Promised Land

Been meaning to upload this video for a while now... Finally got it processed and uploaded to YouTube.

This is for some friends overseas that wanted to see me make some music. Next up I'll be recording the song I wrote for Vanessa, and then the song I wrote this week...

So - enjoy. :-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMvFjD_gzjs

old post - in response to Info overload

Whew - been busy with "data" stuff - so I'm getting sleepy... Thought I'd stop and archive another "old post." This one is from March 23, 2009 and was a blog response to a friend's blog post, along with his comments. :-)

Over on a friend’s blog, I have been responding via comments with my thoughts about this topic. Pop on over and read that. I’ll wait...

Back? Okay. The next response I would have made would have been to say that you are saying you don’t want “truth” defined, but quality. Who is to determine what is quality and what is noise? Please don’t presume to know what I would find useful. It sounds to me like you’re looking for a service to determine what Brent wants to know and what Brent wants to ignore. I think that’s a valid thing for you to consider, but I don’t want it for me.

It sounds to me like you’re talking about a news service... One of the big things to come out of Hurricane Katrina was the instant news being reported via Twitter & blog postings. I’m sure to a lot of people much of that was considered noise, but to some people it was not enough information. Did the NY Times report everything that was blogged? No. Those that bought the paper paid them to give them what was relevant. Did they do a good job? Probably. Was it complete? No. Was it complete enough? Probably. :)

I still maintain that something like you’re talking about should be opt in only, then I can decide if I want to take your word for it or not.

As for my comment about Wikipedia vs Britannica or World Book... Yes, I trust Wikipedia more for the very reason that a lot of people say they don’t trust it - because it can be changed by just anyone. Vandalism is dealt with quickly, for one thing, and I’d MUCH rather read about a medical procedure from something that’s updated frequently by the very professionals that engage in the activity than from a book that is only updated every few years and only then by a committee of “experts” that are only looking at information that other people submit, so they are also trusting others.

Thoughts? Comments?

Comment by CJ -

One of the good things about blogging is that it opens up opportunities to discuss issues like this, and disagreement is often a good thing as we all learn from it. To be honest J, I think tend to agree with B on this more, all in all. I work in a collegiate setting as you know and professors here would never take Wikipedia as an allowable source, but they would something along the lines of Britannica in certain situations. And it generates controversies of bias (on political or social issues) sometimes.

So again, I think the issue is all about what one wants to DO with Wikipedia. It's great for a quick way to get a light overview of an issue one doesn't really know much about already. And the biggest thing Wikipedia has going for it is accessibility--anyone can get to it anytime, for most any topic. The problem with the 'anyone-can-update' model is that it can avoid professional peer-review a little too much. I've seen a number of sloppily written entries on there and have sometimes seen information that presents opinion as if it were fact.

Also, from an academic standpoint though, the *search* for knowledge can be as important as the knowledge itself, and Wikipedia is almost *too* easy, to both find info and edit it. that's my 2 cents, which may be about all it's worth! :-)

Tuesday, March 24, 2009 - 09:54 AM

Comment by Brent -

Wow. I didn't realize I'd touched such a sensitive nerve here. Let me try to explain a bit more clearly.

1. I never suggested that I should dictate to you what you should read. That's what we call "censorship."

2. Who said the Internet had to cater to *my* whims? Who said I wanted to force my opinions on anyone? Where did you get the idea you might not be able to choose to "opt in" to any sort of quality rating system I made up? If you think I personally have some control over the Internet and the world in general, then you have a much higher opinion of me than anyone else does. :-)

3. Perhaps my mention of "Verisign" in my original post scared you off. All I meant by that reference was that there's a need for a sort of verifiable "stamp" -- but the community would provide the associated "quality rating," not a small outfit like Verisign. (Without something verifiable, anyone could just rate their own content and claim it was rated by the community.) Good analogue: RottenTomatoes.com. You might not agree with the results, but they're there for you to consult as you see fit. Apply that paradigm across the web. You don't think that would be useful?

4. "Who is to determine what is quality and what is noise?" Not me. I'll state it once again: the community. This is exactly what goes on now in the "real world," but the 'Net has such low barriers to entry that there are virtually no controls on content at the moment. Ex.: Say I decide to be a stand-up comedian. My success or failure will depend on how many people I can get to pay for the privilege of listening to me. If I'm no good (decided by the community, not by any individual authority), then I'll be "weeded out." Now, you'll say maybe *you* might think I'm funny, and you wouldn't want to be denied the opportunity to make that choice yourself. Really? Are you willing to do that for the 245,987 other people out there who think they're funny, too? Do you actually have that kind of time?

5. As for Wikipedia, we'll have to agree to disagree. II think you're giving up authenticity for immediacy. There's value in the latter, but never at the expense of the former. And honestly, I don't see much new happening in Millard Fillmore's life (for example) at the moment, so I think I'm safer consulting a vetted, professionally edited source for research rather than the Wikipedia article which as likely as not will have a curse word inserted somewhere by a bored 15-year-old.

Dude, this isn't about censorship. It's about trying to make the best use of my limited time. In reading my blog, you've probably already picked up on my obsession with that goal. If you don't want the community's collected opinion on the utility of information...then ignore it. But I would value such a resource, as a means to optimize my life and be able to get other stuff done...like posting overlong replies to blog entries. :-)

Tuesday, March 24, 2009 - 09:56 AM

Jimmy

Wow - can't believe I missed these comments till now. Sorry guys!

CJ - Disagreement is VERY healthy, IMHO. As for the professors dismissing it, I totally disagree with that mentality, but I can't say that I don't understand it. I think it requires a total mind shift.

RE: Wikipedia - yes, opinion is discouraged and is usually flagged after the fact, but I can see that it would keep you from trusting it 100% (which, BTW, I don't do, but it's "another" source I use). And I like the fact that it's easy to edit... If it were not, I think we'd lose a plethora of input from professionals.

Brent - sorry if I came across as sensitive. This has been an ongoing debate in my professional life as well. :)

1) Dictate - no, didn't mean to imply that.

2) Opt in SHOULD be the norm, but I'm afraid it wouldn't be, or at least it could be semi-forced. Buy anything online? Can you use Cash? No, you're forced to use Credit Cards - or PayPal if you want it faster. And no e-checks on PayPal - instant transfer or backed up with credit/debit only.

3) Verisign makes me run screaming, so yes I'm afraid. :) I think the community provides the stamp already, you just have to learn how to use it. To shortcut that could undermine freedom of use.

Bad analogy for me - I don't use RottenTomatoes.com or their rating system. I learned a long time ago FOR ME that the critics and I don't tend to agree. I even have a CW & DW friend that can't believe I enjoyed the latest Death Race movie. :) - okay, tangent here - just went to RT & they gave Death Race a 42% - again, I disagree. :)

4) No, I don't have that kind of time, but just denying me that access by "an authority" and not by "normal weeding out" is wrong, IMO.

5) Agreed. :)

On your last paragraph - to me Wikipedia IS the community's collected opinion. :) I'm not saying I wouldn't use a resource at all, but would possibly look at it first if it were condensed, then "look further" like I do now for more of the story (story includes facts, opinions, debate, etc.).

Again - sorry guys for the delayed response... It wasn't because I was mad. :)

Wordless Wednesday

Now you know I can't be 100% wordless - I don't think it's in my DNA to be silent, but I wanted to share something I've been seeing on Twitter for several weeks now

Another blog...

This is one that is a picture only - no words, as you can tell from his description. I'm not going to make a promise that I'll start doing that, but I do like the fact that blogger lets me publish MORE than one picture per blog post, so I hope to publish more pics here (12 of 12, for example).

Anyway - today's pic is of a little ornament I received in our interoffice mail system. I have a feeling I know who it came from...

old post - life on mars

Another old post - just catching up on reposting... This one is from March 22, 2009 when Life on Mars was still not finished yet. It was a GREAT show that I really enjoyed...

Sam Tyler is a detective on a cop show called Life on Mars. I won’t expound past that because if you’re not already watching this show then you probably won’t stick around for the rest of this post. :)

Still here? Ah - good. :)

If you’ve been watching the show, then you know that it COULD be time travel... or near death hallucinations... or alien abduction... etc. Me? I’m holding out for the biggie - time travel! Tyler is not the first “Sam” to leap back in time...

Those of you that know me know I’m nuts for time travel stories, so needless to say when Life on Mars started being previewed, I was all over it. Like last year’s Journeyman, I thought, “finally, a dramatic time travel show.” What I got in the bargain was much more. Each week we get a little better look at Detective Tyler and his life, both as an adult and his history. In addition to that, the shows are very entertaining in themselves. Add in the time travel strand and you have built in cliffhangers.

But enough about the background. This post assumes you already know all that. What I want to discuss is MY thoughts on what’s happening to Sam and what we might be finding out in the next two weeks (the last two episodes, supposedly). First, you know I *want* it to be time travel, but that’s not good enough. We have to have evidence to support it. So far all the things that could be attributed to time travel could also be attributed to an hallucination. If we assume that what we see on the screen is really happening in 1973, then we can only assume it’s time travel.

WOW - I just realized this will be harder than I thought... Rather than try to convince you that it is time travel, let me just give you my thoughts on some things and how they might play out.

1)Sam has confided in Annie. So far Annie hasn’t totally dismissed him. Is it because she likes him? Or does she believe him? I think she believes that HE believes it, so she’s willing to appease him. She also can’t deny that Sam saved her life when she wore the red dress. Unless he could see the future some other way, that was a BIG step toward belief in her mind. Putting myself in her shoes, I can see how it would be hard to accept this.

2)Sam has ONLY confided in Annie. He’s not told anyone else, so he’s not a threat to whoever/whatever sent him here. I’m referring of course to Project Aries. What is it? Who is it? The folder looked to me like a joint venture between the Soviets and Americans. Did they send him back in time or are they looking for travelers or something else?

3)In the episode where there was the accountant being pursued, he indicated to Sam that he arrived in 1973 with an apartment, a history, papers, etc. Sam thought he was from 2008, but instead he was from 2009 (our time, basically) and said Obama had won the election (news to Sam, since he leaped before November). He was also talking about it and apparently being silenced.

4)Sam gets a mysterious phone call from someone that apparently knows about him being an immigrant to 1973. Looking for answers, Sam follows the caller’s instructions, which lead him to a house where, in the next episode, he finds a dead body. Internal Affairs interviews Sam, Ray, Chris, Gene, etc., but they destroy the tapes of everyone except Sam. My theory is that they were checking to see if he would talk about what had happened to him. Either they concluded that he is unaware (doubtful, since they called him again after the interview) or that he can be trusted not to talk. Either way, the question still remains - did they do this to him?

This is so circular that it’s hard to put it out in a linear fashion. I think that Sam’s memories from when he was a kid are because he’s there now. In other words, it’s a closed loop. But is it a loop that can be changed? Did he cause his mother to come home crying and wake him up as a kid? If so, then did it happen to his younger self because of the same events or not? If slightly different, but same outcome, then he can change the past. If the same, then it’s a closed loop.

The thing that puzzles me, though, is why did Sam have a job, apartment, clothes, identification, a car, etc. in 1973? If it’s an act of GFTW (God/Fate/Time/Whatever from QL), then there’s the answer. If the government did this to him, then they could have set all that up. His hair was different enough that they would have had a hard time faking a photo ID of him before the change.

Actually, the more you try to find answers, the more questions you discover. ABC promises that “after next week, all questions will be answered,” but I don’t believe it. Unless he wakes up from a coma and it was all a dream (perhaps Annie is the nurse that’s taking care of him, and she’s become part of the hallucination; perhaps Gene is the surgeon or head doctor; Ray & Chris the orderlies), how else is it explained? I will say that I will be sorely disappointed if that is the answer...

This week’s show saw him promise Annie that he’d take her out when he gets home. I hope he can follow through with that...

old post - fasting

Here's another post from March 15, 2009 - along with a comment...

I subscribe to heartlight.org’s biblical passages - kinda like a VOTD (verse of the day). While reading some old email, I ran across the entry for Friday the 13th -

The Hidden Fast

"When you fast, don't make yourselves look sad. The hypocrites do that. Don't be like the hypocrites. They make their faces look strange to show people that they are fasting. I tell you the truth, those hypocrites already have their full reward. So when you fast, make yourself look nice. Wash your face. Then people will not know that you are fasting. But your Father that you cannot see will see you. Your Father sees the things that are done in secret. And he will reward you."

-- Matthew 6:16-18 (ERV)

My take on this...

This should apply to much more than just fasting. Besides, anyone that’s seen me in person knows I’m not a faster. Faster eater, maybe, but let’s just say that I did NOT give up fried food for Lent...

At any rate, I’ve always loved the quote, “Share the Gospel daily. Use words if necessary.” I feel like if we’re fasting for the proper reasons, we should NOT show it. Does this mean that I should hide the fact that I’m saying Grace at lunch? No. I see that as a point of witnessing, but I’m not going to stand up and ask everyone around me to be quiet while I say my prayer, and I’m not going to say it where everyone else can hear me (I’m not talking to them anyway - ask me if you haven’t heard that old joke ;) ). I think if I did either of those things that I would like those hypocrites.

Anyway, just wanted to share that with you...

Comment from Chris -

Hey Jim! Thanks for sharing that. I tend to feel the same way. Unfortunately, for me I don't have much to be hidden over to begin with when it comes to fasting! (meaning I don't do it enough)

Hey thanks for the call at work the other day; great to talk with you. Hope it works out for us to do lunch sometime ... (oops, we were talking about fasting :-)

My Only Love

Silver Anniversary - that's what tomorrow is. Vanessa and I were married 25 years ago tomorrow. She just gave me my card for this year and it really touched me. It was as if she had written it herself. THANK YOU!!!

I gave her her gift Friday night. I surprised her with a song I had written just for her and to commemorate this time. I'll be recording it and putting it online very soon, but wanted to keep it a secret until it was time to reveal it.

A special thank you to those that had a hand in helping me pull it off, and a thank you to those that knew but still helped to keep the secret. A BIG thank you to Vanessa - for the years she's given me as well as the support and the love.

You have always been my only love...

old post - i watched the watchmen

Another old one - this one from March 15, 2009

i watched the watchmen

First, I hate that I went two full days with no update... Both days were kinda out of the ordinary though, so I’ll use that as an explanation.

Yesterday, I found myself alone with a few hours, so I went to see Watchmen. I was VERY impressed with the characterization as well as the cinematography. Was it 100% with the graphic novel? No. Did it remain true to the original? Yes! I was very satisfied with the adaptation and in some ways it surpassed it... All of the dark, gritty drama of the graphic novel was there, PLUS the fight scenes were brought “alive” with bullet time and superhuman speed. I text my nephew right afterward and told him that if it had been made pre-Matrix, it would not have had the punch that it did.

If you’ve seen screen shots, pics or the trailer (or read the novel), then you know it’s an alternative history piece with some nostalgia thrown in. But I must say the costumes do not look dated and it does NOT have the flow of a comic book movie. If you liked the novel but were afraid this would not be “close enough” to make you happy, go see it anyway. If you are squeamish, though, be warned. Just like the novel, there’s more than a little blood, and it is NOT done comic book style...

I was a fan of Alan Moore (who has nothing to do with the film, BTW - I even noticed his name NOT appearing in the credits even as inspiration) back in the late 80’s/early 90’s when I got back into comic books. He was writing for Batman at the time and his stories were more gritty and dramatic than campy. This is especially true of Watchmen and it carries over nicely to the film.

Please feel free to add a comment, but try to remain spoiler free, at least for the next few months. :)