Religion gets no respect from the scientific community. It's understandable, since you can't prove it through trial and error or logic and reason. Still, it's no excuse to insult religion.
Apparently Yale professors say that there are some intuitive beliefs and understandings that begin in childhood and carry on to adulthood. Such beliefs stand in the way of science, because science is, unfortunately, not always as intuitive as we would like. Religion itself is one of those "childhood beliefs" that somehow continues on to adulthood. For some, this may seem like a problem. We can't let science education be stopped because people believe in something unscientific. How can you study the world when your world-view is fundamentally different from the view accepted by science?
Easy. It's called "faith."
Of course, faith is something that scientists don't have much of. They must see it to believe it. That's what they say, at least. Such theories as Creationism and Intelligent Design are for children, they say. Only uneducated people would trust so firmly in something so fantastic, unproven, and unseen. No thinking person would dare believe it, and even if they did, it means they have the mind of a child.
Interestingly, Jesus Christ told his followers to "become as little children."
Scientists, too, seem to run on a bit of faith when they try to explain evolutionary theory to people. From the adaptations and small changes over time that we have seen in the animal kingdom, apparently we are to assume that all life evolved from the same "soup" millions of years ago. Is it just me, or is that a huge leap to make? We see some small changes over time, and we automatically assume that's how all life started? Nice theory, but doesn't it take a little faith to make such leaps? But, according to Ars Technica, I shouldn't call evolution or Darwinism a "belief."
I readily accept what science has seen and discovered. I also believe in God. Possible? Yes. Mind of a child? Maybe. But I'll tell you this: I know some extremely intelligent people with incredible minds who also believe in God. They don't have five-year-old minds by any means. To say so is truly insulting.
Sorry, Windows or Linux folks, this one's not for you. But it's just frickin' cool!
With this, you can play any movie format QuickTime supports through the Terminal in beautiful ASCII deliciousness. It looks pretty cool. Might be a little hard on the eyes for the lower resolution videos, but... no matter.
As I dropped by Digg I noticed several comments about VLC and MPlayer having this capability as well. Doesn't matter. Think about it: With this, you can watch movies in the Terminal. Movies from a command prompt. It just doesn't get any cooler (or geekier) than that.
I found this funny.
Apparently some kid wrote an "indecent" article for some sex column in his University's campus magazine. The Hong Kongese have condemned it, and it sparked controversy on what other things should be considered "indecent." Interestingly, the Bible came up. I laughed.
The Bible talks about all kinds of sexual perversions, and that they should be strictly avoided. They're all nicely layed out in Leviticus, along with what punishments you get for doing them. There's the whole Sodom and Gomorrah story, where all the sexual perverts in those cities were totally destroyed. Then there's all the violence, with war and death and such... I mean, King Herod killed a bunch of innocent babies. How much more gruesome can you get? Don't even get me started on crucifixion...
It's all in there. Should it be considered "indecent," though? No. It was written in a much different time, where they wrote what needed to be written, without the government looking over their shoulder while they were writing it. Okay, so some of the kings got quite angry at the things the Jews and Christians wrote... but not because they were "indecent..." just because they happened to call everyone else evil. No one likes being called evil, of course.
At any rate... all I have to say is, if this type of thing was ever considered in America, there would be riots.
I come from a Mormon family, and I like to think of myself as strong in the faith. My dad is very much so, also. He loves Mitt Romney. Mitt Romney is a Mormon, too. Dad loves him because of that, and says he really likes some of his other positions and such... but... I could never see myself voting for Romney. Well... if somehow he won the primary, and he was up against Hillary Clinton, and there were no suitable third party candidates to pick... maybe I would. We'll see when we get to that point. But here's why I wouldn't:
Mitt Romney says that some people might be troubled by Mormonism's former practice of polygamy, which was ended in 1890. He even goes so far as to call it "awful." Hmm. Calling something your founding prophet called a revelation from God "awful?" I guess I'd add that to Romney's former pro-choice, pro-abortion stance. I don't think any thinking Mormon should advocate abortion, if he knew anything about his own religion. Of course, he's changed that stance in recent years, so I'll have to give him points for that. But it's just a little unsettling...
His recent comments on polygamy may or may not have been prompted by the recent PBS series on Mormonism, where they spent a great deal of time on polygamy. As I see it, it was woefully misrepresented, and it is a terribly misunderstood doctrine, even by those inside the Mormon church. As we see, Romney seems to be one of those who doesn't quite get what it's about. It's not about some guy going out and marrying a bunch of women because he feels like it, without their consent. It's about God saying "I've decided you need to marry this particular wife," and giving that particular wife to him, by revelation, through his servant, the prophet. This happened the same way to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and a few other prophets in the Old Testament. Read up on it. It'll do you good.
As for Romney... Sorry, Dad, I won't be voting for him.
Wow. This article really lays it down.
The five enemies of the future: Baby Boomers, the movie and record industry, cell phone providers, and Web 2.0. The basic point, to me, is that none of these groups are really latching on to the future, when it could really help them make more money, make their lives easier, and secure a brighter technological future. The most interesting part to me is the inclusion of Web 2.0. This, of course, seems to be the wave of the future, but it's only become what everything else is: big business and big money, bent on keeping the stream of money coming in without changing a thing.
The MPAA and RIAA seem to be doing just that, as well. They're scared of technology, and treat every one of their customers as criminals. I could go on and on about the incredibly stupid things the RIAA is doing, but I won't. All I'll say is that they could be making a ton more money if only they'd embrace technology, as well as taking a few risks and innovating a couple other things... because they're stuck in 100 years ago... But it only makes sense that they truly embrace the technology of the day, because, let's face it, their customer base is basically wired. Well, some of them have gone wireless... but that's beside the point.
Then, of course, the article talks about the government holding it back, mainly with crazy copyright laws and digital management laws. This is because they are from the generation that all of the record and movie company execs are from, and so they are easily swayed by the propaganda. As the article says,
"...The most heinous attack on innovation is the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which made it illegal to get around a copy protection program, to make a tool to do so, or to even attract attention to such a tool."
My favorite such tool was discovered a few years back, which worked with CDs that wouldn't play in your computer, was duct tape.
But all of this is just sad. Whenever I read science fiction books about the "future," it's always fantastical and amazing technologically, and lots of the older ones are talking about the time period we live in now. Think about this: without such enemies of the future, would we have made it to that fantastic sci-fi future already?
I already posted the story about the woman getting offended by the anti-God cup at Starbucks. Starbucks apparently didn't care very much.
They say they'll continue to print the anti-God cup, along with another one that goes something like this:
"Heaven is totally overrated. It seems boring. Clouds, listening to people play the harp. It should be somewhere you can’t wait to go, like a luxury hotel. Maybe blue skies and soft music were enough to keep people in line in the 17th century, but Heaven has to step it up a bit. They're basically getting by because they only have to be better than Hell." -- Joel Stein, columnist for the Los Angeles Times.
Heh. I'll tell you what, the traditionial concept of Heaven seems boring to me, too... so I kind of agree. Good thing I'm not a mainstream Christian... Mormons don't count, right?
But seriously, it would seem from these cups that Starbucks is not only trying to stir up discussion, but controversy. I wrote this in my earlier post as well. The WND article, however, writes that Starbucks has these little beauties printed on their cups as well:
"You are not an accident. Your parents may not have planned you, but God did. He wanted you alive and created you for a purpose. Focusing on yourself will never reveal your purpose. You were made by God and for God, and until you understand that, life will never make sense. Only in God do we discover our origin, our identity, our meaning, our purpose, our significance, and our destiny." -- Dr. Rick Warren, author of "The Purpose-Driven Life."
"It's tragic that extremists co-opt the notion of God, and that hipsters and artists reject spirituality out of hand. I don't have a fixed idea of God. But I feel that it's us – the messed-up, the half-crazy, the burning, the questing – that need God, a lot more than the goody-two-shoes do." -- Mike Doughty, musician.
These two have stirred up just as much controversy as the anti-God cups. It's interesting, isn't it? Speech may be "free," as in you can say what you please, but it's certainly not "free" as in it doesn't come with a price. Starbucks prints a couple anti-God cups and gets in serious trouble. It then prints some pro-God cups and gets in the same amount of trouble. Can't win, can you?
So, I say to Starbucks, unlike the former time, that you can keep printing whatever you want. It doesn't matter, because no one will see any of it as balanced and fair. The only way it will work is if one person sitting at a table has the anti-God cup and the other has the pro-God cup. What are the chances of that?
Interesting interview on CBC:
Richard Dawkins, the outspoken athiest, has written a book called "The God Delusion," which he says was written because of his disappointment in the tragedy that is the religious establishment. He sees the Bible as fiction and superstition, he sees the Christian God as a bully, and sees religion of all types as unneeded in the face of modern science.
Interestingly, however, he seems to be a lot nicer about all of it than some Christians I know, like, oh, Fred Phelps... It is true that religion has caused quite a few problems over the years, and it's no surprise to me that there are many people who steer clear of religion because of it. I've had friends who have told me that very thing, and I don't blame them, what with all the crap that's gone on and is going on in the name of religion. Christians had their Crusades, among other things, Jews have done their share of killing, Muslims... well, no need to elaborate. But it's really sad.
However, I don't think you necessarily need to blame religion itself for that. I'd blame the imperfections and evils of the people involved in religion. God obviously wanted everything to work out right, but man has his own free will and will do what he wants. Because of the need of faith for religion to function, man will create his own faiths and other religious reasons for doing things, and will even say that God told him to do it, when it's not true.
Faith is another point that was touched on, and I think it goes about as deep in the atheist mind as the "religion has messed up the world" argument. Where's the evidence? The evidence, as any good church-goer knows, is not to be seen, but to be felt and experienced. This, unfortunately, isn't good enough for Dawkins, or any other atheists. But it does make all those people in the past who have tried to use evidence, logic, and reason to prove the existence of God look a little silly. Because you can't. That's the beauty of it.
I, myself, do believe in God, and very much so. I would not be one, however, to shun Mr. Dawkins' book just because I thought it was hogwash. Hogwash or not, it seems like it would be intelligent and thought-provoking, and perhaps raise some questions that people hadn't thought of before. It wouldn't shake my faith, but make me think about it a little more. Fred Phelps, on the other hand...
This is really sad.
I've seen Loose Change. I've read all the conspiracy theories. I've heard all the bull. I've also seen it unequivocally debunked. However, it continues. People don't believe that there are people in the world that can pull off such a terrible attack without us knowing about it. Somehow, Bush is too dumb to be president, but smart enough to know everything that's going on in his country. Uh... yeah, he can't be both, to my understanding. Give him one or the other. Of course, if Bush was smart, that would make him a good president, and we can't be saying that.
But... of course, I said I wouldn't get into politics. This is because I hate politics, for this very reason. But it just goes to show what people are dumb enough to believe.
I felt really dumb posting this. I really don't like getting into abortion debates, but I thought this article was interesting:
I find such articles interesting because I see a fundamental misunderstanding of the abortion issue. The story itself begins after the woman is already pregnant, as do most stories of this nature. Then, the question becomes, "What do we do with this baby?" There's basically three options: Keep it, abort it, or put it up for adoption. Keeping it is what I like to call "living with the consequences of your actions," because the choice to be made after you already have a baby is not the important one. Women who are pro-choice all yell and scream about the woman's right to do what she wants with her body, and the fact that it's her choice to do whatever. This is true. Maybe you should have reminded her of that fact, and the choice she was making, when she chose to have sex with that guy. That, to me, is the real choice. What happens after that is only secondary. The abortion debate, to me, is only a way for people to try to get rid of the consequences of just having sex whenever you want. If there's no possibility of a baby, why worry about it?
I find the frantic "What are we going to do??" that comes after the realization that the girl is pregnant to be amusing. It's as if they didn't know the possibility of pregnancy when they had unprotected illicit sex. Obviously, they didn't think about it, but they knew it. They should have thought about what they were going to do before they did it. "Planned Parenthood" should think about that type of planning first.
But, yeah. I did feel really dumb posting this, because I'm a man, and I obviously shouldn't have any say in this, but... well, there it is.
Wow. Now they've done it. Not only are they trying to conquer the world, but they're trying to take out God:
But seriously, Starbucks has been making a series of cups for the last couple years entitled "The Way I See It," where they ask a Starbucks customer a question about a certain topic, then put their opinion in a cup. It's supposed to spark intelligent discussion on such topics. Unfortunately, such cups have only sparked controversy, such as the one cited in the article, and another one on homosexuality. The anti-God cup reads:
"Why in moments of crisis do we ask God for strength and help? As cognitive beings, why would we ask something that may well be a figment of our imaginations for guidance? Why not search inside ourselves for the power to overcome? After all, we are strong enough to cause most of the catastrophes we need to endure." - Bill Schell
Bill is apparently a customer who doesn't believe in God. The article states that Michelle Incanno, another customer, was offended by it and will no longer return to Starbucks because of it. Hmm... I've always thought that trying to start intelligent discussion and debate on certain topics was a good idea, because it makes people think a little more. Maybe one of the cups has something profound on it for people to think on, and will spark a debate. However, it seems that Starbucks is only creating controversy and driving its customers away with such statements on their cups. Another incidence cited in the article is from 2005, when a pro-homosexual cup came out:
"My only regret about being gay is that I repressed it for so long. I surrendered my youth to the people I feared when I could have been out there loving someone. Don't make that mistake yourself. Life's too damn short." - Armistead Maupin
Personally, I don't have a problem with such statements. I don't agree with them, but if one of them was on my cup, I would'nt really mind. I'd think it was a mite strange, but not really give it a second thought. It might spark a discussion, sure, and then I might have a very interesting conversation on it. It is unfortunate that I don't drink coffee, so I can't engage in any such coffee shop discussions, but I guess a blog's good enough for now.
Basically, it sounds like a good idea on the surface, but... well, does it actually work for the majority of the people? Probably not.
Quick Link: Gamasutra
The Other Steve behind Apple Computer, though he doesn't work there anymore... but he's had quite the wild ride with games, computers, and such. Good article.
So, the idea of man's creation turning against man has been around for at least a century. "Frankenstein" was the first science fiction story ever written, and was, of course, the first use of the word "scientist." It was also the first to discuss such a subject, at least in modern times. The Daily Mail article states that in Ancient Greece there was such talk, with mechanical servants of the gods. These days, it's not only in the realm of science fiction, but it's becoming a reality. We've seen that Japan has been the leading creator of such things, and is getting closer to creating what has been predicted in sci-fi stories for decades.
The question, though, has always been, "What if they go against us?" I've read a lot of sci-fi in my life, and I've seen about a 50-50 split in robot stories either being about good robots serving mankind and bad robots turning against them. The Daily Mail article, of course, gives a short history, and discusses one of my favorite authors, Isaac Asimov. What it fails to mention, however, is Asimov's coining of the "Frankenstein complex" within humans, that we are all afraid one of our inventions will turn against us. Some of the more famous examples in popular culture are AI's such as the HAL 9000 computer of "2001: A Space Odyssey" (and perhaps the lesser known Durandal and Tycho of the "Marathon" FPS game series), the machines of "The Matrix" and "Terminator" series, and, of course, Frankenstein's monster himself. They all show that even though man has created such things to serve himself, they don't want to be controlled by us and go their own ways. Asimov's "Bicentennial Man," while not turning against its creators, still feels a desire to do more with itself then just serve humanity. It's a basic trait of having higher cognitive functions: we need more meaning in life than mere menial tasks.
If we ever create a true artificial intelligence, will it turn against us and go its own way, or wish for more meaning in life, or do anything we hadn't programmed it to do? Or, for those who believe in a God or a great Creator: Haven't many of His creations done just that? Why should ours be any different? Not that I'm comparing us to God, but it only stands to reason, and observation of the Universe, that things would work the same way.
Religion aside, we need to be careful what we make. Either it might turn against us, or it might malfunction in some way... a creation can only live up to the standards of its creator, you konw...
Apple really is a stand-up company. I had always believed it, but now I'm sure of it. Check it out:
The article tells of a iTunes store customer who bought an album that seemed to have an unusually low volume. Fine, just turn it up... but no, the iTunes store sent an email to said customer telling of bad encoding, and offered a new, better encoded version for no extra cost. Wow. I've never had any problems with my iTunes music (though the movie quality could use a little work...), but if I ever did, I know that they'd fix it. :)
*bangs head against table*
I really hate it when I read stupid things like this. It just makes me angry.
Here's the scoop: A Chinese kid makes a mod for a video game (which game is not stated in the article), and puts it online for all of his friends to play. Seems innocent enough, right? Oh, and it's patterned after his school campus. Fine, no problem, right? It's just fun. Uh... apparently not. Some parents called up because they were disturbed by it, the police show up and search the house, take a hammer that was in his room because it was a potential weapon, and the kid was arrested and sent to some alternative school. All this for making a game mod which happened to look like his school.
To some, it's only justice. To others, like myself, it's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.
The first thing that strikes me is the confiscation of the hammer. There was a hammer in his room, and it was probably just sitting there on the floor. When the police searched his house, they took it because it could have been used as a weapon. True, such a device could have been used as a weapon, and has been before... but I found it interesting that because of this, as the article states, "They decided he was a terrorist threat." *blink blink* A "terrorist threat?" Because he had a hammer? Who doesn't own a hammer? Would it have been any different if it was in a toolbox with a screwdriver, or would that have been confiscated, too?
Secondly, I find it interesting that to any kid this would seem like a harmless game, making a cool mod that looks like your school and playing in it. One, kids spend lots of time there, so they're very familiar with it; two, it's probably well designed, so it has nice hallways and rooms for playing in; and three, it's your school. Who wouldn't want to play game in your school? I mean, not in real life, but in a game. Oh, I forgot... kids can't differentiate between fantasy and reality. Oops. Silly me... But the fact remains that no kid would see any problem with this. Many adults do, however.
This is the problem. Adults don't understand the minds of kids who play these video games. In the media, these video games are vilified, and everyone hears that these violent killers play them, so they must be dangerous. If your kid is making a map of his school... *gasp* He must want to kill real people!! We must stop him!
I can't understand people who think this way. I'm a 21-year-old college student who's played many of these games before (though I try to steer clear of the more gory ones). Most of these parents haven't. When the article quotes Richard Chen, the Fort Bend Chinese-American Voters League president, as saying "[Community members] all think the principal has to do something..." I think, "Do something about what?" What needs to be done? Why does anything need to be done? Who needs to do anything? I don't get it. It's a game.
It just makes me think about why the kid did it. He just wanted to play a game, and play it on a map of his school. The article never states if the kid was interviewed or questioned about his intentions in making the map. He probably just said "I thought it would be fun," which is a perfectly acceptable answer for me, but no adult would take that. He must have some type of evil motive... Yeah, he wants to waste time playing a video game with his friends. That's about as evil as it gets.
The racial issue in the article is a little disturbing, too, but I don't think that's very important to the story. If people think more Asians are going to start shooting up schools because of Cho Seung-Hui, they should realize that not only was Cho Seung-Hui Korean, but he was mentally insane. If anything, we should be looking into stopping the criminally insane from playing video games, and leave it at that.