Stuff I'm Thinking About

What Is True?

2008-02-04T16:47:00.000-05:00

Many intelligent people say that we hold to what is true according to what is "proven" or, at least, "provable."

I suggest that that what we consider "proven" is largely subjective. Something can be considered "proven" or even "true" en masse--that doesn't "make it true." The world was not flat, even when "everybody" thought it was flat. There are people today who are convinced that the moon landings were faked, and they can "prove it."

How do we "acknowledge" or "choose" what truth is?

I think "proof" has little to do with it. I think it comes from three things:

1) Authority (I've been told something is true, so I believe it; whether it's my parents, or some scientist, or a television commercial).
2) Intuition (Something just "seems true" and "makes sense")
3) Experience (I know this is true because I've experienced it)

None of these, on its own is foolproof. It's obvious that authority can be wrong; whether it comes from a parent, a teacher, or a man in a white lab coat. How do we know that authority can be wrong? I think we grasp that concept intuitively and we have probably experienced it.

Intuition on its own is not foolproof. Quantum theory is highly counter-intuitive. Yet those scientists tell me it's true (authority) and I experience what are the practical applications of quantum theory by using this computer, microwave ovens, CD players, etc. This is my experience at work (which also works with my intuition to tell me that it's unlikely that "all these scientists" have co-ordinated a big lie about quantum theory).

Finally, experience is a great evaluator of truth, but a good dose of LSD can severely alter experience so that it no longer represents reality. Further, even my own memories can be affected through the power of suggestion.

Even "proof" itself is a combination of authority (what we know that has been "proven" in the past), experience (the prediction, experiment, and results), and intuition (that the experiment accurately measures a reality that can be accurately measured (itself a presupposition)).

We "grasp truth" using two or three of authority, intuition, and experience, but there are foundational "truths" within this system that we cannot prove. Proof itself is not a basis for truth.

Progressive technology...?

2008-01-03T09:47:00.000-05:00

Have you heard of Moore's Law when it comes to computer processor speeds? "Moore's Law describes an important trend in the that can be inexpensively placed on an history of computer hardware: that the number of transistors that can be inexpensively placed on an integrated circuit is increasing exponentially, doubling approximately every two years" (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore's_law), basically meaning our computer processor speeds are doubling approximately every two years.
Proposed in 1965, this "law" is still manifesting in our home computers, digital cameras, etc., etc., etc.
I think we need to propose a similar law for razors. Way, way back in the day, my dad shaved with a "safety razor" with a single blade. Sometime within the first couple of decades of my life, a second blade was introduced. Then in the '90s--three blades!
Guess what I got for Christmas? A razor with no less than six blades!!! (Okay, one is on the back for trimming.)
I think within a year or three we will all be scraping our cheeks up against a panel of 20 or so blades (called a "razor") on the wall of our shower. Within a decade, the stack of blades will be taller than the average man...

The Whiff of God?

2007-12-17T21:30:00.000-05:00

A friend and philosophical opponent of mine said this in an online forum:

"For a supernatural power[e.g., God] to materially affect the phyical universe there still must be some sort of residual physical trace that has the whiff - and the sole whiff - of supernatural action; in other words, it has to be a material effect for which no material cause can even be proposed in principle. That would fit the bill for my test of sending an unshielded man into the core of a nuclear reactor and having him walk out again, unscathed, after a month: there's no material cause for that particular effect that can even be proposed. The only explanation would be "magic" - supernatural action, in other words."

The idea is that if God is real and created the universe, surely there would be some incontrovertible and ubiquitous evidence that cannot be explainable through naturalistic means. After thinking about it for a while, I came up with the following possible "whiff":

Mathematics.

Mathematics contains uncanny coincidences, symmetry, and beauty for which there is no naturalistic explanation. Mathematics is ubiquitous and incontrovertible. Some examples that are downright bizarre:

e=2.71828 18284 59045 23536... (The mathematical constant e is the unique real number such that the value of the derivative (slope of the tangent line) of f(x) = e^x at the point x = 0 is exactly 1. The function e^x so defined is called the exponential function, and its inverse is the natural logarithm, or logarithm to base e. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_(mathematical_constant))

i=

π=3.14159 26535 89793 2384... (Pi or π is one of the most important mathematical constants, approximately equal to 3.14159. It represents the ratio of any circle's circumference to its diameter in Euclidean geometry, which is the same as the ratio of a circle's area to the square of its radius. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi)

These three important numbers appear unrelated. One is an "imaginary unit" and the other two are irrational constants. And yet, remarkably, the following mathematical equation is true:

"It is absolutely paradoxical; we cannot understand it, and we don't know what it means, but we have proved it, and therefore we know it must be the truth." - Benjamin Peirce (taught mathematics at Harvard University for forty years and died in 1880. He believed mathematics to be "study of God's work by God's creatures").

This is a profound coincidence, but it is not alone. Mathematics abounds with these coincidences, from the pattern created by prime numbers (see Ulam's Spiral), to commonplace coincidences like the following:

135 = 1 + 3² + 5³
175 = 1 + 7² + 5³
518 = 5 + 1² + 8³
598 = 5 + 9² + 8³

12² = 144
21² = 441

13² = 169
31² = 961

There are more like this--many more.

(Special credit to www.futilitycloset.com for a great collection of mathematical oddities among other oddities).

Creative Cooking

2007-10-22T16:57:00.001-04:00

Sometimes, when you're cooking, and things don't go just the way they should, there are ways to make the most of it. Under "normal conditions" you can't take pictures like this...

Toothpaste Fear-based Advertising

2007-10-19T21:39:00.000-04:00

Toothpaste used to be advertised based on what it did for your teeth. Now it's advertised based on what your "dentist will be looking for." It seems we have more to fear from our dentist than from our teeth rotting out!

Richard Dawkins vs. John Lennox

2007-10-06T20:12:00.000-04:00

On Wednesday night, Richard Dawkins (noted author of The God Delusion) debated Christian apologist and professor of mathematics and philosophy of science at Oxford University, John Lennox.

It was broadcast online, and I listened in.

To begin, let me say that from what I have read of Dawkins, I have found him to be aggressive, confrontational, boorish, and smug. Surprisingly (to me), without weakening his strong opinions, he came across very well-spoken during the debate. Of the two, I found Lennox to be a little more aggressive (no doubt he would credit this to being on the defensive in the atheistic fortress of academia--he has related how he was ambushed by a bunch of professors while in graduate study who advised him that if he ever wanted to "make it in science," get rid of the "god thing).

I couldn't help but walk away feeling that Lennox had "won" the debate. To be fair, I'm on his side, he's had a lot of time to read The God Delusion and formulate his attacks, and Dawkins had to respond on the fly.

Further, the forum for the debate was annoying. Although they allowed Dawkins the "last word," every time the two were starting to really get into it, the moderator would interrupt so they could move onto the next point, which would be highlight a portion of the book, give Dawkins and opportunity to explain his position, and the allow Lennox to rip it apart, with little opportunity for Dawkins to rebut.

Frankly, if they had just given them time and let them go, it would have been much better.

The best argument between them concerned the "evil of religion." Dawkins conceded that religious belief was not evil, but that it was specifically fanaticism. In the book, Dawkins had said that all religion was dangerous because it denied people the opportunity to question belief. Lennox responded at least twice that his Christian upbringing was not "brainwashing" but that he was encouraged to read a variety of material, including Marx and Russell. Lennox then went after Dawkins on what basis he could decry religious belief as "bad" or "evil," appealing back to Dawkins's The Selfish Gene in which Dawkins says that human behavior is neither "bad" nor "good," but is merely the "dance of the DNA."

Dawkins said that what we should be doing as humans is "rising above evolution"--I assume he means rejecting that "dance of the DNA" and making conscious decisions. He said that any time a human being chooses to use birth control and enjoy sex for pleasure rather than just procreation he is "rising above evolution." I was surprised that Lennox didn't challenge him on who was doing the "rising over evolution." Surely Dawkins is not appealing to a "soul" of some kind that has influence over the material? It seems to me that the concept of a "soul" would be foreign to a naturalist/materialist like Dawkins.

In his closing comments, Lennox went all preachy, talking about Christ and his resurrection. No doubt this is due to a fervent commitment to "preach Christ" at every opportunity. I'm not sure, in that crowd, that it was the right thing to do. Dawkins responded in his closing comments with what I found to be his strongest argument (though it was entirely an emotional argument). He criticized Lennox for abandoning his strong scientific arguments for deity for what he called the "petty" story of the resurrection of Christ.

All in all I enjoyed listening to the debate. I found it online in .mp3 format so I may be able to send it to anyone who's interested.

A Little Disappointed So Far...

2007-09-30T21:39:00.001-04:00

Casually following the provincial politics lately, I must say I'm quite disappointed with the Conservative campaign. Instead of telling us "what's wrong with the Liberal government" and "what the Liberal government didn't do," why don't you tell us what you plan to do!

I did hear one plan on the radio--to legalize the sale of wine-making and beer-making kits at the grocery store. Yay! Bright change for the future! That the best you can do?

There's also the issue about providing funding for private schools. Frankly, I'm a little ambivalent about that. There are pluses and minuses. Parents with children in private schools are still paying taxes that go towards public schools. It also seems unfair that Catholic schools get government funding but other private schools do not. Then again, I heard second-hand that Tory wants public funding going to private schools so that the government can have a finger in that pie in terms of education. It seems to me that it's just a way of making private schools more public.

But the negative campaigning is what is really putting the sour taste in my mouth when it comes to the Conservative party. Really makes me not want to vote for them.

Benny Hinn Justifies Lavish Spending?

2007-09-10T17:28:00.000-04:00

"Benny Hinn readies for crusade and defends lavish healing ministry

Aug 17, 2007 04:30 AM

Stuart Laidlaw

Pastor Benny Hinn, in Toronto this weekend for two days of miracle cures and old-time gospel, makes no apologies for all the money his far-flung ministries take in each year.

"The gospels are free, but the means of delivering the gospels is really expensive," Hinn, who got his start in Toronto 30 years ago, told the Star."

The Toronto Star

He's right. "The gospels [sic] are free, but the means of delivering the gospels [sic] is really expensive."

(What are the "gospels"?)

It can be expensive. But that's not the problem. The problem, for Benny Hinn, is that living in luxury is expensive. Having a "lavish lifestyle of fancy cars, a 7,000-square-foot ocean-side mansion and luxury travel to five-star hotels on a private jet" has nothing to do with the message of Christianity.

The article goes on...."Hinn defends his use of luxury hotels and a private Gulfstream jet detailed by the CBC, saying they offer greater efficiency and security.

'People in my position will have threats,' he told the Star. 'If you ask for a secure (hotel) floor, you're going to pay more money.'"

Benny, that's ridiculous.

No More Technological Creativity?

2007-09-10T13:44:00.000-04:00

We're coming up with new gadgets all the time. But we're not very good at coming up with creative names for them. Our kids are growing up understanding technology as a series of letters. Maybe it started in the world of science where unwieldy words were shortened to a series of letters: deoxyribonucleic acid became DNA; trinitrotoluene became TNT.
The first one, I think, that really became a popular household term was the television, shortened to TV. Then the VCR: the Video Cassette Recorder. Two options, the first and better option being Beta, which, because of poor marketing and strategy was squeezed out by its competitor, VHS. I still don't know what VHS stands for.
Okay, wikipedia tells me it stands for Video Home System.
The dam broke.
Compact Discs are CDs.
Personal computers came on the scene with RAM, ROM, BIOS, CMOS, etc., etc., etc.
We have numbers incorporated now, too with .mp3 players. TV alone isn't good enough; I want an HD TV.
Does any new product have a name? I hear of some. There's an annoying "Slingbox" commercial on the radio, but I've never actually heard of someone buying one.
I have the feeling that if it doesn't have a name made of letters, somehow it doesn't possess enough mysterious technology to be worth buying.
I shudder to think about what items will fill our homes in twenty years. Well, okay, I don't really shudder, but it's weird to think about.

Can a moral system be created purely through "logic and reason"?

2007-08-10T22:58:00.000-04:00

In response to claim that morality can be created purely through logic and reason, I came up with the following argument:

It is difficult if not impossible to come to any conclusion whatsoever purely through logic and reason. Rene Descartes attempted to prove the existence of God this way. With what basic premise do you start?

He started with his famous dictum: Cogito ergo sum ("I think, therefore I am"), but his attempt to prove that God existed failed.

If we start this way, how do we possibly continue on to a complete system of morality? Can we make the second step to this: "To continue to think, and therefore exist, is desirable"?

Albert Camus concluded this: "There is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide. Judging whether life is or is not worth living amounts to answering the fundamental question of philosophy."

The point is that no system that governs behavior can be created purely through logic and reason. We must start with some kind of premise or presupposition. We cannot use pure reason and logic alone to come up with a system of morality.

Humility

2007-07-09T12:31:00.000-04:00

"I was given a badge for being most humble, but they took it away because I wore it."

There are many qualities we can strive for that only require the action to make them intrinsic. For example, I don't have to feel courageous to be courageous. If I act in a courageous manner, that is courage. I don't have to feel love to be loving. If I act in love, that is love. I would have to clarify that in this case I would define love as "acting in someone else's best interest." With that definition, you cannot "act in love" and "pretend to love" at the same time. Acting in someone else's best interest is an act of love, regardless of feeling.

One quality, however, can not be attained in this way--humility. You cannot act humble to be humble. Humble is more attitude than action. In fact, although we can attempt to portray humility in action, humility itself is deceptively elusive. The simple acknowledgment of the existence of humility within yourself is the first sign of its lack of existence. You can probably only attain true humility when you're not striving for it.

Gratitude For My Life

2007-06-19T18:26:00.000-04:00

During my trip to the Philippines in March I had the opportunity to connect with the child that we sponsor. Normally, the agency would attempt to bring the child to wherever you are so you can meet in a neutral setting. Because of our schedule, I only had one free day in which to connect with the person we sponsor. Unfortunately this was his exam day and he was unable to get away.

My only option was to go to him. This meant a 3-hour round trip in a "tricycle" (a small motorcycle with a sidecar that functions like a taxi). If the roads were decent and if we had a "real car" the trip might have been one hour both ways. Either way, it was worth it as I really wanted to meet the kid we sponsor and the scenery was spectacular.

I didn't really know what to expect but it is highly unusual for a sponsor to actually go to the home of a sponsored child (for the safety of the child). The house seemed to be at about pioneer standards. No electricity. No refrigeration. No running water. It was only because of government intervention that there was clean fresh water in the village! The ventilation was more than adequate, but I'm not sure what the house would have been like to live in during the rainy season.

It was humbling to meet his mother who cares so much for her children. It was humbling to see how she worked to keep her children fed and clothed. With all the sponsorship money going specifically towards education, the diet of these people is largely rice with minimal vegetables and protein (I found out that the majority of protein in the diet comes from snails that live on the rice terraces).

The experience made me grateful for all the things I take for granted. With the pressure of bills, traffic, work stress, etc., I know that I can come home to a dry house and flick on a light. I can take my kids to a hospital if needed. We can enjoy good nutrition, relaxation, music, the ability to read...

...the list of things that I can take for granted is almost endless and is usually forgotten except for experiences like this. Sometimes, perspective is everything.

Father's Day 2007

2007-06-16T22:41:00.001-04:00

My wife and kids surprised me today with a trip to the city and a helicopter tour. Very cool! It's been over 20 years since I was on a helicopter ride and I love it!

An Argument Against Scientist's Refusal to Consider Intelligent Design

2007-06-07T09:14:00.000-04:00

Part 2

Okay, here's my own argument scenario.

In many discussions I've had with people against the very idea of ID, I've come up with this idea:

It's simple to scientifically investigate whether or not the universe is "designed." It's just a matter of coming up with criteria for "design." It can't be done, they say, because we are merely extrapolating our own ideas of what constitutes "design" and imposing them on the universe, the same way we might anthropomorphize an animal.

Let's make the search a little bit more general.

How about criteria for "artificiality"?

If we can define criteria for what is "artificial" as opposed to "natural" then at least we can begin to ascertain whether or not the universe as a whole fits into "artificial" or "natural." As it is, proponents of both sides of the argument presuppose one or the other according to their own intuition--"It's just natural because that's all there is," or "It's designed because it just must be--I can tell!"

But there is no criteria for artificiality. Indeed, many definitions of the word "artificial" contain the condition of being "made by humans." Since we did not create the universe (unless, of course, you subscribe to some very outlandish anthropic principles), then the universe cannot be artificial, by definition.

It is that definition, then, that handcuffs science. Here is where my scenario comes in.

Imagine some astronauts from earth coming across what appears to be an alien artifact in outer space. It could be a spaceship--it has some strange markings on it and appears to have a means of propulsion.

Is it artificial? Is it natural?

By what criteria do we determine the answer to these questions? Is "artificiality" like art? I just "know it when I see it"?

If scientists can come up with criteria for artificiality, then is it "outside the realm of science" to apply those criteria to the universe as a whole? And if not, then in this scenario do we just (once again) throw up our hands and say, "We cannot begin to ascertain if this artifact is 'artificial' or 'natural.' It's outside the realm of science"?

The pursuit of science is handcuffed. It must be able to answer that question. If it can answer that question, then it can (and should attempt to) answer the same question about the universe.

An Argument Against Scientist's Refusal to Consider Intelligent Design

2007-06-06T22:07:00.000-04:00

Part 1

I came across this scenario in Robert Sawyer's new book Rollback (which of course, because it is by Robert Sawyer, is an excellent hard science fiction novel).

Now "intelligent design" is the name given to the endeavor to scientifically engage the concept of a Creator of the universe. This is dismissed as "non-science" by mainstream scientists because it is based on an "a priori" idea--that God exists. There are other arguments against ID but this is probably the strongest.

I would argue that this point of view handcuffs science. Sawyer presents the following scenario to illustrate this:

It starts with two ideas--the nature of "quanta" of time and space and rapidly increasing computer power giving us the ability to create virtual reality.

Let's start with virtual reality. Computer simulations have increased in quality to the point where virtual characters are "living lives" a la The Sims. "Virtual people" could conceivably become self-aware given enough computing power and algorithms. I'm not saying this is probable or even possible, but it is conceivable.
Back to the real world, science seems to show us that there are minimum units of space (as dictated by quantum theory) as well as minimum quanta of time. These units are known as Planck length and Planck time. It's easy to illustrate Planck time as the time it takes a photon (traveling at the speed of light--the universe's velocity barrier) to travel to the next quantum of space--the closest possible distance. It's a very, very small figure: roughly 10^-43 seconds.

Conceivably, each three dimensional unit of Planck length could be represented by a "pixel." Now is there any way to prove that we are not currently in a simulation--a giant version of The Sims?

Here is the quandary--if we created self-aware "sim-scientists," must they throw their hands up and say, "a programmer is outside the realm of science; we cannot investigate"?

By refusing to even consider intelligent design, that is essentially what scientists today are doing with our own universe, even though, as illustrated, it is within the realm of conceivable possibility.

Tomorrow I will post a second argument against scientist's refusal to consider intelligent design--an argument that is not quite so dramatic, but it is also my own and not stolen from Robert Sawyer.

Driving Pet Peeve

2007-05-30T17:10:00.000-04:00

Driving home from work, if I don't catch the first light green, then the first three are red. Every day. That's the first part of my pet peeve. Then I hit the first stretch of "out of town country driving." It's 80km/h maximum. Apparently nobody knows that. Up until the first stop light everybody else is driving 60-70km/h. Then, after the first stop light in the 80km/h zone, everybody speeds up to 100-110km/h! What's with that? A patient driver I'm not. But better than those other guys...

Richard Feynman--Bright Guy!

2007-05-26T00:53:00.000-04:00

You Can't Base The Meaning Of A Science Lesson On A Word

What finally clinched it, and made me ultimately resign [from the California State Curriculum Commission], was that the following year we were going to discuss science books. I thought maybe the science would be different, so I looked at a few of them.

The same thing happened: something would look good at first and then turn out to be horrifying. For example, there was a book that started out with four pictures: first there was a wind-up toy; then there was an automobile; then there was a boy riding a bicycle; then there was something else. And underneath each picture it said, "What makes it go?"

I thought, "I know what it is: They're going to talk about mechanics, how the springs work inside the toy; about chemistry, how the engine of the automobile works; and biology, about how the muscles work."

It was the kind of thing my father would have talked about: "What makes it go? Everything goes because the sun is shining." And then we would have fun discussing it:

"No, the toy goes because the spring is wound up." I would say.

"How did the spring get wound up?" he would ask.

"I wound it up."

"And how did you get moving?"

"From eating."

"And food grows only because the sun is shining. So it's because the sun is shining that all these things are moving." That would get across the concept that motion is simply the transformation of the sun's power.

I turned the page. The answer was, for the wind-up toy, "Energy makes is go." And for the boy on the bicycle, "Energy makes it go." For everything, "Energy makes it go."

Now that doesn't mean anything. Suppose it's "Wakalixes." That's the general principle: "Wakalixes" makes it go. There's no knowledge coming in. The child doesn't learn anything; it's just a word!

What they should have done is to look at the wind-up toy, see that there are springs inside, learn about springs, learn about wheels, and never mind "energy." Later on, when the children know something about how the toy actually works, they can discuss the more general principles of energy.

It's also not true that "energy makes it go," because if it stops, you could say, "energy makes it stop" just as well. What they're talking about is concentrated energy being transformed into more dilute forms, which is a very subtle aspect of energy. Energy is neither increased nor decreased in these examples; it's just changed from one form to another. And when the things stop, the energy is changed into heat, into general chaos.

But that's the way all their books were: They said things that were useless, mixed-up, ambiguous, confusing, and partially incorrect. How anybody can learn science from these books, I don't know, because it's not science."

- Richard Feynman

Stolen From Here

2007-05-23T22:33:00.000-04:00

Obsession, a novel by Ted Dekker (author of "Christian novels" with Gothic covers):
Dekker's not just writing fiction here. He has a point--that man is made to obsess, ultimately to obsess for God as God obsesses for man. He also says that we are willing to pay (in money, time, effort, whatever) for what we value; that the reason what we value has value is what we would be willing to sacrifice for it. He makes his point almost to belaboring it. Too many different characters coincidentally saying the same thing.

I think overall he pulls it off. He makes his point.

I just wish I could find some "Christian fiction" that doesn't include conspiracies, ancient relics, or secret powers. This one kind of hit two out of three. Read it to find out which ones!

Oh well.

Traveling Through Time at Light Speed

2007-05-10T09:17:00.000-04:00

I read an interesting concept in a book a while back. I can't remember the title but I think it was The Elegant Universe. Or something like that.

Light travels at, well, at the speed of light. Which is pretty fast. Extreme velocity. According to Einstein's theory of relativity, anything traveling at the speed of light experiences no passage of time. The passage of time relative to the rest of the universe is zero. So in effect a photon ("particle" or "quantum" of light) is everywhere on its path during it's lifetime (conceivably the lifetime of the universe) at "the same time" (from its own point of view).

If it were possible to slow it down, that is, bring its velocity below the speed of light (which does change depending on the medium through which it travels), it would then "experience time."

We can get stuck, however, by considering light traveling through space and traveling through as two separate things. Einstein showed that they were not. They are two aspects of spacetime.

The "ability to travel through time," even at the lowly speed of 60 seconds per minute greatly reduces the "ability to travel very fast through space." And vice versa. The faster I go, the slower my "time" goes relative to the rest of the universe, or, more specifically, relative to those traveling at a different speed relative to me.

The conclusion then is that we're all traveling through spacetime at the speed of light. We travel through space very slowly compared to the photon. But the tradeoff is that we actually travel through time.

We're traveling through spacetime at the speed of light.

Self-Idolatry

2007-05-08T13:37:00.000-04:00

"In religion...we must keep a critical attitude that never unconditionally accepts any socially established form of revelation. Otherwise, we are back to idolatry again, this time a self-idolatry rather than an idolatry of nature, where devotion to God is replaced by a deifying of our own present understanding of God."

Alan Reynolds, in A Troubled Faith: Do We Really Need God?

It seems to me that Reynolds has captured the weakness of Christian denominations.

What I didn't like about Spiderman 3

2007-05-07T11:03:00.000-04:00

The only thing I really didn't like was this: I happened to notice in the crowd scenes that all the women were apparently models. Are we really that shallow as a society?

I'm surprised they can pack so much in the way of "moral life lessons" in an action movie without coming across preachy.

Spiderman 3 Homepage

'Poppy quarter' behind spy coin alert

2007-05-07T10:58:00.000-04:00

This is just funny...

"By TED BRIDIS, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 39 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - An odd-looking Canadian coin with a bright red flower was the culprit behind a U.S. Defense Department false espionage warning earlier this year about mysterious coin-like objects with radio frequency transmitters, The Associated Press has learned.

The harmless "poppy coin" was so unfamiliar to suspicious U.S. Army contractors traveling in Canada that they filed confidential espionage accounts about them. The worried contractors described the coins as "anomalous" and "filled with something man-made that looked like nano-technology," according to once-classified U.S. government reports and e-mails obtained by the AP.

The silver-colored 25-cent piece features the red image of a poppy — Canada's flower of remembrance — inlaid over a maple leaf. The unorthodox quarter is identical to the coins pictured and described as suspicious in the contractors' accounts.

The supposed nano-technology actually was a conventional protective coating the Royal Canadian Mint applied to prevent the poppy's red color from rubbing off. The mint produced nearly 30 million such quarters in 2004 commemorating Canada's 117,000 war dead."

Read the rest here...

Irritatingly Catchy Songs

2007-05-07T10:55:00.000-04:00

A couple of songs have stuck in my head over the past couple of months and every time I hear them I can't get them out.

The first is K.T. Tunstall's Suddenly I See. It sounds fresh and different without being dark and angry and at the same time it's not cloyingly sweet. My only beef is in the chorus--that echoing "suddenly I see" has to happen in every single chorus! Give us a break from that. It drives me nuts which is annoying when you can't get a song out of your head.

The second I just heard a couple of days ago. Actually I saw the video. Grace Kelly by Mika. My first thought was, what's the deal with this video? It looks like he's trying to pick up that little girl. Is this guy a pedophile or something?

Then the hooks caught me. Two things stand out. In the chorus, the first three notes are a major triad and then he jumps up to the high third. My expectation every time is that he's going to drop back down to the tonic but instead he jumps up to the fourth and then even higher. The chorus is wild.

I couldn't figure out what the lyrics are about and I haven't bothered yet to look it up. He says he could be Grace Kelly. He says he could be Freddy. I couldn't help thinking about Freddy Mercury the first time I heard it. This Mika guy has the range and vocal control of Freddy Mercury as well as a little of the weirdness. That's good. I love Freddy Mercury. The song even has the mix sound of a Queen song. I think I'm hooked.

But then there's that weird thing with the little girl in the video...

I Wish I Had This Quote Yesterday...

2007-05-07T10:52:00.000-04:00

"As the successful rushed down the stairs of the World Trade Center, the truly great ran up."

Dr. Tim Kimmel, in Raising Kids for True Greatness

Baseball Standings

2007-04-30T11:50:00.000-04:00

All of a sudden the Toronto Blue Jays are playing in the "worst division" in the American League. They are at .500 (same number of wins and losses) but in second place--behind the Boston Red Sox at .667 and ahead of the Baltimore Orioles, the Tampa Bay Devil Rays, and the cellar-dwelling New York Yankees!

You have to go to last place in the Central Division to find a team below .500--the perpetually lowly Kansas City Royals. What's with that? Is baseball finally wide-open with no guarantees for the super rich? It would be nice.

Odd Verse

2007-04-30T11:44:00.000-04:00

"There will be silence before You, and praise in Zion, O God,
And to You the vow will be performed." Psalm 65:1

That's an odd verse. I've always associated praise with noise--the expression of worship. What is praise in silence?

Drew Marshall on 100 Huntley Street PART TWO

2007-04-23T21:01:00.001-04:00

And...here's the second half.

Drew Marshall on 100 Huntley Street PART ONE

2007-04-23T21:00:00.001-04:00

Whoo! Controversial interview on 100 Huntley Street. Drew Marshall gets honest about the North American Church. Apparently it was aired live and will never air again after 60% of responding callers were positive and 40% were strongly negative. I like and completely agree with most of what Marshall has to say.

Fabricating Jesus

2007-04-22T22:17:00.000-04:00

The following is a review I originally posted on a forum. I figured I'd get some more mileage out of it by reprinting the review.

Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels by Dr. Craig Evans

Amazon

From the back of the book:

"The more unusual the portrait, the more it departs from the traditional view of Jesus, the more attention it gets in the popular media. Why are scholars so prone to fabricate a new Jesus? What methods and assumptions predispose scholars to distort the record? Is there a more sober approach to finding the real Jesus?

Commenting on recent releases running the gamut from scholarly treatments like Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus to James Tabor's The Jesus Dynasty, and from popular depictments like Michael Baigent's The Jesus Papers to Tom Harpur's The Pagan Christ, Craig Evans offers a sane approach to examining the sources for understanding the historical Jesus."

In terms of the historical Jesus, Fabricating Jesus is a breath of fresh air in the dank air of wild speculation. We have heard the stories of "secret truths" coming from extra-canonical works, like the Gospel of Thomas, the Secret Gospel of Mark, the Gospel of Mary, and even the recently published Gospel of Judas. Craig Evans analyzes these works and the theories that surround them in a concise yet thorough manner. He concludes that these other documents are given an unjustifiable interpretive leeway that grants them at least equal (and sometimes more) historical authority than the biblical Gospels. By contrast, the biblical Gospels are subject to intense scrutiny to the point of irrationality. He criticizes the tentative early dates of the extra-canonical Gospels and shows how they could not have been source material for the biblical Gospels.

Written for a popular audience, Evans's book is easy to read and compelling. Evans himself is a top-rate scholar who has studied alongside some of the same people whose theories he criticizes. He is familiar with the relevant cultures and languages of biblical times, including Greek, Aramaic, Coptic, and Syriac. He was a consultant for National Geographic for the publishing of The Gospel of Judas.

I heartily recommend his book with a big "thumbs up."

(He's a nice guy, too...I met him!)

Life of Pi

2007-04-22T22:04:00.000-04:00

I was given Life of Pi to read by a friend. After a slow start I was hooked. It was almost like a modern suburban legend--but too international to be limited to "suburban."

Being somewhat opinionated about my spiritual beliefs, I found the main character's beliefs irritating. At the same time a Hindu, Christian, and Moslem, he believed that it didn't matter where a passport was from, a passport to heaven was a passport to heaven. Hmmm. I'll just let that go.

I don't want to give anything away, but--do you know that shock you get in a movie like 6th Sense; when suddenly everything you've read means something else? Yann Martel was able to successfully pull this this off. Twice.

The book seems to end quite suddenly but it stays with you--I found myself mulling over the meanings and symbolisms long after I had finished the book.

The promise, however, that the story will "make you believe in God" falls flat. For someone who does believe in God, I found it unconvincing. It seemed the message was, "God doesn't 'really' exist, but life is more pleasant and interesting if we pretend that he does." That doesn't make me believe in God. It doesn't make me want to believe in God. It makes me want to not believe in God.

However, given the amount of thinking the book made me do, it was certainly a worthwhile and enjoyable read.

This Crazy Weather

2007-04-21T12:03:00.000-04:00

We've had a Mexican student staying with us for two weeks. He said that the one thing he wanted to experience in Canada was snow. He was in luck. The first week he was here was freezing. It snowed the second day he was here.

Frankly, I was a little disappointed. The last thing I would want is the myth of perpetual winter in Canada being propagated throughout Mexico because of this visit.

All of a sudden though, it's shorts and T-shirt weather. We went from winter to summer in a week!

Pretty Good for a McDonald's Toy

2007-04-19T21:53:00.000-04:00

I've been pretty tired lately--a lot of extra hours in the evening working on a video with a short time line as well as entertaining our Mexican exchange student.

When I get up in the morning, the one thing I need to wake myself up is a shower. The more tired I am, the longer my shower gets. I find that lately I end up turning up the heat and sitting down to let the warm water wash over me in imitation of the warmth of my bed; but not enough to actually let me fall asleep.

Every time I sit down, however, the water splashes on the kids bag of toys, hanging from the shower wall. There is a Dory toy that came from a McDonald's Happy Meal. It's from the movie Finding Nemo that, when activated by water, makes a sort of noise that's supposed to be the fish talking "whale talk" (if you've seen the movie, you know what I mean).

Finding Nemo came out in 2003. It's 2007 now and the battery is just starting to die now--warping Dory's "whale talk" even further. Four years of battery life. That's pretty good for a McDonald's toy.

"300" an Insult to Iran?

2007-04-11T22:01:00.000-04:00

"TEHRAN, Iran -- The hit American movie "300'' has angered Iranians who say the Greeks-vs-Persians action flick insults their ancient culture and provokes animosity against Iran.

'Hollywood declares war on Iranians,' blared a headline in Tuesday's edition of the independent Ayende-No newspaper.

The movie, which raked in US$70 million in its opening weekend, is based on a comic-book fantasy version of the battle of Thermopylae in 480 B.C., in which a force of 300 Spartans held off a massive Persian army at a mountain pass in Greece for three days.

Even some American reviewers noted the political overtones of the West-against-Iran story line -- and the way Persians are depicted as decadent, sexually flamboyant and evil in contrast to the noble Greeks.

.....

Iran's biggest circulation newspaper, Hamshahri, said '300' is 'serving the policy of the U.S. leadership'' and predicted it will 'prompt a wave of protest in the world. . . . Iranians living in the U.S. and Europe will not be indifferent about this obvious insult.'"

CTV article here...

"Obvious insult"? No. Although the movie wasn't historically accurate, biased towards the Spartans, and arguably not a great movie, it had as much negative to say about the non-Spartan Greeks as it did the Persians. Indeed, the Persians came across as superhuman (if not demonic), while the non-Spartan Greeks came across as weak and were specifically described as "boy lovers." This conveniently ignores the pederasty that would have been a mandatory rite of passage for Spartan boys. But who cares about historical accuracy in a movie based on comic book?

Unfortunately, in the pursuit of lionizing the Spartans, the fantastic quality of the movie makes the sacrifice of the Spartans somehow less real and less important. Historically, the Spartans were vastly outnumbered by the Persian army, but defeated them through superior tactics, discipline, and strategy. In the movie, they fought unreal demonic creatures led by an 8-foot tall androgynous emperor. Tactical use of terrain and the phalanx formation were discarded after the first onslaught for more dramatic (read "comic book") hand-to-hand combat.

Even worse were the anachronistic speeches by King Leonidas and some of his men. If you could pick one battle that changed the course of history, this would be it. But could Leonidas or any of his contemporaries have had any idea what the results of this battle would be? Not a chance.

Somehow, the "comic book movie version" of the story does a disservice to the real historical events and the people that enacted them.

But to claim that somehow the movie is specifically and deliberately insulting to Iran and her Persian ancestors is ridiculous. That Persia bungled the battle is obvious. That Iran wants to claim a political slight betrays a self-conscious acknowledgment of the nations connections with the bungling of the past. That's all.

The Weather Today

2007-04-08T20:02:00.000-04:00

What great weather today...

For Christmas!

Installing my new hard drive...

2007-04-07T11:00:00.000-04:00

I bought a new 200GB Western Digital 7200rpm hard drive from Futureshop for only $79.00! What a steal!

Installing it into an older Dell 2100 with a Celeron 900 processor was a bit of a challenge.

Here's how not to do it:

Gather up all the install CDs, rip out the old drive, install the new one as a primary master drive, then start installing software.

While partitioning the drive, discover the 137GB size limit of both the software and the motherboard (should have known this).

Partition to 137GB and begin installing the operating system, figuring I can partition the rest later as a separate drive. Install XP. Download the BIOS Flash upgrade. Dig around for a 3 1/2" diskette with which to reboot with the Flash upgrade. Where do I find one of those? Took a while but I got one.

Flash the BIOS. Still stuck at 137 GB. Try to install Windows XP Service Pack 2. Find out the network card has just crapped out.

I get an idea: use the utility CD that came with the drive to copy all of the old drive onto the new drive...hey it may even let me partition the rest of the drive! I copy all the info, but I can only partition 8MB of the rest of the drive; still basically stuck with 137GB.

Stuck until I can buy a new network card.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here's how to do it properly:

(experience is a great teacher; problem is the tests always come first)

Install the new drive as a slave to the original.

Install the utilities that came with the new drive.

Partition the new drive with the utility--all 200GB of it!

Copy all the data from the old drive to the new drive.

Remove the old drive and install the new drive as primary master.

Voila! Completely set up--all data, service packs, drivers, everything! 7200 rpm makes everything faster!

Now I just have to buy a new network card...

This is me:

2007-04-06T21:06:00.000-04:00

...from the varyingly obscure, hilarious, and brilliant online comic:

http://www.xckd.com/

The Pursuit of Happyness

2007-04-06T20:28:00.000-04:00

I didn't want to watch this movie. My wife made me watch it. Not only was I very tired but I was under the distinct impression that the movie would gradually increase in being depressing until the last 10 minutes. I was wrong. It was increasingly depressing until the last 5 minutes.

That said, I couldn't help but be impressed by the main character, given the fact that it was based on a true story. Chris Gardner, adeptly portrayed by Will Smith, struggled to raise his son through a period of homelessness while he worked as an unpaid intern trying to become a stock broker.

That's the story. Here's what struck me about it:

1. Chris Gardner's sheer determination. In the attempt to beat out 20 other interns for the lone position, he employed some brutal self-discipline. He would not put the phone down between sales calls. By only pressing the hook switch, he managed to save eight minutes per day that could be devoted to more calls. He didn't take a break for drinks. That saved him the time it took to take the drink at the water cooler as well as the potential trips to the bathroom.

It makes me wonder how much more I could produce if I had that kind of work ethic.

2. Our pastor saw the movie and commented how it left him feeling that the answer to the pursuit of "happyness" was money. Chris Gardner achieved what he wanted in terms of employment and financial success which, we are led to believe, resulted in his "happyness." You don't have to look too far to see that money does not buy "happyness" (although most of us would at least like the opportunity to attempt to disprove that old adage).

In spite of my fatigue, however, my wife also made me watch a DVD extra--the interview of the real Chris Gardner. The movie was based on his memoirs. He intimated that the point of his book was not about the money; rather it was about the necessity of a father to be there for his children, no matter what. What a message! As well as the movie was scripted, acted, and shot, I think this message was sacrificed for the message of personal achievement.

3. I was struck by Chris Gardner's recognition that, in spite of his own hard work to achieve success, he sees the responsibility of giving back. He is involved in the building of infrastructure in South Africa and he works with underprivileged youth in North America to help build confidence and skills.

4. Finally, I would have really liked to have heard the perspective of Chris's son (fantastically portrayed in the film by Will Smith's own son Jaden). Would it all have been "worth it" from his point of view? What is his relationship with his father like? How does he view those difficult years?

The movie is worth a view if you can take the depression. The story glosses over much of what really went on as a significant portion of Chris Gardner's life is compressed into just under two hours. If I see Gardner's book, with the same title as the movie, I'll probably pick it up...

Those Die-Hard Maple Leafs...

2007-04-04T23:05:00.000-04:00

Living around the Toronto area, I am annually faced with the Toronto Maple Leafs' battle for the playoffs. Characteristically, it's down to the wire for the team to make it into the NHL playoffs. Typically, the fans are brimming with excitement. It's probably only a matter of days before the streets of the Greater Toronto Area will be aflutter with Toronto Maple Leaf flags flying out of car windows. Is this the year? Will they win the Stanley Cup this year?

No.

They won't.

They haven't won the Cup in 40 years and they won't win it this year.

The goal of the Toronto Maple Leafs is not to win the Stanley Cup. The goal of the Toronto Maple Leafs is to make the playoffs and once again, they are close to achieving their objective. But they won't win the Cup.

They may make it to the second round (not likely) but that's probably about it and all those die-hard fans will mope in disappointment and one by one remove those flags from the car windows over the following three weeks with a couple left flying past the day that the Stanley Cup final is played. We're used to this. It happens every year.

Why?

At the beginning of every hockey season people are predicting the unlikelihood of winning a Stanley Cup and the preference of rebuilding this team. But by the time the trade deadline comes around "we" want to scream and holler if no high-priced (read "past-their-prime-and-over-priced") additions are made to the lineup. We're gunning for the playoffs again!

The team, the fans, and the owners are not really willing to pay the price to see a Stanley Cup winner in Toronto. Just a playoff contender. A second-round contender.

What is that price?

This year it should have been obvious. Given that the team will not win the Cup this year, take a couple of veteran players and trade them away for prospects while they are still valuable to other teams. People like Darcy Tucker and Mats Sundin.

Too late. Darcy Tucker has already been signed to a long-term contract and fans are talking about Sundin retiring with a Leafs jersey on. That's fine. It's heartwarming. But it doesn't win any Stanley Cups.

Who's fault is all this?

It's not the coach's fault. Paul Maurice has done a phenomenal job this year.

The obvious culprit is the general manager, John Ferguson, Jr. But is he really to blame? How long does it take to build a team into a Stanley Cup contender? Longer than Ferguson's contract. And if he wants another contract, he'd better produce while he's under contract. That means to get into the playoffs and as far as he can into the playoffs with these players. Which is about one or two rounds into the playoffs.

How about the owners?

Well, they're probably content to maintain whatever system makes them money and this system is certainly making money. Every game sells out despite what many consider ridiculous prices for seats. I know I can't afford to go to a game. If they truly had the desire to see a Stanley Cup in Toronto, they would give a general manager a long-term contract and the freedom to rebuild the team over the course of some years allowing for some lean years in the wins column.

The fans?

Until people actually stop seeing games the trend will continue. I believe that too many people are excited enough to see the Maple Leafs make the first or second round of playoffs with the consistently naive belief that "this could be the year." Every year.

As for me, I'd rather see a Stanley Cup every five or seven years instead of the second round of playoffs every year.

In the meantime I'll stick to the Blue Jays. Or even the Raptors.

But I'm not going to be flying a Toronto Maple Leaf flag out of my car window.

Prerequisite Intro

2007-04-04T09:58:00.000-04:00

Well, I'm new to this whole "blog thing." That's the way it's supposed to start, right?

Actually, I've done the forum thing for a couple of years and enjoyed that, but it gets tiring to have three to a hundred pages of argument go well, and then two months later have a newbie start up again from ground zero. I'm pretty opinionated (that's what people tell me--but that's also my opinion of myself).

I know the tendency is to start these things and then drop them over time, so I have strategically made up a list of topics to talk about to get me started and build some momentum. Then I'll space those out for the next few days and hope that more topics show up as my list deteriorates.

Here we go...!