$

Looks like Cameron is just trying to make a few bucks off the back of The Da Vinco Code controversy. Weren't the bones from the Yeshua box stolen so they couldn't be tested? This is just like a Dan Brown novel the public will love it.

Christianity won't allow itself to be disproved, there is too much money in it. I believe that Jesus is there right now, watching over us, and some people will always believe that, even if someone invented a time machine to show that the events of The Bible didn't happen like it says.

Yeah point #2 he would have a serious fatwah on his head, like a Rushdie.

Seek competitive advantage, seek the dollar bill. Hangover from the natural selection process I am afraid.

Jesus, RIP

Director James Cameron (of "Titanic" fame) is now making a documentary that he says will investigate whether Jesus was in fact resurrected. This is based on the "evidence" of some burial boxes supposedly etched with the name and family affiliation of Jesus.

Two points:

1. I have a shoe box with "Adolf Hitler" written on the side. The shoe box can be definitively dated to April of 1945. But that doesn't prove anything. And it certainly doesn't prove the bones inside the shoe box are Hitler's.
2. What do you suppose would happen to Mr. Cameron if he came forward to make a documentary about how the Prophet Muhammad wasn't really a prophet at all? Would he enjoy the limelight he is now getting? Or would he be hiding away, fearing for his life?

It's silly ... and it's an annual thing. Each year, as we approach Christmas and as we approach Easter, there's always some story -- Time and Newsweek magazines can be counted on to run these -- that purports to cast doubt upon Jesus and the foundations of the Christian faith. It's the same charges, time and again.

Born to Be Wild

The reference is to the classic Steppenwolf song that has become associated with the open road motorcycle counter-culture. The song played a role in the movie "Easy Rider" with Peter Fonda and Dennis Hopper. I've never seen the movie.

Note: there is probably no bike more "un-Easy Rider" than a Goldwing. It represents the very opposite of the chopper, counter-culture stereotype. From what I understand, Honda looked at the demographics of the bike's following and decided, some five or so years ago now, to revamp the bike a bit. Hence the construction around a sport bike frame. Honda has quite a history of sport bike and racing bike innovation.

Yes, the Goldwing has a reverse gear. But it's really driven off the starter motor and not the engine itself. It's perfectly adequate for moving the bike a few feet. I've only used it once or twice, and it was really just to try it out. But when the bike is on a slight incline, it'll come in handy. The bike weighs 850 pounds.

It also features an 80-watt four speaker audio system. It has an AUX input jack, which I've used with my MP3 player to great effect. Even at 90mph and all the wind noise -- and wearing super quiet ear plugs, which I do -- I can hear it. Half the country-side can probably hear it too. But by the time they come out of their homes to see what that loud cacophony was, I'll be long gone.

My dear better half has been wonderful about this ... she saw the dream in my eye and offered nothing but encouragement. She's a keeper.

King of The Road

Congratulations! That is one hunk of a machine pal. That's the bigger flat six engine I see.

Sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet.

Does it have a reverse gear? I wanna go on it!

Mid-Life Crisis

I went and traded in my motorcycle ... the one I purchased just 1 year ago. Here's what I bought in its place:



That, good sir, is 1832cc's of flat-six Goldwing power. It's built around a modified sport bike frame. It's nimble as can be, and has oodles of torque up and down the range. Today, without really trying, I went 110mph.

Why a new bike? Because what I discovered is I like to do long distance touring. I don't really care for short around-town rides. I like to get out on the open road and cruise for hours and hours. The Goldwing is the ultimate bike for that.

The Width of a Circle

For instance, if the grandmaster sensed a certain bravado in his opponent, are there things that could be done to draw the opponent into making a small tactical error that later turns into a strategic blunder?

Yes for sure. A prime example happened in the Morelia-Linares chess tournament yesterday. Ex-world champion Veselin Topalov was playing a 16 year old Norwegian kid (Magnus Carlsen) at the first leg of the tournament in Mexico. Somewhere in the middle of the game Magnus offered an exchange of queens which, due to the state of the board, would have almost surely led to a drawn game. But Magnus is smart, Topalov is one of the most arrogant players ever and there was no way he was going to accept a mere draw from this kid. The only move to avoid the draw slightly weakened Topalov's position - but he thought he could recover it, but the kid was too strong and Topalov lost :)

Also certain computer chess engines now have an "anti-human" mode, so if they detect that their opponent is trying to blockade all the pawns to obtain a draw (which these days is the only thing GMs can do to get half a point), they just adjust their evaluation of the position to give say 0.5 pawn bonus to an open file, and that's usually enough to blast open the position and send the human home in a body bag.

Can you think of anything in our realm of existence for which it can be said that we -- mankind -- understands it completely?

Our senses are not unlimited - so I suspect that therefore by definition we cannot understand anything completely. We can only understand things to the limits of our senses (or brains I guess).

+++

Yes I got the area of the inner square as half that of the outer square also. The way I did was like this.

Imagine a big square, a circle inside it, and the little square inside that. Three objects.

Big square has a side of length x.

Circle has a radius of lenght x/2.

(Now this bit is the key) The distance from the centre of the little square to it's corner is the same as the radius of the circle, so x/2.

Anyone who knows Pythagoras' Theorem can do the rest.

+++

Two questions:

1. (This is a "how is your calculus or series?" type question) Can you find the sum of all the areas of the little circles (or squares) as they get smaller and smaller and smaller? If you could add them all up, what would their areas add up to as a percentage of the big (topmost) circle (or square)?

2. Why is it that the same rule applies to the square as it does the circle? (ie. object n-1 has half of the area of object n). After all, a square has a rational area, but a circle has an irrational area (based on pi). I have no idea!

+++

PS. The append title is a David Bowie song from "The Man Who Sold The World"

Yes

The area of the square would be exactly 1/2 the area of the outer square. Lots of "square roots of 2" involved in my proof of that. You probably have a much simpler proof.

Note: there's a relationship between the area of the two circles based on the polygon one draws in the middle. It happens that when a square is drawn the outer circle is exactly twice the inner. A triangle would form a different ratio. The more sides to the polygon, the closer the two circles approach each other in size. A polygon with an infinite number of sides is a circle, assuming the polygon maintains symmetry.

* * *
I think the question of "understanding" starts to touch on rather abstract things like "intuition," and "sense" and "gut feel." The chess example is a little difficult because chess can be reduced to a mathematical solution set. But what if, for example, a chess grandmaster was able to discern the emotional state of his opponent, and altered his style accordingly? For instance, if the grandmaster sensed a certain bravado in his opponent, are there things that could be done to draw the opponent into making a small tactical error that later turns into a strategic blunder? The question that follows is: would the discernment of that bravado be based on the opponent's chess moves, or a reading of something else? If merely chess moves, then a computer could be programmed to "intuit" the opponent's mood.

I am a believer in an undefinable "sense" about things. People seem to have it to greater and lesser degrees. I've seen it described as "Emotional Intelligence," or "EQ" rather than "IQ." What I can't say is whether the person possessing this higher EQ is really just factoring more perceptions into a more complex equation. If we learned what perceptions and the algorithm they used, could we program a computer to do the same? I'm skeptical, but not convinced it's out of the question.

Still, there's something beyond even that. I can't begin to explain it.

Ultimately, I think "understanding" is a concept that is not definite. We acquire greater degrees of understanding about something, but never fully understand it. I think that can be said for even the simplest of things. Can you think of anything in our realm of existence for which it can be said that we -- mankind -- understands it completely?

Very human complications

I think the solution to the three circles having intersecting vertices lying on a straight line problem being solved by adding complexity (ie. another dimension) is a brilliant example of the difficulties that humanity faces.

My reasoning behind that statement is something like this: we are limited by how we experience the universe - which is through our senses. By extending the circle problem to 3D we immediately intuit that the answer is a straight line, because when two planes itersect you find a straight line at their intersection. Imagine a flat chunk of wood intersecting at some angle with another flat chunk of wood.

So we complicate things (unnecessarily?) to fit problems into our world view, once there we can "understand" the problem because it lends itself to our equipment (our senses).

I think this human limitation is connected with the reason we have clocks in our computers, where work is done per clock tick. If you recall that Adrian Thomspon experiment, it showed that there are far more efficient designs for a circuit. But we don't "understand" those more efficient designs, so we don't use them.

Question:

What is meant by the word "understanding"?

I am wondering what "human understanding" is and how it relates to say "computer understanding" of a problem. I see this with human chess grandmasters, they dismiss computers saying "ah, the computer does not understand the position, whereas I do". What does this mean? Isn't "understanding" just a result of some calculation?

More Circles

I'm working on the "inner square" thing. I know you already know it. I should be able to deduce this pretty quickly. But one of the answers I'm getting I don't trust, so I'm continuing to work it.

In the meantime, here's something I recall from my youth. This came from a Scientific American. It turns out if you draw three circles of not equal radius, and position them on a plane such that the three centerpoints of the circles do not themselves form a line, then the lines that run tangent to the circles will converge to three points which, together, fall in a line:



Drawing the Powerpoint was easy. Proving this is another matter. As a kid I struggled and struggled and never did prove it. The answer came the next month's issue. I can't recall the specifics, but it had something to do with taking this concept to three dimensions. The tangent lines are then cones, and the convergence points of the cones fall onto a plane.

I would have figured it out but I was too interested in the brunette chick on the school bus.

Squaring the circle

Haha excellent!!!!

The Perry speech where he referred to your moon bomb idea is on the web here ...

http://francestanford.stanford.edu/Conferences/Risk/Perry.pdf

That is sooo funny. Your idea made an indelible mark on this man. Maybe he commissioned his technical team to see if it would actually work? Anyway it must have been a good idea :)

Maybe you should email him the response you recieved from his office?

+++

No I meant would the inner n-1 square also be half of the area of the n square? Like the n-1 circle is half of the area of the n circle. The square not the circle.

Moon Bomb Redux

Do you recall me mentioning the farce me and several other high school pals did by conjuring up a design for a "moon bomb?" We drew up plans and mailed it to the U.S. Defense Department. Ultimately we got back a letter explaining in great detail why our plans were not workable.

Well, tonight my brother e-mails me the text of a speech given in 2003 by one William J. Perry, the very man who signed the letter we received back from the Defense Department. Here, 26 years later, in a speech at Stanford University, he says this:

Let me tell you a story to try to give you a sense of how fearful we were in those days. Shortly after I started the job as Undersecretary of Defense in Research and Engineering, in 1977, I received a letter from an American citizen in which he stated what he thought the United States should do to counter Soviet conventional military superiority. The writer proposed that the U.S. build something that he called a “moon bomb.” The idea was quite simple; he spelled it out for us in detail. He said we should build a large rocket. The payload of the rocket would be a long strand of steel cable. One end of the cable would be attached to the Earth. Then the rocket would be launched in the direction of the moon, with the cable playing out behind it as it went toward the moon. When the rocket landed on the moon, a little robot would come out and attach the other end of the steel cable to the moon. So, we have this picture: here’s the moon and here’s the Earth, and we have this cable between them. Now, as the Earth rotated, it would pull the attached moon in toward it, and, in accordance with its design, do so in such a way that the moon would smash into the Soviet Union. This is true; I’m not making it up. My executive brought me the letter along with a critique written by one of the physicists on my staff, explaining that this whole idea was infeasible.

I'm practically beside myself with amusement that this Perry -- who eventually served as Secretary of Defense under President Clinton -- would remember our letter and use it in a speech. :-)

Square Root of Two

I would imagine a circle drawn on the inside would be 1/2 the side of the next circle. It's all related to the fact that the two radii are related to one another with the square root of two. That's based on the fact the triangle formed by the two radii is a 45/45/90 triangle, and the hypoteneus of a such a triangle is the square root of 2 times bigger than the adjacent leg.

In 10th grade I genuinely feared failing geometry class because I could not get proofs. Then one day it clicked. I was okay at them up to a point. But never a superstar.

Circles and squares

Hmm interesting. I wonder why that is? If you drew a square inside the inner circle .. would that square be half of the area of the big square shown in your diagram?

Geometric Discovery

I was on the plane yesterday and got to thinking about circles and squares. I drew a picture:



Then I thought, "What is the relationship of the area of the outer circle to the area of the inner circle?" My gut told me it was somehow related to pi, but beyond that I really didn't know. So I set about trying to establish the relationship and discovered that the outer circle's area is exactly twice the inner. That was unexpected. Here's my proof:



This is high school geometry, nothing more. But still, I found it fascinating that the area was exactly twice. It doesn't look twice as big!

Freddie

I'll happily concede the game, set and match to Freddie Mercury and vocalist. He was incredible.

Other "big voice" male vocalists that come to mind, that I hadn't thought of:

• Bono
• Steven Tyler

They're not in the same league as Freddie in terms of ability, but their voices are certainly big enough to compete with the thundering instruments.

I also forgot to add Edge to my rhythm guitarists. I like his style -- pure minimalists.

You are far more into the music scene than am I. I'm sorry to report I don't know who some of your picks are.

* * *
There's a song that Frank Sinatra did with Sammy Davis Jr. called "Me and My Shadow." They do a kind of back-and-forth duet. You'd think with a voice like Sinatra's that anyone else would pale in comparison. But by comparison, Sinatra's voice is pale and weak next to Davis. Sammy had a wonderfully rich and deep voice.

Travelling Mullberries

I hope you had a good trip "back east" there boy!

+++

My superband:

Vocals: John Lennon
Rythmn Guitar: John Lennon
Lead Guitar: George Harrison
Bass: Paul McCartney
Drums: Ringo Starr
Keyboards: Billy Preston

Playing on the roof above Apple Studios Saville Row Jan 30th 1969 ... er, what's that NO BEATLES?? Ah ok then:

Vocals: Freddie Mercury

What can I say? Just listen to Queen and David Bowie's "Under Pressure". Bowie is no slouch on the vox and Freddy just blows him away. There are so many songs where his vocal power shines through, just think of Bohemian Rapsody, one of the best songs and best vocal performances ever recorded, or "A Kind of Magic" from the Highlander movie. There can be only one, and Freddie is it.

Rythmn Guitar: Noel Gallagher

For sure here I would have had Lennon, I mean just listen to the triplets on "All My Loving" and the infectious rock rhythm of "Some Other Guy" (from the BBC Radio Sessions). You just have to shake your body. Noel is a close second though, Noel is left handed but plays the guitar as a right handed person would (like Paul McCartney co-incidentally) - this gives more strength to his fretting fingers and "the hand he doesn't use most in life" does the strumming. The rythmn guitar on "Wonderwall" is delightful and not obvious. A close third would be David Bowie; Bowie can play almost anything and on rhythm is enormous as the majority of the "Hunky Dory" album proves.

Lead Guitar: Eric Clapton

There are a lot of candidates here but for me old slowhand just tips it. He's connected to some weird place when he gets into it. His sound is much much bigger than one man with a guitar. Second I would probably have Paul McCartney, he did the lead on quite a few tracks including the break on "Taxman" - which is amazing. Hendrix and Knopfler and Slash are in there too, with Eddie Van Halen.

Bass: Mark King

Well as I can't have Macca I'll take Mark. He can slap a bass like no other white man can.

Drums: Phil Collins

As discussed.

Keyboards: Elton John

I'm glad you mentioned old Elton first, he would always be my #1 on the ivories, with Paul McCartney (again) second. He's still going - check the joanna on the recent Scissor Sisters track "Don't Feel Like Dancing", so infectious and all Elton.

Shake Your Tailfeathers!

Nice reference to the "Blues Brothers" movie! But what would Ray Charles know about keyboards and playing piano? :-)

I thought about including keyboards in that list, but then I tried to think of who I'd include on the list. Elton John? Plus, real rockers don't use keyboards. :-)

What about your composed supergroup? I should lay down a challenge to you -- include no Beatles.

I'm in Dulles Airport right now, and there's a sparrow not three seats down from me. He's happily gobbling up what little food bits are left behind.

And on keyboards?

Jake: $2,000 for this chunk of s***?
Murph: I mean, honestly Ray. It's used, there's no action left in this keyboard.
Ray: I don't think there's anything wrong with the action on this keyboard.

Loved your post !

Supergroup Composition

I must protest, good sir. We are not sitting in a dorm room, smoking dope, lit by the glow of a lava lamp. How can we discuss this topic with any true vigor?

We are faced with an initial dilemma: can we simply go role by role, or must we start with a single key role, fill that, then build around it? I'll opt for role by role, simply because it's easier. I don't know music well enough to determine what drummer, for instance, would complement Eric Clapton best.

Note 1: I saved this as a draft and am coming back at it. I'm struggling. I'm finding I really don't know who's who all that much.

Note 2: It also occurs to me that an underlying assumption is that we're picking these folks based on how good they were in their prime. Not necessarily right now. Heck, some of them are dead.

Lead Guitar

Candidates (in order of how they appeared in my mind):

• Stevie Ray Vaughn
• Jimi Hendrix
• Mark Knopfler
• Eric Clapton
• Jimmy Paige
• Slash (from Guns n Roses)
  

Commentary:

I've never been much of a Clapton fan. I acknowledge his skills, I just haven't developed a strong sense for his style. The same holds for Paige ... he's widely considered a guitar god, but not for me.

It's hard to overlook Jimi Hendrix, but I wonder how much of my affection for him is based on memories of the times. One thing in his favor, in my mind, is that he was also an accomplished blues guitarist, not just a wild acid rock player.

I used to think Mark Knopfler was the unchallenged king of guitar. He's very good, but I'm not starting to wonder whether I'd select him in this role.

That leaves Stevie Ray Vaughn and Slash. Vaughn was unbelievably good. But in this category I'm going with Slash. I can't fully explain why. I just have a sense that he'd make an excellent lead guitarist around whom a band could be built.

Rhythm Guitar

Candidates:

• Pete Townsend
  
• John Lennon
• Joe Strummer
  

Commentary:

I'm somewhat lost in this category. I don't pay too much attention to who's a good rhythm guitarist and who is not. Heck, I don't even know what would separate a great from a good rhythm guitarist. Townsend is a sentimental favorite, and I think his forte was rhythm, but it was more power chord stuff. Lennon? I know you revere him, and while I don't dislike him I also just don't appreciate him. For pure quirkiness I'm going with Strummer.

Bass

Candidates:

• John Entwistle
  
• Paul McCartney
• Victor Wooten (of Bela Fleck and the Flecktones)
  
• Sting

Commentary:

In this category I'm going to guess there are far better bassists that we've never heard of -- session musicians that would blow the doors off those on my list, but we've never heard of them. Entwistle is my sentimental favorite. But his penchant was for enormously fat and powerful basslines ... lots and lots of noise. I fully acknowledge McCartney's skills and his role as a trailblazer. Victor Wooten is flat out amazing, and if I was truly going for virtuosity, I'd pick him. But I'm going with Sting for this reason: on the "Synchronicity" album he used a double bass and a bow on several songs. It was magical.

Drums

Candidates:

• Keith Moon
• Neil Pert (Rush)
  
• Terry Bozzio or Chad Wackerman (drummers for Frank Zappa band -- I don't know which was which on what songs ... but the drumming was always outstanding.)
• Futureman (Roy Wooten of Bela Fleck)
  

Commentary:

Moon, I suspect, was destined to be part of the Who, and the Who, I suspect, were destined to be a 60's/70's phenomenon. Form them now with all four in their prime and they'd wither into obscurity.

Roy Wooten of Bela Fleck, aka "Futureman," is a stunning drummer. The odd thing about him is he doesn't actually play a drum kit. He plays a drum synthesizer that's shaped like a guitar. His style is more jazz.

I'm going with the drummer(s) for Frank Zappa. Tight, precise, but not mere timekeeper. Amazing stuff.

Vocals

Candidates:

• Steve Winwood
• John Kay (of Steppenwolf)
• Frank Zappa (an odd selection, but he has a distinctive vocal style)
• Axl Rose (what a wasted talent)
  

Commentary:

I love Winwood from his Traffic days, but I put him on this list for sentimental reasons. Of those on this list, I'm down to John Kay or Axl Rose. Both have a rather rough sound to their voice. I despise Rose's lifestyle, but I love his voice. But I'm going with John Kay. I love his deeper, grittier voice.

Lineup:

Vocalist: John Kay
Lead: Slash
Rhythm: Joe Strummer
Bass: Sting
Drums: Terry Bozzio or Chad Wackerman

So what have I just built? It's an odd collection. Would the jazz stylings of Sting/Bozzio|Wackerman conflict with the rock of Slash/Strummer?

* * *
Re: Paul McCartney on bass -- I agree, and I've always found him an impressive bass player. I took notice of the role of the bass player when I became a fan of The Who. Only then did I start listening more closely to the bass line in songs. Most are basic and somewhat hidden. I am by no means an expert on the Abbey Road album, but my memory tells me there's some rather sublime bass lines on that album. I don't think the bassline is about flash, I think it's about mood. I can't explain it, but I sense the bassline under a song touches the subconscious and establishes the mental imagery of the song. See my note on Herbie Flowers below.

Re: Ringo Starr on drums -- I once read a commentary on Starr's drumming that described him as a very misunderstood drummer. Apparently (if memory serves), the article said that at the time the criteria for a drummer was how well they held to certain rules and conventions, and particularly how precise their timing was. Starr, it was argued, was maligned because people at the time did not understand his more intuitive style. So, I guess it would be much like the reaction the Impressionist painters received when their work first appeared. "What? It's not crisp and realistic? What's this fuzzy lighting?"

Re: Herbie Flowers on "Walk on the Wild Side" -- Oh, man. That is one of the most understated and hence marvelous bass lines ever. It sets the tone and mood of the song perfectly -- dark, isolated, lonely ... but not necessarily sad. I always wondered who laid that down. Now I know. Thanks!

Drum n bass

Would someone who plays nothing but rhythm guitar be considered a member of a band's rhythm section?

Oh for sure. John Lennon said somewhere in the anthology film series that he played rhythm guitar so had the responsibility of really making the band rock. The Beatles once turned up without a drummer to a gig at the Liverpool Casbah claiming "The rhythm's in the guitars".

For bass players yeah I really like Entwistle (I did just listen to "The Real Me" and yes it does have a remarkable bassline). He's a legend, technically very good also. There is also Mark King who does outrageous things in slap-bass, an enormous talent. But it's not all about technique it's about what music they play and how they play it .. this is why I don't go a big heap on 32 notes-per-second guitarists like Steve Vai, I'm just not moved by the tunes they play.

For tunes I really like Herbie Flowers, a session musician. He did the catch bass line on Reed's Walk On The Wild Side, it's just a C and an F, but it's the double-bass'd split 1/10th note apart from the electric bass that gives it that distinctive feeling. Herbie also did Rock On, a David Essex song on which the bass is just awesome. Herbie did a ton of work with Bowie in the 70s, many albums that are all very fond memories for me.

But the best bassist in the world (IMHO) is a class above these. The best bassist in the world re-invented the way that everyone has played the bass ever since. Shortly before Stu Sutcliffe died at a very early age, he left The Beatles leaving them in need of a new bass player. Legend has it that nobody would take it on but as history shows McCartney himself jumped at it. McCartney could play piano and guitar but had never really played bass. He got a light weighted Hoffner that he could play like a lead guitar, and he did play it like a lead guitar. His basslines were the first to be played like a lead guitar, they go to unexpected high places (just listen to "A Little Help From My Friends" for a good example). So Paul gets my vote for bass player.

Oh, and let's not forget Zep's JPJ of course.

On the skins, I actually like Ringo. The 12/8 drums on Ticket To Ride, check out those toms man, as Lennon said "That song is heavy". Strawberry Fields Forever also shows off Ringo's versatility as a rock drummer - in fact I covered this song on my latest covers album (see my homepage) and could get nowhere near Ringo.

There's Cozy Powell of course, another legend. I also very much like Steve White, who played with Paul Weller in the 90's and Alan White (Steve's brother) who played with Oasis during their hay day.

For me #1 would be Phil Collins though. Check out some of his Genesis work and of course In The Air Tonight. You can really feel the emotion in his drums.

Of course the real best bass and drum men and women will never be discovered, they'll be living in a tent in Peru or something :)

Out of your list I would probably have to go for Starr-McCartney, although I'd like to see Copeland-Sting in the list also. I do have fond memories of Baker-Bruce from the "reunion gig" I saw at the Royal Albert Hall in London during 2005, but they were so overshadowed by Claptons tour de force religious-experience that I can't pick them out.

Ok, here's one for you. Pick YOUR perfect band, ignoring the fact that they may not gel, give me your perfect super band, so skins, bass, keyboards, rg, lg and vox, 6 names please!

Rhythm Sections

On my flight to G'burgh today, I was listening to the Who's song, "The Real Me." In the middle bridge of the song, Moon (drums) and Entwistle (bass) support Daltry (vocals) with no guitar, lead or rhythm (Townsend). The do it admirably. It got me thinking about rock band's "rhythm section."

Note: if you get a chance to listen along to "The Real Me," do so and listen to the bass line. It's remarkable.

Would someone who plays nothing but rhythm guitar be considered a member of a band's rhythm section? I would presume so, but I'm not sure how narrow a definition "rhythm section" really is.

But let's focus on drummer-bass combinations. Who would you say were the some of the best?

• Starr-McCartney (Beatles)
  
• Watts-Wyman (Rolling Stones)
  
• Bonham-Jones (Led Zeppelin)
• Mitchell-Redding (Jimi Hendrix Experience)
• Baker-Bruce (Cream)
  
• Moon-Entwistle (Who)
• Other?
  

I'm a huge fan of the Who, and I think Entwistle is the best rock bassist ever. The best description of Moon I'd ever heard was from an acquaintance who played drums in high school -- "Keith Moon played a drum solo throughout each song." It really is true. I watched an interview with Entwistle who said that Moon was actually a fairly "untidy" drummer, and that presented quite a challenge to him (Entwistle) to match bass with him.

I also think the Mitchell-Redding combination (Hendrix) was awesome.

If I ever get a chance to sit down at a drum kit and have the opportunity to play along to some song, that song is going to be "White Room" by Cream.

I've heard many people malign Starr's drumming, but I think they're being unfair. He definitely wasn't a flashy drummer, but he also was not mechanical and colorless. I can't describe it more than that ... he had a certain something. Understated-ness? And I think McCartney's bass playing was outstanding. I don't care for some of his sappy songs, but his basslines were great.

Thoughts? Leave aside song writing, guitars ... all that. It's all about drums/bass here.

Adam Smith

I'm left wondering how is a "per hour" rate arrived at for any job? Finance really eludes me. I don't understand economics well enough. Is salary purely based on supply and demand?

Supply and demand, but affected by other things such as regulatory imperatives and people's behavior, which is not always entirely rational. As mentioned before, the current federally mandated "minimum wage" in the United States is something like $5.65 (or something in that neighborhood). But most McDonald's restaurants pay $7 or $8 an hour to start. Why? Why wouldn't they pay the minimum allowed by law?

Because they would find too few applicants to fill the positions, or applicants whose qualifications were so deficient as to make employing them at the minimum wage not worth the trouble. In this case, market forces took over -- competitors offering employment to people inclined to work for near-minimum raised their wages to attract the best talent. Hence the "effective minimum" went up to the $7 or $8. What stopped the rise? When sufficient applicants turn out to satisfy the open positions, or the financial structure of the enterprise limits offering any more for that particular job.

People, too, enter into this equation. Some people -- I would fall into this camp -- will stay put at a lower wage rather than risk disruption to routine to seek higher wages elsewhere. But there's always a breaking point ... a point where the wage discrepancy is so great even those who tend to be cautious move out and seek higher rent.

* * *
My former neighbor from Virginia told me of the case where his company was coordinating the staffing for a conference. This was during a time when the "unemployment rate" was at about 4% or so. He reported that the quality of the people that they ended up having to employ, just to staff the positions, was so low as to be almost laughable.

Note: And there enters another point about market forces -- the employment was part time and short term. Even had they offered twice the minimum, may already-employed people would not take the offer because of the potential disruption to their present employment.

There is much rhetoric about driving the unemployment rate to 0%. But in practical reality, that's nearly impossible. Not everyone is capable of being employed, due to their unskilled nature or attitude. Also, many simply don't want to be employed, preferring instead getting government assistance and being left alone.

* * *
I almost majored in economics in college. I love the topic. I doubt I would have been very good at is as it's mostly "econometrics" -- vastly complex models of economic behavior that use a lot of calculus. :-)

Changes

That's because they know darn well why minimum wages can't go to $25/hour -- most unskilled jobs aren't worth that

I'm left wondering how is a "per hour" rate arrived at for any job? Finance really eludes me. I don't understand economics well enough. Is salary purely based on supply and demand? Ie. If they aren't many people who are willing or able to do the job then they get a high salary? Is it if we think the job they are doing is "important"? But who defines "important"?

I mean I can understand a surgeon who saves lives getting a high salary, because we humans place a premium on human life. I could maybe understand how a concert pianist gets a high salary as they give artistic pleasure to many -- but they don't get such a high salary do they?

Maybe musicians don't because they enjoy what they do, so it's like a vocation, and we don't want to pay people lots of money for something that they enjoy doing, and would probably do anyway? So maybe salary is dependent on a number of things?

Hmm convents :) Now there is an idea! No I want my daughter to be happy -- having said that if she wants to go to a convent then I'm not stopping her.

I wish your Mrs well at this time. I imagine that "the change" could bring its challenges, both physical and emotional.

Minimum Wage

I don't think minimum wage falls into that category, as that is just an imposition on the profits of the employer and doesn't come out of my taxes.

Not out of your taxes, but it does come out of your income in the prices you pay. If a minimum wage of, let's say, $30/hour was imposed upon McDonald's ... what options would they have:

• Pay it, maintain the same workforce and not raise prices. I suspect the negative cash flow would bankrupt them within a year.
• Pay it, but seek ways of reducing the onsite staff needed. It would take some pretty remarkable technology to replace what would have to be close to 2/3rds of a restaurant's staff (assuming today they make around $10/hour, a $30/hour wage would imply 2/3 less people).
• Pay it, but raise prices to compensate. If we assume steady demand regardless of price (a poor assumption, but a necessary one for simplicity), we'd probably see $12 Big Macs. I doubt very much their demand is that inelastic.
  

That's what happens when minimum wages are mandated. McDonald's has the capacity to absorb the hit, depending on the magnitude. But many small businesses do not. So they merely shutter up.

* * *
My question to those who advocate a "living wage" -- why stop at $7.50 an hour, which is hardly a living wage? Why not mandate $25/hour, which is about $50K a year?

I never get an answer. That's because they know darn well why minimum wages can't go to $25/hour -- most unskilled jobs aren't worth that, and they'd simply go away the moment a $25/hour wage was mandated.

But advocates of such things have learned one never approaches the apple with one bite in mind. It is far better to incrementally nibble at it.

"Menarch"

We've already discussed the onset of the menarche (interesting that the word contains the word "men"), K asked "is there much blood?" so I told her what I knew, and she knows that there is always google.

I wonder how many Google hits we'll get with that word in our blog?

Somehow I had a sense you'd approach the topic without reservation or embarrassment. How old is K now? 9? Lisa told me that for her, the onset started around 10+ years. Interesting bookend to that ... at nearly 47 that chapter appears to be drawing to a close.

Did you ever see the movie "Carrie"? In it, the character Carrie was never told by her mother about the onset of menstruation. So when it finally happens -- in the shower in high school gym class -- she is terrified because she has no idea what it is. The other girls torment her mercilessly. They find out later how ill-advised a course of action that was.

I'll be checking them suitors out don't you worry :)

I imagine you will. But given your general philosophy of allowing K to discover for herself, do you intend to govern her access to potential suitors? Or will you simply advise her of things and hope for the best?

They still have convents, you know. :-)

Database is Sexy!

I had absolutely no idea what I was missing by not devoting my energies to database stuff. From a recently received copy of "Database" magazine, which I have never subscribed to but somehow I get:



This is an advertisement for some company called "Cache." I really don't know what it does. But look at the picture. Tell me that wasn't a very deliberate use of sex to sell product:

• Note the curve of the back and the curve of the rear end
  
• Note the bare feet
• Note the youthful appearance
• Note the posture and what it suggests
  

I saw this and thought, "Good golly ... let's be obvious about this."

Selfish Gene

Assuming you maintain custody of K for many years to come ... have you given thought to how you will handle the "woman" issues that will arise? Like the onset of puberty; the purchase of the first bra; the wonders and perils of dating?

Hehe .. the word "custody" has long since faded from courtroom use in the UK, it's now referred to as "residence".

I don't have a problem with any of those "feminine" issues, I guess having four sisters (and no brothers) myself, I have seen it all. I can imagine some "manly men" may have a problem in this area, but we don't fall into stereotypes in this house. We've already discussed the onset of the menarche (interesting that the word contains the word "men"), K asked "is there much blood?" so I told her what I knew, and she knows that there is always google. For sure I lack the empathic response having not been through it, but her mother and sister are still around , at least once every two weeks. She told me her friend Tasha has "got her hormones already", lol. I tell her I have the pleasure of her living with me for another 9-10 years or so, and in that time it's my job to prepare her for the outside world as best I can. Period.

We're reading interminable Jacqueline Wilson novels, that contain girls and boyfriends, so we've also discussed "boys" and "dates" etc. I'll be checking them suitors out don't you worry :)

After all, I know what I was like.

+++

Minimum wage, I don't think it's necessary in this day and age, there is no upper cap on the limit that Bill Gates can earn so why should their be a lower cap?

What compells most to feel the "burden" of such things must fall on "everyone" or "someone else." Is it simply selfishness? Or is there something more at work here ... a kind of class resentment, perhaps? In other words, there are others who have more than me, so screw them and make them pay?

If there are things that my tax goes towards paying for, such as benefits for people who can't or won't work, then I don't think I need to pay again out of my own pocket for. When I no longer pay taxes this may change :)

I don't think minimum wage falls into that category, as that is just an imposition on the profits of the employer and doesn't come out of my taxes.

It's always somebody else's problem to a whole subset of humanity though. It goes along with the entitlement culture. People do need to actually try occasionally you know. Everyone out for themselves, the selfish gene etc.

Living Wage

One of the topics in the news here in the United States is the "living wage" -- the idea that there ought to be a mandated minimum wage that allows people to live off whatever that wage is. The U.S. has a minimum wage -- it's $5.75/hour, I think -- with a movement afoot to raise it to something in the neighborhood of $7.50/hour.

I certainly would never propose artifically supressing wages, but I'm also leery of the mandated higher minimum wage. First, it's unnecessary ... starting wages at McDonald's are already well above the minimum wage. Second, those jobs that truly pay the base minimum are typically those that requires the least skills. They are usually the kind of jobs that can be not done if push really came to shove. In other words, raise the minimum and employers will stop employing people to do those jobs. It ends up hurting the very people who it aims to protect -- those with no skills that are desperately in need of starting somewhere and building skills.

But I got to thinking about this more as I contemplated the individual response to this. A strong advocate of higher minimum wages has within their power some ability to alleviate the situation. When they're in a restaurant, rather than tipping the customary 15%, they could leave a $20 tip for a $6 meal. They could. I doubt any actually do.

And that raises the question -- why is that? What compells most to feel the "burden" of such things must fall on "everyone" or "someone else." Is it simply selfishness? Or is there something more at work here ... a kind of class resentment, perhaps? In other words, there are others who have more than me, so screw them and make them pay?

Uniquely Unique

I wonder if any other of God's creatures do that? None that we know of I guess. But animals are still conscious are they not?

They are conscious, certainly; sentient also, I believe; but self-aware? That I do not know. My dog of 17 years was a remarkably personable creature. He seemed to recognize me, and seemed eager to please. Was that just a behavior-reward reflex? Maybe.

I doubt very much that other animals have the same level of self-awareness that we do, or the capacity to stare up into space and attempt to comprehend the vastness of it, or the desire to gaze off into a sunset and admire the beauty for beauty's sake. I can't prove that, but that's what I believe. This is why I believe humans are uniquely unique. If these capabilities were the result of natural selection, I'd think we'd see different degrees of it in lower forms. But to the best of my knowledge chimpanzees don't watch the sun set, or think about their mortality while picking fleas off another.

Note: I've often thought being aware of one's mortality in the absence of immediate danger was perhaps the single defining element of self-awareness. Does my cat know that one day it will die? I doubt it. Yet we do. Would a child never told about death one day come to the realization that their lives are limited?

* * *
Assuming you maintain custody of K for many years to come ... have you given thought to how you will handle the "woman" issues that will arise? Like the onset of puberty; the purchase of the first bra; the wonders and perils of dating?

The Human Mind

I find it amazing that we humans can ponder about the nature of existence and the large scale structure of the Universe -- and on the "is there a purpose to it all?" question.

I wonder if any other of God's creatures do that? None that we know of I guess. But animals are still conscious are they not?

The purpose of a mind that can ponder on the nature of it's existence is beyond me, unless it really is a game, and we're from somewhere else and have thrust ourselves into this game for some unknown motive. Maybe I made all of this up to entertain myself? Maybe you did?

Stewardship

His own money I trust and not The Churches? (Ie. yours).

Nope. It's church money. So some portion of my tithing is going for this kind of stuff. I'm not against appropriate facilities. I disagree with extravagant expenditures on church facilities.

What about this slogan .... "Once saved always saved, so screw you non-believer you are going to hell!"

Bingo ... of the same ilk. I defy anyone to come up with a serious defense of the position that as Christians we have a right to be arrogant. Of course, those who practice arrogance won't agree that it is arrogance.

Having said that, it does appear that the industrial revolution has made a large contribution to the parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere.

No doubt. You know what would be an interesting statistic? A comparison of the CO2 put into the atmosphere by volcanic activity vs. industrial activity. I'll bet one Mt. St. Helens is worth 50 years of industrial output.

Supposedly a Gulfstream III jet puts 10K pounds of CO2 into the atmosphere per hour. Many of the global warming alamists jet around in such things. How's that for practicing what one preaches?

"As tight as a gnat's chuff"

Um ... it's fist? It's nostril? :-)

Aceticism

so there's no money to be made, either in grant money or in scare tactics.

Yes I agree 100%. It all comes down to money. There are a lot of people in science and religion that are in it primarily for the cash. These people are administrators/politicians .. also managers of modern businesses, they are cut from the same cloth. In fact, most of us do what we do for money/survial/fear reasons rather than "search for truth reasons", as you and I have oft noticed.

These types of scientists, religious leaders and politicians will obfuscate the truth in an attempt to keep things "running as they should be" .. to keep the grant money coming in, the collection plate money coming in and the taxes coming in to run the "businesses" that they manage and administer.

I think that is why chess is so attractive to some of us. The board is open, the truth of the position is there for everyone to see, one just has to look (deeply sometimes), but your opponent is not allowed to hide the piece on the a7 square for instance.

The rules of modern life are not like that.

Having said that, it does appear that the industrial revolution has made a large contribution to the parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere. Note that I am not attributing global warming to this increase in CO2, just noting it.

+++

But it does not prohibit marriage; it merely positions not being married as a more attractive alternative,

Yes, and my point is that this better alternative is completely glossed over by Religions and The Church, and my guess is they do so in part because there is no money in it (just like your example about why you don't trust science).

But ... would you agree that buried in that verse is the unspoken assumption that if unmarried, one is not going about fornicating as one desires?

Yes I totally agree. I think this is another reason why Religions gloss over the fact that The Bible says that not to get married is the best thing to do. Religions know if people followed that advice then they would be fornicating alll over the place and this would get them into trouble with other areas of The Bible.

He spends tens of thousands of dollars on electronics -- video and audio editing equipment and the like.

His own money I trust and not The Churches? (Ie. yours).

And while we're on the subject, there is no more harmful Christian slogan than, "I'm not perfect, just forgiven." The arrogance underlying that claim is staggering.

What that's all about then? Is it an airing of dirty laundry in public? Is this connected to the forgiveness and grace that The Lord might show us? I trust the gay preacher committing homosexual acts and preaching against homosexual acts wears that badge to work. What about this slogan .... "Once saved always saved, so screw you non-believer you are going to hell!"

I just made that up. Heck maybe I should become a monk.

+++

"hornier than a three-balled tomcat."

LOL. That is good, and has 93 hits in Google. I'll offer up two items from the working class area of London in which I dragged myself up in. They are both to do with either a) people being mean with their money (tight) or b) being in a precariously tight situation, usually when trying to make a difficult/borderline shot in a snooker or pool game as we misspent our youth down the pub

"As tight as a crab's ass at 30,000 fathoms" (zero Google hits)

and

"As tight as a gnat's chuff". (88 Google hits)

Quite coarse, but both objects should be extremely tight.

I'll leave you to muse over what exactly a "chuff" might be :)

Bad Examples Abound

I'll agree the 1 Corinthians 7:38 verse seems to suggest one would be better off not getting married. But it does not prohibit marriage; it merely positions not being married as a more attractive alternative, particularly for those who are dedicating their lives wholly to the Lord's work ... as a priest would do. (And it just occurs to me that the Catholic prohibition against priests being married might well come from this verse.) I must say, there are times I agree with Paul's assessment.

But ... would you agree that buried in that verse is the unspoken assumption that if unmarried, one is not going about fornicating as one desires? We know that Paul writes elsewhere that fornicating is a behavior of the old life; that is, the life before "dying unto Christ." So following Paul's advice more closely and not marrying does not give one freedom to sleep around like a three-balled tomcat.

Note: a phrase I picked up earlier in life: "hornier than a three-balled tomcat." A wonderful word picture suggesting something that is already horny -- a tomcat -- taken to the next level. Like "Spinal Tap's" amplifier that goes to 11. Another phrase from that same era: "Slicker than greased owl sh*t." I'm not sure owl feces are slick to begin with or not. Or why anyone would go about greasing them further. But I always found the phrase funny.

* * *
You and I share a like mind when it comes to the poor examples demonstrated by those who purport to represent Jesus in official posts. Your local preacher driving a Rolls Royce is a good example ... even if he could afford it through some inheritance, it would show poor judgment to drive such an ostentatious vehicle.

I was talking to Lisa last night about the music director of our church, who I believe has taken his role too much to heart and is now building an edifice to his own glory. Since this church has moved into its new, much larger facility, this music director has taken to launching a project to constitute a massive orchestra. Lisa was a part of it, but the rehearsals were getting to be more of a burden than the resulting one hour performance was worth. The Christmas Eve "service" was really more of a concert ... and front-and-center to the whole thing was the music director. He spends tens of thousands of dollars on electronics -- video and audio editing equipment and the like.

I am now convinced -- 100% convinced -- that the model of Christian behavior that Jesus favors is strong but quiet humility and graciousness. Loud and arrogant Christians are betraying Jesus. People who wear their Christianity like a badge of honor on their sleeve are betraying Jesus. I honestly believe Jesus would rather us represent him by quiet acts of humility, kindness, decency, charity and graciousness without once uttering the word "Christian" than to carry a big sign saying "I'm a Christian!" and behaving like a complete fool.

I have long since stopped saying "I'm a Christian." I'm in absolutely no position to claim that honor given the soiled state of my behavior and my heart. That does not mean I've stopped trusting Jesus; it just means I've stopped carrying the banner. I betray the Lord on too frequent a basis to make too close a connection in other people's eyes between me and Him.

And while we're on the subject, there is no more harmful Christian slogan than, "I'm not perfect, just forgiven." The arrogance underlying that claim is staggering.

Can you tell this topic animates my emotions?

Why I Don't Trust "Science"

Interesting article regarding "global warming." It seems there's fairly good evidence to suggest that global warming has essentially flattened out since 1999. And there's a competing hypothesis -- the sun's activities contribute most to global warming and cooling -- but that hypothesis is all but ignored in favor of the far more lucrative theory that man's activities are the sole contributor.

If "science" was as blind to human ambition as some hold, they'd explore the competing hypothesis with as much vigor as the currently popular one. But of course they don't. And they won't. Because we can't do anything about the sun's activities, so there's no money to be made, either in grant money or in scare tactics.

Marriage Redux

This is pretty clear to me but I don't hear this taught in Church or in Christian schools:

1 Corinthians 7:38

So then he who marries his betrothed does well, and he who refrains from marriage will do even better.

Is doing "even better" associated with becoming a Monk or a Catholic Priest? Both of whom I believe are not allowed to marry -- although a could be wrong on that.

My point here is that to follow The Lords wishes as closely as possible, as laid down in The Bible in this passage then we should not marry. And if we don't marry we clearly cannot participate in sinful sex. God is recommending to us that we abstain from sex completely. So then my question is where do the people come from to fill The Church coffers? To put money on the plate to keep the entire machinery of religion going? I use this as just another example of where man made religion (which is akin to politics) actively goes against the teachings of God.

I think that's why we don't see this guidance in The Bible taught to young folk, it would bankrupt The Church. We see monogamous Christian marriage taught to them instead. Note: recall my local preacher whose wife I observed picking up multiple receipts in the supermarket car park? Well, last week after dropping my daughter off at School on Tuesday morning, I saw him driving up the road in a classic white Rolls Royce. A beautiful car. Now, he may have been driving it for a friend or delivering it somewhere, but the car must have cost a small fortune, it was stunning. I'll see if I see him in it again. I smiled, it gives a very different portrayal to the motives behind the story of the poor old lady who put her last two mites in The Church plate, an activity which we are told is a good thing to be rewarded in Heaven.

To me it's just the wrong motivation in someone so tied to God to be so tied to an expensive car. Another digression for sure, but shown to me for a reason.

Don't get me wrong, I know that I too am a hypocrite but I'm uncomfortable with it and am actively trying not to be one. I don't like being a sap either (that's a great american term of which I have no idea of the origin of).

Let's face it, people are not going to stop following the genetic imperative to procreate so society is doing it's best to put bounds around the behaviour, married or otherwise.

Gattica

Yes, I did see that movie. I thought it was well done and rather thought-provoking. As a movie it did something very well -- it took what was in the realm of the possible and made it seem probable.

Last night Lisa and I watched the movie The Guardian starring Kevin Costner and Ashton Kutcher (Mr. Demi Moore). It was a fine action film, but it was so clearly borrowing from other movies like it -- Officer and a Gentleman, Top Gun, etc.

* * *
Hmm, and is "our will" anything other than the stuctures of neurons in our brains? (I hope so).

I believe so. I think that's one of the things that makes us uniquely unique. What exactly it is made up of I won't speculate. :-)

Points

Update: this whole riff on homosexuality is based on two things: 1) your comment about a preacher being a practicing gay; and 2) the idea of humans being genetically disposed to most things, perhaps all things. I'm really not trying to invoke a whole debate on homosexuality ... other than to point out that while I'll concede it may be a genetic component, it doesn't follow that one must indulge in it to its fullest extent.

I think you did miss the points I was trying to make. Or, more likely, I failed to position them correctly. They are:

• Humans are unique and in a unique way. It is a far stretch to say that humans are "just another species, one of many." We seem to be the only creatures who have mastered fire, or use tools in any meaningful way. But more importantly, we seem to be the only creatures who aspire, to dream and to create. We've covered this ground before -- the degree of separation between humans and all other forms of life is so great that it seems to defy even the remotest probability of it being "pure chance."
• The scenario between the two couples -- one hetero, one homo -- was meant to play up the fact that abstinance is an exercise of the will. So even if homosexuality is a genetic predisposition, it is possible to exercise the will and avoid homosexual activities, just as it is possible for heterosexuals to exercise the will and avoid heterosexual activities. But many gay advocates deny this ... they claim that the sexual urge cannot be denied, and indeed should not be denied. That's what I meant by sexual activity being elevated to the highest human "right." Note how my scenario did not rule out homosexual companionship.
  (Note: I believe you're thinking of Paul, who suggested that marriage is something avoided if possible, but embraced if one must. I can't recall Jesus speaking of marriage in any way other than to say it is Holy and that divorce is only warranted in cases of infidelity. Paul's comments are, I believe, often misconstrued. What he was suggesting was that marriage can be a powerful distraction from serving Christ. It doesn't have to be, but it can be. But if the choice comes down to burning with lust outside of marriage and not serving Christ, or being married and serving Christ less completely than one can being undistracted, then by all means get married. I believe that's what he was getting at.)
  
• My scenario contrasting the reserved homosexual couple against the promiscuous one was meant to point out that gays would find greater acceptance if indeed what they sought was a committed monogomous relationship. Some do, perhaps most do, but the visible advocacy element of the movement promotes something quite different. I've said several times that what the gay rights advocates seek is not mere acceptance, not something as benign as tolerance, but rather full-throated celebration of their preferred lifestyle. And that lifestyle has nothing to do with commitment and monogamy. You can disagree with my point, but I believe it to be true, based on years of observing how the movement has evolved and grown more confident with each passing year. The "gay marriage" thing is case in point -- there are already lawsuits in the pipeline to permit not just gay marriage, but "marriages" consisting of three or more people. Their aim, I believe, is to dilute the concept of marriage to such a degree that they'll be free to pursue a lifestyle of sexual abandon without suffering the burdens of societal scorn. Just my opinion. But not a completely uninformed one.
  

* * *
Steamed brocolli is God's miracle food. Hard to grow in a garden though ... the bugs love the stuff.

Fat Free

Humans are unique in this world.

Yes -- and there are as many as 10 million unique species on the planet by one estimate. Sidenote: all of the species found so far have been traced as being descendents of just four species found in the Burgess Shale (Cambrian Explosion). However, there were 20 unique species found in the Burgess Shale. Food for thought that there have been no descendents of the other 16 found today. Perhaps due to the violent pounding the Earth has taken in the last 500 million years, wiping out so many species?

There are very few human behaviors that are truly mandated by our genetics. Breathing, digestive processing, gag reflex, closing eyes when sneezing -- involuntary. Being an adulterer -- an exercise of the will.

That's an interesting point. Our brains are formed from our genetics, but the structure inside of our brains grows and changes due to stimuli and experience in our lives -- so yes very different from the other autonomic processes you mention (did you ever see the Gattaca movie?).

Hmm, and is "our will" anything other than the stuctures of neurons in our brains? (I hope so).

Here's an interesting question:

• Two people -- a man and a woman -- unmarried but living together for companionship and survival -- are asked to abide by God's will and abstain from any sexual activity, though they both desire it.
• Two people -- a man and a man, or a woman and a woman -- unmarried but living together for companionship and survival -- are asked to abide by God's will and abstain from sexual activity, though they both desire it.
  

What's the difference?

I'm being dense here I know but I am not sure I understand what you're asking here. But I agree the hetero couple can get married and start bonking. But note (digression warning), the NT seems to suggest that Jesus was saying that marriage was a "last resort" and an "ok, if you really must do it then get married". Does this suggest to you that if we were all true Christians then the Earth's human population would dwindle to zero and mankind would die out? It does to me. Any maybe that is what Jesus was suggesting should happen, maybe that is the ultimate plan? Maybe that is where true fulfilment lies -- in the avoidance of life. It's possible, imagine that before life we were in some permanently blissful state, then life comes along and spoils all of that. Maybe life is a chore, maybe Jesus was hinting at that? Doesn't sound very "life affirming" but Jesus is God so knows (and wrote) the plan. Anyway I can't think of any other difference than the one you pointed out, but I know I've missed your point :(

Another question:

• A homosexual couple lives their lives in a committed, caring way where their sexual behavior is at best a secondary definitional element of their relationship.
  
• A homosexual couple lives their lives in a wild, promiscuous way where their sexual behavior is by far the primary definitional element of their relationship.
  

Is there a difference in the way society would react to one versus the other? If so, why?

Well, if you are heterosexual and conform to the bias for heterosexuality -- and homosexual promiscuity is in your face then you're more likely to complain about it. If it's hidden then you are probably more likely to let sleeping dogs lie :) Hedonistic pleasure seekers of the magnitude of the second bullet are many standard deviations away from the centre (think bell curve) and society provides a natural negative pressure on any activity proportional to it's distance from the mean. OK, I just made that up but I think that there is something in it. Again I may be missing your point :(

+++

Music soothes the human mind, chanting and all that is marvellous. There is something special about the human voice, so whilst tree-frog song from Bermuda is relaxing, it's just not as engaging as people singing. Frank Zappa once said "Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid."

In fact, Katherine is staying with her mother for three nights from today so I may get a chance to finish my latest cover songs album which my family want to hear. I've been recording stuff since August or so, I ended up covering a Beatles song from Sgt. Pepper -- so my album is called "She's Living Home" :)

I actually hope K is happy at her mothers, whilst A has not had one phone call from our daughter saying "I miss you" (which is good - but odd), every day that K spends at A's I get a phone call saying "Daddy come and get me". It's tough, but not so bad as I know that she is safe on the whole and will be home soon.

+++

I have to diet but not to lose weight but to try to eat heathily and eat those foods that are meant to depress cancer, like broccoli. Good luck with yours! I am lucky I will never be overweight.

South Beach Diet

The South Beach Diet is a moderated "low carb" diet, and I'm presently half-heartedly on it. I had reached the 170 pound weight and most of that was around the middle. Unlike the Atkins Diet, which is a strict "no carb" program, the South Beach Diet prohibits nearly all carbohydrates in the first two weeks, in an effort to (they claim) break some kind of insulin-related cycle. Then certain carbohydrates are reintroduced, but in moderation. At its core the objective is to limit the carbohydrates that contribute most to a jump in one's blood sugar.

Things clearly restricted: refined wheat pasta; refined wheat bread; white rice.

Guess what foods I just simply love? :-)

But in a rather short period of time the craving for that stuff does subside. And the diet does work.

I don't suppose you've ever considered the need to diet, right?

A Sense of Reverence

I'm listing to a iTunes-purchased album of Gregorian Chants. I find them incredibly soothing. There is, within me, an augmented sense of the reverent when I listen to it.

I miss the church experience where people approach the sanctuary with a sense of quiet and reserve. Today it seems that "social hour" extends up to the second verse of the first hymn.

Compulsion

A termite "cathedral" mound produced by a termite colony: a classic example of emergence in nature. Is this building in any way a sin?

Oh, termites are darn near sodomites! Sinful critters. :-)

I supposed what you mean is that they are genetically compelled to build. And if was stipulated that building the "cathedral" was bad, then following their genetic compulsion would be a "sin."

Several points:

• They're termites, not humans. Humans are unique in this world.
  
• If the problem is in calling the structure a "cathedral" (borderline blasphemy?), then I would say I doubt he termites themselves call it that. They probably don't call it anything. They probably "say" -- "Queen smell there. Go there."
• There's a difference between genetic capacity and genetic compulsion.
  

There are very few human behaviors that are truly mandated by our genetics. Breathing, digestive processing, gag reflex, closing eyes when sneezing -- involuntary. Being an adulterer -- an exercise of the will.

Here's an interesting question:

• Two people -- a man and a woman -- unmarried but living together for companionship and survival -- are asked to abide by God's will and abstain from any sexual activity, though they both desire it.
• Two people -- a man and a man, or a woman and a woman -- unmarried but living together for companionship and survival -- are asked to abide by God's will and abstain from sexual activity, though they both desire it.
  

What's the difference? Other than "the hetero couple have the option to get married and the gay couple does not." The focus is on the exercise of the will to practice abstainance.

It's always struck me as an odd argument that "having sex" has been elevated to the highest level of human "rights."

Another question:

• A homosexual couple lives their lives in a committed, caring way where their sexual behavior is at best a secondary definitional element of their relationship.
  
• A homosexual couple lives their lives in a wild, promiscuous way where their sexual behavior is by far the primary definitional element of their relationship.
  

Is there a difference in the way society would react to one versus the other? If so, why?

Emergent Behaviour

"But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

This gets back to my point about the teachings of The Bible telling us to cast aside (or at least moderate) those brain structures in ourselves that have (allegedly) presumably evolved from natural selection (aka. "instincts").

Even if a Christian did not take Genesis literally, I can still see why a lot of Christians would be against natural selection on the grounds of "God giving us these urges does not fit in with the plan that sin is all the fault of the individual". And "Why would we need to forgive someone a sin if they were compelled to do it through their genetics?" I'm thinking of eg. a gay preacher who preached against homosexuals.

Hmm in his case was the sin of the preacher being a practising gay or being two-faced? Both I assume. For me the latter is the "sin" because I am assuming it breaks the "Treat others .." Golden Rule, unless of course the preacher is a masochist, individuals for whom which I have always maintained the rule does not work.



A termite "cathedral" mound produced by a termite colony: a classic example of emergence in nature. Is this building in any way a sin?

The Inclination of the Man

No, no trick. I was pondering the concept of the man already being a thief since he was the kind of man who would steal. It's an esoteric thought ... and it gets to the idea of whether one must physically carry out a sin to be guilty of the sin. The Pharisees thought not; Jesus seemed to imply otherwise.

All of us are capable of being a thief, so there's some difficulty in this analysis.

Just a thought exercise.

Update: Matthew 5:28 comes to mind: "But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." But even that is different from my scenario. Looking at a woman lustfully is an act of commission, albeit an internal one. If I stand outside a house and intend to rob it, is there a parallel at all with looking at a woman and intentionally lusting? If so, it's an indirect relationship. Still, there's something in my mind about this ... has a man who has within him the capacity and intent to be a thief already crossed a line and become a thief?

* * *
Perhaps you are fulfilling your purpose in life by being present and available for your daughter. Perhaps by fulfilling your purpose, you've tapped into the real joy that can be our lives?

Virtual sin

Question: was the man a thief at 11:59am?

Hmm, is this a trick question? Like he robbed the house that morning and he was going back to rob it again? Or maybe he was already a thief in the past, or maybe some other trick! :)

If it was a "straight up" question then he's not a thief according to the wikipedia at least as that work defines "thief" as:

Someone who carries out an act of or makes a career of theft is known as a "thief".

What would you say?

+++

Question: What exactly is self-actualization in Maslow's heirarchy of needs. I am finding that being a parent is a very satisfying experience - I have someone that needs me to look after them and this is a very fulfilling role. And when my daughter isn't here I make more of the time I have alone - a balanced life seems to be a good one.