It is strangely satisfying, to have a new harddisk. Actually, to be precise, I just got a new pair of external harddisks. I grabbed the Western Digital MyBook Mirror Edition. That unit is basically a pair of 1tb internal harddisks in an external enclosure, set to either RAID 1 or 0. Yes. That's 1 terabyte, or rather a pair of 1tb harddisks mirrored, to become a single 1tb backup unit. I recall having a 340mb harddisk not too long ago, so I think while 1tb looks huge now, it'll look quite puny in the years to come.
The primary purpose of an external unit is both to replace the harddisk that recently went bad, and to serve as a comparatively rarely accessed backup unit. To serve that purpose, it has to be quite steady. So when I spotted this RAID-ready external unit going at a good price, I was intrigued. While RAID 1 has a danger of faithfully reproducing errors across both harddisks, its perfect mirroring also means that if harddisk A dies, B will be able to take up the slack without killing off any of my stuff. That means my research and photos will be quite safe for now.
The darned thing's a brick, though it's delightfully black has an endearing blue light that matches the LEDs on my casing. Nothing much to say about it, except it's significantly slower than a pair of harddisks fitted internally. In fact, the ironic thing is that these two harddisks and the casing actually cost me less than purchasing two individual 1tb harddisks. Perhaps I will eventually figure that I'd pluck them out of the casing and fit them in my desktop. But for now, I do want external storage, so these will have to do.
Friday, November 27, 2009
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Outliers
I'm currently reading Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers. It is quite a fascinating book, which integrates some sociological theories to explain the structure of exceptional success. While I do not wholeheartedly support the premises of the hypotheses and question the generalizability of the data used to back the conclusions, I think it still does make for interesting reading and new perspectives on the social phenomena surrounding success.
I am particularly interested in what can change one's trajectory in society, and nudge people towards or away from success. Of the reasons, it does seem that the offspring of rich folk do have particular benefits, and that is an interesting but unhelpful observation: Not everyone is able to choose their backgrounds. However, it does seem that success is not just a matter of luck, but also of smarts. Terman's research on high IQ children and their development amply proved that high-IQ individuals are not necessarily able to become greats simply on the merits of their intelligence. There was a limit to how vanilla intelligence can push one upwards.
The other ingredient appears to be practical intelligence, or EQ or cultural savvy, or however one may want to call this other sort of intelligence. That is, the sense of entitlement which drives people towards desiring greater heights, and having the people skills to make that aspiration a reality. In fact, to some extent, EQ seems an adequate substitute for intelligence, given that one can simply persuade others to share the observations that the person is unable to come up with.
EQ is something that is usually not taught in school, and would actually be quite useful in the curriculum. However, a person who is all EQ and no IQ would not go far either, given that he/she is probably not going to be intelligent enough to spot opportunities as they arise. It seems that ultimately one just needs good-enough levels of both, as a foundation for the pursuit of success.
Besides the concept of success, the book also talked about culture. I think the idea of tolerance for ambiguity and Hofstede's Power Distance Index tie in nicely with the idea of strokes as the currency in Transactional Analysis. In fact, I believe it may be possible that the ambiguity tolerance and PDI serve as the score modifiers for stroke quotas. It can be expected that a society with high ambiguity tolerance will also have a low tolerance for overt actions. That means that positive strokes are not to be delivered in straightforward ways. This may mean larger numbers of subtle positive strokes. As for high PDI societies, stroke quotas are very likely much higher for superiors than in lower PDI societies. This represents a positive modifier.
The correct calibration of strokes can be one way to support people skills, or EQ. However, EQ itself is probably not taught because many of its precepts are quite tacit, and may not even be consciously learned. For example, knowing when to pull back in a conversation is often attributed to a "feeling", but is in reality a complex computation integrating observations of the other person's reactions. In all, I would say that a good way to calibrate strokes is simply through trial and error. When one pushes too far, one is likely to observe negative reactions from others. As these mental notes build up, one's calibration progressively improves.
This would evoke Gladwell's assertion of the 10'000 hour rule, whereby one becomes highly proficient at a skill after approximately 10'000 hours of farming skill points. It therefore stands to reason that simple social contact and attention can hone EQ just like that. It also explains why the social outcast types still have problems dealing with other people: the calibration is imperfect. This creates a vicious cycle that encourages avoidance of others, and preventing improvements in the calibration. Once that is achieved, along with the other factors mentioned and those that appear in Gladwell's book, one may finally have the actual formula for success. The caveat, of course, is that knowing the path to success does not imply an ability to achieve it.
I am particularly interested in what can change one's trajectory in society, and nudge people towards or away from success. Of the reasons, it does seem that the offspring of rich folk do have particular benefits, and that is an interesting but unhelpful observation: Not everyone is able to choose their backgrounds. However, it does seem that success is not just a matter of luck, but also of smarts. Terman's research on high IQ children and their development amply proved that high-IQ individuals are not necessarily able to become greats simply on the merits of their intelligence. There was a limit to how vanilla intelligence can push one upwards.
The other ingredient appears to be practical intelligence, or EQ or cultural savvy, or however one may want to call this other sort of intelligence. That is, the sense of entitlement which drives people towards desiring greater heights, and having the people skills to make that aspiration a reality. In fact, to some extent, EQ seems an adequate substitute for intelligence, given that one can simply persuade others to share the observations that the person is unable to come up with.
EQ is something that is usually not taught in school, and would actually be quite useful in the curriculum. However, a person who is all EQ and no IQ would not go far either, given that he/she is probably not going to be intelligent enough to spot opportunities as they arise. It seems that ultimately one just needs good-enough levels of both, as a foundation for the pursuit of success.
Besides the concept of success, the book also talked about culture. I think the idea of tolerance for ambiguity and Hofstede's Power Distance Index tie in nicely with the idea of strokes as the currency in Transactional Analysis. In fact, I believe it may be possible that the ambiguity tolerance and PDI serve as the score modifiers for stroke quotas. It can be expected that a society with high ambiguity tolerance will also have a low tolerance for overt actions. That means that positive strokes are not to be delivered in straightforward ways. This may mean larger numbers of subtle positive strokes. As for high PDI societies, stroke quotas are very likely much higher for superiors than in lower PDI societies. This represents a positive modifier.
The correct calibration of strokes can be one way to support people skills, or EQ. However, EQ itself is probably not taught because many of its precepts are quite tacit, and may not even be consciously learned. For example, knowing when to pull back in a conversation is often attributed to a "feeling", but is in reality a complex computation integrating observations of the other person's reactions. In all, I would say that a good way to calibrate strokes is simply through trial and error. When one pushes too far, one is likely to observe negative reactions from others. As these mental notes build up, one's calibration progressively improves.
This would evoke Gladwell's assertion of the 10'000 hour rule, whereby one becomes highly proficient at a skill after approximately 10'000 hours of farming skill points. It therefore stands to reason that simple social contact and attention can hone EQ just like that. It also explains why the social outcast types still have problems dealing with other people: the calibration is imperfect. This creates a vicious cycle that encourages avoidance of others, and preventing improvements in the calibration. Once that is achieved, along with the other factors mentioned and those that appear in Gladwell's book, one may finally have the actual formula for success. The caveat, of course, is that knowing the path to success does not imply an ability to achieve it.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Money Or Principle?
I got into a right interesting mess today. It's one of the messes that is typical of what I tend to do when half asleep: violate my own rules. Now, this was a matter of an item I had for sale, and I got some offers. Generally, I do not close a deal ASAP, because I should logically wait for a reasonable number of offers to come in before obliging myself to anyone. That is the logical thing to do, which I did not do, while muddled with sleepiness. It's a bit like being drunk, and this is what happened...
Person A contacts me with a low bid. Naturally, I am unhappy. Person B contacts me with an identical bid, but I thought he was person A because I was going by phone numbers and assumed they were the same due to identical amounts. A tells me that my pricing is bad because the general prices are lower. With this new information (it's true, BTW), I figure that person A's offer is fair. So I tell B that we've got a deal. We should meet up to trade sometime.
Of course, being half asleep, I wasn't really thinking straight at the time. I agreed to a price that was lower than I wanted to agree to. The correct (and usual) response I should have given was that I would think it over, instead of saying Yes. I figured that it was a screwy deal, so I asked my friend, who again offered me the exact same price. Now, between a friend and a stranger offering identical prices, I chose my friend. So now there are 3 people I basically obligated myself to. A and B (whom I mistakenly thought were the same person) and my friend. At this point, I realized A and B were different people, so I had to say no to B, because A agreed first and thus was taking priority over B. B wasn't very happy at this development.
C calls in with a higher bid than all 3. In my stupidity, I told my friend that the bid was higher, and asked him if he would reconsider the agreement. Of course, since he wanted the item, my friend relented. I had to turn down A, B and C as a result. Now I am in the unenviable position of basically flip flopping on a deal with my friend, and having to turn people down. Of the 3, B was still unhappy, and was very eager to close the deal, apparently at a higher price point than any of the whole bunch.
In the end, I figured that I had to turn B down no matter what, to avoid further flip flopping. Now the situation became an ethical dilemma: Would I stick to the newly negotiated higher price with my friend, or go for the financial gain and press my friend for it? After much consideration, I figured that the right thing to do would be to suck it up and deal with my friend at the initially agreed upon price (a deal's a deal).
The evaluation was pretty complex, for a simple situation stupidly turned complicated. In reality, the sum of money was small, and I did not actually need the difference. It was a matter of principle that I tried to maintain as high a profit margin as possible. The root of the matter was that I violated my usual rule not to agree to any deal too early, which was done in a moment of muddle-headedness.
Why would I have chosen to deal with my friend at the low price, despite having semi-closed deals with 3 other strangers? This is not necessarily a logical decision, given that I am sticking with my friend because he's a friend. That is, he would potentially provide more benefits in the future as a friend by preserving the relationship through the relatively charitable gesture. However, it is also possible that the first person I agreed to could also provide me similar benefits in the future. More importantly, a friendship may not turn to enmity over such a minor infraction, but it may become so with a stranger who has no vested interest in me. Also, I have no real guarantee that my friend would actually repay the gesture in kind at any point in the forseeable future. In the absence of more data, I had to settle with the friend, though it really was more of a leap of faith.
In sum, the wise thing to do would simply be to stick to my own rules, and deal with matters on my own terms. That means not settling on deals when I do not have to, and especially not when I am sleepy and prone to stupid mistakes. It is strange just how many times I violated my own rules to poor effect, but I do it anyway. When they say go with the gut, it's really a good thing to do. Bleh.
Person A contacts me with a low bid. Naturally, I am unhappy. Person B contacts me with an identical bid, but I thought he was person A because I was going by phone numbers and assumed they were the same due to identical amounts. A tells me that my pricing is bad because the general prices are lower. With this new information (it's true, BTW), I figure that person A's offer is fair. So I tell B that we've got a deal. We should meet up to trade sometime.
Of course, being half asleep, I wasn't really thinking straight at the time. I agreed to a price that was lower than I wanted to agree to. The correct (and usual) response I should have given was that I would think it over, instead of saying Yes. I figured that it was a screwy deal, so I asked my friend, who again offered me the exact same price. Now, between a friend and a stranger offering identical prices, I chose my friend. So now there are 3 people I basically obligated myself to. A and B (whom I mistakenly thought were the same person) and my friend. At this point, I realized A and B were different people, so I had to say no to B, because A agreed first and thus was taking priority over B. B wasn't very happy at this development.
C calls in with a higher bid than all 3. In my stupidity, I told my friend that the bid was higher, and asked him if he would reconsider the agreement. Of course, since he wanted the item, my friend relented. I had to turn down A, B and C as a result. Now I am in the unenviable position of basically flip flopping on a deal with my friend, and having to turn people down. Of the 3, B was still unhappy, and was very eager to close the deal, apparently at a higher price point than any of the whole bunch.
In the end, I figured that I had to turn B down no matter what, to avoid further flip flopping. Now the situation became an ethical dilemma: Would I stick to the newly negotiated higher price with my friend, or go for the financial gain and press my friend for it? After much consideration, I figured that the right thing to do would be to suck it up and deal with my friend at the initially agreed upon price (a deal's a deal).
The evaluation was pretty complex, for a simple situation stupidly turned complicated. In reality, the sum of money was small, and I did not actually need the difference. It was a matter of principle that I tried to maintain as high a profit margin as possible. The root of the matter was that I violated my usual rule not to agree to any deal too early, which was done in a moment of muddle-headedness.
Why would I have chosen to deal with my friend at the low price, despite having semi-closed deals with 3 other strangers? This is not necessarily a logical decision, given that I am sticking with my friend because he's a friend. That is, he would potentially provide more benefits in the future as a friend by preserving the relationship through the relatively charitable gesture. However, it is also possible that the first person I agreed to could also provide me similar benefits in the future. More importantly, a friendship may not turn to enmity over such a minor infraction, but it may become so with a stranger who has no vested interest in me. Also, I have no real guarantee that my friend would actually repay the gesture in kind at any point in the forseeable future. In the absence of more data, I had to settle with the friend, though it really was more of a leap of faith.
In sum, the wise thing to do would simply be to stick to my own rules, and deal with matters on my own terms. That means not settling on deals when I do not have to, and especially not when I am sleepy and prone to stupid mistakes. It is strange just how many times I violated my own rules to poor effect, but I do it anyway. When they say go with the gut, it's really a good thing to do. Bleh.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Another Harddisk Failure
It seems like another of my harddisks is on the brink of failure. This time, it is the Western Digital that I am using to archive my stuff. Fortunately, the critical stuff like photos are being redundantly backed up, so the losses there are minimal. Even now, the critical parts of the archive are being moved away before the harddisk dies for good.
Of course, this does make me wonder. I do believe that it is a good idea to redundantly back everything up, preferably on a harddisk. While it will undoubtedly fail as 4 of my own have so far, doing so affords a rather more convenient option than a stack of CDs, which will have to be slotted in one after another just to verify data integrity. However, I do wonder at the interestingly high rate of hardware failure. 4 harddisks seems like a rather low MTBF, though of course it can be attributed to the possibility that I use my computer rather more than many other people.
For future reference, my current method to back up the folders quickly while the harddisk is dying is to manually move all folders over one by one. This creates an individual copy dialog. Since it is expected that most if not all folders have some sort of major malfunction, the errors will be isolated to the folder's dialog instead of stopping the entire copy process. Granted, this method is still fairly destructive given that the harddisk is failing, and I expect that the reliability will be compromised later in the process. Thus, I proceed to copy the most critical elements first, and the less important ones later. In the event of truly critical data, it would probably be wiser to approach a data recovery specialist, but given the casual nature of my storage that is quite unnecessary.
Right now I feel somewhat fortunate that a computer fair is coming to town, and that will likely allow me to purchase replacement storage at a discount. The next decision is whether I should go RAID this time, or continue with manual backups. The problem with RAID is that if there were an error in copying somehow, it is not unreasonable to expect that the error be faithfully reproduced depending on the RAID array used. This will be something that I have to carefully consider for my next backup choice. Ah, well.
On a side note, the headphone port on my speakers appears to be dying as well. Only the bass notes play through it now, necessitating that I plug my phones directly into a splitter, instead of using that oh so nice extension. Now...are my speakers still under warranty...? Given the high failure rate, I do usually get my money's worth on warranties.
Of course, this does make me wonder. I do believe that it is a good idea to redundantly back everything up, preferably on a harddisk. While it will undoubtedly fail as 4 of my own have so far, doing so affords a rather more convenient option than a stack of CDs, which will have to be slotted in one after another just to verify data integrity. However, I do wonder at the interestingly high rate of hardware failure. 4 harddisks seems like a rather low MTBF, though of course it can be attributed to the possibility that I use my computer rather more than many other people.
For future reference, my current method to back up the folders quickly while the harddisk is dying is to manually move all folders over one by one. This creates an individual copy dialog. Since it is expected that most if not all folders have some sort of major malfunction, the errors will be isolated to the folder's dialog instead of stopping the entire copy process. Granted, this method is still fairly destructive given that the harddisk is failing, and I expect that the reliability will be compromised later in the process. Thus, I proceed to copy the most critical elements first, and the less important ones later. In the event of truly critical data, it would probably be wiser to approach a data recovery specialist, but given the casual nature of my storage that is quite unnecessary.
Right now I feel somewhat fortunate that a computer fair is coming to town, and that will likely allow me to purchase replacement storage at a discount. The next decision is whether I should go RAID this time, or continue with manual backups. The problem with RAID is that if there were an error in copying somehow, it is not unreasonable to expect that the error be faithfully reproduced depending on the RAID array used. This will be something that I have to carefully consider for my next backup choice. Ah, well.
On a side note, the headphone port on my speakers appears to be dying as well. Only the bass notes play through it now, necessitating that I plug my phones directly into a splitter, instead of using that oh so nice extension. Now...are my speakers still under warranty...? Given the high failure rate, I do usually get my money's worth on warranties.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
2012: How Not To End The World
I just watched 2012, and for once, I am going to be harsh on it. Granted, I was into it primarily for the special effects, which it was full of. Very nice. I love watching cities crumble to dust amidst frantic air-dodging action. Loads of plus points for that one.
However, I expected a lot more from an end-of-world movie. I am willing to overlook glaring omissions like the inevitable nuclear winter from a global seismic catastrophe so severe that it results in extreme tectonic plate shifts and global volcanic activity. The very least I expect is either the utter destruction of the earth, for example getting earth hurled into the sun or a black hole, or at least the complete elimination of all humans. That is the end of the world as I understand it...and clearly the movie did not deliver.
Now, I know there are many ways to survive global flooding. Especially one from crazy tsunamis when the earth's crust somehow manages to rupture enough to start flooding Mt. Everest. If the director and co really wanted to be implausible, the least they could do is come up with space evacuation and perhaps space living till the volcanic activities settled down. In fact, it would've totally beaten the idea of having modern Noah's ark style ships saving a few hundred thousand of the humans. Seriously...that the best you could do? Super ships built near Tibet using untold amounts of money? Everyone could have probably gotten by on bark boats and bamboo rafts while they're at it.
Of course, once again, it seems like everyone forgot about Africa. If the whole continent managed to be pushed up as high as they said in the movie, I would think that a whole lot of humans survived there. In fact, that would make Africa the richest continent in the entire world. Strangely enough, nobody seemed to notice or bother to check. Nor the rest of the USA that probably survived, and the rest of the world for that matter.
Ok the list goes on, but I guess a rant has to stop somewhere. I'd say this movie gets a fail grade. 4/10. Most of the points came from the nifty special effects. The rest of it was end of world trash.
However, I expected a lot more from an end-of-world movie. I am willing to overlook glaring omissions like the inevitable nuclear winter from a global seismic catastrophe so severe that it results in extreme tectonic plate shifts and global volcanic activity. The very least I expect is either the utter destruction of the earth, for example getting earth hurled into the sun or a black hole, or at least the complete elimination of all humans. That is the end of the world as I understand it...and clearly the movie did not deliver.
Now, I know there are many ways to survive global flooding. Especially one from crazy tsunamis when the earth's crust somehow manages to rupture enough to start flooding Mt. Everest. If the director and co really wanted to be implausible, the least they could do is come up with space evacuation and perhaps space living till the volcanic activities settled down. In fact, it would've totally beaten the idea of having modern Noah's ark style ships saving a few hundred thousand of the humans. Seriously...that the best you could do? Super ships built near Tibet using untold amounts of money? Everyone could have probably gotten by on bark boats and bamboo rafts while they're at it.
Of course, once again, it seems like everyone forgot about Africa. If the whole continent managed to be pushed up as high as they said in the movie, I would think that a whole lot of humans survived there. In fact, that would make Africa the richest continent in the entire world. Strangely enough, nobody seemed to notice or bother to check. Nor the rest of the USA that probably survived, and the rest of the world for that matter.
Ok the list goes on, but I guess a rant has to stop somewhere. I'd say this movie gets a fail grade. 4/10. Most of the points came from the nifty special effects. The rest of it was end of world trash.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Fear Factor
I was reading this article: http://news.yahoo.com/s/hsn/20091117/hl_hsn/fearless3yearoldsmightbetomorrowscriminals
It was about the correlation between a weakly inculcated fear response and the tendency towards criminal activities. That is, people with feeble fear responses were more likely to commit crimes later in life. Whenever I read this kinda stuff, I cannot help but feel that it is fishy. For one, causality is most certainly rather hard to establish in research on social phenomena.
Moreover, this is simply about fear and crime. It seems to neglect the other possible benefits of having poor fear responses, such as being able to overcome apprehension and thus exploiting opportunities that others deem overly intimidating. It can also mean the difference between freezing up and getting killed, and surviving a crisis.
I really do think it absurd that it is implied that fear is somehow key to a lawful society, and that it is desirable. Fear in reasonable amounts will indeed keep people in line and lead to a reasonably harmonious coexistence. However, excessive fear will lead to a timid and cowed populace that is easily manipulated by the strong. I do not think that desirable at all.
It was about the correlation between a weakly inculcated fear response and the tendency towards criminal activities. That is, people with feeble fear responses were more likely to commit crimes later in life. Whenever I read this kinda stuff, I cannot help but feel that it is fishy. For one, causality is most certainly rather hard to establish in research on social phenomena.
Moreover, this is simply about fear and crime. It seems to neglect the other possible benefits of having poor fear responses, such as being able to overcome apprehension and thus exploiting opportunities that others deem overly intimidating. It can also mean the difference between freezing up and getting killed, and surviving a crisis.
I really do think it absurd that it is implied that fear is somehow key to a lawful society, and that it is desirable. Fear in reasonable amounts will indeed keep people in line and lead to a reasonably harmonious coexistence. However, excessive fear will lead to a timid and cowed populace that is easily manipulated by the strong. I do not think that desirable at all.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Video Ads
It seems that massification is the current trend of media. Early visual media involved the leisurely painted paintings, which were added to by early photographic technologies, then digital photography. In fact, every mother's child seems to have a digital camera nowadays. As Walther Benjamin said, massification can lead to an erosion of the aura of a work of art. Where a carefully crafted photograph or painting has a powerful aura, upon reproduction, such works become increasingly blase.
Now, with beautiful pictures spewed everywhere, it is really unsurprising that people begin to seek out other media or different applications of the same media. Simply put, everyone is becoming desensitized. Even stock photos are marketed on microstock for a pittance. Some are even giving their works away for free, or simply in return for crediting.
Given the evolution of digital cameras, the movie mode is now becoming increasingly prevalent. It has in effect made high quality video recordings (that is, large sensor recordings) more accessible to the masses. While purists today say that ads will always be still images, one need only recall the comparative accessibility of the early daguerrotypes to figure that it is reasonable to anticipate the superseding of still imagery ads with moving images. And I do not mean on television, but also on the billboards out there, along with the large poster ads. 10 years? 20? Its time will come, and like the way digital took film over as the primary medium, I will not be surprised if videos took over still ads over time.
Now, with beautiful pictures spewed everywhere, it is really unsurprising that people begin to seek out other media or different applications of the same media. Simply put, everyone is becoming desensitized. Even stock photos are marketed on microstock for a pittance. Some are even giving their works away for free, or simply in return for crediting.
Given the evolution of digital cameras, the movie mode is now becoming increasingly prevalent. It has in effect made high quality video recordings (that is, large sensor recordings) more accessible to the masses. While purists today say that ads will always be still images, one need only recall the comparative accessibility of the early daguerrotypes to figure that it is reasonable to anticipate the superseding of still imagery ads with moving images. And I do not mean on television, but also on the billboards out there, along with the large poster ads. 10 years? 20? Its time will come, and like the way digital took film over as the primary medium, I will not be surprised if videos took over still ads over time.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Terrorists Win
When I look back on how countries used to be before the days of the War On Terror catchphrase, I cannot help but feel that the terrorists have won. This may sound odd, since it is clear that massive military forces are being amassed in distant lands like Iraq and Afghanistan, thoroughly rooting out any "terrorists" they might find.
However, one needs to recall what some said about terrorists nearly a decade back, that they were enemies of freedom. Well, Sherlock, it would seem to me that they had won already, then. Where the risks of terrorist incidents are likely no higher than before (those guys aren't gona take breaks or swing into action just 'coz we declared a war on them), there have been significant curtailments of freedom throughout the world in the spirit of preventing future terrorist incidents. The "prevention" part is dubious, in my opinion, given the huge numbers of security cameras everywhere. It seems improbable to impossible that their footage is being actively monitored. Likewise for internet controls and other forms of surveillance.
Even if they were, while the bad eggs are being watched, common folk are being surveilled as well. Worse yet, the jumpiness induced causes regular folk to become wary of others, especially if they act strangely or even take a common photo in certain areas now deemed sensitive. Granted, there is no definitive way to prove successful prevention, but it is most certainly clear that many freedoms are being taken away in the name of security. More alarmingly, those freedoms may never be returned, since it is sensible that we remain vigilant at all times as terrorism is a problem that is here to stay. Even as guns blaze and bombs go off all over the place, I'd say that the terrorists can pet themselves on their backs for curtailing freedom the world over. You've won, guys. Be happy.
However, one needs to recall what some said about terrorists nearly a decade back, that they were enemies of freedom. Well, Sherlock, it would seem to me that they had won already, then. Where the risks of terrorist incidents are likely no higher than before (those guys aren't gona take breaks or swing into action just 'coz we declared a war on them), there have been significant curtailments of freedom throughout the world in the spirit of preventing future terrorist incidents. The "prevention" part is dubious, in my opinion, given the huge numbers of security cameras everywhere. It seems improbable to impossible that their footage is being actively monitored. Likewise for internet controls and other forms of surveillance.
Even if they were, while the bad eggs are being watched, common folk are being surveilled as well. Worse yet, the jumpiness induced causes regular folk to become wary of others, especially if they act strangely or even take a common photo in certain areas now deemed sensitive. Granted, there is no definitive way to prove successful prevention, but it is most certainly clear that many freedoms are being taken away in the name of security. More alarmingly, those freedoms may never be returned, since it is sensible that we remain vigilant at all times as terrorism is a problem that is here to stay. Even as guns blaze and bombs go off all over the place, I'd say that the terrorists can pet themselves on their backs for curtailing freedom the world over. You've won, guys. Be happy.
Sunday, November 08, 2009
On Killing
I was told about a cat that got smooshed after someone hurled it off a building. That smarts, to be sure. I hate the idea of senseless killing. Especially of a creature that very likely did no harm to the perpetrator. Such a killing reeks of vicious premeditation, for it most certainly took some time for the person to take the cat up, then toss it out.
I would love to say that it is the symptom of a sick society that breeds such people. A society where people feel the need to hurt and main other creatures, humans included. But that would likely be untrue. Where there are truly bad eggs out there, there will also be good people.
When I think back about my past, I guess I would say that I could relate to the killer back then. There is a certain excitement to the idea of killing. What would it be like? How do living things look when the life fades from their eyes? In a controlled, urban society, there are many imposed inhibitions on behavior. And there is always that lingering What If? It is, perhaps as some put it, the thrill of the hunt.
But now I guess I think differently. I have explored many strange avenues and tried out unusual things. I had my thrills wiping out entire ant colonies and popping the denizens one by one with a magnifying glass and the power of the sun. I saw roadkill and a cat that was run over and dying in front of me. I saw death, and it was beautiful. There was immense suffering, and then a moment of peace. That was enough. But ultimately, I figured that killing senselessly was just plain wrong. In killing, there is cruelty. Living creatures have a right to live. While there are times when a killing may be justified, I no longer think it right to slaughter a creature just to see what would happen.
I would love to say that it is the symptom of a sick society that breeds such people. A society where people feel the need to hurt and main other creatures, humans included. But that would likely be untrue. Where there are truly bad eggs out there, there will also be good people.
When I think back about my past, I guess I would say that I could relate to the killer back then. There is a certain excitement to the idea of killing. What would it be like? How do living things look when the life fades from their eyes? In a controlled, urban society, there are many imposed inhibitions on behavior. And there is always that lingering What If? It is, perhaps as some put it, the thrill of the hunt.
But now I guess I think differently. I have explored many strange avenues and tried out unusual things. I had my thrills wiping out entire ant colonies and popping the denizens one by one with a magnifying glass and the power of the sun. I saw roadkill and a cat that was run over and dying in front of me. I saw death, and it was beautiful. There was immense suffering, and then a moment of peace. That was enough. But ultimately, I figured that killing senselessly was just plain wrong. In killing, there is cruelty. Living creatures have a right to live. While there are times when a killing may be justified, I no longer think it right to slaughter a creature just to see what would happen.
Satan Worshippers?
Going to church is always a disturbing event for me. I see and hear things that greatly worry me. While singing hymns, I listened to the lyrics, and the connection was just downright alarming.
Now, it is commonly said that the Satan's other titles are light-bringer and morning star. Then I heard in the hymn's lyrics about praises sung to the morning star, which of course meant Jesus. Disturbing, but perhaps somewhat spurious. Perhaps it was a coincidence.
Then I recall the sacrament of the communion. Hmm...oddly enough, it involved the consumption of human flesh and blood. That was pretty alarming, because I remember Satan worshippers accused of doing the exact same things. Human sacrifice and cannibalism. Truly disturbing. But the plot thickens...
And here's the clincher: Most are familiar with the great rebellion in Christian mythology, whereby there was a rebellion by the angels and a whole bunch were thrown down. Now, when we think about worshipping a divine being-turned-human that is called the morning star and encourages people to eat human flesh and drink blood, that begins to sound suspiciously like a fallen angel.
It worries me, and really...I get pretty disturbed when I go to church at times. That is why I really would rather read my bible quietly during sermons. I feel safer that way.
Now, it is commonly said that the Satan's other titles are light-bringer and morning star. Then I heard in the hymn's lyrics about praises sung to the morning star, which of course meant Jesus. Disturbing, but perhaps somewhat spurious. Perhaps it was a coincidence.
Then I recall the sacrament of the communion. Hmm...oddly enough, it involved the consumption of human flesh and blood. That was pretty alarming, because I remember Satan worshippers accused of doing the exact same things. Human sacrifice and cannibalism. Truly disturbing. But the plot thickens...
And here's the clincher: Most are familiar with the great rebellion in Christian mythology, whereby there was a rebellion by the angels and a whole bunch were thrown down. Now, when we think about worshipping a divine being-turned-human that is called the morning star and encourages people to eat human flesh and drink blood, that begins to sound suspiciously like a fallen angel.
It worries me, and really...I get pretty disturbed when I go to church at times. That is why I really would rather read my bible quietly during sermons. I feel safer that way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)