xeronos

Spending time in the Gulf, I'm surprised at the level of knowledge of how to steal software and media. It seems that even the most non-tech savvy people, people who talk and act like my mom, know about torrents and how to fake your region in your browser to download content from Hulu and others. It shows me that people don't know what they are talking about when they say technology is too hard. It seems like technology is only hard to people who don't have an economic or cultural reason to learn how to use it. It's quite an interesting thought that technology is only as hard as your economy *increases* and easier as it *decreases*.

Trying out ping.fm. I may love this thing.

A mathematician figures out the opening chord to a Hard Day's Night.

This article at Vanity Fair about the making of the Godfather is one of the best articles I've ever read on it.
Favorite line from the article: "They fry garlic. Gangsters don't brown."

Too many motha'uckers 'ucking with my share I've got to put them in my 'ucking Netflix queue.

After a short discussion over on FriendFeed with some people about whether or not religion allows for independent thinking, I wanted to give a fuller response rather than trying to present my argument in snippets.

Religions at the core profess to only be knowable by faith which is by definition an absence of proof. Thought which follows a logical line and openly assesses argument and foundation can lead to a type of proof. In other words, one can reasonably intuit that something is true or plausibly true. This forms the basis of a hypothesis which can be refuted or proved further. Religion at its core cannot be proven and actively refuses any such proof. So, while it is easy to quote scripture or holy writings which profess to encourage open thinking and discussion, fundamentally, every religion by its nature only allows open thinking and discussion to the point at which it is still acceptable and consistent with the basic tenets of the religion.

Many religious people will tell me that there is a difference between the texts of a religion and the people who wield control or practice the religion. It is an impossibility to separate the adherents of a religion from the leaders of a religion. For and foremost, the leaders of a religion are inherent to the continued success of a religion in its contemporary form. Without a strong central leadership, a religion will quickly be infused with borrowed concepts and dilution from surrounding cultural and ideological influences. So, too, can you not separate the adherents from the religion because they make a willing acceptance of the tenets of that religion. It's akin to a train rigged with explosives that says on the side, 'This train will explode in the middle of a city in 30 minutes killing women and children.' Can you hold blameless the people who boarded the train but did not stop it? Or the conductor? Or the people who maintain the tracks? Or anyone who sees the train, reads the message and does nothing to stop it?

Open thinking can only lead to one firm conclusion when it comes to religion. The only conclusion is that no one knows or can know whether or not a God exists independent of a person's own conviction. Even atheists (all the honest ones anyway) will agree that they do not know and cannot prove that God doesn't exist. They can only reasonably surmise the probable truth. I have yet to hear a religiously convicted person make such a claim. The simple fact remains that every religion for its own sake and future must stop people from thinking beyond the point at which it could be decided that the religion has no merit or value. Therefore, though there may be some reference to open thinking and engaged thinking, it is always qualified by the notion that at the end of it, all doubts are suppressed not by thought but by faith (the absence of thought). Therefore, religion and any text supporting any faith system of any kind, must at its core and by its definition be anathema to open thinking for the pursuit of truth.

Grade Inflation is real. But apparently some of the problem is that students think that doing the minimum earns them a top mark. I remember when getting an A meant something.

Seriously, I read this and my jaw dropped. Not only at the hilarious footnotes but the incredible story of how a language came to be made up almost entirely of adverbs. A bit longish but well worth the read.

Can you imagine the Bush administration having this kind of openness? The Middle Class Task force itself is a break from the long dry quiet times under Bush. Not even Clinton had something like this. That's not really fair. The internet didn't have anywhere near the penetration to make this worthwhile. This is the history that people will talk about in the textbooks about this administration, whether or not the policies of the president succeed or fail.

This one is my favorite. Why don't I like this cool in my own hat?