I don't know if there is an agreed definition of a Christian, I suspect not as religion is probably the reference subject that is open to interpretation. So yes I guess it's totally possible that "Christian" could be used as a cultural indicator. One interpretation is that you can go to strip bars, one interpretation is that that is not sinning, another interpretation is that even if it is sinning then you can repent, hang those sins upon the sky, and be forgiven afterwards. Great being a "Christian" isn't it? (Note: I have not attended such a place since 1996 when I took a girl to one in Poughkeepsie just for the experience :-) I think I've been to 3 in my life, sales in London is like that.
+++
Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Oil. Bike geek. Maybe the choice of motorcycle oil is the reference subject that is open to interpretation? 4,000 plus miles you have been busy, what's your annual mileage going to be?
+++
Since the NY Times (NY Times is not the Washington Post after all is it? I'm thinking they'd love to have a Woodward and Bernstein) disclosure I hear that Bush now wants to encrypt everything that comes out of the Whitehouse. I thought his speeches were encrypted anyway, well they are pretty impenetrable to me :-) The root cause of the trouble is that politics doesn't seem to attract what I would call "the smartest people". The ability to talk smoothly does not necessarily equal smart does it?
+++
Procrastination is an interesting topic. It's linked to the passage of time.
+++
Was given a lift by an interesting cabbie, he knew all about the IT Industry. He's been in it for 7 years and has worked for some companies I know in the UK. Now training to be an engineer in Stockholm, hopes to work in the US. Only been taxi driving for 14 days, amazing who is driving taxi's these days and who you meet on the road!
+++
11pm and still light ! Sweden is cheaper than Norway at least.
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
Clever T-Shirt
Someone sent me some pictures of T-shirts for sale. A lot were things I've seen before, but one I thought was clever:
:-)
Motorcycle Ethics in the Light of Nordic Country
You wrote:
* * *
Last week, when I was in Chicago, I was talking with my two co-workers in the workshop. One had taken a church mission trip to Jamaica to build houses, the other frequently refers to himself as "Christian." Yet both rather casually used the Lord's name in vain, and spoke rather freely about visiting erotic bars. I like both of them -- by human standards they're both decent people. My point in bringing this up is not to judge, but to raise this question:
* * *
Speaking of ethics -- we have quite a row brewing in the U.S. right now. In the war on terror, the U.S. government is engaged in many different programs of surveillance. Most are classified. Yet career bureaucrats opposed to the current administration are leaking information about the programs to the New York Times, who is also opposed to the current administration. So they publish details about these programs, which of course alerts the terrorists to modify their ways.
There's much talk over here about this. The U.S. Constitution provides for a "free press," but does that mean the freedom to disclose classified information? Some would argue "Yes," they do have the freedom to disclose it. I would then ask, "Without consequence?" In other words, you're free to disclose it, but then the government is free to pursue an indictment on charges of treason.
When news of the latest disclosure broke -- the U.S. Treasury department is monitoring cash transactions that take place in the international exchange market -- some left-wingers here reacted without thinking: "It's outrageous that the government should be aware of our financial records!" What? Every April 15th I file a very detailed report on just that. The government has more information on my financial state than I do.
(By the way, the currency exchange monitoring program was secret, but not illegal ... not even borderline. Nobody is suggesting it is illegal. Congress was briefed and expressed no concern about it. But it was secret. But no longer.)
I do not like what the NY Times is doing. They seem to think that it'll forever be 1973 and everything is "Watergate." They are blinded by their hatred of the current president, and are willing to sacrifice the lives of others to do damage to him.
There's a pretty common thread in ethics training that goes something like this: your character is determined by what you do when no one is watching.I'd believe that. I've heard that used as a litmus test for one's Christian character -- in other words, do you abide by the teachings of Christ when nobody is looking? I would like to think I do ... but I don't all the time. But I want to. That's a start.
* * *
Last week, when I was in Chicago, I was talking with my two co-workers in the workshop. One had taken a church mission trip to Jamaica to build houses, the other frequently refers to himself as "Christian." Yet both rather casually used the Lord's name in vain, and spoke rather freely about visiting erotic bars. I like both of them -- by human standards they're both decent people. My point in bringing this up is not to judge, but to raise this question:
Is it possible that some people use the term "Christian" as a cultural indicator rather than a statement about faith?I suspect the answer is "yes," in much the same way that some non-observant Jews still call themselve "Jewish."
* * *
Speaking of ethics -- we have quite a row brewing in the U.S. right now. In the war on terror, the U.S. government is engaged in many different programs of surveillance. Most are classified. Yet career bureaucrats opposed to the current administration are leaking information about the programs to the New York Times, who is also opposed to the current administration. So they publish details about these programs, which of course alerts the terrorists to modify their ways.
There's much talk over here about this. The U.S. Constitution provides for a "free press," but does that mean the freedom to disclose classified information? Some would argue "Yes," they do have the freedom to disclose it. I would then ask, "Without consequence?" In other words, you're free to disclose it, but then the government is free to pursue an indictment on charges of treason.
When news of the latest disclosure broke -- the U.S. Treasury department is monitoring cash transactions that take place in the international exchange market -- some left-wingers here reacted without thinking: "It's outrageous that the government should be aware of our financial records!" What? Every April 15th I file a very detailed report on just that. The government has more information on my financial state than I do.
(By the way, the currency exchange monitoring program was secret, but not illegal ... not even borderline. Nobody is suggesting it is illegal. Congress was briefed and expressed no concern about it. But it was secret. But no longer.)
I do not like what the NY Times is doing. They seem to think that it'll forever be 1973 and everything is "Watergate." They are blinded by their hatred of the current president, and are willing to sacrifice the lives of others to do damage to him.
Ethics
Recent research in the US showed that surveillance, or just the threat of it, causes people to act more honestly.
The researchers found that when they put a picture of a pair of eyes on the wall next to the communal coffee-pot money box - the money "donated" into the box trebled as compared to the "no-eyes" situtation. I wonder if the eyes are really the cause of the enhanced takings? Probably.
There's a pretty common thread in ethics training that goes something like this: your character is determined by what you do when no one is watching.
Do you think so?
Thoughts of the golfer cheating in the woods/rough spring to mind.
The researchers found that when they put a picture of a pair of eyes on the wall next to the communal coffee-pot money box - the money "donated" into the box trebled as compared to the "no-eyes" situtation. I wonder if the eyes are really the cause of the enhanced takings? Probably.
There's a pretty common thread in ethics training that goes something like this: your character is determined by what you do when no one is watching.
Do you think so?
Thoughts of the golfer cheating in the woods/rough spring to mind.
Scandanavia
I have always wanted to visit Norway. I find myself quite drawn to the area, from pictures and from the one visit I made to Goteberg, Sweden lo these many years ago. One day I shall make the trip.
* * *
The movie I was thinking about was called "Insomnia," and it did indeed star Al Pacino.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0278504/
The movie is not all that great. I mention it because there's a tie-in to your writing about how the sun never sets completely up in the far north.
* * *
I let the snake slither off. That was the first time we'd seen it up on our patio, so I don't think he (or she) was looking to set up camp there. That's one of the things about Arizona I have to get used to -- there are critters here that I didn't have back in Virginia. But it's still a nice place to live.
* * *
My motorcycle now has 4,000+ miles on it. Last weekend I changed the oil and checked the "final drive" oil (my bike has a shaft drive, so the rear wheel has a "hypoid gear" assembly to transfer the rotational energy of the shaft into the rotation of the rear wheel.
Note: interesting side-note: shaft drives are the least efficient in transferring power to the rear wheel. Chain drives are first; belts second, shafts third. That's why sport bikes still use chains. The difference is not all that much, but enough to make the speed-enthusiasts demand chain drives.
The final drive oil was quite a bit low, which concerns me because that means it came from the factory low ... or from the dealership if they did final assembly including the fluids. At any rate, I drove the thing 4000 miles in the hot Arizona heat with low oil to protect the gears back there. But it's not like the oil was dry -- there was still 75% of the total recommended oil there, and from what I can gather, that mechanism is able to survive things like this quite well. The drained oil didn't have any recognizable metal bits or anything. And a visual inspection of the gear teeth through the fill hole shows, to my eye, no damage or wear.
The other thing I did was to use a different oil from the Honda-branded oil. (I still used a Honda-branded filter, though.) After reading tons and tons of stuff on the Internet, it appears that heavy-duty truck oil is ideally suited for motorcycle use. So I put in Shell Rotella-T 15W-40 oil. Now, some notes:
We are heading into the Independence Day holiday here in the United States. It falls on a Tuesday, which means we have a glorious 4-day weekend. I can tell things are slowing down already, though. Friday will be very quiet.
* * *
The movie I was thinking about was called "Insomnia," and it did indeed star Al Pacino.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0278504/
The movie is not all that great. I mention it because there's a tie-in to your writing about how the sun never sets completely up in the far north.
* * *
I let the snake slither off. That was the first time we'd seen it up on our patio, so I don't think he (or she) was looking to set up camp there. That's one of the things about Arizona I have to get used to -- there are critters here that I didn't have back in Virginia. But it's still a nice place to live.
* * *
My motorcycle now has 4,000+ miles on it. Last weekend I changed the oil and checked the "final drive" oil (my bike has a shaft drive, so the rear wheel has a "hypoid gear" assembly to transfer the rotational energy of the shaft into the rotation of the rear wheel.
Note: interesting side-note: shaft drives are the least efficient in transferring power to the rear wheel. Chain drives are first; belts second, shafts third. That's why sport bikes still use chains. The difference is not all that much, but enough to make the speed-enthusiasts demand chain drives.
The final drive oil was quite a bit low, which concerns me because that means it came from the factory low ... or from the dealership if they did final assembly including the fluids. At any rate, I drove the thing 4000 miles in the hot Arizona heat with low oil to protect the gears back there. But it's not like the oil was dry -- there was still 75% of the total recommended oil there, and from what I can gather, that mechanism is able to survive things like this quite well. The drained oil didn't have any recognizable metal bits or anything. And a visual inspection of the gear teeth through the fill hole shows, to my eye, no damage or wear.
The other thing I did was to use a different oil from the Honda-branded oil. (I still used a Honda-branded filter, though.) After reading tons and tons of stuff on the Internet, it appears that heavy-duty truck oil is ideally suited for motorcycle use. So I put in Shell Rotella-T 15W-40 oil. Now, some notes:
- You would not believe the discussion on the Internet concerning oil for motorcycles! Everyone has their pet oil, and everyone is convinced that their oil is the only oil to use. One person writes "Rotella-T Synthetic is the best oil out there!" and another rebuts it with "Rotella-T is worthless!" One guy wrote that Rotella breaks down completely in less than one hour in a motorcycle. I had to laugh -- that's absurd.
- I change my oil every 2000 miles. I think pretty much any oil would be okay with that frequency of changing.
- I wonder about the "weight" of the oil I should use given the heat out here in Arizona. Some say I should use a 20W-50 oil, not a 40-weight. But the Honda I have is water-cooled, so I don't know if that concern is as applicable as for an air-cooled (Harley) motorcycle. My owner's manual makes no mention of 50-weight oil, only 40-weight, regardless of the high-end temperature. But Honda sells a 50-weight oil. Go figure.
- There's a real science to oils and lubrication and such. I've read some write-ups on it and my head spins!
- In college I was fascinated with the topic of "Fluid Dynamics" -- I thought it must be the most exotic and difficult topic to master. I never took a single fluid dynamics course.
- Teichman's son graduated from MIT with a PhD in Fluid Dynamics.
- I don't know how much fluid dynamics is at work with oil in an engine. Some, I'm sure.
We are heading into the Independence Day holiday here in the United States. It falls on a Tuesday, which means we have a glorious 4-day weekend. I can tell things are slowing down already, though. Friday will be very quiet.
The Lands of The Midnight Dusk
That's what Norway and Sweden are, it never gets dark, it gets dusky and then it gets light again. Plus everything is REALLY expensive.
+++
That verbage about the snake I have heard before (probably from your good self), what a great insult! What a creature to turn up outside your house. Did you get your double bore out or quietly waited until the thing went on it's way? As far as I know there might be a law outlawing the killing of snakes in the US - I just don't know.
Ricky Jervais (UK comedian) did a humourous sketch about the Garden of Eden and the punishment doled out by God ... for the snake, Ricky (with usual derision) said:
" ... the snake was to crawl about on its belly... not much of a punishment for a snake is it?"
Hehe.
+++
I am changing to "Sunday Bloody Sunday" for the U2 sig tune.
+++
That verbage about the snake I have heard before (probably from your good self), what a great insult! What a creature to turn up outside your house. Did you get your double bore out or quietly waited until the thing went on it's way? As far as I know there might be a law outlawing the killing of snakes in the US - I just don't know.
Ricky Jervais (UK comedian) did a humourous sketch about the Garden of Eden and the punishment doled out by God ... for the snake, Ricky (with usual derision) said:
" ... the snake was to crawl about on its belly... not much of a punishment for a snake is it?"
Hehe.
+++
I am changing to "Sunday Bloody Sunday" for the U2 sig tune.
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
Genesis 3:1
"Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made." -- Genesis 3:1, NIV
This little devil wandered up onto our back patio this morning. It was about 3 to 4 feet long. I don't know if it's a rattlesnake or not. I didn't see a rattle, but I didn't look that closely.
* * *One of my favorite books -- "Freedom" by William Safire -- has a line that I think is a classic. The scene was two Washington politicians just prior to the American Civil War. No love was lost between the two. One said to the other, "Sir, had you been present in the Garden of Eden, the role of the snake would have been superfluous."
Sunday, June 25, 2006
Signatures
My responses in blue, following your responses.
British Artists
British Artists
- Beatles HARD! "Help!" -- Lisa and I think perhaps "Let it Be" or maybe "Hey Jude". Both are from later. "Help" is a good one, though.
- Rolling Stones "Satisfaction" -- Agree. No question about this one.
- The Who "My Generation" -- Agree. A few other possibilities -- "Pinball Wizard" or "Won't Get Fooled Again." But "My Generation" is clearly their song.
- Led Zeppelin "Stairway ..." -- When every radio station's annual "Top 100" songs list ends with Led Zeppelin's "Stairway to Heaven" as #1, I'd say there was no question about this.
- Eric Clapton "Layla" -- That's a good choice, but it wasn't what I thought of originally. I had "Cocaine" in my head. Perhaps it's because when I think of "Layla," I think "Derek and the Dominos."
- U2 "Pride (In The Name of Love)" -- Another good choice, but not my first one. I think "Sunday Bloody Sunday" put them on the map. The "Rattle and Hum" DVD I have shows them in concert performing this and the crowd going nuts.
- Kinks "Lola" (Maybe "You really got me"?) -- Yep, I had "Lola" in mind. But "You Really Got Me" was actually what made their name. Lola came later, I think.
- Dire Straits "Money For Nothing" -- Yeah, though "Sultans of Swing" is what I hear more on the radio now. But "Money For Nothing" off their "Brothers in Arms" album is what sent Dire Straits into the 1980's stratosphere.
- Deep Purple "Smoke On The Water" -- No way, man! "The Mule" off the "Made in Japan" album, man! Or "Space Truckin," man. You're right -- Smoke is their song.
- Oasis "Wonderwall" -- I don't know Oasis well enough to comment. I'll defer to you.
- Pretenders "Brass In Pocket" -- Yeah. Though over here in the U.S. more people recognize the tune "My City Was Gone" because that's the opening theme music for Rush Limbaugh's show. But few people know that's a Pretenders' song. I like "Brass in Pocket" quite a bit. In fact, I like the Pretenders quite a bit. I generally don't care for female vocalists, but I like Chrissy Hind's voice.
- Black Sabbath "Paranoid" (Maybe "Iron Man" if you're American) -- I'd agree with you ... Paranoid is their signature. But as for titles, then "Fairies Wear Boots" or "Rat Salad" is the best. :-)
- The Clash "Should I stay .." (But SO inferior to "Rock The Casbah") R.I.P Joe. -- Here in the U.S. I think "Rock the Casbah" might be their signature. But it's close. This one is tough for me because I think their "London Calling" album has better songs -- "Hateful," "Koka Kola," "Guns of Brixton." But not signature songs.
- Aretha Franklin "Say A Little Prayer" -- I think "R.E.S.P.E.C.T" or maybe "Natural Woman" might take it over "Say A Little Prayer." That girl could sing.
- Stevie Wonder "Superstition" (Maybe "Uptight"?) -- How does one choose? When I put Stevie Wonder on this list, I did so simply as an example of an American icon. But I didn't really think much about it. But look at these songs: Uptight, I Was Made To Love Her, For Once In My Life, My Cherie Amour, Signed Sealed Delivered I'm Yours, You Are The Sunshine Of My Life, Superstition, Higher Ground, Living For The City. Goodness! The man was a genius. I'm going to toss a dart and go with "Superstition." But it's just a dart toss. Lisa votes for "Superstition" -- she likes anything funky.
- Michael Jackson "Billie Jean" -- Yeah ... or maybe "Thriller". I think "Billie Jean" is a better song, but that "Thriller" was everywhere back in the 80's.
- Creedence Clearwater Revival "Born on the Bayou" -- I thought either "Heard it Through the Grapevine" or "Have You Ever Seen the Rain."
- Talking Heads "Once in a lifetime" -- Here in the U.S. it would be "Burning Down the House."
- Simon and Garfunkle HARD! "Sound Of Silence" -- "Bridge Over Troubled Water." Sure, it's got way too many strings, but that song was THE song. It's been covered more than any other song, I think (may be second to "Yesterday" -- not sure).
- Bob Dylan "Blowin' In The Wind" (Possibly the much superior "Like A Rolling Stone") -- I'd go with "Like a Rolling Stone." I'm not much of a Dylan fan, but my personal favorite is "Tangled Up in Blues." But that's not his signature song.
- Iron Butterfly (WTF?) I will check out that track of theirs you mention ... -- I can't believe you didn't immediately know In A Gadda Da Vida!
Cheech and Chong
When I was a teenager I thought they were the very pinacle of humor. Now it seems horribly pedestrian, but it was all good fun back then. :-)
Warren Buffet
$40 billion will make some difference, but it won't make the difference. The United States spent approximately $3 trillion between 1966 and 2000 on anti-poverty measures in this country. Some would argue that the effort actually made matters worse -- by creating a class of dependency and a generational loss of self-respect and self-sufficiency.
But good for Warren.
But good for Warren.
In A Gadda Da Vida
Oh THAT song! Just listened to it, yes I've heard that Doors-esque song a few times. Hippy ! Next I know you'll be touring the US in a Volkswagen van with Cheech & Chong or something :-)
Warren Buffett gives away his fortune almost
$40 billion to charity MUST make a difference - mustn't it?
Hello Darkness, My Old Friend
Ever thought of becoming a poet with your description of a chess game !? LOL.
+++
Note that these choices do not necessarily reflect my favourite song by said artistes.
British Artists
American Artists
And pray tell your choices sir?
+++
Back in 1985 when Marvellous Marvin fought Tommy the Hitman boxing was still being broadcast for free over here so I may have seen it, can't recall. I remember those boxers anyway. UK's Chris Eubank came along a bit later in the same weight class I think. I saw him defeat Michael Watson on the TV in London in 1991 in what was the most violent boxing match I ever saw. The lighter weights are plain nasty as they seem to lack the weight to knock out with one punch as the heavies do so they keep coming. Watson suffered permanent brain damage from that bout and is still partially paralyzed. What a waste. I recall that Duran and Sugar Ray Leonard always seemed to be fighting eachother back then, but that may be just my faulty recollection.
+++
Tyson would have beaten Ali I think. Whilst Tyson is clearly a moral animal I was struck by how intelligent he came over in an interview I saw yonks ago, he really analyzed his opponents and came up with strategies of where and when to apply his ferocity. He is a predator of human beings.
+++
I will be going to see the latest X-Men movie when it comes out over here. I just love anything to do with Marvel Comics. It was Stan Lee that basically taught me how to read in the late 60's and early 70's. Comic book movies have really come into their own now that every pixel on the movie screen can be manipulated with digital technology. Now the characters can do on the screen what they did in those old 4-colour comic books. Magical. Having said that I didn't like what they did with the Daredevil movie. Thinking about it though, maybe that's because Ben Affleck's acting just sucks, I'm not sure. Cuba Gooding Jr was way better in "Pearl Harbour" :-)
+++
Tomorrow, I'm off to the Nordics. Oslo in Norway followed by Stockholm in Sweden, I've never been to either of those cities before so am greatly looking forwards to this trip. I'll be back on Friday, but no doubt the hotels will have wireless.
+++
Note that these choices do not necessarily reflect my favourite song by said artistes.
British Artists
- Beatles HARD! "Help!"
- Rolling Stones "Satisfaction"
- The Who "My Generation"
- Led Zeppelin "Stairway ..."
- Eric Clapton "Layla"
- U2 "Pride (In The Name of Love)"
- Kinks "Lola" (Maybe "You really got me"?)
- Dire Straits "Money For Nothing"
- Deep Purple "Smoke On The Water"
- Oasis "Wonderwall"
- Pretenders "Brass In Pocket"
- Black Sabbath "Paranoid" (Maybe "Iron Man" if you're American)
- The Clash "Should I stay .." (But SO inferior to "Rock The Casbah") R.I.P Joe.
American Artists
- Aretha Franklin "Say A Little Prayer"
- Stevie Wonder "Superstition" (Maybe "Uptight"?)
- Michael Jackson "Billie Jean"
- Creedence Clearwater Revival "Born on the Bayou"
- Talking Heads "Once in a lifetime"
- Simon and Garfunkle HARD! "Sound Of Silence"
- Bob Dylan "Blowin' In The Wind" (Possibly the much superior "Like A Rolling Stone")
- Iron Butterfly (WTF?) I will check out that track of theirs you mention ...
And pray tell your choices sir?
+++
Back in 1985 when Marvellous Marvin fought Tommy the Hitman boxing was still being broadcast for free over here so I may have seen it, can't recall. I remember those boxers anyway. UK's Chris Eubank came along a bit later in the same weight class I think. I saw him defeat Michael Watson on the TV in London in 1991 in what was the most violent boxing match I ever saw. The lighter weights are plain nasty as they seem to lack the weight to knock out with one punch as the heavies do so they keep coming. Watson suffered permanent brain damage from that bout and is still partially paralyzed. What a waste. I recall that Duran and Sugar Ray Leonard always seemed to be fighting eachother back then, but that may be just my faulty recollection.
+++
Tyson would have beaten Ali I think. Whilst Tyson is clearly a moral animal I was struck by how intelligent he came over in an interview I saw yonks ago, he really analyzed his opponents and came up with strategies of where and when to apply his ferocity. He is a predator of human beings.
+++
I will be going to see the latest X-Men movie when it comes out over here. I just love anything to do with Marvel Comics. It was Stan Lee that basically taught me how to read in the late 60's and early 70's. Comic book movies have really come into their own now that every pixel on the movie screen can be manipulated with digital technology. Now the characters can do on the screen what they did in those old 4-colour comic books. Magical. Having said that I didn't like what they did with the Daredevil movie. Thinking about it though, maybe that's because Ben Affleck's acting just sucks, I'm not sure. Cuba Gooding Jr was way better in "Pearl Harbour" :-)
+++
Tomorrow, I'm off to the Nordics. Oslo in Norway followed by Stockholm in Sweden, I've never been to either of those cities before so am greatly looking forwards to this trip. I'll be back on Friday, but no doubt the hotels will have wireless.
Saturday, June 24, 2006
X-Men: The Last Stand
Lisa and I just got back from seeing "X-Men: The Last Stand." I liked it. It kept my interest the whole time. I think this is precisely the kind of movie you'd like.
There was a weird bit of symbolism I'm still trying to figure out. Without spoiling any of the plotline, there was a meeting of some mutants in a church -- the "Holy Trinity Church" to be precise. But the church was clearly not used as a church anymore as the interior was in disrepair and littered with junk. I'm trying to figure out what message -- if any -- was being sent there.
There was a weird bit of symbolism I'm still trying to figure out. Without spoiling any of the plotline, there was a meeting of some mutants in a church -- the "Holy Trinity Church" to be precise. But the church was clearly not used as a church anymore as the interior was in disrepair and littered with junk. I'm trying to figure out what message -- if any -- was being sent there.
More Boxing
There was a boxer from Detroit in the late 70's and early 80's named Tommy Hearns. His nickname was "Hitman Hearns," but the forces of political correctness tried to rename him "The Motor City Cobra." It didn't work. He was always "The Hitman." He fought in the lower weights -- that maze of words used to describe weights under "Heavyweight."
Anyway, in 1985 he fought Marvin Hagler in what is considered by many to be one of the greatest fights of all time. And Round 1 is widely considered the best round of boxing ever. It was not boxing at its purest. It was boxing at its most raw. One web author wrote:
Anyway, in 1985 he fought Marvin Hagler in what is considered by many to be one of the greatest fights of all time. And Round 1 is widely considered the best round of boxing ever. It was not boxing at its purest. It was boxing at its most raw. One web author wrote:
The first round is the greatest opening round of a boxing match ever captured on film. It is as startling to watch today as it was twenty years ago. As one writer correctly said, there was more action in the first round alone than in the full twelve rounds of many fights.Being from Detroit I had an interest in the fight. Hearns lost in the 3rd round, and never quite came back to any real prominence. But that was in the days when many middle-weight boxers of considerable skill were competing against one another -- Roberto Duran, Marvin Hagler, Sugar Ray Leonard ... Tommy Hearns.
Rope A Dope
It was brilliant, wasn't it? I've often wondered what would happen if it was possible to put in the ring Mike Tyson in his prime against Mohammad Ali in his prime. My sentimental heart says Ali would out-smart Tyson. But in his prime Tyson was a boxing freak of nature. Not necessarily brilliant in execution, but utterly devastating in power.
Boxing has fallen into such disrepair I doubt it'll ever come back to the heights it once enjoyed.
Boxing has fallen into such disrepair I doubt it'll ever come back to the heights it once enjoyed.
Definitive, or "Signature" Songs
Alright, this one might be tough for a music freak like you. But here goes. Select one song -- only one -- that you believe represents that group's or artist's defining song, the signature song. The song you feel would be met with nods of approval were this little game played at a cocktail party.
But for some bands it's not so simple. For example, Aretha Franklin ... "R-E-S-P-E-C-T" or "Natural Woman?"
As tough as it might be, you have to name one song.
British Artists
But then again, in my heart of hearts I'm really a drugged out 60's hippy.
But for some bands it's not so simple. For example, Aretha Franklin ... "R-E-S-P-E-C-T" or "Natural Woman?"
As tough as it might be, you have to name one song.
British Artists
- Beatles
- Rolling Stones
- The Who
- Led Zeppelin
- Eric Clapton
- U2
- Kinks
- Dire Straits
- Deep Purple
- Oasis
- Pretenders
- Black Sabbath
- The Clash
- Aretha Franklin
- Stevie Wonder
- Michael Jackson
- Creedence Clearwater Revival
- Talking Heads
- Simon and Garfunkle
- Bob Dylan
- Iron Butterfly
But then again, in my heart of hearts I'm really a drugged out 60's hippy.
Quote
You wrote:
Except you're the genius and not me. And I'd describe you not so much as stoic, but rather silently ruthless. Like a big cat on the hunt, tracking an unsuspecting fawn as it nibbles on the new shoots of spring. You wait with an eternal patience. The fawn will drop its head to feast on some tempting morsel and at that moment you'll strike.
There! He fell into the trap set by the flawless execution of the 1908 Alexiev-Crawford reverse rook gambit! And just like that the pawn is moved to the center of the board. The fawn is left gasping for breath, it's eyes wide in fright. The big cat then stretches out and waits.
And waits.
And waits.
It was great to see a crass, rude, arrogant genius humbled by stoicism.Hey, that describes you beating me in chess! :-)
Except you're the genius and not me. And I'd describe you not so much as stoic, but rather silently ruthless. Like a big cat on the hunt, tracking an unsuspecting fawn as it nibbles on the new shoots of spring. You wait with an eternal patience. The fawn will drop its head to feast on some tempting morsel and at that moment you'll strike.
There! He fell into the trap set by the flawless execution of the 1908 Alexiev-Crawford reverse rook gambit! And just like that the pawn is moved to the center of the board. The fawn is left gasping for breath, it's eyes wide in fright. The big cat then stretches out and waits.
And waits.
And waits.
Top 3 sporting moments
In the UK we had a few horses that are as well loved by the public here as Secratariat is in the US.
I would single out Red Rum. My father was quite a gambler (and still is) and everyone in the family always bet on a UK horse race called the Grand National. In 1973 I was studying the form in the newspaper and backed Red Rum as he was co-favourite, although it was his first Grand National. My sister backed a horse called "Crisp" as she liked eating Crisps (I was 9 and she was 8 years old). Crisp was the other co-favourite too. During the race, Crisp got a clear, long lead when another horse fell at "the Chair" (a big fence), but Red Rum gained slowly and by the end, beat Crisp by three quarters of a length. It was 25 lengths back to the next horse. He won the Grand National a record 3 times and was humanely put down in 1995. One can visit his grave near the winning post of the racetrack where the Grand National is run.
But there have also been lots of others - Desert Orchid, Shirley Heights, Slip Anchor (offspring of Shirley Heights) and Shergar. Shergar was an impressive racehorse, and winner of the 1981 Epsom Derby by a record 10 lengths, the longest winning margin in the race's 226-year history. A bay colt with a distinctive white blaze, Shergar was named European Horse of the Year in 1981 and retired from racing that September. Two years later, on February 8, 1983, he was kidnapped by masked gunmen from the Ballymany Stud, near The Curragh in County Kildare, Ireland. The generally accepted account is that Shergar was abducted by an IRA unit who killed him a few days later when negotiations for a £2 million ransom had stalled and the horse was becoming uncontrollable. His remains have never been found.
As an aside I attended an MVS internals class towards the end of the 1980's, the instructor was talking about the Interrupt Return Address (IRA) in one of the MVS control blocks. Someone asked "how does MVS get notified about this address?" and someone shouted "by anonymous phone call". I don't know if that translates to US humour or not but the class fell about.
+++
I was in the Olympic Stadium in Barcelona watching live when Lewis ran that achor leg to equal the world record for the 4x100m relay - a record which still holds to this day. I've always been in awe of Lewis since Los Angeles 1984 when he equalled Jesse Owens 1936 record by winning the "big four". The crowd went nuts back then in 1992, I was sitting next to a mother of two from Idaho who gave me a hug ! I still have photos that I took of that win, although Lewis is tiny in the frame.
+++
My top sporting moments would have to be:
1. Muhammed Ali defeating George Foreman to regain the heavyweight boxing crown in 1974, Zaire. Foreman was considered invincible and the 32-year-old Ali was given little chance to beat him. The fight was held in Kinsasha, Zaire and Ali employed the now famous Rope-A-Dope tactics to tire Foreman out before stopping him in the eighth round. I vividly recall the drums and the crowd chanting something like "Ali boom ai eh" or something, over and over. It was like a magical Zulu movie, images of darkest Africa. The way Ali won the fight, by just sitting back and taking all the punishment and then defeating his tired-out opponent was pure Sun Tzu, the art of war, and a lesson to me.
2. One I didn't see live, but the replays of England winning the soccer world cup in 1966 by beating West Germany 4-2. In the dying seconds of the match the BBC commentator Kenneth Wolsenholme was speaking:
"And here comes Hurst he's got...
(Wolsenholme's attention is diverted by some of the crowd spilling onto the pitch)
Some people are on the pitch! They think it's all over.
(Geoff Hurst scores to put England two goals ahead)
It is now! It's four. "
You can say "They think it's all over..." to many brits and they will immediately tell you to what it refers to.
3. Borg beating McEnroe at the Wimbledon tennis final in 1980. I spent most of my childhood living in Wimbledon and I and two friends had slept outside the grounds in a queue overnight on the chance that we might be able to get in. We did - we got standing places behind the wheelchair folk and watched the whole match.
Borg's four-year reign at Wimbledon seemed over when McEnroe sailed through the first set with his left-handed serve a dominant factor. But Borg started to find the range with his heavy passing shots in the second set and looked on course for another title when he edged the third. Borg held two match points at 5-4 in the fourth set but McEnroe saved them with diving volleys. Then came a tie-break the like of which may never be seen again. McEnroe had seven set points and Borg five more match points, four on his own serve.
Finally McEnroe took that set, but at what a price. He later admitted he had been exhausted by the emotional and physical strain (so had we all in the crowd), while Borg had enough left. Borg conceded only three points on his seven service games in the fifth set and broke the American with yet another backhand pass.
It was great to see a crass, rude, arrogant genius humbled by stoicism. Of course McEnroe beat him the following year.
I would single out Red Rum. My father was quite a gambler (and still is) and everyone in the family always bet on a UK horse race called the Grand National. In 1973 I was studying the form in the newspaper and backed Red Rum as he was co-favourite, although it was his first Grand National. My sister backed a horse called "Crisp" as she liked eating Crisps (I was 9 and she was 8 years old). Crisp was the other co-favourite too. During the race, Crisp got a clear, long lead when another horse fell at "the Chair" (a big fence), but Red Rum gained slowly and by the end, beat Crisp by three quarters of a length. It was 25 lengths back to the next horse. He won the Grand National a record 3 times and was humanely put down in 1995. One can visit his grave near the winning post of the racetrack where the Grand National is run.
But there have also been lots of others - Desert Orchid, Shirley Heights, Slip Anchor (offspring of Shirley Heights) and Shergar. Shergar was an impressive racehorse, and winner of the 1981 Epsom Derby by a record 10 lengths, the longest winning margin in the race's 226-year history. A bay colt with a distinctive white blaze, Shergar was named European Horse of the Year in 1981 and retired from racing that September. Two years later, on February 8, 1983, he was kidnapped by masked gunmen from the Ballymany Stud, near The Curragh in County Kildare, Ireland. The generally accepted account is that Shergar was abducted by an IRA unit who killed him a few days later when negotiations for a £2 million ransom had stalled and the horse was becoming uncontrollable. His remains have never been found.
As an aside I attended an MVS internals class towards the end of the 1980's, the instructor was talking about the Interrupt Return Address (IRA) in one of the MVS control blocks. Someone asked "how does MVS get notified about this address?" and someone shouted "by anonymous phone call". I don't know if that translates to US humour or not but the class fell about.
+++
I was in the Olympic Stadium in Barcelona watching live when Lewis ran that achor leg to equal the world record for the 4x100m relay - a record which still holds to this day. I've always been in awe of Lewis since Los Angeles 1984 when he equalled Jesse Owens 1936 record by winning the "big four". The crowd went nuts back then in 1992, I was sitting next to a mother of two from Idaho who gave me a hug ! I still have photos that I took of that win, although Lewis is tiny in the frame.
+++
My top sporting moments would have to be:
1. Muhammed Ali defeating George Foreman to regain the heavyweight boxing crown in 1974, Zaire. Foreman was considered invincible and the 32-year-old Ali was given little chance to beat him. The fight was held in Kinsasha, Zaire and Ali employed the now famous Rope-A-Dope tactics to tire Foreman out before stopping him in the eighth round. I vividly recall the drums and the crowd chanting something like "Ali boom ai eh" or something, over and over. It was like a magical Zulu movie, images of darkest Africa. The way Ali won the fight, by just sitting back and taking all the punishment and then defeating his tired-out opponent was pure Sun Tzu, the art of war, and a lesson to me.
2. One I didn't see live, but the replays of England winning the soccer world cup in 1966 by beating West Germany 4-2. In the dying seconds of the match the BBC commentator Kenneth Wolsenholme was speaking:
"And here comes Hurst he's got...
(Wolsenholme's attention is diverted by some of the crowd spilling onto the pitch)
Some people are on the pitch! They think it's all over.
(Geoff Hurst scores to put England two goals ahead)
It is now! It's four. "
You can say "They think it's all over..." to many brits and they will immediately tell you to what it refers to.
3. Borg beating McEnroe at the Wimbledon tennis final in 1980. I spent most of my childhood living in Wimbledon and I and two friends had slept outside the grounds in a queue overnight on the chance that we might be able to get in. We did - we got standing places behind the wheelchair folk and watched the whole match.
Borg's four-year reign at Wimbledon seemed over when McEnroe sailed through the first set with his left-handed serve a dominant factor. But Borg started to find the range with his heavy passing shots in the second set and looked on course for another title when he edged the third. Borg held two match points at 5-4 in the fourth set but McEnroe saved them with diving volleys. Then came a tie-break the like of which may never be seen again. McEnroe had seven set points and Borg five more match points, four on his own serve.
Finally McEnroe took that set, but at what a price. He later admitted he had been exhausted by the emotional and physical strain (so had we all in the crowd), while Borg had enough left. Borg conceded only three points on his seven service games in the fifth set and broke the American with yet another backhand pass.
It was great to see a crass, rude, arrogant genius humbled by stoicism. Of course McEnroe beat him the following year.
Friday, June 23, 2006
Kidney Stones and Robert Tilton
First, I'm sorry to hear that draft beer is causing you to have problems. You seem to have called out the adjective draft rather intentionally. Is there another kind of beer that would be acceptable? Bottled beer? Guinness?
Perhaps your inability to drink beer is like my inability to drink vodka. Why the two of us would be afflicted like this is a mystery. I think both of us would agree that the fleeting joy of our respective drinks pales in comparison to the pain caused by the consequences. I haven't had hardly a drop of vodka in months, and to tell the truth I don't miss it much. In its place I've developed a bit of a taste for wine. :-)
Get better, my friend -- 'nads and kidneys and everything else.
* * *
I have zero respect for people like Robert Tilton. It is perfectly clear from Scripture -- when one takes Scripture in its totality -- that God makes no such promise to shower financial benefit on people for doing some thing on this earth. As your scripture references point out, Jesus specifically pointed out how difficult it is to serve God and money at the same time. The only way to break that dilemma is to not serve money; but that does not mean not having money.
It is people like Tilton and others that makes many hold "Christianity" in such contempt. I'm convinced the best evangelical tool we have is not the ability to quote chapter and verse, or craft some compelling logical argument, but to really love as Christ loved, and to be ready to explain with true sincerity where it comes from. It is such a radical thing in this world to love unselfishly, that when one does it makes people take notice. They will frequenty inquire as to what's behind the selflessness. That's when we can talk about Jesus, "who walks with us and talks with us, and tells me I am his own."
Perhaps your inability to drink beer is like my inability to drink vodka. Why the two of us would be afflicted like this is a mystery. I think both of us would agree that the fleeting joy of our respective drinks pales in comparison to the pain caused by the consequences. I haven't had hardly a drop of vodka in months, and to tell the truth I don't miss it much. In its place I've developed a bit of a taste for wine. :-)
Get better, my friend -- 'nads and kidneys and everything else.
* * *
I have zero respect for people like Robert Tilton. It is perfectly clear from Scripture -- when one takes Scripture in its totality -- that God makes no such promise to shower financial benefit on people for doing some thing on this earth. As your scripture references point out, Jesus specifically pointed out how difficult it is to serve God and money at the same time. The only way to break that dilemma is to not serve money; but that does not mean not having money.
It is people like Tilton and others that makes many hold "Christianity" in such contempt. I'm convinced the best evangelical tool we have is not the ability to quote chapter and verse, or craft some compelling logical argument, but to really love as Christ loved, and to be ready to explain with true sincerity where it comes from. It is such a radical thing in this world to love unselfishly, that when one does it makes people take notice. They will frequenty inquire as to what's behind the selflessness. That's when we can talk about Jesus, "who walks with us and talks with us, and tells me I am his own."
Greatest Moment in Sports?
Now that's a subjective topic if there ever was one. I recognize that each person will likely have a different moment that's somehow special to them; each city a defining moment; each country something that maps to them.
I got to thinking about this question as I was jetting across the country today. (BTW, I am safely home in sunny Tucson.) As a country, the United States' most memorable sports moment was probably the 1980 hockey victory over the Soviet Union. As a city, Detroit probably had its greatest sports moment in 1968 when the Detroit Tigers won the baseball World Series over the St. Louis Cardinals. That was one year after the 1967 race riots in Detroit, and that Series victory helped, to a small degree, heal some of the wounds.
But as a person, two sports moments stand out above all others in my memory:
What special sports moments remain in your mind?
I got to thinking about this question as I was jetting across the country today. (BTW, I am safely home in sunny Tucson.) As a country, the United States' most memorable sports moment was probably the 1980 hockey victory over the Soviet Union. As a city, Detroit probably had its greatest sports moment in 1968 when the Detroit Tigers won the baseball World Series over the St. Louis Cardinals. That was one year after the 1967 race riots in Detroit, and that Series victory helped, to a small degree, heal some of the wounds.
But as a person, two sports moments stand out above all others in my memory:
- The 1973 Belmont horse race, when Secretariat won the Triple Crown, setting a track record time and coming in 31 lengths ahead of the second place finisher. Secretariat's three wins -- Kentucky Derby, Preakness and Belmont were all won impressively. Wikipedia mentions that in the Kentucky Derby, Secretariat winning time -- still a record -- also included progressively faster split times as the race went on. The Triple Crown hadn't been won since 1945 or something like that, and for some reason Secretariat captured America's heart that year. He died in 1989, having lived a long life and siring bunches of horses, and his death was on the front page of newspapers, almost 20 years after his victory. Here in the United States, any question about "greatest horse" immediately brings forth the answer: Secretariat.
- Carl Lewis at the 1992 Olympics in Barcelona, where he anchored the men's 4 x 100 meter relay race. Lewis was starting to diminish in his abilities at that point, and there was much controversy over his anchoring that race, which the USA has dominated for quite some years now. As the third man came around the corner and passed the baton to Lewis, Lewis had only a slight lead. But that 100 meters was absolutely mesmerizing as Lewis was like a man possessed -- as fine an example of running excellence as I've ever seen. Near perfect form as he blazed that final 100 meters pulling away.
What special sports moments remain in your mind?
No Cancer
My left testicle is dead (atrophied), as we knew - that's where the cancer started, and my right is functioning perfectly (and is not atrophied) - no pre-cancerous cells found in either nut ! THANK YOU LORD :-) They can stay attached to me for the time being. Isn't that a blessing? Thanks so much for your prayers.
Ah, but I am forgetting not the "giveth" but the "taketh away" bit. I told the Marsden Hospital about my kidney problette, and whilst it is not cancer (no tumour markers for cancer in the blood) - my kidney function has somehow (between February and the end of May this year, the two times when I had my last blood tests) lost 40% of it's ability to process the bad stuff out of my blood. Fair enough, that's why I feel like crap all the time.
When my left kidney became excuciatingly painful in 1999 (remember that time?) I really thought it was a stone. The pain came on in seconds, just like a stone tumbling into the ureter and causing immediate backflow - putting pressure on the delicate structures inside the kidney. At that time the hospital almost gave me a scan to see if it had stones in, but they were sidetracked by two poor infants who had been accidentally drowned in the bath by their overweight mother who had slipped, landed on them, become unconscious and had trapped them under seven inches of water. The medical workers tried to save the kids but they died. Awful I know. Their sad story is documented here and other places. Lots of tears from them as they found me in the corridor, high as a kite from my heroin jab :-)
So instead they gave me another shot of morphine and sent me home. Oh well, my fault I guess for leaving the hospital. After three months of agony eventually the pain stopped. 18 months later - lots of blood in the urine, the specialist says "Oh your kidney is all blown up and dead, must have been like that since birth". Phooey. Specialists. But at least they were not legally culpable.
Now today my cancer Prof, who is also one of the most eminent urologists in the world (I love him, he listens to my reasoning and disagrees or agrees with me, he changes his stance if I show him that he has reason to change his stance) says, after reviewing my history:
"You are probably a stone former".
So if you get stones in one kidney you are likely to get them in the other, and that is probably what my problem is. So next Friday (when I get back from Norway and Sweden) I will have an ultrasound scan to see if they can find any. Prof suspects not as they usually get passed out in a few days, which is probably what happened to me last week, although I cannot remember peeing a stone.
I have to drink lots of water. I wish I knew what type of stone I was forming, my daughter may well have the same problem you see. I found this:
Also, I need to chill out. When my kidney died in 1999 I was way stressed out due to Alice doing a runner with my daughter. Feb-May this year was also very stressful with Katherine being bullied over and over by her mother. I've decided to do what is right, it's the best way to survive. Alice will not abuse our daughter any more.
Still, I have no cancer right now. Hehe. Celebrate good times.
+++
Sounds like you had a hearty meal, I imagine you as a Harrison Ford-esque character out of Blade Runner chomping on your oriental meal.
+++
Plastic covered Bibles? So many people annotate or magic-mark their favourite passages, perhaps the bookstore is trying to prevent this value-add service being applied to their stocks of The Bible? According to this link you need a small plastic covered Bible to get rich anyway. I guess Robert Tilton ignores the following? Perhaps they didn't make it into his Bible :-)
1: Matthew 19:24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.
2: Mark 10:25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.
3: Luke 18:25 Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.
Ah, but I am forgetting not the "giveth" but the "taketh away" bit. I told the Marsden Hospital about my kidney problette, and whilst it is not cancer (no tumour markers for cancer in the blood) - my kidney function has somehow (between February and the end of May this year, the two times when I had my last blood tests) lost 40% of it's ability to process the bad stuff out of my blood. Fair enough, that's why I feel like crap all the time.
When my left kidney became excuciatingly painful in 1999 (remember that time?) I really thought it was a stone. The pain came on in seconds, just like a stone tumbling into the ureter and causing immediate backflow - putting pressure on the delicate structures inside the kidney. At that time the hospital almost gave me a scan to see if it had stones in, but they were sidetracked by two poor infants who had been accidentally drowned in the bath by their overweight mother who had slipped, landed on them, become unconscious and had trapped them under seven inches of water. The medical workers tried to save the kids but they died. Awful I know. Their sad story is documented here and other places. Lots of tears from them as they found me in the corridor, high as a kite from my heroin jab :-)
So instead they gave me another shot of morphine and sent me home. Oh well, my fault I guess for leaving the hospital. After three months of agony eventually the pain stopped. 18 months later - lots of blood in the urine, the specialist says "Oh your kidney is all blown up and dead, must have been like that since birth". Phooey. Specialists. But at least they were not legally culpable.
Now today my cancer Prof, who is also one of the most eminent urologists in the world (I love him, he listens to my reasoning and disagrees or agrees with me, he changes his stance if I show him that he has reason to change his stance) says, after reviewing my history:
"You are probably a stone former".
So if you get stones in one kidney you are likely to get them in the other, and that is probably what my problem is. So next Friday (when I get back from Norway and Sweden) I will have an ultrasound scan to see if they can find any. Prof suspects not as they usually get passed out in a few days, which is probably what happened to me last week, although I cannot remember peeing a stone.
I have to drink lots of water. I wish I knew what type of stone I was forming, my daughter may well have the same problem you see. I found this:
I had an oxalate stone. What type of diet should I follow? Do I need to avoid foods high in oxalate?
If you have had a kidney stone that contains oxalate, some evidence (research) suggests that limiting high oxalate foods may help reduce your change of forming another oxalate stone. Foods that are high in oxalate include: peanuts, tea, instant coffee (more than 8 ounces a day), rhubarb, beets, beans, beets, berries (blackberries, raspberries, strawberries, gooseberries, etc.), chocolate, Concord grapes, dark leafy greens, oranges, tofu, sweet potatoes and draft beer. Because the stone contains calcium and oxalate, you may also need to follow the calcium recommendations from the last question.
I emphasised the beer. I drank draft beer the night my 1999 kidney pain started. That's what I think did it and I believe that I am an oxalate stone former. But I like eating and drinking so much of that stuff. God is removing my capability to commit any sins of the flesh perhaps?Also, I need to chill out. When my kidney died in 1999 I was way stressed out due to Alice doing a runner with my daughter. Feb-May this year was also very stressful with Katherine being bullied over and over by her mother. I've decided to do what is right, it's the best way to survive. Alice will not abuse our daughter any more.
Still, I have no cancer right now. Hehe. Celebrate good times.
+++
Sounds like you had a hearty meal, I imagine you as a Harrison Ford-esque character out of Blade Runner chomping on your oriental meal.
+++
Plastic covered Bibles? So many people annotate or magic-mark their favourite passages, perhaps the bookstore is trying to prevent this value-add service being applied to their stocks of The Bible? According to this link you need a small plastic covered Bible to get rich anyway. I guess Robert Tilton ignores the following? Perhaps they didn't make it into his Bible :-)
1: Matthew 19:24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.
2: Mark 10:25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.
3: Luke 18:25 Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.
Scholarship
I'm reminded of an exchange we had not too long ago where we discussed how we rely on the testimony of others for a good deal of what we think we "know" in this world. In this discussion on the Bible, you refer to one set of scholars, and I would refer to another.
You wrote:
Note: Wikipedia is a nice source of sensible information on SOA, by the way.
As for the canon, I've heard that by the fourth century the canon had pretty well settled down. The formalization of the canon into what we see now was just that -- a formalization of what was generally accepted. I can't personally cite references on this ... I am, good sir, relying on the testimony of others. :-)
* * *
Last night I was in a bookstore here in Chicago, and I went to the Bible section. I was looking for a more compact Bible I could carry with me on my travels. There was one that was a nice compact size, but good golly the type face was about 3 point. There was no chance I was going to be able to read that.
The other thing that amazed me was that a good many of the Bibles were sealed in plastic so I couldn't inspect the typeface and readability of it. I wonder why ... few other books in the store were, except perhaps the big books with photography. Is there a particular problem with people mauling Bibles? Or is it the case where Bible buyers want their Bible pristine when they purchase it?
I left the bookstore and had some chinese food ... beef with brocolli and Kung Pao chicken combination with some lo mein on the side. :-)
You wrote:
Scholars say that in the first three centuries that Christianity existed, there were many competing and conflicting forms of that faith, and disagreements regarding the canon. In short, there was little unity of faith then.I've heard and read the same thing ... there was indeed some intense conflict over various critical doctrine. I think way early on there was disagreement among others outside the original apostolic group, but little disagreement inside that group. (Paul mentions some conflict, related to the question of how much Jewish custom is necessary to be a disciple of Christ. Paul's conviction -- not much.) Later, after the original apostles had died off, others took up the good fight. Much of the conflict surrounded the nature of Jesus, not the basic facts of his life and death. There's a laundry list of heresies that existed during this time ... I can never remember them all. I'm sure Wikipedia has a list. :-)
Note: Wikipedia is a nice source of sensible information on SOA, by the way.
As for the canon, I've heard that by the fourth century the canon had pretty well settled down. The formalization of the canon into what we see now was just that -- a formalization of what was generally accepted. I can't personally cite references on this ... I am, good sir, relying on the testimony of others. :-)
* * *
Last night I was in a bookstore here in Chicago, and I went to the Bible section. I was looking for a more compact Bible I could carry with me on my travels. There was one that was a nice compact size, but good golly the type face was about 3 point. There was no chance I was going to be able to read that.
The other thing that amazed me was that a good many of the Bibles were sealed in plastic so I couldn't inspect the typeface and readability of it. I wonder why ... few other books in the store were, except perhaps the big books with photography. Is there a particular problem with people mauling Bibles? Or is it the case where Bible buyers want their Bible pristine when they purchase it?
I left the bookstore and had some chinese food ... beef with brocolli and Kung Pao chicken combination with some lo mein on the side. :-)
Wednesday, June 21, 2006
Step inside
You wrote:
Any particular thing you feel does him an injustice?
Inconsistencies in the account of His life. For instance, early version of Mark (from which the other gospels are based) do not even mention the resurrection. Lot's of other things but I wouldn't like to go into them.
Do you have an example of what should be there?
Some of the other original material for a start, or at least that is what researchers lead me to believe. I wasn't there so don't know.
Scholars say that in the first three centuries that Christianity existed, there were many competing and conflicting forms of that faith, and disagreements regarding the canon. In short, there was little unity of faith then.
But, it just so happened that one Greek group popularized their form of Christianity with the non-Christian Roman Emporer Constantine I. He in turn threatened other Christian groups with torture or death unless they adopted his group's theology. Great efforts were made to destroy the writings of the competing groups, hence leaving largely the generally "mainstream" ancestor of the form of Christianity we have today. Did the "correct" form of Christianity win? Jesus existed historically for sure, and He still is there, He might be apalled at what evolved into Christianity, he might not be. I don't know, I can only guess. Maybe it is how God intended it to be. Seems an odd way to come about though. For me personally - I get the greatest sense of Jesus from looking inside - not from looking at The Bible.
Any particular thing you feel does him an injustice?
Inconsistencies in the account of His life. For instance, early version of Mark (from which the other gospels are based) do not even mention the resurrection. Lot's of other things but I wouldn't like to go into them.
Do you have an example of what should be there?
Some of the other original material for a start, or at least that is what researchers lead me to believe. I wasn't there so don't know.
Scholars say that in the first three centuries that Christianity existed, there were many competing and conflicting forms of that faith, and disagreements regarding the canon. In short, there was little unity of faith then.
But, it just so happened that one Greek group popularized their form of Christianity with the non-Christian Roman Emporer Constantine I. He in turn threatened other Christian groups with torture or death unless they adopted his group's theology. Great efforts were made to destroy the writings of the competing groups, hence leaving largely the generally "mainstream" ancestor of the form of Christianity we have today. Did the "correct" form of Christianity win? Jesus existed historically for sure, and He still is there, He might be apalled at what evolved into Christianity, he might not be. I don't know, I can only guess. Maybe it is how God intended it to be. Seems an odd way to come about though. For me personally - I get the greatest sense of Jesus from looking inside - not from looking at The Bible.
More on Jesus and Scripture
You wrote:
Intriguing statement. Really, it is.
Two questions:
I don't think a perfect being like Christ is being done justice by The Bible.It occurs to me this is something different from Jesus being disappointed in Scripture that existed at the time he was living on earth. So if I'm reading this, you're saying that the portrayal of Jesus in the New Testament doesn't do him justice.
Intriguing statement. Really, it is.
Two questions:
- Any particular thing you feel does him an injustice?
- Do you have an example of what should be there?
Tuesday, June 20, 2006
Jesus and Scripture
You wrote:
I don't think a perfect being like Christ is being done justice by The Bible. I really do believe that He would be disappointed in it, and in the behaviour of many modern Christians.Two points:
- The New Testament gives no indication that Jesus was disappointed by Scripture that existed at that time. In fact, he used it quite heavily to justify himself.
- Being disappointed in Scripture and being disappointed in the behaviour of many modern Christians is two different things, wouldn't you agree? I'd disagree with the first part of your assertion; I'd heartily agree with the second.
Sequoia Redux
In April 2005 I wrote in a post on this page that I liked the word Sequoia, and today I found out that it is the shortest word in English that contains all of the vowels. Nice.
You wrote:
I can't prove the Bible is inerrant or infallible or whatever; nobody else can either.
The Bible has proved to me that it is contradictory, to me and to me only, I speak for no-one else.
I'm a better person for investing at least some trust in the Bible.
SOME trust I agree.
Note: Yes, I believe "faith in Christ" is a function of "trust in Bible." I know you don't.
I don't think a perfect being like Christ is being done justice by The Bible. I really do believe that He would be disappointed in it, and in the behaviour of many modern Christians.
I would like to say to anyone reading that if you don't like organized religion then do not worry, faith in God is still possible without The Church. God is above all religions. Don't turn away from God just because of the failed human reaction to Him. Trust in Him and you will be transformed. You know who He is.
On the other hand, if you ARE happy with your Church and get something out of it - then all power to you.
The only thing I would ask any human to do is to be reasonable.
+++
Many thanks indeed for your prayers brother. I think that they're keeping me going. Thank you.
You wrote:
I can't prove the Bible is inerrant or infallible or whatever; nobody else can either.
The Bible has proved to me that it is contradictory, to me and to me only, I speak for no-one else.
I'm a better person for investing at least some trust in the Bible.
SOME trust I agree.
Note: Yes, I believe "faith in Christ" is a function of "trust in Bible." I know you don't.
I don't think a perfect being like Christ is being done justice by The Bible. I really do believe that He would be disappointed in it, and in the behaviour of many modern Christians.
I would like to say to anyone reading that if you don't like organized religion then do not worry, faith in God is still possible without The Church. God is above all religions. Don't turn away from God just because of the failed human reaction to Him. Trust in Him and you will be transformed. You know who He is.
On the other hand, if you ARE happy with your Church and get something out of it - then all power to you.
The only thing I would ask any human to do is to be reasonable.
+++
Many thanks indeed for your prayers brother. I think that they're keeping me going. Thank you.
Monday, June 19, 2006
Infallable vs. Inerrant vs. Literal
Who knows. Smarter people than me -- and they are legion -- can have at this topic all day long. For instance, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy
Or if you want a more "official" rendering, there's The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, which can be found here:
http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/icbi.html
But I doubt any of that can persuade someone inclined to be skeptical of the foundation of the Bible.
For me, here's my take:
I'm a better person for investing at least some trust in the Bible. I desire to invest even greater trust. Ultimately, I wish to set aside all doubts about Christ and just drop my sword ... to stop struggling against my unbelief and just have faith. But I'm not there yet.
Note: Yes, I believe "faith in Christ" is a function of "trust in Bible." I know you don't.
* * *
I asked the Lord earlier today to heal whatever is ailing your kidney and to take from your heart the burden of concern over that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy
Or if you want a more "official" rendering, there's The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, which can be found here:
http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/icbi.html
But I doubt any of that can persuade someone inclined to be skeptical of the foundation of the Bible.
For me, here's my take:
- I believe that God exists and that he has chosen to reveal himself to us
- I believe that revelation is in part delivered through written form
- I believe the Bible effectively communicates what God wanted to be communicated
- I believe we can derive great benefit from having an inclination of trust rather than an inclination of skepticism towards the Bible
- I believe the Devil loves arguments over peripheral things
I'm a better person for investing at least some trust in the Bible. I desire to invest even greater trust. Ultimately, I wish to set aside all doubts about Christ and just drop my sword ... to stop struggling against my unbelief and just have faith. But I'm not there yet.
Note: Yes, I believe "faith in Christ" is a function of "trust in Bible." I know you don't.
* * *
I asked the Lord earlier today to heal whatever is ailing your kidney and to take from your heart the burden of concern over that.
Infallibility
I believe that the overall message given by The Bible is inerrant but the actual scriptures in my KJV, well I don't think they are. I would be willing to accept your reading of John 5:31 and John 8:14, although with it I can see Mr Occam sporting a rather splendid beard :-) were there not other problems. In the town where the clean shaven Mr Occam lives, through liberal use of his razor, I would say that on balance a simpler explanation would be that the word "not" had somehow been added to John 5:31 through an error, if this were my only cause for concern I would not be concerned, but there are other passages that worry me.
If there is an explanation for some of them then I would like to know, as this would help me along my path to believing that The Bible is without errors. (Or is it only the first Greek language canon (or whatever language it was) that is infallible?)
For example:
2 Samuel 24:1
Again the anger of the LORD burned against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, "Go and take a census of Israel and Judah.
and
1 Chronicles 21:1
Satan rose up against Israel and incited David to take a census of Israel.
Now are these two different censi (! is that a word?) that The Bible is referring to here? I'm sure that there is some explanation for this but when added to the John saga from the last post and others that are bugging me, well, I hear the scraping noise of a razor. Thinking about it, one possible explanation is that nothing happens without God's incitation. Therefore, when Satan incited David, it was really God doing it. But then you get into all sorts of problems, because then any bad thing that happens in the world, currently where we would say that Satan caused it, we now have to say, "well, really God caused it". To actively cause something is very different from merely allowing that something.
To deliberately misquote Einstein, "If the facts don't fit the theology, change the facts" (he used "theory" not "theology") - are theologians guilty of this at all? If the theology says "Bible = inerrant" then one can be sure that if anything suggests that The Bible is otherwise must be wrong. I would like to make it clear that my personal belief is that the message is inerrant but we've messed up the details.
After that ghastly Einstein quote, he did redeem himself with "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong". Theologians cannot be so honest, which I think is a pity.
+++
Ah the double standards! So is the lovely Mrs. B guilty of not treating others (you) as she would wish to be treated? Or, is she treating her past boyfriend in a way that she would like to be treated by him? (A hug?)
Every cloud has a silver lining, at least this gives you the opportunity to talk about how this made you feel, with her, if you wish to do so that is. True love can sometimes be rather possessive and jealous, I think that this reaction is entirely within our human nature. This particular reaction is something that the buddhist strives to avoid, by avoiding making an attachment (here they would probably say "avoid making an attachment to the idea that your wife cannot hug past boyfriends") I'm not sure what the best thing to do is - but if you treat her in the same way that you would like to be treated then you cannot go wrong (so that means don't go getting your own back! As if you would :-)
+++
The problem with your analysis of "Treat others as you wish to be treated" is that you aren't analysing it directly. You are analysing:
"Treat others in a way that you could accept being treated by them"
This is very different. "Could accept" is different from "wish". Oddly, these two are different in a similar fashion to God allowing something to happen and God causing something to happen (see above).
If you actually actively wish someone to be rude to you (regardless of any response back to them from yourself) then you fall into my definition of a masochist.
+++
Yes, Fathers Day Eve is from The Simpsons !
If there is an explanation for some of them then I would like to know, as this would help me along my path to believing that The Bible is without errors. (Or is it only the first Greek language canon (or whatever language it was) that is infallible?)
For example:
2 Samuel 24:1
Again the anger of the LORD burned against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, "Go and take a census of Israel and Judah.
and
1 Chronicles 21:1
Satan rose up against Israel and incited David to take a census of Israel.
Now are these two different censi (! is that a word?) that The Bible is referring to here? I'm sure that there is some explanation for this but when added to the John saga from the last post and others that are bugging me, well, I hear the scraping noise of a razor. Thinking about it, one possible explanation is that nothing happens without God's incitation. Therefore, when Satan incited David, it was really God doing it. But then you get into all sorts of problems, because then any bad thing that happens in the world, currently where we would say that Satan caused it, we now have to say, "well, really God caused it". To actively cause something is very different from merely allowing that something.
To deliberately misquote Einstein, "If the facts don't fit the theology, change the facts" (he used "theory" not "theology") - are theologians guilty of this at all? If the theology says "Bible = inerrant" then one can be sure that if anything suggests that The Bible is otherwise must be wrong. I would like to make it clear that my personal belief is that the message is inerrant but we've messed up the details.
After that ghastly Einstein quote, he did redeem himself with "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong". Theologians cannot be so honest, which I think is a pity.
+++
Ah the double standards! So is the lovely Mrs. B guilty of not treating others (you) as she would wish to be treated? Or, is she treating her past boyfriend in a way that she would like to be treated by him? (A hug?)
Every cloud has a silver lining, at least this gives you the opportunity to talk about how this made you feel, with her, if you wish to do so that is. True love can sometimes be rather possessive and jealous, I think that this reaction is entirely within our human nature. This particular reaction is something that the buddhist strives to avoid, by avoiding making an attachment (here they would probably say "avoid making an attachment to the idea that your wife cannot hug past boyfriends") I'm not sure what the best thing to do is - but if you treat her in the same way that you would like to be treated then you cannot go wrong (so that means don't go getting your own back! As if you would :-)
+++
The problem with your analysis of "Treat others as you wish to be treated" is that you aren't analysing it directly. You are analysing:
"Treat others in a way that you could accept being treated by them"
This is very different. "Could accept" is different from "wish". Oddly, these two are different in a similar fashion to God allowing something to happen and God causing something to happen (see above).
If you actually actively wish someone to be rude to you (regardless of any response back to them from yourself) then you fall into my definition of a masochist.
+++
Yes, Fathers Day Eve is from The Simpsons !
Sunday, June 18, 2006
Father's Day Eve?
Was your last post a reference to a Simpson's episode? I'm in Chicago right now, and The Simpson's are on TV. Homer is all excited about "Father's Day Eve," and Marge has to remind him that "there is no such thing as 'Father's Day Eve.'"
* * *
John 5:31 and John 8:14 -- on the flight from Atlanta to Chicago I read and re-read those two verses and the surrounding passages. My sense is there's a contextual difference there:
* * *
This past weekend I was in Atlanta, accompanying my lovely wife to a reunion of sorts. Twenty years ago when L. lived in Atlanta, she was part of a church singles group. Over the years the various members of that group have remained friends, and have gotten married -- some marriages between members of the group, but most involving someone from outside the group. The trip to Atlanta was for a wedding shower for one of the members who got married. Yes, past tense -- "got." The wedding was last year. The shower was this weekend. Go figure. :-)
Here's the kicker, though -- the groom was someone L. dated for a half year or so prior to meeting me. So I'm standing there watching L. hug a "past boyfriend."
I teased her -- "There is no way you'd allow me to go to some get-together for a past girlriend. No way at all." She didn't disagree.
Aren't double-standards grand? :-)
* * *
Flaw in "treat others as you'd like to be treated?" -- suppose somone truly doesn't mind if people are rude to them because that justifies their being rude to others. That's not really "masochistic." Strictly speaking, they are following the "treat others as you wish to be treated."
What's the problem with my analysis? Discuss.
* * *
John 5:31 and John 8:14 -- on the flight from Atlanta to Chicago I read and re-read those two verses and the surrounding passages. My sense is there's a contextual difference there:
- In John 5:31 Jesus is trying to draw attention away from his human nature and toward's The Father. My impression is he's saying, paraphrased: "Look, if it was just me ... Jesus the carpenter ... and I was standing here saying things about myself ... then sure, it'd be bogus because it would be just me bragging on myself. But it's not just me ... in fact there's not much of me here at all ... it's all God."
- In John 8:14 Jesus is drawing attention to his divine nature. Again, paraphrased: "I'm not just Jesus the carpenter, I'm God incarnate, and I speak with the full authority of God. So yes, my singular testimony is valid because I'm God."
* * *
This past weekend I was in Atlanta, accompanying my lovely wife to a reunion of sorts. Twenty years ago when L. lived in Atlanta, she was part of a church singles group. Over the years the various members of that group have remained friends, and have gotten married -- some marriages between members of the group, but most involving someone from outside the group. The trip to Atlanta was for a wedding shower for one of the members who got married. Yes, past tense -- "got." The wedding was last year. The shower was this weekend. Go figure. :-)
Here's the kicker, though -- the groom was someone L. dated for a half year or so prior to meeting me. So I'm standing there watching L. hug a "past boyfriend."
I teased her -- "There is no way you'd allow me to go to some get-together for a past girlriend. No way at all." She didn't disagree.
Aren't double-standards grand? :-)
* * *
Flaw in "treat others as you'd like to be treated?" -- suppose somone truly doesn't mind if people are rude to them because that justifies their being rude to others. That's not really "masochistic." Strictly speaking, they are following the "treat others as you wish to be treated."
What's the problem with my analysis? Discuss.
Saturday, June 17, 2006
Father's Day Eve
You wrote:
Is Beckham playing for England? Last I heard he'd gone to some team in Spain ...
Yes he went off to play for the better of the top two Madrid teams didn't he? Real Madrid. I'm not actually sure how one gets to play for England, I mean he holds a British Passport, which would include Wales, Scotland and Northern Island, who all have their own teams, so type of passport can't be the deciding factor. If we assume it is the country that one is born in that entitles one to play for that country team then I think one of the Mexican players breaks that rule as he was born in the USA or something.
and that the Spice Girls were looking to make a comeback.
Please no, PLEASE.
How does the World Cup format work ... do countries compile "superstar" teams, or is there a process of elimination within countries whereby a given team -- Manchester United, or whatever -- wins a preliminary tournament and thereby the right to represent England in the Cup? My guess is it's a compilation strategy, much like the Olympics.
Your guess is entirely correct. Spot on.
+++
On your previous question:
I'm searching my brain for a potential context and I'm coming up short. Of course, it is 6:30am here. :-)
We had this particular conversation a few years ago now I think. You pointed me at Barnes' commentary to The Bible to explain the verses I present next, but the Barnes explanation was unsatisfying to me, and got me to a (personal) realization (that may or may not be "true") that The Bible is the word of Man perhaps insprired by God, but not His word per se. However, if Barnes' commentary is "true" then I see no problem with Science adopting a wave/particle duality for the nature of existence.
Here is the conundrum:
John 5:31
"If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid."
John 8:14
Jesus answered, "Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid, for I know where I came from and where I am going."
One rarely sees such an eminent case for "If A then not necessarily A" wouldn't you agree? :-)
+++
Unfortunately I had a complete renal collapse during my Crypto Proof of Concept workshop last week. My remaining kidney is operating at 50% efficiency due to chemo damage, but that's ok, a person can live on 25% of their total kidney function. I didn't pass urine at all on Thursday and the thing hurt like hell (I know just what kidney pain is like having lost the other one), I got a splitting headache and a raised temperature. I drank gallons of water and managed to start it back up again on Friday ... I'm seeing the doc on Monday, they'll probably send me for a kidney function test - normal numbers of a chemical (creatinin?) are 5% in the bloodstream, last time they checked this chemical was at 8% in my blood, they don't start dialysis until 15%. I tell you - I was sitting in the class on Thursday with still bleeding nads and a very painful kidney considering just ditching everything and going to hospital. But that would have been a bad idea, I no longer trust the medical profession and my class was in difficulty. My spirit remained much stronger by seeing it through, we had a successful outcome to the class on Friday morning - phew ! Worth quite a few millions euros to someone :-) Jesus helped me out, thank you Lord.
I believe that my renal failure/kidney swelling was caused by drinking two pints of real ale (something I never do) with the Croatians on the class as they watched their team get beaten 1-0 by Brazil in the World Cup. Too many toxins I guess - I have been warned.
I wrote some serious REXX prototype code and even some C code to call the crypto engines on the mainframe. I am a programmer/sysadmin at heart you know. I loved it. Very satisfying somehow.
+++
Tomorrow is "Father's Day" in the UK and I'm very excited at seeing my daughter from 10:00-15:00, my nads have at last stopped their weeping and we may go swimming. So does this make today Father's Day Eve? (Homer Simpson said that!)
+++
I had something else I wanted to discuss with you but for the life of me I can't remember what that was right now.
Is Beckham playing for England? Last I heard he'd gone to some team in Spain ...
Yes he went off to play for the better of the top two Madrid teams didn't he? Real Madrid. I'm not actually sure how one gets to play for England, I mean he holds a British Passport, which would include Wales, Scotland and Northern Island, who all have their own teams, so type of passport can't be the deciding factor. If we assume it is the country that one is born in that entitles one to play for that country team then I think one of the Mexican players breaks that rule as he was born in the USA or something.
and that the Spice Girls were looking to make a comeback.
Please no, PLEASE.
How does the World Cup format work ... do countries compile "superstar" teams, or is there a process of elimination within countries whereby a given team -- Manchester United, or whatever -- wins a preliminary tournament and thereby the right to represent England in the Cup? My guess is it's a compilation strategy, much like the Olympics.
Your guess is entirely correct. Spot on.
+++
On your previous question:
I'm searching my brain for a potential context and I'm coming up short. Of course, it is 6:30am here. :-)
We had this particular conversation a few years ago now I think. You pointed me at Barnes' commentary to The Bible to explain the verses I present next, but the Barnes explanation was unsatisfying to me, and got me to a (personal) realization (that may or may not be "true") that The Bible is the word of Man perhaps insprired by God, but not His word per se. However, if Barnes' commentary is "true" then I see no problem with Science adopting a wave/particle duality for the nature of existence.
Here is the conundrum:
John 5:31
"If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid."
John 8:14
Jesus answered, "Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid, for I know where I came from and where I am going."
One rarely sees such an eminent case for "If A then not necessarily A" wouldn't you agree? :-)
+++
Unfortunately I had a complete renal collapse during my Crypto Proof of Concept workshop last week. My remaining kidney is operating at 50% efficiency due to chemo damage, but that's ok, a person can live on 25% of their total kidney function. I didn't pass urine at all on Thursday and the thing hurt like hell (I know just what kidney pain is like having lost the other one), I got a splitting headache and a raised temperature. I drank gallons of water and managed to start it back up again on Friday ... I'm seeing the doc on Monday, they'll probably send me for a kidney function test - normal numbers of a chemical (creatinin?) are 5% in the bloodstream, last time they checked this chemical was at 8% in my blood, they don't start dialysis until 15%. I tell you - I was sitting in the class on Thursday with still bleeding nads and a very painful kidney considering just ditching everything and going to hospital. But that would have been a bad idea, I no longer trust the medical profession and my class was in difficulty. My spirit remained much stronger by seeing it through, we had a successful outcome to the class on Friday morning - phew ! Worth quite a few millions euros to someone :-) Jesus helped me out, thank you Lord.
I believe that my renal failure/kidney swelling was caused by drinking two pints of real ale (something I never do) with the Croatians on the class as they watched their team get beaten 1-0 by Brazil in the World Cup. Too many toxins I guess - I have been warned.
I wrote some serious REXX prototype code and even some C code to call the crypto engines on the mainframe. I am a programmer/sysadmin at heart you know. I loved it. Very satisfying somehow.
+++
Tomorrow is "Father's Day" in the UK and I'm very excited at seeing my daughter from 10:00-15:00, my nads have at last stopped their weeping and we may go swimming. So does this make today Father's Day Eve? (Homer Simpson said that!)
+++
I had something else I wanted to discuss with you but for the life of me I can't remember what that was right now.
Thursday, June 15, 2006
Football
You wrote:
Is Beckham playing for England? Last I heard he'd gone to some team in Spain ... and that the Spice Girls were looking to make a comeback. How does the World Cup format work ... do countries compile "superstar" teams, or is there a process of elimination within countries whereby a given team -- Manchester United, or whatever -- wins a preliminary tournament and thereby the right to represent England in the Cup?
My guess is it's a compilation strategy, much like the Olympics.
My cousin's son is very good at soccer. He earned a scholarship to college based on his soccer prowess. He's somewhat of an arrogant young man.
Therefore -- logically it follows -- soccer makes one arrogant. :-)
England will win of course.That's so painfully obvious I'm left to wonder why you bothered to type it out. :-)
Is Beckham playing for England? Last I heard he'd gone to some team in Spain ... and that the Spice Girls were looking to make a comeback. How does the World Cup format work ... do countries compile "superstar" teams, or is there a process of elimination within countries whereby a given team -- Manchester United, or whatever -- wins a preliminary tournament and thereby the right to represent England in the Cup?
My guess is it's a compilation strategy, much like the Olympics.
My cousin's son is very good at soccer. He earned a scholarship to college based on his soccer prowess. He's somewhat of an arrogant young man.
Therefore -- logically it follows -- soccer makes one arrogant. :-)
False Witness
I'm not looking to argue or be negative in the slightest ... I'm simply looking to understand where your thinking came from. You wrote:
Jesus can bear "false" witness on himself as a man but "true" witness on Himself as God.What was the general basis for that thought? I'm searching my brain for a potential context and I'm coming up short. Of course, it is 6:30am here. :-)
Wednesday, June 14, 2006
No more contradictions
I see no problem with the apparent contradictions in The Bible or Science. Jesus can bear "false" witness on himself as a man but "true" witness on Himself as God (or was it the other way around?) and light can be a wave and a particle at the same time. After all, "If A then not necessarily A" is one of my mantras along with "Treat others as you wish to be treated" (I fail miserably at the latter when I am in physical pain btw - to remain calm in agony is one of the things I am here to learn, but yet to, I am sure).
+++
Football - soccer - nationalism? It's weird. Living on the internet as I do I sometimes forget that there are countries with borders (artificial borders that cannot be seen from space of course) and that it's somehow important to a vast number of human individuals dwelling within these artificial borders to "beat" another set of similar folk living in another country. Sport in general is a good thing, and I guess competitive sport is keyed off of how we got here, through survival of the fittest.
To have "high" emotional states (wins) you must have lows (losses) otherwise how do you distinguish between all-highs or all-lows (or all-middles?)
England will win of course.
+++
Football - soccer - nationalism? It's weird. Living on the internet as I do I sometimes forget that there are countries with borders (artificial borders that cannot be seen from space of course) and that it's somehow important to a vast number of human individuals dwelling within these artificial borders to "beat" another set of similar folk living in another country. Sport in general is a good thing, and I guess competitive sport is keyed off of how we got here, through survival of the fittest.
To have "high" emotional states (wins) you must have lows (losses) otherwise how do you distinguish between all-highs or all-lows (or all-middles?)
England will win of course.
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
More on Contradictions
I do read your posts. I don't necessary remember them. Don't forget, I have a few years on you, pal ... my brain cells have had more time to diminish and shrivel.
* * *
My "official" response to the charge of contradictions in the Bible is this: "There are no contradictions; the Bible does not contradict itself. There are things that are difficult, but with proper analysis and study the difficulties can be explained."
Now, that said, I will also say that in my pre-Christian days I would have rolled my eyes at that. I would have thought, "Well, that's a convenient answer, hmmm?"
But I'm a bit further along the path now compared to where I was then, and I am starting to see that whole of the Bible in a broader context. But I'm not very good at taking specific examples of supposed contradictions and arguing on their behalf. Others are much better than me.
Minds far more brilliant than mine have wrestled with those supposed contradictions for 2000 years, and to the best of my knowledge the Bible has not been undeniably refuted yet. In fact, I doubt there's a single criticism of the Bible floating around today that hasn't surfaced at least once in 2000 years and been dealt with already.
Dan Brown's "The Da Vinci Code" does not count as serious criticism. :-)
And besides, Ned Flanders is a confused soul. :-)
* * *
Who's the "favourite" in this year's World Cup? I see that the U.S.A. got skunked by, I think, the Czech Republic.
I don't understand football (soccer). But I do respect the athletes who play it. It requires motor skills I don't possess, hand/foot/eye coordination I don't possess, and physical stamina I've never possessed.
In what will appear to be a wild tangent ... but it's not ... my understanding is the most physically demanding sport -- the one that requires the greatest physical conditioning and will draw down the bodies reserve of cardio-vascular strength the most -- is ... boxing. It has something to do with the explosive energy needed to deliver the punches. The punches received no doubt exact a toll as well. Superior muscle conditioning is probably needed to absorb / deflect the punches.
* * *
My "official" response to the charge of contradictions in the Bible is this: "There are no contradictions; the Bible does not contradict itself. There are things that are difficult, but with proper analysis and study the difficulties can be explained."
Now, that said, I will also say that in my pre-Christian days I would have rolled my eyes at that. I would have thought, "Well, that's a convenient answer, hmmm?"
But I'm a bit further along the path now compared to where I was then, and I am starting to see that whole of the Bible in a broader context. But I'm not very good at taking specific examples of supposed contradictions and arguing on their behalf. Others are much better than me.
Minds far more brilliant than mine have wrestled with those supposed contradictions for 2000 years, and to the best of my knowledge the Bible has not been undeniably refuted yet. In fact, I doubt there's a single criticism of the Bible floating around today that hasn't surfaced at least once in 2000 years and been dealt with already.
Dan Brown's "The Da Vinci Code" does not count as serious criticism. :-)
And besides, Ned Flanders is a confused soul. :-)
* * *
Who's the "favourite" in this year's World Cup? I see that the U.S.A. got skunked by, I think, the Czech Republic.
I don't understand football (soccer). But I do respect the athletes who play it. It requires motor skills I don't possess, hand/foot/eye coordination I don't possess, and physical stamina I've never possessed.
In what will appear to be a wild tangent ... but it's not ... my understanding is the most physically demanding sport -- the one that requires the greatest physical conditioning and will draw down the bodies reserve of cardio-vascular strength the most -- is ... boxing. It has something to do with the explosive energy needed to deliver the punches. The punches received no doubt exact a toll as well. Superior muscle conditioning is probably needed to absorb / deflect the punches.
Contradictions
You don't actually read my posts ... " sob" :-) All the way back on Thursday 1st June I quoted Flanders in a post entitled "The Simpsons"
"I've done everything the Bible says; even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff! What more could I do?"
+++
I am getting a good kicking from the Croatians about Crypto! Perhaps they're a bit edgy as they have to play Brazil tonight in the World Cup? (Soccer)
+++
$800 and 164K miles sounds like a good deal - that's some car ! (Make and model?)
"I've done everything the Bible says; even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff! What more could I do?"
+++
I am getting a good kicking from the Croatians about Crypto! Perhaps they're a bit edgy as they have to play Brazil tonight in the World Cup? (Soccer)
+++
$800 and 164K miles sounds like a good deal - that's some car ! (Make and model?)
Monday, June 12, 2006
Flanders?
You wrote:
I don't know what Flanders said about contradictions. Help me.
Remember what Flanders said about contradictions.Do you mean Ned Flanders from The Simpsons?
I don't know what Flanders said about contradictions. Help me.
Approximately?
You wrote:
So there! :-)
* * *
Darn crypto stuff ... just tell everyone to trust everyone ... and crypto be damned!
* * *
Bum distributor in my car -- $800. But after 164K miles that ain't bad. Also, $800 is a lot cheaper than a new car.
and it is approx. 186,000 miles/sec, so there !Approximately? I thought the speed of light was a factual constant. If your experiment was incapable of producing precision, how am I to believe that any experiment is capable of it?
So there! :-)
* * *
Darn crypto stuff ... just tell everyone to trust everyone ... and crypto be damned!
* * *
Bum distributor in my car -- $800. But after 164K miles that ain't bad. Also, $800 is a lot cheaper than a new car.
"I"
"I" - perhaps THAT is the first assumption?
+++
I will get back to you on the other stuff and YES I have measured the speed of light in an expirement at University - and it is approx. 186,000 miles/sec, so there !
+++
I can't agree with RC on his second assumption. Remember what Flanders said about contradictions. I believe that RC is spot on with his first assumption however.
+++
Damned cryptographic algortihms are not behaving. I am now suspicious that we should be using IBM-PINO (Pin Offset) rather than IBM-PIN as the Process Rule to pass Visa verification, but hey what do I know ?? I will suggest this approach tomorrow.
+++
I will get back to you on the other stuff and YES I have measured the speed of light in an expirement at University - and it is approx. 186,000 miles/sec, so there !
+++
I can't agree with RC on his second assumption. Remember what Flanders said about contradictions. I believe that RC is spot on with his first assumption however.
+++
Damned cryptographic algortihms are not behaving. I am now suspicious that we should be using IBM-PINO (Pin Offset) rather than IBM-PIN as the Process Rule to pass Visa verification, but hey what do I know ?? I will suggest this approach tomorrow.
Independent Thought?
Or perhaps the first fundamental assumption is that I'm capable of independent thought? Or is that a subset of "I assume I exist?"
Maybe.
Maybe.
"Let's Get Metaphysical, Metaphysical ..."
That post title is a reference to the Olivia Newton John song "Let's Get Physical." You probably knew that, cuz you're about as old as I am. :-)
I am currently fascinated by the concept of how our base of knowledge is built upon key assumptions and assumed "facts." If we peel back the onion all the way, what is the primary, singular, fundamental "first assumption?"
Is it this: I assume I really exist?
I am currently fascinated by the concept of how our base of knowledge is built upon key assumptions and assumed "facts." If we peel back the onion all the way, what is the primary, singular, fundamental "first assumption?"
Is it this: I assume I really exist?
Sunday, June 11, 2006
Proving the Speed of Light
How do you know that the speed of light is 182,282.7 mph in a vacuum? Honestly? Are you relying on the written testimony of others? How can you be certain of the veracity of their claims? How can you be certain there hasn't been a conspiracy among scientists to cover up the real value? Or cover up the fact that they have no idea?
* * *
If Genesis is merely a book concocted by humans, then it can't address the who and why question. The fundamental assumption is that Genesis was inspired by God. And if so, then it answers the who and why question. Negate that basic assumption and the conclusion falls down.
But I could argue the same thing applies to the world of science. You and I are left to assume what we are being told about the measurements taken, the experiments conducted, and the conclusions drawn are correct. They may not be.
Nobody has ever measured a quark. They've attempted to measure other things that suggest a quark. But nobody has ever seen a quark, touched on, measured it or really analyzed it. It may not really be there. The same thing applies to the entire world of cosmology, where theories about the origin of matter are pure speculation. People strive to fit theories within a framework of accepted mathematical formulas. But what if the formulas are fundamentally in error?
* * *
For what it's worth, my man R.C. is fully in agreement that all the Christian's notions of God stem from two fundamental assumptions: that God exists, and that the Bible represents his truthful revelation. I've heard him say that if anyone denies either of those, then that person has no basis upon which to make any assertions whatever about the Christian God.
Note: Including personal experiences. I've had personal experiences as well. I was granted a momentary and complete mental awareness of the breadth of God's mercy and sacrifice. In just that fast it left me, leaving only a faint echo. But I can't prove it was real. I assume it was, but I can't prove it. And my experiences have no bearing whatever on others who have not experienced it.
That's why I firmly believe that trusting in the trustfulness of the Bible is as important as anything else in the Christian faith.
* * *
My car broke down today ... I had to have it towed to the service shop. With 160K miles on it, it's amazing it hasn't broken down more. I think it's some kind of fuel or electrical problem -- the car will turn over (there is power), it will "start" (it's getting at least some fuel and it has at least some spark). But it runs very rough and then dies after 30 seconds.
The odd thing is the problem occurred immediately after going over a speed bump ... as if the jarring of the bump caused the problem. That might be coincidence.
Debugging car problems uses the exact same process as debugging WebSphere problems -- one rules out what we know it is not based on the symptoms, then we weigh what it may be based on what's left. Then we conduct tests to rule down the problem further.
Medical diagnostics is no different.
* * *
If Genesis is merely a book concocted by humans, then it can't address the who and why question. The fundamental assumption is that Genesis was inspired by God. And if so, then it answers the who and why question. Negate that basic assumption and the conclusion falls down.
But I could argue the same thing applies to the world of science. You and I are left to assume what we are being told about the measurements taken, the experiments conducted, and the conclusions drawn are correct. They may not be.
Nobody has ever measured a quark. They've attempted to measure other things that suggest a quark. But nobody has ever seen a quark, touched on, measured it or really analyzed it. It may not really be there. The same thing applies to the entire world of cosmology, where theories about the origin of matter are pure speculation. People strive to fit theories within a framework of accepted mathematical formulas. But what if the formulas are fundamentally in error?
* * *
For what it's worth, my man R.C. is fully in agreement that all the Christian's notions of God stem from two fundamental assumptions: that God exists, and that the Bible represents his truthful revelation. I've heard him say that if anyone denies either of those, then that person has no basis upon which to make any assertions whatever about the Christian God.
Note: Including personal experiences. I've had personal experiences as well. I was granted a momentary and complete mental awareness of the breadth of God's mercy and sacrifice. In just that fast it left me, leaving only a faint echo. But I can't prove it was real. I assume it was, but I can't prove it. And my experiences have no bearing whatever on others who have not experienced it.
That's why I firmly believe that trusting in the trustfulness of the Bible is as important as anything else in the Christian faith.
* * *
My car broke down today ... I had to have it towed to the service shop. With 160K miles on it, it's amazing it hasn't broken down more. I think it's some kind of fuel or electrical problem -- the car will turn over (there is power), it will "start" (it's getting at least some fuel and it has at least some spark). But it runs very rough and then dies after 30 seconds.
The odd thing is the problem occurred immediately after going over a speed bump ... as if the jarring of the bump caused the problem. That might be coincidence.
Debugging car problems uses the exact same process as debugging WebSphere problems -- one rules out what we know it is not based on the symptoms, then we weigh what it may be based on what's left. Then we conduct tests to rule down the problem further.
Medical diagnostics is no different.
Sitting on the dock of the bay
In your last post you quoted ..
Genesis is concerned about who created and why, not about how and when. Science cannot answer the former questions, and Genesis is largely mute about the latter.
Something implicit in that statement is that Genesis can and does answer the questions of who and why.
I wonder what a Buddhist would say about that? My point is that the Buddhist (or Muslim or any other religious person) can whistle until he is blue in the face that the speed of light in vacuo is not approximately 186,000 miles per second - but all can measure it to be.
What is the point in suggesting that one's religion provides answers to things that cannot be measured? Like who created the Universe and why? Religion doesn't provide answers, it provides a belief system, doesn't it?
I guess I am saying that a particular religion cannot be measured "true" by a cross section of all religions, so let's not imply that our particular religion has the right answers, let's just say "It's what we believe in and I hope that one day you believe in it also".
+++
I'm glad that you did the ride buddy - I love doing those kind of trips, on a bike you connect more to your surroundings (sights, sounds, smells) than in a car.
+++
I'm in Hursley this week helping some more Croatians keep secrets by encrypting their data from the prying eyes that natural selection has given would-be bandits who wish to gain some advantage over their fellows. This gaining advantage to survive, this could be something the creator infused in us perhaps?
Genesis is concerned about who created and why, not about how and when. Science cannot answer the former questions, and Genesis is largely mute about the latter.
Something implicit in that statement is that Genesis can and does answer the questions of who and why.
I wonder what a Buddhist would say about that? My point is that the Buddhist (or Muslim or any other religious person) can whistle until he is blue in the face that the speed of light in vacuo is not approximately 186,000 miles per second - but all can measure it to be.
What is the point in suggesting that one's religion provides answers to things that cannot be measured? Like who created the Universe and why? Religion doesn't provide answers, it provides a belief system, doesn't it?
I guess I am saying that a particular religion cannot be measured "true" by a cross section of all religions, so let's not imply that our particular religion has the right answers, let's just say "It's what we believe in and I hope that one day you believe in it also".
+++
I'm glad that you did the ride buddy - I love doing those kind of trips, on a bike you connect more to your surroundings (sights, sounds, smells) than in a car.
+++
I'm in Hursley this week helping some more Croatians keep secrets by encrypting their data from the prying eyes that natural selection has given would-be bandits who wish to gain some advantage over their fellows. This gaining advantage to survive, this could be something the creator infused in us perhaps?
Genesis and Modern Science
From the "Reformation Study Bible," in the introduction to the book of Genesis:
The tension between Genesis and modern science about the origins of the universe and of living species is largely resolved when it is recognized that they are speaking from different perspectives. Genesis is concerned about who created and why, not about how and when. Science cannot answer the former questions, and Genesis is largely mute about the latter.Seems reasonable to me.
Saturday, June 10, 2006
300 Mile Ride
Today I did a 300 mile ride on my motorcycle. If you go to Virtual Earth or Google Earth, you can see the route:
- Tucson
- Sells (to the west of Tucson, out AZ-86 in the Tohono O'odham Indian nation)
- Why
- Ajo (on AZ-85, just north of Why)
- Gila Bend (north of Ajo, where AZ-85 intersects with Interstate 8)
- East to where I-8 joins up with I-10
- Then home to Tucson
- I'm tired -- that took 6 hours and it's a longer six hours than in the car
- It was hot (100 degrees) and pretty windy, which added to the fatigue
- I found plenty of gasoline ... some long stretches with nothing, but gas was available
- My bike loves to go 65 or so miles per hour. It's capable of "a ton," but I don't like to push it that hard.
- That loop is pretty in its own way, but the scenery doesn't change much the whole 300 miles, so I doubt I'll do that run again
In The Beginning?
You wrote:
This concept of setting up a false dichotomy is not limited to the account of creation; the same false choice is often posited for the Bible as a whole: "One must take the whole Bible as literal, or one must disregard the whole Bible." And that, I argue, is just crazy. The Bible is very clearly not completely literal. It definitely is literal in parts -- the historical passages. But it definitely is not literal in other parts -- the parables.
Now, while I'm willing to say that "evolution" and "God" are not mutually exclusive, I am equally not willing to put God in the role of mere "blind watchmaker," who set things in motion and stepped back. His involvement is greater than that, if the Bible is to be held as essentially truthful, if not literal.
Could humans have "evolved" with God's guidance from some earlier form of life? Sure ... what aspect of God's omnipotence would prohibit it? Did we turn out as we did based on pure random chance? That I can't reconcile with Biblical teachings. But might God have shepherded the process along to a conclusion he ordained, and at some critical point reach down and infuse into that creature the "likeness" of God; that is, the emotional and spiritual qualities that make us unique? Sure ... why not? The Genesis account of Adam and Eve might be just that -- a picture telling of a deeper mystery we could never comprehend without a simple story to give us a framework of reference.
Who knows when that happened. 10,000 years? 50,000 years? I don't know. But Kubrick knew because he made a movie about it. Some poor pig paid the ultimate price for that spark. And that one monkey had a heck of an arm if he could hurl that bone all the way into space. By the way, how could a bone instantly turn into an orbiting H-bomb? Is that one of the mediation features of the "Advanced ESB?" :-)
R.C. Sproul made this point in the first instalment of his "Overview of the Bible" series -- in today's worldview, what may be the most important two words in the opening of Genesis to get people to really ponder is: In the beginning, God created ...
Get that concept established and other things can flow. But the forces of evil used the theory of evolution to attack that essential first premise.
Okay, I'll get off my soapbox now ... or out of the pulpit. :-)
It seems possible to me that evolution could account for the species on this planet Earth. The initial conditions and rules came from where though? If anywhere then why not from God?That's really the crux of it all, isn't it? There seems to have been this conflating over time of two concepts that are not necessarily the same thing: the initial creation, and the subsequent development. The theory of evolution -- or, to be more precise, the theory of natural selection -- does not and never did address the question of where things came from in the first place. I think Darwin himself argued that point, but I can't recall where I saw that. Later, after Darwin's death, others used the concept of evolution to try to squeeze God completely out of the picture. In other words, they established this false choice:
- God and the literal account of creation in Genesis
- Evolution without God
This concept of setting up a false dichotomy is not limited to the account of creation; the same false choice is often posited for the Bible as a whole: "One must take the whole Bible as literal, or one must disregard the whole Bible." And that, I argue, is just crazy. The Bible is very clearly not completely literal. It definitely is literal in parts -- the historical passages. But it definitely is not literal in other parts -- the parables.
Now, while I'm willing to say that "evolution" and "God" are not mutually exclusive, I am equally not willing to put God in the role of mere "blind watchmaker," who set things in motion and stepped back. His involvement is greater than that, if the Bible is to be held as essentially truthful, if not literal.
Could humans have "evolved" with God's guidance from some earlier form of life? Sure ... what aspect of God's omnipotence would prohibit it? Did we turn out as we did based on pure random chance? That I can't reconcile with Biblical teachings. But might God have shepherded the process along to a conclusion he ordained, and at some critical point reach down and infuse into that creature the "likeness" of God; that is, the emotional and spiritual qualities that make us unique? Sure ... why not? The Genesis account of Adam and Eve might be just that -- a picture telling of a deeper mystery we could never comprehend without a simple story to give us a framework of reference.
Who knows when that happened. 10,000 years? 50,000 years? I don't know. But Kubrick knew because he made a movie about it. Some poor pig paid the ultimate price for that spark. And that one monkey had a heck of an arm if he could hurl that bone all the way into space. By the way, how could a bone instantly turn into an orbiting H-bomb? Is that one of the mediation features of the "Advanced ESB?" :-)
R.C. Sproul made this point in the first instalment of his "Overview of the Bible" series -- in today's worldview, what may be the most important two words in the opening of Genesis to get people to really ponder is: In the beginning, God created ...
Get that concept established and other things can flow. But the forces of evil used the theory of evolution to attack that essential first premise.
Okay, I'll get off my soapbox now ... or out of the pulpit. :-)
Friday, June 09, 2006
Training Program Aborted
You wrote:
I see no real problem uniting the concept of God as creator and sustainer with the concept of evolution.
That's great, many Christians cannot see this.
It seems possible to me that evolution could account for the species on this planet Earth. The initial conditions and rules came from where though? If anywhere then why not from God?
In the Thompson experiment he started with random circuits and then he chose those circuits that were fit for purpose - and bred generations from them.
In "the real world" survival is the sustainer, there is no choser of circuits, it's just that the "life" that survives gets to breed.
It looks like God started it all off, is watching, can intervene but usually does not, and his creation ticks on.
Funny that you should write a post entitled "The Matrix" as I set here with my daughter playing a Playstation Game called "The Matrix".
I see no real problem uniting the concept of God as creator and sustainer with the concept of evolution.
That's great, many Christians cannot see this.
It seems possible to me that evolution could account for the species on this planet Earth. The initial conditions and rules came from where though? If anywhere then why not from God?
In the Thompson experiment he started with random circuits and then he chose those circuits that were fit for purpose - and bred generations from them.
In "the real world" survival is the sustainer, there is no choser of circuits, it's just that the "life" that survives gets to breed.
It looks like God started it all off, is watching, can intervene but usually does not, and his creation ticks on.
Funny that you should write a post entitled "The Matrix" as I set here with my daughter playing a Playstation Game called "The Matrix".
The Matrix
Science fiction that portrays rogue machines replicating themselves and taking over has always bothered me. I'm a boring realist ... I always wonder: where did they get the raw materials to replicate? Do the robots go and mine the ore to form the steel that makes the frames of their spider-like bodies?
Side Note: why are the science fiction robots always spider-like, or worm-like? Over here in the U.S. we had a show on TV a few years back called "Battlebots." The show was built around the notion of contestants entering "robot warriors" into a confined space, and they set out to disable and damage one another. It was all good fun, and some extremely creative robotics was displayed. But what came through was that robots that attempted to move through space by way of emulated human movements (step-like legs, spider-like arms) were awful. The winners were always very low-slung devices on hidden wheels, often with a wedge design, with a hammer capable of pounding the daylights out of a competitor. Big was not better. A low profile that made it difficult to get under the robot was the key. A strategy that evolved (there's that word) over time was to flip the opponent over -- sort of like the turtle syndrom: a robot flipped over was essentially disabled. Hence the wedge design (to get under your opponent) and a low profile (to prevent others from getting under you).
Of course, Battlebots was carried out on a smooth floor. Not a post-nuclear landscape with wrecked Max Max vehicles everywhere. A low-slung vehicle on small wheels would have a difficult time navigating through that.
Side Note: why are the science fiction robots always spider-like, or worm-like? Over here in the U.S. we had a show on TV a few years back called "Battlebots." The show was built around the notion of contestants entering "robot warriors" into a confined space, and they set out to disable and damage one another. It was all good fun, and some extremely creative robotics was displayed. But what came through was that robots that attempted to move through space by way of emulated human movements (step-like legs, spider-like arms) were awful. The winners were always very low-slung devices on hidden wheels, often with a wedge design, with a hammer capable of pounding the daylights out of a competitor. Big was not better. A low profile that made it difficult to get under the robot was the key. A strategy that evolved (there's that word) over time was to flip the opponent over -- sort of like the turtle syndrom: a robot flipped over was essentially disabled. Hence the wedge design (to get under your opponent) and a low profile (to prevent others from getting under you).
Of course, Battlebots was carried out on a smooth floor. Not a post-nuclear landscape with wrecked Max Max vehicles everywhere. A low-slung vehicle on small wheels would have a difficult time navigating through that.
Computer Evolution
I'm not sure what to make of that write-up of the "evolution" of the FPGA stuff. I'm not entirely convinced that some of Dr. Thompson's work to set up the experiment didn't influence the outcome ... in other words, I'm not sure his initial fingerprints to set up iteration 1 aren't still present at iteration 1000. But to be honest, my pea-brain was barely comprehending some of that stuff. :-)
But let's say that it did "evolve" in the class sense of that word. What does that prove? It still required a "designer" -- Dr. Thompson -- to create the environment, set the parameters and initiate the experiment. It is not as if in the dark of the lab one night a half-empty can of Diet Coke united with a #2 pencil and a McDonald's Big Mac wrapper to form a rudimentary FPGA, which then evolved further and further. I'm not being sarcastic ... I'm serious -- for this experiment there was an enormous amount of human intervention, and the consequences of that intervention may have persisted well into all the iterations of the experiment.
Maybe I'm missing your point ... and that's possible because when it comes to computers and stuff, I'm not much of a visionary.
* * *
Question -- would you say that experiment demonstrated evolution or adaptation? Do you see a distinction between those two words and the concepts behind them?
* * *
I've mentioned this before -- I see no real problem uniting the concept of God as creator and sustainer with the concept of evolution. Where I see the problem is when the concept of evolution is taken beyond its boundaries and suddenly God is removed the picture and evolution accounts for everything, including the initial creation.
But let's say that it did "evolve" in the class sense of that word. What does that prove? It still required a "designer" -- Dr. Thompson -- to create the environment, set the parameters and initiate the experiment. It is not as if in the dark of the lab one night a half-empty can of Diet Coke united with a #2 pencil and a McDonald's Big Mac wrapper to form a rudimentary FPGA, which then evolved further and further. I'm not being sarcastic ... I'm serious -- for this experiment there was an enormous amount of human intervention, and the consequences of that intervention may have persisted well into all the iterations of the experiment.
Maybe I'm missing your point ... and that's possible because when it comes to computers and stuff, I'm not much of a visionary.
* * *
Question -- would you say that experiment demonstrated evolution or adaptation? Do you see a distinction between those two words and the concepts behind them?
* * *
I've mentioned this before -- I see no real problem uniting the concept of God as creator and sustainer with the concept of evolution. Where I see the problem is when the concept of evolution is taken beyond its boundaries and suddenly God is removed the picture and evolution accounts for everything, including the initial creation.
Thursday, June 08, 2006
The next level
Ok so when I wrote:
ftiiaanncsg - is tihs pnllttaeioy cdcrroonittay s-staarms ssseux eecndive ?
You did not bite by translating it into:
"Fascinating, is this potentially contradictory smart-ass Sussex evidence ?"
I say "Sussex" because the original article claimed to come from research done at Cambridge University, and I studied at Sussex University in the UK. In fact, Sussex is #3 behind Oxford and Cambridge in terms of funding that UK Universities receive for science - and is therefore generally considered to be the third best University for science in the UK.
Adrian Thompson is a researcher at Sussex University and he carries out some fascinating experiments with circuits that, well, evolve. The following is a rather long desciption of an experiment (but if you have the time to stay with it pretty amazing) with some questions for you at the end as a reward for reading that far.
Computer scientists have long looked to biology for inspiration. From simplified models of the brain they developed neural networks that have proved particularly good at recognising patterns such as signatures on credit cards and fingerprints. They have also worked out ways to mate and mutate programs and allow the resulting programs to compete with one another to generate the "fittest" software for a task.
These "genetic algorithms" have been used to evolve software that does everything from creating works of art to selecting high-performing shares on the stock market. To Thompson all these techniques leave something to be desired. They are too tightly constrained by the rules of chip designers and software engineers. The behaviour of living neurons, for example, is inseparable from the biochemicals from which they are made. But it doesn't matter what material the circuits of a neural network chip are etched in, so long as they operate in a digital fashion.
Digital computers break down all data into strings of 1s and 0s, which the hardware stores as "ons" and "offs" in its memory. This forces the transistors inside computer chips to work as switches -- they're either on or off. But transistors are not intrinsically digital. Between on and off they pass through a smooth series of values, and in these regions they can behave as amplifiers, for example. Computer designers, however, make little or no use of these properties. Likewise, programmers are constrained by the digital nature of computers. A program is a sequence of logic instructions that the computer applies to the 1s and 0s as they pass through its circuitry.
So the evolution that is driven by genetic algorithms happens only in the virtual world of a programming language. What would happen, Thompson asked, if it were possible to strip away the digital constraints and apply evolution directly to the hardware? Would evolution be able to exploit all the electronic properties of silicon components in the same way that it has exploited the biochemical structures of the organic world?
"I wanted to see what happens if you let evolution break out of the constraints that humans have," says Thompson. "If you give it some hardware, does it do new things?" These questions could only be answered if a way were found to combine the "wet" processes of biological evolution with the "dry" world of silicon chips. Thompson found the solution in a field-programmable gate array (FPGA). The transistors in a conventional microprocessor are hardwired into logic gates, which carry out the processing. By contrast, the logic gates in an FPGA and their interconnections can be changed at will. The transistors are arranged into an array of "logic cells" and simply by loading a special program into the chip's configuration memory, circuit designers can turn each cell into any one of a number of logic gates, and connect it to any other cell. So by loading first one program, then another, the chip can be changed at a stroke from, say, an amplifier to a modem.
Note: Hydra, the worlds strongest chess computer, is based on FPGA's. The hardware can be reprogrammend at will with updated chess knowledge, something that could never happen with Deep Blue as the chess algorithms the chips used were burnt in at manufacture (fabrication) time.
Thompson realised that he could use a standard genetic algorithm to evolve a configuration program for an FPGA and then test each new circuit design immediately on the chip. He set the system a task that appeared impossible for a human designer. Using only 100 logic cells, evolution had to come up with a circuit that could discriminate between two tones, one at 1 kilohertz and the other at 10 kilohertz. To kick off the experiment, Thompson created a population of 50 configuration programs on a computer, each consisting of a random string of 1s and 0s.
The computer downloaded each program in turn to the FPGA to create its circuit and then played it the test tones. The genetic algorithm tested the fitness of each circuit by checking how well it discriminated between the tones. It looked for some characteristic that might prove useful in evolving a solution. At first, this was just an indication that the circuit's output was not completely random. In the first generation, the fittest individual was one with a steady 5-volt output no matter which audio tone it heard. After testing the initial population, the genetic algorithm killed off the least fit individuals by deleting them and let the most fit produce copies of themselves--offspring. It mated some individuals, swapping sections of their code. Finally, the algorithm introduced a small number of mutations by randomly switching 1s and 0s within individual programs. It then downloaded the new population one at a time onto the FPGA and ran the fitness tests once more.
By generation 220, the fittest individual produced outputs almost identical to the inputs--two waveforms corresponding to 1 kilohertz and 10 kilohertz--but not yet the required steady output at 0 volts or 5 volts. By generation 650, the output stayed mostly high for the 1 kilohertz input, although the 10 kilohertz input still produced a waveform. By generation 1400, the output was mostly high for the first signal and mostly low for the second. By generation 2800, the fittest circuit was discriminating accurately between the two inputs, but there were still glitches in its output. These only disappeared completely at generation 4100. After this, there were no further changes. Once the FPGA could discriminate between the two tones, it was fairly easy to continue the evolutionary process until the circuit could detect the more finely modulated differences between the spoken words "go" and "stop".
So how did evolution do it? If a human designer, steeped in digital lore, were to tackle the same problem, one component would have been essential--a clock. The transistors inside a chip need time to flip between on and off, so the clock is set to keep everything marching in step, ensuring that no transistor produces an output between 0 and 1. A human designer would also use the clock to count the number of ticks between the peaks of the waves of the input tones. There would be 10 times as many ticks between the wave peaks of the 1 kilohertz tone as those of the 10 kilohertz tone.
In order to ensure that his circuit came up with a unique result, Thompson deliberately left a clock out of the primordial soup of components from which the circuit evolved. Of course, a clock could have evolved. The simplest would probably be a "ring oscillator"--a circle of cells that change their output every time a signal passes through. It generates a sequence of 1s and 0s rather like the ticks of a clock. But Thompson reckoned that a ring oscillator was unlikely to evolve because it would need far more than the 100 cells available.
So how did evolution do it--and without a clock? When he looked at the final circuit, Thompson found the input signal routed through a complex assortment of feedback loops. He believes that these probably create modified and time-delayed versions of the signal that interfere with the original signal in a way that enables the circuit to discriminate between the two tones. "But really, I don't have the faintest idea how it works," he says.
One thing is certain: the FPGA is working in an analogue manner. Up until the final version, the circuits were producing analogue waveforms, not the neat digital outputs of 0 volts and 5 volts. Thompson says the feedback loops in the final circuit are unlikely to sustain the 0 and 1 logic levels of a digital circuit. "Evolution has been free to explore the full repertoire of behaviours available from the silicon resources," says Thompson.
That repertoire turns out to be more intriguing than Thompson could have imagined. Although the configuration program specified tasks for all 100 cells, it transpired that only 32 were essential to the circuit's operation. Thompson could bypass the other cells without affecting it. A further five cells appeared to serve no logical purpose at all--there was no route of connections by which they could influence the output. And yet if he disconnected them, the circuit stopped working. It appears that evolution made use of some physical property of these cells--possibly a capacitive effect or electromagnetic inductance--to influence a signal passing nearby. Somehow, it seized on this subtle effect and incorporated it into the solution. To solve this mystery, Thompson needs to measure the input and output values of each cell when the circuit is operating. But the FPGA allows only digital access to these points, so he can't measure the analogue values. Thompson's colleague, Paul Layzell, is building a circuit board that will allow all the components to be measured with analogue instruments.
So what is happening here? How on Earth did a circuit designed by "survival of the fittest" principles, recognize "stop" and "go"? Can you see a blind watchmaker at work here? And what does this mean for the next generation of computer designed computers? We won't know how they work. Will they be the next level?
ftiiaanncsg - is tihs pnllttaeioy cdcrroonittay s-staarms ssseux eecndive ?
You did not bite by translating it into:
"Fascinating, is this potentially contradictory smart-ass Sussex evidence ?"
I say "Sussex" because the original article claimed to come from research done at Cambridge University, and I studied at Sussex University in the UK. In fact, Sussex is #3 behind Oxford and Cambridge in terms of funding that UK Universities receive for science - and is therefore generally considered to be the third best University for science in the UK.
Adrian Thompson is a researcher at Sussex University and he carries out some fascinating experiments with circuits that, well, evolve. The following is a rather long desciption of an experiment (but if you have the time to stay with it pretty amazing) with some questions for you at the end as a reward for reading that far.
Computer scientists have long looked to biology for inspiration. From simplified models of the brain they developed neural networks that have proved particularly good at recognising patterns such as signatures on credit cards and fingerprints. They have also worked out ways to mate and mutate programs and allow the resulting programs to compete with one another to generate the "fittest" software for a task.
These "genetic algorithms" have been used to evolve software that does everything from creating works of art to selecting high-performing shares on the stock market. To Thompson all these techniques leave something to be desired. They are too tightly constrained by the rules of chip designers and software engineers. The behaviour of living neurons, for example, is inseparable from the biochemicals from which they are made. But it doesn't matter what material the circuits of a neural network chip are etched in, so long as they operate in a digital fashion.
Digital computers break down all data into strings of 1s and 0s, which the hardware stores as "ons" and "offs" in its memory. This forces the transistors inside computer chips to work as switches -- they're either on or off. But transistors are not intrinsically digital. Between on and off they pass through a smooth series of values, and in these regions they can behave as amplifiers, for example. Computer designers, however, make little or no use of these properties. Likewise, programmers are constrained by the digital nature of computers. A program is a sequence of logic instructions that the computer applies to the 1s and 0s as they pass through its circuitry.
So the evolution that is driven by genetic algorithms happens only in the virtual world of a programming language. What would happen, Thompson asked, if it were possible to strip away the digital constraints and apply evolution directly to the hardware? Would evolution be able to exploit all the electronic properties of silicon components in the same way that it has exploited the biochemical structures of the organic world?
"I wanted to see what happens if you let evolution break out of the constraints that humans have," says Thompson. "If you give it some hardware, does it do new things?" These questions could only be answered if a way were found to combine the "wet" processes of biological evolution with the "dry" world of silicon chips. Thompson found the solution in a field-programmable gate array (FPGA). The transistors in a conventional microprocessor are hardwired into logic gates, which carry out the processing. By contrast, the logic gates in an FPGA and their interconnections can be changed at will. The transistors are arranged into an array of "logic cells" and simply by loading a special program into the chip's configuration memory, circuit designers can turn each cell into any one of a number of logic gates, and connect it to any other cell. So by loading first one program, then another, the chip can be changed at a stroke from, say, an amplifier to a modem.
Note: Hydra, the worlds strongest chess computer, is based on FPGA's. The hardware can be reprogrammend at will with updated chess knowledge, something that could never happen with Deep Blue as the chess algorithms the chips used were burnt in at manufacture (fabrication) time.
Thompson realised that he could use a standard genetic algorithm to evolve a configuration program for an FPGA and then test each new circuit design immediately on the chip. He set the system a task that appeared impossible for a human designer. Using only 100 logic cells, evolution had to come up with a circuit that could discriminate between two tones, one at 1 kilohertz and the other at 10 kilohertz. To kick off the experiment, Thompson created a population of 50 configuration programs on a computer, each consisting of a random string of 1s and 0s.
The computer downloaded each program in turn to the FPGA to create its circuit and then played it the test tones. The genetic algorithm tested the fitness of each circuit by checking how well it discriminated between the tones. It looked for some characteristic that might prove useful in evolving a solution. At first, this was just an indication that the circuit's output was not completely random. In the first generation, the fittest individual was one with a steady 5-volt output no matter which audio tone it heard. After testing the initial population, the genetic algorithm killed off the least fit individuals by deleting them and let the most fit produce copies of themselves--offspring. It mated some individuals, swapping sections of their code. Finally, the algorithm introduced a small number of mutations by randomly switching 1s and 0s within individual programs. It then downloaded the new population one at a time onto the FPGA and ran the fitness tests once more.
By generation 220, the fittest individual produced outputs almost identical to the inputs--two waveforms corresponding to 1 kilohertz and 10 kilohertz--but not yet the required steady output at 0 volts or 5 volts. By generation 650, the output stayed mostly high for the 1 kilohertz input, although the 10 kilohertz input still produced a waveform. By generation 1400, the output was mostly high for the first signal and mostly low for the second. By generation 2800, the fittest circuit was discriminating accurately between the two inputs, but there were still glitches in its output. These only disappeared completely at generation 4100. After this, there were no further changes. Once the FPGA could discriminate between the two tones, it was fairly easy to continue the evolutionary process until the circuit could detect the more finely modulated differences between the spoken words "go" and "stop".
So how did evolution do it? If a human designer, steeped in digital lore, were to tackle the same problem, one component would have been essential--a clock. The transistors inside a chip need time to flip between on and off, so the clock is set to keep everything marching in step, ensuring that no transistor produces an output between 0 and 1. A human designer would also use the clock to count the number of ticks between the peaks of the waves of the input tones. There would be 10 times as many ticks between the wave peaks of the 1 kilohertz tone as those of the 10 kilohertz tone.
In order to ensure that his circuit came up with a unique result, Thompson deliberately left a clock out of the primordial soup of components from which the circuit evolved. Of course, a clock could have evolved. The simplest would probably be a "ring oscillator"--a circle of cells that change their output every time a signal passes through. It generates a sequence of 1s and 0s rather like the ticks of a clock. But Thompson reckoned that a ring oscillator was unlikely to evolve because it would need far more than the 100 cells available.
So how did evolution do it--and without a clock? When he looked at the final circuit, Thompson found the input signal routed through a complex assortment of feedback loops. He believes that these probably create modified and time-delayed versions of the signal that interfere with the original signal in a way that enables the circuit to discriminate between the two tones. "But really, I don't have the faintest idea how it works," he says.
One thing is certain: the FPGA is working in an analogue manner. Up until the final version, the circuits were producing analogue waveforms, not the neat digital outputs of 0 volts and 5 volts. Thompson says the feedback loops in the final circuit are unlikely to sustain the 0 and 1 logic levels of a digital circuit. "Evolution has been free to explore the full repertoire of behaviours available from the silicon resources," says Thompson.
That repertoire turns out to be more intriguing than Thompson could have imagined. Although the configuration program specified tasks for all 100 cells, it transpired that only 32 were essential to the circuit's operation. Thompson could bypass the other cells without affecting it. A further five cells appeared to serve no logical purpose at all--there was no route of connections by which they could influence the output. And yet if he disconnected them, the circuit stopped working. It appears that evolution made use of some physical property of these cells--possibly a capacitive effect or electromagnetic inductance--to influence a signal passing nearby. Somehow, it seized on this subtle effect and incorporated it into the solution. To solve this mystery, Thompson needs to measure the input and output values of each cell when the circuit is operating. But the FPGA allows only digital access to these points, so he can't measure the analogue values. Thompson's colleague, Paul Layzell, is building a circuit board that will allow all the components to be measured with analogue instruments.
So what is happening here? How on Earth did a circuit designed by "survival of the fittest" principles, recognize "stop" and "go"? Can you see a blind watchmaker at work here? And what does this mean for the next generation of computer designed computers? We won't know how they work. Will they be the next level?
God is above all religions
God clearly showed me this again at about 21.15 in the car park of my local Tesco supermarket last night.
I saw my local Vicar (priest/pastor) and his wife leaving the supermarket as I arrived. Something caused me to just sit in my car and watch them, they did not see me. The Vicar went and put the shopping into the trunk of the family car and his wife, surprisingly, started wandering around the car park, seemingly aimlessly. My curiosity was piqued and I watched her. She went to empty trolleys picking out shopping receipts, she went into corners picking up grocery receipts off of the floor. Meanwhile hubby (the Vicar) was doing laps of the car park waiting for her to give him the nod to stop, at which point she got into the car clutching her sheaf and off they drove.
The scene greatly saddened me for a number of reasons, but I was glad to have seen it. This particular Vicar is one of the very strong angry shouters from the pulpit - where he fixates the hopeless sinners in his congregation with a righteous stare.
We're all sinners aren't we, perhaps THAT is why we shouldn't judge.
I saw my local Vicar (priest/pastor) and his wife leaving the supermarket as I arrived. Something caused me to just sit in my car and watch them, they did not see me. The Vicar went and put the shopping into the trunk of the family car and his wife, surprisingly, started wandering around the car park, seemingly aimlessly. My curiosity was piqued and I watched her. She went to empty trolleys picking out shopping receipts, she went into corners picking up grocery receipts off of the floor. Meanwhile hubby (the Vicar) was doing laps of the car park waiting for her to give him the nod to stop, at which point she got into the car clutching her sheaf and off they drove.
The scene greatly saddened me for a number of reasons, but I was glad to have seen it. This particular Vicar is one of the very strong angry shouters from the pulpit - where he fixates the hopeless sinners in his congregation with a righteous stare.
We're all sinners aren't we, perhaps THAT is why we shouldn't judge.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)