Friday, January 14, 2011
Read this. You'll like it.
1000 0100 0001 0000 0100 0001 0000 0101 0001 0001 0101 0011 0010 0001 0000 0101 0001 0001 0101 0011 0010 0001 0001 0110 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0011 0010 0001 0000 1000 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 0000 0001 0000 0011 0100 0110
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Two Thoughts
This guy's (the Congressman's) logic is funny.
Oh, and I wish FOX news would do less commentary and more straight reporting. I think they bring in a decent variety of opinion in their reporting, but I wish they wouldn't see the need to correct the people they are interviewing. Why can't they just get someone on the opposite side on too, and have the two sides fight it out to the death?
Oh, and I wish FOX news would do less commentary and more straight reporting. I think they bring in a decent variety of opinion in their reporting, but I wish they wouldn't see the need to correct the people they are interviewing. Why can't they just get someone on the opposite side on too, and have the two sides fight it out to the death?
Friday, January 7, 2011
What does it mean to have separation of church and state?
I started reading this article from Americans United for Separation of Church and State and wondered if they weren't contradicting their mission by criticizing the recommendation coming out of Senator Grassley's office to end the federal ban on politicking by non-profit groups, which would include churches.
I mean, if they want the separation of church and state, how can they be for a federal restriction on church activity?
The alternative, though, is is slightly troubling. Churches, already tax-exempt, being given full reign to tread the political field and put their "profits" behind certain political movements and candidates.
But how can you have a true separation of church and state if the state has to oversee how the church conducts its business? Am I missing something here?
I mean, if they want the separation of church and state, how can they be for a federal restriction on church activity?
The alternative, though, is is slightly troubling. Churches, already tax-exempt, being given full reign to tread the political field and put their "profits" behind certain political movements and candidates.
But how can you have a true separation of church and state if the state has to oversee how the church conducts its business? Am I missing something here?
The Experience of Kindle
In the interests of furthering a better understanding of Kindle's consumers, I wrote up a review for Amazon's latest generation Kindle and emailed it to their feedback address. Here it is, in its entirety:
As I sit back in front of my computer with a cup of tea readily at hand, I think it is high time to write what I think of Amazon's Third Generation Kindle. To start with, I must say that this is the first Kindle I have ever owned, the first e-reader for that matter. Reflecting on the fact that it was decently-sized investment and meant to serve a unique and long purpose, I think Amazon deserves from me some sort of opinion concerning the device's good and bad qualities, its advantages and disadvantages.
Let me start with the pros. The Kindle e-reader is uniquely designed with a variety of supporting features to aid the process of reading. The most important of these features are its size and weight, the screen, and navigation of the reading material. The weight and size of this machine have already been extensively investigated and praised. Indeed, there is not much that needs to be ascertained to come to an opinion on this subject. It is enough to see that the Kindle is so light-weight that one can generally hold it in one hand with ease, although something needs to be said about the stress that may be occasioned on this hand after a good half hour's use and in a state of hospitalization. (But in such circumstances, even the lightest objects became strangely heavy.) The size of the Kindle is a good one indeed, granting maximum possible screen size (comparable to the size of a pocket dictionary's page) in an object that can be carried in one hand without awkwardness and easily slipped into a small book bag.
The electronic-ink screen of the Kindle is its most magnificent feature. It looks like a very smooth paper and ink picture, feels like a slightly spongy plastic surface, and is remarkably easy on the eyes. I have perceived no additional discomfort in reading from it above that felt from reading real paper. The exception to this rule has been the discomfort arising from the glare that inevitably pops up. The reflective screen is remarkably like real paper. You can't see it in the dark. But, mostly due to its very smooth surface, it reflects light much better than the page of a book. Nonetheless, it is a masterful screen. Indeed, upon first taking it up in my hands, I was a minute trying to pull the plastic cover off that I perceived to be covering the screen when, wonder of wonders, I realized this plastic cover was the screen itself! It had words printed on it and the machine was not powered. The screen's ability to sustain a picture while the device is turned off has often left me wonder since.
The third most remarkable feature of the Kindle is the ease with which one can navigate through a book or drop it and pick up a different book. The page turns are effortless and nearly as fast as one can reasonably turn the pages of a real book. Keeping one's place when a book is exited (as if you had had your fingers between the pages all the time) is a very useful feature. A progress bar at the bottom of the page quickly tells you how far you are through a book (and by extension, its plot). Indeed, I get the feeling that nearly everything possible has been done to make the reading process as natural and effortless as possible. As an example, I, who am no fast reader, whipped through three novels of Jane Austen's in less than three weeks time, a somewhat remarkable feat for myself. I will not deny the fact that a reader can get lost in a book while reading on a Kindle.
Given this praise, our friends at Amazon who design the Kindle must wonder whether I intend to raise any criticism. Let me quell those doubts by saying that I do. Though the Kindle's assets (the things that have been done right in the Kindle) are integral to its construction and not minute affairs, its drawbacks, unfortunately (for our friends at Amazon), are small things and easily corrected. The biggest drawback of the Kindle is the clumsiness of its software and input interface and the formatting of its books.
Given that this device was largely designed for reading books, this first issue I will raise may not seem particularly important. But, it is annoying nonetheless. It must be said that the five-way controller is kind of a drag. I guess it is competent for moving from one book to another or perusing one's library, but it is absolutely deficient when it comes to web-browsing and even tedious to use when one is indexing the table of contents of a rather large work, say the Bible, for example. Well, it is possible, this drawback is not so easy to correct, but it was worth mentioning anyway.
Something that would be very easy to correct is the formatting of the e-books. Please... how hard can it be to add page numbers? How distracting would be a small number appearing alongside the column of text. Think how such a slight change would aid the expansion of its use. Then, students could follow along in class with their Kindle edition book while their instructor guides them with the printed copy. Citations could be made. The Kindle could then be used for some manner of informal research. I have heard this complaint raised by another party in a product review, and frankly, I agree. It shouldn't be that hard to fix.
In addition, unless you fiddle with the text size, you are bound to find prematurely terminated lines sprinkled throughout the book you are reading. Not only is this distracting, it is just plain unpleasant (and probably not very hard to fix). I have also observed a number of misprints in several of the free Kindle editions of the classics. Perhaps, these are the natural result of freely available e-books. Or, maybe they are just signs of sloppy conversions of the text to electronic format. Whatever the case, they disturb me because I like to be confident that I am reading an immaculate copy of a text, especially when I am reading a digital copy.
Well, I am done criticizing the Kindle for now. Let me just conclude by saying that the Kindle is just about everything I wanted it to be. It has even surpassed my expectations with regard to ease of reading. I have read mostly novels on it, though. So, while it is uniquely designed to enable this endeavor, it may not be suited for many other activities. Whatever the case, Amazon has created a nice little device that I foresee will be well used in the next few years. In addition, books being even cheaper when read through this medium, my intake of literature is already growing. Thank you, Amazon. Not a bad job. Not a bad job at all!
As I sit back in front of my computer with a cup of tea readily at hand, I think it is high time to write what I think of Amazon's Third Generation Kindle. To start with, I must say that this is the first Kindle I have ever owned, the first e-reader for that matter. Reflecting on the fact that it was decently-sized investment and meant to serve a unique and long purpose, I think Amazon deserves from me some sort of opinion concerning the device's good and bad qualities, its advantages and disadvantages.
Let me start with the pros. The Kindle e-reader is uniquely designed with a variety of supporting features to aid the process of reading. The most important of these features are its size and weight, the screen, and navigation of the reading material. The weight and size of this machine have already been extensively investigated and praised. Indeed, there is not much that needs to be ascertained to come to an opinion on this subject. It is enough to see that the Kindle is so light-weight that one can generally hold it in one hand with ease, although something needs to be said about the stress that may be occasioned on this hand after a good half hour's use and in a state of hospitalization. (But in such circumstances, even the lightest objects became strangely heavy.) The size of the Kindle is a good one indeed, granting maximum possible screen size (comparable to the size of a pocket dictionary's page) in an object that can be carried in one hand without awkwardness and easily slipped into a small book bag.
The electronic-ink screen of the Kindle is its most magnificent feature. It looks like a very smooth paper and ink picture, feels like a slightly spongy plastic surface, and is remarkably easy on the eyes. I have perceived no additional discomfort in reading from it above that felt from reading real paper. The exception to this rule has been the discomfort arising from the glare that inevitably pops up. The reflective screen is remarkably like real paper. You can't see it in the dark. But, mostly due to its very smooth surface, it reflects light much better than the page of a book. Nonetheless, it is a masterful screen. Indeed, upon first taking it up in my hands, I was a minute trying to pull the plastic cover off that I perceived to be covering the screen when, wonder of wonders, I realized this plastic cover was the screen itself! It had words printed on it and the machine was not powered. The screen's ability to sustain a picture while the device is turned off has often left me wonder since.
The third most remarkable feature of the Kindle is the ease with which one can navigate through a book or drop it and pick up a different book. The page turns are effortless and nearly as fast as one can reasonably turn the pages of a real book. Keeping one's place when a book is exited (as if you had had your fingers between the pages all the time) is a very useful feature. A progress bar at the bottom of the page quickly tells you how far you are through a book (and by extension, its plot). Indeed, I get the feeling that nearly everything possible has been done to make the reading process as natural and effortless as possible. As an example, I, who am no fast reader, whipped through three novels of Jane Austen's in less than three weeks time, a somewhat remarkable feat for myself. I will not deny the fact that a reader can get lost in a book while reading on a Kindle.
Given this praise, our friends at Amazon who design the Kindle must wonder whether I intend to raise any criticism. Let me quell those doubts by saying that I do. Though the Kindle's assets (the things that have been done right in the Kindle) are integral to its construction and not minute affairs, its drawbacks, unfortunately (for our friends at Amazon), are small things and easily corrected. The biggest drawback of the Kindle is the clumsiness of its software and input interface and the formatting of its books.
Given that this device was largely designed for reading books, this first issue I will raise may not seem particularly important. But, it is annoying nonetheless. It must be said that the five-way controller is kind of a drag. I guess it is competent for moving from one book to another or perusing one's library, but it is absolutely deficient when it comes to web-browsing and even tedious to use when one is indexing the table of contents of a rather large work, say the Bible, for example. Well, it is possible, this drawback is not so easy to correct, but it was worth mentioning anyway.
Something that would be very easy to correct is the formatting of the e-books. Please... how hard can it be to add page numbers? How distracting would be a small number appearing alongside the column of text. Think how such a slight change would aid the expansion of its use. Then, students could follow along in class with their Kindle edition book while their instructor guides them with the printed copy. Citations could be made. The Kindle could then be used for some manner of informal research. I have heard this complaint raised by another party in a product review, and frankly, I agree. It shouldn't be that hard to fix.
In addition, unless you fiddle with the text size, you are bound to find prematurely terminated lines sprinkled throughout the book you are reading. Not only is this distracting, it is just plain unpleasant (and probably not very hard to fix). I have also observed a number of misprints in several of the free Kindle editions of the classics. Perhaps, these are the natural result of freely available e-books. Or, maybe they are just signs of sloppy conversions of the text to electronic format. Whatever the case, they disturb me because I like to be confident that I am reading an immaculate copy of a text, especially when I am reading a digital copy.
Well, I am done criticizing the Kindle for now. Let me just conclude by saying that the Kindle is just about everything I wanted it to be. It has even surpassed my expectations with regard to ease of reading. I have read mostly novels on it, though. So, while it is uniquely designed to enable this endeavor, it may not be suited for many other activities. Whatever the case, Amazon has created a nice little device that I foresee will be well used in the next few years. In addition, books being even cheaper when read through this medium, my intake of literature is already growing. Thank you, Amazon. Not a bad job. Not a bad job at all!
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Facebook, now and then, serves up fodder...
...which is almost too good.
Check out this article.
And, then I was hunting around on the same topic and found this one by the same author.
Dahlia Lithwick appears to make the same mistake that a lot of people in modern American fall into--believing the test of Constitutionality resides solely in the Judicial branch of out government. Oh yes, that may be the current practice today, but that does not mean it is the best one, or even the way it was intended.
I defer to these words that Clarence Carson writes in his book, Basic American Government:
In contrast to the current practice, think about what would happen if each branch of government (the Senators, Representatives, and President in addition to the Supreme Court) thought carefully over the constitutionality of any new law or bureau under consideration. Actually, Christine O'Donnell's remarks quoted at the beginning of the second article linked above sounded rather refreshing.
This is why I am at least slightly excited about the new Congress' intentions of reading the Constitution at the beginning of their session and requiring statements of derivation of Constitutional authority in new laws.
Check out this article.
And, then I was hunting around on the same topic and found this one by the same author.
Dahlia Lithwick appears to make the same mistake that a lot of people in modern American fall into--believing the test of Constitutionality resides solely in the Judicial branch of out government. Oh yes, that may be the current practice today, but that does not mean it is the best one, or even the way it was intended.
I defer to these words that Clarence Carson writes in his book, Basic American Government:
On the question of whether or not the courts have the ultimate power of interpreting the Constitution, Jefferson answered this question emphatically in answer to a letter raising the question in 1820. "You seem . . . to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions," he wrote to a correspondent. But that, Jefferson said, is "a very dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy." (263)
In contrast to the current practice, think about what would happen if each branch of government (the Senators, Representatives, and President in addition to the Supreme Court) thought carefully over the constitutionality of any new law or bureau under consideration. Actually, Christine O'Donnell's remarks quoted at the beginning of the second article linked above sounded rather refreshing.
This is why I am at least slightly excited about the new Congress' intentions of reading the Constitution at the beginning of their session and requiring statements of derivation of Constitutional authority in new laws.
Yes, I do read a prominent atheist's blog.
Today, I leave you with an article from PZ Myers (I give you warning. This guy's blog can have some rather coarse/vulgar material.), well known for his atheistic and liberal philosophy.
You learn a thing or two when you read the words of someone who believes exactly opposite to what you yourself hold to be true. Sometimes, it can be kind of demoralizing.
But, I wait and watch, learning what the godless say, hoping I will one day be able to better counter them.
One thing I would like to point out in that article. PZ Myers quotes Charles Darwin. Of particular interest to me were these words of his (Darwin's):
I have seen Christianity labeled a death cult more than one time on this guy's blog. God help those who cannot see beyond this world and even those who would care more about a father, brother, friends...
You learn a thing or two when you read the words of someone who believes exactly opposite to what you yourself hold to be true. Sometimes, it can be kind of demoralizing.
But, I wait and watch, learning what the godless say, hoping I will one day be able to better counter them.
One thing I would like to point out in that article. PZ Myers quotes Charles Darwin. Of particular interest to me were these words of his (Darwin's):
"I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished.
And this is a --------- [awful] doctrine."
I have seen Christianity labeled a death cult more than one time on this guy's blog. God help those who cannot see beyond this world and even those who would care more about a father, brother, friends...
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Monday, January 3, 2011
What is a dream job?
I don't know about any of you, but to me, this seems like the best type of job.
Saturday, January 1, 2011
2011
As an attempt to make an auspicious start to the new year, I have to decide to give myself a test: one post every day for the month of January (or the equivalent within the whole month).
And not only that, since the beginning of a new year is a good time to increase one's discipline, each post will have some piece of meat--something worth thinking about, discussing, or just discovering. This is for my own good more than anyone else's...
Since this is the first post of the month and serves partly as an announcement, I'll just end with a question.
What happened at Salem, Massachusetts in the year of 1692? What a few years ago I had thought was an obvious example of demonic influence in the Puritan communities I have observed to be redrawn by the majority of modern interpretations as the product of spoiled rye, jealousies, or misguided and dogmatic notions.
And not only that, since the beginning of a new year is a good time to increase one's discipline, each post will have some piece of meat--something worth thinking about, discussing, or just discovering. This is for my own good more than anyone else's...
Since this is the first post of the month and serves partly as an announcement, I'll just end with a question.
What happened at Salem, Massachusetts in the year of 1692? What a few years ago I had thought was an obvious example of demonic influence in the Puritan communities I have observed to be redrawn by the majority of modern interpretations as the product of spoiled rye, jealousies, or misguided and dogmatic notions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)