Ruminations on life. Geeking out, too.

Weirdness ...

2005-05-21T15:49:00.000-05:00

For some reason, my Atom feed doesn't render properly in Safari. Neither does the Feedburner feed. I honestly don't know why this is, but I'm experimenting with a few things.

A prescription for trouble

2005-05-06T13:22:00.000-05:00

SMU doctor wouldn't prescribe Morning After pill to student after being raped

By Allison Denman
Contributing writer
May 02, 2005

Last fall, Lacy, a student at SMU, was raped. The next day, she went to the SMU Memorial Health Center and asked for emergency contraception - often called the "morning-after pill" - to avoid getting pregnant.

However, Lacy, who has asked to remain anonymous, said Dr. Shannon Sims, a doctor at the center, refused to write a prescription for the pill. Lacy, a junior, said Sims told her she did not write prescriptions for the morning-after pill - also known as the Plan B method - because of her religious beliefs.

According to Lacy, Dr. Sims told her, " 'Read between the lines, I'm Catholic, so I don't believe in the Plan B method, so therefore, I have the right to refuse to write the prescription.' "

...

Lacy said she met with Sims, but she refused to fill the prescription. Tehan, Sims' nurse, suggested Lacy meet with another doctor at the Health Center to get the morning-after pill. Lacy did but said the experience was difficult. The second doctor asked her the same questions as Sims. Finally, the doctor wrote the prescription, and Lacy got it filled at the Walgreen's at Mockingbird and Greenville Avenue.

------------------------------------------------------------

Now ... wait a second. This doctor had a choice here.

1. She could have said something like "I'm sorry. I can't prescribe this to you, but here are some people who can."
or
2. She could have been a complete ass about it and made the poor girl feel even worse about everything.

Obviously, she chose the second of those two major options, and I am very much of the opinion that she should be fired because of it. That last paragraph I quoted made it sound like the doctor didn't even give "Lacy" a list of the doctors who would help her or any other information. It was the nurse who did that.

This is just infuriating.

Bonjour to you, too!

2005-05-06T13:07:00.000-05:00

Seems I'm a day late to the party, but Apple has actually released Bonjour for Windows.

I've been playing with Bonjour (formerly Rendezvous) on Windows for quite a while longer than I've had a Mac. In fact, a bit under three years ago, when I was at the University of Texas at Dallas, I downloaded Apple's Rendezvous code and built the Rendezvous Browser they had written. I managed to find about four Macs on the local subnet and actually got in contact with the owner of one.

For those who don't know (probably most people), Bonjour is primarily a form of multicast DNS and service advertisement. From Apple's site on it (linked above):

Bonjour is an open protocol which Apple has submitted to the IETF as part of the ongoing standards-creation process. In order to provide a true zero-configuration experience, Bonjour requires that devices implement three essential things. These devices must be able to

- allocate IP addresses without a DHCP server
- translate between names and IP addresses without a DNS server
- locate or advertise services without using a directory server

So essentially, it allows you to throw a bunch of computers together and they'll automatically negotiate their IP addresses, and then start sharing services. Apple's Mac OS X contains a version of Apache as well as a filesharing server that works with Apple Filesharing Protocol, an SSH server, an FTP server, a customized VNC server, and a printer sharing daemon, all of which advertise themselves to the local network. They're all turned off by default, but if you want to use them, they're there in the form of checkboxes in the Sharing pane of the System Preferences. Since they're all Bonjour-enabled, all you need to do is turn on Apache (for instance), and everyone with a Bonjour-enabled browser gets a link to that computer's page.

The printer sharing is the coolest part of this in my mind. Every single major manufacturer of network printers has built Bonjour into their printer firmware now, so all you need to do is plug the printer into your network, and all of your Macs can see it and print to it with no further configuration. With this release, the same ease comes to Windows. KDE is building it into version 3.4, so soon, every major OS is going to have an implementation of it. Hopefully, this is the advent of a new ease-of-use in networking such that anyone can just throw hardware together and it'll talk without any problems.

The Slashdot hive-mind has some interesting points

2005-04-24T17:35:00.000-05:00

In this /. article entitled Steve Ballmer Responds to Discrimination Issue, I spotted an interesting comment.

Re:Corporations shouldn't be involved in issues li (Score:5, Insightful)
by JenovaSynthesis (528503) on Sunday April 24, @02:03PM (#12330261)

The ironic thing in all of this is that discrimination towards homosexuality is based on the belief it is a choice which has strong evidence against it (i.e. the fact gay rats can literally be manufactured and there is data from WWII-era German births providing a link to the same phenomena in humans). They also somehow believe people wake up one morning and say "I want to be a member of the most vocally hated minority in the US." and such.

The ironic twist is that, assuming being gay is a choice, the same arguments against gay rights based on choice also negate civil rights based on religion. You choose to be Catholic/Protestant/Jewish/etc. so why should they get protection based on that then?

Now those are certainly fascinating thoughts. I knew about the "gay rats can literally be manufactured" bit, but not about the WWII-era German births. Really, when you think about the study with the rats, then the German babies make sense.

Which reminds me. Does anyone have a link to the published results of that study with the rats? I can't seem to find my printed copy anywhere (partially because I've forgotten what journal it was in >_<), so I would greatly appreciate a little help finding another copy somewhere.

Edit: Alright. I found the title and author of the paper in question as well as when and where it was published.

Parental Stress Feminizes and Demasculizes the Behavior of Males by Dr. Ingebog Ward. It was published on January 7th, 1972 in Science.

Now, unfortunately, Science only has issues dating back to the 20th of September, 1996 on their site; the rest are in JSTOR. I don't have JSTOR access from my school (let alone from home), so I can't even verify if it's there. If anyone happens to have access and can find it, I would *really* appreciate a copy.

On a related note, does anyone else find it really sad how hard it is to get copies of scientific whitepapers? I'm almost to the point of requesting a copy from the Library of Congress here, though I somehow doubt that I would end up getting what it is that I want, seeing as I can't seem to find it on their website. I doubt that their librarians would have better luck than I had.

The definition of a "fundamentalist"

2005-04-23T15:01:00.000-05:00

Frankly, this is the best one I've ever seen. It works on so many levels ...

There has been hope that God actually wrote a book - a "user's manual" for mankind. That is the belief which identifies a "Fundamentalist". Fundamentalism is a mind-set, independent of any particular religion. Indeed that mind-set exists in all major religions - only the book differs. It is usually the holy book found in ones own region of the world. In some religions it is the Bible; in others the Koran or... But God did not write a book - in any language in any civilization. No instruction manual has been handed down from heaven. If he had written one it would have been error free. The bible is NOT. We are still going to have to exercise judgment and think for ourselves. Let us realize that the bible represents the contribution of a variety of authors - each interested in having us lead a Godly life. The stories they weave represent their own viewpoints, testimonies, and observations.

Specifically, look at this portion:

There has been hope that God actually wrote a book - a "user's manual" for mankind. That is the belief which identifies a "Fundamentalist". Fundamentalism is a mind-set, independent of any particular religion. Indeed that mind-set exists in all major religions - only the book differs.

Explains it rather well, doesn't it?

It also explains why they're always at one another's throats. "My version of the manual is right! Yours sucks!" Why they see everyone else as being either with them or against them. "You either believe my version of the manual, or you don't. If you don't, then you must have your own version! Which sucks!" Why they cling so tightly to their beliefs instead of actual facts.

If anyone else has heard or seen a better definition, I'd love to see it.

The case against paid ministers

2005-04-22T17:02:00.000-05:00

I saw an interesting post in the recent Slashdot discussion on Microsoft withdrawing its support from the bill to add sexual orientation to the workplace discrimination law in Washington.

The Other Side (Score:3, Informative)
by Khomar (529552) on Thursday April 21, @06:43PM (#12307978)
Homosexuality is neither a choice (that's long ago been proven scientifically)

There have been studies that seem to indicate this, however the methods and sample populations used make their conclusions dubious at best (a high number of known criminals, for example)

Furthermore, as it's entirely unrelated to capacity to perform most any given job or what have you, there is no reason that discrimination on the basis of sexual preference should be permissable.

Here you come to the real crux of the matter. It is entirely related to the job of a pastor. Think about it. Most Christian churches in this country teach that homosexuality is a sin akin to drunkenness, marital infidelity, and stealing. Just as you would not want to hire a pastor who was a drunk because he would be a bad example to the congregation, so you would not want to hire someone whose lifestyle exhibits what the church teaches as a moral wrong. This law would make it impossible for churches to reject candidates whose lifestyles are those of a homosexual despite the fact that it is opposition to their religious teachings (protected by the constitution) and really common sense. Do you want to hire someone who actively stands for something your organization is expressly against? To put it another way, would you want to hire a development manager that encouraged their developers to write slow, unmanagable code?

The Bible expressly teaches that elders (pastors are considered elders in most churches) of a church should lead lives that are "beyond reproach". This means that whether the candidate's lifestyle is characterized by being a habitual liar, glutton, drunk, adulterer, or homosexual, they are disqualified from service in the church.

On another note, it should be added that homosexuals can qualify as elders if they do not practice homosexuality. I have listed many other sins to make the point that we all are flawed and tempted to what the Bible teaches as wrong, but just because you are tempted to behave in such a way does not mean that you must behave as such. The proclamations in the Bible are not any stronger against homosexuality than any other sin. There is no room for "homo-phobia" in Christianity. The expectations for those tempted toward homosexuality are no different than those who are tempted to cheat or steal. Both are expected to live lives of repentance and obedience to scripture if they are to seek a pastorate or elder.

Now, as far as I'm concerned, that is a case-in-point about why ministers (bishops, pastors, priests, elders, or whatever else some church might call them) of any kind should not be paid. By paying them, you turn their service into a secular thing.

In my opinion, this is one thing that the LDS do really ... right. The bishops aren't paid. The missionaries aren't paid. In fact, not only is a missionary not paid, but he has to pay for his entire mission. This has the effect of a high-pass filter in that it weeds out everyone who isn't that passionate about his faith. I remember meeting one bishop who was an air-traffic controller. Frankly, he's one of the coolest people I know, and I very much respect him with regards to his religious beliefs. The major difference between him and this "chieldprotagee" clown is that he doesn't go around telling people that the Bible condemns them. Every time I've heard him speak, it has invariably been about unconditional love, acceptance, and fellowship.

Getting back to the idea of a paid ministry, there are plenty of other things that I don't like about the LDS religion, but this isn't one of them.

Whose bright idea was it to start paying people to tell them the word of God? And does anyone honestly think that this has absolutely no influence on what the minister says?

Wow ... it feels so wrong to cheer for SBC ...

2005-04-09T18:57:00.000-05:00

The company, not the Baptists.

Telecom giants' policies ignore Kansas ban
Patrick Letellier, PlanetOut Network
published Friday, April 8, 2005

Two of the largest U.S. telecommunications companies, Sprint and SBC Communications, will continue to offer same-sex domestic partner benefits to employees in Kansas despite the overwhelming passage of a broadly worded anti-gay marriage amendment in the state this week.

On Tuesday, Kansas voters passed an amendment to the state constitution banning same-sex marriage by a 70-30 margin. The amendment defined marriage as between one man and one woman, and stated that, "No relationship, other than a marriage, shall be recognized by the state as entitling the parties to the rights or incidents of marriage."

Legal experts have warned that the latter part of the amendment may jeopardize domestic partner benefits in Kansas, mirroring battles being waged in other states. Last month Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox argued that public employers in that state cannot provide domestic partner benefits to same-sex couples because of a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage passed by Michigan voters last November.

Sprint and SBC are the first companies to make clear they will continue to offer the benefits not only to their employees in Kansas, but also nationwide.

"We believe a culture of diversity and inclusion is essential to being a provider and an employer of choice," Sprint spokeswoman Jennifer Bosshardt told the PlanetOut Network. "Having domestic partner benefits is definitely an added value to the benefits package that we offer."

Based in Overland Park, on the Missouri border, Sprint is one of the largest employers in Kansas, with approximately 16,000 employees. The company began offering domestic partner benefits to gay and lesbian employees in January.

"As a Fortune 100 company, it was something we needed to do to attract, motivate and retain top talent. So it was a benefit for our employees and for our corporation as a whole," Bosshardt said.

Nearly 50 percent of Fortune 500 companies offer domestic partner benefits, and many cite the need to remain competitive in the labor market as an incentive to do so.

"It's in the best interest of a company's shareholders to provide gay people with equal benefits in the work place," said Daryl Herrschaft, deputy director of the Human Rights Campaign's WorkNet.

"What's going on in the marketplace is far different than what's going on at the ballot box, and the decision by Sprint and SBC reflects that," he said.

So ... wow. SBC and Sprint are doing the right thing. I'm so conflicted! I hate SBC (after all, they're the same company as Cingular Wireless, which I loathe), but this is an incredibly cool move on their part ...

Bad fundie! Bad!

2005-04-07T00:04:00.000-05:00

Why on earth do they keep bringing out the same tired old arguments that God exists? I'm not saying He doesn't, just that these arguments don't come close to proving that He does or disproving any current scientific theories.

First of all, on the evening of the 5th, a friend linked me to this article that claims to prove the existence of God.

Now, I plan to go through it point by point dissecting it and showing that it's rather incorrect at best. I've put the footnotes from the original text inline with the text in this post. Here we go!

Just once wouldn't you love for someone to simply show you the evidence for God's existence? No arm-twisting. No statements of, "You just have to believe." Well, here is an attempt to candidly offer some of the reasons which suggest that God exists.

Well this first paragraph is pretty much fluff. There's never any way to prove that there's a God, since the whole idea is that we each need to have faith and so forth. Faith and knowledge are mutually exclusive. You can either know something or have faith in it, not both. But moving right along ...

But first consider this. If a person opposes even the possibility of there being a God, then any evidence can be rationalized or explained away. It is like if someone refuses to believe that people have walked on the moon, then no amount of information is going to change their thinking. Photographs of astronauts walking on the moon, interviews with the astronauts, moon rocks...all the evidence would be worthless, because the person has already concluded that people cannot go to the moon.

Um ... there are so many problems with that idea that I'm not sure where to begin ...

No!

There is no evidence that God exists. At least, no direct evidence, and the reason everything else can be rationalized away is that it's all so terribly circumstantial and based on hearsay. Also, keep in mind that the reverse is true. No matter how much proof we might show someone that evolution does indeed occur, they can still refuse to believe it. No matter how many times we fly around the world, there are still people who believe that it's flat and that everything revolves around it. Those latter two examples of mine are both examples of someone "religiously" believing one thing in spite of all evidence to the contrary. Anyway, my point is that that rationalization thing works both ways.

When it comes to the possibility of God's existence, the Bible says that there are people who have seen sufficient evidence, but they have suppressed the truth about God. (Romans 1:19-21) On the other hand, for those who want to know God if He is there, He says, "You will seek me and find me; when you seek me with all your heart, I will be found by you." (Jeremiah 29:13-14) Before you look at the facts surrounding God's existence, ask yourself, If God does exist, would I want to know Him?

Again, this is mostly fluff. There aren't any arguments here, so there isn't all that much for me to pick holes in.

Here then, are some reasons to consider...

1. Does God exist? Throughout history, in all cultures of the world, people have been convinced there is a God.

Billions of people, who represent diverse sociological, intellectual, emotional, educational makeups...believe that there is a Creator, a God to be worshipped. Now, the fact that so many people believe something certainly doesn't make it true. But when so many people through the ages are so personally convinced that God exists, can one say with absolute confidence that they are all mistaken?

Is the earth flat? Throughout history, in all cultures of the known world at the time, the world was believed to be both flat and at the center of the universe with everything else revolving around it. That doesn't make it any more true. (In case you didn't notice, I like the flat-earth argument and may be using it more later on)

At least the writer acknowledges that people saying something doesn't make it true. As for whether they are mistaken, they were looking for a higher power to explain things that they didn't understand in the world around them. Is it any surprise that they came up with a deity? And actually, most early civilizations believed that there was not just a single deity, but a multitude of them, each with his own particular function. Plus, in case you didn't notice, the God of the Bible said that they were all wrong, which nullifies the argument of "So many people believe in God that He must be there!" Now you're down to "A really tiny minority of people through history believe in my God (or at least something similar), so He must be there!" which doesn't work.

"Anthropological research has indicated that among the farthest and most remote primitive people today, there is a universal belief in God. And in the earliest histories and legends of people all around the world, the original concept was of one God, who was the Creator. An original high God seems once to have been in their consciousness even in those societies which are today polytheistic." (Paul E. Little, Know Why You Believe (Victor Books, 1988), p. 22)

Well ... I'd believe that except for it having been discounted by nearly every single anthropological study I have ever read. As early civilizations started explaining what they were seeing, they fabricated these stories of Gods and Titans and Great Spirits. These beings were powerful and could do things that men could not like cast lightning bolts down from the sky. The fact is that most early civilizations of which we have any record were polytheistic with a single 'head' God. Now, if this person would like to call that monotheism, then he's flat-out wrong.

Here comes a long quote:

2. Does God exist? The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer who not only created our universe, but sustains it today.

Many examples showing God's design could be given, possibly with no end. But here are a few:

The Earth...its size is perfect. The Earth's size and corresponding gravity holds a thin layer of mostly nitrogen and oxygen gases, only extending about 50 miles above the Earth's surface. If Earth were smaller, an atmosphere would be impossible, like the planet Mercury. If Earth were larger, its atmosphere would contain free hydrogen, like Jupiter. (R.E.D. Clark, Creation (London: Tyndale Press, 1946), p. 20) Earth is the only known planet equipped with an atmosphere of the right mixture of gases to sustain plant, animal and human life.

The Earth is located the right distance from the sun. Consider the temperature swings we encounter, roughly -30 degrees to +120 degrees. If the Earth were any further away from the sun, we would all freeze. Any closer and we would burn up. Even a fractional variance in the Earth's position to the sun would make life on Earth impossible. The Earth remains this perfect distance from the sun while it rotates around the sun at a speed of nearly 67,000 mph. It is also rotating on its axis, allowing the entire surface of the Earth to be properly warmed and cooled every day.

And our moon is the perfect size and distance from the Earth for its gravitational pull. The moon creates important ocean tides and movement so ocean waters do not stagnate, and yet it restrains our massive oceans from spilling over across the continents. (The Wonders of God's Creation, Moody Institute of Science (Chicago, IL))

Think about that for a second. We are on a planet that supports life when the chance that it would is just so slim. But ... if it didn't support life ... then we wouldn't be here, now would we? What do these people think is so special about the Earth? It just happens to be one of the planets that formed at the right distance from its primary to sustain life-as-we-know-it.

As for the moon, it's the same thing. This planet just happened to form at the right distance and with the right conditions in order to support life. There's nothing special about this particular solar system other than that it has a single planet with life-as-we-know-it on it. If Earth hadn't formed with these conditions, then we wouldn't be here. However, that wouldn't stop another planet from forming with the proper conditions. Nor does it stop forms of life other than our own.

Water...colorless, odorless and without taste, and yet no living thing can survive without it. Plants, animals and human beings consist mostly of water (about two-thirds of the human body is water). You'll see why the characteristics of water are uniquely suited to life:

It has an unusually high boiling point and freezing point. Water allows us to live in an environment of fluctuating temperature changes, while keeping our bodies a steady 98.6 degrees.

Water is a universal solvent. This property of water means that thousands of chemicals, minerals and nutrients can be carried throughout our bodies and into the smallest blood vessels. (Ibid.)

Water is also chemically inert. Without affecting the makeup of the substances it carries, water enables food, medicines and minerals to be absorbed and used by the body.

Water has a unique surface tension. Water in plants can therefore flow upward against gravity, bringing life-giving water and nutrients to the top of even the tallest trees.

Water freezes from the top down and floats, so fish can live in the winter.

Ninety-seven percent of the Earth's water is in the oceans. But on our Earth, there is a system designed which removes salt from the water and then distributes that water throughout the globe. Evaporation takes the ocean waters, leaving the salt, and forms clouds which are easily moved by the wind to disperse water over the land, for vegetation, animals and people. It is a system of purification and supply that sustains life on this planet, a system of recycled and reused water. (Ibid.)

Again, these properties happen to be conducive to life-as-we-know-it because life-as-we-know-it evolved under them. If there was some kind of self-replicating chemical reaction similar to a cell in the methane seas of another planet, it would still be life, just a different kind. Assuming it could think, it would wonder how there could ever be life on such a hot and barren planet as Earth. After all, we only have liquid water on the surface of our planet. To a creature that could survive in liquid methane, our planet would be about as hot and inhospitable as Venus is to us. Simply saying that we're the only kind of life that there can be doesn't cut it. We don't know enough yet to say anything like that. Nor do we know that no other planets happen to also host life-as-we-know-it.

The human brain...simultaneously processes an amazing amount of information. Your brain takes in all the colors and objects you see, the temperature around you, the pressure of your feet against the floor, the sounds around you, the dryness of your mouth, even the texture of this article in your hand. Your brain registers emotional responses, thoughts and memories. At the same time your brain keeps track of the ongoing functions of your body like your breathing pattern, eyelid movement, hunger and movement of the muscles in your hands.

The human brain processes more than a million messages a second. (Ibid.) Your brain weighs the importance of all this data, filtering out the relatively unimportant. This screening function is what allows you to focus and operate effectively in your world. A brain that deals with more than a million pieces of information every second, while evaluating its importance and allowing you to act on the most pertinent information...can we say mere chance brought about such an astounding organ?

When NASA launches a shuttle mission, it is assumed a monkey didn't write the plan, but intelligent and knowledgeable minds. How does one explain the existence of the human brain? Only a mind more intelligent and knowledgeable than humanity could have created the human brain.

Claiming that God created the human brain is simply adding complexity. If that's the case, then where did God's mind come from? By their same argument, only a mind more intelligent and knowledgeable than God could have created Him, yet they propose nothing of the kind. After all, how do you get more "intelligent and knowledgeable" than a mind that sees all and knows all?

3. Does God exist? Mere "chance" is not an adequate explanation of creation.

Imagine looking at Mount Rushmore, in which the likenesses of Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt are carved. Could you ever believe that it came about by chance? Given infinite time, wind, rain and chance, it is still hard to believe something like that, tied to history, was randomly formed in the side of a mountain. Common sense tells us that people planned and skillfully carved those figures.

This article only touches on a few amazing aspects of our world: the Earth's position to the sun, some properties of water, one organ in the human body. Could any of these have come about by chance?

The distinguished astronomer Sir Frederick Hoyle showed how amino acids randomly coming together in a human cell is mathematically absurd. Sir Hoyle illustrated the weakness of "chance" with the following analogy. "What are the chances that a tornado might blow through a junkyard containing all the parts of a 747, accidentally assemble them into a plane, and leave it ready for take-off? The possibilities are so small as to be negligible even if a tornado were to blow through enough junkyards to fill the whole universe!" (Little, p. 24)

When one considers the intricacies of our life and universe, it is reasonable to think that an intelligent, loving Creator provided for everything we need for life. The Bible describes God as the author and sustainer of life.

And again, the reason that we are on this planet is that it happens to be the one out of however many trillions there are that life evolved on. We don't know how many others have conditions that weren't quite right. Nor do we know how many other planets have life on them.

As for the 747 argument, consider that a 747 is a good deal more complex than a human. We're made up of billions of tiny little bits that are all more-or-less the same thing, just with slight specialization. A 747 is made up of many, many parts, each of which serves a very specific purpose, and if any of them is missing, the plane has a very good chance of not working. Humans are a lot simpler and a lot more redundant. We can lose a tremendous number of our constituent "parts" without dying or falling apart catastrophically.

Really, if you think about it, DNA is a very simple chemical. It's the same four smaller molecules over and over. It happens to be a very simple way to store information on proteins, since every three codons represent one of the amino acids. When assembled in the proper order, these amino acids form the vastly more complex proteins, but even then, they're pretty simple compared to a 747's fuel injectors or control surfaces.

Furthermore (!), once amino acids start reacting, they can keep going for quite a while, so it only takes one reaction out of the entire primordial soup and suddenly, you have a form of life in the works. Some reactions would obviously last longer than others, but they will occur, and they will become more and more complex as energy is fed in.

So really, that 747-out-of-a-junkyard argument is remarkably wrong.

4. Does God exist? Humankind's inherent sense of right and wrong cannot be biologically explained.

There arises in all of us, of any culture, universal feelings of right and wrong. Even a thief gets upset and feels wronged when someone steals from him. If someone violently grabs a child from a family and rapes that child, there is an anger and revulsion and a rage to confront that act as evil, regardless of the culture. Where did we get this sense of wrongness? How do we explain a universal law in the conscience of all people that says murder for fun is wrong?

And in areas like courage, dying for a cause, love, dignity, duty and compassion, where did these come from? If people are merely products of physical evolution, "survival of the fittest," why do we sacrifice for each other? Where did we get this inner sense of right and wrong? Our conscience can best be explained by a loving Creator who cares about the decisions and harmony of humanity.

A sense of morality is self-propagating through a kind of reverse-natural-selection and survival instinct. If an early man who felt killing another was wrong saw a second man kill a third, the one with the "conscience" would feel threatened by the second, and perhaps act to defend himself and his family. It's called the "biological imperative". A creature will protect itself if threatened. Most creatures will also act to protect their mates and progeny, though not all do. Acting to protect one's mates and/or progeny ensures the survival of the genes, so "survival instinct" is related to the urge to procreate.

So actually, not only can the sense of right and wrong be explained biologically, but it's part of the basis for evolution.

And now, I'm kind of tired of going through this article. It's longer than I thought it was. :P If anyone wants me to continue, ask away and I will.

Weird Apache log entries

2005-04-06T23:11:00.000-05:00

Earlier tonight, the following entries appeared in my Apache logs.

218.72.20.198 - - [06/Apr/2005:19:45:53 -0500] "\xee\xda\x17Qh\x9e8\b>\x19p\xc1\x14%k\x9f" 501 -
221.224.38.126 - - [06/Apr/2005:21:23:16 -0500] "\xa0?$\xaa\xe6\x8b\x0e\xf5\x8e\xa0\x80s\xae\x97\xe5\x8a" 501 -

I'm not sure what the character sequences are, and I've not found them on Google. I traced the two IPs back to "Chinanet". Apparently, the first one is in the Zhejiang province and the second is in the Jiangsu province.

So. Any ideas?

Anyone?

Anyone?

Bueller?

"Day of Truth" indeed!

2005-04-06T01:39:00.000-05:00

'Day of Truth' provides response to homosexual-themed day

Its counterpart, the Day of Silence, is sponsored by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network and began in 1996 with students vowing a day of silence as a way to protest what homosexual activists see as discrimination against homosexuals, lesbians and "transsexuals." It has since boomed, and organizers say last year an estimated 100,000 students participated. In some instances, school officials have taken part, creating uncomfortable situations for conservative students.

Well ... first of all, the word is "transgendered", not "transsexual".

Secondly, if the fundie students aren't comfortable with the school administrators participating, nobody is forcing them to watch or participate themselves. I'm not comfortable with people preaching at me about their version of Jesus.

Do I go and complain about it? No.

Do I start a day just to show how uncomfortable I am with it? No.

Am I going to participate in the Day Of Silence? I sure as hell am.

For that matter, I might extend it to the 14th just because I can. And if any Jesus-freaks try to tell me about their special brand of holy, I'm going to very politely take out a sheet of paper and write a quick note telling them exactly where they can put it.

"The school that he attends was getting increasingly active with the Day of Silence," Infranco said. "In fact, they were stretching the events out to nearly a week. They were purposefully setting up the school schedule and events to accommodate the Day of Silence. There was tremendous pressure being exerted on the students to be a part of this and to approve of this."

Assuming that that is indeed true, I'll be the first to admit that it isn't equitable. However, they don't need to start their own day right after the Day Of Silence just to say that.

My wonderful government and what it says about depression.

2005-04-02T23:26:00.000-06:00

Earlier, I was browsing all of my news feeds (hooray for RSS!) and I noticed an interesting article on the gay.com feed.

It talks about a site that the US government put together for parents talking to their children about all kinds of issues. It ranges from "development and health" through "parenting", and even "risky behavior".

Now ... this page annoys me greatly. They discuss the "indications" of chronic depression.

Sadness that does not go away (males may primarily exhibit anger)
Low energy level (fatigue)
Sleeping too much or too little
Waking up in the middle of the night or very early in the morning
Regular physical complaints that don't get better with treatment
Restlessness and irritability
Poor appetite and weight loss
Craving sugar, chocolate, or starchy foods
Large appetite and weight gain
Withdrawal from friends or family and normal activities
Hard time concentrating, poor memory, or hard time making decisions
Drop in school or work performance or both
Anger and rage, and or hostility and aggression (in males this may replace sadness)
Problems with authority
Risky behaviors such as sexual promiscuity and alcohol or drug abuse
Loss of pleasure in normal activities once enjoyed
Feelings of guilt, hopelessness, or low worth
Overreaction to criticism
Thoughts about death
Suicidal thoughts
Acting out behaviors in children (and adolescents)

Now ... Many of these, I can understand, but why do they feel the need to say "(males may primarily exhibit anger)"? I don't get angry when I get depressed. Neither do quite a few of the other men I know with depression. Where it gets far more annoying is when they recommend that youth "Become involved in church, civic or community groups" because they "may help people avoid depression". I don't know about anyone else, but I very much blame my church for my depression in the first place. Well, church and my family.

That alone wouldn't be enough to inspire me to rant about this site, but they go on. And on, and on, and on! They have this page on Abstinence, but absolutely no information about condom education or anything else. Not only that, but the only mention they make of sexual orientation is to say something about "alternative lifestyles" and "If you believe your adolescent may be gay, or is experiencing difficulties with gender identity or sexual orientation issues, consider seeing a family therapist who shares your values to clarify and work through these issues."

So rather than opening your mind, my government is advocating finding a counselor who "shares your values". To the people who elected him, this means finding a pastor who claims to counsel "families in need" or "youth struggling with sexual orientation issues" or similar. This sickens me. Then again, the president of said government seems to have won his office by promoting an amendment that would codify discrimination into the constitution of the nation he leads.

Don't mind me. I'm just really frustrated with the stupid things I see my government do.

Such a wonderful movie ...

2005-04-01T23:40:00.000-06:00

I just found out today that Tarnation is being released on DVD on May 17th! ^_^

Add to that the fact that later this month, Primer is coming to DVD, and I'm quite happy.

Primer is a fairly 'hard' sci-fi movie. There isn't all that much character development, but the story flows. It was actually filmed where I used to live while I was attending my first university. Some of the scenes were actually in the CS building there. It's similar to 2001 in that it's a pretty cerebral film, though this one was made with a much lower budget. No special effects to speak of, but in my mind, those tend to be vastly overused, detracting from the average sci-fi movie rather than adding to it. Since this one has none, they don't distract you from what's actually going on. Plus, it's hard to beat the line "I haven't eaten since later this afternoon." in terms of geekiness.

For those that have not seen Tarnation, it's a film by Jonathan Caouette. Essentially, he's been filming since he was 11. This movie is sort of a compilation of all those films along with lots of family photos. Words cannot do it justice. The tag line is the only decent description I've heard of it. "Your greatest creation is the life you lead." Watch it. When it comes out on DVD, find a copy somewhere and watch it with someone you love. But do not watch it alone.

LDS publications

2005-03-30T08:39:00.000-06:00

http://lds.org/gospellibrary/pdfindex/0,7777,579-1,00.html

For those of you wondering why I'm so socially weird sometimes, take a look at For The Strength Of Youth. It's towards the bottom, in the section labeled "Youth Materials". I was raised on that. Actually, my step-dad was a good deal more stringent in his regulations.

Also of note is "The Family: A Proclamation to the World", which is really worth a read if you want to understand anything at all about the LDS. I mean, that document there describes what is essentially the fundamental concept of the whole religion.

And now, my day has been entirely too long, so off I go to sleep.

Of soliloquies and syndication

2005-03-29T14:24:00.001-06:00

Seems that LJ doesn't make it too easy to syndicate content from other sites. Oh well.

As such, I'm thinking about keeping all of my private posting over there due to its "friends" system. Perhaps mirroring my public posting both here and there. But whichever. Doesn't really matter. Soon enough, RSS feed aggregators should make reading 'blogs from their sites fairly obsolete. Why go directly to the site when you can view 15 different 'blogs at once in a single, unified interface? Plus, it gets rid of all the horrible stylesyeets some amateur web devs set up. Things like bright red text on a black background are not pleasant on my eyes.

Just about the only thing I really wish Blogger would add is some way to integrate it with iPhoto. Then, I'd move the vast majority of my content here. As it is, I'm thinking that I'm just going to get a year of Wheel from SpyMac and use their SpyDisk to store files and so forth. Then link to my galleries from here. Really, I'd like the ability to have a lot of offsite storage for my files. Of course I wouldn't be storing anything too sensitive there without some strong crypto, but for general use, it should be fine.

As an aside, I really hate generic product and service names. Just try searching for "Hello iPhoto" to find some program to integrate them. Or any other likely phrase ("Blogger iPhoto", "iPhoto Blogger script", &c.)

-_-;

Fist post!

2005-02-21T22:14:00.000-06:00

I are teh greetest!

Seriously though, I'm mostly making this post to give Blogger something to put in my 'blog initially. I guess it could be considered a small "Hello!" of sorts, though that is not its only purpose by any means. I also plan to experiment quite a bit with the various settings as well as FeedBurner, since with Safari RSS due out in under a year, I would like to have an RSS feed. Who knows. I may even give various friends posting access.

Essentially, I plan to compare this with the services offered by LiveJournal, Xanga, and their ilk. Hopefully this will fare better, in which case, I'll bring over most of my posting to here and use syndication on some other sites to give others access.