Worldviews

First, SOA may be inevitable. And the battle may be between Java and .NET. I suspect when the dust settles it'll be some kind of patched-together hybrid between the two. But it won't stop there because, if my thesis is correct, it can't stop there ... the addiction will insist upon more.

Ever look behind the counter at a McDonalds? They use dumb-terminal technology. That's telling to me. :-)

* * *
I was reading a blog about Narnia, and how to talk to someone unfamiliar with Christianity who has seen Narnia and wonders what the fuss is about. One paragraph out of many said this:

One of the toughest challenges Christians face today when talking about our faith is that so many people do not share our basic worldview. They do not believe in a creator, or in a personal creator, at any rate. Or they do not believe in a strict dichotomy between good and evil. Or they do not believe that there is such a thing as sin. Many people are not prepared to receive the Christian gospel as good news because they simply don't accept the presuppositions (good creation; reality of sin; holiness of God; etc.).

I think this particular author has burdened his main point with too much ... the issue is far, far more fundamental than this. You and I have gone back and forth on this many times. The fundamental difficulty in this age in trying to convince anyone of the merits of Christianity is this:

Few believe there is a singular, ultimate truth

And with that worldview then, by definition, any religion that claims to be "the one true religion" is immediately discounted. Religions that hold as one of their central tenets the absence of any real truth -- new age stuff does this -- fit nicely with this worldview.

If a person holds that no singular, ultimate truth exists, there is no possible way to convince them otherwise. They may come around to believing in a singular truth, but the process will not be due to some logically constructed argument. Logic requires a belief in a guiding set of truths, and I'm not speaking of religious truths here. If at each step in a logical construction the listener leans back on a worldview where "there is no truth," or "all things are relative," then they will naturally resist concluding anything. How is it possible to conclude anything when there is no truth?

Such is the morass we have gotten ourselves into.

Satan must be smiling. It truly is his most clever and dastardly invention to date.

Service Oriented Architecture is inevitable

Sir, I very much enjoyed your last post (Technology is Crack) and it very much resonated with my own views in this area.

With regards to what to chose to avoid becoming a hungry lion, I think "SOA" and "ESB" might be pretty good ideas, maybe not the latter - because that depends on java. But one can certainly implement an SOA entirely in .NET.

I think the real battle in this area is between java and .NET.

I believe that eventually all IT resources will become a set of loosely coupled services.

It's no better than green screens, but then again it still takes the same time to get across London as it did 100 years ago, so I wouldn't expect it any other way.

Technology is Crack

I'm not sure if "crack" is an common slang word in the U.K. and Europe. In the U.S. it's the term used to refer to a certain formulation of cocaine. The term "crack" is often used to refer generically to an something addictive -- "Honey roasted almonds are like crack to me!"

Anyway, the point of my title is this: I am honestly coming to believe that the ever-increasing march towards more complex technological "solutions" is a manifestation of an addiction.

I'm very serious.

What I've not fully settled on is what's driving the addiction. I doubt very much that it's being driven by true business needs. We've had this discussion before: much of what's being developed today was adequately addressed years ago.

I have two theories as to why this is occurring:

1. Technology companies have a need to demonstrate and deliver "new stuff" to maintain an appearance of progress and growth. A rock-solid product that isn't "enhanced" every six months is considered a dead product.
2. I/T departments in customer organizations have a need to generate the perception that new stuff is required so that management doesn't focus its cost-cutting eye on the I/T staff. I like to refer to this as "maintaining the priesthood."

So in a sense it's a two-way addiction -- one side helping feed the other.

I got to thinking about all of this when I received a note this morning inquiring about crafting another workshop to cover "SOA" and "ESB". I thought, "There's no way I can keep up with all this. The rate of introduction is too much." I take some comfort in knowing that some of the smartest people I know are just barely keeping up with the new technology. I think what's happening is that we're being forced to specialize in a slice of the bigger picture ... and hope that somehow we can come together as "slice holders" to address problems with the "bigger picture." I'm unconvinced we'll do that. Certainly not efficiently.

The thing about being forced to specialize that frightens me is that choosing the wrong specialty could mean getting cut out of the herd. And once out, I'd never get back in.

It's akin to the lion hunting the gazelle on the African plain. They pick one and go after it. If they pick right, they have dinner; if they pick wrong and the gazelle gets away, they go hungry.

Croatia

I'm sitting in Zagreb looking out the window - pretty bleak weather. People are talking on the phones, I don't know what they are saying but they throw in the odd English word like "machine" or "WebSphere", it's quite funny !

Was it Voltaire that wrote:

"To those that think, life is a comedy. To those that feel, life is a tradegy".

I guess we are all in that spectrum somewhere.

A Fair Point

You're right. Though I'm no expert on Karl Marx's original political/economic theory, I think it can be safely said that in his mind he did not envision it resulting in the slaughter of tens of millions. That was a case of the original message being corrupted for another use.

That would be the common defense of religion or Christianity -- harm done in the name of the religion is a corruption of the original message.

Okay, fair enough. Allow me to withdraw my original complaint about Marxism and ask the question not as a negative, but as a positive:

Compare the positive things accomplished due to Marxism and the positive things accomplished due to Christianity.

The list of positive things accomplished due to Christianity is impressive: vast quantities of art; the energy behind the abolition of slavery in the 1800's; the Red Cross; the Salvation Army; countless charities, etc., etc.

Marxism?

Some might argue that "true Marxism" has never been properly tested ... that it is not proper to ask for examples of success since what Marx had in mind has been corrupted in every instance of its application. To that I would respond: what does that say about Marxism itself?

I stand by my original point, which is: any poll that returns Karl Marx as the #1 philosopher of all time is simply absurd. It's a sure sign that a bunch of lefty moon-bats hit the site and voted for Marx based on some dreamy notion of some political-economic nirvana right around the corner.

It would be akin to a poll that listed C. S. Lewis as the #1 author of literature in the second millenium. If that were the result, one would naturally expect the poll to have been hammered by a bunch of Christian right-wingers.

Note: but not really ... true Christian right-wingers hate C. S. Lewis. They consider him the anti-Christ. Honestly ... do a Google search of C. S. Lewis and some negative word like "objections" or "apostasy" or something like that. The really off-the-scale right-wingers think Lewis was a thinly-veiled Catholic bordering on paganism. ;-)

* * *

As for Jesus and the human/divine issue: nope, sorry ... I won't go there. Too mysterious. In theological terms that's referred to as the hypostatic union. Jesus was simultaneous all-man and all-God, not man at one point and God at another, not half-man and half-God, but at any given time fully man and fully divine. Or so it is believed. This issue was forced on the early church in -- I think -- the 3rd century.

For my part, I simply accept that Jesus was both man and God in some mysterious way. Then I think to myself: "Bagwell, you're struggling to obey at the most basic level ... what makes you think pondering this deep mystery is anything other than an act of procrastination?" :-)

A slice of infinity

If God has infinite knowledge then would any subdivision of that knowledge also be infinite? That is the nature of infinity right? (eg. infinity + 1 = infinity, infinity/2 = infinity and so forth). So if Jesus had any part of the infinite knowledge of God then he would have had infinite knowledge himself, therefore I agree - no contest, he was the smartest person who ever lived (and the smartest who will ever live). Amazing that He bothered with Earth at all. This may also mean that when He asked why He had been forsaken, He really knew the answer and it must have been a rhetorical question - presumably for our benefit.

If God does not have infinite knowledge ( not something I am willing to accept!) then it is possible that Jesus may not have had infinite knowledge.

You wrote:

... and the consequences wrought by him (Marx) have led to the death of tens of millions.

I've actually heard similar arguments given against religion, and against Jesus. The usual religious response is to say that people would have found some way to kill each other regardless of religion, regardless of Jesus or of Mohammed. I think that argument could be equally applied to the religion that Marx taught too, could it not?

Smartest Human Ever

Dallas Willard -- a professor of philosophy at the University of Southern California, and a noted Christian author and speaker -- asserts that above all other brilliant people who ever was, one stands out: Jesus.

Now, we can get into the weeds really quickly about how much knowledge from Christ's divine nature was present in his human nature. We know some was -- examples: he knew the woman at the well had five husbands and was living with another; he sees through Nathanael's initial skepticism about Jesus as the messiah.

If we grant the human nature of Jesus full possession of God's knowledge, then it's no contest.

I'm not really sure I'm up to arguing the case pro or con ... I just toss it out there for consideration.

Karl Marx?

I count as suspect any poll that ends up listing Karl Marx as its "Greatest Philosopher." Marx was certainly influential, but not in a lasting way, and certainly not in a good way. His theory turned out to be a failure, and the consequences wrought by him have led to the death of tens of millions.

I don't know about the other ones. I've heard of them, but I don't really know much about their philosophy or their impact.

* * *
I could never do the chemical equation stuff. Never. I could do physics and math, but not chemistry.

World's Hardest Equation

You're going for the household names I see !

For science I would have to add:

Pythagoras
Whoever invented the wheel
Whoever invented the abacus

Art/Science crossover:

Leonardo Da Vinci

B-List genii : Euler, Hawking, Ramanujan, Aristotle, Archimedes, Alexander The Great, Lennon & McCartney (together), Penrose, Bagwell

BBC radio 4 had a recent poll for the greatest philosopher of all time:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtime/greatest_philosopher_vote_result.shtml

To test your genius, apparently this is the worlds hardest equation to balance

? H2 + ? Ca(CN)2 + ? NaAlF4 + ? FeSO4 + ? MgSiO3 + ? KI + ? H3PO4 + ? PbCrO4 + ? BrCl + ? CF2Cl2 + ? SO2 -> ? PbBr2 + ? CrCl3 + ? MgCO3 + ? KAl(OH)4 + ? Fe(SCN)3 + ? PI3 + ? Na2SiO3 + ? CaF2 + ? H2O

It can be done apparently - what's the answer?

Geniuses

Okay, along those lines ... who are some bona fide "geniuses" throughout history?

Science

• Galileo
• Newton
• Einstein
• ???

Art

• Michelangelo
• Rembrandt
• ???

Music

• Bach
• Beethoven
• Mozart
• ???

Philosophy/Thought

• ???

Genius?

Good golly, no.

That said, I will confess I have been blessed with certain gifts in some areas.

But genius? That's a lofty perch.

Not me. Honestly -- no false modesty -- no.

Genius

Honest question to you, bar the upbringing (sans Tom Brown's school days and Flashman) .. do you think that you are a genius? Here is what John Lennon said when asked during the Rolling Stone interview:

Do you think you're a genius?

Yes, if there is such a thing as one, I am one.

People like me are aware of their so-called genius at ten, eight, nine. . . . I always wondered, ``Why has nobody discovered me?'' In school, didn't they see that I'm cleverer than anybody in this school? That the teachers are stupid, too? That all they had was information that I didn't need? I got f*****' lost in being at high school. I used to say to me auntie, ``You throw my f*****' poetry out, and you'll regret it when I'm famous, '' and she threw the b****rd stuff out. I never forgave her for not treating me like a f*****' genius or whatever I was, when I was a child. It was obvious to me. Why didn't they put me in art school? Why didn't they train me? Why would they keep forcing me to be a f******' cowboy like the rest of them? I was different, I was always different. Why didn't anybody notice me? A couple of teachers would notice me, encourage me to be something or other, to draw or to paint - express myself. But most of the time they were trying to beat me into being a f******' dentist or a teacher. And then the f*****' fans tried to beat me into being a f*****' Beatle or an Engelbert Humperdinck, and the critics tried to beat me into being Paul McCartney.

++++

I just wondered - I am certainly not a genius. Perhaps a Salieri to your Mozart pal.

I hope all went well in the Big Apple for ya, rest in peace John Winston Lennon, I guess I would have stopped by Strawberry Fields today had I been there.

The IQ Virus

You have multiple of those genes, pal ... :-)

* * *
I think intelligence is fundamentally genetic, but can be hindered or fostered based on upbringing. There's no question in my mind that I am stymied due to the relatively poor education I received. Had I been raised in a good old-fashioned English boarding school of the 1930's, where I would learn the classics as well as get buggered senseless each day, I'd be a completely different person today.

* * *
Cool news about the reovirus. They'd better be darn certain that virus can't "go rogue" and start attacking normal cells.

What's amusing is that there are people who will applaud this development, yet lament genetically modified corn. The distinction between the two, in terms of "human hands altering the design of nature," is not that great.

* * *
Last day in NYC ... say goodbye to the Big Apple.

Low IQ Gene

I could have weeks of fun following the links on the Death Star site, thanks - I think :-)

+++

If only I didn't have this gene variant - I could have been a genius:

http://www.azstarnet.com/news/105238

Question: Are most of us born with the capability to be roughly equal in intelligence? Is intelligence predominantly geno- or phenotypical?

+++

Reovirus: good to know about. God bless the canucks! http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/213203.stm (1998) and http://www.medadnews.com/News/Index.cfm?articleid=296062 (Dec 5 2005)

Just 'Cuz I Like You

Here you go:

http://science.howstuffworks.com/death-star.htm

Say goodbye to your day.

Why?

So by infinitely re-arranging the combinations of Y-H-W-H we get a repeating pattern of "Why?" Is that:

• Us asking God "Why?"
• Or God asking us "Why?"

:-)

Why in the name of God?

Yes, the rendering of trust being evil, I can see that. The person kicking the dog: a clear of example of someone treating another living creature in a way that they themselves would not wish to be treated - regardless of religion. He will of course get judged one day. (Maybe he got judged already - did you already blow him away with a magnum 44 in a "Go ahead make my day, punk" fashion?) What a ***hole.

+++

I just made something up, well I've never seen it before anywhere. I was considering your post entitled "No purpose" and got to thinking why? Why are we are here etc? Doodling on a piece of paper I got

Whywhywhywhywhy ...

I imagined for a brief moment that I saw YHWH in there! Then I drew this grid to read YHWH across the top and YHWH down the side ..


YHWH
HYHW
WHYH
HWHY

If you make the grid infinitely large -- reading forwards and backwarks, downwards and upwards, there are your why's. There is no escape.

QED.

:-)

Deliberately Abusing Trust

That's how I would define "evil." To me, the act of extending trust is one of the most precious things a human can do. Therefore, when someone deliberately violates that trust -- and particularly if they violate it with malice -- that is evil.

This is made worse when the trust is extended not by free choice, but by necessity. For example, a young child must trust its parent to survive. For the parent to then deliberately abuse that trust is harmful not just in the obvious way, but doubly so because the violated child is placed in a truly horrible position: having to choose between trusting and dying.

Another example of this is something I witnessed once in North Carolina. A man was viciously kicking a chained-up dog. The dog was yelping pitifully, and trying its best to get away from the abuse. But of course it could not. The dog was helpless.

Trust, once extended and violated, creates a wound that can almost never heal.

Defining Evil

Hard one, you alluded to "one man's meat is another man's gravy" - yes evil appears to be relative.

You asked what is the most beautiful thing I ever saw, well now I am thinking, what is the most evil thing I ever saw.

I guess it's tied up with

Lying
Being unkind to children
Corrupting innocence
Expecting more from others than you're willing to give yourself
Getting enjoyment out of anothers pain

..

Hmm, what is the most evil thing that you have ever experienced?

Google and Evil

I didn't know that was Google's motto. That's a very, very odd motto for a corporation to possess. It's odd on two levels:

1. The word "evil" is a negative term -- and usually corporate mottos try to be postitive. Even though they try to negate it (with the "Don't be" preface), the tenor of the motto itself is eerily negative.
2. The term "evil" is a poorly defined term. First, it requires one to accept that evil exists (as you point out), and nowadays that's not a popular notion. And second, it's possible (and very likely) that different people have different notions of evil. And to equate a corporation of "yes men" as "evil" seems very odd.

I'm with you -- if the sentiment behind the logo is more along the lines of "Be Considerate of Others," then it's laudible. But even that would be met with suspicion as it sounds so hokey. But saying, "Don't be Evil" simply carries an odd, odd cast to it.

Care to take a stab at a definition for "evil?"