Every so often ideas percolate up to my mind - that might actually be something useful.
Consider a moment the discoveries brought by the Hubble Space Telescope (HST). Marvels unknown before its existence have been brought to the scope of human knowledge.
The current HST is living on borrowed time. Soon a gyroscope will fail and it will no longer be usable.
But the designs for the telescope still exist. The infrastructure to build another HST exist.
You might think - for a moment - so what? After all there are new Earth-based telescopes that are now beginning to rival the HST's resolution. Do we really need to replace it?
The answer to that question is a clear no. It would cost a lot of money and deliver no more than the most sophisticated Earth-based telescopes.
But there is a reason why we could and should biuld another HST.
Using the knowledge gained in Deep Space 1 of the ionic drive and automatic navigation and the technology of HST - we can and should build an HST capable of leaving the solar system at as high a speed as we can get it to move.
It may be that Earth-based telescopes are approaching the HST is magnification, but a HST that is located off the plane of our Solar System and far away from the sun would be far more powerful than any near-term Earth-based telescope could hope to achieve.
The sun is like a giant flashlight drowning out the rest of the universe that we can see from Earth and even Earth orbit.
But if we were to launch a new HST powered by an economical ion drive after a significant boost from orbit with chemical rockets - the sun is far dimmer even just outside the orbit of Neptune and Pluto.
Such a telescope on its way out of the solar system could be turned towards Earth to map the Near Earth Objects.
I think it would only require minor modifications to the HST design to make something like this work.
Then, the best thing would be to have two new HSTs. Exiting our solar system from different directions. They would be useful as two telescopes, of course, but combined together they would create a single telescope with incredible clarity of pictures.
Now, that is something to hope for to be done in the future.
Abwägen
Wednesday, February 23, 2005
Tuesday, February 22, 2005
Gay Marriage
I do not want to go on this topic in great detail.
Simply put, I believe homosexual people have the right to seek happiness in any form they want to as long as no harm is done directly acutely or chronically to anyone else.
Harm being defined as actual physical trauma or death or even the fundamentalist "destruction of society" angle. Certainly if something were to cause the destruction of society I think any moral person would act to stop that cause.
The fundamentalist and more religious in the United States posit the hypothesis that gay marriage will result in the destruction of the basic social unit of society, the family. With the destruction of the basic unit of society our society itself will be destroyed.
National Geographic published a small item called "Geo Quiz" and the topic is marriage. There are 18 questions - and the answers are also contained on the page. You read the question, attempt to answer it yourself and turn the magazine upside-down and read the answer.
Issue February 2005 - excerpt - National Geographic- page ???
6. What two countries were the first to legalize same-sex marriages?
Answer:
The Netherlands in 2001 and Belgium in 2003.
Now, we can simply test the hypothesis of the fundamentalist - that homosexual marriage will bring about the destruction of society.
Perhaps someone will be helpful out there and provide some solid statistical data to back or refute my assertion that Belgium and the Netherlands appear to be just as stable as they have ever been in modern times.
I certainly have not read any news reports declaring those countries hotbeds of anarchy and lawlessness.
So, approximately 4 years after making homosexual marriage legal in the Netherlands - they seemed to have survived.
And approximately after 2 years of homosexual marriage being legal in Belgium - society seems to be working nicely enough.
There is little information to indicate that allowing homosexual marriage is any more or less detrimental to society than allowing marriage between heterosexual partners.
Abwägen
Added on 2005 02 23:
Here is an article about a book produced by the Pope. In his book and paraphrased in this article is the view that gay marriage is "an ideology of evil" ...
"It is legitimate and necessary to ask oneself if this is not perhaps part of a new ideology of evil, perhaps more insidious and hidden, which attempts to pit human rights against the family and against man," he writes.
Funny, how in the face of direct evidence that gay marriage is niether evil nor detrimental to society the Pope, supposed benevolent representative of a benevolent god, advocates the suppression of an entire group of people and restriction of their rights.
And the reality is that people of religious bent are a mixed group - and there are segments that having this official advocacy of the restriction of rights of a small group of people - will take it that those people should not have rights. And in the extreme some will say that gay people should be removed from existence. (either physically or by re-education - depending on your point of view which one of those is worse).
In the same book, the Pope also makes it sound like abortion is similar to the extermination of the Jews during WWII. Funny how both abortion is legal and in a couple of countries gay marriage is legal - and there is no mass extermination of fetuses or massive failure of society.
People need to recognize when statements contain no validity - no matter how much authority the source claims.
CNN article is here: http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/02/23/pope.book.reut/index.html
Abwägen
Simply put, I believe homosexual people have the right to seek happiness in any form they want to as long as no harm is done directly acutely or chronically to anyone else.
Harm being defined as actual physical trauma or death or even the fundamentalist "destruction of society" angle. Certainly if something were to cause the destruction of society I think any moral person would act to stop that cause.
The fundamentalist and more religious in the United States posit the hypothesis that gay marriage will result in the destruction of the basic social unit of society, the family. With the destruction of the basic unit of society our society itself will be destroyed.
National Geographic published a small item called "Geo Quiz" and the topic is marriage. There are 18 questions - and the answers are also contained on the page. You read the question, attempt to answer it yourself and turn the magazine upside-down and read the answer.
Issue February 2005 - excerpt - National Geographic- page ???
6. What two countries were the first to legalize same-sex marriages?
Answer:
The Netherlands in 2001 and Belgium in 2003.
Now, we can simply test the hypothesis of the fundamentalist - that homosexual marriage will bring about the destruction of society.
Perhaps someone will be helpful out there and provide some solid statistical data to back or refute my assertion that Belgium and the Netherlands appear to be just as stable as they have ever been in modern times.
I certainly have not read any news reports declaring those countries hotbeds of anarchy and lawlessness.
So, approximately 4 years after making homosexual marriage legal in the Netherlands - they seemed to have survived.
And approximately after 2 years of homosexual marriage being legal in Belgium - society seems to be working nicely enough.
There is little information to indicate that allowing homosexual marriage is any more or less detrimental to society than allowing marriage between heterosexual partners.
Abwägen
Added on 2005 02 23:
Here is an article about a book produced by the Pope. In his book and paraphrased in this article is the view that gay marriage is "an ideology of evil" ...
"It is legitimate and necessary to ask oneself if this is not perhaps part of a new ideology of evil, perhaps more insidious and hidden, which attempts to pit human rights against the family and against man," he writes.
Funny, how in the face of direct evidence that gay marriage is niether evil nor detrimental to society the Pope, supposed benevolent representative of a benevolent god, advocates the suppression of an entire group of people and restriction of their rights.
And the reality is that people of religious bent are a mixed group - and there are segments that having this official advocacy of the restriction of rights of a small group of people - will take it that those people should not have rights. And in the extreme some will say that gay people should be removed from existence. (either physically or by re-education - depending on your point of view which one of those is worse).
In the same book, the Pope also makes it sound like abortion is similar to the extermination of the Jews during WWII. Funny how both abortion is legal and in a couple of countries gay marriage is legal - and there is no mass extermination of fetuses or massive failure of society.
People need to recognize when statements contain no validity - no matter how much authority the source claims.
CNN article is here: http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/02/23/pope.book.reut/index.html
Abwägen
Sunday, February 20, 2005
Food, Waste and poison
Just a quick blog entry to ask a question?
Is the appearance of food worth dying for?
http://www.itv.com/news/britain_1708997.html
Beyond the article about a carcinogen being placed in food to improve appears I want you to think a little deeper about this.
1) All the Dyes in our foods are created; therefore, waste is created in transporting these dyes and in the creation of these dyes - just to make the color of food look "appropriate".
2) We are polluting our bodies with substances that are there solely for the appearance of the food. This can be a non-obvious carcinogen or there are possible allergic reactions or worse - long-term ill-health effects that we simply do not know about at present.
3) Damage to the environment is caused in the creation of these dyes. Either they are formed chemically, in which the by-products of creating these dyes is unknown and could be everywhere - poisoning our environment or they are created through the growth of plants - that would probably be better used either as forested land or growing food that contributes to the human body rather than aids the way our food looks.
Personally, I think that dyes should not be in our food. They are unnecessary.
Abwägen
--Added 2005 02 21
So, now the entire scope of the contaminated foods becomes known.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/PA_NEWCONSUMERDyemo19cancerdye?source=&ct=5
The above article indicates that Crosse and Blackwell worcestor sauce contains an ingredient that is normally used for material objects and coloration - and is illegal for food products.
That sauce was then used by many other food providers - to create their products.
So, I reiterate: coloring of food is not necessary. I personally do not care what color my food is as long as it tastes good. Green macaroni and cheese would at least make things interesting. For even one person to have their lives threatened over the looks of a food product - is rediculous.
I prefer not to be poisened by my food. I prefer not to even have the possibility of being slowly poised by my food exist. This means that artificial coloration of food is not relevant and is indeed a cause for questioning of a people's sanity that coloration of food is more important than health.
Abwägen
Is the appearance of food worth dying for?
http://www.itv.com/news/britain_1708997.html
Beyond the article about a carcinogen being placed in food to improve appears I want you to think a little deeper about this.
1) All the Dyes in our foods are created; therefore, waste is created in transporting these dyes and in the creation of these dyes - just to make the color of food look "appropriate".
2) We are polluting our bodies with substances that are there solely for the appearance of the food. This can be a non-obvious carcinogen or there are possible allergic reactions or worse - long-term ill-health effects that we simply do not know about at present.
3) Damage to the environment is caused in the creation of these dyes. Either they are formed chemically, in which the by-products of creating these dyes is unknown and could be everywhere - poisoning our environment or they are created through the growth of plants - that would probably be better used either as forested land or growing food that contributes to the human body rather than aids the way our food looks.
Personally, I think that dyes should not be in our food. They are unnecessary.
Abwägen
--Added 2005 02 21
So, now the entire scope of the contaminated foods becomes known.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/PA_NEWCONSUMERDyemo19cancerdye?source=&ct=5
The above article indicates that Crosse and Blackwell worcestor sauce contains an ingredient that is normally used for material objects and coloration - and is illegal for food products.
That sauce was then used by many other food providers - to create their products.
So, I reiterate: coloring of food is not necessary. I personally do not care what color my food is as long as it tastes good. Green macaroni and cheese would at least make things interesting. For even one person to have their lives threatened over the looks of a food product - is rediculous.
I prefer not to be poisened by my food. I prefer not to even have the possibility of being slowly poised by my food exist. This means that artificial coloration of food is not relevant and is indeed a cause for questioning of a people's sanity that coloration of food is more important than health.
Abwägen
Friday, February 18, 2005
Posts on Mars exploration
I've decided to eliminate this post. There are other people's names in it (although not their whole names) and I think I shouldn't be posting that information - other people's writings to their names - without explicit permission.
Saturday, February 12, 2005
Heaven
I have problems with the idea of Heaven.
A good article on Heaven and its problems is written by philosopher Michael Martin (whose book I have read "The Big Domino in the Sky") and is located here: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/heaven.html .
Here is a link to "The Big Domino in the Sky"
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/1573921114/ref=cm_cr_dp_2_1/103-4608745-1821468?%5Fencoding=UTF8&customer-reviews.sort%5Fby=-SubmissionDate&n=507846
Michael Martin is a philosopher and his work is thorough.
And before I read the whole thing I want to put down my thoughts on Heaven.
#1 : Heaven is basic avoidance of the simple fact that when you die - your consciousness ceases to exist - totally and completely.
#2 : Heaven is a selfish idea. I am not a theist - so perhaps I get the point of life from their perspective wrong - but it certainly seems to me that the point of a theist's life is to get in to Heaven. This shapes what they do in terms of right and wrong. Can anything be morally correct if it is done merely because of the anticipation of future reward? It seems that I need to offer some reason for doing things that are morally correct in place of this idea of Heaven. And I have one. I believe in the human species. I want it to survive - and thrive - and always have a better future than the past. Actions that contribute to the survival of humanity and increase its abilities are morally correct. Things that subtract from the stability of humanity or promise to make the future less able than the present are morally incorrect. (and no, I am not talking about the pursuit of "perfection", please note that there is no such thing as perfection - and that perfection is a juvenile idea at best)
#3 : Heaven offers for no growth of the individual "soul" that goes there. There is little offered about what happens in Heaven. Only that you will be there forever. Perhaps this idea is appealing to some people, but not for me. There is no mention of yet another level above Heaven that the sould in Heaven might aspire to be a part. There is in fact little mention about what "Heaven" might be.
#4 : Heaven - access is allowed or disallowed by the theists god. And we do not know anything about the decision making process of such a god - if that god exists. I can easily think of different "tests" that might be applied to gain access to Heaven. For example, god might want people around him that are not blind followers - because those people use their minds. There was one science fiction story I read where a person died and got to meet god because he was a scientist that discovered something very important about the universe. Later our scientist found out that "god" had existed an unknown amount of time and was tired of existence. It wanted to die, but could not die since the universe was an integral part of itself and its death would result in the end of everything. It ended with the scientist for perfectly benevolent reasons - working to kill god - without destroying the universe.
So, like I said, Heaven is a problematic idea at best - and I am not the only one to say so.
Abwägen
A good article on Heaven and its problems is written by philosopher Michael Martin (whose book I have read "The Big Domino in the Sky") and is located here: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/heaven.html .
Here is a link to "The Big Domino in the Sky"
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/1573921114/ref=cm_cr_dp_2_1/103-4608745-1821468?%5Fencoding=UTF8&customer-reviews.sort%5Fby=-SubmissionDate&n=507846
Michael Martin is a philosopher and his work is thorough.
And before I read the whole thing I want to put down my thoughts on Heaven.
#1 : Heaven is basic avoidance of the simple fact that when you die - your consciousness ceases to exist - totally and completely.
#2 : Heaven is a selfish idea. I am not a theist - so perhaps I get the point of life from their perspective wrong - but it certainly seems to me that the point of a theist's life is to get in to Heaven. This shapes what they do in terms of right and wrong. Can anything be morally correct if it is done merely because of the anticipation of future reward? It seems that I need to offer some reason for doing things that are morally correct in place of this idea of Heaven. And I have one. I believe in the human species. I want it to survive - and thrive - and always have a better future than the past. Actions that contribute to the survival of humanity and increase its abilities are morally correct. Things that subtract from the stability of humanity or promise to make the future less able than the present are morally incorrect. (and no, I am not talking about the pursuit of "perfection", please note that there is no such thing as perfection - and that perfection is a juvenile idea at best)
#3 : Heaven offers for no growth of the individual "soul" that goes there. There is little offered about what happens in Heaven. Only that you will be there forever. Perhaps this idea is appealing to some people, but not for me. There is no mention of yet another level above Heaven that the sould in Heaven might aspire to be a part. There is in fact little mention about what "Heaven" might be.
#4 : Heaven - access is allowed or disallowed by the theists god. And we do not know anything about the decision making process of such a god - if that god exists. I can easily think of different "tests" that might be applied to gain access to Heaven. For example, god might want people around him that are not blind followers - because those people use their minds. There was one science fiction story I read where a person died and got to meet god because he was a scientist that discovered something very important about the universe. Later our scientist found out that "god" had existed an unknown amount of time and was tired of existence. It wanted to die, but could not die since the universe was an integral part of itself and its death would result in the end of everything. It ended with the scientist for perfectly benevolent reasons - working to kill god - without destroying the universe.
So, like I said, Heaven is a problematic idea at best - and I am not the only one to say so.
Abwägen
Binoculars
Well, I have probably used my binoculars seven times now. That lowers my cost per use down to around $47.
I find though that the costs in using the binoculars is not complete. That my computer programmer muscles are unable to hold the binoculars still for any significant amount of time.
There are many good things to using the binculars, though. Any reasonably clear night I can take them outside and view Jupiter and its moons. Tonight it was no problem only ten minutes ago to see 4 moons (Io is tough to know about for sure with 10X50s) around Jupiter.
I enjoy sometimes what I consider to be 'lay' observations of the sky. It is interesting to see how many stars there are out there - by looking towards one bright star and seeing that there are tens of stars in that area - just not visible to the naked eye.
It is even more impressive to look at a section of sky that appears to hold nothing at all - and to move back and forth and see hundreds of stars in apparently dark sky.
I understand the HST (Hubble Space Telescope) did something similar in its deep field image - picked a section of sky in which there were no objects - and revealed that indeed there are objects there - just far away and very dim.
I find though that the solar filters I have purchased are not what I could want of them. I would prefer (now with more knowledge) hydrogen alpha filters - that would reveal more of the sun's activities.
Even if I had purchased the better equipment - it seems that we are in the low end of the solar cycle for the kinds of activity that could be observed.
So, perhaps the filters will survive the years - as well as my binoculars - and I will get to see activity on the sun.
Knowing how things get destroyed in my house - I think it more likely that the money will be lost on those items - at some point in time. I will have to observe as often as I can - so that I will have a fair amount of monies worth in the use of my binoculars and the solar filters.
It seems though, that to get real good use out of the binoculars - I need to get a parrallelogram stype mount for my tripod. Then perhaps the stars will not dance so much when I try to observe them.
Abwägen
I find though that the costs in using the binoculars is not complete. That my computer programmer muscles are unable to hold the binoculars still for any significant amount of time.
There are many good things to using the binculars, though. Any reasonably clear night I can take them outside and view Jupiter and its moons. Tonight it was no problem only ten minutes ago to see 4 moons (Io is tough to know about for sure with 10X50s) around Jupiter.
I enjoy sometimes what I consider to be 'lay' observations of the sky. It is interesting to see how many stars there are out there - by looking towards one bright star and seeing that there are tens of stars in that area - just not visible to the naked eye.
It is even more impressive to look at a section of sky that appears to hold nothing at all - and to move back and forth and see hundreds of stars in apparently dark sky.
I understand the HST (Hubble Space Telescope) did something similar in its deep field image - picked a section of sky in which there were no objects - and revealed that indeed there are objects there - just far away and very dim.
I find though that the solar filters I have purchased are not what I could want of them. I would prefer (now with more knowledge) hydrogen alpha filters - that would reveal more of the sun's activities.
Even if I had purchased the better equipment - it seems that we are in the low end of the solar cycle for the kinds of activity that could be observed.
So, perhaps the filters will survive the years - as well as my binoculars - and I will get to see activity on the sun.
Knowing how things get destroyed in my house - I think it more likely that the money will be lost on those items - at some point in time. I will have to observe as often as I can - so that I will have a fair amount of monies worth in the use of my binoculars and the solar filters.
It seems though, that to get real good use out of the binoculars - I need to get a parrallelogram stype mount for my tripod. Then perhaps the stars will not dance so much when I try to observe them.
Abwägen
Friday, February 04, 2005
Case Against God - Part II
In modern times we often live an existence that has paradoxical elements. Elements of different paradigms that are mutually exclusive exist in our daily lives.
Examples of two elements that are from different paradigms are the possibility of alien intelligences and the idea of god.
There are two questions in part II of my Case Against God.
The first one is: Can the idea of god exist in a universe where we believe there might be alien intelligences?
The question comes from the fact that aliens and god come from different paradigms or world views. When the idea of god came in to existence there was no idea that there was anything outside of Earth. God is a transcendent being that exists beyond what is humanly understandable. The idea of aliens comes from the modern technological era. That somewhere out in the universe there are or at least that it is possible that there are alien intelligences.
So, imagine with me for a moment that some of these alien intelligences might be much older than humanity. That indeed their technology might be far advanced of ours that they have abilities that we would consider omnipotent and omniscient.
These Alien intelligences are still subject to ethics. It would be wrong if an alien intelligence of that order came to Earth and wiped out all of humanity. It would be wrong if that alien intelligence forced us in to servitude and made us commit atrocities against one another because of differences in belief.
Something vital happened to our alien intelligence as these hypothetical beings became very powerful. It appears that humans would have difficulty distinguishing between god-like aliens and ‘God’. This is why the two ideas are incompatible.
If ‘God’ exists is it not anything more than an alien being with abilities far in excess of our own?
And would this ‘God’ being be required to be just as ethical and moral as any other being in existence?
And according to all the religious texts and our histories – if ‘God’ exists it is clear that this being is responsible for the inhumane treatment of, well humans?
The second question is: If ‘God’ exists is it responsible for the inhumane treatment of humanity documented in the religious documents as well as the inhumane activities of its followers over the centuries and in to the present?
Right from Adam and Eve you would say that telling someone not to do something is not enough. You would say that the results of making the wrong decision should be clear – just as we do in any action in the present world where a poor decision could result in very bad repercussions. Buy a house – there is a laundry list of paperwork to go through – many which document the penalties and requirements you have as a home owner.
Is it fair to punish people who have done no wrong except be the children of their parents? It is clear that is something that we as a society do not believe is moral. As the cultural beneficiaries of the United States of America should we all be charged with the destruction of the Native American Culture? Should we all be charged with crimes against humanity for jailing thousands of people in California simply because they were Japanese? I certainly did not participate in either of those activities and I think it would be wrong to punish me for actions that in some cases occurred before anyone related to me entered this continent.
Enough.
Abwägen
Examples of two elements that are from different paradigms are the possibility of alien intelligences and the idea of god.
There are two questions in part II of my Case Against God.
The first one is: Can the idea of god exist in a universe where we believe there might be alien intelligences?
The question comes from the fact that aliens and god come from different paradigms or world views. When the idea of god came in to existence there was no idea that there was anything outside of Earth. God is a transcendent being that exists beyond what is humanly understandable. The idea of aliens comes from the modern technological era. That somewhere out in the universe there are or at least that it is possible that there are alien intelligences.
So, imagine with me for a moment that some of these alien intelligences might be much older than humanity. That indeed their technology might be far advanced of ours that they have abilities that we would consider omnipotent and omniscient.
These Alien intelligences are still subject to ethics. It would be wrong if an alien intelligence of that order came to Earth and wiped out all of humanity. It would be wrong if that alien intelligence forced us in to servitude and made us commit atrocities against one another because of differences in belief.
Something vital happened to our alien intelligence as these hypothetical beings became very powerful. It appears that humans would have difficulty distinguishing between god-like aliens and ‘God’. This is why the two ideas are incompatible.
If ‘God’ exists is it not anything more than an alien being with abilities far in excess of our own?
And would this ‘God’ being be required to be just as ethical and moral as any other being in existence?
And according to all the religious texts and our histories – if ‘God’ exists it is clear that this being is responsible for the inhumane treatment of, well humans?
The second question is: If ‘God’ exists is it responsible for the inhumane treatment of humanity documented in the religious documents as well as the inhumane activities of its followers over the centuries and in to the present?
Right from Adam and Eve you would say that telling someone not to do something is not enough. You would say that the results of making the wrong decision should be clear – just as we do in any action in the present world where a poor decision could result in very bad repercussions. Buy a house – there is a laundry list of paperwork to go through – many which document the penalties and requirements you have as a home owner.
Is it fair to punish people who have done no wrong except be the children of their parents? It is clear that is something that we as a society do not believe is moral. As the cultural beneficiaries of the United States of America should we all be charged with the destruction of the Native American Culture? Should we all be charged with crimes against humanity for jailing thousands of people in California simply because they were Japanese? I certainly did not participate in either of those activities and I think it would be wrong to punish me for actions that in some cases occurred before anyone related to me entered this continent.
Enough.
Abwägen
Case Against God - Part I
Case Against God – Part I
There is a massive amount of information regarding the case against deities. There are long arguments between theists and atheists that go through exhaustive detail about philosophies and ethical points.
I am not going to do that. There is plenty of information widely available out there if you want to research the topic. I have no doubt that there are thousands of pages of information on the topic – and all text no graphics.
My premise in this case is quite simple. My philosophy is that people should ask questions and find their own answers and be ethically honest with themselves in those answers. The simple fact that people come out with different answers should not be threatening. The only thing that is threatening to anyone is when answers of a specific type are held by people that believe that no other answers are acceptable.
If you have comments – I request that you stay to the narrow scope of the question.
And here is my first question:
Belief in God is strongly tied to religious writing. In the case of Christianity it is tied to the bible. For Judaism there are the Hebrew Scriptures and the Talmud. For Muslims it is the Koran. The question is simple. The god described in all cases is described with having certain capabilities. Omnipotence, omniscience and is transcendent of humanity. If god has the capabilities of omnipotence and is omniscient how come none of the written documents allegedly produced by god or by humans through the hand of god displays any more knowledge of the universe than people who were living in the times of those writings?
Read the religious writings. Do they provide any evidence that the writer contained any special knowledge that could only have come from an omniscient being that is independently verifiable? If not do we then have to question the authenticity of the writers in being inspired by an omniscient being?
As I indicated in the beginning of this blog – any comments on this particular blog need to stay to the narrow scope of the question. Specifically, is there any evidence in the religious documents of knowledge beyond the knowledge of humanity at the time of its writing?
Abwägen
There is a massive amount of information regarding the case against deities. There are long arguments between theists and atheists that go through exhaustive detail about philosophies and ethical points.
I am not going to do that. There is plenty of information widely available out there if you want to research the topic. I have no doubt that there are thousands of pages of information on the topic – and all text no graphics.
My premise in this case is quite simple. My philosophy is that people should ask questions and find their own answers and be ethically honest with themselves in those answers. The simple fact that people come out with different answers should not be threatening. The only thing that is threatening to anyone is when answers of a specific type are held by people that believe that no other answers are acceptable.
If you have comments – I request that you stay to the narrow scope of the question.
And here is my first question:
Belief in God is strongly tied to religious writing. In the case of Christianity it is tied to the bible. For Judaism there are the Hebrew Scriptures and the Talmud. For Muslims it is the Koran. The question is simple. The god described in all cases is described with having certain capabilities. Omnipotence, omniscience and is transcendent of humanity. If god has the capabilities of omnipotence and is omniscient how come none of the written documents allegedly produced by god or by humans through the hand of god displays any more knowledge of the universe than people who were living in the times of those writings?
Read the religious writings. Do they provide any evidence that the writer contained any special knowledge that could only have come from an omniscient being that is independently verifiable? If not do we then have to question the authenticity of the writers in being inspired by an omniscient being?
As I indicated in the beginning of this blog – any comments on this particular blog need to stay to the narrow scope of the question. Specifically, is there any evidence in the religious documents of knowledge beyond the knowledge of humanity at the time of its writing?
Abwägen
Thursday, January 27, 2005
Star Trek : Too Successful?
Star Trek, its spin-offs and the movies are my favorite form of TV. Most episodes contain symbology of some sort – regarding outlook on humanity, gods and technology. I may not always agree with its symbology; however, it is far better that there be something behind the stories instead of the brain-dead TV that is prominent in our day and age.
By my count (which may not be entirely accurate) at www.startrek.com – there are 698 episodes of Star Trek and its spin-offs covering a vast period of time from 1966 to the present.
Sadly, according to an article I read in PlayBoy of an interview of Jolene Blalock (she plays Sub-Commander T-Pol on Star Trek: Enterprise) shortly there will be no Star Trek producing new shows on TV. While I am sure that the re-runs will go on for quite some time to come – it is not quite the same as looking forward to a new episode and all the unknowns that come along with it.
It is quite possibly also good-bye to TV that has meaningful content for a while as well. Not to say that Star Trek has a monopoly on carrying meaning inside their shows – just that Star Trek tends to put meaningful content in almost every show – even shows that are designed to make the main characters more three-dimensional.
Star Trek may well be a victim of being too successful. The reason I say this is that now there are plenty of shows on TV with heavy science fiction content. There is an entire channel devoted to science fiction. You no longer have only one resource to watch possible futures when watching TV.
In fact the most recent incarnation of Star Trek competes with other science fiction shows. Shows like Smallville and StarGate SG-1.
And in watching the Star Trek shows I noticed something with my son.
He apparently doesn’t really like them. Now he’s only just about turning 22 months old – but he watches and likes other shows, such as StarGate SG-1 and Futurama.
The reason becomes quite clear as I watch the shows. A great deal of the content of Star Trek is dialog – understanding both the characters and the situations they are in – and understanding why they make the decisions they make.
Not a whole lot of action. The air-time given to the starship Voyager is sometimes minimal – that if you didn’t catch the opening credits you might not even see the ship at all.
Star Trek TV shows rarely make the trade-off for content vs. action.
And therein lies the problem with Star Trek today. Now that it has relatively brainless competition with lots of action – I suspect that Star Trek is losing the battle with its competition.
It may well be that Star Trek will need to sleep for a while – until the right factors come in to play again – and a show like Star Trek : Next Generation can be created again.
But the problems may be deeper than just time and creating a new show. It may be that the Star Trek universe is flawed.
In watching the evolution of the show – it appears that human development has ended. In Star Trek : Next Generation – throughout the series it appeared that the Federation and Starfleet were the leaders of our section of the galaxy in terms of technological ability and morality. I mean, where do you take the story from there? You’ve got no-place to go, except downhill. Maybe take a chapter out of Titan A.E. and have invaders from another galaxy destroy the Earth and break up the Federation – so that once again the members of Starfleet have to struggle and can be the underdogs in the battles.
Or maybe we have to journey farther ahead in time – to a point where humanity is in the process of speciation – and a homo sapiens becomes home spacers – a new form of humanity that does not live on planets – and will never see or completely understand life on a planet.
Or maybe Star Trek needs to get dirty. The Federation is so moral and politically correct, that perhaps what is needed is a series about citizens of the Federation that are pirates – and why might pirates in a moral society buck against the masses – and how these people lives might be.
Another problem with the Star Trek universe is its venue. A network channel caters toward political correctness – and technology has always been an enabler of sexual content. What effect do the holographic rooms have on relationships on sexuality? These are topics that would never be explored on a network channel. It may be the next version of Star Trek needs to be a cable-only version – on ShowTime or HBO, where difficult subjects can be worked out.
Star Trek has shown a hopeful place for the future of humanity – one perhaps that is far more hopeful than anyone willing to do an extrapolation of our current civilizations context – and certainly that was the context when Star Trek : The Original Series was created.
But now that we have seen this hopeful future – where does it go from there? Speciation is one possibility – and in a far future what we term as humans may not exist – and perhaps this is not something to be feared as to be welcomed. More like a worm becoming a butterfly.
Then again, changes to our species (naturally occurring) might take centuries to thousands of years. Perhaps the stories really should be about explorers. Stories about explorers willing to set aside their lives on Earth and spend the rest of their lives traveling to the next nearest star.
In the case of Star Trek : Voyager – the crew was set off at a place where in 75 years they might make it back to Earth. The story of effort in attempting to make it home in adverse conditions is a good one. The story of people that make the choice to take a 140 year journey – which they themselves will not survive – for the general improvement of human knowledge – is a storyline full of stories about people living in circumstance vastly unlike and like our own circumstances. It would be a chance to bring children to the forefront of the stories – as well as the time when the children are the leaders of the ship and the adults at the beginning of the story are at an end of their lives. What if a large number of people decided that they did not want to go to their destination solar system? Political division among the crew?
A story line like that could last seven seasons easily. Even if not every episode contained symbolic content. Some of it could be strictly space opera (or soap opera) taking place on a generation ship has new things that it could bring to people.
What happens when a generation starts its journey as top of the hill technology – and 30 years in to its journey it is met by a ship from Earth created 5 years ago that can go 50% faster? Would this happen multiple times during the journey? Do you try to turn back? Or does the generation continue on and become a moving way station for ships flying to and from the destination star system?
Anyway, I would love to see the Star Trek tradition continue – and I wish them luck in creating new stories that are both engaging and talk about morality.
Abwägen
By my count (which may not be entirely accurate) at www.startrek.com – there are 698 episodes of Star Trek and its spin-offs covering a vast period of time from 1966 to the present.
Sadly, according to an article I read in PlayBoy of an interview of Jolene Blalock (she plays Sub-Commander T-Pol on Star Trek: Enterprise) shortly there will be no Star Trek producing new shows on TV. While I am sure that the re-runs will go on for quite some time to come – it is not quite the same as looking forward to a new episode and all the unknowns that come along with it.
It is quite possibly also good-bye to TV that has meaningful content for a while as well. Not to say that Star Trek has a monopoly on carrying meaning inside their shows – just that Star Trek tends to put meaningful content in almost every show – even shows that are designed to make the main characters more three-dimensional.
Star Trek may well be a victim of being too successful. The reason I say this is that now there are plenty of shows on TV with heavy science fiction content. There is an entire channel devoted to science fiction. You no longer have only one resource to watch possible futures when watching TV.
In fact the most recent incarnation of Star Trek competes with other science fiction shows. Shows like Smallville and StarGate SG-1.
And in watching the Star Trek shows I noticed something with my son.
He apparently doesn’t really like them. Now he’s only just about turning 22 months old – but he watches and likes other shows, such as StarGate SG-1 and Futurama.
The reason becomes quite clear as I watch the shows. A great deal of the content of Star Trek is dialog – understanding both the characters and the situations they are in – and understanding why they make the decisions they make.
Not a whole lot of action. The air-time given to the starship Voyager is sometimes minimal – that if you didn’t catch the opening credits you might not even see the ship at all.
Star Trek TV shows rarely make the trade-off for content vs. action.
And therein lies the problem with Star Trek today. Now that it has relatively brainless competition with lots of action – I suspect that Star Trek is losing the battle with its competition.
It may well be that Star Trek will need to sleep for a while – until the right factors come in to play again – and a show like Star Trek : Next Generation can be created again.
But the problems may be deeper than just time and creating a new show. It may be that the Star Trek universe is flawed.
In watching the evolution of the show – it appears that human development has ended. In Star Trek : Next Generation – throughout the series it appeared that the Federation and Starfleet were the leaders of our section of the galaxy in terms of technological ability and morality. I mean, where do you take the story from there? You’ve got no-place to go, except downhill. Maybe take a chapter out of Titan A.E. and have invaders from another galaxy destroy the Earth and break up the Federation – so that once again the members of Starfleet have to struggle and can be the underdogs in the battles.
Or maybe we have to journey farther ahead in time – to a point where humanity is in the process of speciation – and a homo sapiens becomes home spacers – a new form of humanity that does not live on planets – and will never see or completely understand life on a planet.
Or maybe Star Trek needs to get dirty. The Federation is so moral and politically correct, that perhaps what is needed is a series about citizens of the Federation that are pirates – and why might pirates in a moral society buck against the masses – and how these people lives might be.
Another problem with the Star Trek universe is its venue. A network channel caters toward political correctness – and technology has always been an enabler of sexual content. What effect do the holographic rooms have on relationships on sexuality? These are topics that would never be explored on a network channel. It may be the next version of Star Trek needs to be a cable-only version – on ShowTime or HBO, where difficult subjects can be worked out.
Star Trek has shown a hopeful place for the future of humanity – one perhaps that is far more hopeful than anyone willing to do an extrapolation of our current civilizations context – and certainly that was the context when Star Trek : The Original Series was created.
But now that we have seen this hopeful future – where does it go from there? Speciation is one possibility – and in a far future what we term as humans may not exist – and perhaps this is not something to be feared as to be welcomed. More like a worm becoming a butterfly.
Then again, changes to our species (naturally occurring) might take centuries to thousands of years. Perhaps the stories really should be about explorers. Stories about explorers willing to set aside their lives on Earth and spend the rest of their lives traveling to the next nearest star.
In the case of Star Trek : Voyager – the crew was set off at a place where in 75 years they might make it back to Earth. The story of effort in attempting to make it home in adverse conditions is a good one. The story of people that make the choice to take a 140 year journey – which they themselves will not survive – for the general improvement of human knowledge – is a storyline full of stories about people living in circumstance vastly unlike and like our own circumstances. It would be a chance to bring children to the forefront of the stories – as well as the time when the children are the leaders of the ship and the adults at the beginning of the story are at an end of their lives. What if a large number of people decided that they did not want to go to their destination solar system? Political division among the crew?
A story line like that could last seven seasons easily. Even if not every episode contained symbolic content. Some of it could be strictly space opera (or soap opera) taking place on a generation ship has new things that it could bring to people.
What happens when a generation starts its journey as top of the hill technology – and 30 years in to its journey it is met by a ship from Earth created 5 years ago that can go 50% faster? Would this happen multiple times during the journey? Do you try to turn back? Or does the generation continue on and become a moving way station for ships flying to and from the destination star system?
Anyway, I would love to see the Star Trek tradition continue – and I wish them luck in creating new stories that are both engaging and talk about morality.
Abwägen
Sunday, January 23, 2005
Humans Impact on the Environment : The Night Sky
Sometimes it is the slightly-off weird things that catch both the imagination and the mind.
After I wrote the previous blog on snow, and perhaps a few ways we could make life easier during inclement weather through invention or architecture I had to let my greyhound out for her night-time duties.
Sometimes you can look at things for years and not really see them. I looked outside and saw that it was not particularly dark outside.
Yes, I understand that I live in an area where there is a lot of light pollution.
Yes, I understand that light reflects better off of snow than the normal environment.
But sometimes to actually see a night with a snow-covered ground and grey snow-bearing clouds in the sky and say to yourself ‘During an overcast day it has been darker than it is right now outside at 2:30AM.’ Is different than just understanding that yes, it might be light outside at night under some specific circumstances.
Ask questions when you see things.
What kind of effect on nocturnal animals might a brighter than some days sky have – especially when that night-time condition might be lasting in duration (days to weeks?)?
What kind of effect on diurnal animals might a brighter than some days sky have – would they know when it is time to go to sleep?
You might say that these questions are meaningless – and that animals should know what time it is – and know how and when to take care of their daily (or nightly) activities.
But I would challenge that idea. I remember seeing a show on American tourists in Nordic countries during the summer when there is almost no night-time. And people just stay up – for hours and hours and possibly days – until finally the body says ‘Look man, I don’t know about you, but I’m exhausted.” And these Americans suffer extreme problems with this kind of exhaustion (and that really sucks because they are on vacation).
If it can happen to humans, what about animals?
Anyway, just an idle thought. Oh, and a picture to go along with it. Taken with my FujiFilm E550, on night-time mode (3 second exposure). [PLEASE NOTE: No lighting was used in this picture, just snow-clouds, snow-covered ground and city-glow from NYC!]
Abwägen
After I wrote the previous blog on snow, and perhaps a few ways we could make life easier during inclement weather through invention or architecture I had to let my greyhound out for her night-time duties.
Sometimes you can look at things for years and not really see them. I looked outside and saw that it was not particularly dark outside.
Yes, I understand that I live in an area where there is a lot of light pollution.
Yes, I understand that light reflects better off of snow than the normal environment.
But sometimes to actually see a night with a snow-covered ground and grey snow-bearing clouds in the sky and say to yourself ‘During an overcast day it has been darker than it is right now outside at 2:30AM.’ Is different than just understanding that yes, it might be light outside at night under some specific circumstances.
Ask questions when you see things.
What kind of effect on nocturnal animals might a brighter than some days sky have – especially when that night-time condition might be lasting in duration (days to weeks?)?
What kind of effect on diurnal animals might a brighter than some days sky have – would they know when it is time to go to sleep?
You might say that these questions are meaningless – and that animals should know what time it is – and know how and when to take care of their daily (or nightly) activities.
But I would challenge that idea. I remember seeing a show on American tourists in Nordic countries during the summer when there is almost no night-time. And people just stay up – for hours and hours and possibly days – until finally the body says ‘Look man, I don’t know about you, but I’m exhausted.” And these Americans suffer extreme problems with this kind of exhaustion (and that really sucks because they are on vacation).
If it can happen to humans, what about animals?
Anyway, just an idle thought. Oh, and a picture to go along with it. Taken with my FujiFilm E550, on night-time mode (3 second exposure). [PLEASE NOTE: No lighting was used in this picture, just snow-clouds, snow-covered ground and city-glow from NYC!]
Abwägen
Snow and Human Ingenuity
Snow and human ingenuity
It is snowing right now outside of my house. And it seems every year it snows and I have ideas on how to handle snow.
I mean, seriously folks, is the shovel and snow-thrower the best things we can come up with as a species?
Well, the way I see it – there is a lot of room for improvement.
In some ways, dealing with snow on your driveway, sidewalk and perhaps even your deck is something people do on an annual basis. Depending on the region of the world you live in, of course.
One way we have of dealing with snow is not dealing with it at all – and living in a region of the world where snow just does not happen.
Collecting everyone in the world in these regions seems unlikely. People like my wife believe they can never handle the heat produced in areas like Miami.
So, I imagine we will always have a portion of the population willingly or not that has to deal with snow at least part of the year.
Another way of dealing with the snow – would be to architect the way we live so that snow has a minimal impact on daily life. The idea of The “Ultima” Tower http://www.tdrinc.com/ultima.html certainly brings to mind the fact that people living as part of a large community where there are no roads – only a 2-mile high building – filled with offices, apartments, malls, and entertainment – would have little to fear from snow or inclement weather.
I have my own idea – similar to The “Ultima” Tower – which I will have to flesh out one of these days – which is certainly much smaller than TUT (The Ultima Tower) yet would bring many similar benefits.
I have also been to cities where large building are connected together by underground hallways, malls, and subway systems (Chicago, Montreal) that clearly people who live in an apartment building near a subway station, work in one of the business buildings in downtown and shop at the mall – would have no need to go outside and experience first hand inclement weather.
Now, I know, many of you who are young are thinking – I have no fear of the weather. Certainly I am not old enough that I have a healthy fear of it either. But I do have knowledge. Knowledge that every year Mother Nature takes human lives the old fashioned way – exposure. Perhaps it is exposure to the snow – while shoveling it away from your driveway (heart attacks), or exposure to ice on the roads in a car (or hey even on foot), or even just plain it is cold outside and you are trying to get healthy by going for a jog in the morning (heart attacks again, probably some strokes).
Yet a third way of dealing with the snow is through invention. This is really what gets to me. I always have ideas on how to deal with things, but rarely do I ever truly proceed with them and make them a reality.
Consider that many people that own homes own what is called a leaf blower. These leaf blowers always brag about how fast the wind is blowing out of the blower. And people often call snow-throwers, snow-blowers. So, it seems a simple idea to actually use a blower to deal with snow. I tried this, and on a small scale, with an appropriate type of snow, it works. I used a leaf blower to remove all the snow from my deck from a snow-storm earlier this year. The snow was light and fluffy. It was not a heavy wet snow. There was only a small accumulation – of about 2 to 3 inches. The deck was nice and dry underneath the snow and I did not have ice on it on the succeeding days after the snow – which my greyhound was grateful.
The fact of the matter is that I exerted myself much less than using a shovel or a broom to clear the snow from my deck.
It becomes painfully clear though, that a leaf blower would be insufficient to any heavy accumulation (such as I am having now in New Jersey) or to particular types of snow which are heavy and wet.
The idea I had last year for the leaf blower – was not to just use a leaf blower on the snow. It was to use a heating coil, some PCV tubing and a leaf blower in combination to create a very hot wind to blow the snow away as well as melt it quickly.
The idea would be to create a “chamber”of PCV tubing that would loop around in circles. This tubing would replace some of the leaf blowers exhaust pipe. Then envision this looping tubing cut in half vertically, and insert a coil of heating coil threaded through it. Then put the loops of tubing back together. Attach it on one end to the leaf blower and on the other end to the normal exit for the air to exit and interact with snow.
This is not a very complex idea. Make a concentrated flow of fast moving air (much like a jet engine – without the jet fuel J ) and point it at the snow. A lot of the snow will move away from your target area – and this is ok – it is certainly part of your main goal – and some of the snow will melt which will also in a way remove it from your target area.
There is one problem with this idea. And that is that the air coming out of the exhaust needs to be hot enough to melt the snow and it needs to be hot enough to heat the surface and quickly evaporate any moisture left on the ground. You see, there is the risk that in quickly melting the snow, you simply create a new danger – water on a cold surface with lots of cold air around – creating a thin sheet of ice. So the proper way of removing snow with this device is to not only melt the snow, but dry the surface (the driveway, deck wood or sidewalk).
Another invention for home use to get rid of the snow is what I call the “hot” shovel. This isn’t a terribly complex idea either. You take something that looks a lot like a shovel except that it is a bit thicker and has two hoses leading from it to a backpack. The backpack is a source of heat – that heats water – which then circulates hot water through the spade part of the shovel.
This helps out in a couple of ways – it should keep the user warm (hopefully, not too warm) and makes the blade of the shovel very hot. You then use the shovel more like a plow than a shovel. You just kind of push it against the snow – and it should be sufficiently hot enough to melt the snow almost immediately.
There are of course, theoretical draw-backs to such a device. It might be heavy – even if it is an electrical element heating the water and a wire for the power source – so you are not carrying fuel nor the engine for generating heat – it will still be heavy.
It faces a similar problem to the blower. Since we are melting the snow to remove it, instead of physically moving it – this will cause the ground to become wet, which it probably wasn’t with just the snow on top of it. Unfortunately, the “hot shovel” will not have a means for drying the ground surface. But hey, at least the snow will no longer be there.
Some offices already use the method I am about to describe. My wife once worked for a pharmaceutical company – and they had a long stretch of sideway between two buildings that was frequently traveled. The problem is that employees would often injure themselves traveling between the buildings. The employees could not reduce traffic between the buildings because sometimes facilities were located in one building and not another – and they needed to use those facilities.
So, what they did is they ran hot water pipes through the ground underneath the sidewalk. Effectively, so never accumulated on that sideway – and ice never formed on it. This, indeed is great. But unfortunately, I suspect that it is far beyond economical for the typical homeowner to undertake. Not that I have not pondered the idea of running some hot-water pipe under my deck so my greyhound would never worry about slipping on the ramp on the way down to the back yard. Unfortunately, I think this kind of system creates a lot of wasted energy – especially since you would need to drain all the water out of the pipes to turn it off (unlike the pharmaceutical company, I would not run mine 24 hours a day) and I would like to turn it on to keep it clear during snow storms or to keep ice from forming overnight after rain in the winter and keep it off most of the time after that.
Well, I suppose that is enough about snow. Since it is unlikely that I will get off my fat ass and actually implement one of my inventions – and unlikely that I will spend the money routing hot-water pipes under my deck and newly done driveway and sidewalk and it is probably even unlikely that I will thresh out my idea of a large multi-community ‘home’ structure – I will have to live with my snow-thrower, snow shovel and broom to clear the snow. And I will have to hope that I do not develop the kinds of heart problems typical of Americans as they get older and suffer a heart attack one day while clearing the snow.
Abwägen
It is snowing right now outside of my house. And it seems every year it snows and I have ideas on how to handle snow.
I mean, seriously folks, is the shovel and snow-thrower the best things we can come up with as a species?
Well, the way I see it – there is a lot of room for improvement.
In some ways, dealing with snow on your driveway, sidewalk and perhaps even your deck is something people do on an annual basis. Depending on the region of the world you live in, of course.
One way we have of dealing with snow is not dealing with it at all – and living in a region of the world where snow just does not happen.
Collecting everyone in the world in these regions seems unlikely. People like my wife believe they can never handle the heat produced in areas like Miami.
So, I imagine we will always have a portion of the population willingly or not that has to deal with snow at least part of the year.
Another way of dealing with the snow – would be to architect the way we live so that snow has a minimal impact on daily life. The idea of The “Ultima” Tower http://www.tdrinc.com/ultima.html certainly brings to mind the fact that people living as part of a large community where there are no roads – only a 2-mile high building – filled with offices, apartments, malls, and entertainment – would have little to fear from snow or inclement weather.
I have my own idea – similar to The “Ultima” Tower – which I will have to flesh out one of these days – which is certainly much smaller than TUT (The Ultima Tower) yet would bring many similar benefits.
I have also been to cities where large building are connected together by underground hallways, malls, and subway systems (Chicago, Montreal) that clearly people who live in an apartment building near a subway station, work in one of the business buildings in downtown and shop at the mall – would have no need to go outside and experience first hand inclement weather.
Now, I know, many of you who are young are thinking – I have no fear of the weather. Certainly I am not old enough that I have a healthy fear of it either. But I do have knowledge. Knowledge that every year Mother Nature takes human lives the old fashioned way – exposure. Perhaps it is exposure to the snow – while shoveling it away from your driveway (heart attacks), or exposure to ice on the roads in a car (or hey even on foot), or even just plain it is cold outside and you are trying to get healthy by going for a jog in the morning (heart attacks again, probably some strokes).
Yet a third way of dealing with the snow is through invention. This is really what gets to me. I always have ideas on how to deal with things, but rarely do I ever truly proceed with them and make them a reality.
Consider that many people that own homes own what is called a leaf blower. These leaf blowers always brag about how fast the wind is blowing out of the blower. And people often call snow-throwers, snow-blowers. So, it seems a simple idea to actually use a blower to deal with snow. I tried this, and on a small scale, with an appropriate type of snow, it works. I used a leaf blower to remove all the snow from my deck from a snow-storm earlier this year. The snow was light and fluffy. It was not a heavy wet snow. There was only a small accumulation – of about 2 to 3 inches. The deck was nice and dry underneath the snow and I did not have ice on it on the succeeding days after the snow – which my greyhound was grateful.
The fact of the matter is that I exerted myself much less than using a shovel or a broom to clear the snow from my deck.
It becomes painfully clear though, that a leaf blower would be insufficient to any heavy accumulation (such as I am having now in New Jersey) or to particular types of snow which are heavy and wet.
The idea I had last year for the leaf blower – was not to just use a leaf blower on the snow. It was to use a heating coil, some PCV tubing and a leaf blower in combination to create a very hot wind to blow the snow away as well as melt it quickly.
The idea would be to create a “chamber”of PCV tubing that would loop around in circles. This tubing would replace some of the leaf blowers exhaust pipe. Then envision this looping tubing cut in half vertically, and insert a coil of heating coil threaded through it. Then put the loops of tubing back together. Attach it on one end to the leaf blower and on the other end to the normal exit for the air to exit and interact with snow.
This is not a very complex idea. Make a concentrated flow of fast moving air (much like a jet engine – without the jet fuel J ) and point it at the snow. A lot of the snow will move away from your target area – and this is ok – it is certainly part of your main goal – and some of the snow will melt which will also in a way remove it from your target area.
There is one problem with this idea. And that is that the air coming out of the exhaust needs to be hot enough to melt the snow and it needs to be hot enough to heat the surface and quickly evaporate any moisture left on the ground. You see, there is the risk that in quickly melting the snow, you simply create a new danger – water on a cold surface with lots of cold air around – creating a thin sheet of ice. So the proper way of removing snow with this device is to not only melt the snow, but dry the surface (the driveway, deck wood or sidewalk).
Another invention for home use to get rid of the snow is what I call the “hot” shovel. This isn’t a terribly complex idea either. You take something that looks a lot like a shovel except that it is a bit thicker and has two hoses leading from it to a backpack. The backpack is a source of heat – that heats water – which then circulates hot water through the spade part of the shovel.
This helps out in a couple of ways – it should keep the user warm (hopefully, not too warm) and makes the blade of the shovel very hot. You then use the shovel more like a plow than a shovel. You just kind of push it against the snow – and it should be sufficiently hot enough to melt the snow almost immediately.
There are of course, theoretical draw-backs to such a device. It might be heavy – even if it is an electrical element heating the water and a wire for the power source – so you are not carrying fuel nor the engine for generating heat – it will still be heavy.
It faces a similar problem to the blower. Since we are melting the snow to remove it, instead of physically moving it – this will cause the ground to become wet, which it probably wasn’t with just the snow on top of it. Unfortunately, the “hot shovel” will not have a means for drying the ground surface. But hey, at least the snow will no longer be there.
Some offices already use the method I am about to describe. My wife once worked for a pharmaceutical company – and they had a long stretch of sideway between two buildings that was frequently traveled. The problem is that employees would often injure themselves traveling between the buildings. The employees could not reduce traffic between the buildings because sometimes facilities were located in one building and not another – and they needed to use those facilities.
So, what they did is they ran hot water pipes through the ground underneath the sidewalk. Effectively, so never accumulated on that sideway – and ice never formed on it. This, indeed is great. But unfortunately, I suspect that it is far beyond economical for the typical homeowner to undertake. Not that I have not pondered the idea of running some hot-water pipe under my deck so my greyhound would never worry about slipping on the ramp on the way down to the back yard. Unfortunately, I think this kind of system creates a lot of wasted energy – especially since you would need to drain all the water out of the pipes to turn it off (unlike the pharmaceutical company, I would not run mine 24 hours a day) and I would like to turn it on to keep it clear during snow storms or to keep ice from forming overnight after rain in the winter and keep it off most of the time after that.
Well, I suppose that is enough about snow. Since it is unlikely that I will get off my fat ass and actually implement one of my inventions – and unlikely that I will spend the money routing hot-water pipes under my deck and newly done driveway and sidewalk and it is probably even unlikely that I will thresh out my idea of a large multi-community ‘home’ structure – I will have to live with my snow-thrower, snow shovel and broom to clear the snow. And I will have to hope that I do not develop the kinds of heart problems typical of Americans as they get older and suffer a heart attack one day while clearing the snow.
Abwägen
Thursday, January 20, 2005
Magazines - imprecision of language - communication failure
Hopefully someday in the future my son will read these blogs.
And hopefully, he will be able to understand them - with their lack of extreme language.
By extreme language - I mean the tendency to make everything more exciting, by putting the word extreme in front of it. Extreme boxcar racing! Extreme Pie Eating context! Extreme bingo with old people every Sunday night!
What really started this blog was a mailing I received from Popular Science magazine. A magazine that I enjoy reading whenever I get a copy and I think it is a pretty good magazine.
[Note to my son, whenever you get to read this, you may in fact not know what a magazine is - a magazine - is a grouping of large shiny pages - that has sporadic articles of interest surrounded by large advertisements for things that you probably won't buy - you pay money for the magazine, and the magazine gets money for the ads - and the magazine publisher makes money]
It states in no uncertain terms:
"Dear Mr. X:
We are contacting your because: Your POPULAR SCIENCE subscription is about to expire."
Now, I am going to ignore the your that they have instead of you in the ‘We are contacting you because.’ That is a simple error - which I only noticed when I typed out what they sent to me in this blog.
No, what I want to concentrate on is the fact that I, unlike many people that subscribe to magazines - actually know when my subscription is going to end.
My subscription is going to end - 07/01/05 . It actually has this date - not labeled - on the so-called service extension form.
Now, there are a number of deceptions in this letter.
Your POPULAR SCIENCE subscription is about to expire. [original bolding]
>>>>This is entirely untrue. It is true that most subscriptions to magazines have an end. It is a fact that my subscription will end July 1st of 2005. It is not true that my subscription is about to end. According to http://www.dictionary.com - there are several definitions of the word about. The second listed definition is: 2. Almost: The job is about done.
In the statement 'The job is about done.' You can substitute the word almost for the word about. 'The job is almost done.'
This is the definition that most fits the statement from Popular Science regarding my subscription - as the subscription is not about to reverse direction, we are not approximating a period of time and we are not wandering about in no particular direction.
The term about in this context would mean - almost - as in maybe another 5 more minutes, I could even grant them that almost might mean the subscription has only 1 more month (viewed as a percentage of the entire subscription). Even in terms of my subscription - since it was a year long subscription - we are only half-way through the subscription - and half-way does not qualify for almost done.
So, why do they do this? They want to create some urgency on my part - so that I'll feel that I will lose my subscription to Popular Science and be forced to purchase it in a store for a larger amount of money.
They further this deception by adding the following statement:
'Return your order form in the postage paid envelope provided no later than 02/13/05.' [bolding in the original document]
Oh no, I've got to hurry! Why it could be months from now and I might not get another copy of Popular Science in the mail.
And again they reinforce this idea with:
'Immediate reply ensures uninterrupted delivery of POPULAR SCIENCE.'
So, you are reading this and saying 'so what?' - I get these things too and I ignore them.
But the problem is that these marketing geniuses are altering our language. What happens when you get something in the mail - and it really is about something that is about to expire - and it is something important - like you home insurance! The question is, what is the meaning of the word about? Should people - even marketing gurus - be allowed to use words which plainly is not that words meaning.
I get things in the mail - marked urgent - is it really urgent that I open a piece of mail - to find a credit card offer? In what way was it urgent to me?
What it does do - is water down the meaning of the word urgent.
Words are constantly being used - where the meaning of the word does not fit the context.
Sure, I believe there is something called extreme sky-diving. In fact, all sky-diving might be considered extreme activity by some people.
No, I do not believe in extreme go-cart racing.
I do not believe that my POPULAR SCIENCE magazine subscription is about to expire.
I do not believe that many of the things I receive in the mail marked urgent are urgent to me in any way (and this could be dangerous, because what if my mortgage company had some urgent information for me, about my failure to pay payments?).
In fact, any mail or television show that makes claims about what I feel or what I need are definitely suspect.
I am not suggesting that in everyday language - talking between friends, relatives, co-workers and etc, that you not be allowed to use words any way you want.
What I am suggesting is that forms of mass-media should be held to a higher standard. There is little difference to me if you outright lie or use a statement in which the meaning of the words in it are not the true meaning of the sentence.
Oh, well, this blog is not going to change anything in regard to words and their meaning or their use in mass-media.
One hopes that people will still be able to communicate with eachother in the future - with all the alterations of the meanings of words performed by marketers in their trade.
Granted – perhaps to keep you on their mailing list and for production to print the appropriate number of magazines, maybe they do have to have you update your subscription a month before it ends.
Even that I doubt, with today’s technology. They should be able to have the appropriate data ready the day of printing and still get the right number of magazines – and all of the addressed to the appropriate people.
Abwägen
And hopefully, he will be able to understand them - with their lack of extreme language.
By extreme language - I mean the tendency to make everything more exciting, by putting the word extreme in front of it. Extreme boxcar racing! Extreme Pie Eating context! Extreme bingo with old people every Sunday night!
What really started this blog was a mailing I received from Popular Science magazine. A magazine that I enjoy reading whenever I get a copy and I think it is a pretty good magazine.
[Note to my son, whenever you get to read this, you may in fact not know what a magazine is - a magazine - is a grouping of large shiny pages - that has sporadic articles of interest surrounded by large advertisements for things that you probably won't buy - you pay money for the magazine, and the magazine gets money for the ads - and the magazine publisher makes money]
It states in no uncertain terms:
"Dear Mr. X:
We are contacting your because: Your POPULAR SCIENCE subscription is about to expire."
Now, I am going to ignore the your that they have instead of you in the ‘We are contacting you because.’ That is a simple error - which I only noticed when I typed out what they sent to me in this blog.
No, what I want to concentrate on is the fact that I, unlike many people that subscribe to magazines - actually know when my subscription is going to end.
My subscription is going to end - 07/01/05 . It actually has this date - not labeled - on the so-called service extension form.
Now, there are a number of deceptions in this letter.
Your POPULAR SCIENCE subscription is about to expire. [original bolding]
>>>>This is entirely untrue. It is true that most subscriptions to magazines have an end. It is a fact that my subscription will end July 1st of 2005. It is not true that my subscription is about to end. According to http://www.dictionary.com - there are several definitions of the word about. The second listed definition is: 2. Almost: The job is about done.
In the statement 'The job is about done.' You can substitute the word almost for the word about. 'The job is almost done.'
This is the definition that most fits the statement from Popular Science regarding my subscription - as the subscription is not about to reverse direction, we are not approximating a period of time and we are not wandering about in no particular direction.
The term about in this context would mean - almost - as in maybe another 5 more minutes, I could even grant them that almost might mean the subscription has only 1 more month (viewed as a percentage of the entire subscription). Even in terms of my subscription - since it was a year long subscription - we are only half-way through the subscription - and half-way does not qualify for almost done.
So, why do they do this? They want to create some urgency on my part - so that I'll feel that I will lose my subscription to Popular Science and be forced to purchase it in a store for a larger amount of money.
They further this deception by adding the following statement:
'Return your order form in the postage paid envelope provided no later than 02/13/05.' [bolding in the original document]
Oh no, I've got to hurry! Why it could be months from now and I might not get another copy of Popular Science in the mail.
And again they reinforce this idea with:
'Immediate reply ensures uninterrupted delivery of POPULAR SCIENCE.'
So, you are reading this and saying 'so what?' - I get these things too and I ignore them.
But the problem is that these marketing geniuses are altering our language. What happens when you get something in the mail - and it really is about something that is about to expire - and it is something important - like you home insurance! The question is, what is the meaning of the word about? Should people - even marketing gurus - be allowed to use words which plainly is not that words meaning.
I get things in the mail - marked urgent - is it really urgent that I open a piece of mail - to find a credit card offer? In what way was it urgent to me?
What it does do - is water down the meaning of the word urgent.
Words are constantly being used - where the meaning of the word does not fit the context.
Sure, I believe there is something called extreme sky-diving. In fact, all sky-diving might be considered extreme activity by some people.
No, I do not believe in extreme go-cart racing.
I do not believe that my POPULAR SCIENCE magazine subscription is about to expire.
I do not believe that many of the things I receive in the mail marked urgent are urgent to me in any way (and this could be dangerous, because what if my mortgage company had some urgent information for me, about my failure to pay payments?).
In fact, any mail or television show that makes claims about what I feel or what I need are definitely suspect.
I am not suggesting that in everyday language - talking between friends, relatives, co-workers and etc, that you not be allowed to use words any way you want.
What I am suggesting is that forms of mass-media should be held to a higher standard. There is little difference to me if you outright lie or use a statement in which the meaning of the words in it are not the true meaning of the sentence.
Oh, well, this blog is not going to change anything in regard to words and their meaning or their use in mass-media.
One hopes that people will still be able to communicate with eachother in the future - with all the alterations of the meanings of words performed by marketers in their trade.
Granted – perhaps to keep you on their mailing list and for production to print the appropriate number of magazines, maybe they do have to have you update your subscription a month before it ends.
Even that I doubt, with today’s technology. They should be able to have the appropriate data ready the day of printing and still get the right number of magazines – and all of the addressed to the appropriate people.
Abwägen
Tuesday, January 18, 2005
Do not go out like this!
So, life is short enough - that I certainly do not want you to die in any way that is - well dumb.
On the news websites they periodically have articles about someone that dies, well rather stupidly.
Here is one:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/18/balcony.death.ap/index.html
The essence of the article is that a woman wanted to demonstrate to a friend something that she could still do. Apparently, that was do a handstand on a balcony. She then proceeded to fall to her death on a patio below.
So, kiddo, I would ask one thing of you - please think before you do anything. I like to think that you are intelligent for your current age of 21 months old - and would hope that you remain more intelligent than average on in to the future. But even smart people do some pretty stupid things. So, think before you do anything - especially anything that can remotely involve loss of life - especially your own life.
Because I can imagine being devastated at your death should it come before my death. But death by stupidity.... I do not even want to go there.
Do not think that this is a fluke. This is merely the first reported stupid death since I have started this blog. There are websites out there - that exist solely for documenting the various and particularly stupid ways we choose to die.
Here is one such site: http://www.darwinawards.com/
But people do various stupid things on a daily basis - taking far too large a risk to get through a traffice light for a time savings of seconds, walking on streets in New Jersey, etc.
Abwägen
On the news websites they periodically have articles about someone that dies, well rather stupidly.
Here is one:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/18/balcony.death.ap/index.html
The essence of the article is that a woman wanted to demonstrate to a friend something that she could still do. Apparently, that was do a handstand on a balcony. She then proceeded to fall to her death on a patio below.
So, kiddo, I would ask one thing of you - please think before you do anything. I like to think that you are intelligent for your current age of 21 months old - and would hope that you remain more intelligent than average on in to the future. But even smart people do some pretty stupid things. So, think before you do anything - especially anything that can remotely involve loss of life - especially your own life.
Because I can imagine being devastated at your death should it come before my death. But death by stupidity.... I do not even want to go there.
Do not think that this is a fluke. This is merely the first reported stupid death since I have started this blog. There are websites out there - that exist solely for documenting the various and particularly stupid ways we choose to die.
Here is one such site: http://www.darwinawards.com/
But people do various stupid things on a daily basis - taking far too large a risk to get through a traffice light for a time savings of seconds, walking on streets in New Jersey, etc.
Abwägen
Sunday, January 16, 2005
Illegal Drugs
You some people out there - go around saying stupid things - Just say no to drugs.
And they actually expect that to work. Do they not realize that a certain percentage of the population will do what they are told not to do - just to see what happens?
Do they not realize that Just Say No - is just like answering questions with the word because? And that because is never a sufficient reason to do (or not do) anything?
And people are brainwashed in to thinking that governments always thought drugs were bad - it is the kind of religious absolutism - constriction of thought that many people find abhorrent.
Ok, so there are a couple of reasons, my son should know - why you should not use illegal drugs.
And they actually expect that to work. Do they not realize that a certain percentage of the population will do what they are told not to do - just to see what happens?
Do they not realize that Just Say No - is just like answering questions with the word because? And that because is never a sufficient reason to do (or not do) anything?
And people are brainwashed in to thinking that governments always thought drugs were bad - it is the kind of religious absolutism - constriction of thought that many people find abhorrent.
Ok, so there are a couple of reasons, my son should know - why you should not use illegal drugs.
- Illegal drugs are unhealthy. There is a broad spectrum that illegal drugs cover in terms of how unhealthy they are. Illegal drugs like Marijuana - it is questionable if they are any more or less detrimental to your health than smoking or any more or less detrimental to your decision making skills than alcohol.
- Illegal drugs impair your judgement. You make decisions every day of your life. If you choose to take illegal drugs - you start to make decisions that do not make sense. This is the same effect drinking alcohol can have - even though alcohol is legal. Perhaps one of the worst ways to die, would be through making a bad choice while your mind is impaired - and perhaps thinking that you can fly and running off the top of a tall building. [It has been done before, and probably will happen again in the future - and no some people don't need debilitated judgement to jump off of building roof tops, at present I am going to assume you are not one of those]
- Illegal drugs can make you a slave. We pride ourselves on being able to control our destiny. But once you take illegal drugs that are addictive in quality - you hand over that control to other people. These other people will probably make you do things that you would not normally do. Or they may simply restrict your freedom by taking your free money that you could buy things you like or do fun things on vacation - and make you buy more drugs with it.
- Illegal drugs can make you dead. There is not much to say here - except that the ultimate in restriction of freedom - is death.
- Illegal drugs impact the people you love as much as they impact yourself. As an individual - you have a responsiblity to everyone that devotes time and effort to your life. If you should perish because of illegal drugs - you take all the time and effort people spent in raising you - and you make it worthless. Your death will almost certainly do irreparable damage - especially in this form - to those who love you the most - your parents. Even if taking illegal drugs does not result in death - the more you become a slave to drugs - themore damage it causes people you care about.
There are probably many more reasons why you should not take illegal drugs. I leave out the legal obligations and going to jail. I find that facing a court and going to jail is rarely an effective deterrent for people to not do things that are wrong. People have to understand why something is wrong - and agree with the reasoning of why a thing is wrong - for them to not do something.
You have to look at something as simple as speeding to understand this. People in general do not believe that speeding is wrong. They perfectly understand that it is against the law. They understand that they could go to jail or lose their license or in the worst case - harm other people by speeding.
We do it anyway? Why? Because we do not truly believe that it is wrong. And most people perhaps think of it the way I do - that speeding in and of itself is not wrong - but speeding and doing something else is wrong. Like speeding and driving erratically. Speeding and doing it in heavy traffic.
And the net result is that you can make it illegal - but pulling people over for speeding only results in a little money in certain organizations pockets - a general feeling of oppression by people in general - and no more safety for people in general than if the law did not exist.
I believe speeding can cause accidents. But only under certain circumstances. If someone gets in to an accident and speeding was the cause - then they should be punished for that. But punishing people for speeding - when there was no accident - is like punishing people for a crime they have not committed yet.
And that is what the government has done. They have made common criminals of the average person - by making something illegal that few people actually believe is wrong. The mechanism for doing this is by making something that will POSSIBLY cause an accident a crime.
And really, if you want to make things a crime that can POSSIBLY cause a crime - you can go as far down the road as you want. Why not make owning a car that can POSSIBLY exceed the speed limit illegal? This would force people that own existing cars to have to sell them and buy new cars - and certainly punish the poor more than the rich.
And do not think for a second that the existing laws do not punish the poor more than the rich.
Simply look at it this way - if a poor person gets fined $100 and earns $24,000 a year - that is .4 percent of their annual income. The same ticket happens to a rich person - who earns $150,000 a year - and that is .06 percent of their income.
So, any fines delivered against people - to be economically fair, need to be based on a percentage of annual income. Especially, when in New Jersey at present - we have additional charges applied if the number of points on your license exceeds a certain amount.
Anyway, I think I have wandered a bit off course on this essay - so I will close it for now by saying - do not become a slave and take illegal drugs. Do what you can to make this a more fair world and understand that making something against the law - simply is not an effective way for stopping specific human behavior.
Abwägen
Finances - watch your back - and watch the people's back you purchase from
I could write a lot on this topic, but I will try to stay focused and write what is only necessary.
My wife and I purchased 2 computers with 2 LCD monitors 2 years and 2 months ago from Dell.
At this time my wife was pregnant with out first child.
Dell sent the computers and we thought all was well.
Except for one thing.
It appears that Dell sent us the computers - without actually charging our credit card. Now in my experience, none of the computer companies I have dealt with do anything - they won't even make your machine - until after they get credit card authorization.
So, we had our computers for 2 years and 1 month, until we received a call from Dell, indicating that we had not paid for our computers and that they would send our account to collections if we did not pay for them immediately.
You can imagine our surprise at this turn of events.
We purchased computers from Dell and we trusted them to do what they need to do - that is collect the money. That is why people are in business.
We did not check up on them - to ensure that they actually charged the card. We gave them the appropriate information - just like we always do when we purchase computers and assumed they could handle the rest.
It turns out that simple responsibility was too much for them. They reserved money against the card, but never sought authorization. The problem was not on our side - the purchase was for $1036 dollars and we had over $9000 available on the credit card.
They claim they sent us letters that we owed them money - but we received none. But somehow - we received each and every one of their advertisements. Even since we moved during that 2 year period.
And I do not understand many things - like how they could even build the computers without authorization, how they could send them to us without authorization - and how - only after two years and 1 month - they contact us on the phone on December 26th 2004 - about a purchase in October 22nd 2002 - they could not have picked up the phone in that entire time!
But they can contact us on the phone now, when they want to damage my credit and send things to collection.
I was sorely tempted to let them send it to collections - and write a letter for my credit report - that would simply state that if you cannot collect money as part of a business transaction - you do not deserve it - and certainly contacting the customer after two years of silence on the topic and then threatening them - is not a proper course of action.
But credit is important - and I feel like I had been extorted to pay them for a problem which after all - was never my issue.
It seems though that in this day in age - you must make sure that if you make a purchase - especially a relatively large one - you need to make sure the idiots you are making the purchase from - actually charge your credit card.
Now, the only thing Dell has done has made it so I will never purchase a computer from them again - or any other product.
Too bad, I have knowledge from a friend - that Gateway's computers are not all that high of a quality.
Too bad also, that IBM has sold their personal computer devision to a Chinese company - leaving questions of quality maintaining at a high level or not (then again - IBM charged such a premium for their computer, I do not know if I would purchase their equipment personally).
I hear, though that Alienware produces good computers.
I suppose that the high point of this - it is a good thing that I know how to buy parts and build a computer on my own.
It seems the only choice I have right now.
I am not even sure who to complain to about this Dell fiasco.
We paid them $750 - just to get them off our back. But it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I certainly didn't do anything wrong - but I certainly feel that I have been punished for problems not of my origin.
Abwägen
My wife and I purchased 2 computers with 2 LCD monitors 2 years and 2 months ago from Dell.
At this time my wife was pregnant with out first child.
Dell sent the computers and we thought all was well.
Except for one thing.
It appears that Dell sent us the computers - without actually charging our credit card. Now in my experience, none of the computer companies I have dealt with do anything - they won't even make your machine - until after they get credit card authorization.
So, we had our computers for 2 years and 1 month, until we received a call from Dell, indicating that we had not paid for our computers and that they would send our account to collections if we did not pay for them immediately.
You can imagine our surprise at this turn of events.
We purchased computers from Dell and we trusted them to do what they need to do - that is collect the money. That is why people are in business.
We did not check up on them - to ensure that they actually charged the card. We gave them the appropriate information - just like we always do when we purchase computers and assumed they could handle the rest.
It turns out that simple responsibility was too much for them. They reserved money against the card, but never sought authorization. The problem was not on our side - the purchase was for $1036 dollars and we had over $9000 available on the credit card.
They claim they sent us letters that we owed them money - but we received none. But somehow - we received each and every one of their advertisements. Even since we moved during that 2 year period.
And I do not understand many things - like how they could even build the computers without authorization, how they could send them to us without authorization - and how - only after two years and 1 month - they contact us on the phone on December 26th 2004 - about a purchase in October 22nd 2002 - they could not have picked up the phone in that entire time!
But they can contact us on the phone now, when they want to damage my credit and send things to collection.
I was sorely tempted to let them send it to collections - and write a letter for my credit report - that would simply state that if you cannot collect money as part of a business transaction - you do not deserve it - and certainly contacting the customer after two years of silence on the topic and then threatening them - is not a proper course of action.
But credit is important - and I feel like I had been extorted to pay them for a problem which after all - was never my issue.
It seems though that in this day in age - you must make sure that if you make a purchase - especially a relatively large one - you need to make sure the idiots you are making the purchase from - actually charge your credit card.
Now, the only thing Dell has done has made it so I will never purchase a computer from them again - or any other product.
Too bad, I have knowledge from a friend - that Gateway's computers are not all that high of a quality.
Too bad also, that IBM has sold their personal computer devision to a Chinese company - leaving questions of quality maintaining at a high level or not (then again - IBM charged such a premium for their computer, I do not know if I would purchase their equipment personally).
I hear, though that Alienware produces good computers.
I suppose that the high point of this - it is a good thing that I know how to buy parts and build a computer on my own.
It seems the only choice I have right now.
I am not even sure who to complain to about this Dell fiasco.
We paid them $750 - just to get them off our back. But it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I certainly didn't do anything wrong - but I certainly feel that I have been punished for problems not of my origin.
Abwägen
Wednesday, January 12, 2005
More on News on the Web
Establishments that were in the news before the web came to exist create websites. They put the news on the websites. But they also put something else on the websites - editorials - but they seldom are specific about declaring one article to be a news article and another article an editorial or still yet another article to be opinion.
This makes for a very confusing landscape of types of articles, that only the reader - through dedication and concentration can tell the difference between an article that is news and an article that merely expresses a person's opinion like this blog expresses my opinion.
Clarity is a very important factor in terms of determining the validity of statements that you read. Without knowing the context of those statements (news or opinion) it becomes even harder to understand if this is just one person's angst spoken out to the world or if this is a statement backed up by facts that should be duely considered.
There are no regulations on labelling articles on the net - and there should be none. The news establishments should understand that they need to maintain the separation between news and opinion.
Abwägen
This makes for a very confusing landscape of types of articles, that only the reader - through dedication and concentration can tell the difference between an article that is news and an article that merely expresses a person's opinion like this blog expresses my opinion.
Clarity is a very important factor in terms of determining the validity of statements that you read. Without knowing the context of those statements (news or opinion) it becomes even harder to understand if this is just one person's angst spoken out to the world or if this is a statement backed up by facts that should be duely considered.
There are no regulations on labelling articles on the net - and there should be none. The news establishments should understand that they need to maintain the separation between news and opinion.
Abwägen
News and Information on the Web
There is an obligation of the news carriers of the world that have made a partial transistion to the web.
That obligation is to keep their news articles available indefinitely on the same links that they are originally created.
For example, in some of my previous articles, I have written about items that use references to news articles. But if the news carrier should choose to stop hosting those articles, the references become useless in my article - nothing more than broken links.
Another point is that IT people and marketing savants like to change things. Well, if they change their website and how articles are referenced on the website - this means that older links will no longer work and more than likely people will be unable to get to information made available previously.
This presents a problem for my articles. I am going to save in Word documents the contents of these links - but even if I do and something should occur to make those articles no longer available - I cannot present them to the public - because of copyright concerns.
So it would seem the effort to keep my articles intact, even if the publisher removes the referenced articles from their website will not bear fruit.
Abwägen
That obligation is to keep their news articles available indefinitely on the same links that they are originally created.
For example, in some of my previous articles, I have written about items that use references to news articles. But if the news carrier should choose to stop hosting those articles, the references become useless in my article - nothing more than broken links.
Another point is that IT people and marketing savants like to change things. Well, if they change their website and how articles are referenced on the website - this means that older links will no longer work and more than likely people will be unable to get to information made available previously.
This presents a problem for my articles. I am going to save in Word documents the contents of these links - but even if I do and something should occur to make those articles no longer available - I cannot present them to the public - because of copyright concerns.
So it would seem the effort to keep my articles intact, even if the publisher removes the referenced articles from their website will not bear fruit.
Abwägen
Errors in Essays
Hi everyone,
I just wanted to say, please contact me if you find any errors in this blog. Spelling errors, gramatical errors or sentences that seem to be sentence fragments instead of full sentences.
I tend to type very quickly - and sometimes things fall out - that make sense in my head, but when you read the sentence you think - what?
This is fixable and I would appreciate any help in finding any problems like this so I can fix it.
Abwägen
I just wanted to say, please contact me if you find any errors in this blog. Spelling errors, gramatical errors or sentences that seem to be sentence fragments instead of full sentences.
I tend to type very quickly - and sometimes things fall out - that make sense in my head, but when you read the sentence you think - what?
This is fixable and I would appreciate any help in finding any problems like this so I can fix it.
Abwägen
Tuesday, January 11, 2005
Digital Cameras - test drive before buying.
Let me open this discussion with a plain and simple fact. I can be cheap sometimes. I think it was a little over a year ago that I purchased a digital camera from Gateway - I have it on my desk right now as a paperweight - the DC-M50.
I think you can probably tell I was not impressed with it. I had a very different perspective on digital cameras before I purchased the DC-M50. I figured technology could not get worse over time - and how could a camera possibly be a piece of garbage when it takes 5 MP pictures.
And I was very wrong.
I had purchased 2 digital cameras before the DC-M50. An Olympus D-460 and an old camera that only took 640 X 480 pictures.
The oldest camera - that only produced 640 X 480 pictures was actually pretty good. I thought it was the coolest thing in the world with its SmartMedia (now not used in any new cameras that I know of) and low resolution pictures. It did a couple of things really good. When I wanted to take a picture - it was ready. Then, when I wanted to take the next picture it was ready for that too. And a third thing that it did was most of the pictures came out. You could recognize that a barn was a barn, an owl and owl or that indeed that was an owl in a barn. The pictures did not print well at all, so there was major disappointment there. At the time I bought the digital camera though, that was not really what I needed it for. I just wanted to take pictures and be able to see them. Later in the life of the camera, I would be disappointed by the fact that even though SmartMedia cards now existed in larger capacities, 32MB was the most my camera could ever handle. This kind of programmed in limitation really annoys me. I could (and would) have extended the life of that camera - if someone had simply designed it to hold a larger counter when it goes to address numbers of locations on the media.
The second digital camera I purchased with little or no research was the Olympus D-460 Zoom. This was a 1.3 Megapixel camera - and it seemed to me that no matter what picture I took - it worked well. The reality of the matter is that I probably realized a 1 : 10 crappy picture to good picture ratio - and I'm willing to live with that. The pictures printed ok - I suppose - but they really shined on the computer screen. And this was great.
But as it is with digital cameras - I get itchy for new technology after a while. You read about being able to print 8X10s from your digital camera - or even cropped images in 8X10 - and a little drool starts to escape the side of your mouth... AHem - not that really happens.
Anyway, wanting a 5 MP camera and actually getting one - a little over a year ago - meant laying out some serious cash. So, it wasn't going to happen. But then Gateway had this great offer - 5PM camera for $250.
So, we bought one. We got suckered in to getting the repair plan for however long it lasts and we purchased the additional memory at the Gateway store as well.
There are some serious problems with this camera.
First off when you boot it up - it makes a sound like a very small person farting. We even went back to the Gateway store and asked if this was normal. They said it was normal. Well, normal it may be, but it is one of the most annoying sounds in the known universe.
So, we took a lot of pictures - and the problem is - none of them were really coming out all that well. Most were incredibly grainy. Practically all the ones that were not grainy were - well - blurry. The blurry is a neat effect in a picture - once in a while. So, I'd have to say that 1 out of every 8 pictures - was useful. Messing with the settings only made things worse. And the DC-M50 was slow to start up and the camera - even without the flash took 10 to 15 seconds to recycle between pictures. And sometimes the camera would actually, well crash. You had to remove the batteries and put them back in and then everything would be ok.
Here I was - out cash, time, and a lot of potentially good pictures of my son.
A lot of the pictures of my only child - were messed up because of this camera. Buyers remorse set in quickly. And - after the buyer repair plan for the camera, and the memory - we ended up spending as much as we would for some other digital camera at 5 MP.
So, a digital camera should last a lot longer than a year, but basically after a year of owning it I had completely had it.
This time I did research - and I knew my camera before I purchased it. I knew that it would have some problems taking pictures in low light conditions even with the flash on - and that there was no hot-shoe for a secondary flash on it. The FujiFilm FinePix E550 - was actually a 6 MP camera, with Fuji's neat octagonal sensors on the CCD - it could produce 12 MP pictures. It has a 4X optical zoom and who cares about the almost worthless digital zoom. I mean, crop your regular picture afterward and you get the same effect. There is no real zooming going on with digital zoom.
I can say that I am very happy with the camera - it operates much more like my Olympus camera that I had previously. I didn't go with Olympus, because they did not seem to have an equivalent camera - for a good price. And $336 at new egg - this camera is really good.
Not that I don't get pissed at it when I miss a picture once in a while. Or when I zoom in, the pictures tend to get really dark. And the flash not being strong enough turned out to be a real problem, instead of a minor problem. But I can live with it. My ration of good to bad pictures is waaaay better. More like 1 : 5 pictures gets screwed up - and a lot of the time - I know what I did to screw it up.
There are some things that in general I am annoyed about with digital cameras.
How is it possible that people come out with newer stuff that is actually worse than the older stuff. We need a QA patrol out there - to say hey man, if you put something new out there - it has to operate at least as well as the old stuff. I do not care that you are doing X times as much processing. If it can't run as well as the old stuff, you might as well keep it until it does run as good as the old stuff.
Now, I like my FujiFilm E550 a lot, but if almost every review I read said 'it takes pictures a little dark, and the flash is not as good as necessary to take pictures in dark rooms' - I have two questions about this: 1) If some nerd like me can buy this camera and analyze it and say here are the problems, why couldn't Fuji do that before the camera came out? 2. If some nerd like me can buy this camera and analyze it and say here are the problems, why couldn't Fujy have another nerd surf the web - find out about this things and report like a good minion to his master and say - 'if we want this camera to be really good, we should fix these things?'.
I know, I know, once the cameras are rolling off the line, it would cost them a bundle to even change small things.
And like I said, I really like my FujiFilm FinePix E550. But some things have got to make you wonder.
And my biggest beef (which I almost forgot about) was that when you are in the stores you pay a premium for the camera - at least a little bit. So, what do you get out of going to the store. You can possibly hold a camera. You can look at it. You might be able to read all the fine print on the box. That's about it.
Let me tell you something - until you have taken a picture and see what that picture looks like on the computer screen - you know nothing NOTHING about the camera. And your purchase of the camera is based solely on how pretty it looks and how well the marketing people did with the box.
Abwägen
I think you can probably tell I was not impressed with it. I had a very different perspective on digital cameras before I purchased the DC-M50. I figured technology could not get worse over time - and how could a camera possibly be a piece of garbage when it takes 5 MP pictures.
And I was very wrong.
I had purchased 2 digital cameras before the DC-M50. An Olympus D-460 and an old camera that only took 640 X 480 pictures.
The oldest camera - that only produced 640 X 480 pictures was actually pretty good. I thought it was the coolest thing in the world with its SmartMedia (now not used in any new cameras that I know of) and low resolution pictures. It did a couple of things really good. When I wanted to take a picture - it was ready. Then, when I wanted to take the next picture it was ready for that too. And a third thing that it did was most of the pictures came out. You could recognize that a barn was a barn, an owl and owl or that indeed that was an owl in a barn. The pictures did not print well at all, so there was major disappointment there. At the time I bought the digital camera though, that was not really what I needed it for. I just wanted to take pictures and be able to see them. Later in the life of the camera, I would be disappointed by the fact that even though SmartMedia cards now existed in larger capacities, 32MB was the most my camera could ever handle. This kind of programmed in limitation really annoys me. I could (and would) have extended the life of that camera - if someone had simply designed it to hold a larger counter when it goes to address numbers of locations on the media.
The second digital camera I purchased with little or no research was the Olympus D-460 Zoom. This was a 1.3 Megapixel camera - and it seemed to me that no matter what picture I took - it worked well. The reality of the matter is that I probably realized a 1 : 10 crappy picture to good picture ratio - and I'm willing to live with that. The pictures printed ok - I suppose - but they really shined on the computer screen. And this was great.
But as it is with digital cameras - I get itchy for new technology after a while. You read about being able to print 8X10s from your digital camera - or even cropped images in 8X10 - and a little drool starts to escape the side of your mouth... AHem - not that really happens.
Anyway, wanting a 5 MP camera and actually getting one - a little over a year ago - meant laying out some serious cash. So, it wasn't going to happen. But then Gateway had this great offer - 5PM camera for $250.
So, we bought one. We got suckered in to getting the repair plan for however long it lasts and we purchased the additional memory at the Gateway store as well.
There are some serious problems with this camera.
First off when you boot it up - it makes a sound like a very small person farting. We even went back to the Gateway store and asked if this was normal. They said it was normal. Well, normal it may be, but it is one of the most annoying sounds in the known universe.
So, we took a lot of pictures - and the problem is - none of them were really coming out all that well. Most were incredibly grainy. Practically all the ones that were not grainy were - well - blurry. The blurry is a neat effect in a picture - once in a while. So, I'd have to say that 1 out of every 8 pictures - was useful. Messing with the settings only made things worse. And the DC-M50 was slow to start up and the camera - even without the flash took 10 to 15 seconds to recycle between pictures. And sometimes the camera would actually, well crash. You had to remove the batteries and put them back in and then everything would be ok.
Here I was - out cash, time, and a lot of potentially good pictures of my son.
A lot of the pictures of my only child - were messed up because of this camera. Buyers remorse set in quickly. And - after the buyer repair plan for the camera, and the memory - we ended up spending as much as we would for some other digital camera at 5 MP.
So, a digital camera should last a lot longer than a year, but basically after a year of owning it I had completely had it.
This time I did research - and I knew my camera before I purchased it. I knew that it would have some problems taking pictures in low light conditions even with the flash on - and that there was no hot-shoe for a secondary flash on it. The FujiFilm FinePix E550 - was actually a 6 MP camera, with Fuji's neat octagonal sensors on the CCD - it could produce 12 MP pictures. It has a 4X optical zoom and who cares about the almost worthless digital zoom. I mean, crop your regular picture afterward and you get the same effect. There is no real zooming going on with digital zoom.
I can say that I am very happy with the camera - it operates much more like my Olympus camera that I had previously. I didn't go with Olympus, because they did not seem to have an equivalent camera - for a good price. And $336 at new egg - this camera is really good.
Not that I don't get pissed at it when I miss a picture once in a while. Or when I zoom in, the pictures tend to get really dark. And the flash not being strong enough turned out to be a real problem, instead of a minor problem. But I can live with it. My ration of good to bad pictures is waaaay better. More like 1 : 5 pictures gets screwed up - and a lot of the time - I know what I did to screw it up.
There are some things that in general I am annoyed about with digital cameras.
How is it possible that people come out with newer stuff that is actually worse than the older stuff. We need a QA patrol out there - to say hey man, if you put something new out there - it has to operate at least as well as the old stuff. I do not care that you are doing X times as much processing. If it can't run as well as the old stuff, you might as well keep it until it does run as good as the old stuff.
Now, I like my FujiFilm E550 a lot, but if almost every review I read said 'it takes pictures a little dark, and the flash is not as good as necessary to take pictures in dark rooms' - I have two questions about this: 1) If some nerd like me can buy this camera and analyze it and say here are the problems, why couldn't Fuji do that before the camera came out? 2. If some nerd like me can buy this camera and analyze it and say here are the problems, why couldn't Fujy have another nerd surf the web - find out about this things and report like a good minion to his master and say - 'if we want this camera to be really good, we should fix these things?'.
I know, I know, once the cameras are rolling off the line, it would cost them a bundle to even change small things.
And like I said, I really like my FujiFilm FinePix E550. But some things have got to make you wonder.
And my biggest beef (which I almost forgot about) was that when you are in the stores you pay a premium for the camera - at least a little bit. So, what do you get out of going to the store. You can possibly hold a camera. You can look at it. You might be able to read all the fine print on the box. That's about it.
Let me tell you something - until you have taken a picture and see what that picture looks like on the computer screen - you know nothing NOTHING about the camera. And your purchase of the camera is based solely on how pretty it looks and how well the marketing people did with the box.
Abwägen
Monday, January 10, 2005
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)