I used to wonder why my cat made odd, uncatlike utterances sometimes. When pressed by boredom, aggravated by the overwhelming desire to go outside, which is a constant craving, he will make a long, strange howling sound. I used to worry he was suffering from a physical ailment or temporary insanity. Today, I had the inspiration that he is trying to talk. It would be only natural to imitate a human practice that he has observed every day of his life and which brings us humans so many obvious benefits. We are able to communicate and cooperate effectively due to talking, and the cat is intelligent enough to grasp that and to desire this ability for himself. If he could talk, he could express his desires and perhaps even persuade us to do his bidding. He has not enough brain development to manage any words. I have never recognized any syllables.
I wish that such a cat could be bred through successive generations for hundreds of years in a nurturing environment that encouraged the development of intellectual gifts. It would be interesting to observe the end result. Maybe Heinlein's talking cat is not such a far-fetched notion after all.
Saturday, May 10, 2014
Penetration
Meditation means different things to different people. To me it means sitting and thinking, occasionally with the assistance of mystical herbs. It is also possible to not think and just do. One is more productive that way, but what is the end result of this productivity? It is possible to be very productive and also wrong. Animals just do.
Richard Dawkins is widely misunderstood. I cannot even begin a discussion about Dawkins with some people, because they have already made up their mind. They have gathered enough falsehoods and exaggerations to inflame their passions against the man. They believe he espouses selfishness and capitalism. They will not listen. Those who do not listen cannot hope to understand. I do not bother discussing things with those who will not listen. They have ceased to possess a thinking mind. They are tools of another's thought.
I agree with Richard Dawkins in believing humans have a golden opportunity, because of our brains, to do other than what our selfish genes want. As Sarah Connor said in "Terminator 2," "There is no fate but what we make." No fate means liberation. Dawkins preaches a message of hope.
We can reflect upon things and try--but not necessarily succeed--to learn what is real and what is false. Everyone has opinions about things, but how often is it that one questions these assumptions? Perhaps a rule of thumb is true up to a certain point, but then the truth unravels upon further examination. Then the assumption must be cut back, reduced to reflect a deeper understanding. Thinking is the way and the light. Doing is of uncertain value without thinking.
What is true? What is untrue? These are difficult questions.
Where is safety? Where is danger? What are the threats, obvious and hidden? Some people never think about these things. From watching "I, Claudius," it is clear that Augustus was not a reflective man. He did not note the threats in his own palace until the threats bore fruit, and at the end for him, they bore literal fruit in the form of poisoned figs. Rome suffered as a consequence. Perhaps Rome was composed of fools. Romans, of course, were always doing, weren't they? Marching this way and that, shedding blood, teaching their neighbors to fear and hate and thirst for vengeance. How much thinking did they do? Rome imported its ideas from other places--Christianity, Hellenistic culture. Eventually, Rome collapsed due to bad ideas. That's the trouble with doing all the time and never bothering to sit down and think.
Richard Dawkins is widely misunderstood. I cannot even begin a discussion about Dawkins with some people, because they have already made up their mind. They have gathered enough falsehoods and exaggerations to inflame their passions against the man. They believe he espouses selfishness and capitalism. They will not listen. Those who do not listen cannot hope to understand. I do not bother discussing things with those who will not listen. They have ceased to possess a thinking mind. They are tools of another's thought.
I agree with Richard Dawkins in believing humans have a golden opportunity, because of our brains, to do other than what our selfish genes want. As Sarah Connor said in "Terminator 2," "There is no fate but what we make." No fate means liberation. Dawkins preaches a message of hope.
We can reflect upon things and try--but not necessarily succeed--to learn what is real and what is false. Everyone has opinions about things, but how often is it that one questions these assumptions? Perhaps a rule of thumb is true up to a certain point, but then the truth unravels upon further examination. Then the assumption must be cut back, reduced to reflect a deeper understanding. Thinking is the way and the light. Doing is of uncertain value without thinking.
What is true? What is untrue? These are difficult questions.
Where is safety? Where is danger? What are the threats, obvious and hidden? Some people never think about these things. From watching "I, Claudius," it is clear that Augustus was not a reflective man. He did not note the threats in his own palace until the threats bore fruit, and at the end for him, they bore literal fruit in the form of poisoned figs. Rome suffered as a consequence. Perhaps Rome was composed of fools. Romans, of course, were always doing, weren't they? Marching this way and that, shedding blood, teaching their neighbors to fear and hate and thirst for vengeance. How much thinking did they do? Rome imported its ideas from other places--Christianity, Hellenistic culture. Eventually, Rome collapsed due to bad ideas. That's the trouble with doing all the time and never bothering to sit down and think.
Avoidance
Negative people try to drag one down into the mud for a wallow. Usually, I find I have a choice. I look down, and there they are, my two feet. All I have to do is put one foot in front of the other and just walk away. Sometimes life really is that simple.
I, Claudius
"I, Claudius" is an interesting 1976 BBC miniseries with twelve episodes. Its success provided an incentive for the later epic, big-budget "Rome" of the twenty-first century. The 1976 show is not nearly as refined as "Rome," but the acting and writing is at least as good, if not better.
The show is close, I think, to certain historical texts, although Robert Graves did make some assumptions. I wondered whether Augustus was really as gullible as he is portrayed in "I, Claudius." The main facts are that he did indeed imprison his own daughter, and his favorites died one by one under mysterious circumstances. One cannot conclude that he was a good judge of character. I think that Augustus was an abject failure as an Emperor, because he botched his succession. Instead of appointing anyone worthy, he permitted others to choose Tiberius, which was disastrous for Rome. Tiberius was followed by an even worse Emperor, Caligula. These two mismanaged affairs of state very badly.
I think Augustus deserves at least some of the blame for the bad things that happened under his reign. Robert Graves implies that all the evil was the fault of his wife. However, Augustus was the one with real power. I doubt he was as gullible as portrayed in the show. I think he relied upon his wife for advice and intelligent ideas, which were sometimes useful, but he failed to perceive when she was manipulating him for her own ends.
The problem with "I, Claudius" is the loud, screeching theme music that accompanies both the beginning and the end. Whoever came up with that abominable sound should have been fired. A viewer would be prudent to mute the first and last minute of each episode.
Almost every woman on the show breaks down into tears and sobbing whenever there is a crisis. In my experience, this is not how women behave, but this is how women were portrayed in film due to the notions of the men that produced the films. I think that this more than anything else dates the show. I have to wonder why those actresses behaved so. Perhaps the director put them up to it, and the fault was all his. Perhaps the producers felt they had to meet audience expectations. The only really good actress on the show was the arch-villain, Livia, but "cold snake" seemed the limit of her range. At least she didn't burst into tears every time bad news arrived. I really doubt that ancient Romans behaved so, because they dwelt in a world of sudden death, unexplained mysteries, injustice, corruption and cruelty.
The show is close, I think, to certain historical texts, although Robert Graves did make some assumptions. I wondered whether Augustus was really as gullible as he is portrayed in "I, Claudius." The main facts are that he did indeed imprison his own daughter, and his favorites died one by one under mysterious circumstances. One cannot conclude that he was a good judge of character. I think that Augustus was an abject failure as an Emperor, because he botched his succession. Instead of appointing anyone worthy, he permitted others to choose Tiberius, which was disastrous for Rome. Tiberius was followed by an even worse Emperor, Caligula. These two mismanaged affairs of state very badly.
I think Augustus deserves at least some of the blame for the bad things that happened under his reign. Robert Graves implies that all the evil was the fault of his wife. However, Augustus was the one with real power. I doubt he was as gullible as portrayed in the show. I think he relied upon his wife for advice and intelligent ideas, which were sometimes useful, but he failed to perceive when she was manipulating him for her own ends.
The problem with "I, Claudius" is the loud, screeching theme music that accompanies both the beginning and the end. Whoever came up with that abominable sound should have been fired. A viewer would be prudent to mute the first and last minute of each episode.
Almost every woman on the show breaks down into tears and sobbing whenever there is a crisis. In my experience, this is not how women behave, but this is how women were portrayed in film due to the notions of the men that produced the films. I think that this more than anything else dates the show. I have to wonder why those actresses behaved so. Perhaps the director put them up to it, and the fault was all his. Perhaps the producers felt they had to meet audience expectations. The only really good actress on the show was the arch-villain, Livia, but "cold snake" seemed the limit of her range. At least she didn't burst into tears every time bad news arrived. I really doubt that ancient Romans behaved so, because they dwelt in a world of sudden death, unexplained mysteries, injustice, corruption and cruelty.
Monday, May 5, 2014
I Carried a Pocket Knife
A no-brainer news article points out that victims of bullies are more likely to carry weapons to school. Duh. When a person finds that their safety and well-being are at risk, that person will do whatever it takes to protect themselves. The principal is one of self-preservation.
Long ago, when I suffered from bullying, and the P.E. teacher made clear he would do nothing about it--other than punish me for complaining--I started carrying a pocket knife to school. But the little knife was not enough. I fantasized about carrying my gun and using it against the bully and the P.E. teacher. They deserved punishment for their actions, but on the other hand, I deserved only the best in life, and so I spared them. The same principal of self-preservation that led me to carry a pocket knife led me not to use it.
The desire for vengeance must be balanced with the potential cost. Sometimes, however, people are driven to such extremes that they no longer care about the cost. I fear some of the young killers of today lack the intellectual assets to calculate the costs. They are throwing away the best part of their lives and in some cases killing innocents, which is ugly and senseless and without any sense of honor at all. To harm innocents is to become a bully, to be just like the ones you hate.
The young killer's awareness about the world and about society is so impaired that he cannot predict the outcome of his deeds. I found it helpful to role-play with cold clarity and precision. This is the way to avoid grave errors that cannot be remedied. Role-play. The human animal has developed fantastic powers of imagination, because it is useful to predict the outcomes of actions. One can imagine the different futures arising from different strategies.
Many times, I imagined killing my enemy, the brutal and arrogant bully, using a variety of means. I imagined killing the cruel and heartless P.E. teacher. I imagined killing them both on the same day. I calculated the probabilities of success and the possibilities that something unexpected might happen. I imagined what would happen in the next minute, the next hour, the next day, and the years to come. I did not like what I saw. I also did not like the idea of violence. Vengeance is one thing, but violence is another. Violence is disturbing to me whether I am being hurt or hurting. It goes against everything ingrained in my personality and upbringing. The idea of committing a real crime and receiving the disapproval of others seemed worse to me than the idea of enduring further abuse.
Our society is pacifist. The only accepted outlet for violence is war, and wars happen overseas, far away. Most people are like me. We are taught to abstain from violence. There are consequences for people who engage in illegal acts of violence. There is no legal concept that permits premeditated vengeance.
In Viking society, the outcome would have been different. Vikings did not leave much in the hands of karma. Vikings were about vengeance. Vikings were about blood. There is something satisfying about that, something genuine, something that appeals to our animal nature. That does not make it right, but it does explain why the History Channel's "Vikings" is such an entertaining show. It seems to me the show is all about vengeance.
I do think it is important to eliminate bullying in schools, because violence is like a virus. Violence has a way of spreading, and not everyone calls upon their power of imagination to abstain from vengeance. Nor is everyone scrupulous in limiting collateral damage.
Long ago, when I suffered from bullying, and the P.E. teacher made clear he would do nothing about it--other than punish me for complaining--I started carrying a pocket knife to school. But the little knife was not enough. I fantasized about carrying my gun and using it against the bully and the P.E. teacher. They deserved punishment for their actions, but on the other hand, I deserved only the best in life, and so I spared them. The same principal of self-preservation that led me to carry a pocket knife led me not to use it.
The desire for vengeance must be balanced with the potential cost. Sometimes, however, people are driven to such extremes that they no longer care about the cost. I fear some of the young killers of today lack the intellectual assets to calculate the costs. They are throwing away the best part of their lives and in some cases killing innocents, which is ugly and senseless and without any sense of honor at all. To harm innocents is to become a bully, to be just like the ones you hate.
The young killer's awareness about the world and about society is so impaired that he cannot predict the outcome of his deeds. I found it helpful to role-play with cold clarity and precision. This is the way to avoid grave errors that cannot be remedied. Role-play. The human animal has developed fantastic powers of imagination, because it is useful to predict the outcomes of actions. One can imagine the different futures arising from different strategies.
Many times, I imagined killing my enemy, the brutal and arrogant bully, using a variety of means. I imagined killing the cruel and heartless P.E. teacher. I imagined killing them both on the same day. I calculated the probabilities of success and the possibilities that something unexpected might happen. I imagined what would happen in the next minute, the next hour, the next day, and the years to come. I did not like what I saw. I also did not like the idea of violence. Vengeance is one thing, but violence is another. Violence is disturbing to me whether I am being hurt or hurting. It goes against everything ingrained in my personality and upbringing. The idea of committing a real crime and receiving the disapproval of others seemed worse to me than the idea of enduring further abuse.
Our society is pacifist. The only accepted outlet for violence is war, and wars happen overseas, far away. Most people are like me. We are taught to abstain from violence. There are consequences for people who engage in illegal acts of violence. There is no legal concept that permits premeditated vengeance.
In Viking society, the outcome would have been different. Vikings did not leave much in the hands of karma. Vikings were about vengeance. Vikings were about blood. There is something satisfying about that, something genuine, something that appeals to our animal nature. That does not make it right, but it does explain why the History Channel's "Vikings" is such an entertaining show. It seems to me the show is all about vengeance.
I do think it is important to eliminate bullying in schools, because violence is like a virus. Violence has a way of spreading, and not everyone calls upon their power of imagination to abstain from vengeance. Nor is everyone scrupulous in limiting collateral damage.
Wednesday, April 30, 2014
A Safe Place
Safe places are a pleasant refuge for the mind, remembered locations or people that have a calming influence. On those occasional nights when I have trouble sleeping, sometimes I remember lunch at a dead friend's house. She and I had been friends a long time, but were not intimate friends, although we could discuss many topics, because she was well-educated and a real lady of the world. She was a Republican, and I have noticed that I do tend to get along really well with some Republicans, which leads me to conclude that politics are not very important in regard to friendships, not nearly as important as personality, style and taste. People of compatible personalities get along well whatever their politics.
We could hang out together at lunch time and just be. Sometimes we went for a walk, and other times we would just eat and then read the paper. I never watched television, although she kept it on all the time, I think because it filled her otherwise quiet house with the noise of other humans. Sometimes I discussed things with her, such as how my studies progressed, my job prospects, medicine and science, and occasionally politics. She was anti-war, for gay rights and for legalization of marijuana. I think she was Republican mainly for tribal reasons or possibly through inertia, because she had been Republican for so long and did not feel like going to the trouble of changing. The Republican party has changed a lot since back in the day. She expressed disapproval of the young upstarts, but identified with the old guard of the party.
She let her boundaries be known, and it was easy for me to respect those boundaries. Is it flirting to set one's dinner plate on the adjoining side of a table next to a friend, instead of setting one's dinner plate ten feet away at the opposite end of a table? A rare time she scolded me was when I did so. She said she did not want me to sit so close. I thought it was a good distance for talking, but I am used to smaller dinner tables, where everybody gathers around. I did like her, and the feeling was strong, even related to love, but I don't think it necessarily translates into anything of a physical nature. Maybe she saw things I did not see. At any rate, once I demonstrated strict observance of such boundaries as she chose to impose, the obstacle was removed. There was no tension of a sexual nature, the kind that poisons relationships between people. I admired her style and her way of looking at things, and I think my good manners is what she liked most about me.
I watched and listened carefully, because she would sometimes indicate things in a subtle manner, very indirect, and I had to be on my toes to know her feelings and predict her thoughts, but I became better with practice. I liked the challenge of that, and her refinement and sophistication endeared me to her. I could talk to her about things. Nothing that was a problem to other people was a problem to her. She interpreted the world on her own terms.
She was just always nice, welcoming, friendly, thoughtful, and in a word, safe. I had many lunches at her house, just her and me together, and it was very pleasant. She enjoyed my company as well. I wish I had stayed in contact after school ended, but the idea that she would want to stay in contact seemed presumptuous. She did not give sufficient encouragement to maintain and nourish the friendship. She probably had similar concerns.
Death has only made her safer, because the memories are impervious to change. So it is to her that my thoughts turn some nights. She was concealing, even then, I believe, the illness that just two years later took her life. I was then studying biology in college. A great irony is that I discussed cancer with her, expressing my amazement at how it uses the cells of the body against the body. I remember she had a poker face, as she often did, devoid of strong expression, but that she searched my eyes. She knew, and she was correct that I would have summoned help, had I known. I would not have let the secret lie untold, but would have contacted her family, because everyone thinks that it is the right thing to do, and I am no exception. Perhaps she had other plans. Perhaps she had an opinion that she knew was unpopular. I do wish I had been intuitive enough to perceive what was then concealed. I would have liked to discuss her decision with her.
We could hang out together at lunch time and just be. Sometimes we went for a walk, and other times we would just eat and then read the paper. I never watched television, although she kept it on all the time, I think because it filled her otherwise quiet house with the noise of other humans. Sometimes I discussed things with her, such as how my studies progressed, my job prospects, medicine and science, and occasionally politics. She was anti-war, for gay rights and for legalization of marijuana. I think she was Republican mainly for tribal reasons or possibly through inertia, because she had been Republican for so long and did not feel like going to the trouble of changing. The Republican party has changed a lot since back in the day. She expressed disapproval of the young upstarts, but identified with the old guard of the party.
She let her boundaries be known, and it was easy for me to respect those boundaries. Is it flirting to set one's dinner plate on the adjoining side of a table next to a friend, instead of setting one's dinner plate ten feet away at the opposite end of a table? A rare time she scolded me was when I did so. She said she did not want me to sit so close. I thought it was a good distance for talking, but I am used to smaller dinner tables, where everybody gathers around. I did like her, and the feeling was strong, even related to love, but I don't think it necessarily translates into anything of a physical nature. Maybe she saw things I did not see. At any rate, once I demonstrated strict observance of such boundaries as she chose to impose, the obstacle was removed. There was no tension of a sexual nature, the kind that poisons relationships between people. I admired her style and her way of looking at things, and I think my good manners is what she liked most about me.
I watched and listened carefully, because she would sometimes indicate things in a subtle manner, very indirect, and I had to be on my toes to know her feelings and predict her thoughts, but I became better with practice. I liked the challenge of that, and her refinement and sophistication endeared me to her. I could talk to her about things. Nothing that was a problem to other people was a problem to her. She interpreted the world on her own terms.
She was just always nice, welcoming, friendly, thoughtful, and in a word, safe. I had many lunches at her house, just her and me together, and it was very pleasant. She enjoyed my company as well. I wish I had stayed in contact after school ended, but the idea that she would want to stay in contact seemed presumptuous. She did not give sufficient encouragement to maintain and nourish the friendship. She probably had similar concerns.
Death has only made her safer, because the memories are impervious to change. So it is to her that my thoughts turn some nights. She was concealing, even then, I believe, the illness that just two years later took her life. I was then studying biology in college. A great irony is that I discussed cancer with her, expressing my amazement at how it uses the cells of the body against the body. I remember she had a poker face, as she often did, devoid of strong expression, but that she searched my eyes. She knew, and she was correct that I would have summoned help, had I known. I would not have let the secret lie untold, but would have contacted her family, because everyone thinks that it is the right thing to do, and I am no exception. Perhaps she had other plans. Perhaps she had an opinion that she knew was unpopular. I do wish I had been intuitive enough to perceive what was then concealed. I would have liked to discuss her decision with her.
Firefox Wants to be Like Chrome
I was using Firefox because it did not look like Chrome.
With version 29, it is plain that Firefox wants to look just like Chrome. Fine. What's the advantage in using Firefox, again?
I think Mozilla has lost its way. If they would develop some real features for Firefox, it might regain market share. Instead, they just continue to make unfortunate design blunders that will drive existing users away from Firefox.
Cluelessness is evident here. Chrome will always be the best Chrome. If you want to become just like Chrome, guess what, users will choose the real Chrome.
I've made a decision.
Whenever I install a new system for my users, I'm going to install Chrome, whether the system is Windows or Linux. No need to mess around with Firefox anymore, because Firefox is just a Chrome wannabe, without the good Flash support.
It puzzles me why a big software company like Mozilla would go out of its way to render its flagship browser ugly and user-unfriendly. But then again, as demonstrated by their recent choice of CEO, clearly those people do not have the best judgement when it comes to strategy.
With version 29, it is plain that Firefox wants to look just like Chrome. Fine. What's the advantage in using Firefox, again?
I think Mozilla has lost its way. If they would develop some real features for Firefox, it might regain market share. Instead, they just continue to make unfortunate design blunders that will drive existing users away from Firefox.
Cluelessness is evident here. Chrome will always be the best Chrome. If you want to become just like Chrome, guess what, users will choose the real Chrome.
I've made a decision.
Whenever I install a new system for my users, I'm going to install Chrome, whether the system is Windows or Linux. No need to mess around with Firefox anymore, because Firefox is just a Chrome wannabe, without the good Flash support.
It puzzles me why a big software company like Mozilla would go out of its way to render its flagship browser ugly and user-unfriendly. But then again, as demonstrated by their recent choice of CEO, clearly those people do not have the best judgement when it comes to strategy.
Tuesday, April 29, 2014
Elizabeth Warren
I watched the Daily Show with the interview with Elizabeth Warren. She was eloquent and intelligent, with a certain power of persuasion. I believe what she says about the need for financial reform. I would vote for her if she ran for President.
I think it is likely that the next President will be female. It is time, and I think it is the right thing to do. It would give a boost to women. Either Warren or Clinton would make a good candidate for the Democrats.
I think it is likely that the next President will be female. It is time, and I think it is the right thing to do. It would give a boost to women. Either Warren or Clinton would make a good candidate for the Democrats.
Speak Softly
For me, anger is an artifact of youth. I was a spirit of fire. As well as being enthusiastic and zealous in love and friendship, I was quick to wrath and slow to cool. In fire, I saw kinship. I am not sure, but I think this was because I encountered so many other spirits of fire in school, in my neighborhood and in my own family. Of course my thirsty young mind drank deeply of their knowledge, ideas and opinions, absorbing their poisons like a plant growing in polluted water, and so I practiced what I learned.
One of the lessons I've learned with advanced age and from the influence of my good friends is to speak softly. Anger still occurs to me as a potential method of handling grievances and disputes, but I feel it is counter-productive, not necessarily to those I'm angry at, but to myself. My heart hates anger and loves to love. I like to love and hate to hate. I don't like getting angry and don't feel that there is much in the world worth getting angry about. Perhaps it is worth getting angry about something that threatens the well-being of a loved one, but such occasions are few. Most disputes I like to handle with a soft touch nowadays. I think of this as getting in touch with the deeper self, the true self, my full potential.
I find that understanding and empathy, which I am lucky to be endowed with, score points with people and gain me more in friends and allies than would anger. I have powers of negotiation that continue to astonish me in their achieved results. Speaking softly with kindness and understanding in one's eyes can influence others and can even change hearts and minds. Anger, by comparison, is a crude instrument, useful only for a limited set of circumstances.
Now the men I knew back in the day scorned empathy and understanding and thought such things were feminine and weak. They thought anger was being a man and could not divorce the idea of manliness from violence, vengeance and wrath. A man must avenge every slight to protect his honor. What a weak notion this honor is, then, if it is so fragile. I think now that those men were weak, because they were not willing to try alternative, effective strategies at getting what they want. They were close-minded, petty, and stupid like animals. Anger got them trouble, that is what anger got them. Some slights are not slights, others can be ignored, and still others can be handled with subtlety, in an indirect fashion.
So now I am no more a spirit of fire but one of air, and I aim to be as light as air.
One of the lessons I've learned with advanced age and from the influence of my good friends is to speak softly. Anger still occurs to me as a potential method of handling grievances and disputes, but I feel it is counter-productive, not necessarily to those I'm angry at, but to myself. My heart hates anger and loves to love. I like to love and hate to hate. I don't like getting angry and don't feel that there is much in the world worth getting angry about. Perhaps it is worth getting angry about something that threatens the well-being of a loved one, but such occasions are few. Most disputes I like to handle with a soft touch nowadays. I think of this as getting in touch with the deeper self, the true self, my full potential.
I find that understanding and empathy, which I am lucky to be endowed with, score points with people and gain me more in friends and allies than would anger. I have powers of negotiation that continue to astonish me in their achieved results. Speaking softly with kindness and understanding in one's eyes can influence others and can even change hearts and minds. Anger, by comparison, is a crude instrument, useful only for a limited set of circumstances.
Now the men I knew back in the day scorned empathy and understanding and thought such things were feminine and weak. They thought anger was being a man and could not divorce the idea of manliness from violence, vengeance and wrath. A man must avenge every slight to protect his honor. What a weak notion this honor is, then, if it is so fragile. I think now that those men were weak, because they were not willing to try alternative, effective strategies at getting what they want. They were close-minded, petty, and stupid like animals. Anger got them trouble, that is what anger got them. Some slights are not slights, others can be ignored, and still others can be handled with subtlety, in an indirect fashion.
So now I am no more a spirit of fire but one of air, and I aim to be as light as air.
Sunday, April 27, 2014
Opacity Bests Candor
Society has for a long time favored opacity over candor, probably to my detriment. I'm expressive and like to share my opinions, for better and sometimes for worse.
Sometimes when people don't agree with you, instead of debating, they look for angles where they can hurt you. They are also less likely to give the benefit of the doubt. I remember an old supervisor that was a conservative Christian. One day a book of hers went missing. I knew she thought I stole it, because the accusation was in her stare and in her entire body language. But in truth I never did steal anything of hers. I was not even aware of that book. It was just another case where prejudice let her to assume that, because I was not a married heterosexual, I must therefore be a thief as well, among other vices. Only as the years went by did she gradually come to accept that I had few vices. I do have a weakness for candy, as she discovered. I think she turned around and accepted that I was a moral being. But one never knows. That is only a hunch.
The media raked gays over the coals for criticizing Mozilla's choice of CEO, due to his donation to a cause that fights against marriage rights for gays. This was viewed as "hindering freedom of speech" and "undemocratic" and even "not liberal." Sources from the New York Times to the Los Angeles Times defended the guy who doesn't want me to be married.
I don't know why. I guess because they think my marriage isn't important. They would care if their marriages were involved, I'm sure.
The media is playing a different tune today regarding an owner of an NBA team whose ex-girlfriend is shopping around a recording she made of a private phone call. Some girlfriend. I think this illustrates the danger of older people pursuing younger lovers. It's a bad idea, about ninety-nine times out of a hundred. There may be exceptions, but not that many, I think.
In his private conversation, he expressed racist views. And yes, racism is bad.
I think that the difference in the media's reaction between this case and the one involving gays is very telling. On the one hand, a guy wants to interfere in the private lives of gays, and donates $1,000 to that end, as a matter of public record. On the other hand, a guy expresses his racism to his girlfriend in what he thought was a private conversation, and he should be forced to sell his team because of that. This is crazy.
I probably wouldn't want to know Sterling's opinions on gays. I would imagine they are just as negative as his opinions on blacks. The manner in which his views became public seems underhanded. If everyone's thoughts became known, I think no one could ever get along, because offensive thoughts occur to everyone at some time or another.
People need to be very careful what they say over the telephone nowadays. I bet the only reason Sterling was ensnared is because he's a clueless old man who hasn't updated his knowledge of technology, let alone his understanding of culture. He's still living in the 1950's. My preference would be to let him be unless he really does something, like donate money to a racist organization or say something on the record.
I have known racist old folks in my day. They are not going to learn a lesson or improve or change. I don't think there is value to be gained in digging them out of the woodwork and trying to punish them or make an example out of them. They may even win sympathy based upon poor health and poor mental status. Sterling was stupid but ultimately, his private chat only harmed his own interests, not those of anyone else.
Sometimes when people don't agree with you, instead of debating, they look for angles where they can hurt you. They are also less likely to give the benefit of the doubt. I remember an old supervisor that was a conservative Christian. One day a book of hers went missing. I knew she thought I stole it, because the accusation was in her stare and in her entire body language. But in truth I never did steal anything of hers. I was not even aware of that book. It was just another case where prejudice let her to assume that, because I was not a married heterosexual, I must therefore be a thief as well, among other vices. Only as the years went by did she gradually come to accept that I had few vices. I do have a weakness for candy, as she discovered. I think she turned around and accepted that I was a moral being. But one never knows. That is only a hunch.
The media raked gays over the coals for criticizing Mozilla's choice of CEO, due to his donation to a cause that fights against marriage rights for gays. This was viewed as "hindering freedom of speech" and "undemocratic" and even "not liberal." Sources from the New York Times to the Los Angeles Times defended the guy who doesn't want me to be married.
I don't know why. I guess because they think my marriage isn't important. They would care if their marriages were involved, I'm sure.
The media is playing a different tune today regarding an owner of an NBA team whose ex-girlfriend is shopping around a recording she made of a private phone call. Some girlfriend. I think this illustrates the danger of older people pursuing younger lovers. It's a bad idea, about ninety-nine times out of a hundred. There may be exceptions, but not that many, I think.
In his private conversation, he expressed racist views. And yes, racism is bad.
I think that the difference in the media's reaction between this case and the one involving gays is very telling. On the one hand, a guy wants to interfere in the private lives of gays, and donates $1,000 to that end, as a matter of public record. On the other hand, a guy expresses his racism to his girlfriend in what he thought was a private conversation, and he should be forced to sell his team because of that. This is crazy.
I probably wouldn't want to know Sterling's opinions on gays. I would imagine they are just as negative as his opinions on blacks. The manner in which his views became public seems underhanded. If everyone's thoughts became known, I think no one could ever get along, because offensive thoughts occur to everyone at some time or another.
People need to be very careful what they say over the telephone nowadays. I bet the only reason Sterling was ensnared is because he's a clueless old man who hasn't updated his knowledge of technology, let alone his understanding of culture. He's still living in the 1950's. My preference would be to let him be unless he really does something, like donate money to a racist organization or say something on the record.
I have known racist old folks in my day. They are not going to learn a lesson or improve or change. I don't think there is value to be gained in digging them out of the woodwork and trying to punish them or make an example out of them. They may even win sympathy based upon poor health and poor mental status. Sterling was stupid but ultimately, his private chat only harmed his own interests, not those of anyone else.
TIME Magazine Kisses the Koch Brothers' Behinds
The latest issue of TIME (May 5th/12th, 2014) includes a puff piece praising the Koch brothers as "patriots" who apparently crap gold bricks and wear halos twenty-four hours a day while flying around the country solving crime. That's the issue that motivated me to call up and cancel my subscription.
I've always hated TIME, and I don't know why it started showing up in my mailbox again, but I do plan to call in and cancel whatever subscription someone gave me. If it is free, I still want to cancel, because I do want their subscriber base to be reduced by one.
TIME offers right-wing propaganda, advertising disguised as news, and pure poppycock. It is pure garbage and never spends more than a few moments in my possession before winding up in the proper receptacle.
I've always hated TIME, and I don't know why it started showing up in my mailbox again, but I do plan to call in and cancel whatever subscription someone gave me. If it is free, I still want to cancel, because I do want their subscriber base to be reduced by one.
TIME offers right-wing propaganda, advertising disguised as news, and pure poppycock. It is pure garbage and never spends more than a few moments in my possession before winding up in the proper receptacle.
Thursday, April 24, 2014
Justice: Hire More Geeks
+1 to the American justice system for being pretty fair, although biased toward the rich like everything else.
-1 to the American justice system for being slow as molasses and inefficient.
I drove a hundred miles and spent six hours in court today just to get a chance to present documentation that proved that I was innocent of a misdemeanor charge, as indeed I was. By twiddling my thumbs for six hours, I saved about $130. Was it worth my time? Yes, based upon my current income. Could I have improved the efficiency of the courtroom? Yes, by thinking about their problem of chronic inefficiency for a single day, I could have made changes that would have increased their processing speed 500 - 1000% at little or no cost. I saw a lot of court employees, about ten as a matter of fact, standing around doing little or nothing but looking bored and counting the minutes to quitting time. Those cannot be happy employees, because time slows down when one has nothing to do. Employees generally prefer to be doing something productive with their time, or at least that is my general impression. They could have been busy gathering information from people. Simple communication with defendants would reduce waiting time dramatically and allow the court employees to go home earlier. I do not know why I had to appear in court to begin with. I could have faxed or emailed my documentation to court employees and saved myself a trip, if they had offered that option. But the court system has remained about fifty years behind the times for no reason other than mere incompetence on the part of the people running the system. This has to be the fault of the Republicans, who are always cutting budgets and never willing to invest a penny in government. Since poor people are the main ones to wind up in the court system, the Republicans let the court system rot from neglect, because they hate the poor.
The judge played a video with a speech by another judge that said there would be no negotiation of fines, which means no mercy for the poor, many of whom paid fines of over $400 for such offences as "improperly equipped vehicle," whatever that means.
About two hours after I took my seat, a guy dressed in an expensive suit walked into court. He looked like either a lawyer or a politician. I sat on the front row and watched him carefully. He breezed past the clerks and court officers and talked with the solicitor without waiting his turn. It was obvious he was connected. The judge heard him next and began speaking in a very soft tone, but I heard enough. "I'm sorry to meet you under these circumstances," the judge said, before shaking hands with the defendant. He pled guilty to the same offence I waited six hours to prove myself innocent of. Instead of paying $130 like everybody else, he paid half that amount. Then he said bye-bye to the judge and walked out. No wait or worry for Mr. Expensive Suit. Everybody else, that is, those who have to work for a living, had to sacrifice the mandatory 6 to 9 hours of time, whether guilty or innocent, and pay the full fine if guilty.
-1 to the American justice system for being slow as molasses and inefficient.
I drove a hundred miles and spent six hours in court today just to get a chance to present documentation that proved that I was innocent of a misdemeanor charge, as indeed I was. By twiddling my thumbs for six hours, I saved about $130. Was it worth my time? Yes, based upon my current income. Could I have improved the efficiency of the courtroom? Yes, by thinking about their problem of chronic inefficiency for a single day, I could have made changes that would have increased their processing speed 500 - 1000% at little or no cost. I saw a lot of court employees, about ten as a matter of fact, standing around doing little or nothing but looking bored and counting the minutes to quitting time. Those cannot be happy employees, because time slows down when one has nothing to do. Employees generally prefer to be doing something productive with their time, or at least that is my general impression. They could have been busy gathering information from people. Simple communication with defendants would reduce waiting time dramatically and allow the court employees to go home earlier. I do not know why I had to appear in court to begin with. I could have faxed or emailed my documentation to court employees and saved myself a trip, if they had offered that option. But the court system has remained about fifty years behind the times for no reason other than mere incompetence on the part of the people running the system. This has to be the fault of the Republicans, who are always cutting budgets and never willing to invest a penny in government. Since poor people are the main ones to wind up in the court system, the Republicans let the court system rot from neglect, because they hate the poor.
The judge played a video with a speech by another judge that said there would be no negotiation of fines, which means no mercy for the poor, many of whom paid fines of over $400 for such offences as "improperly equipped vehicle," whatever that means.
About two hours after I took my seat, a guy dressed in an expensive suit walked into court. He looked like either a lawyer or a politician. I sat on the front row and watched him carefully. He breezed past the clerks and court officers and talked with the solicitor without waiting his turn. It was obvious he was connected. The judge heard him next and began speaking in a very soft tone, but I heard enough. "I'm sorry to meet you under these circumstances," the judge said, before shaking hands with the defendant. He pled guilty to the same offence I waited six hours to prove myself innocent of. Instead of paying $130 like everybody else, he paid half that amount. Then he said bye-bye to the judge and walked out. No wait or worry for Mr. Expensive Suit. Everybody else, that is, those who have to work for a living, had to sacrifice the mandatory 6 to 9 hours of time, whether guilty or innocent, and pay the full fine if guilty.
Weed and Heart Health
Recent media reports link marijuana use with cardiovascular disturbances. NORML exposed this media brouhaha
for what it was, much ado over nothing. The media will go out of its
way to print anything to make marijuana look bad. It reminds me of the
day when the newspapers printed lies against gays. It is because of
ignorance and the presence of an agenda among the media owners.
However, I have found that cannabis does increase heartbeat. The same holds true for coffee or any substance with caffeine. Too much can cause accelerated heartbeat and other problems. Too much marijuana, or rather too much of the active ingredient, THC, can have a similar effect. Moderation in all things is key. Some people, especially those with addictive personalities, have trouble moderating their intake of substances. They suppose that if a little bit is good, then a lot is going to be great, but that is not necessarily the case.
I secretly dreaded the mainstreaming of marijuana, because I felt that there would be reports of addictive people overindulging in marijuana, as so many other substances are overindulged in. There are countless cases of people drinking themselves to death, overdosing on pills, and the list goes on, and as marijuana increasingly becomes legal and prescribed medicine, there will be cases of people misusing that substance as well. It seems everything under the Sun, some humans find a way to misuse, and then there are people who want to pass a law to ensure they don't misuse, and then some people break that law, and a whole cycle of non-productive nonsense and craziness ensues.
No substance is without potential and theoretical danger. Too much of anything tends to be harmful. I am a bit suspicious of the media's motives in pointing out rather obvious "pitfalls" in marijuana. If one sits on a bale of marijuana and lights it up, then one will burn to death. If one were force-fed a kilogram of dry marijuana, one would suffocate. If one smoked reefers nonstop for twenty-four hours, probably ill effects would arise there as well. These things are rather obvious. There is an expectation in our society that an adult will exercise a certain amount of common sense and not engage in foolish, ill-advised actions.
If one is unfamiliar with a substance, then it is a good idea to expose oneself to it gradually in small amounts. One should be aware of potential side effects and learn methods of countering them. By the same token, doctors prescribe small amounts of opiates to new patients, only ramping up after the patient grows accustomed to the drug. Certainly no one maintains that marijuana is worse for heart function than opiates, which can stop a beating heart! Indeed, one popular method of suicide is to overdose on opiates. Marijuana is scorned by suicides, because it has no ability to kill.
Where marijuana is concerned, the occasional "bad trip" can be countered by eating. I think the increase in appetite is the body's way of countering the influence of marijuana, and the more one eats, the less "high" one feels. Drinking water also helps. Some bad trips can simply be slept off. I have had many bad trips in my day, usually of the paranoid variety, because I am the type of person who analyzes, which is to say I'm a worrier, which made me a rather good engineer, because I anticipate problems rather than waiting for them to pop up. Marijuana offers a journey into the shadow world of the spirit. Bad trips are not without merit. Sometimes a bad trip accompanies an insight, a moral lesson that otherwise may not be received. Sometimes I view an unpleasant experience as divine direction to cease use, to go on a vacation from marijuana for a period. I am a strong believer in periods of abstinence and clarity. I like to emerge and reattach to the material world and feel its intensity all anew.
However, I have found that cannabis does increase heartbeat. The same holds true for coffee or any substance with caffeine. Too much can cause accelerated heartbeat and other problems. Too much marijuana, or rather too much of the active ingredient, THC, can have a similar effect. Moderation in all things is key. Some people, especially those with addictive personalities, have trouble moderating their intake of substances. They suppose that if a little bit is good, then a lot is going to be great, but that is not necessarily the case.
I secretly dreaded the mainstreaming of marijuana, because I felt that there would be reports of addictive people overindulging in marijuana, as so many other substances are overindulged in. There are countless cases of people drinking themselves to death, overdosing on pills, and the list goes on, and as marijuana increasingly becomes legal and prescribed medicine, there will be cases of people misusing that substance as well. It seems everything under the Sun, some humans find a way to misuse, and then there are people who want to pass a law to ensure they don't misuse, and then some people break that law, and a whole cycle of non-productive nonsense and craziness ensues.
No substance is without potential and theoretical danger. Too much of anything tends to be harmful. I am a bit suspicious of the media's motives in pointing out rather obvious "pitfalls" in marijuana. If one sits on a bale of marijuana and lights it up, then one will burn to death. If one were force-fed a kilogram of dry marijuana, one would suffocate. If one smoked reefers nonstop for twenty-four hours, probably ill effects would arise there as well. These things are rather obvious. There is an expectation in our society that an adult will exercise a certain amount of common sense and not engage in foolish, ill-advised actions.
If one is unfamiliar with a substance, then it is a good idea to expose oneself to it gradually in small amounts. One should be aware of potential side effects and learn methods of countering them. By the same token, doctors prescribe small amounts of opiates to new patients, only ramping up after the patient grows accustomed to the drug. Certainly no one maintains that marijuana is worse for heart function than opiates, which can stop a beating heart! Indeed, one popular method of suicide is to overdose on opiates. Marijuana is scorned by suicides, because it has no ability to kill.
Where marijuana is concerned, the occasional "bad trip" can be countered by eating. I think the increase in appetite is the body's way of countering the influence of marijuana, and the more one eats, the less "high" one feels. Drinking water also helps. Some bad trips can simply be slept off. I have had many bad trips in my day, usually of the paranoid variety, because I am the type of person who analyzes, which is to say I'm a worrier, which made me a rather good engineer, because I anticipate problems rather than waiting for them to pop up. Marijuana offers a journey into the shadow world of the spirit. Bad trips are not without merit. Sometimes a bad trip accompanies an insight, a moral lesson that otherwise may not be received. Sometimes I view an unpleasant experience as divine direction to cease use, to go on a vacation from marijuana for a period. I am a strong believer in periods of abstinence and clarity. I like to emerge and reattach to the material world and feel its intensity all anew.
Doctors Have It Rough
I read today that the Afghan security guard who killed three American doctors went into surgery at the same facility after the shoot-out. I imagine the dead doctors' colleagues were the ones who fixed him up. What a rough job that must be, psychologically. On the one hand, it is only human nature to want to strangle the guy that killed your friends (or even coworkers/acquaintances). On the other hand, doctors swear the Hippocratic Oath and must treat good and bad alike.
I really cannot relate with the Taliban. They seem determined to project an image of absolute evil. Targeting doctors is weak, barbaric, and the list of negative adjectives goes on without end. The last person that should ever be targeted in any conflict is medical staff. They are the caregivers to humankind.
If the Taliban had the sense God gave a goose, they'd buckle down and try to rebuild their country instead of fighting a pointless war trying to turn back the clock to the Middle Ages.
On the other hand, it may be that just enough Afghans are so foolish they actually support the Taliban and that the Taliban will one day return to power. That may be the case. Afghanistan may be the designated septic tank of the world where all the bad things happen. But should we be pouring a lot of money into that place? No. Money down the drain.
I really cannot relate with the Taliban. They seem determined to project an image of absolute evil. Targeting doctors is weak, barbaric, and the list of negative adjectives goes on without end. The last person that should ever be targeted in any conflict is medical staff. They are the caregivers to humankind.
If the Taliban had the sense God gave a goose, they'd buckle down and try to rebuild their country instead of fighting a pointless war trying to turn back the clock to the Middle Ages.
On the other hand, it may be that just enough Afghans are so foolish they actually support the Taliban and that the Taliban will one day return to power. That may be the case. Afghanistan may be the designated septic tank of the world where all the bad things happen. But should we be pouring a lot of money into that place? No. Money down the drain.
Wednesday, April 23, 2014
A Choice of Political Parties for Gays
Yes, Republicans, it would be nice as a gay person to have a choice of political party. For my whole life, I've felt like I did not have a choice. I had to vote Democrat, because Republicans were always against the gays and said a lot of ignorant nonsense. Just look up Jesse Helms if you want to see what gays of my generation encountered from the Republican party. What hateful things that man said about things he did not understand!
If Republicans change and become inclusive of gay people, I will continue voting Democrat, because I'm a liberal anyway. But that is not the case with all gays, so the Republicans stand to pick up some support here and there. Perhaps some gays won't bother going to the polls if both parties are gay-friendly. I would estimate about one in five gays would vote Republican if they felt like they weren't voting against their own interests. Gays tend to be more liberal due to our minority, outsider status, or maybe we just have found friendlier folks among the liberals. I relate more to liberal positions, because they seem based more upon reason and compassion, two values that I hold dear to my heart. Reason leads to compassion, because compassion has many benefits, some obvious and some subtle.
If Republicans change and become inclusive of gay people, I will continue voting Democrat, because I'm a liberal anyway. But that is not the case with all gays, so the Republicans stand to pick up some support here and there. Perhaps some gays won't bother going to the polls if both parties are gay-friendly. I would estimate about one in five gays would vote Republican if they felt like they weren't voting against their own interests. Gays tend to be more liberal due to our minority, outsider status, or maybe we just have found friendlier folks among the liberals. I relate more to liberal positions, because they seem based more upon reason and compassion, two values that I hold dear to my heart. Reason leads to compassion, because compassion has many benefits, some obvious and some subtle.
A Planned Departure
An elderly man's meticulously planned suicide almost went OK, but the one area where he erred was in using a substance that alarmed the first responders and his neighbors. I am not really familiar with substances like potassium cyanide, but it may be that there was concern over the fumes. Of course, using poison is better than using a firearm, the typical choice for men, because after a bullet exits a gun, there's no telling where it might ricochet, and the mess is unpleasant, not something anyone should be forced to clean up.
Personally, I think the man made a creative political statement as his last act. It was creative in the sense he took precautions not to harm anyone and did not harm anyone besides himself. He must have had a flair for the dramatic. It is a very unusual case.
Tuesday, April 22, 2014
Former Justice Stevens
Former Supreme Court Justice Stevens, now 94, had a good interview with PBS recently. I agree with his proposals, at least to the extent he described them.
Thursday, April 17, 2014
Happiness is a New Version of Linux OS
Today I'm happy, because SolydX laid its golden egg for April the 15th, and I made pudding with it, updating two of my computers to the latest and greatest that Linux has to offer.
I don't know whether Windows users can grasp the happiness I feel. A new version of the SolydX OS is like a new version of Windows, except I don't have to reinstall or reconfigure anything. Imagine going from Windows XP to Windows 7, while keeping all of your configuration. Nice, eh? Now imagine you do it for free and legally. Get the picture? Linux is nice. Just--nice.
My other favorite operating system, Xubuntu, is due to lay a new golden egg today. I'm watching that hen with eagle eyes, waiting for the egg to pop out, so I can crack it open and make omelettes on two of my computers.
Come on, chicken. I just checked DistroWatch--no dice. Come onnnn! Lay that egg!
What's nice about Xubuntu's upcoming release is that it will be an LTS, a Long-Term Support release, good for many years to come. That makes it even more special than usual. Anyone who is curious about Linux should definitely choose this moment to make a leap of faith into the wonderful world of free operating systems. The payoff will be even greater than usual.
If you're a Linux neophyte, then begin your journey with Xubuntu. I like Xubuntu's "keep it simple, stupid" philosophy. Through their relationship with Canonical, they access timely security updates that make the paranoid less so. Also, Xubuntu holds hands during installation and updates, and even though I know a thing or two in my advanced wizardry, I do appreciate the hand-holding, because it saves me time and bother. The only downside to Xubuntu is the unfortunate choice of the two-panel approach, which SolydX avoids. I don't really grasp the need for a panel at the top and a panel at the bottom of the desktop, but this can be tweaked away. Canonical's feverish innovations in their Software Manager have also caused new bugs, but there is always Synaptic Package Manager to fall back on if the Software Manager misbehaves.
If you're a computer wiz, give SolydX or SolydK a spin. Try SolydX if you have old hardware or SolydK if you have newer hardware. My rule of thumb is that if you have 4 gigs of RAM, give SolydK a try, because you might like it and certainly you have more than enough memory. If you have less than 4 gigs of RAM, go with SolydX. You may prefer its agility and solidity. I chose SolydX mainly because I prefer a conservative, solid desktop with few issues. KDE tends to be more cutting-edge and enterprising, aggressive in developing new features.
My Xubuntu upgrade from version 13.10 to version 14.04 functioned flawlessly and with minimal user interaction, making for a stress-free, calm and relaxing evening! In-place upgrade of an existing version is an awesome feature that makes the Ubuntu family more competitive against other Linux distributions. Never before have I seen as effortless an upgrade as tonight--certainly not in the Windows world, but not in the Linux world either.
On my second Xubuntu computer, I left the updater running overnight. When I checked on it the next morning, xscreensaver had frozen on a particular picture, and the computer was unresponsive. I powered the machine off, rebooted, and ran the updater again, and it picked up just where it had left off. Impressive! That shows that a significant amount of testing and refinement has gone into the installation and update process and reaffirms my confidence in Xubuntu.
I recommend Xubuntu to users fleeing the realm of Windows. Xubuntu is easy to use--no degree in computer science required! As a matter of fact, I maintain that Xubuntu is easier to use than Windows, because there is far, far less probability of picking up a malware infection in Xubuntu, for a lot of different reasons. Avoid the trojan-infested pirated copies of Windows and install a free, legal and open-source Linux distro instead.
I don't know whether Windows users can grasp the happiness I feel. A new version of the SolydX OS is like a new version of Windows, except I don't have to reinstall or reconfigure anything. Imagine going from Windows XP to Windows 7, while keeping all of your configuration. Nice, eh? Now imagine you do it for free and legally. Get the picture? Linux is nice. Just--nice.
My other favorite operating system, Xubuntu, is due to lay a new golden egg today. I'm watching that hen with eagle eyes, waiting for the egg to pop out, so I can crack it open and make omelettes on two of my computers.
Come on, chicken. I just checked DistroWatch--no dice. Come onnnn! Lay that egg!
What's nice about Xubuntu's upcoming release is that it will be an LTS, a Long-Term Support release, good for many years to come. That makes it even more special than usual. Anyone who is curious about Linux should definitely choose this moment to make a leap of faith into the wonderful world of free operating systems. The payoff will be even greater than usual.
If you're a Linux neophyte, then begin your journey with Xubuntu. I like Xubuntu's "keep it simple, stupid" philosophy. Through their relationship with Canonical, they access timely security updates that make the paranoid less so. Also, Xubuntu holds hands during installation and updates, and even though I know a thing or two in my advanced wizardry, I do appreciate the hand-holding, because it saves me time and bother. The only downside to Xubuntu is the unfortunate choice of the two-panel approach, which SolydX avoids. I don't really grasp the need for a panel at the top and a panel at the bottom of the desktop, but this can be tweaked away. Canonical's feverish innovations in their Software Manager have also caused new bugs, but there is always Synaptic Package Manager to fall back on if the Software Manager misbehaves.
If you're a computer wiz, give SolydX or SolydK a spin. Try SolydX if you have old hardware or SolydK if you have newer hardware. My rule of thumb is that if you have 4 gigs of RAM, give SolydK a try, because you might like it and certainly you have more than enough memory. If you have less than 4 gigs of RAM, go with SolydX. You may prefer its agility and solidity. I chose SolydX mainly because I prefer a conservative, solid desktop with few issues. KDE tends to be more cutting-edge and enterprising, aggressive in developing new features.
04/18/2014 Update:
My Xubuntu upgrade from version 13.10 to version 14.04 functioned flawlessly and with minimal user interaction, making for a stress-free, calm and relaxing evening! In-place upgrade of an existing version is an awesome feature that makes the Ubuntu family more competitive against other Linux distributions. Never before have I seen as effortless an upgrade as tonight--certainly not in the Windows world, but not in the Linux world either.
On my second Xubuntu computer, I left the updater running overnight. When I checked on it the next morning, xscreensaver had frozen on a particular picture, and the computer was unresponsive. I powered the machine off, rebooted, and ran the updater again, and it picked up just where it had left off. Impressive! That shows that a significant amount of testing and refinement has gone into the installation and update process and reaffirms my confidence in Xubuntu.
I recommend Xubuntu to users fleeing the realm of Windows. Xubuntu is easy to use--no degree in computer science required! As a matter of fact, I maintain that Xubuntu is easier to use than Windows, because there is far, far less probability of picking up a malware infection in Xubuntu, for a lot of different reasons. Avoid the trojan-infested pirated copies of Windows and install a free, legal and open-source Linux distro instead.
Wednesday, April 16, 2014
Marijuana Brain Abnormalities
The only "brain abnormalities" are found in the marijuana-less minds of the media. The U.S. media does not understand basic science reporting. The newspapers and television stations have sold their souls to the alcohol companies, and the alcohol companies are scared to death that Americans will wake up to the fact that weed is better for you than booze. They stand to lose billion$ and will lose billion$ when the country wakes up from its infatuation with fungi feces.
Articles that portray cannabis in an objective and scientific light may be found at NORML.
Weed costs next to nothing to produce, is non-toxic and non-addictive, is self-renewable, removes carbon from the air, produces many useful products besides marijuana, and has a pharmaceutical history spanning thousands of years, which is why we know for a fact that weed is safer than aspirin.
Alcohol is the toxic waste product of microorganisms feeding upon death and decay, the bringer of madness and ill health. Weed is better than alcohol by any measure one could imagine. The living plant harnesses energy from the Sun to produce a substance that makes humans feel high. What weed does not do includes the whole list of negative attributes that belong to alcohol. It does not cause addiction, it does not cause insanity, it does not make the non-violent violent, and it does not harm its user.
There was never, at any time, a rational motive for making marijuana illegal. A return to sanity would be marked first of all by the legalization of marijuana for all purposes. However, human society is known for many irrational acts, such as war, crime, self-harm and collective self-harm, including pollution of the environment. The laws against marijuana seem almost insignificant by comparison to the many other signs of craziness. What is needed is a saner and more rational world that learns to love understanding and wisdom and reject lies and corruption.
Articles that portray cannabis in an objective and scientific light may be found at NORML.
Weed costs next to nothing to produce, is non-toxic and non-addictive, is self-renewable, removes carbon from the air, produces many useful products besides marijuana, and has a pharmaceutical history spanning thousands of years, which is why we know for a fact that weed is safer than aspirin.
Alcohol is the toxic waste product of microorganisms feeding upon death and decay, the bringer of madness and ill health. Weed is better than alcohol by any measure one could imagine. The living plant harnesses energy from the Sun to produce a substance that makes humans feel high. What weed does not do includes the whole list of negative attributes that belong to alcohol. It does not cause addiction, it does not cause insanity, it does not make the non-violent violent, and it does not harm its user.
There was never, at any time, a rational motive for making marijuana illegal. A return to sanity would be marked first of all by the legalization of marijuana for all purposes. However, human society is known for many irrational acts, such as war, crime, self-harm and collective self-harm, including pollution of the environment. The laws against marijuana seem almost insignificant by comparison to the many other signs of craziness. What is needed is a saner and more rational world that learns to love understanding and wisdom and reject lies and corruption.
Tuesday, April 15, 2014
Unconscious Gun Owners
A new wrinkle in the modern age are unconscious gun owners. They're asleep, in fear, in a trance or otherwise not responsible when they pull the trigger. They want to have their guns, kill their victims and remain free to kill again and again and again, because they really love killing, and that's what they intend to do with their lives. Why else would someone be completely obsessed with firearms? A mind that hates gravitates toward the tools of hatred, methods of killing and harming perceived "enemies."
Oscar Pistorius says he didn't consciously pull the trigger four times when he killed his girlfriend, splattering her brains all over the bathroom. So, he shot through the closed bathroom door because, I don't know, he was in a trance or something? Yeah, right. I'm sure half the people on death row were in a trance or something.
Too often, the rich get away with murder, rape, and other crimes that would send a poor person to jail for a very long time. Justice is selective. The law hates the poor and loves the rich. If you're poor, you're already guilty, the question is how many years do you get. If you're rich, you're innocent. One way or the other, the judge is going to make a special accommodation for you, because you suffer from "affluenza" or were upset or impaired or sleepy-headed at the time of the crime. Go back home, take a nap, and kill or rape again.
All defendants should have a court-appointed defence counsel, a public defender chosen at random, and there should be no private defence lawyers allowed at all. Expose the rich to the public defender system and let them experience its tender mercies. I think if that rule were implemented, overnight one would see vastly increased funding for public defenders. Their salaries and numbers would increase, while their caseloads would decrease.
Bloomberg's new gun control group is good news for the U.S. and reminds me that some of the super-rich have super-consciences and really care about the destiny of the world they live in.
Oscar Pistorius says he didn't consciously pull the trigger four times when he killed his girlfriend, splattering her brains all over the bathroom. So, he shot through the closed bathroom door because, I don't know, he was in a trance or something? Yeah, right. I'm sure half the people on death row were in a trance or something.
Too often, the rich get away with murder, rape, and other crimes that would send a poor person to jail for a very long time. Justice is selective. The law hates the poor and loves the rich. If you're poor, you're already guilty, the question is how many years do you get. If you're rich, you're innocent. One way or the other, the judge is going to make a special accommodation for you, because you suffer from "affluenza" or were upset or impaired or sleepy-headed at the time of the crime. Go back home, take a nap, and kill or rape again.
All defendants should have a court-appointed defence counsel, a public defender chosen at random, and there should be no private defence lawyers allowed at all. Expose the rich to the public defender system and let them experience its tender mercies. I think if that rule were implemented, overnight one would see vastly increased funding for public defenders. Their salaries and numbers would increase, while their caseloads would decrease.
Bloomberg's new gun control group is good news for the U.S. and reminds me that some of the super-rich have super-consciences and really care about the destiny of the world they live in.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)