1/21/2017 12:05pst
It is Saturday morning, the day after the inaguration. I am watching the
woman's march happening around the country. I am sick or I would be at the
one happening in Seattle. I heard on one of the stations that march organizers
did not want to welcome pro-life woman that want to participate. I think
this is a mistake.
In 1973 I was 15 years old. Row vs Wade passed and a simple melody
came into my head and I wrote the following.
Never Born I died
On this earth I might have stood
but mother didn't think that I should
my life was over in a flash
and now my soul lies in the trash
Never born I died
and they don't call it homicide
the law says it's fair and just
so it's ashes to ashes
and dust to dust
Over the years this has been a subject that I have thought a lot about. I have
learned over the years that this is not a black and white issue. Those words only
tell one part of this story.
Recently, I was asked to pray for a pregnant mother that found out that
her baby, a daughter, had no kidneys (just one of many other complications).
The baby would have no chance of survival. Now, it was only a choice of inducing
labor now and saying goodbye, or going to full-term and saying goodbye. The words
never born I died take on a different trajectory for this mother.
She was not long ago at her shower, opening all the gifts, laughing
and doing all the things woman do at a shower. She was a happy mother,
beaming, radiant, dreaming about all the things she would get to do with
her daughter.
And now she and her husband are faced with making the decision when to
say goodbye to the child they will never know. As I try to reach into the
depth of my own soul I cannot begin to understand the sorrow they face.
Saturday, January 21, 2017
Sunday, October 16, 2016
Real Political Courage and Being an American First
Warning: This post contains quotes that use vulgar and disturbing language.
On June 11, 1963 President Kennedy sent the National Guard to the University of Alabama to ensure that Vivian Malone could enroll in classes at the University of Alabama. In a mostly symbolic gesture of defiance, the Governor of Alabama, George Wallace, had the Alabama State Patrol surround the building as he blocked the front entrance.
President Kennedy was a Democrat. Governor Wallace was a Democrat. After that historic action the South became Republican country. Republican country for generations. In fact, in 1968 Richard Nixon executed what is known as the "Southern Strategy." The "Southern Strategy" refers to methods the Republican Party used to gain political support in the South by appealing to the racist tendencies of white voters.
President Kennedy did not do the politically expedient thing. President Kennedy followed the law against a defiant segregationist Governor within his own political party! This is not only courage but led to his own party losing the southern state still to this day.
Fast forward to the 2016 Presidential race.
In 2005 on Howard Stern’s radio show, Donald Trump said the following in reference to a Teen Pageant (YES, TEENAGERS!)...
"No men are anywhere, and I’m allowed to go in, because I’m the owner of the pageant and therefore I’m inspecting it, ‘Is everyone OK?’ You know, they’re standing there with no clothes. ‘Is everybody OK?’ And you see these incredible-looking women, and so I sort of get away with things like that.”
He also is on tape during and Access Hollywood bus saying the following which was recorded several months after he married his third and current wife, Melania....
"I moved on her, and I failed. I’ll admit it. I did try and fuck her. She was married,”
“You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful ... I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it, You can do anything. Grab them by the pussy, You can do anything.”
These are the words from the Republican candidate for the President of the United States, a man who won over fifteen other Republican candidates. This is the party that claims to be the party of family values and morality. His running mate, Mike Pence claims to be a Christian first. Trump is still being backed by religious leaders like John Jeffrees and Jerry Falwell. Paul Ryan still is backing him. In fact most Republican members of The Senate and the House of Representatives are backing him.
Folks, these are not accusations against Trump. This is Trump talking on tape talking about walking in on teen age girls that are naked or partially dressed. Talking about wanting to have intercourse with a married woman and talking about sexually assaulting women and getting away with it because he is a celebrity.
Donald Trump is a manifestation of what the Republican party has become. Decades of people like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Andrew Breitbart, Ann Coulter, and Laura Ingraham on television and radio talking about liberals as if they were the incarnation of the devil himself.
Every one of these people are going to vote for a man that is on tape saying what is quoted above.
But even before this came out this is a man who referred to Mexicans as rapists, mocked a disabled reporter, referred to woman as dogs, flat-chested, and pigs… even called for the Russians to hack Clinton's email. I could write a book on all the disgusting things this man has said. Many will be written about this dark stain on the American political process, our democracy.
You are free to vote for whomever you want. Regardless of your beliefs and attitudes this is your right as an American. But if you vote for this man you no longer get to claim the moral high road. The Republican party, their values and ideals have created the perfect moral degenerate to run for the highest office in the land. And, now in the face of overwhelming evidence, when confronted with the exact words of this man from decades ago to present day of the things this degenerate has said, they lack the courage to stand up as Americans. Their party is more important than America. Their party is more important than the Americans they were entrusted to represent.
How do they defend the indefensible?
How will you defend the indefensible? Will you remain quiet as many of you have?
Donald Trump is not an aberration. He is the fulfillment of what this party has become over the past several decades, a party of derisive hypocrites whose goals are to tear down, not build up.
Are you really going to vote for this man and for leaders that lack the moral backbone to denounce this man?
Thursday, October 3, 2013
The Golden Age of Audio - Waxing Nostalgic Today
Today my Sansui 661 Stereo Receiver circa 1976 arrived. I paid $150.00 for it (including shipping) on eBay. A true thing of beauty. Real rosewood case. Weighing in at 22 pounds! I unhooked my existing modern receiver and hooked it up. In the true spirit of testing, I plugged in my iPod touch and put on Steely Dan, Aja.
One word...
WOW!
Just blown away. If you have never heard music through a good set of speakers and a good receiver you have no idea what you are missing. It is if you are sitting in the room with the musicians playing live for you.
I had forgotten what real hi-fidelity sound sounds like. We assume as technology evolves that the products get better. In computer hardware and video technology this is certainly the case.
Not so with audio.
Unfortunately in the late 80's and early 90's electronics started moving to VLSI (Very Large Scale Integration). VLSI in laymans terms is packaging up a whole bunch of discrete components into a single chip. Great for computer electronics, not so good for audio.
I know about this because I was a hardware technician back then and was becoming bored with my job as we were moving away from component level repair to swapping out whole boards. It was during that time I began to transition from hardware to software. It was also during that time that the golden age of audio was actually well into its swan song.
During the golden age of audio (thought by many audiophiles to be the 60's and 70's) companies like Sansui, Pioneer, Yamaha, Luxman, Carver, Kenwood, Sony, Bang & Olufsen, Marantz, McIntosh... and more competed with one another in the high end audio market. Think of that for a moment, ten companies in the high end audio market. And the gear was not cheap. The Sansui 661 receiver I just bought was a low end model that sold back in 1976 for $350.00 (That is $1428 in today's dollars [http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl]).
The equipment was hand made in factories by skilled technicians using high end discrete electronic components. Oh, how the times have changed and so has the sound we hear.
It was ironic that while waiting for my receiver to arrive CNN published a story on the death of the Stereo. http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/27/tech/innovation/death-stereo-system/index.html. I chuckled aloud when I read...
"At the same time, grown-up baby boomers, now working adults, invested in better audio equipment, all the better to listen to Steely Dan's "Aja."
You can buy some great stereo amps and receivers from the golden age on eBay. These beasts were built to last. They also came with schematics and a parts list! When they broke they could be repaired. Today there are still places that can service these works of audio art. The fact that there are still so many functional receivers and amplifiers from the 60's and 70's is testimonial to the longevity and quality of these products... sometimes the good 'ol days really are more than just nostalgia.
I was so thrilled with my purchase that just bought a pair of Wharfedale Diamond 10.1 bookshelf speakers. Fortunately speaker technology continues to be strong. I can't wait to get these bad-boys hook them up and give Aja or Dark Side of the Moon a spin.
One word...
WOW!
Just blown away. If you have never heard music through a good set of speakers and a good receiver you have no idea what you are missing. It is if you are sitting in the room with the musicians playing live for you.
I had forgotten what real hi-fidelity sound sounds like. We assume as technology evolves that the products get better. In computer hardware and video technology this is certainly the case.
Not so with audio.
Unfortunately in the late 80's and early 90's electronics started moving to VLSI (Very Large Scale Integration). VLSI in laymans terms is packaging up a whole bunch of discrete components into a single chip. Great for computer electronics, not so good for audio.
I know about this because I was a hardware technician back then and was becoming bored with my job as we were moving away from component level repair to swapping out whole boards. It was during that time I began to transition from hardware to software. It was also during that time that the golden age of audio was actually well into its swan song.
During the golden age of audio (thought by many audiophiles to be the 60's and 70's) companies like Sansui, Pioneer, Yamaha, Luxman, Carver, Kenwood, Sony, Bang & Olufsen, Marantz, McIntosh... and more competed with one another in the high end audio market. Think of that for a moment, ten companies in the high end audio market. And the gear was not cheap. The Sansui 661 receiver I just bought was a low end model that sold back in 1976 for $350.00 (That is $1428 in today's dollars [http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl]).
The equipment was hand made in factories by skilled technicians using high end discrete electronic components. Oh, how the times have changed and so has the sound we hear.
It was ironic that while waiting for my receiver to arrive CNN published a story on the death of the Stereo. http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/27/tech/innovation/death-stereo-system/index.html. I chuckled aloud when I read...
"At the same time, grown-up baby boomers, now working adults, invested in better audio equipment, all the better to listen to Steely Dan's "Aja."
You can buy some great stereo amps and receivers from the golden age on eBay. These beasts were built to last. They also came with schematics and a parts list! When they broke they could be repaired. Today there are still places that can service these works of audio art. The fact that there are still so many functional receivers and amplifiers from the 60's and 70's is testimonial to the longevity and quality of these products... sometimes the good 'ol days really are more than just nostalgia.
I was so thrilled with my purchase that just bought a pair of Wharfedale Diamond 10.1 bookshelf speakers. Fortunately speaker technology continues to be strong. I can't wait to get these bad-boys hook them up and give Aja or Dark Side of the Moon a spin.
Sunday, March 17, 2013
My Greatest Fear
Actually I have two though I am not sure fear is a best term to coin. It might be a tad bit strong, but I will stick with using it anyway.
I actually have two fears.
I am greatful when others diagree or challenge my positions, even when they do so in a manner that I find to be less than respectful (like most folks I am not a huge fan of being disrespected).
Why? ...Simple
This is how we grow.
Would we have advanced from the cave if we lived in a world where 100% consensus was the norm?
I actually have two fears.
- That I get too full of myself.
- That there will be no one out there to disagree with and challenge my beliefs and question the things I have to say.
I am greatful when others diagree or challenge my positions, even when they do so in a manner that I find to be less than respectful (like most folks I am not a huge fan of being disrespected).
Why? ...Simple
This is how we grow.
Would we have advanced from the cave if we lived in a world where 100% consensus was the norm?
Saturday, March 16, 2013
Looking in the Mirror as the World Changes
The world is always changing. Fast of slow? For better or Worse? Richer of Poorer? Sicker or Healthier? Cleaner or Dirtier? Sounding a bit like a marriage here. Things change at both the macro and micro levels.
I am a technology geek. While I like to engage in a variety of different types of work I still like to roll up my sleeves and engage in technology. I like tinkering with and building software from what is called the backend to the frontend. Right or wrong there is a perception that your shelf life starts to diminish and deteriorate at around age thirty if you are a hard core techie.
Well, I am fifty-four. Since I was about forty I literally have woken up most every work day looked in the mirror and asked myself, "Is the world of technology passing me by?", "Am I keeping current?", "Are my ideas fresh?", "Am I still able to be innovative?", "Am I becoming too set in my ways?"
Sometimes if we are being honest with ourselves these are tough questions to answer. Especially when we are only reflecting on them in our own moments of privacy.
A few years ago I recall a phone conversation with a co-worker and friend. He was railing about having to deal with a group of older co-workers on a project. They were set in their ways, dug in and unwilling to look to new ways to solve a problem his inter-disciplinary team was facing. I sat and listened as I had worked with many of these people and shared his sentiments. During his vent he said something to the effect that it was sometimes hard to work with older people in technology and I think he even threw out an age that was quite younger than mine (at the time). I said to him... "You do realize I am fifty two?" ...then braced myself for his response.
"I know, but you are not like them..."
I brushed the sweat off my forehead, sweet validation of my self-perception :-).
Seriously though, this is not a physical game we are playing where we cannot help that our body is just slowing down.
Why is it we get so set in our ways?
I recently engaged with a rather brilliant fellow of somewhat renown that comes across like someone who still lives in the early 1980's. I know this as after I spar with him I will typically get a few communications from people that privately tell me this. His voice is not nearly as well received as it could be because he really does live in the past. While much of what he says is still relevant today he comes across is a manner that cause most people to just stop listening.
What is our reason for resisting change?
Is is because what we are doing and have been doing really works so well we just feel "why should I change"?
What is our motivation for not wanting to change and adopt new ideas?
My worldview on this for a long time has been...
I am a technology geek. While I like to engage in a variety of different types of work I still like to roll up my sleeves and engage in technology. I like tinkering with and building software from what is called the backend to the frontend. Right or wrong there is a perception that your shelf life starts to diminish and deteriorate at around age thirty if you are a hard core techie.
Well, I am fifty-four. Since I was about forty I literally have woken up most every work day looked in the mirror and asked myself, "Is the world of technology passing me by?", "Am I keeping current?", "Are my ideas fresh?", "Am I still able to be innovative?", "Am I becoming too set in my ways?"
Sometimes if we are being honest with ourselves these are tough questions to answer. Especially when we are only reflecting on them in our own moments of privacy.
A few years ago I recall a phone conversation with a co-worker and friend. He was railing about having to deal with a group of older co-workers on a project. They were set in their ways, dug in and unwilling to look to new ways to solve a problem his inter-disciplinary team was facing. I sat and listened as I had worked with many of these people and shared his sentiments. During his vent he said something to the effect that it was sometimes hard to work with older people in technology and I think he even threw out an age that was quite younger than mine (at the time). I said to him... "You do realize I am fifty two?" ...then braced myself for his response.
"I know, but you are not like them..."
I brushed the sweat off my forehead, sweet validation of my self-perception :-).
Seriously though, this is not a physical game we are playing where we cannot help that our body is just slowing down.
Why is it we get so set in our ways?
I recently engaged with a rather brilliant fellow of somewhat renown that comes across like someone who still lives in the early 1980's. I know this as after I spar with him I will typically get a few communications from people that privately tell me this. His voice is not nearly as well received as it could be because he really does live in the past. While much of what he says is still relevant today he comes across is a manner that cause most people to just stop listening.
What is our reason for resisting change?
Is is because what we are doing and have been doing really works so well we just feel "why should I change"?
What is our motivation for not wanting to change and adopt new ideas?
My worldview on this for a long time has been...
- Take what has worked in the past and bring it forward. But do not be afraid to tweak or modify these things to adapt them to the current situations you face.
- Do not be afraid to examine and learn new ideas and innovations. Do so with the lens of how is this a better mousetrap than the ones we have used?
Monday, February 11, 2013
Virtualbox, Ubuntu - Two Nice Packages
I wanted to install and play with Hadoop. I started by installing cygwin, then swung on over to Cloudera's image on vmware. I must confess I have a short amount of patience when it comes to implementing things that I am having difficulty with.
It is hard for me to deny the viability of Hadoop but I am having some heartburn over the difficulty in implementing it to the point where I can start playing around. I am not trying to implement and scale multiple clusters. I just want to install it so I can create a few map reduce jobs and get my feet wet.
Anyhow, this adventure took me to installing virtual box and then the Ubuntu 12.10 image on one of my laptops. Virtualbox is a breeze to install. Ubuntu was also easy to implement on virtualbox. I was also impressed with the ease of installing software on Ubuntu. I was so impressed with Debian's get-apt that I ended up installing the full LAMP stack and then headed off to install the 1.6 JRE and SDK. I got so into the ease of implementing software I went off and installed Ruby and Rails, as well as a number of IDE's.
I never did get around to installing Hadoop.
I must confess I am a web developer who uses WAMP and pretty much deploys off to LAMP. As such I am not much of a Linux person. I am impressed with the ease of working with Ubuntu. If you are a Windows developer looking at dipping your foot into the Linux waters I would recommend Virtualbox and Ubuntu.
It is hard for me to deny the viability of Hadoop but I am having some heartburn over the difficulty in implementing it to the point where I can start playing around. I am not trying to implement and scale multiple clusters. I just want to install it so I can create a few map reduce jobs and get my feet wet.
Anyhow, this adventure took me to installing virtual box and then the Ubuntu 12.10 image on one of my laptops. Virtualbox is a breeze to install. Ubuntu was also easy to implement on virtualbox. I was also impressed with the ease of installing software on Ubuntu. I was so impressed with Debian's get-apt that I ended up installing the full LAMP stack and then headed off to install the 1.6 JRE and SDK. I got so into the ease of implementing software I went off and installed Ruby and Rails, as well as a number of IDE's.
I never did get around to installing Hadoop.
I must confess I am a web developer who uses WAMP and pretty much deploys off to LAMP. As such I am not much of a Linux person. I am impressed with the ease of working with Ubuntu. If you are a Windows developer looking at dipping your foot into the Linux waters I would recommend Virtualbox and Ubuntu.
Saturday, February 2, 2013
Elegant Programming Language?
In a recent thread I was participating in the inevitable language A is more elegant (better, pick another adjective) than language B sidebar broke out. I did not directly participate in this sidebar as this topic does not really fit my world view of the subject.
Here is why...
While I agree some hammers are better than others, ultimately the hammer is as good, bad or somewhere in between depending on whose hands it is in. And to this you may argue that the very best hammer in the hands of a great carpenter is ideal. I would not disagree. But, if you argued that same hammer in the hands of a klutzy homeowner makes them better, that to me is a much tougher sell.
Of course languages are a tad more complicated than my hammer analogy. As I have watched the evolution of programming languages we try to create that "silver-bullet" language but we invariably miss the mark. Likely we always will, though by no means am I suggesting that we stop trying.
Take Java for instance. Some of the filthiest most convoluted code I have seen in any language has been produced in this language through the gross misuse of interfaces. Simply put an interface in Java is an abstract concept/template that requires the implementer to define all of the underlying method stubs (to use a term all can understand) at design time.
Without diving too much further into this subject I want to add that knowing all the methods one will need for a given interface at design time that will hold true for the use of an interface through the software development lifecycle is a difficult thing to determine. Further, an interface establishes a contract with the user of the interface that says if you want to use my interface you need to declare all the methods that are in the interface in your class whether or not you intend to use them! If properly created an interface creates a piece of coding elegance that allows one to achieve both polymorphism and encapsulation at the same time. It also create a uniform consistency across the users of the interface.
Polymorphism is a rather obtuse terms so let me offer an example. I want to implement an interface for a heating control thermostat. It will have two methods, 1) check temperature, 2) change temperature. Polymorphism is a concept that essentially says I do not care what type of heating system I am connected to (Natural Gas, Electric, Wood, Coal) these two methods are applicable and work exactly the same as far as the interface consumer using them is concerned. It is elegant in the respect that the user does not have to be concerned with the underlying implementation details as to how these methods interact with the varying underlying infrastructure.
An interface when properly constructed can be a zen-like thing of sheer beauty and elegance... that is until I need to add a new method body to the interface.
The moment I deploy an interface for others to use I essentially am locked into a contract that does not allow me to extend the interface without breaking the code of those that are using my interface. So what ends up happening is a) I just brazenly extend my interface and tough luck to you, go fix your code, b) I end up deprecating my interface and creating a new one which adds more complexity to the API, c) I extend the interface by adding abstract classes and other interfaces beneath my interface that can more times than not end up being ravioli code (The OOP version of spaghetti code).
I can tell you (and frankly if you are a Java program and are being truthful you can tell me in return) countless tales of encountering many "nightmare on interface street" scenarios. But, I still think an interface is an elegant programming construct. I also contend that an interface in the hands of someone that does not understand how to properly implement one is anything but elegant.
Now, as another much quicker example. I am a big fan of Php. Many developers like to bash the language for not being elegant. I have written a great deal of elegant code using that language. I would also admit that Php does have a number of warts and omissions. As a notable omission, I am huge fan of overloaded methods/functions. I think it is one of the most elegant programming abstractions ever invented. What one has to do in Php OOP to achieve an overloaded method is so convoluted and unnatural it is essentially not usable. Not at all elegant.
So I pose these questions as food for thought.
Can we say a programming language is not elegant because hacks can come along and use it in a way that was never intended?
Can we say a programming language is not elegant because it is missing features and functionality or has some warts or anomalies as it evolves over time?
Elegance and beauty always remain in the eye of the beholder. I have seen elegant code written in Cobol which I do not consider an elegant language. I have seen monstrosities written in Java which I consider an elegant language.
In the end we will continue to have these discussions, and developers will continue to invent new languages that are meant to be the next panacea. This all is a good thing.
Here is why...
While I agree some hammers are better than others, ultimately the hammer is as good, bad or somewhere in between depending on whose hands it is in. And to this you may argue that the very best hammer in the hands of a great carpenter is ideal. I would not disagree. But, if you argued that same hammer in the hands of a klutzy homeowner makes them better, that to me is a much tougher sell.
Of course languages are a tad more complicated than my hammer analogy. As I have watched the evolution of programming languages we try to create that "silver-bullet" language but we invariably miss the mark. Likely we always will, though by no means am I suggesting that we stop trying.
Take Java for instance. Some of the filthiest most convoluted code I have seen in any language has been produced in this language through the gross misuse of interfaces. Simply put an interface in Java is an abstract concept/template that requires the implementer to define all of the underlying method stubs (to use a term all can understand) at design time.
Without diving too much further into this subject I want to add that knowing all the methods one will need for a given interface at design time that will hold true for the use of an interface through the software development lifecycle is a difficult thing to determine. Further, an interface establishes a contract with the user of the interface that says if you want to use my interface you need to declare all the methods that are in the interface in your class whether or not you intend to use them! If properly created an interface creates a piece of coding elegance that allows one to achieve both polymorphism and encapsulation at the same time. It also create a uniform consistency across the users of the interface.
Polymorphism is a rather obtuse terms so let me offer an example. I want to implement an interface for a heating control thermostat. It will have two methods, 1) check temperature, 2) change temperature. Polymorphism is a concept that essentially says I do not care what type of heating system I am connected to (Natural Gas, Electric, Wood, Coal) these two methods are applicable and work exactly the same as far as the interface consumer using them is concerned. It is elegant in the respect that the user does not have to be concerned with the underlying implementation details as to how these methods interact with the varying underlying infrastructure.
An interface when properly constructed can be a zen-like thing of sheer beauty and elegance... that is until I need to add a new method body to the interface.
The moment I deploy an interface for others to use I essentially am locked into a contract that does not allow me to extend the interface without breaking the code of those that are using my interface. So what ends up happening is a) I just brazenly extend my interface and tough luck to you, go fix your code, b) I end up deprecating my interface and creating a new one which adds more complexity to the API, c) I extend the interface by adding abstract classes and other interfaces beneath my interface that can more times than not end up being ravioli code (The OOP version of spaghetti code).
I can tell you (and frankly if you are a Java program and are being truthful you can tell me in return) countless tales of encountering many "nightmare on interface street" scenarios. But, I still think an interface is an elegant programming construct. I also contend that an interface in the hands of someone that does not understand how to properly implement one is anything but elegant.
Now, as another much quicker example. I am a big fan of Php. Many developers like to bash the language for not being elegant. I have written a great deal of elegant code using that language. I would also admit that Php does have a number of warts and omissions. As a notable omission, I am huge fan of overloaded methods/functions. I think it is one of the most elegant programming abstractions ever invented. What one has to do in Php OOP to achieve an overloaded method is so convoluted and unnatural it is essentially not usable. Not at all elegant.
So I pose these questions as food for thought.
Can we say a programming language is not elegant because hacks can come along and use it in a way that was never intended?
Can we say a programming language is not elegant because it is missing features and functionality or has some warts or anomalies as it evolves over time?
Elegance and beauty always remain in the eye of the beholder. I have seen elegant code written in Cobol which I do not consider an elegant language. I have seen monstrosities written in Java which I consider an elegant language.
In the end we will continue to have these discussions, and developers will continue to invent new languages that are meant to be the next panacea. This all is a good thing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)