Liberals and Guns: What’s the deal?

Posted on by

Attention Liberals! I am with you, I agree with you, we are for the same things. For the most part I think we completely own the high road here. You’re not the ones attempting to destroy the future of our civilization simply because you’re bitter about political losses, and you’re not the ones trying to cover our racism in a thin veil of indignation.

Why though, is intellectual dishonesty okay when it comes to guns? Do you not understand that your glib mockery makes you look completely inept and hardens the attitudes anyone who might be on the fence against you?

Number one: You know nothing. Stop using the words “machine gun” and “automatic weapon”. This causes anyone who knows anything to think you are stupid. Automatic weapons/machine-guns are illegal on a federal level, and nobody was carrying any of those. Please understand what you are talking about before you open your mouth, otherwise you’re really no better than the uninformed propaganda-spewing FOX hosts we do so enjoy making fun of.

Number two: Isn’t being open-minded sort of something we’re trying for? Isn’t not being arbitrarily hateful to an entire class of people sort of one of the platforms we’re attempting to stand on? I’m completely willing to agree with you that some of the people out there carrying assault rifles to meetings may just be crazy anarchist militia members, and I don’t much care for those people any more than you do. Is it that hard for you to allow for the possibility that not everyone carrying a gun IS a crazy anarchist militia member though? Owning and/or carrying a gun does not mean that someone wants to kill your dog. Let’s keep in mind the differences between causation and correlation here.

Number three: What’s so bad about guns anyway? There have been discussions on many interesting issues such as gun rights, health care, NASA funding, and making fun of FOX hosts, and I think it’s been enjoyable for everyone. Would it surprise and terrify you to learn that during many of those conversations there was a gun present? You really shouldn’t assume that just because someone is on your side that they’re as biased as you are. Admittedly it may not have been an assault rifle, and hopefully you never knew of it’s existence, but the point was that it was there. Does that change the validity or value of the conversations?

I know that one of the standard responses is “Concealed isn’t the same as visible”. I call bullshit. Carrying visible vs carry concealed should not make a difference to anything other than the tactical approach of the carrier. When you sit across a table in a restaurant from someone discussing your view on health care you have to allow for the possibility that they may in fact be carrying a gun. You must allow for this possibility. How does knowing that they’re carrying a gun make things any worse? If they’re the type of person who you fear might do you physical harm because they disagree with you, you shouldn’t probably be having dinner with them in either case!

For anyone still concerned with the very concept of someone carrying a gun, that is a different issue which we should discuss separately. (I would refer you to Dave Grossman’s “On Sheep, Sheepdogs, and Wolves” as an entry point to this discussion.)

It’s also worth noting that I believe that a weapon is only a tool. A gun may be a more powerful tool, but in the end it’s no different than the difference between a spring rake and a shovel. Different tools, different jobs. Guns are not evil, people are evil. Go ahead and say “look at those crazy loonies!”, but reasoning that they are crazy loonies because they have guns is intellectually dishonest. An evil person will perform evil acts, by gun, by knife, or by fist, just as a good person will perform good acts using whatever tools they have available. A person is a weapon, when they so choose to apply themselves.

The point that I am trying to make here is that fanatically clinging to “guns are evil” completely ruins your credibility as an seeker of change and truth, and makes you appear to be as closed-minded as any racist. Yep, I’ll happily say it. Discrimination based on “you’re different than I am” is equally bad, no matter what that difference is.

I’m white, I’m tall, and I use and carry many variety of tools. Which of these do you think is okay to hate and deride me for?

A thought on Morality and Justice

Posted on by

Watching an interesting documentary about the european sex slave “industry”. Apparently in Turkey if a girl escapes from her pimp and gets to the police she’s got a pretty decent chance of having the police return her to her pimp. The life these girls are subjected to is horrible, and the apparently a blind eye is turned in large portions of the world.

In very many cases the pimps who are perpetrating these are very clear cut, very easily identified, and there is no possible question of their intentional commission of unquestionably evil acts. Kidnapping, slavery, abuse, sexual exploitation, are these gray areas in any possible way? When someone who has kidnapped hundreds of people is not even pursued by the police, and another is given 5-years probation, is there any question that something must be done?

Hypothetical situation: A large security firm, or even nation, decides to take care of the issue and sends in teams to black-bag these unquestionably guilty people. (Leave them dead on the floor, or “extradite” them to a prison somewhere for the rest of their lives, take your pick.)

Clearly this violates the right of the host nation, which could be an act of war, which which is bad. Ignore that part. Maybe the nation never finds out.

Is it moral?

If a dog was running loose through a neighborhood biting people it would be put to sleep. Why should not we extend the same courtesy to humans who follow the same pattern of behavior? Could removal of such clear and present threats actually be a sign of a truly civilized society, interested in the well-being of all?

I would like to think on this further. If you have any suggested reading material or resources please leave a comment. There must be some wise philosophers who have muddled around this issue at some point.

Warehouse 13. Welcome to the stupid zone…

Posted on by

We just watched the first episode of a new (?) “SyFy” show called Warehouse 13. Let me tell you what it is: Men in Black meets Eureka meets X-Files. With everything interesting from any of them taken out, a horrible special effects team (Look, when I *SAW* the green on the green screen you need to get a new job buddy), and writers who, based on their apparent belief that they’ve invented something new that nobody has ever done before,? may have just graduated 8th grade.

Beef #1: I don’t even NEED to watch the rest. I’ve seen it. After seeing this one episode I predict the following things will happen within the first few episodes: (I’m not including all the incredibly obvious “something bad happened in his past? HIS DAD DIED YOU MORONS” moments in the pilot.)

  • One of the team gets kidnapped. This causes team bonding all around and further cement the team’s new assignments.
  • Security issues. Someone sneaking around inside the warehouse, probably stealing stuff. It will likely be revealed later that they are exporting these artifacts as weapons, possibly to a competing government agency with some sort of cryptic (yet clearly nefarious) acronym for a name.
  • We will encounter an artifact causing people to behave scandalously. Sex sells, and we’ve gotta get it in soon! This being a scifi (oops! “SyFy”) show “scandalously” of course will mean perhaps a bit of heavy breathing, possibly someone in a shortish skirt. C’Mon, when the alien artifacts make your brain lean toward the pleasure center you get naked and have an orgy in town square until nobody can move a muscle. Nobody ever takes these artifacts seriously enough I say.
  • MOST likely, someone on the team will get into trouble somehow, once again causing lots of nice team bonding as everyone goes around trying to prove that their new best friend isn’t actually involved with nefarious-acronym agency stealing stuff. This is actually a re-hash of the kidnapping episode cleverly disguised. Sadly for the writing staff it’s an adaptation of the same script so they didn’t actually get paid for this one.

Beef #2: Is it really THAT hard to try and be a little original with your science/tech? My pal Big Frankie C commented on a recent post:

My beef is that writers always complain about how hard their job is, and it is a hard job, but they are very very lazy. Real science is every bit as entertaining as junk science, and is just a easy to film. The only place it is harder, is in the writing. If you’re writing a script, all you have to do is find a scientist (the internet works pretty good here) and you can get all the free advice you need.

I can’t even add to that. I KNOW your show is about paranormal, but can we perhaps just once try just one tiny little bit to have something plausible and/or possibly related to paranormal things in ways that we agree are not understood? Don’t use phrases like “pandora’s box” if you don’t want to look stupid okay? ONE well timed placement of the phrase “quantum entanglement” and I might be happy. Toss in a cat joke or two and heypresto, satisfaction. Pots that produce ferrets when you wish for something “impossible” bother me. If it grants wishes how can it be “impossible”? Hmmm? Schrodinger’s ferret? W.T.F?

In short: everyone involved with this show please quit your job and come become a homeless person here in portland for a year or so. Get some life experience, maybe a little perspective on the world. Stop pushing useless poorly created tripe on a public that very desperately needs a little bit of intelligence and original thought.

Look for my review of the movie “Moon” coming soon. I’ll give you a hint: it’ll be exactly the polar opposite attitude.

The next question, or: Robinson and Sturgeon! How could you go wrong?

Posted on by

The latest episode of Spider Robinson’s podcast (Spider on the Web) is a reading of Theodore Sturgeon’s story “Slow Sculpture”.

I really don’t know what to say about it, so I shall ramble. If I were ever to be half so wise as either of these men I would be happy.
It’s possible that I like it because I can easily identify with the main character . It’s also possible that I like it because it’s a very good story, told by a very good narrator. (And author of his own right.) It won the Hugo and the Nebula both, so that’s saying something!

Go listen. I’ll wait!

While you were listening we watched a show about the life and times of various medieval castes. It’s interesting how much people in those times argued and discussed issues, thought about big things. Minstrels as political rabble-rousers keeping people informed of the news is kind of fun. Interesting how involved the average person was though. This is somewhat relevant actually, so let’s get back to the story!

One of the things I love about this era of SciFi is the way they take the things that are happening (or will happen) and present them in a way that makes you question the world. Good stories should make you think about something and relate what you’ve just learned to your real world. You should be able to identify with the characters, understand the issues facing them, and bring something back to your real world.
How often do you get that on CSI eh?

Earlier today I was listening to some podcasts. The latest episode of Skeptoid and there were some ideas about why TV/Movie entertainment contains so much bad science. I agree with Skeptoid’s Brian Dunning. People just want to be entertained, and the people making the decisions about the entertaining are the ones who choose to allow thoughtless bad-science-filled tripe to become the order of the day. Don’t you think stories like Slow Sculpture are entertaining and interesting? Couldn’t we have stories like that as entertainment? I’m thinking of movies like Watchmen here, movies that actually may have some opportunity to make you think critically and analyze what you’re seeing.

Maybe I’m bitter and cynical, but it seems to me that people have no interest in what Sturgeon termed “Asking the next question”. Spider speaks on this issue often, including his indictment of humanities desire to return to space that you heard in this episode. (I highly recommend some of his other works on the topic. Look back through his podcast feed to the early episodes.) Why is it that people aren’t interested in things like returning to the moon? I would posit that it’s tied to the “just wanting to be entertained” issue. I shall try to write more eloquently on the subject someday.

Do you know that there was a monk (Eilmer of Malmesbury) who built himself wings, 900 years before the next manned flight? He flew 200 yards, and broke both his legs. But he said “It needs a tail!” and wanted to try again. Apparently his abbot forbade it. But he had it right! I find that amazing!

Ask the Next Question!

On the failure of tweets, RE: “TXTing”

Posted on by

One of the core failures of Twitter is that it’s based around a flawed idea. Text Messages. 140 characters. Shorten everything and use slang. Sure it’s become cute to try and manage your communications in 140 character bursts, but WHY? Holy flaming fig trees, it’s just not needed! I mean,? you may as well base your internet service around telegrams sent via morse code. The text message is an outdated idea, well past it’s prime. It may serve some historical purpose, much like Morse Code still does, but it is irrelevant to the future. Would twitter be as fun if you had to use all upper case, couldn’t use punctuation or non-alphanumeric characters, and had to say “STOP” at the end of each thought?
“TODAY WORK SUCKED STOP SOMEONE ATE MY LUNCH STOP HASHTAG FML STOP” is lacking in so many ways… Locking your service to the rules of an outdated and useless medium just doesn’t seem smart!

What you say? “It’s used my billions of people across the world! How can it be outdated and useless?”
They use it because they can. Simple as that. The cell phone companies provide it, including it’s outdated limitations, because it’s what you’re used to and what they can charge for. Never mind that it would be trivial to replace every SMS client in new phones with a Jabber (XMPP) app and install Jabber->SMS gateways to support legacy systems. (Okay, maybe not “trivial”, but you certainly see my point..) XMPP is a FAR better protocol by any standard. The vast majority of phones released on the market today would easily support this sort of change, “smart” phones especially. (You could even transfer seamlessly from your mobile device, to your computer, and back to your mobile device, without ever missing a message!!!)

Quick history lesson, if you need it. SMS, the “Short Message Service” operates on the control channel of your cell phone. This is a special data channel your phone uses to keep in contact with the towers and is always operational. This allows your SMS messages to get through even in the most dire of coverage areas, and even when your phone is in use, but is also what “limits” it to the 140 (actually 160) characters. Yes, I will concede that these are useful things about SMS that do make it stand out somewhat. I still thing we can design our way around it’s limitations though. However, there is no incentive to do so because even new “web 2.0” companies (like Twitter) are observing the limits of SMS and working within them! There’s nobody out there saying “hey, could there maybe be a better way?”

But my hatred of corporate greed and tyranny isn’t my only reason here! My love of language and clear communication weighs in rather heavily!

I am extraordinarily tired of slang and shortened “can I buy a vowel please Pat” words being used where they’re utterly unnecessary. And SMS is almost completely to blame for this change.
Now I know I sound like your college English teacher, railing against the evils of today’s youth… However, I think we can all get behind the idea that anyone who shortens “email” to “eml” in a non-space-constrained forum (in this case, facebook post) is a raving git. It’s completely and utterly unnecessary and the gross misuse of these sorts of shortenings obfuscates countless messages every day! (And by perpetuating mythical 140 character limit, Twitter perpetuates the cycle of social decay..)

Perhaps I just can’t help myself. I like to understand what people are talking about, and I very much like it when they understand what I am talking about. English has enough screwed up about it as-is, no need to intentionally make it worse.

Also, stick it to the man. That cell phone company is overcharging you out the ASS for those 140 characters, for no reason other than they really really like taking your money. Don’t fight the future. Evolve or die.

4 more days…

Posted on by

4 more days and I’m OUTTA here! It’s practically time to start packing!

I know for some people work gets harder the closer you get to a vacation, but for me it’s the opposite. C’Mon work, give me your best shot! Can’t hurt me, I’m almost freeee!

The experiment concludes. Social networking: meh.

Posted on by

So, I’ve been usin Twitter for a while now, and recently added facebook to my arsenal. This was hearalded by those who know me as a sign of the end times, but it was meant merely as an experiment. In fact, the facebook portion of the experiment lasted only a week before I learned all I needed. Now the experiment has concluded, and I’m dumping twitter/facebook in the trash where they belong.

Couple of core problems with the social networking scene as I see it:

  1. It remains a wasteland of self-centered indulgence. The very framework is designed not to encourage any sort of truly social behaviour, but to allow narccissistic indulgences (such as this?!) to proliferate with no regard for relevance or content. The utter banality of it amazes me. I want to have interesting conversations with people, not constantly watch comments about how someone’s cat just took a shit fly by. In traditional blogs people are at least somewhat encouraged to write interesting things because nobody will read or comment on them if you don’t! You have to keep the readers interested! “Social networking” has none of this. They’re going to be reading, if your content is good or not. I won’t completely discount Facebook as a way to have substantive discussions, but in my observation they seem to be more the weeds than the flowers.
  2. Social networking attitude. “why don’t you want to be my friend” is the only encouragement towards any sort of cooperative behaviour. Blackmail and guilt are a great basis for interacion and friendship, sure! “Be my friend” only extends so far as the little tag showing the number of people you’re friends with though.. Being someone’s “friend” grants only rights, without any accompanying responsibilities. You get to watch your “friends” fill out quizzes, talk about what they’re doing, maybe toss an “LOL” at other people once in a while, and it seems to encourage this shallow level of friendship. People may feel less alone by having 100+ “friends” that they chat about trivialities with. This also has the side effect of requiring less work than truly having and caring about even one single person. Also, when someone does something you don’t like you don’t feel like you have to fix the relationship, after all, you have over a hundred other friends to talk to.
  3. The overhead required! How do you balance what goes on facebook status, what goes on Twitter, what deserves a full blog post, and what simply doesn’t need to be said? I really don’t like the idea of having to maintain profiles and data on all these various sites either, especially when I have my very own location right here! For me I think this is the biggest issue. I like keeping track of what my friends are doing, but when you have to spend so much time spreading yourself across so many places, it really loses something. The problem goes both ways as well. Say I have a “friend” on Twitter who I follow because we have a bit of a shared history, and both like programming. He doesn’t tweet much about programming, but maybe he has a programming blog somewhere that I’m just unaware of because he doesn’t talk about it on Twitter. Because he has no centralized identity it’s difficult for me to see all the things he’s doing and choose what I’m interested in. (Turns out he also does some music stuff that I want to follow that he doesn’t tweet about much.)
  4. Eavesdropping. Yes, I’m guilty of it! I like to see what people are doing, and that’s the whole point of these sites! But what about when it turns out to be your boss, or someone looking to hire you? Twitter is all-or-nothing on the privacy issue, so you either lock yourself completely out of the crowd, or you’re completely open to everyone. Facebook has pretty good privacy capabilities, but is trending towards being more open.
  5. Walled Garden. This is very similar to problem 3 I suppose. I know I’m a geek but “Information wants to be free” is a guiding principle! I don’t care if you want to use Facebook. My problem is that in order to read your blog Facebook forces me to have Facebook as well! If you’re going to write interesting things, do it in a way that’s either public, or uses well-accepted security technologies to restrict access. I would love to add your blog to my Google Reader, honest! Use a tool that lets me! The Walled Garden issue is one of the primary reasons I don’t like Facebook, but am mostly okay with Twitter.

Or maybe, just maybe, the problem is completely different. Maybe I’m doing it wrong. “Josh is a socially retarded super-genius who doesn’t play well with others” is always a good fall-back position. 🙂
In truth, this may not be far wrong. In the end, I just have so very little interest in how things work on these sites that I’m not really interested at all in working with them. Maybe they work for some people, maybe I really am just that socially stunted in the real world that even the internet can’t help me.

What to do though? There are people who I know who I only really stay in contact with through either Twitter or Facebook. I’m going to miss them. As far as Twitter goes though, I’m adding people to my Google Reader feeds, so I can at least see what they’re doing and remember to shoot them an email once in a while. I would very much like people’s real blog addresses as well. Anything I can RSS, or add to my “blogs” bookmarks is great! And I’m going to try and work on blogging more here so anyone who follows me can say hi too. Feel free to comment, It doesn’t even require registration! (And OpenID is here too if you’d like to login as “yourself”!)

Now let’s see what we can do to do this the right way!

Delicious? How about “somewhat tasty”?

Posted on by

Delicious Library (Hah, you thought this was about food!) is a cool app. It’s pretty much the only game in town, and has also long been considered one of the premier mac apps in terms of visual style and workflow.

Where are the basic features though? Like secondary sorting characteristics? I really want to go through all my books and tag the “series” they belong to, but as delicious doesn’t sort “Series within author”, it’s kind of useless. This is especially annoying because the way core-data predicate searching works should make this decently easy to accomplish. iTunes has it (Album by Artist), and it’s really kind of an intuitive thing now that people are going to expect. (I’m actually really annoyed at Delicious Library right now, just because of this sorting issue!)

Here’s one of the downsides in working on cutting-edge platforms like Mac OS-X, iPhone App-Store, or the edge of webapp development. It’s a reaaaaally fast moving target. A feature that even a year ago would have been amazing, is now a major defect in your software if you don’t have it. You’re going to have to spend a lot of time chasing the target, and using whatever is left of your day to get ahead and innovate on your own.

This makes me wonder about doing development on any of these cutting-edge areas. I don’t know if I have that much time!

Things I learned from … facebook …

Posted on by

Yes, that’s right. I have joined the huddled and unwashed masses, and I now have a facebook account.

Allow me to set one thing straight though! The only reason that I caved: to destroy one’s enemy, one must first understand one’s enemy. I still think the concept is fundamentally wrong, but just my first 2 days in facebook has shown me some of the things it does astoundingly well, which are major hurdles to any attempt to replace the thing.

Here’s the thing facebook does right. Connect people.
The people facebook presented me with that it thought I might want to be friends with? Whew! It does it’s job pretty well! I did things step-by-step just to see what it would give me. When I entered that I worked at Apple, it gave me a lot of people. When I narrowed down that I lived in portland, it gave me people from my area, primarily people from my downtown store. When I the entered my email address it gave me a bunch MORE people. (I started with the address “facebook@joshproehl.com” just to test this functionality.)

It seems to remember anyone who’s ever searched for my name, my email address, or tagged anything with either of those. This is impressive, and something I have no idea how to duplicate when designing a distributed social networking service. This one thing (which I had previously overlook due to my anti-facebookery) ? may be the thing that makes facebook worth saving rather than destroying. At the very least it’s an incredible hurdle to overcome.

I’m going to go approve some people as friends so that I can “write on their wall” in a snide and demeaning tone.