There are some games that are produced for Nintendo gaming systems that are incredible.
Elite Beat Agents is a fun game for anyone that enjoys music. You really can't tell from the package just how much fun it is to play this game.
You might have to get over the cheesy story lines that go with each mini music game, but they are so cheesy that you can't help but laugh sometimes.
In essence, there are destination where you need to dance with your Nintendo stylus with the music and the beats in the measure that the game shows you on the screen. There are a few variations to what you need to do to hit the bit (or up-beat) or dance with a long section of music.
Hey, and you can't knock a game too much that has Men at Work's YMCA on it!!!
But I do have some problems with game play, the opening tutorial and content.
The opening training/tutorial section doesn't take you through the experience very well, in fact the only thing you'll really know how to do is the spinning you do for bonus points.
Game play is great! If you have a really good sense of timing. There are two levels of game play, but I think they get things a bit wrong on the lower level of game play. Specifically, they reduce the number of times you have to tap the screen to the beats, but this doesn't necessarily make it easier.
I suspect the answer to both of my points is to have a tutorial mode, where you are hitting on the beat for the most part, like we do when we're just bopping around to music or something to get in to the habit or style of playing and listening to the music.
Please NOTE! The game asks you to listen to it, I suggest you do what it says! If you play the game watching the circles closing in on the circles, you are sure to miss a lot of beats.
My 4 year-old son loves this game, but he can't play it. There is no child mode which would be incredible to have. I'm sure he'd be in to this for hours trying to get everything just right. Now he just gets frustrated and wants to watch me play it.
I'm hoping that they get more titles like this - perhaps Elite Beat Agents 2, 3, 4 or different themes and music. Once they have the primary engine down (and they do, game play works flawlessly) it should be a simple matter to port more music over and the comic art intros and action shouldn't take too long to create.
It is an opportunity for a lot of rich content that shouldn't cost a lot to make, but that I think people would be willing to pay for.
At least I would be willing to pay for it.
Monday, April 30, 2007
Brutal Supidity
A woman is killed in an accident by a roller coaster at a Lego-Land amusement park.
This might be good enough for a Darwin award. It isn't that it was something not in her range to control. She wasn't a customer. She was the ride operator. A ride takes several operators. At least 2 people, if not usually 3 people. One to operate the controls, one to make sure the people are on the ride and give all clear and one to make sure everyone got off the ride and give the all-clear.
Well, this woman was probably one of the people helping people on or off the ride and giving all clear. I've been a ride operator at Six Flags Great Adventure. I remember the training. If her training was anything like what I received, they probably send something like 'Never get on the tracks. If someone losses something, you have to call maintenance and they may get it.'
So, some guy says to her (and this guy is the epitome of stupidity as well) that he lost his wallet and that it fell on the tracks. Who in their right mind would ask someone to get their wallet from the tracks of a running ride? At most, he should have said that please, I hope that when the ride isn't running there is a way to get my wallet back.
Certainly not go jump down there and get my wallet please.
Or maybe, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and he mentioned it to her and she took it in to her own head to go down there and get the wallet.
The net result of all of this is that this woman is dead. It is a sad thing when people die for stupid reasons. My heart goes out to her relatives, her parents and her friends.
Blame also goes to all of these people. You have to have appropriate decision making abilities to work a ride or do just about anything in life. Somebody didn't teach her those decision making skills well enough to be doing what she was doing.
She was 21 years old. So, she wasn't some little girl. She should have known and valued her life enough to tell this guy to bugger off.
I'm sure there will be major lawsuits against the park and the ride manufacturer and that everything about what a person does in the process over there will be reviewed by legal people.
Really, though, what it comes down to in this case is a person having the sense not to jump on tracks of an operating ride. The same kind of sense that involves not walking on railroad tracks of an operating railroad or not walking in front of moving cars.
This might be good enough for a Darwin award. It isn't that it was something not in her range to control. She wasn't a customer. She was the ride operator. A ride takes several operators. At least 2 people, if not usually 3 people. One to operate the controls, one to make sure the people are on the ride and give all clear and one to make sure everyone got off the ride and give the all-clear.
Well, this woman was probably one of the people helping people on or off the ride and giving all clear. I've been a ride operator at Six Flags Great Adventure. I remember the training. If her training was anything like what I received, they probably send something like 'Never get on the tracks. If someone losses something, you have to call maintenance and they may get it.'
So, some guy says to her (and this guy is the epitome of stupidity as well) that he lost his wallet and that it fell on the tracks. Who in their right mind would ask someone to get their wallet from the tracks of a running ride? At most, he should have said that please, I hope that when the ride isn't running there is a way to get my wallet back.
Certainly not go jump down there and get my wallet please.
Or maybe, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and he mentioned it to her and she took it in to her own head to go down there and get the wallet.
The net result of all of this is that this woman is dead. It is a sad thing when people die for stupid reasons. My heart goes out to her relatives, her parents and her friends.
Blame also goes to all of these people. You have to have appropriate decision making abilities to work a ride or do just about anything in life. Somebody didn't teach her those decision making skills well enough to be doing what she was doing.
She was 21 years old. So, she wasn't some little girl. She should have known and valued her life enough to tell this guy to bugger off.
I'm sure there will be major lawsuits against the park and the ride manufacturer and that everything about what a person does in the process over there will be reviewed by legal people.
Really, though, what it comes down to in this case is a person having the sense not to jump on tracks of an operating ride. The same kind of sense that involves not walking on railroad tracks of an operating railroad or not walking in front of moving cars.
Fragile Infrastructure Logic
A recent road accident in California raises attention nationwide, mostly because it is on CNN's front page.
This accident involves a tanker truck filled with gasoline. Involved in a single vehicle accident in the early morning hours today it is fortunate that no person was killed.
However, the massive amount of fuel spilled and then burning on the road destroyed a major commuting artery in the San Francisco area. This in turn will cause major problems for months in the San Francisco area. This in turn will cause major economic losses to businesses and people in the local region.
I've worked up in this area and taken flights to San Francisco and drive up to a client C&H Sugar. Everything comes to a pinch point at the bridge out there. So, perhaps you want to blame the people in California for making such a fragile system? This would be incorrect to do. Most major metropolitan areas come down to pinch points. Thinking of the tens of thousands of commuters that drive in to New York City from New Jersey on any given day and a similar accident on the George Washington Bridge??? That would be all bad.
You could blame the infrastructure in terms of roads and bridge conditions as San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom does, but this too would be incorrect. Think about it for a minute. You have thousands of gallons of volatile liquid being spilled and then combusted on the roadway. This fuel gains its potency from burning hot when combined with Oxygen which is all around us. Any time a tanker truck spills its load on to the road and burns you are going to have major damage. If that particular roadway is an overpass or a bridge you can expect the metal components to come under stress.
There was a similar incident over in New Jersey on Route 80; however, it wasn't a bridge and just damaged the road to make it impassable. This was fixed relatively easily.
However, these tanker trucks drive millions of miles every year and for every mile drive it increases the chance of there being an accident or a sever accident. Each one of these tanker trucks represents a ticking time bomb to local economies.
There will be losses of fuel as people have to spend more time or more miles to get to their employment because of this accident.
It will take additional funds of unknown source to fix this roadway. It will cost more to fix because there will be lots of pressure inside and outside of the government to get this fixed as soon as possible.
Prices of local goods will go up (temporarily one hopes) and cost residents more money.
Major businesses that transport goods through the area will be heavily impacted.
Now, if we worked on a way to eliminate roads this wouldn't be a big issue. We can do this and reduce our risk as a society. This is only a preview of accidents to come. If this happened on the George Washington Bridge, it would affect me directly. It would most certainly affect millions of people as well.
At some point we need to stop the onward rush to do things and think and plan how our future will look and how secure it will be. All we are doing now as a society is madly rushing around like a chicken with its head cut off fixing the problem of today and not concentrating on the future.
There is a problem when almost all major road construction has to take place in the off-hours because on-hour construction would create traffic snarls that would damage the economy. Moving the time of construction treats a symptom, much like cough medicine, but does nothing to alleviate the underlying problem.
Adding more roads will help alleviate the symptom as well, but when I watched a show on the addition of infrastructure in the New Jersey area, it indicated that the new road will help in the short term - the next 6 months, but then the new roadway will also be running at over 100% capacity.
This appeared to be an affect of people wanting to go to places where it was easier to drive and get to. The new roadway offers this until there is no more capacity left. Then matters are as bad or worse than they were before.
This accident involves a tanker truck filled with gasoline. Involved in a single vehicle accident in the early morning hours today it is fortunate that no person was killed.
However, the massive amount of fuel spilled and then burning on the road destroyed a major commuting artery in the San Francisco area. This in turn will cause major problems for months in the San Francisco area. This in turn will cause major economic losses to businesses and people in the local region.
I've worked up in this area and taken flights to San Francisco and drive up to a client C&H Sugar. Everything comes to a pinch point at the bridge out there. So, perhaps you want to blame the people in California for making such a fragile system? This would be incorrect to do. Most major metropolitan areas come down to pinch points. Thinking of the tens of thousands of commuters that drive in to New York City from New Jersey on any given day and a similar accident on the George Washington Bridge??? That would be all bad.
You could blame the infrastructure in terms of roads and bridge conditions as San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom does, but this too would be incorrect. Think about it for a minute. You have thousands of gallons of volatile liquid being spilled and then combusted on the roadway. This fuel gains its potency from burning hot when combined with Oxygen which is all around us. Any time a tanker truck spills its load on to the road and burns you are going to have major damage. If that particular roadway is an overpass or a bridge you can expect the metal components to come under stress.
There was a similar incident over in New Jersey on Route 80; however, it wasn't a bridge and just damaged the road to make it impassable. This was fixed relatively easily.
However, these tanker trucks drive millions of miles every year and for every mile drive it increases the chance of there being an accident or a sever accident. Each one of these tanker trucks represents a ticking time bomb to local economies.
There will be losses of fuel as people have to spend more time or more miles to get to their employment because of this accident.
It will take additional funds of unknown source to fix this roadway. It will cost more to fix because there will be lots of pressure inside and outside of the government to get this fixed as soon as possible.
Prices of local goods will go up (temporarily one hopes) and cost residents more money.
Major businesses that transport goods through the area will be heavily impacted.
Now, if we worked on a way to eliminate roads this wouldn't be a big issue. We can do this and reduce our risk as a society. This is only a preview of accidents to come. If this happened on the George Washington Bridge, it would affect me directly. It would most certainly affect millions of people as well.
At some point we need to stop the onward rush to do things and think and plan how our future will look and how secure it will be. All we are doing now as a society is madly rushing around like a chicken with its head cut off fixing the problem of today and not concentrating on the future.
There is a problem when almost all major road construction has to take place in the off-hours because on-hour construction would create traffic snarls that would damage the economy. Moving the time of construction treats a symptom, much like cough medicine, but does nothing to alleviate the underlying problem.
Adding more roads will help alleviate the symptom as well, but when I watched a show on the addition of infrastructure in the New Jersey area, it indicated that the new road will help in the short term - the next 6 months, but then the new roadway will also be running at over 100% capacity.
This appeared to be an affect of people wanting to go to places where it was easier to drive and get to. The new roadway offers this until there is no more capacity left. Then matters are as bad or worse than they were before.
Friday, April 27, 2007
Geodesic Dome Home
Many years ago when I was a teenager I was an avid reader of Popular Science Magazine. I still am a avid reader of that magazine. It was there in the back of that magazine that I fell in love with an idea. The idea of a geodesic dome to live in as my house.
There are so many advantages to a geodesic dome compared to a standard one that I find it hard to imagine that people even want the traditional home. In this age, the era of conservation of resources, a home that takes less material to build, consume less energy on the day to day basis and offers more space is more in harmony with world-wide trends.
It seems likely that I may get the opportunity to build a geodesic dome. As long as the local governments do not frustrate me with regulations I plan on gowing forward with this idea. I can't be totally sure of when.
This opportunity offers a lot of elegance as well. An elegant idea to build a geodesic dome as an addition to my wife's grandmother's house - which in turn was built by my wife's grandfather who has long since past away.
It would be a blend of the old and the new. It would offer, with its additional strength, safety in this times of an unknown climate.
It still won't help the fact that we count as a coastal population and that if the seas rise an extraordinary amount it may well be an underwater dome; however, it seems at the moment unlikely that the climate will crash that much.
Super powered hurricanes? Yeah, probably, despite the current idea circulating about wind shearing and the prevention of the formation of hurricanes.
Extremes of weather at odd points in time. Yep, already experiencing that. We'll see how it goes.
Anyway, there are quite a few manufacturers of geodesic domes. Currently, we are investigating Timberline domes (the one of two manufacturers of geodesic domes that still advertises in the back of Popular Science.)
There are so many advantages to a geodesic dome compared to a standard one that I find it hard to imagine that people even want the traditional home. In this age, the era of conservation of resources, a home that takes less material to build, consume less energy on the day to day basis and offers more space is more in harmony with world-wide trends.
It seems likely that I may get the opportunity to build a geodesic dome. As long as the local governments do not frustrate me with regulations I plan on gowing forward with this idea. I can't be totally sure of when.
This opportunity offers a lot of elegance as well. An elegant idea to build a geodesic dome as an addition to my wife's grandmother's house - which in turn was built by my wife's grandfather who has long since past away.
It would be a blend of the old and the new. It would offer, with its additional strength, safety in this times of an unknown climate.
It still won't help the fact that we count as a coastal population and that if the seas rise an extraordinary amount it may well be an underwater dome; however, it seems at the moment unlikely that the climate will crash that much.
Super powered hurricanes? Yeah, probably, despite the current idea circulating about wind shearing and the prevention of the formation of hurricanes.
Extremes of weather at odd points in time. Yep, already experiencing that. We'll see how it goes.
Anyway, there are quite a few manufacturers of geodesic domes. Currently, we are investigating Timberline domes (the one of two manufacturers of geodesic domes that still advertises in the back of Popular Science.)
Heaven and Justice
Not too long ago in the debates on Internet Infidels Forum there was a debate in regard to justice.
It seems like a ritual that religious people come to IIDB and challenge us on what we believe and usually approach us with the attitude of I'm superior because of my faith.
The core of this person's argument hinged on Hitler. Basically, he indicated that there can't be justice in the world if there isn't a hell to punish people like Hitler.
In fact, I recall reading an article about a religious person in college opening up the debate with atheists or non-religious people with asking 'where do you think Hitler is now?'
The first thought in regard to justice and hell is that in the bible it is indicated by Jesus that few people get in to heaven. Let that sink in and unless you feel you are a paragon of virtue, please put yourself in the hell column - right next to me.
The second thought is that many people go to hell for many very different reasons. Hitler is in this mythological hell because he unjustly killed millions of people. I'll go to hell because I deny the existence of god. Nearly half of the people in the USA get divorced and who knows if the big 'g' man agrees that divorce is legitimate. Who knows, maybe 54 percent of our country that are divorced people and re-married will simply be regarded as adulterers. And as previously indicated unless you are a paragon of virtue you will end up in hell. Maybe you'll end up in hell because there are witches or wiccans in your area and you allow them to live. In any case the point of my second thought is that there are no different levels of hell. Sure, in Dante's inferno, a fictional work there are levels of hell. But nothing in the bible supports this idea. So, if you are in hell because you got divorced you suffer the same level of torment as Hitler. There is no justice in this idea. There is nothing to prevent a person from realizing, "Hey, I'm going to go to hell for killing one person, why not kill as many as I can?" After all, once in hell, it can't get much worse.
My third thought is that even Hitler or Stalin doesn't deserve an eternity or infinity of torment. Place yourself in the shoes of god. You receive Hitler's soul and need to decide what to do with it. Well, you tally up all the pain he caused and you make him experience it. You take him through all the lives that will never be because he killed their ancestors or parents. Maybe you multiply the pain by a factor of 10 and you punish him for 10,000 years or more of horror. Maybe a million years. Or maybe until you can tell in his soul that he has changed in fundamental ways and more than just understand what he did was wrong, but has internalized in his thought process that he would actively figt against such a thing. Regardless of what you do to Hitler, something less than the infinite amount of time available at hand has passed and he has completed whatever, you as god, have determined as his punishment. He's done, then. That's all. Same thing with Stalin or any other genocidal idiot.
The fourth thought for now on this topic is that god ultimately is responsible for our behavior. It really doesn't matter about free will or anything like that. God, contains all the knowledge of everything (allegedly) and as such knows the outcome of all this including any fudge factor of free will religious people want to throw in there. There is the old idea of "If you could travel through time and kill Hitler, would you do it?" Well, god is all powerful. He looked at that problem and for whatever reason decided that it was a good idea that Hitler order all those people killed and that his followers were believers in him enough to go ahead and do it and not step up and say "You know, I think this isn't a good idea, I'd like to go home or go on vacation in Hawaii for a few weeks instead of kill all these people, see ya."
So, the question in the fourth thought is can god hold Hitler, Stalin, Pharaoh or Judas responsible for things in essence god is doing through them? Pharaoh didn't even have a chance. God went on in to his head and made him cold hearted so he could try out his new toy - the kill the first born of everyone without goats blood on their doors toy.
With all these thoughts I cannot see how a world with heaven and hell is any more just than a world without them. In fact, I think heaven and hell make matters far worse for justice. The real world has a lot of problems and good people don't always win (or even live) and bad people do bad things and don't always get their karmic justice. So, what? That is life.
We do what we can and we catch the bad people we can and punish them within reason. All those thousands of people who steal cars don't deserve to fry in hell infinitely. They deserve (but may not always get) to be caught, tried by a jury and placed in jail for an appropriate time. They should also apologize to the people they stole from and once they get out of jail they should pay those people back for their financial loss.
It wouldn't be perfect, but you know it isn't horrible either.
It seems like a ritual that religious people come to IIDB and challenge us on what we believe and usually approach us with the attitude of I'm superior because of my faith.
The core of this person's argument hinged on Hitler. Basically, he indicated that there can't be justice in the world if there isn't a hell to punish people like Hitler.
In fact, I recall reading an article about a religious person in college opening up the debate with atheists or non-religious people with asking 'where do you think Hitler is now?'
The first thought in regard to justice and hell is that in the bible it is indicated by Jesus that few people get in to heaven. Let that sink in and unless you feel you are a paragon of virtue, please put yourself in the hell column - right next to me.
The second thought is that many people go to hell for many very different reasons. Hitler is in this mythological hell because he unjustly killed millions of people. I'll go to hell because I deny the existence of god. Nearly half of the people in the USA get divorced and who knows if the big 'g' man agrees that divorce is legitimate. Who knows, maybe 54 percent of our country that are divorced people and re-married will simply be regarded as adulterers. And as previously indicated unless you are a paragon of virtue you will end up in hell. Maybe you'll end up in hell because there are witches or wiccans in your area and you allow them to live. In any case the point of my second thought is that there are no different levels of hell. Sure, in Dante's inferno, a fictional work there are levels of hell. But nothing in the bible supports this idea. So, if you are in hell because you got divorced you suffer the same level of torment as Hitler. There is no justice in this idea. There is nothing to prevent a person from realizing, "Hey, I'm going to go to hell for killing one person, why not kill as many as I can?" After all, once in hell, it can't get much worse.
My third thought is that even Hitler or Stalin doesn't deserve an eternity or infinity of torment. Place yourself in the shoes of god. You receive Hitler's soul and need to decide what to do with it. Well, you tally up all the pain he caused and you make him experience it. You take him through all the lives that will never be because he killed their ancestors or parents. Maybe you multiply the pain by a factor of 10 and you punish him for 10,000 years or more of horror. Maybe a million years. Or maybe until you can tell in his soul that he has changed in fundamental ways and more than just understand what he did was wrong, but has internalized in his thought process that he would actively figt against such a thing. Regardless of what you do to Hitler, something less than the infinite amount of time available at hand has passed and he has completed whatever, you as god, have determined as his punishment. He's done, then. That's all. Same thing with Stalin or any other genocidal idiot.
The fourth thought for now on this topic is that god ultimately is responsible for our behavior. It really doesn't matter about free will or anything like that. God, contains all the knowledge of everything (allegedly) and as such knows the outcome of all this including any fudge factor of free will religious people want to throw in there. There is the old idea of "If you could travel through time and kill Hitler, would you do it?" Well, god is all powerful. He looked at that problem and for whatever reason decided that it was a good idea that Hitler order all those people killed and that his followers were believers in him enough to go ahead and do it and not step up and say "You know, I think this isn't a good idea, I'd like to go home or go on vacation in Hawaii for a few weeks instead of kill all these people, see ya."
So, the question in the fourth thought is can god hold Hitler, Stalin, Pharaoh or Judas responsible for things in essence god is doing through them? Pharaoh didn't even have a chance. God went on in to his head and made him cold hearted so he could try out his new toy - the kill the first born of everyone without goats blood on their doors toy.
With all these thoughts I cannot see how a world with heaven and hell is any more just than a world without them. In fact, I think heaven and hell make matters far worse for justice. The real world has a lot of problems and good people don't always win (or even live) and bad people do bad things and don't always get their karmic justice. So, what? That is life.
We do what we can and we catch the bad people we can and punish them within reason. All those thousands of people who steal cars don't deserve to fry in hell infinitely. They deserve (but may not always get) to be caught, tried by a jury and placed in jail for an appropriate time. They should also apologize to the people they stole from and once they get out of jail they should pay those people back for their financial loss.
It wouldn't be perfect, but you know it isn't horrible either.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
The Government Wants You Dead
Periodically, a new story comes out how an aging person is being denied benefits because they have in some way shape or form been reported as dead.
Now I understand that government is a group of very complex processes; however, the governments knowledge of you being alive or dead should be very clear and easy to understand.
Either the responsible agency has an official death certificate for the person or they do not. In the absence of such a document or legal copy they cannot and must not assume for any reason that a person is dead.
Insult is added to injury when a person is reported dead and no one reaches out to that person or their family on the phone to make the official determination. The government is acting on unknown and false data or hearsay to make an official action.
Not to mention that they may be hurting the people who need the monetary and medical help the most and people who have lived long lives as good citizens of our country in the absence of evidence!
What a person is 95 years old do they assume they are dead? Would you want this to happen to you?
In a world where many people live long lives and the average life expectancy is in the 70's - the government needs to step in and say that in the absence of evidence a person is alive. If they investigate and they find the person has died, that's different.
But all too often the government is taking actions not in accordance with its directives.
Now I understand that government is a group of very complex processes; however, the governments knowledge of you being alive or dead should be very clear and easy to understand.
Either the responsible agency has an official death certificate for the person or they do not. In the absence of such a document or legal copy they cannot and must not assume for any reason that a person is dead.
Insult is added to injury when a person is reported dead and no one reaches out to that person or their family on the phone to make the official determination. The government is acting on unknown and false data or hearsay to make an official action.
Not to mention that they may be hurting the people who need the monetary and medical help the most and people who have lived long lives as good citizens of our country in the absence of evidence!
What a person is 95 years old do they assume they are dead? Would you want this to happen to you?
In a world where many people live long lives and the average life expectancy is in the 70's - the government needs to step in and say that in the absence of evidence a person is alive. If they investigate and they find the person has died, that's different.
But all too often the government is taking actions not in accordance with its directives.
Friday, April 20, 2007
High Salt Diet Damages Human Body
Recent articles on the web have been indicating that the high amount of salt in American's diet is causing us to die early.
Fortunately, help is on the way. In a recent Popular Science article they described a product that will turn off the bitterness receptors on the tongue. This means that foods will not need as much salt or sugar to be tasty to the human mouth.
Now, what they described was an artificial product and that implies that it could have negative impacts on the human body that are relatively unknown; however, the product is in testing now, and could be released shortly (but oddly enough there is no requirements for it to be on labels of packages of food) and this could be a great boon to humans.
If we can reduce hypertension and other related problems to consuming the amount of salt in our diets, then perhaps in the long term we may be able to live longer happier lives. Not to mention that this artificial product will also enable lower sugar in foods to make them taste good which would have an impact on things like diabetes.
And honestly, I waited until I was over 30 to have children. In 2005 on Christmas my mother-in-law passed away at the age of 60. If my children wait until they are older to have children, I want to be alive to see my grandchildren grow up. I want to be there for them.
Dead people don't do anything. The loss of my children's grandmother will affect them negatively in many ways (including my older son's fascination with death...) and my younger child never actually knowing her. Anything that can increase the duration of our lives so that we can be there for our families, is in the best interests of humanity, in a selfish way, in the interests of those who are related to me.
I guess I feel this is more important since both my grandfathers passed away before I ever really got to know them. Both of my grandmothers were really concepts instead of people that I interacted with.
So, I want my children to have the things I didn't have with that kind of relationship. A relationship in a family way where it isn't just my parents that are working hard to make sure I have a great future.
But already, I have failed in this - at least partially. With my father-in-law over 75 and my parents lackadaisical attitude toward their own health the best I might be able to do is be there for when my children have children.
If I could live for a few hundred years and this kind of longevity would be passed on to my descendants, I would. There is too much to see in this world to be able to see it as a wage-slave and with a limited life-span.
Fortunately, help is on the way. In a recent Popular Science article they described a product that will turn off the bitterness receptors on the tongue. This means that foods will not need as much salt or sugar to be tasty to the human mouth.
Now, what they described was an artificial product and that implies that it could have negative impacts on the human body that are relatively unknown; however, the product is in testing now, and could be released shortly (but oddly enough there is no requirements for it to be on labels of packages of food) and this could be a great boon to humans.
If we can reduce hypertension and other related problems to consuming the amount of salt in our diets, then perhaps in the long term we may be able to live longer happier lives. Not to mention that this artificial product will also enable lower sugar in foods to make them taste good which would have an impact on things like diabetes.
And honestly, I waited until I was over 30 to have children. In 2005 on Christmas my mother-in-law passed away at the age of 60. If my children wait until they are older to have children, I want to be alive to see my grandchildren grow up. I want to be there for them.
Dead people don't do anything. The loss of my children's grandmother will affect them negatively in many ways (including my older son's fascination with death...) and my younger child never actually knowing her. Anything that can increase the duration of our lives so that we can be there for our families, is in the best interests of humanity, in a selfish way, in the interests of those who are related to me.
I guess I feel this is more important since both my grandfathers passed away before I ever really got to know them. Both of my grandmothers were really concepts instead of people that I interacted with.
So, I want my children to have the things I didn't have with that kind of relationship. A relationship in a family way where it isn't just my parents that are working hard to make sure I have a great future.
But already, I have failed in this - at least partially. With my father-in-law over 75 and my parents lackadaisical attitude toward their own health the best I might be able to do is be there for when my children have children.
If I could live for a few hundred years and this kind of longevity would be passed on to my descendants, I would. There is too much to see in this world to be able to see it as a wage-slave and with a limited life-span.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
National Geographic
I subscribe to National Geographic magazine. It isn't my favorite magazine; however, every so often it produces a gem that in my view justifies an entire years subscription.
Humans have devised many ways to torture and kill each other over time. Imagine my surprise when not long ago (but certainly not recently) there was a picture in the back of National Geographic that astonished me in terms of how humans can torture and kill each other.
The picture on the last page of National Geographic magazine is typically something 'off the cutting room floor'. This picture that entranced me so much that every time I see a National Geographic magazine I think about it is about a post sticking out of the ground probably 12 feet or so. It bends at the top and has a cage on it that is similar to a bird cage.
However, this is no bird cage. It is a cage to hold a human uncomfortably out of reach of help until they die.
Rarely does National Geographic even mention something so disturbing. It was a touch of reality that made the magazine for me, intense and acknowledging the fact that what they study, human society and the animal realm, isn't always cupcakes and soda.
Humans have devised many ways to torture and kill each other over time. Imagine my surprise when not long ago (but certainly not recently) there was a picture in the back of National Geographic that astonished me in terms of how humans can torture and kill each other.
The picture on the last page of National Geographic magazine is typically something 'off the cutting room floor'. This picture that entranced me so much that every time I see a National Geographic magazine I think about it is about a post sticking out of the ground probably 12 feet or so. It bends at the top and has a cage on it that is similar to a bird cage.
However, this is no bird cage. It is a cage to hold a human uncomfortably out of reach of help until they die.
Rarely does National Geographic even mention something so disturbing. It was a touch of reality that made the magazine for me, intense and acknowledging the fact that what they study, human society and the animal realm, isn't always cupcakes and soda.
The archetype - The Hero
Watching the video of Cho Seung-Hui on the computer with my wife and I was reminded of something from you youth. Fantasies of being the hero were something that went through my mind often. I guess it was because physically I always felt inferior to others (at 135 pounds and 5' 9") and emotionally I felt that I wasn't going to participate in the "dream" of well being married, having a wife, children and indeed a future.
The fantasy, in general, goes like this: Love interest of the moment (and there were many, sometimes I wonder if I 'loved' all women to a certain extent in my youth) was in terrible danger (oh, no!) and there I was at location that I normally see her and there are many enemies, in fact enemies all around me! Hah, then I do x, y and z and beat those enemies to a pulp destroying them utterly. The fantasy would end around there with the corny - you know what's going to happen next as she falls in love with her hero.
I see echoes of this in books, comics and movies all the time. It is a common theme. It is the fantasy I think in some exaggerated form which drives terrorists to suicide bombings and Cho Seung-Hui to kill a bunch of his 'enemies'.
This archetypical fantasy has many benefits to the young male mind. You get the satisfaction of doing something for your cause (be it a woman, your country or your religion), you get to prove your physicality by beating foes who are typically in a stronger position than you are and of course you attain your goal. It is nice and simple. It is the format of some first person shooters like Doom. You have enemies that are far more powerful than your actual self. There is a goal which will save lives, etc. You acheive this goal by pounding the enemy to a pulp in various ways. Eventually, you succeed and become the 'hero'.
These fantasies I think are partially driven by the helplessness in general young males have with regard to their lives. We all feel to some degree that we are nameless parts of a billion person body and we move with the tides and inertia of that body. By becoming this hero we achieve control over our destinies and we achieve our goal - the thing we want most at that time.
Of course, there is a huge difference between having a fantasy of killing to achieve your love interest or country's freedom or religious goals - or playing a video game in which you perform violent actions to become the hero and actually fulfilling your fantasy in a more active manner and actually running around killing innocent people to realize your fantasy in the real world.
At least that is my theory why Cho Seung-Hui became a mass-murderer and my theory on why people do things that otherwise normal people can't even consider, like suicide bombings or flying planes in to inhabited buildings.
These people all want to be the Hero. And they have discovered that this is the way they can achieve hero status in the real world.
I don't know if there is really a way to battle this fantasy except for each young male to engage in normal activities to gain a sense of achievement to understand that their goals are not unattainable.
Hell, it seems part of Cho Seung-Hui's problem was that he couldn't get a relationship with women. I'd rather he went and found a high-class hooker willing to act out some of his fantasy then believe that what he wants in life is utterly unattainable.
In the end a hooker or a sense of achievement might not have been enough for Cho Seung-Hui. The achetypical fantasy lived in him, that much is clear from his video, but he probably had mental problems or chemical imbalances that exaggerated this fantasy until such point that he felt he 'had' to act it out - maybe to protect his imaginary girlfriend from the pollutants of the students on campus. The pollutants, that I suspect Cho Seung-Hui felt were going to pollute him and turn him into a frivolous college student.
The fantasy, in general, goes like this: Love interest of the moment (and there were many, sometimes I wonder if I 'loved' all women to a certain extent in my youth) was in terrible danger (oh, no!) and there I was at location that I normally see her and there are many enemies, in fact enemies all around me! Hah, then I do x, y and z and beat those enemies to a pulp destroying them utterly. The fantasy would end around there with the corny - you know what's going to happen next as she falls in love with her hero.
I see echoes of this in books, comics and movies all the time. It is a common theme. It is the fantasy I think in some exaggerated form which drives terrorists to suicide bombings and Cho Seung-Hui to kill a bunch of his 'enemies'.
This archetypical fantasy has many benefits to the young male mind. You get the satisfaction of doing something for your cause (be it a woman, your country or your religion), you get to prove your physicality by beating foes who are typically in a stronger position than you are and of course you attain your goal. It is nice and simple. It is the format of some first person shooters like Doom. You have enemies that are far more powerful than your actual self. There is a goal which will save lives, etc. You acheive this goal by pounding the enemy to a pulp in various ways. Eventually, you succeed and become the 'hero'.
These fantasies I think are partially driven by the helplessness in general young males have with regard to their lives. We all feel to some degree that we are nameless parts of a billion person body and we move with the tides and inertia of that body. By becoming this hero we achieve control over our destinies and we achieve our goal - the thing we want most at that time.
Of course, there is a huge difference between having a fantasy of killing to achieve your love interest or country's freedom or religious goals - or playing a video game in which you perform violent actions to become the hero and actually fulfilling your fantasy in a more active manner and actually running around killing innocent people to realize your fantasy in the real world.
At least that is my theory why Cho Seung-Hui became a mass-murderer and my theory on why people do things that otherwise normal people can't even consider, like suicide bombings or flying planes in to inhabited buildings.
These people all want to be the Hero. And they have discovered that this is the way they can achieve hero status in the real world.
I don't know if there is really a way to battle this fantasy except for each young male to engage in normal activities to gain a sense of achievement to understand that their goals are not unattainable.
Hell, it seems part of Cho Seung-Hui's problem was that he couldn't get a relationship with women. I'd rather he went and found a high-class hooker willing to act out some of his fantasy then believe that what he wants in life is utterly unattainable.
In the end a hooker or a sense of achievement might not have been enough for Cho Seung-Hui. The achetypical fantasy lived in him, that much is clear from his video, but he probably had mental problems or chemical imbalances that exaggerated this fantasy until such point that he felt he 'had' to act it out - maybe to protect his imaginary girlfriend from the pollutants of the students on campus. The pollutants, that I suspect Cho Seung-Hui felt were going to pollute him and turn him into a frivolous college student.
War in Iraq
I've got ten years total service in the military (including 2 years inactive as part of my enlistment). I'm not thrilled with the military. I find some of their mistakes in even the simple matters such as uniforms to be scary when the leadership of the military are in charge of decisions that can determine if you are going to live or die.
Still, some things shock me and it isn't the military to blame. I remember when the magic number of 2000 troops died happened. There was a lot of press on the subject and a resurgance of pro and anti war discussion.
Today, I read an article that indicated that 3200 troops have died since the inception of the current war. Did I miss the agitation this time around or is it simply old hat and when we passed 3000 troops dead in the current war it simply wasn't newsworthy?
I don't get it. I don't agree with the war; however, when people die in our wars we need to honor them and acknowledge their deaths regardless of our view of the war itself. I recognize that this is difficult to do all the time and would make our news very dire, but at least on every 1000 war dead, we should shout out their names and say this person died for their county! It should not be a matter of politics that releasing this information would damage the war effort so we shouldn't acknowledge our war dead. These people are dead and the things they had to do in life, the children and spouses they have left behind will never recover from their passing.
Recognition for dying in a war shouldn't have to wait 20 years. Recognition for dying in a war isn't best done with some cold monument.
Still, some things shock me and it isn't the military to blame. I remember when the magic number of 2000 troops died happened. There was a lot of press on the subject and a resurgance of pro and anti war discussion.
Today, I read an article that indicated that 3200 troops have died since the inception of the current war. Did I miss the agitation this time around or is it simply old hat and when we passed 3000 troops dead in the current war it simply wasn't newsworthy?
I don't get it. I don't agree with the war; however, when people die in our wars we need to honor them and acknowledge their deaths regardless of our view of the war itself. I recognize that this is difficult to do all the time and would make our news very dire, but at least on every 1000 war dead, we should shout out their names and say this person died for their county! It should not be a matter of politics that releasing this information would damage the war effort so we shouldn't acknowledge our war dead. These people are dead and the things they had to do in life, the children and spouses they have left behind will never recover from their passing.
Recognition for dying in a war shouldn't have to wait 20 years. Recognition for dying in a war isn't best done with some cold monument.
Governor Corzine's Auto Accident
It seems that with great revision the truth comes out about Governor Corzine's car accident which has caused the governor great harm.
1) The Suburban he was riding in was going over 90 miles per hour
2) There was a state trooper driving the vehicle
3) There was no emergency reason for the vehicle to be moving that fast
4) Most likely the accident was caused by Governor Corzine's vehicle
5) The vehicles emergency lights were running
We should be straight on a number of things.
It is hard not to notice that the vehicle you are riding in is going ninety miles per hour when you are riding in the front seat, regardless of if the rider can see the speedometer or not.
A state trooper should obey the driving laws as much or more than regular civilian drivers as an example to regular civilian drivers.
More than likely Governor Corzine requested to go faster or that the vehicle travelling at that speed and with the emergency lights on. This is likely to be the norm for past driving for the Governor.
Driving at high speeds appears to be the norm for Governors of New Jersey. A break in the speed limits was partially driven through the state laws when former Governor Christine Whitmans limo was caught travelling at high speeds on one of the states major highways.
Now, in Whitman's case, she wasn't in an official emergency vehicle and potentially this was even more dangerous since there were no flashing lights to show other drivers her car as it was speeding by.
Then again, flashing lights tend to make motorists, in particular newer motorists very nervous. This is in particularly true when they are travelling down major highways and most probably speeding a little themselves. The driver that was 'spooked' by the Governor's speeding car is no doubt a member of the new drivers club as indicated in some articles and this was responsible for him driving erratically and probably scared whitless about the speeding police car approaching him from behind.
I lived in Howell, New Jersey for a number of years. When I was a senior in high school or around there a police car was speeding down Aldrich road during the early morning hours. Unfortunately, a man was getting an early start on his commute and as he entered Aldrich road he was slammed in to by the police officer. The speeds in the accident are similar to the speeds that the Governor's car was travelling, but on a 45 mph road. The last I heard of it both the police officer and the commuter were living of large amount of blood being fed in to their bleeding bodies. I doubt either one of them survived.
Often I see police officers taking advantage of who they are and the car they are driving and performing blatantly illegal actions. Often, even if they do get in a minor accident it is likely to be blamed on the other person (i.e not the police officer). I see them frequently in Linden, Clark and Cranford running red lights (with lights on or off) chasing the green light (sitting in the straight lanes at Exit 136 and then deciding to go left across the solid white line and then through the now red left turn light on to Raritan) just for their own convenience.
This present a clear and present danger to everyone on the roads. If it is an emergency put your lights on and get to it, people. If it isn't sit at the light and be a good example to everyone around you - and you know what its part of your job, because sitting at the red light keeps other people alive.
Frankly speaking the only thing more dangerous on the roads than some of the activities or liberties police officers take while on the roads are the illegal immigrants, who have no driver's license, no car insurance and are driving unregistered vehicles. Get hit by one of those folks and it seems likely that no matter how hurt you are they are going to run and leave your bleeding ass there - to ensure they don't get deported to their home country.
I wonder where the statistics are on officers that get in accidents? It should be tracked, and the circumstances of those accidents should be tracked so that people can understand the danger some police officers present to everyone driving on the roads.
For the record; however, with the governor of New Jersey on board his car, I'm sure the police officer did a) everything he was told to do and b) everything he felt Governor Corzine wanted him to do. He shouldn't be punished severely. The only punishment I wish for in this instance is serious discussion on the illegal activities that our police officers take on the roads every day that present a danger to us.
I even recall a person that got in to an accident with a police officer that was doing something illegal with his car, and that person was the one that got in trouble! Imagine, their surprise when they were told that the officer was heading toward an emergency without his lights on! I find this doubtful at best. After all, we pay our police officers to be trusted with guns, and the officer couldn't remember to turn on his emergency lights on his way to an emergency!
Come on folks! You can claim to be the best and then use I screwed up something simple as an excuse when you perform something illegal with your police car.
1) The Suburban he was riding in was going over 90 miles per hour
2) There was a state trooper driving the vehicle
3) There was no emergency reason for the vehicle to be moving that fast
4) Most likely the accident was caused by Governor Corzine's vehicle
5) The vehicles emergency lights were running
We should be straight on a number of things.
It is hard not to notice that the vehicle you are riding in is going ninety miles per hour when you are riding in the front seat, regardless of if the rider can see the speedometer or not.
A state trooper should obey the driving laws as much or more than regular civilian drivers as an example to regular civilian drivers.
More than likely Governor Corzine requested to go faster or that the vehicle travelling at that speed and with the emergency lights on. This is likely to be the norm for past driving for the Governor.
Driving at high speeds appears to be the norm for Governors of New Jersey. A break in the speed limits was partially driven through the state laws when former Governor Christine Whitmans limo was caught travelling at high speeds on one of the states major highways.
Now, in Whitman's case, she wasn't in an official emergency vehicle and potentially this was even more dangerous since there were no flashing lights to show other drivers her car as it was speeding by.
Then again, flashing lights tend to make motorists, in particular newer motorists very nervous. This is in particularly true when they are travelling down major highways and most probably speeding a little themselves. The driver that was 'spooked' by the Governor's speeding car is no doubt a member of the new drivers club as indicated in some articles and this was responsible for him driving erratically and probably scared whitless about the speeding police car approaching him from behind.
I lived in Howell, New Jersey for a number of years. When I was a senior in high school or around there a police car was speeding down Aldrich road during the early morning hours. Unfortunately, a man was getting an early start on his commute and as he entered Aldrich road he was slammed in to by the police officer. The speeds in the accident are similar to the speeds that the Governor's car was travelling, but on a 45 mph road. The last I heard of it both the police officer and the commuter were living of large amount of blood being fed in to their bleeding bodies. I doubt either one of them survived.
Often I see police officers taking advantage of who they are and the car they are driving and performing blatantly illegal actions. Often, even if they do get in a minor accident it is likely to be blamed on the other person (i.e not the police officer). I see them frequently in Linden, Clark and Cranford running red lights (with lights on or off) chasing the green light (sitting in the straight lanes at Exit 136 and then deciding to go left across the solid white line and then through the now red left turn light on to Raritan) just for their own convenience.
This present a clear and present danger to everyone on the roads. If it is an emergency put your lights on and get to it, people. If it isn't sit at the light and be a good example to everyone around you - and you know what its part of your job, because sitting at the red light keeps other people alive.
Frankly speaking the only thing more dangerous on the roads than some of the activities or liberties police officers take while on the roads are the illegal immigrants, who have no driver's license, no car insurance and are driving unregistered vehicles. Get hit by one of those folks and it seems likely that no matter how hurt you are they are going to run and leave your bleeding ass there - to ensure they don't get deported to their home country.
I wonder where the statistics are on officers that get in accidents? It should be tracked, and the circumstances of those accidents should be tracked so that people can understand the danger some police officers present to everyone driving on the roads.
For the record; however, with the governor of New Jersey on board his car, I'm sure the police officer did a) everything he was told to do and b) everything he felt Governor Corzine wanted him to do. He shouldn't be punished severely. The only punishment I wish for in this instance is serious discussion on the illegal activities that our police officers take on the roads every day that present a danger to us.
I even recall a person that got in to an accident with a police officer that was doing something illegal with his car, and that person was the one that got in trouble! Imagine, their surprise when they were told that the officer was heading toward an emergency without his lights on! I find this doubtful at best. After all, we pay our police officers to be trusted with guns, and the officer couldn't remember to turn on his emergency lights on his way to an emergency!
Come on folks! You can claim to be the best and then use I screwed up something simple as an excuse when you perform something illegal with your police car.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Cho's Explosion
A lot of writing on the web indicates that Cho Seung-Hui had an explosion or a meltdown and they wonder what the specific cause of that meltdown was.
This is a good example from CNN 360 blog:
Then something happened. Whatever was boiling inside Cho exploded with lethal fury. In the ultimate act of hatred, he destroyed even himself, leaving others to decipher the ultimate question: Why?-- By Jill Dougherty, U.S. Affairs Editor for CNN International
This would indicate that the deaths on the campus of Virginia Tech were 2nd degree murders; however, this is untrue.
You simply have to look at the information. There was a receipt in Cho's backpack for the gun he used. It was dated in March. One would assume he purchased a generous amount of ammunition at that time as well.
As indicated in this article , Cho waited 5 weeks before using the gun to kill his fellow students and teachers at Virginia Tech. According to his teachers, Cho was intelligent if off-balance. The purchase of the gun and the ammunition indicates premeditation. There was no 'moment' where some action like flying doves in Mars attacks set him off to kill a bunch of people. Like Mars Attacks, Cho and the aliens always planned to kill a bunch of people.
He isn't a marksman. He really didn't have a legitimate reason for purchasing a handgun. His life wasn't threatened, theft while prevalent in schools usually isn't enough to want to own a gun for prevention and bringing a fun on campus is most likely illegal and certainly against the school's rules.
So, why would you buy a large number of rounds for a gun (even if we grant the point that he had a reasonable reason to buy the gun)? If you need to protect yourself, you might buy enough rounds to fill a clip. That's all you need. By the time you've gone through a clip of ammunition you are either dead, killed the intruder or put a bunch of holes in the wall. It is pretty unlikely that he refilled a single clip every time he needed to reload, either. He probably purchased multiple clips, so that he could reload as quickly as possible.
So, what does all this mean? Gun purchase, huge number of rounds, probable multiple clips....? It means it was premeditated. He was planning on doing it sometime. It was only a matter how how badly he felt that day that he decided that he was going to punish all these people for being who they are...
After all, he came from Korea. There is little doubt in my mind that life was considerably harder for him then in his formative years. To see the massive amount of waste in American culture, the resources frittered away that could easily help his people and then on top of that... How they reject him and how intent he was on doing things. That women would reject his advances and increase the feelings that he doesn't belong here, that there is no woman for him in the future.
I can see his side all too well; unfortunately, no one ever told him that the way things are - is not the way things will always be. His parents never drilled in to him that the most important thing in life was the future of humanity and not the future of self. Really, the self is so small in the enormous tide of billions of human beings. I know we like to think that we are individuals, that we are special and no doubt I suffer from that delusion as well. But when it comes down to it, this idea of self-importance probably tore in to Cho when faced with the outward evidence that he didn't matter, that all the suffering he saw didn't matter in Korea and that the point of all the money in the world appeared to be...a bunch of rich kids spending their money and wasting their time fooling around.
But the point of this entry is simple. Cho planned this horrible event. It was not a crime of passion or a lack of control. I'm sure we'll see more people speaking in the future of a Cho shooting people with an emotionless look on his face (much like the look on his face in any number of pictures on the web now. He probably felt hopeless, like he wasn't important struggle with the mental attitude that he must be important and probably felt the tide of College kids doing unimportant things and didn't want to be swept in to that tide. How could he possible stop being assimilated in to this culture?
The sad point is that many of the people he killed had infinite horizons ahead of them. Academic achievers that could have done an unknown amount of good for human society - the human future. A future like a Chinese proverb of many ants working together to achieve greatness. We may not always cooperate well together, but certainly we are better off in many ways in the present than humanity has ever been in the past.
Cho himself had a future. Perhaps if he controlled his anger and continued to write he could have been the next horror author that send chills down readers spines. But now, there is nothing.
This is a good example from CNN 360 blog:
Then something happened. Whatever was boiling inside Cho exploded with lethal fury. In the ultimate act of hatred, he destroyed even himself, leaving others to decipher the ultimate question: Why?-- By Jill Dougherty, U.S. Affairs Editor for CNN International
This would indicate that the deaths on the campus of Virginia Tech were 2nd degree murders; however, this is untrue.
You simply have to look at the information. There was a receipt in Cho's backpack for the gun he used. It was dated in March. One would assume he purchased a generous amount of ammunition at that time as well.
As indicated in this article , Cho waited 5 weeks before using the gun to kill his fellow students and teachers at Virginia Tech. According to his teachers, Cho was intelligent if off-balance. The purchase of the gun and the ammunition indicates premeditation. There was no 'moment' where some action like flying doves in Mars attacks set him off to kill a bunch of people. Like Mars Attacks, Cho and the aliens always planned to kill a bunch of people.
He isn't a marksman. He really didn't have a legitimate reason for purchasing a handgun. His life wasn't threatened, theft while prevalent in schools usually isn't enough to want to own a gun for prevention and bringing a fun on campus is most likely illegal and certainly against the school's rules.
So, why would you buy a large number of rounds for a gun (even if we grant the point that he had a reasonable reason to buy the gun)? If you need to protect yourself, you might buy enough rounds to fill a clip. That's all you need. By the time you've gone through a clip of ammunition you are either dead, killed the intruder or put a bunch of holes in the wall. It is pretty unlikely that he refilled a single clip every time he needed to reload, either. He probably purchased multiple clips, so that he could reload as quickly as possible.
So, what does all this mean? Gun purchase, huge number of rounds, probable multiple clips....? It means it was premeditated. He was planning on doing it sometime. It was only a matter how how badly he felt that day that he decided that he was going to punish all these people for being who they are...
After all, he came from Korea. There is little doubt in my mind that life was considerably harder for him then in his formative years. To see the massive amount of waste in American culture, the resources frittered away that could easily help his people and then on top of that... How they reject him and how intent he was on doing things. That women would reject his advances and increase the feelings that he doesn't belong here, that there is no woman for him in the future.
I can see his side all too well; unfortunately, no one ever told him that the way things are - is not the way things will always be. His parents never drilled in to him that the most important thing in life was the future of humanity and not the future of self. Really, the self is so small in the enormous tide of billions of human beings. I know we like to think that we are individuals, that we are special and no doubt I suffer from that delusion as well. But when it comes down to it, this idea of self-importance probably tore in to Cho when faced with the outward evidence that he didn't matter, that all the suffering he saw didn't matter in Korea and that the point of all the money in the world appeared to be...a bunch of rich kids spending their money and wasting their time fooling around.
But the point of this entry is simple. Cho planned this horrible event. It was not a crime of passion or a lack of control. I'm sure we'll see more people speaking in the future of a Cho shooting people with an emotionless look on his face (much like the look on his face in any number of pictures on the web now. He probably felt hopeless, like he wasn't important struggle with the mental attitude that he must be important and probably felt the tide of College kids doing unimportant things and didn't want to be swept in to that tide. How could he possible stop being assimilated in to this culture?
The sad point is that many of the people he killed had infinite horizons ahead of them. Academic achievers that could have done an unknown amount of good for human society - the human future. A future like a Chinese proverb of many ants working together to achieve greatness. We may not always cooperate well together, but certainly we are better off in many ways in the present than humanity has ever been in the past.
Cho himself had a future. Perhaps if he controlled his anger and continued to write he could have been the next horror author that send chills down readers spines. But now, there is nothing.
Virginia Tech incident and Gun Control
I've been writing some long posts today, but I think this one will be short and simple.
I'm not particularly a gun-control advocate. I think everything to a point needs to be controlled, the more hazard involved the more control might be advised.
So, Cho goes and purchases a gun and a large amount of ammunition from a gun store at age 23. This is perfectly legal under present laws. Some politicians are taking the time right now to put their foot down and say that better gun control laws will not provide any more benefit.
I think; however, that they are wrong. Specifically on two points that wouldn't be particularly restrictive.
1) I have a friend who is 24, he cannot rent a car. Cho, would not be allowed to rent a car unless he put down $500 payment (in addition to normal rental charges) that he would not get back. My friend had need of a rental car because he traveled to Florida for flight school. No car was available to him. So, let's be straight about this, if it is a business and it MAY cost them money it justifies greater control than a person who wants to purchase a gun which is designed to kill. This doesn't make sense to me. One of these items needs to give, either the age for renting a car or the age for purchasing a gun. Both have high requirements for responsibility. Both can kill. Only one will cost a business a lot of money if it gets wrecked or used improperly. Only one has a higher age requirement for use.
2) It is all well and good that people want to be able to walk in to a store and purchase a gun and walk out that day. However, it sounds like Cho didn't have a single friend and that is most likely part of the profile for him performing the actions that he did. Is it such a burden that if you go to purchase a gun that at least one other person be with you and legally sign that you have known the person for at least 3 years and that you know of no reason that the person purchasing the gun would use it on a person except in self-defense conditions? (for handguns, for hunting rifles, the requirements would be written slightly different)
I don't think the above are drastic changes to what happens when someone wants to buy a gun.
Oh, and one more thing. The victims the doctors saw that were alive all had multiple gun shot wounds. Don't you think that means that the dead victims had multiple gun shot wounds? The doctors indicated that there were at least 3 wounds per person in the hospital.
So, let's do a little math. Cho bought (at least) 17 [injured] * 3 (51) + 32 [dead] * 3 (96) = (147) rounds of ammunition. Now, don't get me wrong, but he bought the gun in March, so he didn't spread the purchase of the ammo across a lot of time - don't you think it should have raised an eyebrow that he bought almost 150 rounds of ammunition? Wouldn't someone think to ask what purpose do they need to have that much ammunition? It doesn't mean that buying that much ammunition needs to be illegal; however, if you can't answer that question with a "I'm going to a target range with a couple buddies and we are practicing our shooting abilities." or something similar I think the shop keep should be thinking about something more than just how much money he is going to make off the sale.
Even some relatively mild controls would have prevented this situation from happening - or at least happening the way it did.
I'm not particularly a gun-control advocate. I think everything to a point needs to be controlled, the more hazard involved the more control might be advised.
So, Cho goes and purchases a gun and a large amount of ammunition from a gun store at age 23. This is perfectly legal under present laws. Some politicians are taking the time right now to put their foot down and say that better gun control laws will not provide any more benefit.
I think; however, that they are wrong. Specifically on two points that wouldn't be particularly restrictive.
1) I have a friend who is 24, he cannot rent a car. Cho, would not be allowed to rent a car unless he put down $500 payment (in addition to normal rental charges) that he would not get back. My friend had need of a rental car because he traveled to Florida for flight school. No car was available to him. So, let's be straight about this, if it is a business and it MAY cost them money it justifies greater control than a person who wants to purchase a gun which is designed to kill. This doesn't make sense to me. One of these items needs to give, either the age for renting a car or the age for purchasing a gun. Both have high requirements for responsibility. Both can kill. Only one will cost a business a lot of money if it gets wrecked or used improperly. Only one has a higher age requirement for use.
2) It is all well and good that people want to be able to walk in to a store and purchase a gun and walk out that day. However, it sounds like Cho didn't have a single friend and that is most likely part of the profile for him performing the actions that he did. Is it such a burden that if you go to purchase a gun that at least one other person be with you and legally sign that you have known the person for at least 3 years and that you know of no reason that the person purchasing the gun would use it on a person except in self-defense conditions? (for handguns, for hunting rifles, the requirements would be written slightly different)
I don't think the above are drastic changes to what happens when someone wants to buy a gun.
Oh, and one more thing. The victims the doctors saw that were alive all had multiple gun shot wounds. Don't you think that means that the dead victims had multiple gun shot wounds? The doctors indicated that there were at least 3 wounds per person in the hospital.
So, let's do a little math. Cho bought (at least) 17 [injured] * 3 (51) + 32 [dead] * 3 (96) = (147) rounds of ammunition. Now, don't get me wrong, but he bought the gun in March, so he didn't spread the purchase of the ammo across a lot of time - don't you think it should have raised an eyebrow that he bought almost 150 rounds of ammunition? Wouldn't someone think to ask what purpose do they need to have that much ammunition? It doesn't mean that buying that much ammunition needs to be illegal; however, if you can't answer that question with a "I'm going to a target range with a couple buddies and we are practicing our shooting abilities." or something similar I think the shop keep should be thinking about something more than just how much money he is going to make off the sale.
Even some relatively mild controls would have prevented this situation from happening - or at least happening the way it did.
Cho Seung-Hui and Indicators of Psychotic Anger
A lot of information is coming out about Cho Seung-Hui. My earlier complaint about the faculty member of Virginia Tech not releasing his writing that was disturbing has been rectified, but not by her.
A picture is forming of a loner, who was very angry, and wrote in class about topics that showed his anger. It is mentioned by a former school-mate of his that Cho was a stereotype of the psychotic killer (or similar words).
But this picture can be very misleading. I have known some very f***ed up people - especially when I was younger, but none really turned out all that bad. Perhaps, I have led a sheltered life, but I don't think so.
The reality of the matter is that when I was younger I might have fit Cho's description, except that when people approached me and wanted to talk to me I broke out of my shell fairly easily. Of course, I can't say I was really angry about anything except that I didn't have a girlfriend and at that point in my life I often felt like I wasn't ever going to have a girlfriend. It happens when you graduate high school 5' 9.5" tall and 135 pounds. I was skinny as a rail and easily pushed around by just about everyone.
Fortunately, I never followed Cho's path, I was probably just needy. However, I suspect Cho is like many people out there or rather many people out there are like Cho. Only 1 in a very large number of people follow Cho's path to violence. This is why we don't have many shootings in colleges, but we probably do have many people that feel like Cho at certain points in their lives.
So, before people run around like crazy and reporting people they know that those people are just like Cho and going to pop their cork and kill a bunch of people take five minutes and cool it.
It should be realized that like medical conditions and other psychological conditions, many people have the symptoms that may appear like psychosis or a medical condition. That is because a lot of these conditions are inside of us, but to vastly lower degrees.
So, I'm afraid what Cho has done (not on purpose, most likely) is made it much more difficult for the creative student to write horror or horrific items. In Cho's case he apparently acted in a manner consistent with a person who was angry to the point of not being able to control it. That is an important point to keep in mind.
Each piece of writing has to be considered in its context. The context of the writing is the times we live in and the person writing the story. Writing about madness, death or any other subjects that people don't like to talk about is perfectly normal and stretches our minds. His schoolmate indicated that he wrote about things being used as weapons that he never imagined. Well, that's good in most writers cases, its bad when you think the writer might actually go and perform those actions.
This is similar to the Columbine shooting. Details of the lives of the shooters came out, the games they played on their game console, things they read and music they listened to. Well, so what? Many people fit that profile, few people (regardless of what they play on the gaming console, read or music they listen to) actually go around thinking it is a great idea to go and kill a bunch of people.
Life is very complex especially for humans. Humans are complex creatures by themselves and unpredictable when you take in to account humans interacting with humans. The same indicators in one person that means they are about to go crazy and kill a bunch of people might be the warm-up for another person for a good long game of Doom or a creative binge of writing.
So, if you are Angry that's good, it shows you are alive. Learn to control it and channel that energy in to something creative.
If you feel like you are closing in on madness, find people (professional or otherwise) that can talk to you and that care for you mutually. Hey, it might even be some people in a bar with no other commonality than they need to be able to talk to people before they descend into madness.
If you think you are psychotic, there is one last vital hope - that you care enough about humanity in general to seek help instead of deeping your psychosis.
A picture is forming of a loner, who was very angry, and wrote in class about topics that showed his anger. It is mentioned by a former school-mate of his that Cho was a stereotype of the psychotic killer (or similar words).
But this picture can be very misleading. I have known some very f***ed up people - especially when I was younger, but none really turned out all that bad. Perhaps, I have led a sheltered life, but I don't think so.
The reality of the matter is that when I was younger I might have fit Cho's description, except that when people approached me and wanted to talk to me I broke out of my shell fairly easily. Of course, I can't say I was really angry about anything except that I didn't have a girlfriend and at that point in my life I often felt like I wasn't ever going to have a girlfriend. It happens when you graduate high school 5' 9.5" tall and 135 pounds. I was skinny as a rail and easily pushed around by just about everyone.
Fortunately, I never followed Cho's path, I was probably just needy. However, I suspect Cho is like many people out there or rather many people out there are like Cho. Only 1 in a very large number of people follow Cho's path to violence. This is why we don't have many shootings in colleges, but we probably do have many people that feel like Cho at certain points in their lives.
So, before people run around like crazy and reporting people they know that those people are just like Cho and going to pop their cork and kill a bunch of people take five minutes and cool it.
It should be realized that like medical conditions and other psychological conditions, many people have the symptoms that may appear like psychosis or a medical condition. That is because a lot of these conditions are inside of us, but to vastly lower degrees.
So, I'm afraid what Cho has done (not on purpose, most likely) is made it much more difficult for the creative student to write horror or horrific items. In Cho's case he apparently acted in a manner consistent with a person who was angry to the point of not being able to control it. That is an important point to keep in mind.
Each piece of writing has to be considered in its context. The context of the writing is the times we live in and the person writing the story. Writing about madness, death or any other subjects that people don't like to talk about is perfectly normal and stretches our minds. His schoolmate indicated that he wrote about things being used as weapons that he never imagined. Well, that's good in most writers cases, its bad when you think the writer might actually go and perform those actions.
This is similar to the Columbine shooting. Details of the lives of the shooters came out, the games they played on their game console, things they read and music they listened to. Well, so what? Many people fit that profile, few people (regardless of what they play on the gaming console, read or music they listen to) actually go around thinking it is a great idea to go and kill a bunch of people.
Life is very complex especially for humans. Humans are complex creatures by themselves and unpredictable when you take in to account humans interacting with humans. The same indicators in one person that means they are about to go crazy and kill a bunch of people might be the warm-up for another person for a good long game of Doom or a creative binge of writing.
So, if you are Angry that's good, it shows you are alive. Learn to control it and channel that energy in to something creative.
If you feel like you are closing in on madness, find people (professional or otherwise) that can talk to you and that care for you mutually. Hey, it might even be some people in a bar with no other commonality than they need to be able to talk to people before they descend into madness.
If you think you are psychotic, there is one last vital hope - that you care enough about humanity in general to seek help instead of deeping your psychosis.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Christians Can Sometimes be Funny
This article, "The Best of Racists" is actually pretty funny in an ironic way.
I'll start with a paraphrase version of the article. Some remarks in parenthesis.
01) Don Imus said some racist things and got fired.
02) We all know that some forms of communication help people and some communicate hurt people. It appears that we support hurtful communication and suppress hurtful communication.
03) People who are religious have kids that do well in school. Oh, wait, let's quote the actual study where it says that people who belong to religion AND have an intact and stable family do well in school.
04) Highly religious minorities can outperform white students.
05) Therefore atheism is racist. (somehow #4 indicates #5)
06) Atheists are eugenicists because one atheist author, Margaret Sanger supported eugenics. Eugenics is racism.
07) Slavery was started by Christians
08) Slavery was ended by Christians
09) Atheists are cold people who write off large segments of humanity as having insufficiently endowed genetics
10) For a logically consistent atheist, altruism enables mediocrity.
11) Christians love everybody. God loved us in to existence. The widow's mite is worth more than the whole treasury of the Temple. The best that is worst in use produce more than the intellectual elite can manufacture. (Please note, he is attaching intellectual elite to atheism here)
12) The intellectual elite knows this, but is stubborn and won't realize their own weakness.
13) People who cannot see beyond the skin (atheists are who we are talking about) represent a danger to those who believe and can see beyond the skin.
14) Atheists are going to destroy the world.
So, let's take it point by point.
01) Don Imus said something that was racist and got fired for it. Well, according to a writer on CNN.com, what Imus said wasn't so much racist as sexist. What Imus said wasn't illegal. It was; however, something that corporate entities tied to his show don't want to be associated with and that is why he got fired. What the author is attempting to do in this piece is attack free speech. The very free speech that allows him to write the referenced article.
The article Steve Kellmeyer wrote; however, isn't free speech. It is hate speech. What he wrote as much as he derides Imus, is far worse. I will prove that it is hate speech and that his article is a little bit confused.
02) He suggests that we all 'know' what is right and wrong in terms of speech. But this simply isn't true. We are all very different people that share certain commonalities. What would be terribly insulting to one person is humorous and a learning episode to another person who enjoys frank discussion. This idea is simply the idea that there is a universal right and wrong and that people flaunt it actively. Haven't we all had that incident where we have said something to another person that we thought would be funny and they got insulted? Now, I'm not considering what Imus said to be in this category, I'm just challenging this idea that Steve Kellmeyer is presenting as a premise and saying that he is wrong.
03) People who are religious have kids that do well in school. The first way Mr. Kellmeyer presents this is to appear that religion is the only component in this equation. Later quotes in his article and statements he himself make water this down. A stable and intact family play a huge role in this matter. Anyone who has a friend or has endured parents getting divorced I am sure can attest to the fact that divorce has an effect as well as single parent families.
04) Highly religious minorities can outperform white students. Now this is a paraphrase, but you have to understand that inherent in this statement is a bit of racial superiority. Maybe we should re-state this a bit and say that highly religious white students can do as well as Asian students. It is an implicit statement of superiority.
05) Therefore atheism is racist. Somehow - our author seems to think that #4 indicates that atheists are racist. If we look at #4 it basically states: The greater the religion in a person the better they will do in school. The appropriate corollary to this is not that atheists are racists. It should be that atheists don't do well in school or in fact that atheists do the worst in school.
06) Atheists are eugenicists because one atheist author, Margaret Sanger supported eugenics. Eugenics is racism. I'm not exactly sure where Mr. Kellmeyer is getting his information. I think this is his attempt to tie atheism to Hitler. Who knows? I am an atheist as are many people that I know online and in the real world. None are eugenicists. I know one online that is incredibly racist. Here is the problem with Mr. Kellmeyer's assertion: You can't classify an entire group of people on the basis of a single individual Perhaps if he would like to associate atheism with eugenics and racism he'd like anyone with historical knowledge to trot out the hundreds of notable Christians that were in favor of slavery, racism and characterize all Christians as just like those individuals. Perhaps we should think that all Christians will take a person and tie them to the back of a pick-up truck and drive around since Chrisitians did that relatively recently to someone that they didn't like. We can go on further about this. When you get statistics about churches what do you find? That churches are racist. You have your black churches, your white churches and your Korean churches, but guess what, finding a church that is multi-racial is very hard to find. I don't know what Christians do to maintain this - sit and watch in the churches parking lot before deciding to go in and look at the race of the people going in the church? Oh, dog, its a black church, honey drive to the next church!!!
07) Slavery was started by Christians. This is true.
08) Slavery was ended by Christians. This is only partially true. Certainly Christian motivations for getting rid of slavery weren't based in the bible which appears to approve of slavery and make recommendations on how it should be performed and how people who are slaves should behave. There is a really good book by Susan Jacoby: Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism. It goes over in detail the abolition movement and women's suffrage. The origin of these ideas comes from the enlightenment, not the bible or Christianity. Later, these ideas would take hold in Christians that it is wrong to enslave people and wrong to not allow them to vote because of their sex and wrong to treat people differently on the basis of race.
09) Atheists are cold people who write off large segments of humanity as having insufficiently endowed genetics - this is really the author trying to set up moral superiority over atheists. He continues to use the racism card with regard to atheism, but where is he really going with calling atheists racists. We'll see...
10) For a logically consistent atheist, altruism enables mediocrity. Well, he's staying on the atheists must be racists kick here. He probably thinks that all atheists that aren't racists aren't really atheists. Most atheists can be called secular humanists in terms of morality. Secular Humanism is best described as the philosophy of utilitarianism. This philosophy resides in the idea of doing what is best for humanity. Is it best for humanity to pursue an elitist eugenic movement creating a race of super humans? Not really. Such a path would really only produce more strife within humanity. Now to improve humanity in general? Yes, that is a good thing. Genetically? Maybe, but certainly not now when our knowledge of genetics is in its infancy. In utilitarianism, the mediocre plays a vital role in creating a stable society. In that way, we should all hope to be mediocre. Those who have more talents, should use those talents toward improving the world after reaching a certain point in personal stability.
11) Christians love everybody. God loved us in to existence. The widow's mite is worth more than the whole treasury of the Temple. The best that is worst in use produce more than the intellectual elite can manufacture. (Please note, he is attaching intellectual elite to atheism here)
It should be noted that our writer isn't very consistent. He goes from attacking atheists (invalidly and illogically) to attacking the intellectual elite. His implication is that the 'intellectual elite' are atheists. Perhaps this intellectual elite is running the country right now? Oh, wait, you can't possibly be elected to office if you are an open atheist. So, who is running the country (which is apparently headed for destruction)? Well, its Christians. Just like George W Bush. So, somehow with none of the power atheists and the so-called intellectual elite receive the blame for the purported downward spiral of our country. Another problem with his statement is that it is all too clearly a lie. If it wasn't a lie then there wouldn't be any homeless people on the streets because the 85% Christian country would raid all the church coffers in a second to ensure that everyone had shelter and food. This isn't the case. The case is that the vast majority of churches are social clubs with a nice non-profit tax umbrella.
12) The intellectual elite knows this (that it is inadequate and doesn't care for the average person), but is stubborn and won't realize their own weakness. This is just plain an insulting passage designed to bully people to his side of the argument, because after all who wants to be a bad person and these intellectual elitists are the worst there are... This is a simple nudge at dehumanizing the opponent.
13) People who cannot see beyond the skin (atheists are who we are talking about) represent a danger to those who believe and can see beyond the skin.
This is funny, please see my remarks above about the racial components of churches. Go ahead, watch television and these churches on TV, black preacher, black people in the audience, white preacher, white people in the audience and a couple of token black people. I'm not exactly sure when this happened, but it seems like it is ok for a few clean-cut black people to be in a white church, but not for white people to be in a white church.
14) Atheists are going to destroy the world. This isn't exactly what he says in the last paragraph. But the article is all about laying a case against atheists and the 'intellectual elite' whoever they may be. Here he makes a claim that 'society as we know it will be destroyed'. Now if you are a tried and true follower, what exactly do you do if you believe something is going to destroy society? You destroy it first. What is it? Atheists and the intellectual elite. He even spells it out 'these people are the greatest danger.'
So, this article is a hate article. Hate the atheists because they are racists and they are going to destroy the world.
What do you expect someone who reads this article and is a believer of everything this guy has to say and meets an atheist? You know, if the person is a go-getter, a person that does things about the wrongs in society, I know what they would do. Let's hope 'they' don't meet me.
Personally, I've got two kids, wife, two dogs, three cats and a snake that need me to be their sole provider. I don't want to be killed because some jackass that reads this article and is a tried and true believer thinks he's saving the world from the evil atheists.
What's more, Steve Kellmeyer's article is hate speech, and hate speech is not protected speech, it is illegal. Perhaps he'd like to post known atheist names on his website and cross them out when people kill them.
I'll start with a paraphrase version of the article. Some remarks in parenthesis.
01) Don Imus said some racist things and got fired.
02) We all know that some forms of communication help people and some communicate hurt people. It appears that we support hurtful communication and suppress hurtful communication.
03) People who are religious have kids that do well in school. Oh, wait, let's quote the actual study where it says that people who belong to religion AND have an intact and stable family do well in school.
04) Highly religious minorities can outperform white students.
05) Therefore atheism is racist. (somehow #4 indicates #5)
06) Atheists are eugenicists because one atheist author, Margaret Sanger supported eugenics. Eugenics is racism.
07) Slavery was started by Christians
08) Slavery was ended by Christians
09) Atheists are cold people who write off large segments of humanity as having insufficiently endowed genetics
10) For a logically consistent atheist, altruism enables mediocrity.
11) Christians love everybody. God loved us in to existence. The widow's mite is worth more than the whole treasury of the Temple. The best that is worst in use produce more than the intellectual elite can manufacture. (Please note, he is attaching intellectual elite to atheism here)
12) The intellectual elite knows this, but is stubborn and won't realize their own weakness.
13) People who cannot see beyond the skin (atheists are who we are talking about) represent a danger to those who believe and can see beyond the skin.
14) Atheists are going to destroy the world.
So, let's take it point by point.
01) Don Imus said something that was racist and got fired for it. Well, according to a writer on CNN.com, what Imus said wasn't so much racist as sexist. What Imus said wasn't illegal. It was; however, something that corporate entities tied to his show don't want to be associated with and that is why he got fired. What the author is attempting to do in this piece is attack free speech. The very free speech that allows him to write the referenced article.
The article Steve Kellmeyer wrote; however, isn't free speech. It is hate speech. What he wrote as much as he derides Imus, is far worse. I will prove that it is hate speech and that his article is a little bit confused.
02) He suggests that we all 'know' what is right and wrong in terms of speech. But this simply isn't true. We are all very different people that share certain commonalities. What would be terribly insulting to one person is humorous and a learning episode to another person who enjoys frank discussion. This idea is simply the idea that there is a universal right and wrong and that people flaunt it actively. Haven't we all had that incident where we have said something to another person that we thought would be funny and they got insulted? Now, I'm not considering what Imus said to be in this category, I'm just challenging this idea that Steve Kellmeyer is presenting as a premise and saying that he is wrong.
03) People who are religious have kids that do well in school. The first way Mr. Kellmeyer presents this is to appear that religion is the only component in this equation. Later quotes in his article and statements he himself make water this down. A stable and intact family play a huge role in this matter. Anyone who has a friend or has endured parents getting divorced I am sure can attest to the fact that divorce has an effect as well as single parent families.
04) Highly religious minorities can outperform white students. Now this is a paraphrase, but you have to understand that inherent in this statement is a bit of racial superiority. Maybe we should re-state this a bit and say that highly religious white students can do as well as Asian students. It is an implicit statement of superiority.
05) Therefore atheism is racist. Somehow - our author seems to think that #4 indicates that atheists are racist. If we look at #4 it basically states: The greater the religion in a person the better they will do in school. The appropriate corollary to this is not that atheists are racists. It should be that atheists don't do well in school or in fact that atheists do the worst in school.
06) Atheists are eugenicists because one atheist author, Margaret Sanger supported eugenics. Eugenics is racism. I'm not exactly sure where Mr. Kellmeyer is getting his information. I think this is his attempt to tie atheism to Hitler. Who knows? I am an atheist as are many people that I know online and in the real world. None are eugenicists. I know one online that is incredibly racist. Here is the problem with Mr. Kellmeyer's assertion: You can't classify an entire group of people on the basis of a single individual Perhaps if he would like to associate atheism with eugenics and racism he'd like anyone with historical knowledge to trot out the hundreds of notable Christians that were in favor of slavery, racism and characterize all Christians as just like those individuals. Perhaps we should think that all Christians will take a person and tie them to the back of a pick-up truck and drive around since Chrisitians did that relatively recently to someone that they didn't like. We can go on further about this. When you get statistics about churches what do you find? That churches are racist. You have your black churches, your white churches and your Korean churches, but guess what, finding a church that is multi-racial is very hard to find. I don't know what Christians do to maintain this - sit and watch in the churches parking lot before deciding to go in and look at the race of the people going in the church? Oh, dog, its a black church, honey drive to the next church!!!
07) Slavery was started by Christians. This is true.
08) Slavery was ended by Christians. This is only partially true. Certainly Christian motivations for getting rid of slavery weren't based in the bible which appears to approve of slavery and make recommendations on how it should be performed and how people who are slaves should behave. There is a really good book by Susan Jacoby: Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism. It goes over in detail the abolition movement and women's suffrage. The origin of these ideas comes from the enlightenment, not the bible or Christianity. Later, these ideas would take hold in Christians that it is wrong to enslave people and wrong to not allow them to vote because of their sex and wrong to treat people differently on the basis of race.
09) Atheists are cold people who write off large segments of humanity as having insufficiently endowed genetics - this is really the author trying to set up moral superiority over atheists. He continues to use the racism card with regard to atheism, but where is he really going with calling atheists racists. We'll see...
10) For a logically consistent atheist, altruism enables mediocrity. Well, he's staying on the atheists must be racists kick here. He probably thinks that all atheists that aren't racists aren't really atheists. Most atheists can be called secular humanists in terms of morality. Secular Humanism is best described as the philosophy of utilitarianism. This philosophy resides in the idea of doing what is best for humanity. Is it best for humanity to pursue an elitist eugenic movement creating a race of super humans? Not really. Such a path would really only produce more strife within humanity. Now to improve humanity in general? Yes, that is a good thing. Genetically? Maybe, but certainly not now when our knowledge of genetics is in its infancy. In utilitarianism, the mediocre plays a vital role in creating a stable society. In that way, we should all hope to be mediocre. Those who have more talents, should use those talents toward improving the world after reaching a certain point in personal stability.
11) Christians love everybody. God loved us in to existence. The widow's mite is worth more than the whole treasury of the Temple. The best that is worst in use produce more than the intellectual elite can manufacture. (Please note, he is attaching intellectual elite to atheism here)
It should be noted that our writer isn't very consistent. He goes from attacking atheists (invalidly and illogically) to attacking the intellectual elite. His implication is that the 'intellectual elite' are atheists. Perhaps this intellectual elite is running the country right now? Oh, wait, you can't possibly be elected to office if you are an open atheist. So, who is running the country (which is apparently headed for destruction)? Well, its Christians. Just like George W Bush. So, somehow with none of the power atheists and the so-called intellectual elite receive the blame for the purported downward spiral of our country. Another problem with his statement is that it is all too clearly a lie. If it wasn't a lie then there wouldn't be any homeless people on the streets because the 85% Christian country would raid all the church coffers in a second to ensure that everyone had shelter and food. This isn't the case. The case is that the vast majority of churches are social clubs with a nice non-profit tax umbrella.
12) The intellectual elite knows this (that it is inadequate and doesn't care for the average person), but is stubborn and won't realize their own weakness. This is just plain an insulting passage designed to bully people to his side of the argument, because after all who wants to be a bad person and these intellectual elitists are the worst there are... This is a simple nudge at dehumanizing the opponent.
13) People who cannot see beyond the skin (atheists are who we are talking about) represent a danger to those who believe and can see beyond the skin.
This is funny, please see my remarks above about the racial components of churches. Go ahead, watch television and these churches on TV, black preacher, black people in the audience, white preacher, white people in the audience and a couple of token black people. I'm not exactly sure when this happened, but it seems like it is ok for a few clean-cut black people to be in a white church, but not for white people to be in a white church.
14) Atheists are going to destroy the world. This isn't exactly what he says in the last paragraph. But the article is all about laying a case against atheists and the 'intellectual elite' whoever they may be. Here he makes a claim that 'society as we know it will be destroyed'. Now if you are a tried and true follower, what exactly do you do if you believe something is going to destroy society? You destroy it first. What is it? Atheists and the intellectual elite. He even spells it out 'these people are the greatest danger.'
So, this article is a hate article. Hate the atheists because they are racists and they are going to destroy the world.
What do you expect someone who reads this article and is a believer of everything this guy has to say and meets an atheist? You know, if the person is a go-getter, a person that does things about the wrongs in society, I know what they would do. Let's hope 'they' don't meet me.
Personally, I've got two kids, wife, two dogs, three cats and a snake that need me to be their sole provider. I don't want to be killed because some jackass that reads this article and is a tried and true believer thinks he's saving the world from the evil atheists.
What's more, Steve Kellmeyer's article is hate speech, and hate speech is not protected speech, it is illegal. Perhaps he'd like to post known atheist names on his website and cross them out when people kill them.
Popular Science - Nuclear Power
There is an article in the current Popular Science magazine - May 2007, that indicates that a "new toxic-waste recycling process." will be tested in the United States of America.
Imagine my surprise when I continue to read the article and it is simply something the French have been doing for decades. This is basically using the nuclear waste produced in using nuclear power as a power source over and over again until at such point the fuel is completely spent and can be used no more.
During the process the amount of toxic radiation laden material is reduced and this reduces nuclear waste.
But this isn't a new process at least not on Earth. It might be new to the United States of America, but you know that is hardly surprising. We've been falling back on technology for the past 20 years or so, about the amount of time the French have been using this "new" process.
Imagine my surprise when I continue to read the article and it is simply something the French have been doing for decades. This is basically using the nuclear waste produced in using nuclear power as a power source over and over again until at such point the fuel is completely spent and can be used no more.
During the process the amount of toxic radiation laden material is reduced and this reduces nuclear waste.
But this isn't a new process at least not on Earth. It might be new to the United States of America, but you know that is hardly surprising. We've been falling back on technology for the past 20 years or so, about the amount of time the French have been using this "new" process.
Popular Science - The Future of the Car
Popular Science magazine in their current issue May 2007, is concentrated on the future of the car. This is only a logical topic as there was a Science Channel/Discovery Channel series recently about the future of the car "FutureCar".
Both the series and Popular Science go in to all the high technology that will go in to cars and Dr. Michio Kaku participates whom I have a deep respect. I've read his book Visions a few years back and enjoyed it thoroughly.
However, the problem with the Popular Science article, the FutureCar TV series and Dr. Michio Kaku's contributions to the FutureCar series is that they ignore simple physics. The point being that by not using a mechanical device to move a person you will always consume more energy for the weight of the mechanical device. This energy, unlike the energy that humans runs on is not always reusable or replaceable.
A large change may be required of society if it intends to keep the majority of its capabilities. We can either concentrate on keeping cars on the road and consuming less (but never zero) energy or we can concentrate on changing our infrastructure and our environment so that human power is what is necessary for most movements.
The way to accomplish this is by making vast cities called an arcology. An arcology is like a city, but most likely it would not have streets, businesses would be located close to residences and work wouldn't be far from home. This can be accomplished with buildings of many different formats, connected together by different types of rail and tubes where people can walk, run or cycle protected from the elements.
It would be a path to a healthier United States population as well, as those of us that can walk to work, will walk to work. It would remove a massive cause of pollution, the automobile from use (at least within the confines of an arcology.
Arcologies are also high on the use of alternative energies, as they can use whatever power source is available. It could start out using coal or whatever, but an alternative power source could be use and replace the current coal burning power plant.
The demise of the car would increase disposable income of the average person, as they would not have to pay for car insurance, car payments, car maintenance and they would gain the time that is typically lost by driving in a car every day.
The demise of the car would also be a huge safety win for humans. They would not die in car accidents, no one would be hit by cars walking across the street and the pollution created by cars would disappear. As a parent in northern NJ, I am always concerned about my child being hit by a car. It is so densely populated up here with so many cars that it is a grave concern to me. No one should ever have to live through losing their child through being hit by a car. An arcology is the path to the removal of this being possible.
Of course, there are technical and social barriers that we would have to overcome in order to create arcologies. Most of us don't want to live in apartments because you can hear all the people around you. However, I suspect that this can easily be solved by using appropriate materials to block the sounds of other people.
Everyone in the world doesn't have to live in an arcology. However, the greater a percentage that do live in arcologies would greatly alleviate many problems that confront humanity now and in the near future.
I suspect all this talk about future cars and all these great technologies is simply delaying the executioner of the car.
Both the series and Popular Science go in to all the high technology that will go in to cars and Dr. Michio Kaku participates whom I have a deep respect. I've read his book Visions a few years back and enjoyed it thoroughly.
However, the problem with the Popular Science article, the FutureCar TV series and Dr. Michio Kaku's contributions to the FutureCar series is that they ignore simple physics. The point being that by not using a mechanical device to move a person you will always consume more energy for the weight of the mechanical device. This energy, unlike the energy that humans runs on is not always reusable or replaceable.
A large change may be required of society if it intends to keep the majority of its capabilities. We can either concentrate on keeping cars on the road and consuming less (but never zero) energy or we can concentrate on changing our infrastructure and our environment so that human power is what is necessary for most movements.
The way to accomplish this is by making vast cities called an arcology. An arcology is like a city, but most likely it would not have streets, businesses would be located close to residences and work wouldn't be far from home. This can be accomplished with buildings of many different formats, connected together by different types of rail and tubes where people can walk, run or cycle protected from the elements.
It would be a path to a healthier United States population as well, as those of us that can walk to work, will walk to work. It would remove a massive cause of pollution, the automobile from use (at least within the confines of an arcology.
Arcologies are also high on the use of alternative energies, as they can use whatever power source is available. It could start out using coal or whatever, but an alternative power source could be use and replace the current coal burning power plant.
The demise of the car would increase disposable income of the average person, as they would not have to pay for car insurance, car payments, car maintenance and they would gain the time that is typically lost by driving in a car every day.
The demise of the car would also be a huge safety win for humans. They would not die in car accidents, no one would be hit by cars walking across the street and the pollution created by cars would disappear. As a parent in northern NJ, I am always concerned about my child being hit by a car. It is so densely populated up here with so many cars that it is a grave concern to me. No one should ever have to live through losing their child through being hit by a car. An arcology is the path to the removal of this being possible.
Of course, there are technical and social barriers that we would have to overcome in order to create arcologies. Most of us don't want to live in apartments because you can hear all the people around you. However, I suspect that this can easily be solved by using appropriate materials to block the sounds of other people.
Everyone in the world doesn't have to live in an arcology. However, the greater a percentage that do live in arcologies would greatly alleviate many problems that confront humanity now and in the near future.
I suspect all this talk about future cars and all these great technologies is simply delaying the executioner of the car.
Mac Mini Problem
Well, as I previously mentioned in this blog, we purchased a Mac Mini for my father-in-law. It works great as a computer except for one major problem. The 17" LCD display I decided he should use over his old 15" CRT, doesn't work with it. After the initial Mac startup gray screen the monitor goes to "No Signal".
So, rather fortunately, we had his 15" monitor available and we connected it to that monitor and it works perfectly. There are a number of blogs and articles out there on this subject, which seems to indicate that there is no solution. A German Company in some articles is referenced as indicating that the signal strength output from the Mac Mini is out of specification and too low to be interpreted by some monitor. Expensive monitors can apparently adjust to the lower signal output.
But, if I was interested in expensive, I'd have bought either the iMac or a more expensive PC and not the Mac Mini.
So, we have been recommended to take both monitor and Mac Mini to an Apple store to have it checked out. I'll keep everyone posted when we actually accomplish this pain in the butt. I suspect though, that there simply isn't a fix for this problem.
So, rather fortunately, we had his 15" monitor available and we connected it to that monitor and it works perfectly. There are a number of blogs and articles out there on this subject, which seems to indicate that there is no solution. A German Company in some articles is referenced as indicating that the signal strength output from the Mac Mini is out of specification and too low to be interpreted by some monitor. Expensive monitors can apparently adjust to the lower signal output.
But, if I was interested in expensive, I'd have bought either the iMac or a more expensive PC and not the Mac Mini.
So, we have been recommended to take both monitor and Mac Mini to an Apple store to have it checked out. I'll keep everyone posted when we actually accomplish this pain in the butt. I suspect though, that there simply isn't a fix for this problem.
Viginia Tech Shooting
I feel sorrow as a parent for all those killed at Virginia Tech. Each and every one of them took years to be made in to college students, people with futures and people that in this country we need to live long fruitful lives. All those hopes are embedded in these students by their parents and the hopes for better futures.
Today, for 32 people most who were college students there will be no future. The absence of a future is a void the exact opposite of having a better future.
The head of the English department at Virginia Tech has revealed that some of Cho Seung-Hui's writings were sufficiently disturbing that they sent him out for counseling. Then in the same paragraph in this article she indicates that she won't tell anyone his grades or reveal the paper that referred him to counseling out of respect for privacy laws.
I have the highest respect for privacy laws, but she already broke those privacy laws by revealing anything about his education that was not already public knowledge. At this point in time to be consistent she needs to reveal this paper that she has now made everyone slavering over knowing the contents public.
I think, that in certain cases privacy laws need to be amended. It should be written that if a person commits a crime that all privacy concerns are no longer in scope. If you run around and kill a bunch of people you lose your right to privacy. Also, in this case it is uncertain whose privacy she is protecting as the individual in question is quite dead. If you are dead, you don't own anything, you can't do anything, you can't feel embarrassed about anything and guess what you don't have a right to privacy anymore since there isn't a 'you' anymore.
Today, for 32 people most who were college students there will be no future. The absence of a future is a void the exact opposite of having a better future.
The head of the English department at Virginia Tech has revealed that some of Cho Seung-Hui's writings were sufficiently disturbing that they sent him out for counseling. Then in the same paragraph in this article she indicates that she won't tell anyone his grades or reveal the paper that referred him to counseling out of respect for privacy laws.
I have the highest respect for privacy laws, but she already broke those privacy laws by revealing anything about his education that was not already public knowledge. At this point in time to be consistent she needs to reveal this paper that she has now made everyone slavering over knowing the contents public.
I think, that in certain cases privacy laws need to be amended. It should be written that if a person commits a crime that all privacy concerns are no longer in scope. If you run around and kill a bunch of people you lose your right to privacy. Also, in this case it is uncertain whose privacy she is protecting as the individual in question is quite dead. If you are dead, you don't own anything, you can't do anything, you can't feel embarrassed about anything and guess what you don't have a right to privacy anymore since there isn't a 'you' anymore.
Monday, April 09, 2007
Credit Card Woes II
You know, sometimes I wonder about credit card companies and how they can survive. They practice such unethical business processes that it is a wonder they aren't sued out of existence.
For example, my wife and I had a Chase MasterCard through Amazon. It wasn't originally Chase, as we've had issue with Chase before, but Amazon changed who they were working with so now it is a Chase MasterCard.
We made a transfer from Chase to another credit card with a better rate for 5K. Three months later, Chase tells us that the payment never posted. In the meantime, unfortunately, we had to use the card so when they replaced the 3K on to the card, we went over the credit limit. The funny thing about it is that neither the issuing bank (my wife's credit union) nor Chase notified us that anything was wrong until things were fundamentally screwed up.
So, retroactively, they put us overlimit for 3 months, charged us a bunch of penalties and temporarily closed our account. They indicated if we made the account whole again they would open the account up again.
So, instead of paying the card to make it whole, we paid them a few thousand, and then moved the rest of the balance to other cards and called and said you know what, we don't want to deal with you.
You know why we'll never go back to Chase? Because the bitch on the phone started talking down to me when I was trying to straighten things out. "Didn't you notice 5K of your debt disappeared?" WTF lady, am I supposed to keep after credit card companies to make sure they do their business with money straight? Exactly which one of us is in the business of money? I know what I'm in the business of right now, taking care of 1 then 3 year old and one 4 month old. If you can't catch a problem with a payment for 3 months, I fail to see how I should be penalized at all. If I bounce a regular check, guess what, I know about it instantly. Exactly, why couldn't that happen with a balance transfer check.
End result is that they put 30 to 60 days late on my credit report and I paid their account off and I won't be using Chase ever again.
And you know, its funny, I really like Amazon as a company and I was more than happy to move over to an Amazon Mastercard for purchases with them. Whatever side business they did for having their name on the card, gone. I'll still use Amazon for a lot of purchases, but screw trying to do business with any of their financial products.
For example, my wife and I had a Chase MasterCard through Amazon. It wasn't originally Chase, as we've had issue with Chase before, but Amazon changed who they were working with so now it is a Chase MasterCard.
We made a transfer from Chase to another credit card with a better rate for 5K. Three months later, Chase tells us that the payment never posted. In the meantime, unfortunately, we had to use the card so when they replaced the 3K on to the card, we went over the credit limit. The funny thing about it is that neither the issuing bank (my wife's credit union) nor Chase notified us that anything was wrong until things were fundamentally screwed up.
So, retroactively, they put us overlimit for 3 months, charged us a bunch of penalties and temporarily closed our account. They indicated if we made the account whole again they would open the account up again.
So, instead of paying the card to make it whole, we paid them a few thousand, and then moved the rest of the balance to other cards and called and said you know what, we don't want to deal with you.
You know why we'll never go back to Chase? Because the bitch on the phone started talking down to me when I was trying to straighten things out. "Didn't you notice 5K of your debt disappeared?" WTF lady, am I supposed to keep after credit card companies to make sure they do their business with money straight? Exactly which one of us is in the business of money? I know what I'm in the business of right now, taking care of 1 then 3 year old and one 4 month old. If you can't catch a problem with a payment for 3 months, I fail to see how I should be penalized at all. If I bounce a regular check, guess what, I know about it instantly. Exactly, why couldn't that happen with a balance transfer check.
End result is that they put 30 to 60 days late on my credit report and I paid their account off and I won't be using Chase ever again.
And you know, its funny, I really like Amazon as a company and I was more than happy to move over to an Amazon Mastercard for purchases with them. Whatever side business they did for having their name on the card, gone. I'll still use Amazon for a lot of purchases, but screw trying to do business with any of their financial products.
Credit Card Woes
You know, over time you get used to how credit cards work and what happens when you drop the ball or when someone drops the ball for you.
Well, Exxon/Mobile changed who their credit card company is or something and they changed how things behave. Over the years I have been late with the occasional payment. Or missed it completely. Then I'd get the next bill, say 'oh, crap, I missed a payment. ' Send the payment with enough for both payments and all would be well.
But it seems the standards have changed. We get registered mail at my house and we get one every year. Well, out of the 5 years we have been at this house we have never had it delivered by our mail man. In fact, sometimes we'd get 3rd notice with our mail, and never have gotten 1st or second notice or anything with a threat to send the registered mail back.
This year, we got registered mail, from an old employer of mine that stopped paying us just before they passed from existence. It was a check and it was sent mid-December. We got final notice almost mid-January and had to complain for the post office to hold it so we could pick it up.
Then our annual registered mail came in or rather didn't and we complained.
That month, our Exxon bill didn't come and we missed a payment. I suspect it was a gentle hint from our mail man not to fuck with him. (sorry about the expletive, but sometimes it is necessary.)
So, we missed a payment. We get a bill with a past due from Exxon. We pay it. A few days later we get a notice that we're late and that they will be withdrawing our credit. What?
So, I pay that (not realizing my wife already paid it a few days earlier). Then some time passes and we get another notice that we are late. WTF?
You know, something fishy is going on here. What happened to the courtesy of waiting until the end of the payment of the next month to kill me with stuff like this? Is there no room for error?
So, now you should understand, I've been a Exxon Card owner and purchasing only Exxon gas for the past 10 years or more. Can you imagine the thousands of dollars I have spent with them? Picture a minimum of $200 a month and you'll get a glimmer of an idea.
And now they treat me like trash. What next, are they going to send me to collections?
So, I call them immediately after I get this second letter and they tell me, oh yeah, you are flush, you've got $140 credit on the card (both payments hit, but this amount of credit should be low, maybe purchases have already been applied against it).
Top all of this off with the fact that my sister-in-law is having problems with the credit portion of Exxon as well. And Exxon is in jeopardy of losing not $200 a month, but $400 to $600 a month. Maybe it isn't much in the big picture, but I wonder how many people who use Exxon Credit are also having issues with these folks.
Way to chase the customers off that are beating your door down. Hey, there are still other gas stations, and while my wife's grandfather and great-grandfather worked at Exxon, I don't feel any particular loyalty to them. Not when they treat me like dirt.
Well, Exxon/Mobile changed who their credit card company is or something and they changed how things behave. Over the years I have been late with the occasional payment. Or missed it completely. Then I'd get the next bill, say 'oh, crap, I missed a payment. ' Send the payment with enough for both payments and all would be well.
But it seems the standards have changed. We get registered mail at my house and we get one every year. Well, out of the 5 years we have been at this house we have never had it delivered by our mail man. In fact, sometimes we'd get 3rd notice with our mail, and never have gotten 1st or second notice or anything with a threat to send the registered mail back.
This year, we got registered mail, from an old employer of mine that stopped paying us just before they passed from existence. It was a check and it was sent mid-December. We got final notice almost mid-January and had to complain for the post office to hold it so we could pick it up.
Then our annual registered mail came in or rather didn't and we complained.
That month, our Exxon bill didn't come and we missed a payment. I suspect it was a gentle hint from our mail man not to fuck with him. (sorry about the expletive, but sometimes it is necessary.)
So, we missed a payment. We get a bill with a past due from Exxon. We pay it. A few days later we get a notice that we're late and that they will be withdrawing our credit. What?
So, I pay that (not realizing my wife already paid it a few days earlier). Then some time passes and we get another notice that we are late. WTF?
You know, something fishy is going on here. What happened to the courtesy of waiting until the end of the payment of the next month to kill me with stuff like this? Is there no room for error?
So, now you should understand, I've been a Exxon Card owner and purchasing only Exxon gas for the past 10 years or more. Can you imagine the thousands of dollars I have spent with them? Picture a minimum of $200 a month and you'll get a glimmer of an idea.
And now they treat me like trash. What next, are they going to send me to collections?
So, I call them immediately after I get this second letter and they tell me, oh yeah, you are flush, you've got $140 credit on the card (both payments hit, but this amount of credit should be low, maybe purchases have already been applied against it).
Top all of this off with the fact that my sister-in-law is having problems with the credit portion of Exxon as well. And Exxon is in jeopardy of losing not $200 a month, but $400 to $600 a month. Maybe it isn't much in the big picture, but I wonder how many people who use Exxon Credit are also having issues with these folks.
Way to chase the customers off that are beating your door down. Hey, there are still other gas stations, and while my wife's grandfather and great-grandfather worked at Exxon, I don't feel any particular loyalty to them. Not when they treat me like dirt.
A New Mac for the Extended Family
My nuclear family has 1 Mac - a Macbook 13". My wife enjoys everything about it - except that there is limited MMORPG support on the platform.
So, my father-in-laws is suffering from chronic slow computer disease. We ordered a Mac for him, considering that he doesn't have MMORPG needs at all and he needs his computer for e-mail, internet, spreadsheet and ancestry/family tree/ genome project needs and that is it - it is a logical choice for him.
We ordered a Mac Mini, as that certainly far outstrips his needs - at 1.66 Ghz and Intel Core Duo it is a reasonably nice machine, even if it is a bit slower than the Mac book we purchased for my wife while she was pregnant.
It bothers me, though. What bothers me, you ask?
Well, there is an Apple store in Menlo Park Mall here in NJ. We went there in the hopes of purchasing the machine and taking it home and transferring my father-in-laws files. His old e-machines computer was working at that time.
But, I would never purchase any machine at this time with only 512MB or RAM. And that is exactly what the Mac Mini comes with (even if you go up and buy the faster machine!).
And there is the hitch in my plot. If you buy 1GB of memory online they charge like $79. If you want the 1 GB in the store, they are going to charge you $150.
No, friggin way.
The excuse they gave at the store was that RAM costs more for them and that they actually do something something something and you end up with an extra chip.
Well, the extra chip is a waste and RAM costs aside, you should be able to offer in a standardized store the same thing you offer on a standardized web page. It isn't like CompUSA and they have a million things and charge on a FIFO basis for inventory.
In the Mac store they could charge it back to the web site and send the unused memory back to Apple. Or something similar that involved not charging the customer more for the option of necessary memory and pushing the customer to purchase through the web site for anything other than the default configuration.
So, we had to wait for the computer and just as luck would have it my father-in-laws e-machine died (horribly) and now things will be much harder to transfer.
It isn't like I don't have a drive enclosure for his old hard drive. It just makes things more difficult.
So, my father-in-laws is suffering from chronic slow computer disease. We ordered a Mac for him, considering that he doesn't have MMORPG needs at all and he needs his computer for e-mail, internet, spreadsheet and ancestry/family tree/ genome project needs and that is it - it is a logical choice for him.
We ordered a Mac Mini, as that certainly far outstrips his needs - at 1.66 Ghz and Intel Core Duo it is a reasonably nice machine, even if it is a bit slower than the Mac book we purchased for my wife while she was pregnant.
It bothers me, though. What bothers me, you ask?
Well, there is an Apple store in Menlo Park Mall here in NJ. We went there in the hopes of purchasing the machine and taking it home and transferring my father-in-laws files. His old e-machines computer was working at that time.
But, I would never purchase any machine at this time with only 512MB or RAM. And that is exactly what the Mac Mini comes with (even if you go up and buy the faster machine!).
And there is the hitch in my plot. If you buy 1GB of memory online they charge like $79. If you want the 1 GB in the store, they are going to charge you $150.
No, friggin way.
The excuse they gave at the store was that RAM costs more for them and that they actually do something something something and you end up with an extra chip.
Well, the extra chip is a waste and RAM costs aside, you should be able to offer in a standardized store the same thing you offer on a standardized web page. It isn't like CompUSA and they have a million things and charge on a FIFO basis for inventory.
In the Mac store they could charge it back to the web site and send the unused memory back to Apple. Or something similar that involved not charging the customer more for the option of necessary memory and pushing the customer to purchase through the web site for anything other than the default configuration.
So, we had to wait for the computer and just as luck would have it my father-in-laws e-machine died (horribly) and now things will be much harder to transfer.
It isn't like I don't have a drive enclosure for his old hard drive. It just makes things more difficult.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)