Wednesday, March 24, 2010
We don't need no stinking phones...
So in the last week I've worked with Blackberry's, iPhone's, Android's and old school CDMA phone/SMS only phones... and the short version is that I can honestly say that there is presently no killer device that I've seen and all are equally crap. :)
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
In the beginning...
Lately I find myself on a religious ranty kick.
I ran into a neat story yesterday talking about how 1/4 schools in the USA still teach creationism as some part of their curriculum. After some circular discussion, it got me thinking... I wonder if by "teach" they mean mention as an alternative method of the universe being created or whether they mean full-on "let's teach this as if it's definitive fact".
As a matter of course, religion aside, I generally call bullshit when people try to tell me how the universe was created. "It's scientifically proven fact!" they cry. "Bullshit" I call.
Here's my thing: I could care less what logical or religious construction that you personally follow to make sense of the universe that we live in. My gripe is that you can't use "science" to explain the unexplainable any more than you can use "faith". Science is great at coming up with theories which are used to advance knowledge - that's the big benefit logically speaking. The great thing about the present Big Bang Theory (BTW, love the show as well) is that you can use it to explain many things that happen in our universe. However, it's not definitive fact, it's a theory. Do we know that the universe is expanding from our frame of reference... sure, I can accept that. Do we know how the details on how the universe came into creation? No.
Technically speaking, I don't know anything beyond my experience as an individual if you want to get right down to it. Who is to say that today doesn't exist in my mind alone and everyone is made up? In short Occam's razor changed my life.
Personally I think there's as much benefit in teaching creationism as speaking about how the Catholic Church used to espouse that the Earth circled the Sun. That is, it's a great example of how organized societies (i.e. churches) can combat knowledge, deride people who disagree with them, and artificially force thought down a path. But the same parallel holds with "Science".
Heck if people want to believe that God created some dinosaur bones then no harm, no foul, as long as you present all the information on the different views then I have no gripe. Or present the scientific theory of today as theory and explain that many times we revise our theories as time goes on.
Stating that the Big Bang Theory is fact is no more true than claiming that I have an excess of humours in my spleen. In short, I call bullshit. :)
Snakes, I hate snakes by *pachocanadian on deviantART
I ran into a neat story yesterday talking about how 1/4 schools in the USA still teach creationism as some part of their curriculum. After some circular discussion, it got me thinking... I wonder if by "teach" they mean mention as an alternative method of the universe being created or whether they mean full-on "let's teach this as if it's definitive fact".
As a matter of course, religion aside, I generally call bullshit when people try to tell me how the universe was created. "It's scientifically proven fact!" they cry. "Bullshit" I call.
Here's my thing: I could care less what logical or religious construction that you personally follow to make sense of the universe that we live in. My gripe is that you can't use "science" to explain the unexplainable any more than you can use "faith". Science is great at coming up with theories which are used to advance knowledge - that's the big benefit logically speaking. The great thing about the present Big Bang Theory (BTW, love the show as well) is that you can use it to explain many things that happen in our universe. However, it's not definitive fact, it's a theory. Do we know that the universe is expanding from our frame of reference... sure, I can accept that. Do we know how the details on how the universe came into creation? No.
Technically speaking, I don't know anything beyond my experience as an individual if you want to get right down to it. Who is to say that today doesn't exist in my mind alone and everyone is made up? In short Occam's razor changed my life.
Personally I think there's as much benefit in teaching creationism as speaking about how the Catholic Church used to espouse that the Earth circled the Sun. That is, it's a great example of how organized societies (i.e. churches) can combat knowledge, deride people who disagree with them, and artificially force thought down a path. But the same parallel holds with "Science".
Heck if people want to believe that God created some dinosaur bones then no harm, no foul, as long as you present all the information on the different views then I have no gripe. Or present the scientific theory of today as theory and explain that many times we revise our theories as time goes on.
Stating that the Big Bang Theory is fact is no more true than claiming that I have an excess of humours in my spleen. In short, I call bullshit. :)
Snakes, I hate snakes by *pachocanadian on deviantART
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Epicurus ftw...
Let me start by sharing a quote with you:
So essentially the quote breaks down two binomial statements "Is God able to prevent evil?" and "Is God willing to prevent evil?". I think both statements are interesting but irrelevant.
Personally I wouldn't make assertions about the first statement (can God prevent evil). I don't find myself compelled to believe that he can or not. The fact that God created the Devil and thus Hell by opposing Gabriel has been rehashed by many people. It's the contradiction that by shining light one creates shadows. In the mathematical sense it's the assertion that the positive integers automatically create the negative ones (i.e. solve x + 1 = 0). Whether he has the mythical force or not is somewhat irrelevant to me.
The interesting bit is the second statement (is God willing to prevent evil). Personally, I don't think he'd be much of a God if he did prevent evil. It's almost the same assertion as "should a parent prevent any harm to their child, even if it means inhibiting their freedoms" or then looking at the subsequent statement "at which point does a parent do more harm by inhibiting freedoms". To look at it an alternate way, I once read a fascinating book that asserted that the faith was basically isomorphic to thermodynamics. To paraphrase that somewhat, as time proceeds linearly the world proceeds into disorder and no assertion within the system can improve this. The universe is a massive sorting machine of souls into good and evil, and the gears of that machine are existence on the earthly plane. You cannot have saints like Mother Theresa without sinners like Hitler.
Looking at it alternately (i.e. in the Newtonian force sense), the force caused by good or evil is always influenced by a natural acceleration towards disorder. That is, the same act of good has less net force as the universe tends to a disordered state. That means as an individual who wishes to influence the world positively, you need to amplify your "mass" as you will never have the "acceleration" that evil does. It is always easier to hate, to distrust, to envy... If it wasn't easier to do evil then doing good wouldn't be so meaningful. If the world that we lived in was Heaven then there would be no conflict, no development, no "sorting".
I sincerely do not understand how a God who interfered and artificially made the world a positive place would be a good thing. We need pain and suffering to make our lives meaningful, however that comes about. That doesn't mean we have to like it, but I don't find quotes like Epicurus made in any way meaningful, personally.
(1) Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
(2) Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
(3) Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
(4) Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?The original quote is attributed to Epicurus.
So essentially the quote breaks down two binomial statements "Is God able to prevent evil?" and "Is God willing to prevent evil?". I think both statements are interesting but irrelevant.
Personally I wouldn't make assertions about the first statement (can God prevent evil). I don't find myself compelled to believe that he can or not. The fact that God created the Devil and thus Hell by opposing Gabriel has been rehashed by many people. It's the contradiction that by shining light one creates shadows. In the mathematical sense it's the assertion that the positive integers automatically create the negative ones (i.e. solve x + 1 = 0). Whether he has the mythical force or not is somewhat irrelevant to me.
The interesting bit is the second statement (is God willing to prevent evil). Personally, I don't think he'd be much of a God if he did prevent evil. It's almost the same assertion as "should a parent prevent any harm to their child, even if it means inhibiting their freedoms" or then looking at the subsequent statement "at which point does a parent do more harm by inhibiting freedoms". To look at it an alternate way, I once read a fascinating book that asserted that the faith was basically isomorphic to thermodynamics. To paraphrase that somewhat, as time proceeds linearly the world proceeds into disorder and no assertion within the system can improve this. The universe is a massive sorting machine of souls into good and evil, and the gears of that machine are existence on the earthly plane. You cannot have saints like Mother Theresa without sinners like Hitler.
Looking at it alternately (i.e. in the Newtonian force sense), the force caused by good or evil is always influenced by a natural acceleration towards disorder. That is, the same act of good has less net force as the universe tends to a disordered state. That means as an individual who wishes to influence the world positively, you need to amplify your "mass" as you will never have the "acceleration" that evil does. It is always easier to hate, to distrust, to envy... If it wasn't easier to do evil then doing good wouldn't be so meaningful. If the world that we lived in was Heaven then there would be no conflict, no development, no "sorting".
I sincerely do not understand how a God who interfered and artificially made the world a positive place would be a good thing. We need pain and suffering to make our lives meaningful, however that comes about. That doesn't mean we have to like it, but I don't find quotes like Epicurus made in any way meaningful, personally.
Why I'm into training dogs...
So I'm into dog training, eh? Lots of people seem to find that surprising for some reason. I think it's a logical progression of thought.
For example, I'm a Myers-Briggs INTJ which basically means that I like to sit on the sidelines and fit things together in my head. In general when I'm faced with a problem, I like to see how things fit together. I like to know that if I pass on gossip to coworker A, that they will use their relationship with coworker B to relay same which will get attention of manager C. When I watch movies like A Beautiful Mind I relate entirely to the visual effects that occur when John Nash starts looking at objects. I remember as a kid watching street signs condense into numbers (first as a summation of numeric position within the alphabet, then recursing to sum the individual digits, then recursing until the sum is between 0-9) as I used to do this obsessively for hours. Street signs, license plates, menus, etc.
Anyways, I find relationship interactions equally fascinating. Why can Adam give Bob advice and he follows it whereas Charlie gives Bob the same advice and he resists?
So for me, dog training was a natural evolution. Dogs are entirely understandable, relatable and logical creatures. Their motivations are clearly understood, they will behave consistently given certain parameters... They will constantly test boundaries and need those boundaries reasserted to feel fulfilled. They need to have some standard of good behavior to perform against to feel fulfilled. Training a dog is an entirely natural thing for them.
In a way, I look at dogs as being the pre-kid step. Yes, I'm an uncle and have had some small part of raising kids but not the 24/7 day-to-day that I'm going to get with a dog. Yes, I've been around other trained dogs (i.e. Erik in particular) and have reinforced said training but I've not trained from puppy onwards in many years (coming on 20 since my first end-to-end training). It is time for a dog!
Tired puppy by *pachocanadian on deviantART
For example, I'm a Myers-Briggs INTJ which basically means that I like to sit on the sidelines and fit things together in my head. In general when I'm faced with a problem, I like to see how things fit together. I like to know that if I pass on gossip to coworker A, that they will use their relationship with coworker B to relay same which will get attention of manager C. When I watch movies like A Beautiful Mind I relate entirely to the visual effects that occur when John Nash starts looking at objects. I remember as a kid watching street signs condense into numbers (first as a summation of numeric position within the alphabet, then recursing to sum the individual digits, then recursing until the sum is between 0-9) as I used to do this obsessively for hours. Street signs, license plates, menus, etc.
Anyways, I find relationship interactions equally fascinating. Why can Adam give Bob advice and he follows it whereas Charlie gives Bob the same advice and he resists?
So for me, dog training was a natural evolution. Dogs are entirely understandable, relatable and logical creatures. Their motivations are clearly understood, they will behave consistently given certain parameters... They will constantly test boundaries and need those boundaries reasserted to feel fulfilled. They need to have some standard of good behavior to perform against to feel fulfilled. Training a dog is an entirely natural thing for them.
In a way, I look at dogs as being the pre-kid step. Yes, I'm an uncle and have had some small part of raising kids but not the 24/7 day-to-day that I'm going to get with a dog. Yes, I've been around other trained dogs (i.e. Erik in particular) and have reinforced said training but I've not trained from puppy onwards in many years (coming on 20 since my first end-to-end training). It is time for a dog!
Tired puppy by *pachocanadian on deviantART
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Why do I shoot...
At some point in my life I realized that I was really into photography. I'm not sure how far back this goes, to be honest. I remember playing around with the first webcams around 2000-ish. I remember my first digital camera was a 2 MP Kodak EasyShare. But somehow in the course of my life I started getting into photography... I mean... seriously into photography.
So what does that mean, exactly?
The first rule of photography is that you always carry a camera. No exceptions, no excuses. I can think of hundreds of examples in my own life where I either had the camera and got the shot I wouldn't have otherwise, or where I didn't have the camera and ended up missing the shot. Always have a camera!
The second rule is that you must know your equipment. It doesn't matter if you shoot with an SLR, DSLR, point and shoot, etc. You have to have some idea what your equipment is capable (or not capable) of to be able to take pictures. Indoor photography is almost never a good idea. Using a camera zoom on maximum is almost never a good idea. Doing ultra close macro photography without a tripod is almost never a good idea.
The last rule of significance is that you have to interact with your audience. Your audience can be your peers, friends, customers, whatever, but ultimately you need to interact with these folks to make anything happen. The difference between a person who takes good shots and a photographer is that the photographer shares his pictures... posts them on walls, promotes his material and looks for opportunities to take more pictures.
For myself, photography has taken me to many areas and situations that I would have never seen otherwise. I remember standing on a beach in Vernon taking pictures of the sunset in a suit while the police ran across the beach after me. Photography, particularly digital photography, is a no cost, high return activity!
Lady Madonna by *pachocanadian on deviantART
So what does that mean, exactly?
The first rule of photography is that you always carry a camera. No exceptions, no excuses. I can think of hundreds of examples in my own life where I either had the camera and got the shot I wouldn't have otherwise, or where I didn't have the camera and ended up missing the shot. Always have a camera!
The second rule is that you must know your equipment. It doesn't matter if you shoot with an SLR, DSLR, point and shoot, etc. You have to have some idea what your equipment is capable (or not capable) of to be able to take pictures. Indoor photography is almost never a good idea. Using a camera zoom on maximum is almost never a good idea. Doing ultra close macro photography without a tripod is almost never a good idea.
The last rule of significance is that you have to interact with your audience. Your audience can be your peers, friends, customers, whatever, but ultimately you need to interact with these folks to make anything happen. The difference between a person who takes good shots and a photographer is that the photographer shares his pictures... posts them on walls, promotes his material and looks for opportunities to take more pictures.
For myself, photography has taken me to many areas and situations that I would have never seen otherwise. I remember standing on a beach in Vernon taking pictures of the sunset in a suit while the police ran across the beach after me. Photography, particularly digital photography, is a no cost, high return activity!
Lady Madonna by *pachocanadian on deviantART
What's in a name...
So I was talking with Carol last night about my name and what it means to me.
I'm a Michael from birth but generally in day-to-day I'm a Mike. Michael means "who is like God" if you follow the Wikipedia definition of Michael. To my knowledge this comes about in reference to the biblical Saint Michael (or Michael Archangelis, depending on what variant you follow). St Michael briefly was one of two head angels in traditional theology. He's noted for the betrayal of the angel Gabriel who of course eventually became Lucifer. Depending on the particular variant you read, he betrayed Gabriel to God and threw him from Heaven.
There's an old Isaac Asimov quote that I've always felt is somewhat relevant: "Never let your sense of morality prevent you from doing what is right"
It's always been my take, metaphors aside, that Michael would have felt a betrayer and justly so. There are many occasions in life where betrayal is the right thing to do, although it is rarely the moral thing to do.
I've always felt it personally relevant as my obsessive compulsive behavior has often forced me into taking actions on things I would have rather not. For example, I was walking through Superstore the other day and ran into a little girl walking through the store by herself. I knew, on some level, that the situation wasn't one that required my action... but once I was aware that the situation existed there was nothing I could do but get involved. And yes, it was all good, and yes we found her parents and got them reunited but the point is that I couldn't have not got involved.
One hundred miles into the bush, and no one within an hour of me, I will still use my signal lights in my car.
I'm not sure that it all relates to being named Michael but I've always felt it was a good fit. So there. :)
Toronto Cathedral 4 by *pachocanadian on deviantART
I'm a Michael from birth but generally in day-to-day I'm a Mike. Michael means "who is like God" if you follow the Wikipedia definition of Michael. To my knowledge this comes about in reference to the biblical Saint Michael (or Michael Archangelis, depending on what variant you follow). St Michael briefly was one of two head angels in traditional theology. He's noted for the betrayal of the angel Gabriel who of course eventually became Lucifer. Depending on the particular variant you read, he betrayed Gabriel to God and threw him from Heaven.
There's an old Isaac Asimov quote that I've always felt is somewhat relevant: "Never let your sense of morality prevent you from doing what is right"
It's always been my take, metaphors aside, that Michael would have felt a betrayer and justly so. There are many occasions in life where betrayal is the right thing to do, although it is rarely the moral thing to do.
I've always felt it personally relevant as my obsessive compulsive behavior has often forced me into taking actions on things I would have rather not. For example, I was walking through Superstore the other day and ran into a little girl walking through the store by herself. I knew, on some level, that the situation wasn't one that required my action... but once I was aware that the situation existed there was nothing I could do but get involved. And yes, it was all good, and yes we found her parents and got them reunited but the point is that I couldn't have not got involved.
One hundred miles into the bush, and no one within an hour of me, I will still use my signal lights in my car.
I'm not sure that it all relates to being named Michael but I've always felt it was a good fit. So there. :)
Toronto Cathedral 4 by *pachocanadian on deviantART
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Contests...
Let me first tell you about why I'm busy this time of year...
Toastmasters runs contests twice yearly at club/area/division/district/region levels. To run a contest you need staff to administer it. This consists of a chairman, chief judge, tiebreaking judge, judges, counters, timers, runners, test speakers and contestants. Many of these roles aren't too difficult to fill... you can train a timer/counter/runner quickly and if you don't have contestants then you don't have contests... A chairman is ultimately doable if you can create a good script (and/or if the chairman has contest experience himself).
Where it gets tricky is the judging. Ideally you want to pick people who have judging experience, whether in the sense of participating in contests or who have taken the official district judging workshop. Even if you can fill you judges spots finding a chief judge is often tricky. There are a lot of finicky legal details to work out and given that the chief judge is the one on the line it often is hard to find someone to put their hand up!
This is where I come into things. As an area governor and club president both, generally speaking the onus is immediately on me. And because I'm an obsessive reader/fan of legality (i.e. watch CPAC in my spare time for fun) I tend to find myself drawn into assisting other contests beyond my own club/area ones.
To be honest, it's a lot of fun, and I wouldn't have it any other way although it does make for many late nights as all club contests are in same two week slot, all area contests, etc. all the way up to district (at which point my involvement is neither needed nor desired).
Toastmasters runs contests twice yearly at club/area/division/district/region levels. To run a contest you need staff to administer it. This consists of a chairman, chief judge, tiebreaking judge, judges, counters, timers, runners, test speakers and contestants. Many of these roles aren't too difficult to fill... you can train a timer/counter/runner quickly and if you don't have contestants then you don't have contests... A chairman is ultimately doable if you can create a good script (and/or if the chairman has contest experience himself).
Where it gets tricky is the judging. Ideally you want to pick people who have judging experience, whether in the sense of participating in contests or who have taken the official district judging workshop. Even if you can fill you judges spots finding a chief judge is often tricky. There are a lot of finicky legal details to work out and given that the chief judge is the one on the line it often is hard to find someone to put their hand up!
This is where I come into things. As an area governor and club president both, generally speaking the onus is immediately on me. And because I'm an obsessive reader/fan of legality (i.e. watch CPAC in my spare time for fun) I tend to find myself drawn into assisting other contests beyond my own club/area ones.
To be honest, it's a lot of fun, and I wouldn't have it any other way although it does make for many late nights as all club contests are in same two week slot, all area contests, etc. all the way up to district (at which point my involvement is neither needed nor desired).
Why are delete buttons so easy to click...
It's funny. Even with multiple levels of safeguards, with bright red delete buttons, pops, popunders, "are you sure" questions, etc. I still can accidentally click through to a delete now and again. Mad props to the wonderful folks at SurveyMonkey who were graciously willing to fix my idiot problem after the fact.
Graveyard panoramic by *pachocanadian on deviantART
Graveyard panoramic by *pachocanadian on deviantART
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Tiny dancer...
So on a totally random note, my niece Zoë just won her solo dance recital doing "Tiny Dancer". She had picked the song because I had originally picked the song. To be more precise, when my niece was born at 2:13 AM during her home birth, I had got in my car and drove for hours and hours. I eventually arrived at my office and mixed a CD where the title track was "Tiny Dancer". I then in an unrelated note shaved my head bald for the first time in my life (note: don't try this from a full head of hair like I did). Anyways, in the end the song became associated with my niece so when she was gearing up for her first solo season, that was the song that she picked.
On Saturday March 6th we had taken both dogs (Erik and Bella) out to West Lake and I took the following picture of niece Zoë:
Puppy love by *pachocanadian on deviantART
On Saturday March 6th we had taken both dogs (Erik and Bella) out to West Lake and I took the following picture of niece Zoë:
Puppy love by *pachocanadian on deviantART
Monday, March 8, 2010
Getting back onto that high horse...
Alright, we're getting back into that time of year where I start taking this blog thing seriously again. Hey, how are you, anyways? Long time no speaky speaky.
There has been much insanity in my personal and professional lives lately. On the personal end, going outwards in terms of time: I have an alexisonfire concert tonight; I'm trying to get myself a Giant Schnauzer for summer and I'm coming up on the evil 3-0.
On a professional end: I'm gearing up for club and area contests (see http://a41.pachogrande.com/ for details); I'm celebrating the fact that I have one of the strongest areas in the province; I'm looking forward to becoming a "keener" rather than an "officer" next Toastmasters year (i.e. July).
On the photographic end: Carol and I finished up the 2010 calendar; I sourced a new 8 GB card instead of the new camera I wanted; I took many hundreds of pictures out in Toronto which I'm looking forward to featuring!
A year exploring beautiful BC by *pachocanadian on deviantART
There has been much insanity in my personal and professional lives lately. On the personal end, going outwards in terms of time: I have an alexisonfire concert tonight; I'm trying to get myself a Giant Schnauzer for summer and I'm coming up on the evil 3-0.
On a professional end: I'm gearing up for club and area contests (see http://a41.pachogrande.com/ for details); I'm celebrating the fact that I have one of the strongest areas in the province; I'm looking forward to becoming a "keener" rather than an "officer" next Toastmasters year (i.e. July).
On the photographic end: Carol and I finished up the 2010 calendar; I sourced a new 8 GB card instead of the new camera I wanted; I took many hundreds of pictures out in Toronto which I'm looking forward to featuring!
A year exploring beautiful BC by *pachocanadian on deviantART
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)