Blame the rich for being poor. If they were not so wealthy we would not be so poor... Blame the obese for being thin. If they were not so fat we would not be so thin? Blame the healthy for being sick. If they were not so healthy we would not be so sick?? Blame the living for being dead. If they were not so vibrant we would not be so dead??!
Maybe we should really take responsibility for our lives. If I lose my teeth due to my sugar intake, it is not the fault of those who do not eat sweets or who brush their teeth regularly or otherwise have good dental hygiene, for my own oral or dental misfortune. That temp agency worker didn't get DNRed because the other temps did their jobs perfectly, he was told "Do Not Return" as a result of hiding in a corner talking on his cell phone. If I am in track to compete for a chance to finish first but do nothing to prepare, it is my own lack of training which truly prevents me from winning rather than the fact that all of the other contenders may have developed their potential more than me.
We never say it was those who have been following all of the rules, obeying all the statutes, who cause the transgressors to be defiant or be punished. Why is it that others' success is viewed as the cause for one's own failure? They take from me because we are all supposed to have an equal chance and somehow I am unable because they are greedy? They are doing really well since all those others are not doing well at all? The ant stores food for the Winter but the grasshopper does not and frolics all Summer instead, so how is it the ant's fault for the grasshopper's fate?
Sure, we can blame the rich for being so wealthy that the disparity between their financial situation and our own is so large, but we cannot say "woe is me," she is well-off and I am barely scraping by, so devoid of any effort of my own, the distance between our incomes should suddenly not be so much. We can certainly more easily notice a slacker when everyone else is working hard. If you drive the wrong way down a one-way street it is blatantly obvious that you're out of place: none of the signs face you, parked cars ought to be a giveaway, but be sure to suggest that it is on-coming traffic that causes the crash.
The dirt yard on your side of the fence is most certainly caused by the well-manicured and consistently watered sod that is properly maintained on the other side, so go on and cry your alligator tears, maybe Mao or Stalin will take pity on you.
Chaotic Synchronicity
A search for meaning perhaps or maybe a senseless jumble of disconnected thoughts proving no theory.
Saturday, February 13, 2016
Sunday, December 20, 2015
Political gains tax
Without catastrophe there can be no change. Various things are exploited by the government or other political entities in order to press their agenda. The facts need not support the claims nor be the entire truth, what is important is gaining belief to motivate your outcome.
If there were no "global warming" we would never have much reason to add solar or wind generation or improve recycling efforts. Though we are still excessively dependent upon plastics and other petroleum products, plus, where will our soon to be mandated electric cars obtain their energy other than more dirty polluting power plants. Either is a zero sum game but its all hidden behind the "woe is we, save the whatever, feel good I'm doing a little bit of nothing" situation.
Much like one vote by one person has little value of itself, one person making certain that every bit of possible recycling is omitted from the trash is not really going to save the planet. One person choosing not to buy Naive bottled water isn't going to curb carbon emissions by itself. One person throwing their trash into a wastebin instead of upon the sidewalk will not prevent a refuse strewn neighborhood though one person toiling to maintain many square feet of it may have a real impact. The tax is our burden, the change to our lives that we pay for the outcome the political entity desires.
In those back rooms they speculate. "Imagine what we could do if we got everyone to do 'this'" and whatever that is is up to those political powers. They can justify invasion into our privacy without a warrant, help us feel good about the removal of HFCS (high fructose corn syrup) from our foods, make us believe that organic or non-GMO is the hot thing. They can outlaw mowing of lawns, add security checkpoints at every street corner, force us to "willingly" carry tracking devices; submit our DNA to a database.
Sometimes science prevents a movement from becoming mainstream simply because real science does not validate it. Vaccinations are important and are of minimal risk, they do not cause autism so find a different windmill to poke at. In other things, historical fact or science is exaggerated or perhaps only part of the story is emphasized in order to succeed. Humans do affect their environment but to a catastrophic degree it is highly doubtful. We largely invent (or exploit) catastrophe because we only listen or act when it is dire and politicians know this very well.
If there were no "global warming" we would never have much reason to add solar or wind generation or improve recycling efforts. Though we are still excessively dependent upon plastics and other petroleum products, plus, where will our soon to be mandated electric cars obtain their energy other than more dirty polluting power plants. Either is a zero sum game but its all hidden behind the "woe is we, save the whatever, feel good I'm doing a little bit of nothing" situation.
Much like one vote by one person has little value of itself, one person making certain that every bit of possible recycling is omitted from the trash is not really going to save the planet. One person choosing not to buy Naive bottled water isn't going to curb carbon emissions by itself. One person throwing their trash into a wastebin instead of upon the sidewalk will not prevent a refuse strewn neighborhood though one person toiling to maintain many square feet of it may have a real impact. The tax is our burden, the change to our lives that we pay for the outcome the political entity desires.
In those back rooms they speculate. "Imagine what we could do if we got everyone to do 'this'" and whatever that is is up to those political powers. They can justify invasion into our privacy without a warrant, help us feel good about the removal of HFCS (high fructose corn syrup) from our foods, make us believe that organic or non-GMO is the hot thing. They can outlaw mowing of lawns, add security checkpoints at every street corner, force us to "willingly" carry tracking devices; submit our DNA to a database.
Sometimes science prevents a movement from becoming mainstream simply because real science does not validate it. Vaccinations are important and are of minimal risk, they do not cause autism so find a different windmill to poke at. In other things, historical fact or science is exaggerated or perhaps only part of the story is emphasized in order to succeed. Humans do affect their environment but to a catastrophic degree it is highly doubtful. We largely invent (or exploit) catastrophe because we only listen or act when it is dire and politicians know this very well.
Wednesday, July 1, 2015
Champions for Common Sense
The simple rock-paper-scissors game is made of elements with purely obvious qualities. One can live their life believing in magic as the cause for all that occurs, or that an invisible entity is the actor in every event rather than objects relating to themselves or us to the environment. It is difficult to believe that no matter what is ascribed as the cause or agent of the effect, that ordinary observation of the world around us should fail to teach obvious truths. What the effect is attributed to does not modify the actual manifestation but may be an argument of semantics. How can anyone possibly avoid such realizations?
Water is wet. We may only know certain truths which are unchanging or follow specific known rules. We cannot guess with absolute certainty how any being or device capable of individual unconstrained thought might react. Humans have free will. While psychologists hope to define absolutely how people act and why, they are not as certain in all situations as they claim to be, an ordinary person has even less hope of similar understanding. Devices which have software have defined limits and even in situations where they can make decisions, the range or depth is necessarily abbreviated. Even though there may be a small subset of truths which could be defined for people or "thinking" devices, it is often best to assume they will not act as desired and so create a solution which avoids those unknowns.
Wind blows. A perfectly tuned tool will work more efficiently than one that is less suitable for its task. A sharp knife is preferred when cutting foods for three reasons: less exertion will be required since it should cleave the two pieces more easily, the cut will be more precise and smooth, and should the worst outcome occur, an injury is more cleanly sewn and healed for the same reason. A screwdriver or wrench which more exactly matches the object to be tightened or loosened will slip less and the task will be a more continuous action with much less chance for damage to the affected part(s) or operator. A square peg best fits a square hole, as does a round peg match a round hole, so forcing either into the other hole is contrary to obvious design.
Fire burns. Items have mass, volume, density. It is certainly easy to take some of the obvious truths in the world as combinations for other truths. The invisible force gravity with mass make weight, how can anyone dispute that some objects in this world may be heavier or lighter than others? A container can only hold its volume, when it is surpassed the contents overflow or the container reacts until its ultimate limit is reached. Who has not overfilled a balloon or bucket? Any of various types of wood float in water but those less dense float nearer the surface. Compare cork or balsa wood to oak or pine, equal volumes of each will also have different mass. A piece of wood will float while a coin (necessarily metal) would sink in water. Changing the density of the fluid from ordinary water to honey or heavily salted water, will affect the results. Has no one poured a syrup into a glass of water or milk to see the syrup collect upon the bottom?
Scissors cut paper. A direct path between locations will be the shortest route to take. The shortest path is generally traversed the quickest, there will be less time or opportunity for trouble. If moving something between locations is inherently complicated for any reason, if a smaller distance or duration is more closely related to successful traversal, wouldn't the least distance be the best choice? If the desired outcome is reduced efficiency, a circuitous route may be best. If the shorter path is more dangerous then a longer more scenic route may be preferred. Only where complexity is required should complexity be used, otherwise simpler solutions are usually better. All facets of the desired outcome should match the method used to reach it, especially when in complete control over the design of the technique employed.
Rock breaks scissors. In no way can a disordered collection of anything be an efficient method to handle different items as a group by all those who must interact with them. Each item may have its own distinct qualities. Any one item in the group may be more desirable than the others. The different characteristics of each individual item may conflict with the others or not react the same as the rest when the group is subjected to the same conditions. The chaotic jumble requires possibly careful sorting or sifting in order to obtain any certain desired item. Rarely if ever do all of these disparate disconnected elements get massed together without intervention which means that during the process of collection there is necessarily an opportunity to organize them in some way. The items could be sorted, separated, or assembled into one unit if they are components of one unit.
Paper covers rock. Those of us who are not blind to the obvious nature of the world around them may feel a need, compelled to combat all thought or actions which are incongruous to it. We Champions for common sense have an insurmountable task always at hand: to restore or counter the "dissipation" of obvious truth. Fighting against the actions of those who do things in a counter-intuitive way, who use methods contrary to their stated goal, who ignore the reality of the obvious nature of the world. We yell into a hurricane of disorder, chaos, and incongruity, hoping to be heard.
Are you one of the "unfortunate" Champions or do you sleep-walk apathetically?
Water is wet. We may only know certain truths which are unchanging or follow specific known rules. We cannot guess with absolute certainty how any being or device capable of individual unconstrained thought might react. Humans have free will. While psychologists hope to define absolutely how people act and why, they are not as certain in all situations as they claim to be, an ordinary person has even less hope of similar understanding. Devices which have software have defined limits and even in situations where they can make decisions, the range or depth is necessarily abbreviated. Even though there may be a small subset of truths which could be defined for people or "thinking" devices, it is often best to assume they will not act as desired and so create a solution which avoids those unknowns.
Wind blows. A perfectly tuned tool will work more efficiently than one that is less suitable for its task. A sharp knife is preferred when cutting foods for three reasons: less exertion will be required since it should cleave the two pieces more easily, the cut will be more precise and smooth, and should the worst outcome occur, an injury is more cleanly sewn and healed for the same reason. A screwdriver or wrench which more exactly matches the object to be tightened or loosened will slip less and the task will be a more continuous action with much less chance for damage to the affected part(s) or operator. A square peg best fits a square hole, as does a round peg match a round hole, so forcing either into the other hole is contrary to obvious design.
Fire burns. Items have mass, volume, density. It is certainly easy to take some of the obvious truths in the world as combinations for other truths. The invisible force gravity with mass make weight, how can anyone dispute that some objects in this world may be heavier or lighter than others? A container can only hold its volume, when it is surpassed the contents overflow or the container reacts until its ultimate limit is reached. Who has not overfilled a balloon or bucket? Any of various types of wood float in water but those less dense float nearer the surface. Compare cork or balsa wood to oak or pine, equal volumes of each will also have different mass. A piece of wood will float while a coin (necessarily metal) would sink in water. Changing the density of the fluid from ordinary water to honey or heavily salted water, will affect the results. Has no one poured a syrup into a glass of water or milk to see the syrup collect upon the bottom?
Scissors cut paper. A direct path between locations will be the shortest route to take. The shortest path is generally traversed the quickest, there will be less time or opportunity for trouble. If moving something between locations is inherently complicated for any reason, if a smaller distance or duration is more closely related to successful traversal, wouldn't the least distance be the best choice? If the desired outcome is reduced efficiency, a circuitous route may be best. If the shorter path is more dangerous then a longer more scenic route may be preferred. Only where complexity is required should complexity be used, otherwise simpler solutions are usually better. All facets of the desired outcome should match the method used to reach it, especially when in complete control over the design of the technique employed.
Rock breaks scissors. In no way can a disordered collection of anything be an efficient method to handle different items as a group by all those who must interact with them. Each item may have its own distinct qualities. Any one item in the group may be more desirable than the others. The different characteristics of each individual item may conflict with the others or not react the same as the rest when the group is subjected to the same conditions. The chaotic jumble requires possibly careful sorting or sifting in order to obtain any certain desired item. Rarely if ever do all of these disparate disconnected elements get massed together without intervention which means that during the process of collection there is necessarily an opportunity to organize them in some way. The items could be sorted, separated, or assembled into one unit if they are components of one unit.
Paper covers rock. Those of us who are not blind to the obvious nature of the world around them may feel a need, compelled to combat all thought or actions which are incongruous to it. We Champions for common sense have an insurmountable task always at hand: to restore or counter the "dissipation" of obvious truth. Fighting against the actions of those who do things in a counter-intuitive way, who use methods contrary to their stated goal, who ignore the reality of the obvious nature of the world. We yell into a hurricane of disorder, chaos, and incongruity, hoping to be heard.
Are you one of the "unfortunate" Champions or do you sleep-walk apathetically?
Wednesday, February 13, 2013
Interview Question
When you work with a random new person frequently, you discover a rather simple commonality. The obvious is their level of work, either this person is a hard worker seemingly conscientious or they are a slacker who wishes to put in time rather than effort. Beyond these two blatant categories, are the reasons for their work ethic. Lets ignore the hard worker, everyone from the employer to fellow employees and customers want someone who does their job well. This leaves us with the slacker and our judgement of this person.
As a co-worker, working together toward a common goal, we may wonder about the reason for their lackluster performance. "Is that person working with me lazy or stupid?" This is likely the question in our mind when things are not done properly or done half-way. When we must pick up the unspent effort of those who are supposed to be helping achieve our end result, we can only get frustrated especially when that slacker is not seen for who they are and we gain no credit for the additional energy we burn.
So then, lazy or stupid, this is the quandary. If we were forced to choose out of this no win situation between the two, which would it be? Would it be preferable to work beside someone who by their nature never puts forth their full ability, or someone who is inherently limited and can only provide a lesser level of performance? Which would irk you most, knowing that the other person could do more but does not, or someone who you may need to spend more time training and may need to be instructed more frequently?
This is a lose-lose choice, but between the two people, one is more honest. If you know your limitations and strive to work to their fullest, you are not cheating anyone including yourself. Those people who are lazy heap the burden of their diminished productivity upon everyone else. They purposefully choose to do much less than they are capable of doing, simply because it is possible and they do not seem to care. As an employer, it would be best to maximize effort, output, efficiency.
A lazy person by definition will not do more than they choose to do and will self-limit their effort to an arbitrary and inconsistent level. They cannot be relied upon because the results of laziness may be entirely random since it occurs at the whim of the individual. This uncaring attitude would not be conducive to a good work environment and would negatively affect all those around it.
So then, if a lazy person would be a worse choice, why would a stupid person be better? It is true that neither is optimal but there is a definite reason why one can be considered preferable over the other. If we consider that a stupid person has an immutable quality of reduced intellect, we know already that there will be a height that cannot be attained through no lack of trying. This sort of person may get frustrated when overwhelmed, rather than frustrating co-workers who become overwhelmed (as due to a lazy person's reduced performance). There will need to be extra effort placed upon training, but much can be gained by reducing the task to simpler terms. After a short time, the individual's limits will be known and positions or tasks can be matched to their ability. There would be consistency, real effort, steady effort, a striving to do better. What sort of employer or co-worker wouldn't want someone who always gives 100% instead of someone who may or may not do as tasked?
The bottom line really is about effort, put forth the entirety of your capability and you will be valued, period.
As a co-worker, working together toward a common goal, we may wonder about the reason for their lackluster performance. "Is that person working with me lazy or stupid?" This is likely the question in our mind when things are not done properly or done half-way. When we must pick up the unspent effort of those who are supposed to be helping achieve our end result, we can only get frustrated especially when that slacker is not seen for who they are and we gain no credit for the additional energy we burn.
So then, lazy or stupid, this is the quandary. If we were forced to choose out of this no win situation between the two, which would it be? Would it be preferable to work beside someone who by their nature never puts forth their full ability, or someone who is inherently limited and can only provide a lesser level of performance? Which would irk you most, knowing that the other person could do more but does not, or someone who you may need to spend more time training and may need to be instructed more frequently?
This is a lose-lose choice, but between the two people, one is more honest. If you know your limitations and strive to work to their fullest, you are not cheating anyone including yourself. Those people who are lazy heap the burden of their diminished productivity upon everyone else. They purposefully choose to do much less than they are capable of doing, simply because it is possible and they do not seem to care. As an employer, it would be best to maximize effort, output, efficiency.
A lazy person by definition will not do more than they choose to do and will self-limit their effort to an arbitrary and inconsistent level. They cannot be relied upon because the results of laziness may be entirely random since it occurs at the whim of the individual. This uncaring attitude would not be conducive to a good work environment and would negatively affect all those around it.
So then, if a lazy person would be a worse choice, why would a stupid person be better? It is true that neither is optimal but there is a definite reason why one can be considered preferable over the other. If we consider that a stupid person has an immutable quality of reduced intellect, we know already that there will be a height that cannot be attained through no lack of trying. This sort of person may get frustrated when overwhelmed, rather than frustrating co-workers who become overwhelmed (as due to a lazy person's reduced performance). There will need to be extra effort placed upon training, but much can be gained by reducing the task to simpler terms. After a short time, the individual's limits will be known and positions or tasks can be matched to their ability. There would be consistency, real effort, steady effort, a striving to do better. What sort of employer or co-worker wouldn't want someone who always gives 100% instead of someone who may or may not do as tasked?
The bottom line really is about effort, put forth the entirety of your capability and you will be valued, period.
Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Scene 1 Begins Here
Its weird how when we're young we look at adults as if they have changed and are completely different. We grow up expecting that there will be some sort of dramatic transformation beyond the obvious. We think that suddenly we will be adults and cease to be children, but the reality is that a lot less change actually happens. We see that we get taller or fatter, our hair grows, eventually turns gray and or falls out. We gain and then eventually lose our flexibility, mobility, and strength. We can control, to some degree, especially if we are vigilant, our health and appearance, our physical abilities and skills. We can also choose what we learn or believe. We are still ourselves and only choose the degree of child within us to expose.
We might watch television or movies as an escape. We realize that it is not an accurate portrayal of life, yet it is a sugary sweet lie that is dripping into our minds. You cannot learn reality from those video and cinema screens. Distinguishing truth from falsity requires experience for comparison. Experiencing the world third or fourth hand is no better than shadows on a cave wall. Do we think that there is some sort of instant metamorphosis when we reach a certain age, because fictional characters have so completely left behind their childhood? Do we expect a stereotypical or cliche type when we recognize a situation that a certain sort of character ought to be present?
Television and movie actors are made to look the part. While your real-life friend down the block actually is sixteen, the character of the sixteen year old on television or in that cool movie is played by a twenty-two year old. College or High school is not so simplistic. There is no plan to burst a house with popcorn, and your principal is unlikely to make a home visit because you called-in sick. You are watching a storyteller's work made flesh, using the tools at hand, to sketch out the important parts needed to tell the tale. Technical details like physics can be spoofed on screen, laws can be broken without a police chase, the most popular boy is always the quarterback on the football team and the prom king with the captain of the cheerleaders as queen, everyone lives happily ever after, the bad guy always gets caught/punished, and only red-shirted landing party members fail to survive the encounter with the alien(s).
How much time is spent during a television program or movie when nothing happens? Do we see the entire seven hours of the cat or dog roaming around a darkened house while the family sleeps? This is reality, there are parts of life when nothing exciting occurs. Star ship captains have no need for a bathroom, don't wash dishes or clothes, and aren't shown reading that book for the entire three hours or more that it took to actually read it. We accept these inaccuracies because we assume that they happen, that it took time. We must be careful not to truly believe in them as reality. The subtle things that we learn first hand are much more difficult to notice, especially without any of that needed experience.
Accomplishments take effort, time, and life is not one big circus sideshow every five minutes except for circus sideshow performers. You cannot wait around doing nothing and still have things happen: life is not controlled by a script. The cat still poops in the litter box, the poop still reeks, and you will have to clean the litter box or you may find a disobedient cat making a mess of your home. It is conveniently handled in a movie or TV show, but real life is lived. You can only grow with experience. You can survive, your future will not happen without you.
We might watch television or movies as an escape. We realize that it is not an accurate portrayal of life, yet it is a sugary sweet lie that is dripping into our minds. You cannot learn reality from those video and cinema screens. Distinguishing truth from falsity requires experience for comparison. Experiencing the world third or fourth hand is no better than shadows on a cave wall. Do we think that there is some sort of instant metamorphosis when we reach a certain age, because fictional characters have so completely left behind their childhood? Do we expect a stereotypical or cliche type when we recognize a situation that a certain sort of character ought to be present?
Television and movie actors are made to look the part. While your real-life friend down the block actually is sixteen, the character of the sixteen year old on television or in that cool movie is played by a twenty-two year old. College or High school is not so simplistic. There is no plan to burst a house with popcorn, and your principal is unlikely to make a home visit because you called-in sick. You are watching a storyteller's work made flesh, using the tools at hand, to sketch out the important parts needed to tell the tale. Technical details like physics can be spoofed on screen, laws can be broken without a police chase, the most popular boy is always the quarterback on the football team and the prom king with the captain of the cheerleaders as queen, everyone lives happily ever after, the bad guy always gets caught/punished, and only red-shirted landing party members fail to survive the encounter with the alien(s).
How much time is spent during a television program or movie when nothing happens? Do we see the entire seven hours of the cat or dog roaming around a darkened house while the family sleeps? This is reality, there are parts of life when nothing exciting occurs. Star ship captains have no need for a bathroom, don't wash dishes or clothes, and aren't shown reading that book for the entire three hours or more that it took to actually read it. We accept these inaccuracies because we assume that they happen, that it took time. We must be careful not to truly believe in them as reality. The subtle things that we learn first hand are much more difficult to notice, especially without any of that needed experience.
Accomplishments take effort, time, and life is not one big circus sideshow every five minutes except for circus sideshow performers. You cannot wait around doing nothing and still have things happen: life is not controlled by a script. The cat still poops in the litter box, the poop still reeks, and you will have to clean the litter box or you may find a disobedient cat making a mess of your home. It is conveniently handled in a movie or TV show, but real life is lived. You can only grow with experience. You can survive, your future will not happen without you.
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Tech wars
There are no self-replicating fractal nano-robots dissolving metals to fashion more of themselves. Computer viruses are no more sentient than they are actually contagious, their delivery system far more directed and intentional and only through human folly do they happen to spread further. Why must it be then, that we insist upon misappropriating the Darwinian word ecosystem in order to describe computer hardware and software? It is a system yes.
Eco- is a prefix of ecology which is the study of plants and animals in an environment. A system can be any simple or complex interconnected group of things, but since there is technology could there not also be TechnoSystem or Teknosystem? We seem far too quick to coin new buzzwords and catch phrases.
Apple muddied the waters with its choice to use 'ping' for one of its tools, while its former meaning in computer terms had been much the same as for a submarine, except to seek a response through a network from another connected computer. Microsoft did no better with its 'I'm a PC' campaign, that sought to name any Windows user as 'PC' or equate a person with their tool, both being much greater (though non-Windows users might scoff at that). That also-ran search seems to have wanted a comic book action word but must have found them all taken. We can coin a word and it can be given a common-sense meaning, or we can hijack a word and cause confusion and irritation.
Spend 2.5 seconds on the explore tab of Google+ and you will know that there remains a shouting match between two mobile devices, and two manufacturers. One has prestige and price. The other seeks to surpass it and probably would if it were entirely open source which is a line its competitor won't cross. The vocal folks on either side would point to their struggle as important while ignoring any argument of semantics and meaning, yet are these the same people who help to reinforce such hideous words as fashionable?
We can use network interchangeably for a group of connected computers, or for the roots of a grove of trees, or for communication in general. The difference is that it is a generic and unrefined word. System is a very non-distinct word that has no ties to any certain anything: it is a group or combination of things that fit together as an entity. Even that word virus by its spelling is not specifically limited to any certain type. Now is the present that meaning does still matter, perhaps in the future we will have paved over all grass and chopped down all trees, so that only the improperly used and despicable ecosystem must supplant technosystem or teknosystem (or teqnosystem?). I hope that time is distant and before then people quit abusing words just because it is fashionable. Eco- is plants and animals, dammit! Are we going to see Eco-friendly computer software in the sense that things play nice together and not that it has any other 'green' ecological (plant or animal) effect? How far is the farce going to go?
Eco- is a prefix of ecology which is the study of plants and animals in an environment. A system can be any simple or complex interconnected group of things, but since there is technology could there not also be TechnoSystem or Teknosystem? We seem far too quick to coin new buzzwords and catch phrases.
Apple muddied the waters with its choice to use 'ping' for one of its tools, while its former meaning in computer terms had been much the same as for a submarine, except to seek a response through a network from another connected computer. Microsoft did no better with its 'I'm a PC' campaign, that sought to name any Windows user as 'PC' or equate a person with their tool, both being much greater (though non-Windows users might scoff at that). That also-ran search seems to have wanted a comic book action word but must have found them all taken. We can coin a word and it can be given a common-sense meaning, or we can hijack a word and cause confusion and irritation.
Spend 2.5 seconds on the explore tab of Google+ and you will know that there remains a shouting match between two mobile devices, and two manufacturers. One has prestige and price. The other seeks to surpass it and probably would if it were entirely open source which is a line its competitor won't cross. The vocal folks on either side would point to their struggle as important while ignoring any argument of semantics and meaning, yet are these the same people who help to reinforce such hideous words as fashionable?
We can use network interchangeably for a group of connected computers, or for the roots of a grove of trees, or for communication in general. The difference is that it is a generic and unrefined word. System is a very non-distinct word that has no ties to any certain anything: it is a group or combination of things that fit together as an entity. Even that word virus by its spelling is not specifically limited to any certain type. Now is the present that meaning does still matter, perhaps in the future we will have paved over all grass and chopped down all trees, so that only the improperly used and despicable ecosystem must supplant technosystem or teknosystem (or teqnosystem?). I hope that time is distant and before then people quit abusing words just because it is fashionable. Eco- is plants and animals, dammit! Are we going to see Eco-friendly computer software in the sense that things play nice together and not that it has any other 'green' ecological (plant or animal) effect? How far is the farce going to go?
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
A Quick Fix
Doctor McCoy hands an old woman in the hospital a tablet that we find out cures her of a number of things. He calls some of our 20th century medicine barbaric. Doctor Gregory House cures by trial end error and sudden inspiration. However, we all believe that it is possible to solve our health problems with one little yellow pill. We swallow a whole bottle containing two doses of quick fix because there is not enough time for coffee, and do not like that two-thirty feeling. Have an ill, take a pill.
Drug manufacturers legally cover their asses by warning us of side effects and telling us we should not use a product for too long. Some drug commercials proclaim how it is the most amazing miracle cure but end with a litany of side-effects. Frequently the miracle cure causes worse symptoms than the trouble it is supposed to solve, sometimes worsening the original trouble or leading to potential death. Are we so blind to the effects of various chemicals or too enamored with a quick fix, to do anything but swallow a capsule? When was the last time you found a quiet, dark or dim room to meditate your headache away?
Its understandable that in some specific circumstances, a quick fix may be a reasonable solution, especially for those who cannot counter their symptoms without aid. However, when this sort of quick fix becomes the only normal solution, there can be serious consequences. If you immediately place a bandaid of numbness over those signals of pain and discomfort, there may be no chance to discover their cause. It isn't long before the original alarm is forgotten while the now hidden ailment silently gets worse. This automatic self-medicating method to problem solving is very easily directly related to addictions.
Drug abuse is an easy way out, a quick fix for feeling bad becomes a habit. When you're frustrated or angry you decide that a cigarette is able to soothe and calm. When depressed or hurting, alcohol fuzzes out the feeling. Chemicals are not the cure, especially when it is a psychological or emotional issue. Face the problem directly. Look around you for support, you get none from a bottle. The courage is within you if you take the time to find it. Maybe the medicating you do is another excess, but no matter what it is, the truth is that running away from your problems is no way to solve them. Your excesses, habits, quick fixes, are a way to avoid staring into the ugly face of reality.
Talk to someone about your problems. Write about your problems. Express them in some way, get the poison out. The greatest healing does not come from a prescription or elixir, it is within yourself. Positive thinking will have as much impact as dwelling on the worst and seeing the dark side or emphasizing discomfort. As easily as you can convince yourself that you feel bad, you can reinforce a speck of goodness until it overtakes the sinking stuck in the mud self-pity. Meditation is control, regulating your thought and taking charge of your body. The mind is a powerful tool that might not be getting used effectively, it is far more capable than we think.
Consider how uncomfortable you feel when everyone around you reminds you that it is too hot or too cold, or when you complain to others and to yourself, as opposed to describing it as not so bad, even bearable. Consider how quickly an idea of a specific food will lead to thoughts of its smell, and memories of how good it was, and with a little more encouragement from yourself or others, you are cooking it or buying it (or wishing that you could). Without being fully aware, you have reinforced that speck of an idea, you gave it a positive force and allowed it to grow. The same can be done in the opposite direction, to assist with ending a habit: view it in a dark light, tell yourself how bad it is, remind yourself how terrible it makes you feel. By changing something that you had convinced yourself was enjoyable or pleasurable, you can reduce your desire for it. We are thinking things, but we are also pleasure seekers and pain avoiders.
Drug manufacturers legally cover their asses by warning us of side effects and telling us we should not use a product for too long. Some drug commercials proclaim how it is the most amazing miracle cure but end with a litany of side-effects. Frequently the miracle cure causes worse symptoms than the trouble it is supposed to solve, sometimes worsening the original trouble or leading to potential death. Are we so blind to the effects of various chemicals or too enamored with a quick fix, to do anything but swallow a capsule? When was the last time you found a quiet, dark or dim room to meditate your headache away?
Its understandable that in some specific circumstances, a quick fix may be a reasonable solution, especially for those who cannot counter their symptoms without aid. However, when this sort of quick fix becomes the only normal solution, there can be serious consequences. If you immediately place a bandaid of numbness over those signals of pain and discomfort, there may be no chance to discover their cause. It isn't long before the original alarm is forgotten while the now hidden ailment silently gets worse. This automatic self-medicating method to problem solving is very easily directly related to addictions.
Drug abuse is an easy way out, a quick fix for feeling bad becomes a habit. When you're frustrated or angry you decide that a cigarette is able to soothe and calm. When depressed or hurting, alcohol fuzzes out the feeling. Chemicals are not the cure, especially when it is a psychological or emotional issue. Face the problem directly. Look around you for support, you get none from a bottle. The courage is within you if you take the time to find it. Maybe the medicating you do is another excess, but no matter what it is, the truth is that running away from your problems is no way to solve them. Your excesses, habits, quick fixes, are a way to avoid staring into the ugly face of reality.
Talk to someone about your problems. Write about your problems. Express them in some way, get the poison out. The greatest healing does not come from a prescription or elixir, it is within yourself. Positive thinking will have as much impact as dwelling on the worst and seeing the dark side or emphasizing discomfort. As easily as you can convince yourself that you feel bad, you can reinforce a speck of goodness until it overtakes the sinking stuck in the mud self-pity. Meditation is control, regulating your thought and taking charge of your body. The mind is a powerful tool that might not be getting used effectively, it is far more capable than we think.
Consider how uncomfortable you feel when everyone around you reminds you that it is too hot or too cold, or when you complain to others and to yourself, as opposed to describing it as not so bad, even bearable. Consider how quickly an idea of a specific food will lead to thoughts of its smell, and memories of how good it was, and with a little more encouragement from yourself or others, you are cooking it or buying it (or wishing that you could). Without being fully aware, you have reinforced that speck of an idea, you gave it a positive force and allowed it to grow. The same can be done in the opposite direction, to assist with ending a habit: view it in a dark light, tell yourself how bad it is, remind yourself how terrible it makes you feel. By changing something that you had convinced yourself was enjoyable or pleasurable, you can reduce your desire for it. We are thinking things, but we are also pleasure seekers and pain avoiders.
Monday, April 2, 2012
Life Without Principle
We're sorry, but we didn't know that you went to that semi-wild park for fishing and hikes in the woods. We saw it as the most awesome location for upscale properties. While you have spent time away from your favorite fishing hole and picnic area, we have moved in, subdivided and civilized your park. It was up for sale after all, didn't you know? Everything has a price. We can only see lakes and picturesque natural areas through the lens of a realtor, investment banker, landscape architect, and those dollar signs are the prettiest green.
There doesn't seem to be any outrage or notice of this happening. Some people might think that its equally acceptable for the parks service to carve up a park to subdivide and civilize the wilderness for easy access by cars. However, we can hike to the picnic area without needing a parking lot beside it. We can choose how deep into nature that we travel but it does not need to be by car. If we really need to bring a lot of our civilized world into the woods, then we can divvy it up or make extra trips, or maybe decide that we can enjoy the wild without so much of the city in bags or boxes carried in and out. Our wild and semi-wild areas are dwindling but not enough people see them as the treasures they are. Smaller urban parks often around or near a lake or recreation area are perfectly suited to a temporary establishment of home providing conveniences until the sun goes down and the bugs start biting, the air too cool for a dip in the lake.
Sometimes a natural disaster causes enough damage to a semi-wild park that it opens the opportunity to redesign it with amenities sans wilderness, sequestered nature to the sidelines. This is understandable and acceptable but far from preferable, though to replant and landscape again to what once was would take time and money. Who wants to wait so much time when a new basketball court and volleyball court, and park buildings could be erected much quicker? This may have been a small piece of wild in the midst of former countryside that was civilized by suburbanites long ago. This small piece of wild was unlikely to last in its surroundings, they all eventually fall, for the right price.
It seems that the only hope for parkland amidst the urban jungle, is the humble (or not so humble) golf course. Although this is hardly a whisper of the wilderness that would exist if someone were to require that it remained untainted by "civilization." Is it really so impossible to preserve the wild and semi-wild? Must every unspoiled parcel become the ideal location of a dream home? Can there be grass that grows wild, unkempt and trees that fall in the woods that are unheard?
Preservation takes less time or money than restoration, and only nature knows how it once was. Before you begin to think that it cannot happen, take note of what already has happened. Look around you to where there had been trees or woods or wild places. Life must indeed be richer with less pavement and noises of industry, where there is yet a place to escape the city before there is no countryside. How can you be sure that after a time of not having visited that favorite swath of nature, that it remains as you left it, as you remember it, still there for you to share with others, children, family, friends?
There doesn't seem to be any outrage or notice of this happening. Some people might think that its equally acceptable for the parks service to carve up a park to subdivide and civilize the wilderness for easy access by cars. However, we can hike to the picnic area without needing a parking lot beside it. We can choose how deep into nature that we travel but it does not need to be by car. If we really need to bring a lot of our civilized world into the woods, then we can divvy it up or make extra trips, or maybe decide that we can enjoy the wild without so much of the city in bags or boxes carried in and out. Our wild and semi-wild areas are dwindling but not enough people see them as the treasures they are. Smaller urban parks often around or near a lake or recreation area are perfectly suited to a temporary establishment of home providing conveniences until the sun goes down and the bugs start biting, the air too cool for a dip in the lake.
“If a man walk in the woods for love of them half of each day, he is in danger of being regarded as a loafer; but if he spends his whole day as a speculator, shearing off those woods and making earth bald before her time, he is esteemed an industrious and enterprising citizen. As if a town had no interest in its forests but to cut them down!”
Life without Principle by Henry David Thoreau - 1863
Sometimes a natural disaster causes enough damage to a semi-wild park that it opens the opportunity to redesign it with amenities sans wilderness, sequestered nature to the sidelines. This is understandable and acceptable but far from preferable, though to replant and landscape again to what once was would take time and money. Who wants to wait so much time when a new basketball court and volleyball court, and park buildings could be erected much quicker? This may have been a small piece of wild in the midst of former countryside that was civilized by suburbanites long ago. This small piece of wild was unlikely to last in its surroundings, they all eventually fall, for the right price.
It seems that the only hope for parkland amidst the urban jungle, is the humble (or not so humble) golf course. Although this is hardly a whisper of the wilderness that would exist if someone were to require that it remained untainted by "civilization." Is it really so impossible to preserve the wild and semi-wild? Must every unspoiled parcel become the ideal location of a dream home? Can there be grass that grows wild, unkempt and trees that fall in the woods that are unheard?
Preservation takes less time or money than restoration, and only nature knows how it once was. Before you begin to think that it cannot happen, take note of what already has happened. Look around you to where there had been trees or woods or wild places. Life must indeed be richer with less pavement and noises of industry, where there is yet a place to escape the city before there is no countryside. How can you be sure that after a time of not having visited that favorite swath of nature, that it remains as you left it, as you remember it, still there for you to share with others, children, family, friends?
Monday, March 26, 2012
The Stand
All of the fingers point at you, destroying the shadows you cling to with white hot blazing words of hate.
Walk to an open area, trace a circle around where you stand. This is your space and you defined it. Now imagine that those around you have twisted and contorted this space. Imagine that they have turned that space into a label and have affixed it to your forehead for all to see, yet it remains invisible and unknown to you. Your space still has a membership of one, but this solitary exclusive club is an inverse and a negative. It is a belonging that is not known to exist because you were placed there by all those around you. You cannot be a part of the outside because you are specifically denied access. Why are you not the same as all the rest? What gave you membership? You did not define this label, this epithet, slur. Those who put you there in that notorius club, who refuse to join because they are too good or perfect to be members, are known by many names. It is they who belong to the hateful minority. When such a hate filled minority gains influence and prestige, that is when true evil manifests.
You know about all of the groups you belong to, whether membership is by default or by desire. Those aspects you control, the best are highlighted with your participation and the others are accepted with indifference. Of those qualities that you cannot control, you work hard to emphasize those you feel will be accepted and try to hide the rest. Choose one feature of yourself that you are particularly fond of, that helps to define who you really are and makes you unique. Imagine this facet of yourself that you have picked, is despised by everyone around you. Imagine that because of how fond you are of this part of yourself, that you are not always able to hide it. Imagine that you are an expert at hiding this aspect of yourself but everyone around you somehow knows the truth. Where do you go? How do you survive? How does it feel to stand in this small circle others have drawn around you?
Pride is about community and identity. It is shouting from the top of the mountain to proclaim "I am!" It is a time of belonging without fear, an oasis of hope for the troubled. The most unfortunate thing, is that sometimes it is difficult or impossible to even privately feel pride in ones identity. When the hiding of self reaches this extreme, when there is only a slim chance for one's identity to surface around others, it is a very fragile time. Only this affected person knows exactly how precarious, the difficult balancing act on the edge of an abyss.
Suppose that one thing that defines you is the gender of who you love, would you let everyone around you deny you the ability to express your love? Would you let others decide whether the government, its laws, corporations, their policies, can exclude you because of the gender of who you love? Now replace the word gender with race or religion or status or class or creed or caste. Does switching it to something other than gender make it more acceptable or less acceptable? Why?
You bully, hate-filled political speaker, fire and brimstone bigot, non-acting bystander. Represent humanity. Extend a hand to draw someone from the edge, not to push them over. Words. Be inclusive, compassionate, empathize. Imagine yourself in their boat, their shoes. Honestly, how do YOU want to be treated?
Walk to an open area, trace a circle around where you stand. This is your space and you defined it. Now imagine that those around you have twisted and contorted this space. Imagine that they have turned that space into a label and have affixed it to your forehead for all to see, yet it remains invisible and unknown to you. Your space still has a membership of one, but this solitary exclusive club is an inverse and a negative. It is a belonging that is not known to exist because you were placed there by all those around you. You cannot be a part of the outside because you are specifically denied access. Why are you not the same as all the rest? What gave you membership? You did not define this label, this epithet, slur. Those who put you there in that notorius club, who refuse to join because they are too good or perfect to be members, are known by many names. It is they who belong to the hateful minority. When such a hate filled minority gains influence and prestige, that is when true evil manifests.
You know about all of the groups you belong to, whether membership is by default or by desire. Those aspects you control, the best are highlighted with your participation and the others are accepted with indifference. Of those qualities that you cannot control, you work hard to emphasize those you feel will be accepted and try to hide the rest. Choose one feature of yourself that you are particularly fond of, that helps to define who you really are and makes you unique. Imagine this facet of yourself that you have picked, is despised by everyone around you. Imagine that because of how fond you are of this part of yourself, that you are not always able to hide it. Imagine that you are an expert at hiding this aspect of yourself but everyone around you somehow knows the truth. Where do you go? How do you survive? How does it feel to stand in this small circle others have drawn around you?
“Show me a man or a woman alone and I'll show you a saint. Give me two and they'll fall in love. Give me three and they'll invent the charming thing we call 'society'. Give me four and they'll build a pyramid. Give me five and they'll make one an outcast. Give me six and they'll reinvent prejudice. Give me seven and in seven years they'll reinvent warfare. Man may have been made in the image of God, but human society was made in the image of His opposite number, and is always trying to get back home.”
Stephen King, in The Stand: The Complete & Uncut Edition (1990), 3rd paragraph of Chapter 42, Glen Bateman speaking
Pride is about community and identity. It is shouting from the top of the mountain to proclaim "I am!" It is a time of belonging without fear, an oasis of hope for the troubled. The most unfortunate thing, is that sometimes it is difficult or impossible to even privately feel pride in ones identity. When the hiding of self reaches this extreme, when there is only a slim chance for one's identity to surface around others, it is a very fragile time. Only this affected person knows exactly how precarious, the difficult balancing act on the edge of an abyss.
Suppose that one thing that defines you is the gender of who you love, would you let everyone around you deny you the ability to express your love? Would you let others decide whether the government, its laws, corporations, their policies, can exclude you because of the gender of who you love? Now replace the word gender with race or religion or status or class or creed or caste. Does switching it to something other than gender make it more acceptable or less acceptable? Why?
You bully, hate-filled political speaker, fire and brimstone bigot, non-acting bystander. Represent humanity. Extend a hand to draw someone from the edge, not to push them over. Words. Be inclusive, compassionate, empathize. Imagine yourself in their boat, their shoes. Honestly, how do YOU want to be treated?
Monday, March 12, 2012
The start
A time ago, I had a tentative blog someplace somewhere, that I believe was affiliated with Google, but no longer. After having decided to re-venture out into a possibly less focused blog format, I went looking for 'Inverted Abyss' and what I had begun there. It is now someone elses' and I am unsure where what I had created is now. I discovered that it was a Google Site which I have taken off being public. I have not quite chosen exactly what I intend to write here, so its entirely possible that this may stagnate and disappear and my brand new cool blog name will become another's.
I think that I may not make it a simple task for you to get to know me, so there is no such box visible here. I can say that in these recent years online, I have had my involvement in some activism, for what I feel is right and just. I could throw the weight of one voice, one vote behind many things, there are certainly plenty that cross my path, pleading to be heard.
I write as I feel fits. My opinions are mine. I may coerce you to think or to question. I may echo your own thoughts, however it is best that I face the congregation. This is simply a place I can expose my own musings, if you like what I write or how I write, thank you for your interest. I cannot say how periodic or consistent or regular my posts may be. Routine is dynamic and unfixed, broken from one day to another with few things uniform and only those truly necessary things repeating. I do have some time sinks and passions and of course less absorbing interests that I distract myself from life with. It is likely obvious by now that writing or thinking might be considered one, the others will become obvious over time or in other ways. Yes, I do write with a reduced directness and possibly eroded clarity, but this entertains me and perhaps you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)