follow, getting angry that he can never do enough to get God's favor. John says that he believes in God, to which Gabriel replies that belief is not enough to get into heaven. Of course, this is exactly what scripture says, that we aren't saved by keeping the law, and that it is not works that saves us. The Bible says that believing that God exists is not enough, the devil does that as well. Towards the end of the film, Gabriel even points out that all John had to do was accept the work of Christ and he would be redeemed. "You have it so easy," Gabriel says, speaking of the inability of angels to repent.

While I admired the depths to which the film hit home the point of salvation not being works based, in the end John is being let into heaven. For what? For giving up his life to save another, which is a work. In the end the film fails, in that it clearly says God will allow you into heaven if you sacrifice your own life. This would be a works based salvation, but it goes against what scripture says.

Another thing which bothered me was when John said that "They have the Bible in hell, except it puts a whole different spin on Revelations." His point was, to some degree, that we don't have the entire Word of God with us, that the Bible is not all there. However, we know this to be false, in that the Bible says "Not one jot or tittle shall pass away", and it further says God will preserve His word. Throughout the book of Psalms, there are promises concerning what I will call the preservation of scripture. The movie Constantine fails in that regard, that it portrays the Bible as a faulty manuscript, that somewhere out there is the correct version.

Another thing I took issue with, was the treatment of angels and demons, that God and the devil are playing some sort of high stakes game, with people as the pawns. In fact, a premise of the entire movie was that God was not actively participating in the world, that God only acts through angels. However, the Bible clearly shows the path of history to be one which glorifies God through all things. By the end I was especially thankful that Constantine had it wrong, that God does still take an active role in shaping history.

One thing which Constantine does, if nothing else, is point out the one fact I too often forget: As it says in Ephesians, our fight is not against flesh and blood, but against principalities and spiritual things. We as Christians, myself particularly I know, need to be constantly on the guard for spiritual attacks. They are not filled with special effects, neither are they usually nearly so dramatic, but the Bible says they are real. John Constantine says that if you can't see demons, they can't see you, but the Bible makes it clear that the fight rages on against us regardless of our action: There is no neutrality in the matter, a point which John brought up to his Snoop-Dawg friend.

Thankfully, we know from the Bible that God is on our side, that He takes an active hand in the universe, and that He has given all Christians the Holy Spirit as a helper. Praise God that Constantine is wrong on those issues!

Facebook kills a collective 2000 people per day.

noreply@blogger.com (Tobias Davis) — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 16:43:00 +0000

Consider this:

Facebooks statistics say that a collective 175 million users log in a total of 3 billion minutes per day. Other sites reflect this, quoting 120 million last Christmas, and another quoted 21 seconds per user per day February of 2008.

The life expectancy high is 84.36 in Macau, a region of China, and 31.88 in Swaziland, a region near South Africa, but average worldwide is roughly 66 years per person, or 1,445,400 minutes per person.

3,000,000,000 minutes of Facebook user time per day
divided by
1,445,400 minutes of life per person
equals
2075 lifetimes of time per day

Which is to say: Every day, Facebook sucks up the entire lifetime of over 2000 people. Every day, 2000 people might as well have never been born. In one year, thats over 750 thousand people.

If Facebook use doesn't increase.

On Facebooks Privacy Policy

noreply@blogger.com (Tobias Davis) — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 05:45:00 +0000

Many people have asked me to explain why I was so concerned with Facebooks policy change, as well as what the policy change actually was. So I will explain it to you, and I will try not to get on my soap box of privacy concerns too much.

There are really three issues which are important in this case, and one final summary concerning privacy in general.

1: On Monday, February 16th I believe, Facebook made a very large change to it's Privacy Policy. This change in the Policy was not made known to the user, and in fact was only revealed to me because of a privacy watchdog group.

While this may not seem like such a big deal, there are two implications which can and should be drawn from it: A) The policy you agreed to did state that Facebook was allowed to change it's policy without telling you explicitly about it, although they must make that information available at some location. This means that Facebook was within their *legal* right to change the policy as they did without alerting you explicitly.

However, B) almost all online services (eBay, Yahoo!, GMail, etc.) alert you when a change in the privacy policy has occured. Typically this is a letter to the effect of "We changed our policy, if you care look it up online." However, Facebook did not follow this standard courtesy. In point of fact, when Facebook last changed it's policy (November 26, 2008) it alerted it's users with an on-site pop-up that required you to personally dismiss it to make it go away, much like a persistent notification. This deliberate act of *not* telling it's users of the policy change brings up the question, why didn't they?

2: The new policy enacted by Facebook is more open-ended than any online service I have ever known, and I have read *every* Privacy Policy and Terms of Service agreement before I sign up. As of now, the official policy is as would seem natural to the average user: If you put up a picture, it is your picture. If you post a creative writing or letter or poem, that writing belongs to you. Facebook does not own it. However, the new policy stated that anything *ever* that you put on Facebook (pictures, notes, video, etc.) *belong* to Facebook.

Part of the exact wording is as follows: "The following sections will survive any termination of your use of the Facebook Service: ... User Content" That is, even if you delete that picture, Facebook retains a copy and may keep it forever. How about a more explicit statement that was in the new policy: You grant Facebook "an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, publicly perform, publicly display, reformat, translate, excerpt (in whole or in part) and distribute such User Content for any purpose" I don't think that needs any more explanation.

It should be noted that Facebook CEO Zuckerberg responded, noting that it could understand the users concerns, but essentially saying "Trust us! We wouldn't do anything *bad* with your private data!" No, seriously, that's pretty much *exactly* what they said. But how much trust should be placed in a company that doesn't tell it's users when a major policy change occurs?

3: Because of the fact that a) Facebook has a history of alering it's users to policy changes, but did not alert the user in this case, and b) Facebook has grown to be a Billion dollar company and so has very fine lawyers and public relations people, which brings up c) The change in the Privacy Policy was not a misunderstanding, rather, d) The Privacy Policy change was a carefully deliberated attempt to secure complete control over the users data.

This is not the first time Facebook has attempted such an endeavour, neither will it be the last. As you can see, I still use Facebook, although I will be increasingly careful of what information I put on here.

4: What does it all mean? It means this: The Internet Is Serious Business.

Do not be fooled by Facebook's shiny delivery. If you do not want a picture of yours to belong to someone else, don't put it online and especially don't put it on Facebook. If you don't want telemarketers and junk mailers knowing your address and phone number, keep them off of Facebook. If you write creatively, and want to retain rights over those writings, don't put them on Facebook.

Thanks for reading, please feel free to ask questions.

A fast note

noreply@blogger.com (Tobias Davis) — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 15:19:00 +0000

Just a fast note before I run to class: I am starting the Religious Politic back up. I had set it by the side for a while because I was struggling with classes and such, but I caught a break and have got back into studying God's Law, so I think I will have my first official post by this week.

In other news: This is going on my second week without soda, and I am feeling alright. The back soreness I thought was from dehydration is probably not from dehydration, so I will have to go to a chiropractor. Anybody know any good ones, preferably ones who have not been taught through the Palmer method?

My Battle with Sugar has Begun

noreply@blogger.com (Tobias Davis) — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 06:20:00 +0000

All right. Time to pony up: I am a sugar addict.

I was drinking, easily, a 32 ounce shot of soda every day for probably a month straight. Occasionally, I would drink two a day, making 64 ounces of pure soda. Dr Pepper. Mmmm, delicious! Thats 104 grams per day, or approximately half a cup of super processed "corn syrup" per week.

In addition, I was eating candy and cookies here and there, and eating out pretty often. I think you could view me as your normal sugar/soda addict.

Recently I had started exercising again, I can run two miles without any real problems, but I started having nausea and stomach pain. I asked a friend at my church who understands human health pretty well, and she said something like "If you don't change your ways, you will end up in the hospital soon!" So I gave up soda. Actually, I am giving up "corn syrup" and soda. But corn syrup is in everything! And I mean EVERYTHING!

So then today I was perusing around on the interblagosphere and found a great site, myyearwithout.blogspot.com where a lady is going a whole year without any processed sugar at all! Wow! And here I thought giving up soda would be a stretch! Then I watched a video linked on her site (which explains the interaction of sugar levels in the body very easily) and got to thinking about my own blood sugar levels, and that I had probably just about killed my pancreas with sugar overload. Poor thing, I'ma so sorry.

So now it is Wednesday night and I have not had soda for four days, almost five, and I only feel one effect: I can't seen to drink enough water! I am so thirsty! Whenever I wonder about something, I end up looking it up online. So I looked up "i cant seem to drink enough water" on Google, and got a bunch of people saying things like "You have diabetes."

Triple play.

In the video linked above, the lady said something I thought was important: You don't need to eat sugar. Ever. Your body would do alright without it. Or something close to that, watch the movie and correct me. But the point being, I can do without sugar, although it is a very difficult challenge.

But I am up for the challenge, and I will be evaluating to what length I want to proceed tomorrow. Read the blog mentioned, it is positively marvelous!

Struggling With Pride

noreply@blogger.com (Tobias Davis) — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 06:18:00 +0000

In the past I have struggled with various sins. I used to have a very hot temper, and, although I have learned a lot of patience since then, even now certain things can really get me mad. I used to be very prideful, although now I am more humble than Moses himself. Actually, the obvious satire of the preceding statement is a triple twist: I take pride in the fact that I can make jokes about my lack of humility. Seriously.

Let me explain something: I am proud. Of all sins that I commit, this one seems to really stand at the root. In my struggles with anger, it was largely a sense of pride that made me rage. I wanted people to recognize what I had done, and to thank me for my works. In my struggles with self-discipline, I have pride which says that I don't need accountability. In my struggles with sexual thoughts and temptations, it was my pride which said that I could fight it by myself, that I didn't need God's help.

It is also my pride which keeps me from praying out loud to the God who should (and usually does) hold my affections. I confess to you (the internets?) that I find it difficult to pray out loud. Not because I don't think God can hear me, and not because of any other reason than this: I don't want to seem silly. Isn't that a strange thing? I don't mind acting the fool in certain ways in front of my friends, but I don't want to seem silly when I pray privately in my car. How foolish I am! How strangely and ridiculously proud I am!

In the past I have struggled to a very large degree with sexual thoughts, but a while back I sought the Lord for strength and surrendered these things to Him. I realized then that it was pride that made me not want to ask for help. It was my intense and absurd pride that held me back from asking God to help me. "I can do it myself", I would think, and then wonder why I couldn't gain ground. "The Lord will help me, if I need it, but I don't need to ask", I would reason. But over and over the Bible reinforces the need for requesting help from God.

In the past week I have had a similarly large struggle with sexual sins and realized today that I was trying again to fight them on my own. And then I realized my pride again when I began to confess myself to God and had much difficulty in praying out loud.

You see? It is this pride which holds us back, and it is this pride that was at the root of all sins: "I think I know what is best, in this situation", Adam thought. "I can reason this on my own, and I don't need to ask God about it", he said, eating the delicious looking fruit.

How Can I But Worship?

noreply@blogger.com (Tobias Davis) — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 01:20:00 +0000

Almighty, most powerful, omnipotent and strong, oh my God, the earth shakes in Your presence and the heavens quake under You. Like a mighty warrior running into battle, You put fear into the hearts of all who see You and Your strength. I see Your awesome power, I see Your law, and I am afraid!

My Thoughts This Birthday

noreply@blogger.com (Tobias Davis) — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 17:22:00 +0000

Recently I have been listening to a certain album, some music by a band called Hillsong. I really don't know much about the band, and I really don't need to for this story to make sense. Anyway, here begins a birthday story, leading into my birthday message:

When I was younger, when I had my first car, I had a cassette tape that I never really told anyone about at the time. I don't know where the cassette came from, it had to have been copied since it was a battered, generic looking tape. For nearly a year, whenever I drove in my car, I would listen to this tape.

Play side A.
Play side B.
Play side A.
Play side B.
On and on and on, it never stopped unless someone else was in the car, which is another story for another time.

I found the tape about a year ago, looking at how abused it was reminded me how much I had listened to it. I was not able to play it, my cassette player being mildly broken, and my wallet being mildly empty to buy a cassette player for one lonesome tape. So, with a tinge of regret, and trying to remember exactly what was on the tape that I would listen to it so much, I placed it securely back in it's box.

Fast forward (no pun in ten did) to last week: I was looking around on my now outdated mp3 player, seeing what albums I had which I have not listened to in a long time. I found a band called Hillsong, an untitled album, and songs with no track names. When I listened to this album, my heart stirred in me, remembering the songs on that old cassette that I had sung in my youth. This album, unknown by name to me and a little different than the old, I have listened to at least twice a day for the last three or so days.

Let me be clear on something: I am not usually fond of repetitious songs. I get cynical of churches that sing the "Off the wall, 7-11" songs, as I have called them, singing seven words eleven times. Neither am I usually very fond of highly emotional songs. Call me a cynic if you want, the Lord knows I am, but I have a basic distrust of "those" types of songs.

Let me be clear on one more thing: This album has several repetitious songs, this album is filled with emotional songs, and I like this album.

One song in particular I would like to draw your attention to, a song somewhere toward the end, where the words are "Holy, Holy, Holy God." and that is all. But you must hear this in your mind, for this is a live concert, and there are thousands of people there, all of them singing loudly praising the Lord.

And the instruments stop playing.

And the singer stops singing.

And the people keep singing:

"Holy, Holy, Holy God! Holy, Holy, Holy God! Holy, Holy, Holy God!"

How beautiful are the voices of these people, praising God with their voices! How passionately they cry out, "Holy God!"

And every time I hear it I am reminded of the verses in Revelations 5:

Then I looked and heard the voice of many angels, numbering thousands upon thousands, and ten thousand times ten thousand. ... In a loud voice they sang: "Worthy is the Lamb, who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and praise!" Then I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and on the sea and all that is in them, singing: "To Him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be praise and honor and glory and power, for ever and ever!"

Think of it! We will be singing praise to the Lord God, thousands upon thousands upon thousands of Christians together, with Him there before us, we will sing "To Him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be praise and honor and glory and power, for ever and ever!"

Friends, this is what I want to tell you on my 25th birthday:

I have never been more sure in my life of the sovereignty of God, of His complete authority, of His everlasting justice, of His grace to the lost, and of the beauty of His Holiness.

I have had trials, I have had terrible failures of sin, I have forsaken God in my weakness, and I have called out against Him. And still my Savior reaches out and grabs my unwilling hand, still my Lord and God forgives before I even call to Him, and even now my Father loves me with the love beyond all loves.

I know a few of you are struggling with sin, who have even given up the fight as I myself once did. I tell you this: I have never before been so sure of the power of Christ to break the bonds of sin if we call out to Him who alone has that power.

I have friends who have lost their worldly possessions. Friends who are living with abusive parents. Friends who are even now watching family members die before their eyes. And I have friends who have lost faith in Gods good graces. But please listen to me now.

This is my only message, on this my 25th birthday:

Do not turn to any other than God to satisfy your heart, to free you from the bonds of sin, to bring you joy, and to give you true peace. Forsaking all else, cling and cling to Christ. Don't be satisfied with what you have now, but take hold of the promise written in Psalms 107:

Oh that men would give thanks to the Lord for His goodness, and for His wonderful works to the children of men! For He satisfies the longing soul, and He fills the hungry soul with goodness.

Those who sat in darkness and in the shadow of death, bound in affliction and irons -- because they rebelled against the words of God, and despised the counsel of the Most High, therefore He brought down their heart with labor; they fell down, and there was none to help.

Then they cried out to the Lord in their trouble, and He saved them out of their distresses. He brought them out of darkness and the shadow of death, and broke their chains in pieces. Oh, that men would give thanks to the Lord for His goodness, and for His wonderful works to the children of men! For He has broken the gates of bronze, and cut the bars of iron in two.

These are promises you can hold right now. This is real hope.

If I were less determined, I would quit.

noreply@blogger.com (Tobias Davis) — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 05:36:00 +0000

I have been studying for exams, doing homework, and studying enough to choke a horse. As much as I want to write a few things that have been on my heart lately, I must abstain for a while so that I do not die from over-study.

See you in two weeks, blogospherewebbernets.

Work, Wine, and Women:

noreply@blogger.com (Tobias Davis) — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 01:26:00 +0000

Three of the greater things God has bestowed upon the common man.

Today I have been pondering heavily whether to retire from my position at an esteemed company, mostly for economic reasons. I am paid a reasonable $10 per hour, but working part time of 4 hours per day leaves me (subtracting gasoline, extra time spent, etc.) earning an effectual $5 per hour. This is not very good.

The main issue is twofold: To be able to arrive on time I must cease my studying a full hour before work starts. After work is finished, it takes me an hour to get home and clean up (mildly dirty work) before I am ready to do anything, studying included. This makes my effectual hours worked to be 6. If I worked more than four hours at a time this would help, but class schedules prevent this.

Anyways, I have tentatively decided to quit, even though it is a good job. I will hand in my resignation Monday unless I hear a good reason to stay.

Albert Einstein once said, "If one studies too zealously, one easily loses his pants." This being the case with myself, minus the pants problem, I have decided to do something about it: Not change it. This due to time constraints. Ackh!

Exciting News

noreply@blogger.com (Tobias Davis) — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 04:07:00 +0000

Greetings!

I am currently switching many interwebs around:

1: I have been speaking only of politics and law for so long that I decided to move that entire discussion to an entirely new blog, The Religious Politic. It still has a ways to go, but it is started.

2: In the process of rebuilding my "recently" purchased 1989 Geo Metro, I decided to post all the pictures, all the hairy updates, and all the info as it happens*. This is here at Restoring a 1989 Geo Metro. Yeah, real original name, so sue me.

3: This blog, Tobias Davis, will continue to remain parked here, but will return to something of what it used to be long ago, namely, a "personal" blog. If you want hair raising theological arguments, you must now visit The Religious Politic.

4: The enigma has now ended over at The Raving Lunatic, but the answer is still available. The illusion is the answer to the riddle, so look past it.

5: That is all for now, all this time spent developing the interwebs has taken away from my time to write much meaningful, but I have some more thoughts on my mind, so stay tuned!

Love and peace!

*Not in real-time.

A Lasting Change

noreply@blogger.com (Tobias Davis) — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 16:50:00 +0000

For the record: I do not support Obama. Even though the word Change is practically cliche, it is what I will speak of.

It is not difficult to notice a problem with this country, what with criminal activity on the rise, police brutality, courts ruling unjustly, divorce rates climbing, and so on ad nauseum. The real difficulty is not in noticing the Things That Are Wrong, but rather the underlying What Is Wrong.

While many Christians claim such things as "taking prayer out of the schools" or "teaching evolution in schools" or "television" and so on, I will contest those responses and call them all wrong. By analogy, if a patient complains to the doctor of headaches, the doctor should not see the headache as The Problem, but rather as the symptom. The real problem may be dehydration, allergies, lack of exercise, etc... Of course, to the patient The Problem is the headache, but the doctor knows that if the real problem is not taken care of, it will turn into a Serious Problem. Likewise, when we view this country and see rising divorce rates, rising murder rates, and so on, although it definitely is a problem, it is not The Problem. When we see anti-Christian principles taught dogmatically in public schools, we should obviously see it as a problem, but I tell you this: It is not The Real Problem.

So what is The Real Problem? And further, how do we go about combating The Real Problem?

Here is what the Bible says in Hosea 6:6 "My people are destroyed because of lack of knowledge." This refers specifically to Israel, who we as Christians are now considered as. But read the whole chapter, see this: Within the Israelites, God's chosen people, the Lord leveled a charge against them "there is no faithfulness, no love, no acknowledgment of God in the land." This should not be taken to our situation as "There is no X in America", because the Bible does not call America "God's chosen", but rather the New Testament calls Christians this. So we should apply this verse as "There is no X within Christians." This is obviously a Bad Thing.

What are we to do about this? We are to "train up your child in the way he should go." We are to talk of God's laws when we "sit down, and rise up" and practically all the time. You must ask yourself and your child, How does God's law apply in this situation?

True lasting reform of this nation will only be caused by following strictly Biblical laws on reform. All other reform is humanistic revolution, and will only create more lawlessness.

I have more to say, but I have class approaching. I apologize that I have not been able to get on here very often, school and work combine to leave me very little extra time.

Why are we not up in arms?

noreply@blogger.com (Tobias Davis) — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 05:11:00 +0000

How many banks need to be ~~rescued~~ bought out by the federal ~~government~~ tyrants before all of you ~~citizens~~ slaves wake up and smell the coffee? One? Two? Three? Do you even realize that this is a serious problem? Do you even understand the history of government controlled banking?

The federal tyrants recently bought out AIG. I cannot begin to tell you how unsettling this is.

For the record: I will now begin calling the "federal government" as it stands now the "federal tyrants".

Do you realize how deep into the government tyranny this goes? Part of the answer is revealed in the answer to the questions I posed in a previous post.

September Eleventh, not "Patriot Day"

noreply@blogger.com (Tobias Davis) — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 06:04:00 +0000

People always say they will "Never Forget!", so in honor of the mysterious collapse of the Twin Towers several years ago, I wanted to put together a list of questions to see if you "never forgot." Try and answer all of them from memory alone before you consult the internet. Not all of these deal with the September eleventh events, but rather with the state of America in general.

1) How many people died in the Twin Towers directly? (As opposed to possible deaths from chemical exposures, etc.)

2) Why did we invade Iraq?

3) Who is Elian Gonzalez?

4) What specific indisputable events happened in Waco, Texas?

5) How many dollars worth of damage occurred from vandalism in New Orleans after hurricane Katrina?

6) How many military bases do we have in other countries, as of summer of 2008?

7) How many nuclear missiles are missing from the United States stockpile?

8) Why were children forcibly removed from homes in Texas if no one was charged with wrongdoing?

9) How many citizens have been killed because of police brutality, since the fall season of 2007?

10) How many people are imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay prison?

11) If you have children and you were falsely accused of sexually abusing your children, what action would you take to prevent forcible removal of said children?

Can you answer all of these questions without consulting the internet or other resources?

There are two Americas, but not separated by wealth. They are separated by knowledge.

Do you know the answer?

One More Proof

noreply@blogger.com (Tobias Davis) — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 05:51:00 +0000

I have stated in previous posts my opinion that a) Socialism is wrong, and b) Obama is a Socialist. Essentially, my argument that socialism is wrong rests in the unarguable fact that socialism forcibly takes money from one group (the richer) and gives it to another (maybe the poor, depending on how it works out). I will mention now the innate envy that people have of the rich, and how this envy is usually displayed by ideas that the wealthy only got their wealth by cheating the poor. I don't care how you justify your reasoning for socialism, what matters is that you are forcibly taking money away from someone. What usually happens (I would guess over 80 percent of the time) is that, in socialism, money is taken from the rich and given, indirectly and inefficiently, to the poor. If I may be so bold as to rephrase that: What usually happens is that money is taken from responsible people and given to the irresponsible.

If you were so very responsible with your money, you would be rich! Socialism stems from a mind set that "You cannot change your position in the world" and additionally "I am not responsible for my poverty." In effect, by subsidizing those who do not put in a strong effort to be responsible, you guarantee the person will continue being irresponsible.

All of this an aside to this: Even if you disagree with me and think that forced "redistribution of wealth" (commonly called Socialism but called "stealing" by me) is wrong, you must surely be able to understand that in a socialist society the rich are taxed more. And so, behold, I give you solid evidence that Obama is a socialist:
I found this on a Washington Post article, which I did not bother to read much of. Most people will see this and be amazed that McCain (who I do not support) could lower the taxes for the rich! But, unknown to most of said people, the rich already pay many many many times the taxes you do by percentage. Did you notice the word percentage? It means that, if you make $1000 per month, and you get $100 taken out for tax, you have a 10% tax. But, comparitively, for every $1000 a rich person makes, they have to pay over 60% or $600, and sometimes well over. How can this be justified? Only by socialistic ideals, which is how Obama justifies his insanely huge tax increase for the wealthy: They have more, I can ~~steal~~ tax more.

Obama is a Socialist, by definition.

P.S. I find it hilarious that the Chalcedon Foundation is listed on the SPLCenter's website as a hate group for being "Anti-Gay". Hilarious. Apparently they went "beyond mere disagreement with homosexuality by subjecting gays and lesbians to campaigns of personal vilification" whatever that means, the SPLC doesn't list any incidents (I checked all 239) or more information. Awesome. The C.F. rocks my socks off.

beyond mere disagreement with homosexuality by subjecting gays and lesbians to campaigns of personal vilification.