According to the window that popped up on my computer today, I updated my AMD Catalyst Drivers on the 4th of July. Do I know how to start off the holiday or what? Don't answer that, it's reciprocal.*
*Yeah, I know it is supposed to be "rhetorical."
Aug 23, 2012
What did I do on July 4, 2012?
According to the window that popped up on my computer today, I updated my AMD Catalyst Drivers on the 4th of July. Do I know how to start off the holiday or what? Don't answer that, it's reciprocal.*
*Yeah, I know it is supposed to be "rhetorical."
Aug 17, 2012
So Long, Cinch.fm. It was fun while it lasted.
I received the following message in my email today. For those of us that loved playing with this on-demand podcasting site/app, this is very sad news indeed:
Dear Cinch.FM users,
It is with great sadness that I announce that we are shutting down the Cinch.FM service. While we continue to believe that easily creating audio content has an important place in the digital world, we just do not have the engineering and product resources to maintain the service while continuing to invest in our main property, BlogTalkRadio. We’d like to make the transition off of Cinch.FM as smooth as possible for you by providing the steps necessary for preserving your content.
Effective August 20th, 2012, no new accounts can be created on Cinch.FM and for those of you with an existing Cinch.FM account, you will no longer be able to create new audio recordings.
Your existing content will remain online and available until October 20, 2012 – two months from the shut down date. Cinch.FM players that have been published on your blog or any other website will continue to function until that date. In addition, the RSS feed for your account will remain available for the same period.
If you would like to save any of your recordings, please log in to the Cinch.FM web site immediately and download your audio content. To download your content, you may login here. If you have a large volume of content that you would like to download, we recommend that you use the RSS feeds available in your account and a podcast client.
After October 20, 2012, your content will be permanently deleted, and we will not be able to retrieve it.
I know that many of you actively use the Cinch.FM service, but please know that this turn of events saddens us as well and we are truly sorry. We’re incredibly thankful for our Cinch.FM community of users.
Again thank you for being a Cinch.FM user.
Sincerely,
Bob Charish, COO Cinch.FM
Aug 10, 2012
Inception: Interesting idea, stupid premise
*Spoiler alert. If you have not seen Inception, and don't want to know anything about it before you do see it, don't read this.
Yeah, I'm late to this party. I finally watched "Inception" for the first time last night. If you haven't seen it, or like me know nothing about it, then here is a quick plot summary:
People can extract information from people's dreams through "dream sharing." In a twist, Leonardo DiCaprio's character must instead PLANT information (the seed of an idea, really).
I loved the multi-level depth of the movie - that is, we see the movie through at least three, er four, levels of dreaming. I've heard/read several folks talk about being confused and getting lost while watching. Maybe I've seen too many of these kinds of movies, but it was pretty clear to me which level was being portrayed on the screen at any given time. This was mainly because each environment was so different than the others. Had they made everything just a little different between levels, it would have been harder for me to follow.
Since Leo's character is just trying to get "back home," it never made sense to me that this one guy in the whole world (the 'client') was the only person who could make Leo's trouble disappear. And, it never made sense that all of this was just industrial espionage. Oh well. I suppose that was part of the idea, though. Since the movie ends just as I would expect, we will learn more should there be a sequel. Let me cut to the chase: the ending was stupid and totally predictable. Of course the spinning top will keep on spinning. For me, the top should have fallen over just before the cut to credits. But, then, I'm not out trying to make a billion bucks on movie sequels.
I enjoyed watching the van scenes cut to the hotel cut to the central winter outpost cut to the 'private world' and back again. The movie had to spend a lot of energy explaining how 'time' works between the dream levels. I do wish they would would have had some turbulence on the plane or something. We never cut back to the plane until the 'end.' Of course, I suppose they wanted the viewer to forget these folks were all asleep on the airplane in the first place. To that end, I fully expected to see Leo's wife show up in the airport. Glad they didn't go that route, but it didn't matter. As I said, the end was predictable enough.
Inception is a nice one-time flick. It is like Matrix in a way. It is like Brainstorm in a way. The film makes us examine our own reality and question just what *IS* reality. Human are kind of obsessed with that.
Yeah, I'm late to this party. I finally watched "Inception" for the first time last night. If you haven't seen it, or like me know nothing about it, then here is a quick plot summary:
People can extract information from people's dreams through "dream sharing." In a twist, Leonardo DiCaprio's character must instead PLANT information (the seed of an idea, really).
I loved the multi-level depth of the movie - that is, we see the movie through at least three, er four, levels of dreaming. I've heard/read several folks talk about being confused and getting lost while watching. Maybe I've seen too many of these kinds of movies, but it was pretty clear to me which level was being portrayed on the screen at any given time. This was mainly because each environment was so different than the others. Had they made everything just a little different between levels, it would have been harder for me to follow.
Since Leo's character is just trying to get "back home," it never made sense to me that this one guy in the whole world (the 'client') was the only person who could make Leo's trouble disappear. And, it never made sense that all of this was just industrial espionage. Oh well. I suppose that was part of the idea, though. Since the movie ends just as I would expect, we will learn more should there be a sequel. Let me cut to the chase: the ending was stupid and totally predictable. Of course the spinning top will keep on spinning. For me, the top should have fallen over just before the cut to credits. But, then, I'm not out trying to make a billion bucks on movie sequels.
I enjoyed watching the van scenes cut to the hotel cut to the central winter outpost cut to the 'private world' and back again. The movie had to spend a lot of energy explaining how 'time' works between the dream levels. I do wish they would would have had some turbulence on the plane or something. We never cut back to the plane until the 'end.' Of course, I suppose they wanted the viewer to forget these folks were all asleep on the airplane in the first place. To that end, I fully expected to see Leo's wife show up in the airport. Glad they didn't go that route, but it didn't matter. As I said, the end was predictable enough.
Inception is a nice one-time flick. It is like Matrix in a way. It is like Brainstorm in a way. The film makes us examine our own reality and question just what *IS* reality. Human are kind of obsessed with that.
Jul 16, 2012
Does God help those that help themselves?
"God helps those that help themselves" is a phrase that is found in exactly ZERO verses of the Bible. It is often used as the rallying cry against welfare programs, social security, etc.
We are to help others while working to sustain ourselves and our faith.
"He who is not willing to work, does not eat."- 2 Thessalonians 3:10. Notice the word WILLING. The Bible does not say those who do not work. It says those who are not willing. Many are willing, but cannot (physical reasons, unemployment reasons, etc).
Of course, the main argument is one of semantics: "help themselves." How does one define such a thing? If I need to improve my financial situation and I am a hard worker who asks the boss for a raise, is that helping myself? In a way, of course. If a single person seeks companionship and they go out looking for someone, is that helping themselves find mate? Again, in a way, yes.
The Bible mentions that if draw closer to God, He will draw closer to us. This is often seen as a "meeting halfway" kind of thing, and often serves as the "biblical basis" for perpetuating the phrase and concept. The Bible also says "Faith without works is dead (faith)."
I believe we are not to sit around and be lazy about things. And, in a way, that is helping ourselves. But, I think the bigger picture is that we are not to help ourselves in the sense of a "name-and-claim-it" mentality nor a "snatch and grab" one. I also believe that the Lord helps plenty of people who CANNOT help themselves. Heck, the Bible is full of examples - healings, miracles, etc - where the people could not help themselves. Ah, but they were WILLING.
One of my favorite verses in the Bible comes from Isaiah: "But they that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; and they shall walk, and not faint." They that wait... I have always seen this as a double meaning. On one hand, we are to wait, as in pray and listen and allow God to help us in our needs, our desires. On the other hand, we are to wait on the Lord, as in a waiter/waitress. That is, we are to work for God.
God's Grace is unwarranted, unmerited, undeserved. We get it not because we "help ourselves" and so He gives us some kind of reward. Rather, He gives it to us despite anything we try to do, and often in spite of the mess we often make of thing BECAUSE we try to help ourselves.
If we are only out to help ourselves for selfish reasons, the Lord is not going to help us.
The best way to find this out for yourself? Read the book.
As a side thought: one of my favorite (and most difficult) courses in college was Western Civ to 1650. In that class, the professor showed the historical ties between many events in the Bible and those documented in other forms. It was the first time I was shown the Bible as a historical text (as opposed to a purely spiritual one).
Another side note: The phrase is all-too-often misattributed to Ben Franklin's coinage. While he did USE the phrase, he did not COIN it. It's been around a lot longer than that. Look it up - that's a pretty good story, too.
We are to help others while working to sustain ourselves and our faith.
"He who is not willing to work, does not eat."- 2 Thessalonians 3:10. Notice the word WILLING. The Bible does not say those who do not work. It says those who are not willing. Many are willing, but cannot (physical reasons, unemployment reasons, etc).
Of course, the main argument is one of semantics: "help themselves." How does one define such a thing? If I need to improve my financial situation and I am a hard worker who asks the boss for a raise, is that helping myself? In a way, of course. If a single person seeks companionship and they go out looking for someone, is that helping themselves find mate? Again, in a way, yes.
The Bible mentions that if draw closer to God, He will draw closer to us. This is often seen as a "meeting halfway" kind of thing, and often serves as the "biblical basis" for perpetuating the phrase and concept. The Bible also says "Faith without works is dead (faith)."
I believe we are not to sit around and be lazy about things. And, in a way, that is helping ourselves. But, I think the bigger picture is that we are not to help ourselves in the sense of a "name-and-claim-it" mentality nor a "snatch and grab" one. I also believe that the Lord helps plenty of people who CANNOT help themselves. Heck, the Bible is full of examples - healings, miracles, etc - where the people could not help themselves. Ah, but they were WILLING.
One of my favorite verses in the Bible comes from Isaiah: "But they that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; and they shall walk, and not faint." They that wait... I have always seen this as a double meaning. On one hand, we are to wait, as in pray and listen and allow God to help us in our needs, our desires. On the other hand, we are to wait on the Lord, as in a waiter/waitress. That is, we are to work for God.
God's Grace is unwarranted, unmerited, undeserved. We get it not because we "help ourselves" and so He gives us some kind of reward. Rather, He gives it to us despite anything we try to do, and often in spite of the mess we often make of thing BECAUSE we try to help ourselves.
If we are only out to help ourselves for selfish reasons, the Lord is not going to help us.
The best way to find this out for yourself? Read the book.
As a side thought: one of my favorite (and most difficult) courses in college was Western Civ to 1650. In that class, the professor showed the historical ties between many events in the Bible and those documented in other forms. It was the first time I was shown the Bible as a historical text (as opposed to a purely spiritual one).
Another side note: The phrase is all-too-often misattributed to Ben Franklin's coinage. While he did USE the phrase, he did not COIN it. It's been around a lot longer than that. Look it up - that's a pretty good story, too.
Jul 12, 2012
Remember when superlatives were ... super?
I am guilty. I use superlatives the way some people use the "Like" button on Facebook. I need to stop. We all need to stop. Is EVERYTHING "incredible," "amazing," or "absolutely the best ever?" No. But, because we throw those words around, we have actually deflated the meanings of those words to the point that they are sometimes just words. Heck, we might not even "see" them when we read something - we have become so accustomed to having them thrown into our everyday language that we simply ignore them.
I don't even remember how I found the page I am about to share with you, but the entire reason I clicked on it was because I knew I disagreed with the headline even before I read the story. The story? "40 of the Most Powerful Photographs Ever Taken."
Now, much like I do myself, at least the author had the good sense to off-handedly qualify the article. "Of the" has become the universal cop-out. A helper phrase, if you will. Even I recently shared a link in which I said, "This is one of the funniest... I have ever read." I actually used two qualifiers there: "of the" and "that I." "Of the" gets me off the hook period. There could be billions of funny things (or in the care of the article I am going to share, photographs) out there, but with a little "of the" thrown in, you can agree or not - but really, how could you disagree? It says that out of all the (whatevers), here is a selection, a handful, ONE of the (superlative) of those.
My other out, and one I actually condone, is the use of "that I." That phrase communicates my OPINION. Without it, I thrust myself out there like some authority figure on a particular subject and immediately people are going to raise up their shields. With out "that I," an article offers an immediate challenge to potential readers. The challenge? Or the response? The same I one had regarding the photographs: "Oh yeah, I bet I don't think so." Or, perhaps a softer, "Well, maybe they are SOME of those (whatevers) but I know of others..."
Think about it: 40 of the BEST love songs. 22 of the greatest quotes.
The real downfall to superlative overuse/misuse comes with words like "EVER!" Ever? Really? In the history of time, these are the (superlative) (whatevers) EVER?! I doubt it. And, yes, I am fully aware that I used the word when I shared a link adding "funniest..I have ever read." I told you I'm guilty.
But, change is not easy. We must first recognize the fact we are doing something that needs to be changed. Then, we take little steps to correct the action. Finally, we wean ourselves from it.
So, the article that started this whole train of thought? 40 photographs. Are they the MOST POWERFUL EVER taken? Sure, most of them are likely to evoke some kind of emotion, but are they the top 40? I don't think so. Of course, the author made sure *NOT* to use the word "THE" in the headline. These aren't THE 40 Most Powerful, they are just 40 of the most powerful. And what about "powerful?" What does that mean? How I define a photograph to represent something powerful will surely be different than what you use as the benchmark of a "powerful" photograph. Just like my own use of "funniest" - you may have a completely different sense of humor than I do (and, most likely you do, since mine is pretty warped).
In any case, enjoy the photos and decide for yourself just how superlative they are:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/expresident/most-powerful-photographs-ever-taken
And "one of the funniest posts I have ever read?" It's right here:
http://cartbeforethehorse.blogspot.com/2012/07/calculated-fun.html
Feel free to comment. If the goofy comment gadget is working.
I don't even remember how I found the page I am about to share with you, but the entire reason I clicked on it was because I knew I disagreed with the headline even before I read the story. The story? "40 of the Most Powerful Photographs Ever Taken."
Now, much like I do myself, at least the author had the good sense to off-handedly qualify the article. "Of the" has become the universal cop-out. A helper phrase, if you will. Even I recently shared a link in which I said, "This is one of the funniest... I have ever read." I actually used two qualifiers there: "of the" and "that I." "Of the" gets me off the hook period. There could be billions of funny things (or in the care of the article I am going to share, photographs) out there, but with a little "of the" thrown in, you can agree or not - but really, how could you disagree? It says that out of all the (whatevers), here is a selection, a handful, ONE of the (superlative) of those.
My other out, and one I actually condone, is the use of "that I." That phrase communicates my OPINION. Without it, I thrust myself out there like some authority figure on a particular subject and immediately people are going to raise up their shields. With out "that I," an article offers an immediate challenge to potential readers. The challenge? Or the response? The same I one had regarding the photographs: "Oh yeah, I bet I don't think so." Or, perhaps a softer, "Well, maybe they are SOME of those (whatevers) but I know of others..."
Think about it: 40 of the BEST love songs. 22 of the greatest quotes.
The real downfall to superlative overuse/misuse comes with words like "EVER!" Ever? Really? In the history of time, these are the (superlative) (whatevers) EVER?! I doubt it. And, yes, I am fully aware that I used the word when I shared a link adding "funniest..I have ever read." I told you I'm guilty.
But, change is not easy. We must first recognize the fact we are doing something that needs to be changed. Then, we take little steps to correct the action. Finally, we wean ourselves from it.
So, the article that started this whole train of thought? 40 photographs. Are they the MOST POWERFUL EVER taken? Sure, most of them are likely to evoke some kind of emotion, but are they the top 40? I don't think so. Of course, the author made sure *NOT* to use the word "THE" in the headline. These aren't THE 40 Most Powerful, they are just 40 of the most powerful. And what about "powerful?" What does that mean? How I define a photograph to represent something powerful will surely be different than what you use as the benchmark of a "powerful" photograph. Just like my own use of "funniest" - you may have a completely different sense of humor than I do (and, most likely you do, since mine is pretty warped).
In any case, enjoy the photos and decide for yourself just how superlative they are:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/expresident/most-powerful-photographs-ever-taken
And "one of the funniest posts I have ever read?" It's right here:
http://cartbeforethehorse.blogspot.com/2012/07/calculated-fun.html
Feel free to comment. If the goofy comment gadget is working.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)