From a stockbroker friend

Strategy ("doing the right things") is vastly more important than tactics ("doing things right").

Interesting for life? Sounds good anyway :)

Great Soul

Thanks for the good laugh I got from those puns you posted. The play on words with regards to Gandhi was superb! I looked him up in the wikipedia and he died at aged 78 in 1948, so rigorous fasting and a strict vegetarian diet never hurt him.

That got me looking at the average age of death and how that has varied over the years and various other death statistics. In England and Wales in 2001, 22 per cent of men who died did so in their own homes, while only 4 per cent died in communal establishments such as nursing homes (excluding hospitals and hospices), according to detailed mortality statistics published by the UK Office for National Statistics.

By contrast, only 16 per cent of female deaths occurred in the home and 11 per cent in nursing homes. This reflects women’s longer life expectancy, as they are more likely to be widowed and
be living in nursing or residential care homes for the elderly at the time of death.

In 2001 anyway, the average age at death was 73.2 years for males and 79.4 years for females. For those deaths due to land transport accidents the average age at death was 40.1 years for males and 49.1 for females. These 2001 statistics alone makes Gandhi's 78 in 1948 outstanding.

In fact, in Asia around 1948 the average lifespan turns out to be somewhere between 40 and 45.


Ever felt that you have lived too long? This lovely wikipedia article has all the gen.

+++

K's sister E just phoned. She is bored. She's one hour into sitting outside an Alcoholics Anonymous support meeting - it's a support meeting for those who are the partners of alcoholics. It's news to me (just now!) that A's Beau -- who incidentally has now dumped her I hear in favour of another female -- is an alcoholic. Do I care that my daughter was living in the same house as this person? K said to E on the phone, oh you shouldn't have said, mummy asked me not to tell daddy. I bet. I had heard that he lost his driving licence on a 1 year DWI ban. Poor girls, they need better female role models. I try my best.

Life is kind of like driving a car isn't it? It doesn't matter how careful you are someone can just crash right into you - I expect that Gandhi had people crashing into him all the time but he took it well, I mean, you don't get to live to 78 whilst all around you are dying at 50 without smiling a lot.

Puns

These are the top 10 from some pun-writing contest held somewhere. The details of that have been lost in the chain of e-mail from which I took these:

1. A vulture boards an airplane, carrying two dead raccoons. The stewardess looks at him and says, "I'm sorry, sir, only one carrion allowed per passenger."
2. Two fish swim into a concrete wall. One turns to the other and says "Dam!"
3. Two Eskimos sitting in a kayak were chilly, so they lit a fire in the craft. Unsurprisingly it sank, proving once again that you can't have your kayak and heat it too.
4. Two hydrogen atoms meet. One says, "I've lost my Electron." The other says "Are you sure?" The first replies, "Yes, I'm positive."
5. Did you hear about the Buddhist who refused Novocain during a root canal? His goal: transcend dental medication.
6. A group of chess enthusiasts checked into a hotel and were standing in the lobby discussing their recent tournament victories. After about an hour, the manager came out of the office and asked them to disperse. "But why?", they asked, as they moved off. "Because," he said," I can't stand chess-nuts boasting in an open foyer."
7. A woman has twins and gives them up for adoption. One of them goes to Spain , they name him "Juan"; the other went to a family in Egypt and is named "Ahmal." Years later, Juan sends a picture of himself to his birth mother. Upon receiving the picture, she tells her husband that she wishes she also had a picture of Ahmal. Her husband responds, "They're twins! If you've seen Juan, you've seen Ahmal."
8. A group of friars were behind on their belfry payments, so they opened up a small florist shop to raise funds. Since everyone liked to buy flowers from the men of God, a rival florist across town thought the competition was unfair. He asked the good fathers to close down, but they would not. He went back and begged the friars to close. They ignored him. So, the rival florist hired Hugh MacTaggart, the roughest and most vicious thug in town to "persuade" them to close. Hugh beat up the friars and trashed their store, saying he'd be back if they didn't close up shop. Terrified, they did so, thereby proving that only Hugh can prevent florist friars.
9. Mahatma Gandhi, as you know, walked barefoot most of the time, which produced an impressive set of calluses on his feet. He also ate very little, which made him rather frail and, with his odd diet, he suffered from bad breath. This made him (Oh, man, this is so bad, it's good) a super calloused fragile mystic hexed by halitosis.
10. And finally, there was the person who sent ten different puns to friends, with the hope that at least one of the puns would make them laugh. No pun in ten did.

Tweener

I'm in San Antonio for the zExpo conference. Today -- Wednesday -- I went for a walk around downtown. I came upon a faux English pub and went in for a Boddington's. The beer was good. Business was slow, so the wait staff had time to chat with the customers.

I noticed something. To my left was an elderly gentleman, perhaps in his mid- to late-60's. A doctor, he said, but exactly what kind I did not know. (There's a geophysicist convention in town, so he might just be a PhD.) Two of the young waitresses were very sociably discussing stuff with him. To my right were two young turks, perhaps in their early 20's. The young female bartender was fixated on them. The older man was safe; the younger men were hot. I, being 47, was still a risk of being a dirty old man pervert and therefore to be ignored. I barely got enough attention to order my beer.

I'm a tweener ... too old to be cool; too young to be safe.

Good Advice

Thank you pal. "Do enough to stay employed" ... that is what 90% of us do isn't it? There is nothing special about me so this is what I will endeavor to do!

I'd like to teach science and maths to teenagers I think, ideally, around the 16 - 18 age so they actually might be interested in the subjects as they have decided to stay on at school. Who knows, one of them might go on to discover something worthwhile.

+++

K has known death twice now. First four years ago when she was 6, a 5 year old at her school died of a brain tumor, and now her deputy head has suffered a massive coronary whilst at school and passed away. He was a jolly chap too, I was only talking to him last week.

The whole school has been invited to the funeral and K wants to attend, tomorrow she says she wants to wear black to school as a sign of respect.

+++

Web Services, UDDI, XML, WDSL, SOAP these are all going through my head, CICS Service Flow Feature, Channels and Containers, Business Transaction Services, Rational this, beans etc. What a maze of standards and acronoym soup. Plus "code coverage" .. my next assignment :) Find out how much of the code actually gets tested. I'm waiting for my motivation, I hope it's not like Godot.

Inflection Point?

Have you and I reached a turning point in our lives, but for different reasons? You because of your single-parent status and me because ... well, I'm not exactly sure why the steam is out of my pipes.

One of the scenes from the movie "Breach" showed the character Eric O'Neill (played by Ryan Phillipe) rather down in the mouth and seeking advice from his father, who, presumably, was career Navy. The father, played by Bruce Davison, recounted what his father had told him when he, Eric's father, was a young man and frightened about going out to sea for the first time:

"Just get on the boat and do your job. The rest will follow."

I'm wondering if deep within that is what we need to realize. Perhaps we are coming to realize that the dream of our work being of any real significance is vaporizing before our eyes. Perhaps we need to realize that, truly, it's just a job.

That's easier said than done for me. I define myself entirely by my occupation. Sad, but true.

I don't think the same is true of you.

Here's something my lovely bride tells me whenever I'm feeling low about not contributing what I think I should: "Your half-speed is equal to everyone else's best effort." She's a manager ... she has some insight into these things. You are the same way ... you produce more in an "off" day than most do when they're actually trying.

Do enough to stay employed. Focus on your daughter. She will be grown up and married before you know it.

Foundational Cracks

It's coincidental that you should publish a post on realizing ones limits - I am going through such a stage at the moment. I used to have what seemed to be limitless enthusiasm for any challenge I would set myself - but now that all seems to be gone. The only thing I can use to even semi-motivate myself is fear .. but even that is not really working any more for some reason. The best I can do is "fear of being unable to provide" .. but it's a mere sham. I'm just lazy and I don't know what to do it about it!

I think I have got myself into a cycle of being a single parent (almost) and have neglected to balance this new activity with what I "used" to do. I guess it's coupled to the fact that I think what I do for a living is worthless in the grand scheme of things - so how can I get motivated about it? What happened to that desire to do a good job that I used to have? The desire to help people, it all seems to have evaporated as I just look after me and mine (and me and mine exclusively it would seem) the best I can.

Does a poor farmboy like you have any advice for moi?? :)

+++

I will catch the movie you suggest - into The Breach!

Realization of Limitations

There's a blog I read hosted by a conservative university here in the United States. They allow comments, and on occasion I've been known to weigh in one some issue.

The other day one of the primary posters to the blog commented on something said (or written ... I don't recall) by The Pope. I interpreted it as a rather simple reference to prayer, but based on subsequent commentary by others, including faculty at that university, the Pope's reference was more to some deep and arcane theological concept that's been brewing since the days of Augustine.

I was embarrassed to have misinterpreted it so badly. It displayed my lack of intellectual depth.

Compared to some folks, I am not that well-read a man. I do not possess a keen grasp on philosophical concepts. I can't speak to Hobbes or Locke or whomever.

I am but a simple farm boy, after all. :-)

Movie Recommendation: Breach

Title: Breach
Year: 2007
Starring: Chris Cooper, Ryan Phillipe, Laura Linney

Synopsis: A film about the investigation into and ultimate apprehension of Robert Hanssen, an employee of the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) who sold state secrets to the Soviets and later the Russians from 1985 until his arrest in 2001. The film is told from the perspective of Eric O'Neill, a young FBI operative who was assigned as a clerk to Hanssen as part of the investigation.

What's Different: It is an almost unsettlingly quiet film. The suspense is not contrived, but rather a natural result of the gentle unfolding of the story. In addition, the details of the film are wonderfully aligned with the sense of personal tragedy -- dull, overcast skies; dull, drab government office buildings.

Will Kids Like It?: Probably not ... the film is too slow. But if you have a slow, quiet evening by yourself, and you're looking for a quiet, mostly intelligent film that unfolds somewhat like a chess game, then you may enjoy this.

What I Liked About It: First, it was filmed in and around where I used to live, so it brought back memories. The quiet nature of it allowed me to relax into the story line. Loud, aggressive action films unsettle me too much. But most of all I liked the portrayal given by Chris Cooper as Robert Hanssen. He projected the subtle sense of a man deeply ensnared, but fueled by some deep resentment towards ... what? ... insufficient recognition of his qualities and contributions? That was never explicitly stated, but rather the viewer was left to piece together the psychology for themselves.

Believability Factor: It's based on a true story, so to that extent it's believable. The film itself does little that requires suspension of belief. It is mostly very plausible, with little to no continuity or logical breakdowns.

Miscellaneous Commentary: There is always talk in the gossip rags about how Hollywood actresses that are over 30 face increasingly few roles, and over 40 actresses are essentially cast aside. Demi Moore of late has been complaining rather loudly. But Laura Linney in this film shows that there can be roles for older women, provided the role doesn't call for them to be sexy sirens. (An older woman can't plausibly play the role of a 20-something siren. Then again, a 20-something actress can't plausibly play the part of a powerful female executive or detective or whatever ... in the real world such power is not possessed by people so young ... but Hollywood overlooks that.) British films are much better at employing older, less glamorous women in satisfying roles. Hollywood is too beholden to the cult of youth.

Circle of Life

Interesting "World Clock." I was heartened to see that the rate of bicycle production outpaced computer production. There is hope. :-)

* * *
I received a phone call from my sister yesterday. She is closest in proximity to my parents, and she ends up taking care of them more directly than me. I provide financial assistance, but not direct assistance. I am grateful for her presence. I truly am.

Two points:

1. I learned that my father's "good" eye is now developing macular degeneration and he now can't drive. This is a significant development because up to this point I was counting on his good health to provide the general care for my mother. My mother, my sister reports, has degraded to a point where a nursing home is probably indicated. So there's been a bit of an "inflection point" in the health and well being of my parents.
   
2. My family is somewhat dysfunctional. We all endured various emotional trauma during our upbringing. What this latest development is serving to do is flush some of that to the surface. Being called upon to care for a parent is difficult when the child feels the parent failed the child earlier in life. Up to this point I was only really aware of my own issues. But on the call with my sister yesterday, she expressed, in stronger terms than I've ever heard her express, that she has some significant issues with my parents and she's struggling to get past those. My other sister practically refuses to have anything to do with my parents. So there was some seriously bad things that happened back in the early 70's and the full extent of it is a mystery to me. I see my slice, but not the whole pie.

This turn of events has me somewhat unsettled. There are many variables in play right now. I am not sure how things will develop. I find myself wishing for "certain events" so that I no longer need to deal with this. Isn't that awful?

World Clock

Interesting to note the growth areas?

I suggest pressing the "now" button and watching for a few minutes and reflecting.

:)

Some Like It Hot & The Apartment

Twice now in as many weeks people from outside the U.S. have made commitments to hold our technical workshops without first consulting with us

Did you notice that sometime towards the back end of the 80's that "Personnel" departments started to be renamed to "Human Resources" departments? I'm not entirely sure where this change came from, perhaps from Japan along with some misguided search for "super efficient" "top performing" organizations.

It's still alien to me to think of "human resources", it's too easy to think of them along with their oppsoite - "non-huhman resources" (ie. computers). But it's far easier to work a resource to death and to send a resource to far flung countries at the drop of a hat than it is to do with a person isn't it? Somewhere along the way we have lost a little of our humanity since we started work. Cry for the children.

+++

Are you guys following the Madeleine McCann circus? If it transpires that the parents are culpable then what does this mean for all parents who might really face this situation? A possible "Boy Who Cried Wolf" story could give paedophiles a field day. What would it mean if humans really could lie like that? Who knows. The only think I know is that the whole thing is just too sad beyond words.

+++
+++
+++
+++
+++

Movies! I love 'em.

You have seen the following movie that I have not: Ratatouille, plus my red match many of your red, typically the "foreign" movies.

I have seen a bunch more than your good self from this list, but that's only because I have a DVD collection that's not far short of 700 movies now.

I remember telling K only a week or so ago that she had so many classic movies to look forwards to, she of course asked why she couldn't see them now! I mentioned that some were not suitable, but more importantly she would not understand those movies fully yet. For some odd reason I was thinking of "American Graffiti" at the time as an example of a wonderful movie that she has yet to enjoy.

Oh man I can really recommend the following, your colours except two films which are both in my top 10, my life would be less without them :)

North by Northwest (1959)
American Beauty (1999) - you will love this!
Vertigo (1958)
Se7en (1995)
Léon (1994)
The Third Man (1949)
The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948)
Alien (1979)
Double Indemnity (1944)
The Maltese Falcon (1941)
Saving Private Ryan (1998)
Metropolis (1927)
Aliens (1986)
Raging Bull (1980)
Sin City (2005)
Singin' in the Rain (1952)
The Bourne Ultimatum (2007)
Some Like It Hot (1959)
The Apartment (1960)
The Big Sleep (1946)

Looking at the list they all feel like old friends, nice memories.

IMDB Top 100

Key:

black -- seen
red -- have not seen
bold blue -- I can't believe I've never seen this

Listing:
The Godfather (1972)
The Shawshank Redemption (1994)
The Godfather: Part II (1974)
Buono, il brutto, il cattivo, Il (1966)
Pulp Fiction (1994)
Schindler's List (1993)
Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back (1980)
Casablanca (1942)
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975)
The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)
Shichinin no samurai (1954)
Star Wars (1977)
12 Angry Men (1957)
Rear Window (1954)
Goodfellas (1990)
Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)
The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)
Cidade de Deus (2002)
The Usual Suspects (1995)
C'era una volta il West (1968)
Dr. Strangelove (1964)
Psycho (1960)
North by Northwest (1959)
Citizen Kane (1941)
The Silence of the Lambs (1991)
The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)
Memento (2000)
Fight Club (1999)
Sunset Blvd. (1950)
Lawrence of Arabia (1962)
It's a Wonderful Life (1946)
The Matrix (1999)
American Beauty (1999)
Taxi Driver (1976)
Fabuleux destin d'Amélie Poulain, Le (2001)
Vertigo (1958)
Apocalypse Now (1979)
Se7en (1995)
The Departed (2006)
Léon (1994)
American History X (1998)
Paths of Glory (1957)
Chinatown (1974)
To Kill a Mockingbird (1962)
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004)
Laberinto del fauno, El (2006)
M (1931)
The Third Man (1949)
A Clockwork Orange (1971)
The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948)
Alien (1979)
The Pianist (2002)
Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975)
The Shining (1980)
Untergang, Der (2004)
L.A. Confidential (1997)
Sen to Chihiro no kamikakushi (2001)
The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957)
Double Indemnity (1944)
The Maltese Falcon (1941)
Boot, Das (1981)
Requiem for a Dream (2000)
Reservoir Dogs (1992)
Saving Private Ryan (1998)
Metropolis (1927)
Aliens (1986)
Raging Bull (1980)
Leben der Anderen, Das (2006)
Forrest Gump (1994)
Hotel Rwanda (2004)
Sin City (2005)
Singin' in the Rain (1952)
Rashômon (1950)
Rebecca (1940)
Modern Times (1936)
The Bourne Ultimatum (2007)
Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991)
The Great Escape (1963)
2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
Some Like It Hot (1959)
All About Eve (1950)
Ratatouille (2007)
Amadeus (1984)
Sjunde inseglet, Det (1957)
Touch of Evil (1958)
On the Waterfront (1954)
The Prestige (2006)
Jaws (1975)
The Elephant Man (1980)
Vita è bella, La (1997)
The Sting (1973)
Strangers on a Train (1951)
The Manchurian Candidate (1962)
Full Metal Jacket (1987)
Batman Begins (2005)
The Apartment (1960)
Braveheart (1995)
The Big Sleep (1946)
Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (1939)
Nuovo cinema Paradiso (1988)

Comment:
The IMDB movie ratings tend to skew towards recent movies.

Graduated Assisted Living

The concept of "assisted living" has been around in the States for about 20 years; but it's received a lot of attention in about the last 10 years. The leading edge of the "baby boomers" -- those born starting in 1946 through, I think, 1966 -- are starting to retire. Lots have vast quantities of financial reserves, and they're starting to make plans for elderly living. The Marriott Corporation is deep into assisted living facilities, as are other large corporate concerns. And one concept that's developed is the graduated assisted living -- a community where the degree of care you receive is graduated based on your need. From virtually no assistance all the way up to full nursing care, all based on a fee schedule, of course.

They're expensive. I have no idea how people afford them.

* * *
Pictures! I'm hampered by the fact all your pictures are man-made, and I find man-made things far less compelling than natural things. Still, I'll try to convey what goes through my mind and and heart as I review the pictures.

#1 Chichén Itzá, Mexico

Mexico has never been alluring to me. So I do not find this compelling. All I can think as I look at that picture is hot, sweltering humid heat.

#2 Christ the Redeemer, Brazil

I've been to Rio, and I saw this off in the distance, but I didn't go visit it. It's a remarkable piece of construction. But beyond that, it doesn't move me much. I suppose it should since it's Jesus, but I can't get past the Catholicism of it -- the focus on imagery rather than the underlying substance. I hope that doesn't sound too judgmental. It is clearly somewhat judgmental. :-(

#3 The Great Wall, China

Prior to going to China last year I would have found this more alluring. My experience in Beijing was not entirely pleasant -- okay, but not great -- and so now the thought of going back over there dampens my enthusiasm.

But, that aside, there are few man-made things in this world that elicit the same wonder and awe as the Great Wall ... more so than the pyramids, but a wide margin. The vastness of this undertaking is inconceivable to me.

#4 Machu Picchu, Peru

I'm not familiar with this ... but I suspect it's one of those things where the ancient city is at 14,000 feet or something like that. I very much like the remoteness of this picture. And if all issues of safety and secure travel could be set aside, I would love to visit this.

#5 Petra, Jordan

Oh, goodness. Hot, dry, dusty, desolate, hot, hot, hot. No thanks.

Plus, it's in the middle-east. And I want nothing to do with that region of the world. Jordan is relatively moderate. But still ...

#6 The Roman Colosseum, Italy

We drove by that when my lovely bride and I were on a cruise back in -- how long has it been? -- 2000? The concept of living the life of leisure as a rich Roman is appealing. (No surprise there, huh?). The achievement of that building for that time is impressive.

#7 Taj Mahal

You know, I have never, ever had an interest in going to India. I just can't past the notion of oppressive heat, dusty conditions, and overcrowded and obscene poverty.

Have you been to the Taj Mahal? Is it one of those things where the picture makes it look massive but in reality it is somewhat small? (Thomas Jefferson's house at Monticello, Virginia is that way ... the pictures make it look fairly large ... but when you walk inside you get a real sense of being cramped. You'd bump your head into door lintels. Ceilings are at 7' or something like that.

Again ... all man-made things, and my heart just doesn't stir for that. I can be suitably impressed with human engineering achievements. But to my eye, a building or a bridge or whatever can't compare to a gorge or mountain or waterfall.

* * *
Year 6, huh? You, good sir, are the papa of a little girl who is growing up. Brace yourself. :-)

* * *
I just finished an SOA workshop in Detroit. It went well enough, I suppose. I could definitely detect a sudden loss of energy in the attendees about mid-morning second day. Too much information, or something.

Still, several commented that I seem to have a natural affinity for instruction. I do enjoy it ... but only when I know the material and the audience is interested.

* * *
Twice now in as many weeks people from outside the U.S. have made commitments to hold our technical workshops without first consulting with us. They somehow got the impression our workshops are "cookie cutter" operations where they can bring workstation, host and all supporting material into their locations on their schedule without any consultation. So now I'm furiously trying to contain the breakage of our saying "no." I find it astonishing that someone would think they could lay out a 10-week, back-to-back-to-back schedule across different cities in AP and just drop that in our laps and say, "Come do this."

Assisted Living

.. an interesting term which we saw on The Simpons today re: Grandpa and the old persons care home, it's not a term I had heard before. We all need assistance to live now and again I would say.

You know, I have heard that Linux is making a big impression in some of these homes as an internet browsing appliance to enable granpa and granma can see their kidz on YouTube no doubt. It's funny though, Bill Gates envisioned Windows as just that, but it's so trojan bound, patch ridden and poor peforming after a while (the famed Windows "half life") that savvy IT providers are realising that Linux with a read-only file system is pretty bullet and (more importantly) fool proof - not Windows. Interesting how things turn out.

+++

Onto those interesting pics:

#1 Temperate woods .. midly appealing, reminds me of the UK about 20 to 50 miles due South of London, many a happy Sunday walk.

#2 Tundra .. nice colour of sky, a little less appealing than #1 but ok, perhaps a little boring

#3 Steppe - still very nice but a little snoozy again

#4 Industrial - I like the flame, the light in the dark, but this has to be the worst of them (to me) because of what is being depicted

#5 Rain Forest - looks warm and cozy but I can't shake the Mel Gibson movie imagery, hmm the film must have made more of an impact on me than I thought

#6 Plains / Wheat Field - I am singing Sting's "Fields of Gold". I like this photo a lot

#7 Coastal Lighthouse - ok but a little scary/lonely (your 2nd fave but not mine!)

#8 Mountains - breath taking, love it (your biggest draw too) I think the colours and form are very easy on the eye

#9 Desert - Is that your backyard? Looks a little too hot !

#10 Rolling Countryside - Not a lot happening

#11 Cityscape - Yes I like it, lights again, life, human life

#12 Tropical Beach - I would be bored, where is the internet connection?? I was never really a beach person

#13 Arctic - ok, a feeling of newness ensues within me

#14 Farm Country - looks like the back of the office I work in! Too mundane

#15 Waterfall - ok but in this picture it doesn't pass the "so what?" question, whereas in real life it would be awesome

Not a lot missing, you could have had a Grand Canyon I guess, or some deep ocean trench/undersea pics?

+++

In return please answer the same question for the new seven wonders of the world:

#1 Chichén Itzá, Mexico

#2 Christ the Redeemer, Brazil



#3 The Great Wall, China



#4 Machu Picchu, Peru



#5 Petra, Jordan



#6 The Roman Colosseum, Italy



#7 Taj Mahal



+++

My daughter returns to school tomorrow into "year 6" !

Visceral Scenery

Here's a series of photos, all taken from the web, all of different types of sceneries and landscapes. Take a quick scan of these ... then explain which ones evoke the strongest draw to you and which ones the least. Why?

(Try not to allow considerations such as survivability or the time it would take to travel to the locale to factor into your response. This is really a test of what image evokes the strongest visceral response -- positive and negative.)

#1 - Temperate Woods


#2 - Tundra


#3 - Steppe


#4 - Industrial


#5 - Rain Forest


#6 - Plains / Wheat Field


#7 - Coastal Lighthouse


#8 - Mountains


#9 - Desert


#10 - Rolling Countryside


#11 - Cityscape


#12 - Tropical Beach


#13 - Arctic


#14 - Farm Country


#15 - Waterfall



* * *
I am most drawn to #8 (mountains) the strongest, with #7 (coastal lighthouse) a close second.

I find #2 (tundra) and #13 (arctic) compelling.

I am least drawn by #12 (tropical beach). Yes, that's right. I find such things utterly uncompelling. I am more drawn to the "industrial" picture than the tropical beach scene.

I like cool, and I like remote.

Note: in looking back, I see that my selection of pictures betrays my bias. I have only two "hot and sunny" pictures -- the beach scene and the desert scene.

Note 2: I tried to represent different major geographical categories. What am I missing here?

* * *
The next two don't count. They're here just because they're cute!





* * *
Yes, the universe is strikingly vast and strikingly remote. I was thinking about that the other night as I went for a walk after dark. It was clear and the stars were out.

The Enormity of it all

The Voyager 1 probe is about a billion miles away from the Earth, having been travelling for 30 years now. This equates to the distance light travels in slightly under two hours. Yet, the nearest star is 4 light years away. To explore this Universe we are going to have to accelerate. The Voyager probe is travelling very quickly, but it's not accelerating. I showed in a previous post that if we were to travel away from the Earth on a ship accelerating at a mere 1g, so Earth's gravity (it would be nice and comfortable for us) then we'd get to the edge of the observable universe, 14 billion light years away, in just 25 years of ship time. This would be 14 billion years or so of Earth time of course.

Oh it's all relative :)

My kingdom for a void

I am delayed in life somewhat as I am building two new quad core computers, one water cooled and one air cooled. I tell you I am getting too old for this. Soon, I will retire to a lake and fish.

Ah but I can see your frustration over the left brigade taking your liberties away, making up facts and producing false conclusions to support their positions. Sounds like human beings to me -- perhaps that is the one thing I have learned, we all do this -- in all walks of life. Perhaps it is a case of trying to bend what comes into our eyes into the a priori shape that we have for it in our heads? This is what humans do.
+++

I had to laugh at your BBC mole poster to the wikipedia .. I have a feeling I know who it might be! George Bush is a wanker no doubt, I think that's something most humans have done. But he is a rich wanker, perhaps the most famous man in the world, and in a position to help or make worse the position that humanity finds itself in.

+++
Hmm this void sounds very interesting doesn't it? What could be the reason behind it's existence? In Star Trek a ship was crossing a void at one point wasn't it? This baby is a bit bigger. Reminds that we are pretty clueless of how the observable part of The Universe (also known as "the universe" to some folk) got to be in the state it appears to be in now.

Huge Hole Found in the Universe

Here's the story.

The hole is nearly a billion light-years across. It is not a black hole, which is a small sphere of densely packed matter. Rather, this one is mostly devoid of stars, gas and other normal matter, and it's also strangely empty of the mysterious "dark matter" that permeates the cosmos. Other space voids have been found before, but nothing on this scale.

The mysteries never cease, do they? :-)

The BBC and Wikipedia

Apparently some edits to Wikipedia articles have been traced back to IP addresses owned by the BBC. Here's an analysis of some of the changes. It's not surprising. Apparently the same thing has been done from the New York Times.

In this age of satellite TV, satellite radio, and internet streaming ... what is the view of the BBC of late?

Norwegian Moose

No, not "Norwegian Wood". This:

The poor old Scandinavian moose is now being blamed for climate change, with researchers in Norway claiming that a grown moose can produce 2,100 kilos of methane a year -- equivalent to the CO2 output resulting from a 13,000 kilometer car journey.

On the one hand I have to laugh at this. But on the other, there's a more ominous problem. As the article states, domesticated cows produce the same methane gas, and in far greater quantities. It's only a matter of time before the other pet lifestyle of the left will be forced down our throats -- vegetarianism (or worse, veganism).

The delicious irony in this is that one of the left's favorite poster children is Ben and Jerry, of the ice cream fame. Guess how many cows labor in support of the milk that's used for their supposedly "eco-friendly" product?

I can give up ice cream fairly easily. But I do enjoy a good burger on occasion.

Holidays are over for now!

We had a nice time - got to see a number of places in the UK

Went to a real chocolate factory
Made some pottery
Stayed in two hotels
Went to a butterfly park
Went to an open animal farm
Visit two theme parks
Visited an "Eco" park
Went to a Roald Dahl Museum
Went to a telephone and transport musuem
Saw five movies at the cinema!

It was really nice not to be on the internet at times pal :) I am pretty tired from all the travelling so now need a holiday!

One thing, my daughter and I are (I think) now officially "natural" in our behaviours towards eachother. We're not forced into those "unnatural" modes of behaviour you get into when the time you have to see eachother is short, and you are forced to part. It's great :)

+++

Is Global Warming a reality? Forget the politics and the unscrupulous so-called "scientists" vying for research money, but do you think that Global Warming is happening due to human output of Co2?

+++

I was speaking to one of my chess genius buddies and he says the words "Why?" and "Because" should be struck off the vocabularly list as they don't mean anything.

I think he wants to replace "Why?" with "For what reason...?" and "Because" with "As a result of .." This seems just like semantics to me and I really am not sure where he is coming from. Is there something in his suggestions here that I have missed that you can see?

+++

How's things?

Warmest Year for United States

Interesting article. A quick background:

• Using NASA surface temperature numbers, a team at NASA concluded that 1998 was the warmest year on record for the lower 48 United States.
• However, Steve McIntyre of climateaudit.org noticed some rather odd "discontinuities" in the graphic data, all around January 2000.
  
• The team at NASA apparently refused to release their algorithm to McIntyre, so he reverse engineered the algorithm and discovered the problem. He notified the team at NASA of the error.
  

Now this:

NASA has now silently released corrected figures, and the changes are truly astounding. The warmest year on record is now 1934. 1998 (long trumpeted by the media as record-breaking) moves to second place. 1921 takes third. In fact, 5 of the 10 warmest years on record now all occur before World War II.

I find the phrase "silently released" interesting. This is very common. Findings that support the proper "narrative" are loudly trumpeted; findings or corrections that run counter are quietly handled. A true scientist would be disinterested in outcome. I suspect these folks at NASA were fairly invested in the "global warming" narrative and this set of corrections are rather embarrassing.

Letting Go

Now, if on the other hand we are fashioned by God, then I have no idea why we are imbued with this competitive desire to win, what good can it do us?

Perhaps this is a vestige of our broken nature? Perhaps this aspect of our being is not what God wants for us, but nevertheless something he has permitted us to take on as so important a part of our being.

There really is a strong thread that runs through the Bible about letting go of such stuff. I have heard and read that the passage in Matthew 11:29 -- "Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls." -- is alluding to precisely that: letting go. One commentator suggested that if one had to come up with a single word to describe Jesus as portrayed in the Bible, that one world might be "relaxed." Jesus had the "letting go" part down perfectly. He rested in perfect assurance of God's role in his life.

There are, of course, enormous challenges to really believing that and really living that.

* * *
I went for my first night-time ride on the motorcycle last night. Not long ... 10 miles at most. But it was a new experience, and not a very comfortable one. The lack of visibility and awareness of my surroundings was disconcerting. I don't plan on doing that often, but it is good to know that I can do it if I need to.

* * *
I hope you're doing well on your holiday with K. I hope to hear your report upon your return!

House Elves

Ahhh it's a gloriously sunny Sunday morning here, the skies are sharp and blue and with some regret I've just finished the latest and last installment of the Harry Potter series by J K Rowling. I've been reading those books for the last ten years so will kind of miss them as they are now familiar, and I assert that having a preference for the familiar is a fundamental part of the human condition. Still, there are two more films to look forwards to :)

House Elves were "slaves" to wizards throughout the Potter series, working for little or no pay but glad to do so usually, for love.

+++

You wrote recently:

There's a powerful driver within our souls to prove ourselves right ... even when it doesn't really matter if we do. Pride? Stubbornness? Fear?

I agree this seems to be a fundamental urge, I see it in my daughter. It must be connected to fear I believe. I don't know if I told you before, but in the last year some time a smart Mensa fellow told me about two people in a heated debate, or just having a chat:

• The smart fellow thinks "I wonder what this person thinks about my arguments?"
• The really smart fellow thinks "I wonder what this person thinks I think about his arguments or what I think about my arguments?"

I think it is all connected to the desire to win, that imposter again. But what else could you expect from an organism that has developed through natural selection, survial of the fittest, winning the race?

Now, if on the other hand we are fashioned by God, then I have no idea why we are imbued with this competitive desire to win, what good can it do us? Think of how many wars have been caused by it. Heck, even the original sin was caused by the desire to win something, knowledge in that case.

If you don't fight (like Ghandi) do you win? Will passive resistance always eventually prove itself to be unstoppable? If we are verbally attacked, we defend ourselves don't we? Why do we bother? Why don't we just say "Ok, bye"? It's a shame that we have to waste precious moments of our lives dealing with those that would attack us, so that they themselves can assuage some sort of desire within themselves, or mitigate their own pain, isn't it?

+++

Two weeks vacation time for us now. I am not sure where we will get to, I will probably take the girls to a Pottery Musuem and visit a bunch of theme parks in the UK. We were going to pop over to Eurodisney Paris but oops K's passport has expired (10 years) so we'll make that trip during half term (semester).

Wherever we get to, the hotel must have a swimming pool, jacuzzi and steam room/sauna, this they demand of me!

Settling Differences

It occurs to me that there's really a very delicate balance implied in my last post. My rail against "toleration at all costs" implies some way to recognizing fundamental differences and settling them in some way. In a perfect world there would be a vital exchange of ideas where the better argument wins the day. But we have anything but a perfect world.

The idea of "self correcting societies" also implies a general recognition about certain foundational principles of society. Do we still have that?

Tolerance

I think the "tolerance above all else" mantra is a damaging thing.

Nice last post by the way, one which I read together with K, I think it's important that she's exposed to such ideas. Especially the idea that societies can be self correcting, but sometimes you have to stand up and be counted. Like in the movie "Network" ..

I'M AS MAD AS HELL AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE !

:)

Discerning Differences

I too think racism is a learned behavior. But then I'd define racism not as noticing differences, but rather acting upon differences noticed. The human is wired to notice differences; that is part of our ability to survive. But we learn how to react to those differences. Your daughter no doubt notices the differences between races, but she has learned to not allow those differences to affect her treatment of others.

As I grow older, I find that what I react to most is the behavior of others. And yes, I do that by comparing the behavior I observe against a standard of proper behavior I hold in my mind. What I consider "proper behavior" involves, essentially, the "treat others" doctrine.

Stereotyping comes into this when, across time, I see improper behavior, time and again, displayed by persons possessing certain external characteristics. I believe this is unavoidable; I believe this is how we are programmed as human beings. We note differences and we start to build a library of impressions based on what we experience.

Many will say, "Don't judge a book by its cover." But nobody really operates this way in the real world. They make judgments and discernments all the time. Doing so is an essential part of life. The issue is more how quickly we apply a judgment, what our initial reactions to that application of judgment are, and how enduring that application is given evidence to the contrary.

Several years ago now I was in a company sponsored "diversity" class. It was an attempt at indoctrination, pure and simple. One exercise had them displaying slides on the screen with photos of people, and we were to assess our initial reaction to the people in the photo. One photo showed a group of street thugs, dressed in gang leathers, all with facial expressions conveying anger and threat.

Of course the reaction to that is initially one of caution and fear. Of course! But we were then told the people in the photo were actors, and in real life they were doctors and teachers. The lesson was: "Shame on you for judging too quickly!"

I went up to the instructor during a break. I asked, "If you encountered a man on the street wearing a Ku Klux Klan white robe and hood, what would be your initial reaction?" Her answer: "I would think him simply someone in a white robe." Her answer was, of course, a complete lie. She would form, as any normal person would, an initial impression based on an historical understanding of the KKK and the garments they wear.

That is an extreme example, of course ... few people walk the streets in KKK robes. But what about the "gangsta" image? That look is designed to express a potential threat. That is the whole purpose of that look. And if time and again we are treated poorly by those who dress that way, is it wrong to form a general impression of people who dress that way? I would argue no.

Years ago, Martin Luther King, in his famous "I Have A Dream" speech said, "I dream that one day my children will be judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." The second part of that is conveniently ignored by liberals today. The idea that "character" matters is generally opposed. That's because if it is allowed to matter, then we must deal with the issue of what constitutes "good" character and what constitutes "bad" character. They don't want to allow such a distinction.

Note: well, they do, actually. They very much want to allow the distinction. The real issue is they want their definition to be applied. That is irony of today's rallying cry about "diversity" and "tolerance." They very definitely do not want diversity of thought or opinion; they demand fairly strict adherence to a set of beliefs. And by tolerance they mean tolerance for people that possess those beliefs, but rather severe intolerance for those who do not. The classic irony is this: if someone was truly tolerant, they'd tolerate even the intolerant.

But there is such a thing, and there used to be a societal mechanism to reward good and shame or ostracize bad. I think the "tolerance above all else" mantra is a damaging thing. I very much think certain intolerances in society is a healthy corrective mechanism.

Racism

A question on racism .. is it learned behaviour or is it something inate in humans?

For many years my assessment was that it was the latter - a result of the quality in humans that evolution has given us .. ie. a preference for the familiar.

But watching my daughter grow up I see *none* of that when it comes to children of other "races" .. although why that term is used is beyond me as we are all part of the human race homo sapiens.

Societal pressure and whether it's coming back in some kind of ant-politically-correct way against the war on terrorists is interesting, I think your observation is spot on. I think it is returning.

+++

It's funny, we are like Locke and Demosthenes from Enders Game by Orson Scott Card ...

Back on Earth, Ender's brother and sister have begun trying their hand at popular politics, assuming the virtual identities of Locke and Demosthenes. The latter, written by Valentine, is a hot-headed rabble-rouser who stirs up discontent and whose main purpose is to provide a counterpoint to Peter's Locke identity, whom he is using to gain real power and influence over the world stage.

:)

Stereotype Alert

I'm in the Dallas airport, awaiting my flight to New York. SOA time in the Big Apple, baby!

On the CNN TVs that are throughout the airport -- side note: brilliant marketing move on CNN's part to cut the deal to be the supplier of a news feed to airports -- they had a story about an arrest of someone associated with the Belfast airport terrorist attack.

Here's the stereotype -- all terrorists seem to look alike. They're all young men, somewhere between 20 and 35-ish or so, with a beard and an angry look on their face.

Now I recognize that not all people who fit that description are terrorists. But still I wonder ... is there a growing perception among the general population of this common "look" of terrorists? And is there perhaps a chance of a movement towards general distrust and discrimination against people who fit this profile?

Is that necessarily a bad thing? Societal pressure used to be a governing force. We've scrubbed it from our discourse for politically correct purposes. I'm wondering if people are coming back around to the realization that all the multi-cultural politically correct stuff is not in our best interest?

Glaven

Wow 0 to 100 in 0.8 seconds??

So does that qualify it as the highest acceleration from a standing start of any vehicle that can carry a person? I am trying to think what else could accelerate from 0 at 5 gee's.

K really laughed at the "rabbid" (she still pronounces like that) with the pancakes on it's head!

I'm tired, lack of sleep.

For No Particular Reason

A picture of a bunny with a pancake on its head!



You can thank me later for this.

Top Fuel Dragsters

I don't know if this is a sport over there in the UK. No reason it can't be ... I just don't know if it's the same as it is here.

Here's a picture of a top fuel dragster:



And here's some "fun facts" that came off the NHRA (National Hot Rod Association) website:

• The nitromethane-powered engines of NHRA Top Fuel dragsters and Funny Cars produce approximately 7,000 horsepower, about 37 times that of the average street car.
• One cylinder of the eight cylinders of a Top Fuel dragster or a Funny Car produces 750 horsepower, equaling the entire horsepower output of a NASCAR engine.
• An NHRA Top Fuel dragster accelerates from 0 to 100 mph in less than .8-second, almost 11 seconds quicker than it takes a production Porsche 911 Turbo to reach the same speed.
• An NHRA Top Fuel dragster leaves the starting line with a force nearly five times that of gravity, the same force of the space shuttle when it leaves the launching pad at Cape Canaveral.
• NHRA Top Fuel dragsters and Funny Cars consume between four and five gallons of fuel during a quarter-mile run, which is equivalent to between 16 and 20 gallons per mile.
• From a standing start, NHRA Top Fuel dragsters accelerate faster than a jumbo jet, a fighter jet, and a Formula One race car.
• A fuel pump for an NHRA Top Fuel dragster and Funny Car delivers 65 gallons of fuel per minute, equivalent to eight bathroom showers running at the same time.

Those are some astonishing figures. 7,000 horsepower? 0 to 100 in 8/10th of a second?

Cardboard Cutout Love

Although I was expecting a verse or two of prose detailing how the human existence is devoid of all meaning without love. :)

How's this:

All I need is love,
All I need is love,
All I need is love, love
All I need is love.

How do you spell "woo ooo ooo, oo-oo-ooo?" :-)

Would human existence be devoid of meaning without love? Or would its meaning be tragically different? I honestly don't know.

I struggle with commenting on this because I'm not so sure I fully understand what it really means to "love" someone. I know lots of words that relate to the subject, but I'm not sure I fully understand the concept at its core. I'm not trying to sound like someone saying, "Woe is me ... poor me." Honestly, I'm not. I'm honestly surveying my heart and what I'm finding is that I have lots of intellectual concepts that are like cardboard cutouts -- they appear like something from a distance, but up close they don't have any substance.

I'm doing a lot of self-appraisal of late. :-)

* * *
I've been thinking a lot about faith and life and such. I'm coming to realize that a good deal of it is willful mind control. That's a loaded term, and many flee from it. But there's great truth in the notion that what one chooses to dwell on in the mind matters.

Example: if I were to spend considerable time dwelling on the stories of treating others most definitely in ways I would not myself want to be treated ... if I saturated my mind with such things ... then the idea of "Treat others" becomes very difficult for me. I've allowed my mind to be "marinated" in a bad concept. My mind then takes on the flavor of that bad marinade. I can't live my life dwelling on the concept of hurting and cheating others, then with the blink of an eye start doing it with my own self.

The Bible is actually full of this concept. If I weren't so darn lazy I'd pull up the various references. But the Old Testament has quite a few references to "keeping the law before me daily." And the New Testament speaks of "putting out of your mind" various bad thoughts and notions, and "taking on the mind that was in Jesus."

I'm wondering ... the concept of "mind control" has been, I think, improperly maligned. There is such a thing as good mind control, correct?

* * *
I'm in Sacramento, CA this week. I am offering the SOA workshop sans labs to a group of State of CA people, at the request of the lead architect for our employer who covers the state. He seems to feel the message I deliver is of some value. :-)

* * *
I will definitely see "The Simpson's Movie." It'll be a hoot! No attempt at realistic animation there!

* * *
Yes, I do recall Frank Bruno. A name like "Bruno" is a natural for a boxer, wouldn't you say?

Grand Order of Water Rats

Perhaps because that's what they've been taught to aspire to? Or maybe because, as we've discussed, people order their lives around the avoidance of those things they fear ... and fear of being alone and lonely is a powerful motivator?

Maybe, probably in fact. Although I was expecting a verse or two of prose detailing how the human existence is devoid of all meaning without love. :)

+++

The Ratatouille is on our list to see this month (I don't think it's out in the UK yet) - along with the new Harry Potter film and the movie event of K's lifetime .. The Simpsons! Thanks for your words on the Rat movie, I had it down as "just another CGI run of the mills kids animation" .. but now I shall look more closely.

+++

Ever hear of a UK boxer named Frank Bruno? He had a title shot once against Tyson. He was in my local supermarket yesterday (Tesco store), I wonder if he's living up here now, or in some kids panto in the area? I met him when I was a kid he came to our school. He is still an enormous fella.

Darwinian Ratatouille

Why is getting a life partner such an attractive prospect for most people? Explain please.

Perhaps because that's what they've been taught to aspire to? Or maybe because, as we've discussed, people order their lives around the avoidance of those things they fear ... and fear of being alone and lonely is a powerful motivator?

* * *
We went to see the Disney/Pixar movie "Ratatouille" yesterday. It is a phenomenal piece of work, both technically and artistically. Technically the animation is stunning. In earlier computer animations I was left with a sense of watching animation throughout the movie. With this film that sense of "watching animation" drifted away very quickly.

One of the things I have noticed is that animated film makers are very intentionally not making certain elements of the characters "lifelike." They're maintaining a certain cartoonishness to the facial features, particularly eyes. The eyes are what convey most emotional expression, and with eyes that are intentionally "not real," they're capable of amplifying the expression.

The movie is not, however, a movie purely aimed at little kids. In fact, many of the kids in the theater were bored at about 1 hour. The action slows and the story develops during the "middle bridge."

The writing and story of Ratatouille is superb. It's a very clever story. Some elements could be jettisoned, but overall it's witty and heartwarming. Oh, and the boy does get the girl! :-)

* * *
Apparently "Live Earth" did not quite meet expectations in terms of attendance. And I've seen several stories about how the performers in these shows flew private jets, a heavy contributor to greenhouse gases.

Unlike previous "Live ____" shows, this one labored under the burden of advocating something that asked participants to actually consider sacrificing their own personal convenience. It's one thing to pay money to some abstract starving child in Africa ... quite another to modify my own lifestyle as part of a cause.

Darwinian Puzzle

Interesting article. Quite saddening (but true) that the whole world seems to be dominated by the desire to reproduce, to dance to the tune that DNA is playing.

Some thoughts as I read ...

It is no coincidence that blond hair evolved in Scandinavia and northern Europe, probably as an alternative means for women to advertise their youth, as their bodies were concealed under heavy clothing.

"No coincidence" vs. "Probably". Hmmm. Which is it? I thought at this point that the authors had fallen into the age old trap of using "It's a well known fact .." (ie. the sure fire statement "It is no coincidence" and then realising they had done that followed up with a back-peddle (ie. "probably"). Either way it left me thinking "maybe these guys are just bullshitting me to make a buck".

True, less desirable men can marry only less desirable women, but that's much better than not marrying anyone at all.

Why is getting a life partner such an attractive prospect for most people? Explain please.

Americans who are rated "very attractive" have a 56 percent chance of having a daughter for their first child, compared with 48 percent for everyone else.

Yes I agree, and I think the "daughter effect" is largely due to attractive, if poor, fathers - nothing to do with women (or Americans :)

Women often say no to men. Men have had to conquer foreign lands, win battles and wars, compose symphonies, author books, write sonnets, paint cathedral ceilings, make scientific discoveries, play in rock bands, and write new computer software in order to impress women so that they will agree to have sex with them. Men have built (and destroyed) civilization in order to impress women, so that they might say yes

This is so true. I learned this in my mid twenties and have done my best to refuse to play this little game ever since. I recall saying to you some years ago (7 or 8) .. "who wants to dance to the tune of DNA?" I think this was outside a Yaght Club in the Poughkeepsie are if memory serves me correctly. We don't have to play, as thinking beings we always have a choice.

10 Politically Incorrect Truths About Human Nature

Interesting.

Influences

And it got me wondering -- what is one supposed to do about things like that?

Yes I think you would need to put some pressure on it. Perhaps a Steri-Strip(tm) across the almost invisible wound, some cotton wool on top of that and then a plaster on top of that. Not being a haemophiliac this would give your platelets a chance to aggregate around the exposure and form a clot, overnight is the best time for this to happen as you won't be using your mouth so much! I had one of those on my chin once that wept for literally days, all healed up eventually and the scar went away after 5 years or so.

K is terrified of her own blood. I have tried to explain to her what it's function is and how she could lose a lot of it and still be ok, like in a blood donation scenario, but still she has a very low level instinctual fear of seeing even a drop of her own blood. Ah, the mind of a child. I explained that when we are young we have many many fears, and that these fears are like the bars of a cage around us. As we grow older, we break down the bars of the cage one by one until - if we are lucky - we are totally free of fear - but it's ok to have these bars they are natural. I also mentioned even when one is eventually free of fears for oneself, one then takes on fears that loved ones may come to harm, so we never get to be really free of fear.

+++

Some Wikipedia info:

• Most of Let It Be was recorded in January 1969, before the recording and release of the album Abbey Road.
• Let It Be is the twelfth and final album by The Beatles, released on May 8, 1970
• Let It Bleed is an album by The Rolling Stones, released in 1969
• ... recording for Let It Bleed began in earnest in February 1969
• The Stone's Let It Bleed was released months before Let it Be, but it should be noted that most of the song (sic) from Let it Be had been recorded earlier than most of the songs in Let It Bleed, and was a known project.

And from Keith Richards in 1971, who said (to my reading) something like "it had nothing to do with The Beatles - oh hang on maybe it did" ... in the same breath :)

(It didn't have) a thing (to do with the Beatles' Let It Be). Just a coincidence because you're working along the same lines at the same time at the same age as a lot of other cats. All trying to do the same thing basically, turn themselves and other people on. Let It Bleed was just one line in that song Mick wrote. It became the title... we just kicked a line out... We dug that song so... maybe there was some influence because Let It Be had been kicked around for years for their movie, for that album. Let it be something. Let it out. Let it loose.

Let it Bleed

Today I nicked myself shaving. No big deal, right? Normally it's not. But this morning the cut was right on the edge of the lip, and I must have severed a fairly significant blood vessel right near the surface. It bled fiercely. I thought I had it stopped after about 1 hour of pressure and perhaps a tablespoon or more of shed blood. But then it opened back up and it took 1.5 hours more to once again get it to stop. Now I am sitting nearly motionless, determined to not disturb the wound so that hopefully it will clot properly and start to heal.

The cut was about 1/10th of a millimeter. I'm very serious ... it was that small.

And it got me wondering -- what is one supposed to do about things like that? The normal procedure would be pressure and elevation, which I tried, but to no avail. In both instances where it stopped -- the first, which gave way, and now, which I'm crossing my fingers on -- it stopped for no apparent reason. Going to a hospital would earn me the laughs and guffaws of those there. "It's tiny! Why are you wasting our time?"

Suturing is out of the question ... the wound is too small for that. Cauterization would probably be the course of action if pressure and elevation failed to stem the bleeding.

I wonder if anyone makes a "home cauterization kit?" Probably not. They make "Styptic pencils," which attempt to constrict the blood vessels to assist in coagulation. I tried one of those, but to no avail. I read on Wikipedia that there is heat cauterization, electric (which probably involves localized heat), and chemical (using silver nitrate).

Test Not Worth Conducting

It would be an interesting experiment, but this is what would happen ... if the result was statistically in favour of a prayer-granting God then non-believers would claim that more data points are necessary. If the result was God-neutral then believers would claim that God knew about the test and didn't want to demean Himself by getting involved.

Your concluding point is spot on: there would be no point :)

There are lots of troubling aspect of such a test:

• We wouldn't be able to really discern the true faith of those in the "believer" control group. Can we know that someone who prays with a healthy dose of unbelief underlying their prayers is as effective as those who are true saints?
• It would be difficult to know if what people say they're praying for is what's really going on in their hearts.

Plus, I'm thinking God would look down upon such a test and think, "You poor creatures. You just don't get it, do you? I don't want you to try to prove something like prayer. I'd rather you just pray. Come to me in fellowship ... don't turn it into a science project."

And, as you say, regardless of the results, nobody is going to be happy. :-)

Scientific evidence for God

I agree, the article is ridiculous, you quite rightly point out that the author is suggesting that God is bound and limited by the "laws" that man has so far discovered about our Universe - forgetting that by defintion God is above all of that.

There is one interesting point though, but I don't fully understand the statistics behind it, that is - inferring the existance of God by having two groups .. one group that prayed for things, and one that didn't. Now, clearly the maker would not grant 100% of the prayers, but would He grant a statistically significant portion compared to those that did not pray?

It would be an interesting experiment, but this is what would happen ... if the result was statistically in favour of a prayer-granting God then non-believers would claim that more data points are necessary. If the result was God-neutral then believers would claim that God knew about the test and didn't want to demean Himself by getting involved. In addition, both sides would claim the results were "fixed". So there would be no point :)

More on "The Fuzz"

The Fuzz, stretched out on the top of the La-Z-Boy recliner in my home office:



The new perch for The Fuzz in the corner of my home office, where the two windows are:



In the past I generally had the shades down. But now that I've lifted the shades so the cat can look out, he's drawn to the spot.

Prayers and Neurology

This article seems to me a bit silly. Key elements:

The brain, an electrochemical organ, consists of matter and energy, but the mental states that are the epiphenomena of its physiological processes are neither material substances nor forms of energy. Sherrington (1951) expressed this “scientific position” in saying, “Thoughts, feelings, and so on are not amenable to the energy (matter) concept. They lie outside it.” If thoughts—including silent prayers—are not a form of energy, then there is no known natural means by which they could be transmitted beyond ourselves or read within us.

Right there it seems to me the author(s) are drawing a constraining box. They seem to be implying that God is limited to "natural means." This, it seems, gets back to the fundamental question of "natural" versus "supernatural." If God is simply part of the natural, then perhaps this statement makes some sense. But if God is beyond natural -- that is, supernatural -- then it would seem within the realm of possible. I'm deliberately avoiding the issue of whether God exists or is supernatural or merely natural. I'm saying: "Suppose God exists and suppose further God is outside the natural. Therefore, mechanisms outside the natural are then possible."

Though thoughts and prayers are neither transmissible nor readable by any natural means, could they be known to a supernatural being? Evidence for or against this can be obtained by determining whether prayers are followed by what was solicited by them.

This is the "scientific" approach. "Let's test if prayers work. We'll study requests asked and see if they are granted. This measurement will tell if the prayers are transmissible outside the brain." But this notion is built on a misunderstanding, it seems to me: that a prayer request offered necessarily must be granted. Theologically there's much to support the refutation of that. But if we stay within the realm of what we know as humans we can draw a parallel: if you as a parent do not grant a request expressed by your child, does that mean the request was not heard or understood by you? Of course not. You as a parent have a better understanding of what is good for your child than do they. You may deny or ignore the request because you know it to be either foolish or harmful.

Even if this immeasurable activity could be captured, seemingly insurmountable difficulties would prevent its translation into thoughts. To begin with, the translation would need to be simultaneous with the flow of thoughts as well as in the language of the thinker, for a full thought is its verbal expression. In view of what is known of brain development and organization (Harth 1993), the neural patterns underlying any thought, even a formulary prayer, would be unique for every individual. Thus, generic translations from neural patterns to verbal thoughts in any language would be impossible. A supernatural being would need to instantly surmount these difficulties—for multitudes of concurrent supplicants—in order to grasp the informational content of a mental prayer. Moreover, such a being would, logically, need to be with each supplicant while he or she is rotating with Earth at 1,038 miles per hour (if at the equator), orbiting around the Sun at 18.5 miles per second, rotating around the center of the Milky Way at about 150 miles per second, and moving through space with our galaxy at some thousands of miles per second.

To my eye there's a degree of anthropomorphism taking place here. The author(s) are aware of their own limitations to perform the translation they seem to think is necessary, and then project that on God.

Whether they can be known to a supernatural being hinges on the effects of the prayers’ solicitations as judged by proper scientific studies. To date, such studies of intercessory prayer have not shown it to improve health-care outcomes. In contrast to thoughts themselves, the brain activity from which thoughts arise does consist of energy—electrochemical energy within neural circuitry. Reading this teeming energy in millions of circuit neurons and translating it into the thought or prayer arising from it seems theoretically impossible for even a supernatural being.

It strikes me two errors are being committed here:

1. The first highlighted section confuses the issue of God "knowing" (or hearing, or understanding) a prayer with God's granting said request. The underlying assumption is that if asked, therefore it must be granted. Further, that only a "scientific study" of this will validate it. I understand the urge to scientifically validate such things ... but I think this statement betrays a preexisting bias on the part of the author(s).
2. The second highlighted phrase is an opinion, not a scientifically derived conclusion. The phasing "it seems" softens it a bit. But still, this "conclusion" is drawn from a constrained view of what a "supernatural being" is capable of.
   

My guess is there's an unspoken assumption underlying all this: that if a "supernatural being" does exist, that supernatural being was not responsible for the creation of all that is. That all that is has always been, and that any supernatural being is merely something that existed along side the natural. The moment one grants the supernatural being the opportunity to exist before all else, and be the agent of creation for all that we deem natural, then it strikes me as inconsistent to then constrain that supernatural being by saying it can't read the thoughts of its created beings.

I'm really not trying to get into a theological debate about the existence or specific capabilities of God. I'm trying to apply some consistent thinking to this question. I'm not convinced the author(s) have. I believe they have fallen prey to a certain "scientific arrogance," if I may use that term.

* * *
Good observation regarding the selective removal of the "involve me" component of memory. I have no idea how that would be done. Or whether the reported findings are as precise as implied. It could be the initial findings are a bit more rough.

* * *
No, the puppy is not mine. That was on some other website. I just thought it cute. My lovely bride has softened somewhat on the cat. We are not getting rid of him. I have had to take on a more active role in the upkeep of the cat. To that end, I have created a spot in the corner of my home office where the cat can sit on the filing cabinet and look out the two corner windows and survey the world. We also bought a battery operated cat toy that he seems to enjoy batting at. This is all part of a theory that one problem the cat has is simple boredom.

Involvement

Hmm, the article at one point says:

"As the memory is getting restored, we gave patients a drug that turns down the emotional part of the memory. It left the conscious part of the memory intact, so they could still remember all the details but without being overwhelmed by the memory."

I don't see how that is possible, deleting the whole memory might be, but what is an "emotional part" of a memory and how could that be deleted and not the memory? More to this than meets the eye I think. I am reminded of the Chinese saying:

Tell Me -- I Forget
Show Me -- I Remember
Involve Me -- I understand

It looks like the researchers can remove the "Involve Me" component selectively?

+++

Is that little puppy your new dog by the way?

Selective Memory Erasure?

See this article in the Telegraph.

I ask you ... shades of Clockwork Orange?

Shrek The Tired

That's a cute canine you showed there, K said "awwwww" when I showed it to her, it was some kind of instinctual response. Apparently this sense of "awwwww" is a positive which favours us not killing our own young, thus has been allowed to flourish through natural selection.

+++

Tonight we saw the movie "Shrek The Third" .. although very enjoyable I think I've had enough of Shrek. Although K is looking forwards to Shrek 4 already!