Thursday, September 28, 2006
IPTV
Internet Protocol Television, or IPTV, is what I'm betting on is the next big thing. You mean like YouTube? Not, not really, IPTV is more like actual TV show that are delivered over an IP network, like broadband. Think of it like on-demand TV shows, that come out once a week. Anyway, just trying to have this pop up on people's radars. If you want to see an example, check out my new link on the right there. More to come later.
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
Simple Key Mod Makes Most All Current Locks Obsolete
The most fundamental security device in the world has been hacked in a way so simply and quickly, this could be considered the biggest hack in history.
Not the best news I've stumbled across, but its better to be aware of the potential problem. Also take this with a grain of salt, if someone really wants into your house, they will get in, bump keys just make it significantly easier. For more details, check out http://www.toool.nl/bumping.pdf
read more | digg story
Not the best news I've stumbled across, but its better to be aware of the potential problem. Also take this with a grain of salt, if someone really wants into your house, they will get in, bump keys just make it significantly easier. For more details, check out http://www.toool.nl/bumping.pdf
read more | digg story
New record for me
Over the past 12 days, I've been working a lot. No, make that a ton. Total hour count for those 12 days came in at 134 +/-1 hour. Lets here it for end of the quater scrambles.
Monday, September 25, 2006
Worried about the airline losing your luggage? No problem. Just pack a gun.
The airline wouldn't want to be responsible for losing a gun, right? That's one photographer's solution to making sure his expensive camera equipment is watched carefully by the airline when he has to check it as luggage. He packs a starter pistol in his camera bag and declares it as a firearm.
read more | digg story
read more | digg story
Saturday, September 23, 2006
One more item to add to your list.
Its the weekend, and I am sure you have a lot of fun stuff planned along with the To Do list, but I have just one more thing for you to add to it.
At some point in the next two days I anyone living in the US to head over to this site:
annualcreditreport.com
This site allows access to your free, congress mandated, anual credit report. It used to be that you had to pay $7-10 per site to take a peak at your report, but the companies finally yielded and are allowing 1 free report per year. You still need to pay in order to get your FICO score, but that current score is not as important as making sure everything is accurate, and nothing fishy is happening with your credit. I can go into further details if anyone wants but the fact of the matter is, go to this site, get your free report, don't pay for the score, and comb through it. It kind of like taxes, but just like taxes they are a part of finacial responcibility. So set aside the time
At some point in the next two days I anyone living in the US to head over to this site:
annualcreditreport.com
This site allows access to your free, congress mandated, anual credit report. It used to be that you had to pay $7-10 per site to take a peak at your report, but the companies finally yielded and are allowing 1 free report per year. You still need to pay in order to get your FICO score, but that current score is not as important as making sure everything is accurate, and nothing fishy is happening with your credit. I can go into further details if anyone wants but the fact of the matter is, go to this site, get your free report, don't pay for the score, and comb through it. It kind of like taxes, but just like taxes they are a part of finacial responcibility. So set aside the time
Thursday, September 21, 2006
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
How to Destroy the Earth With a Coffee Can
It's not as easy to destroy the Earth as you might think; evil geniuses everywhere have been trying for years. The problem lies with the fact that the Earth is pretty big (at least compared to you and me) and it takes quite a bit of energy to destroy it. There is a way however, to do it with nothing more than a coffee can.
read more | digg story
read more | digg story
Monday, September 18, 2006
The Middle isn’t Left, Right, or Wrong..
With elections just around the corner (But you already knew that because you’re registered and know exactly where to go right?) I’ve noticed a lot of hype about what this election could mean to the direction we as a country are headed. Pulling the layers back a little I also noticed another war that has been waged against Americans, the war against the middle.
With the political climate in this country constantly changing to become more and more polarized, it presents a frighteningly grim future. Why should we worry about a small group of extreme ideologist whom live thousands of miles away and hate us for what we do, we say, and how we act (don’t be fooled into thinking its just because what we represent). I ask that with one caveat, why worry about that group, when we have our own home grown extreme ideologists who pose a much greater threat to how the average American lives out their daily lives.
As much as I would like to throw most of the blame at the Right, which falls right into the trap I’m talking about. My views and political beliefs are heavily progressive, there is a lot wrong in the world, and there is a lot I feel we as a country could do to fix it. This statement is not conservative or liberal; in fact it’s both. I don’t think you could find anyone on either side of the spectrum that would disagree with it, but as always the devil is in the details. How one believes to approach these problems, and what their perceived level of importance is where you have disagreements. As with any point of conflict, there are a couple of paths that can be traveled in order to resolve it. The one I feel that is taken most often these days is the “I’m right, and you’re wrong” approach. Under this perspective, the individual has drawn the hard line and will never admit defeat. This farce is played out like a sport, the argument is revisited multiple times not to move it forward, but to see who can beat whom. The score is kept by counting the number of individuals converted from one side to the other. And if any form of victory is achieved, both sides will usually claim it, and explain how and why. Where do these clashes ring out, where are the bleachers set up in order to sway the largest amount of spectators? Smack down in the middle of the true mainstream.
Is it ok to be a moderate anymore? If you reject the preaching of the right and the left as too extreme either way, does that you condemn you purgatory in the eyes of both? Too much time is spent besieging these individuals, because both sides know victory can only be obtained by carving out the largest slice of the middle. Last time I checked, we were supposed to be a Democracy, but more and more, we look like a Republic. Issues are turned their head and if you happen to be on the right side of the majority, your views are rewarded, the rest of the 49.9% are left in the cold. This winner take all vantage point does so much more harm than any foreign power could ever do. It pits American vs. American, and is the breeding ground for statements such as “I believe they are more interested in Terrorist’s lives than American ones.” How are the people we are promoting Democracy perceive it when we American’s can’t even get the system to work right?
I’m not giving up on the system yet, just because we have traveled down the road of bitter partisan politics doesn’t lead to a single ominous fate. Instead of building political parties by drawing the middle farther right or left, lets try brining the two parties closer to the center. Face it, hard line politics of cutting out the majority of public beliefs to benefit the minority only serves to callus people further to the extremes. If I am a vegetarian, and I don’t eat meat by principal, trying to turn change society to fit my perspective is a dangerous, often abused practice
Lets say I was a vegetarian, and I was trying to make a difference. Let us also say it is my belief as a vegetarian, that we can lead happier healthier lives, if red meat was banned in the US. Once I reach this conclusion, I arrive at several different paths to promote this agenda. I may choose to act locally and protest outside of grocery stores, and hand out pamphlets with vegetarian recipes and information. Another method would to be an informational program that schedules presentations at area schools and community centers. There are many other spin-offs, but for the most part there are two main camps here, protest and education. All derivates of the options I have to promote this ideal are combinations in different degrees of these two methods. What is the most effective means that I could take? Well, there are still plenty of combinations, but in order to reach the widest market, you take a moderate stance. Advocating for decreased red meat consumption in an individual’s diet, and replacing that meal with a vegetarian may not get you exactly where you want, but it will have the biggest impact. Again we are left with a definition of what is victory in this arena, and if we play for all the marbles, it can get ugly.
The same right that gives you the voice to cry out against injustice, is afforded to those very same people you are crying out against. One can not exists without the other, and that is the grain of salt you must ingest before massing the troops. Paramount in these cases is the fact that principals do not ever solely justify the means.
When we paint each other with bold and inflammatory colors and tones, we only serve to further distance ourselves from fixing the problem. Calling someone a “great American” because they agree with you and are against the other side is just the opposite. To illustrate my final point, I choose the hotly debated topic of abortion. Would you rather live in a world that has little to no abortions because they are outlawed, or because they just aren’t needed as much anymore? The ends do not justify the means, and we are not as different as we all may think we are. Next time you have the chance, talk to someone who has an apposing view to your own. This time, don’t try and debate the topic, try to find some common ground first.
With the political climate in this country constantly changing to become more and more polarized, it presents a frighteningly grim future. Why should we worry about a small group of extreme ideologist whom live thousands of miles away and hate us for what we do, we say, and how we act (don’t be fooled into thinking its just because what we represent). I ask that with one caveat, why worry about that group, when we have our own home grown extreme ideologists who pose a much greater threat to how the average American lives out their daily lives.
As much as I would like to throw most of the blame at the Right, which falls right into the trap I’m talking about. My views and political beliefs are heavily progressive, there is a lot wrong in the world, and there is a lot I feel we as a country could do to fix it. This statement is not conservative or liberal; in fact it’s both. I don’t think you could find anyone on either side of the spectrum that would disagree with it, but as always the devil is in the details. How one believes to approach these problems, and what their perceived level of importance is where you have disagreements. As with any point of conflict, there are a couple of paths that can be traveled in order to resolve it. The one I feel that is taken most often these days is the “I’m right, and you’re wrong” approach. Under this perspective, the individual has drawn the hard line and will never admit defeat. This farce is played out like a sport, the argument is revisited multiple times not to move it forward, but to see who can beat whom. The score is kept by counting the number of individuals converted from one side to the other. And if any form of victory is achieved, both sides will usually claim it, and explain how and why. Where do these clashes ring out, where are the bleachers set up in order to sway the largest amount of spectators? Smack down in the middle of the true mainstream.
Is it ok to be a moderate anymore? If you reject the preaching of the right and the left as too extreme either way, does that you condemn you purgatory in the eyes of both? Too much time is spent besieging these individuals, because both sides know victory can only be obtained by carving out the largest slice of the middle. Last time I checked, we were supposed to be a Democracy, but more and more, we look like a Republic. Issues are turned their head and if you happen to be on the right side of the majority, your views are rewarded, the rest of the 49.9% are left in the cold. This winner take all vantage point does so much more harm than any foreign power could ever do. It pits American vs. American, and is the breeding ground for statements such as “I believe they are more interested in Terrorist’s lives than American ones.” How are the people we are promoting Democracy perceive it when we American’s can’t even get the system to work right?
I’m not giving up on the system yet, just because we have traveled down the road of bitter partisan politics doesn’t lead to a single ominous fate. Instead of building political parties by drawing the middle farther right or left, lets try brining the two parties closer to the center. Face it, hard line politics of cutting out the majority of public beliefs to benefit the minority only serves to callus people further to the extremes. If I am a vegetarian, and I don’t eat meat by principal, trying to turn change society to fit my perspective is a dangerous, often abused practice
Lets say I was a vegetarian, and I was trying to make a difference. Let us also say it is my belief as a vegetarian, that we can lead happier healthier lives, if red meat was banned in the US. Once I reach this conclusion, I arrive at several different paths to promote this agenda. I may choose to act locally and protest outside of grocery stores, and hand out pamphlets with vegetarian recipes and information. Another method would to be an informational program that schedules presentations at area schools and community centers. There are many other spin-offs, but for the most part there are two main camps here, protest and education. All derivates of the options I have to promote this ideal are combinations in different degrees of these two methods. What is the most effective means that I could take? Well, there are still plenty of combinations, but in order to reach the widest market, you take a moderate stance. Advocating for decreased red meat consumption in an individual’s diet, and replacing that meal with a vegetarian may not get you exactly where you want, but it will have the biggest impact. Again we are left with a definition of what is victory in this arena, and if we play for all the marbles, it can get ugly.
The same right that gives you the voice to cry out against injustice, is afforded to those very same people you are crying out against. One can not exists without the other, and that is the grain of salt you must ingest before massing the troops. Paramount in these cases is the fact that principals do not ever solely justify the means.
When we paint each other with bold and inflammatory colors and tones, we only serve to further distance ourselves from fixing the problem. Calling someone a “great American” because they agree with you and are against the other side is just the opposite. To illustrate my final point, I choose the hotly debated topic of abortion. Would you rather live in a world that has little to no abortions because they are outlawed, or because they just aren’t needed as much anymore? The ends do not justify the means, and we are not as different as we all may think we are. Next time you have the chance, talk to someone who has an apposing view to your own. This time, don’t try and debate the topic, try to find some common ground first.
Thursday, September 14, 2006
One mind pondering many...
The latest video I posted has touched on a subject I have been mentally analyzing for the past couple of years. Granted, the subject has been drawn into a clearer focus once I crossed the Madison Dixie line to in order help support my wife realize her dreams, but it has been there never the less. I guess you could boil it down to man, spirituality, and this journey we all travel together, life.
Its been an interesting trip for me, in my just shy of 30 years performing my own take of a walkabout, it still excites me when I think about what I might come across next. Along that path, I've seen first hand the core of humanity at its best. I will also always remember the time I was exposed to what the worst can lead too; when I wondered into the wrong neighborhood while exploring the south of France. But overall, it has been an incredible rewarding experience that I wouldn't trade for any amount of money. Picking back up to my original topic, there is one element in the world that troubles me the most, nescience. There are many forms where this element takes root, and many others where the environment may encourage its growth and spread.
The first, and most obvious, is where the individual or group of individuals live in an environment where education and knowledge just may not be available, or even suppressed. These conditions lead to a large part of what ails the world. One of such conditions that we as Americans feel constantly is out subjective war on terror. I could spend a lot of time on this issue, but that is for another day. The the form of discounting ideas, and sometimes slandering them I wanted to touch on today is the cognitive choice by the individual. The case I want to frame here is the topic of religion and science.
As a fair disclosure, I do have a degree in Biology, and do subscribe to the theory of evolution. But, I am not trying to pursued anybody in this posting, I just wanted to put out some observations on the topic of Evolution and Intelligent design, and the implications that may arise.
Taking it from the top, there are many things that are misunderstood from both sides of the argument here. The first element I wanted to look at was the criticism of the theory of evolution. Often I hear complaints that the lack of proof shows evolution is just that, a theory. There is plenty to work with here, but I wanted to remind people about the structure of scientific thought. When approaching science as a whole, there is more that we don't know than we do know. That is just the nature of the beast, as stated by Socrates "The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.' This is the fundamental filter that I feel we must all be most careful with. If an individual approaches a new idea with the self confidence that they know what is going on, the overall impression of that idea will have first passed though the prism of pre-conception. I am not saying this is necessarily a bad thing, but what I can say is that one is more likely to miss a few key details.
This is why I strongly object to the idea of teaching Intelligent Design along with Evolution in science classes. There are a few levels that I need to break this topic up to cover it correctly. The first element I wanted to look at was the fundamental difference between the two. Evolution is not a model that is meant to draw the final conclusion for you. Anyone who uses evolution as example in refuting the existence of God is a big of a fool in my mind as someone who thinks evolution means we are descendents of chimpanzees. Evolution is the mechanisms and pathways life as we know it develops and adapts on this world. That's just it, doesn't layout the story of where we began and where we will end up. The path of evolution can only travel as far as the latest generation. It is not a crystal ball where our future and fate will be revealed, but it is a study of how life as we know it got where we are today.
Intelligent design on the other hand, does provide a path by which it can extend beyond the latest generation available. By moving the mechanisms and pathways to a level which by all means are immeasurable, the theory is moved from a scientific study to a philosophical debate. This returns to my statement that one can not interject bias in order to provide an answer to that which they can not explain. Saying that the ocular eye is too advanced to have just happened, and must have been guided by some higher power is lazy, and teaches others to do so as well.
Well how does this play out? By placing Intelligent Design in science classrooms across the country, we provide an easy out for those students that grapple with the concepts presented by Evolution. I would rather have our students stand the line then take two steps back. The main reason I want them exposed to Evolution is that if there is a conflict found within that goes against what they personally believe, I want them to confront it head on. I have no problem with an individual that is exposed to the truth of what the theory of evolution presents, and is able to weigh them based on actual merit, and decides to go with a prior belief, I would be thrilled. Why? Because critical thinking was put in place under that situation, and the decision should be made for the individual, not for the individual appeasing others. Critical thinking, and the ability to distance ourselves ever so slightly from our own bias allows for understanding and growth. With the world is a state such that it is, I can not help but feel we need this more than ever. Because, last I checked, people were not willing to kill each other over their beliefs in evolution, or a divine method, well that is unless you were talking about which God was directing it.
Its been an interesting trip for me, in my just shy of 30 years performing my own take of a walkabout, it still excites me when I think about what I might come across next. Along that path, I've seen first hand the core of humanity at its best. I will also always remember the time I was exposed to what the worst can lead too; when I wondered into the wrong neighborhood while exploring the south of France. But overall, it has been an incredible rewarding experience that I wouldn't trade for any amount of money. Picking back up to my original topic, there is one element in the world that troubles me the most, nescience. There are many forms where this element takes root, and many others where the environment may encourage its growth and spread.
The first, and most obvious, is where the individual or group of individuals live in an environment where education and knowledge just may not be available, or even suppressed. These conditions lead to a large part of what ails the world. One of such conditions that we as Americans feel constantly is out subjective war on terror. I could spend a lot of time on this issue, but that is for another day. The the form of discounting ideas, and sometimes slandering them I wanted to touch on today is the cognitive choice by the individual. The case I want to frame here is the topic of religion and science.
As a fair disclosure, I do have a degree in Biology, and do subscribe to the theory of evolution. But, I am not trying to pursued anybody in this posting, I just wanted to put out some observations on the topic of Evolution and Intelligent design, and the implications that may arise.
Taking it from the top, there are many things that are misunderstood from both sides of the argument here. The first element I wanted to look at was the criticism of the theory of evolution. Often I hear complaints that the lack of proof shows evolution is just that, a theory. There is plenty to work with here, but I wanted to remind people about the structure of scientific thought. When approaching science as a whole, there is more that we don't know than we do know. That is just the nature of the beast, as stated by Socrates "The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.' This is the fundamental filter that I feel we must all be most careful with. If an individual approaches a new idea with the self confidence that they know what is going on, the overall impression of that idea will have first passed though the prism of pre-conception. I am not saying this is necessarily a bad thing, but what I can say is that one is more likely to miss a few key details.
This is why I strongly object to the idea of teaching Intelligent Design along with Evolution in science classes. There are a few levels that I need to break this topic up to cover it correctly. The first element I wanted to look at was the fundamental difference between the two. Evolution is not a model that is meant to draw the final conclusion for you. Anyone who uses evolution as example in refuting the existence of God is a big of a fool in my mind as someone who thinks evolution means we are descendents of chimpanzees. Evolution is the mechanisms and pathways life as we know it develops and adapts on this world. That's just it, doesn't layout the story of where we began and where we will end up. The path of evolution can only travel as far as the latest generation. It is not a crystal ball where our future and fate will be revealed, but it is a study of how life as we know it got where we are today.
Intelligent design on the other hand, does provide a path by which it can extend beyond the latest generation available. By moving the mechanisms and pathways to a level which by all means are immeasurable, the theory is moved from a scientific study to a philosophical debate. This returns to my statement that one can not interject bias in order to provide an answer to that which they can not explain. Saying that the ocular eye is too advanced to have just happened, and must have been guided by some higher power is lazy, and teaches others to do so as well.
Well how does this play out? By placing Intelligent Design in science classrooms across the country, we provide an easy out for those students that grapple with the concepts presented by Evolution. I would rather have our students stand the line then take two steps back. The main reason I want them exposed to Evolution is that if there is a conflict found within that goes against what they personally believe, I want them to confront it head on. I have no problem with an individual that is exposed to the truth of what the theory of evolution presents, and is able to weigh them based on actual merit, and decides to go with a prior belief, I would be thrilled. Why? Because critical thinking was put in place under that situation, and the decision should be made for the individual, not for the individual appeasing others. Critical thinking, and the ability to distance ourselves ever so slightly from our own bias allows for understanding and growth. With the world is a state such that it is, I can not help but feel we need this more than ever. Because, last I checked, people were not willing to kill each other over their beliefs in evolution, or a divine method, well that is unless you were talking about which God was directing it.
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
Ken Miller on Inteligent Design
If you have two hours to kill, please watch this. It's very enlightening, even for someone like me who supports evolution.
Thursday, September 07, 2006
Full Text of Letter from Bill Clinton Lawyer to ABC Obtained
The full text of the letter - which was first written about in today's New York Post. Bill Clinton's attorney, Bruce Lindsey, has written to ABC chief Bob Iger protesting the network's decision to air the 9/11 docudrama, "The Path to 9/11." The letter demands that the network pull the miniseries unless it corrects all its errors.
Even if you don't feel like sending ABC a message via Thinkprogress's site, please just avoid watching the show this weekend.
read more | digg story
Even if you don't feel like sending ABC a message via Thinkprogress's site, please just avoid watching the show this weekend.
read more | digg story
Yesterday
Even if I was feeling a little off yesterday, the vid gave me an idea. I'd like to try and expose a few people to some of the bands I have been digging lately. First off, the Mountain Goats with ther newest vid, woke up new. If you like their sound, try Dance Music, or This year. Enjoy!
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
Current mood...
This vid just kind of sums up how I'm feeling right now. Kind of out of sorts, but then that could just be what time it is.. who knows.
Siting
Standing
looking back at the crossroads that have just passed
were those the last that I may see
I guess time will tell
-Cya space cowboy
Awesome 3D Cellular Animation Video
XVIVO's recently completed animation, titled "The Inner Life of the Cell", has already won awards. The eight minute animation transports Harvard Biology students into a three-dimensional journey through the microscopic world of a cell.
read more | digg story
read more | digg story
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
Richard Clarke Blasts Key Scene In ABC�s 9/11 Docudrama
Richard Clarke -- former "counterterrorism czar" for Bush I, Clinton and Bush II -- explains why scene in the ABC docudrama "Path to 9/11," which makes the claim that the Clinton administration passed on a surefire chance to kill or catch bin Laden, is totally inaccurate and misleading. Clarke is currently a counterterrorism consultant for ABC.
Please follow up via this link: http://thinkprogress.org/abcsent/?status=refer
read more | digg story
Please follow up via this link: http://thinkprogress.org/abcsent/?status=refer
read more | digg story
Saturday, September 02, 2006
John Dean: "This is text book authoritarianism"
"Dean hits on a great point. By Rumsfeld and Bush associating terrorism to fascism implies that terrorism is more state based than ideological based, a definition that goes against all other definitions of terrorism. Since it does conflict with other, more appropriate definitions, it proves more so that Rumsfeld and the other administration official" - Crooks and Liars.com
I guess if things are not going your way, distract people from watching the raging inferno that you created by pointing away and shoutting Tornato!
read more | digg story
I guess if things are not going your way, distract people from watching the raging inferno that you created by pointing away and shoutting Tornato!
read more | digg story
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
