Subscribe to Posts
Subscribe to CommentsMonthy Archive: June 2005
« May 2005 |
Main
| July 2005 »
If you read this blog, PLEASE sign in to my guest book on frappr.
No personally identifying information is needed, so this is risk-free. Just provide a name (even a nickname), your zip code, and any statement you want to make ("hi" is sufficient).If you want to know more about me, click here.
June 02, 2005
Life : Sun, sun, go away.
Summer has finally come to Silicon Valley. The sky is blue; the sun is warm and bright; the air is dry; and a slight breeze blows in the day.
I hate it.
I am a confirmed heliopath – I hate the sun. Please understand, I am not afraid (beyond normal precautions against sunburn) to go out in the sun as a means to accomplish some other desired end (walking around taking photographs for instance). But given a choice between two ways to do something, one of which involved spending a lot of time in the sun, and the other not; I'll choose to stay out of the sun every time.
Even when I was a child in Florida and spent long hours riding my bicycle or swimming at the beach; what I enjoyed was bicycling and swimming. I have no memory of wanting to be outside for its own sake (although I have to admit that I am at the point that any recollections of my motivations in youth are suspect).
The idea of lying out in the sun just to get a tan is certainly foreign to me. I realize many people enjoy that, but I am not among their number. Give me a crisp New England winter's night – air crystal clear save the whips of cloud as you exhale; streets quiet but for, perhaps, the crunch of snow beneath your feet. That's my idea of a "beautiful day".
Posted by Steven at 10:10 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)
TV : 4400, Season 2
Back in 2004, USA network aired a mini-series over the summer called "The 4400". This coming Sunday (June 5, 2005) a second season of the show will air, and I plan to watch it.
The 4400 was an interesting and entertaining SciFi series that dealt intelligently with the real-world consequences of its premise. The idea was that over the last century 4400 people had quietly disappeared. Then suddenly an object in space is tracked approaching Earth. The huge glowing sphere lands on a lake in Washington State, and promptly disappears, leaving the 4400 people behind. The US government assigns the Department of Homeland Security to handle the situation. Eventually they are released and allowed to at least try and reintegrate themselves into society.
The problem however is it quickly becomes apparent that "the returnees" (as they are officially called, "the 4400" being their news media nickname) have been changed – each seems to have a unique ability they have gained while they are away, and the government (and society) is at a loss for how to deal with them. What we learn by the end of the first series is that they have been sent by people in the future to fix key events so that a horrible fate can be avoided. Each was chosen an empowered to have a very specific effect to bring about a desirable future.
As an example of why I liked the original series – one character is an African-American who served as a soldier in WWII, before the civil rights movement. He has a real problem adjusting to modern society where he seems to be the only person who cares about his skin color. That changes when the public starts to get nervous around the 4400 and they become a persecuted minority. Suddenly the African-American character is back in a situation he understands.
Of course, the second series could not live up to the original; but I'm definitely going to give it a shot. The original series is available on DVDs for purchase or rental.
Posted by Steven at 10:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
June 04, 2005
Thoughts : Going to the extreme
Natural systems tend toward equilibrium. Things, on average, tend to average out. Measure most things in the real world and you get a nice bell curve with a few items out on the edges with extreme values, but most clumped together in the middle.
My observation however is that the opposite is true is human opinions. I used to think that the majority of people were "moderates" on any given subject, and it was only a few people who took extreme positions; but I am starting to wonder if that is true. The more I look at history, the more I think there is some force at work which naturally polarizes people into opposing camps on any subject, where each camp becomes more and more extreme in their convictions as time goes by and where the "middle ground" becomes less and less populated as each side recruits members and few ever revert back to moderation.
A while back I worked on a game design intended to present an abstract version of "politics". The board represented the space of political views, and there were pieces on the board which represented the general population. Each player also had a piece on the board that represented themselves as a politician. The actions you could take could have several effects including: moving your piece on the board (refining your "position"), moving an opponents piece on the board (for instance, characterizing them as an extremist by moving them closer to the edge), moving people on the board (advertising to change the population's opinions), and marking population pieces to be loyal to you, or removing their loyalty to another player. There was a lot of detail I'm skipping here.
What I noticed in my own playing with the partially complete system was that the best strategy was for the players to take opposing positions about a quarter of the way in from the edge. So with three players, they would form a triangle on the board, each half-way between the middle and the edge and as far apart from each other as they could get. As game progressed, it was in each player's interest to try and move population away from the middle towards their edge of the board, and the winner was basically the one who did that the best. When I tried to play a "centrist" politician to own the middle of the board, that 'player' always lost because all of the more extreme 'players' were fighting against them, pulling their natural constituency away. The interesting trick was for one of the other players to try and reposition the centrist off-center toward the side of the board claimed by the otherwise leader, so their vote would tend to get split.
At the time I thought these outcomes were aberrations which represented some flaw in my game design; but in hindsight I'm less certain of that. Perhaps my simulation was actually working better than I expected.
Posted by Steven at 12:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
June 05, 2005
Life : No deep thoughts today
Just an update on life.
The photos I posted of GCC have attracted a lot of attention from other GCC alumni, and I spent some time this week setting up a mailing list and web site for former employees of that august company.
I've also been working on preparing an album of our first trip to the UK. 550+ photographs to sort through, select, organize, caption, etc. I think it is actually going to end up two albums – one of pictures in London proper, and a second of pictures taken in our excursions out of the city.
At my current job I'm busy working toward a mid-month deadline for a deliverable to a partner (one of my rare occasions to actually write code these days). I'm essentially code-complete at this point and just need to test it thoroughly in the next 2 weeks.
Anne and I are having a great time together. We've always been "marriage, self-entertaining model"; but have entered one of our silly phases of late. It makes for some interesting times.
At church I have been asked to preach again (on July 10th), as well as start a Tuesday night bible study. I am looking forward to both although it means having to do another re-shuffle of my time priorities.
And, finally, I am looking forward to the summer movie season as well as a few of the summer TV shows (not many though).
Posted by Steven at 07:58 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
June 07, 2005
TV : Season Finales
I know it’s a bit late (this is a posting that was back-burnered for a while); but here's my $0.02 on the various season finales of the TV shows I watch.
Lost
See separate post. It wasn't what I was looking for; but it definitely keeps me interested.
Grey's Anatomy
Solid episode. The surprise at the end didn't do much for me (the various characters' love lives are not the focus of the show for me). I certainly plan to continue watching this next season.
Desperate Housewives
Exactly what they needed. They finished off one main plot, added some new questions, and provided a cliffhanger for next season.
House
Not much of a season finale – more like "yet another episode". I still like the character a lot; but if time gets short this may fall of the end of my list.
Medium
Didn't see that coming. I'll definitely watch the first episode next season to complete the cliff hanger; but this is another show that will likely fall off my list if time runs short in the fall. I have a feeling that this show has already said everything it has to say.
Alias
OK, I'll admit that last 10 seconds made me jump. Unfortunately, I suspect it is just another case of pulling a rabbit out of hat – entertaining but meaningless. Unless there is very good press next season, Alias is off my list.
Posted by Steven at 11:49 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
June 08, 2005
TV : Late warning of possible good show!
The pilot episode of "The Inside" airs tonight on Fox. I have (obviously) not seen it yet; but have 2 reasons to believe that it might be worth watching:
1. It is being produced by Tim Minear, and written by Tim, Jane Espenson, David Fury, and Ben Edlund. Which is in my opinion about as good a collection of DNA for a show as you can get.
2. Harry Knowles (of Ain't It Cool News) has seen four episodes and raves about the show; and I have tended to agree with Harry a good 80% of the time.
While at the top level the show is a crime drama, apparently it is really about how working in the FBI's Los Angeles Violent Crimes Unit affects the new (female) investigator. Will exposure to all the darkness change her?
Posted by Steven at 09:27 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
June 09, 2005
Thoughts : International News
I am frustrated with how hard it is to get real international news in the USA. It seems that the only international stories which get covered by the major news outlets are either ones that directly involve the USA (Iraq), or are of such magnitude that they can't be ignored (last year's tsunami).
This is certainly true for the TV networks. Even CNN and Fox News (both of whom have excellent international news channels shown overseas) follow this pattern in the US. I was disappointed this week when CNN announced an hour show every weekday which was supposed to provide global news; but the only stories they showed which were not about America were a soccer match and the world weather report.
It is perhaps not surprising the America's foreign policy is so often ill advised when so few American are exposed to real information about what is happening in the world. Its very easy to assume you are the center of the universe when all you hear are stories about yourself.
Posted by Steven at 09:02 AM | Permalink | Comments (4)
June 11, 2005
Introspection : Perception of change
In the first decade of my life, everything was a new experience for me. While memories of those days are not as good as they once were, what I do recall was a steady parade of new things. I would never have noticed if anything changed because there was no prior experience to which to compare things.
In the second decade of my life, I struggled to come to an understanding of how thing work in the world – how things were done, what was expected, what was "normal". I don't think it really occurred to me that the things I was learning might change in my lifetime. I did understand from history lessons that things were different once; but my perception was that change was gradual, played out over the course of centuries (even text books tended to talk about what it was like in the 15th century vs. the 16th century, not the 1530's vs. the 1540's). I think I would have been offended to think that what I was learning was changing out from under me even as I learned it.
In my 20's, I was focused on the changes in myself. I was becoming an adult, an employee, a lover, a citizen. The changes in myself largely blinded me to the changes in the world in which I lived. I was aware that fashions and musical tastes changed; but since I was in the midst of defining myself, it was easy to simply ride those currents of change so the world appears to remain stationary with respect to my constantly changing self.
In my 30's I finally started to notice how the world was changing. I had established my own identity and had enough prior experience to be well aware that the 90's were not the 80's or the 70's. I realized differences were not just external fashions and tastes; but that people's attitudes had changed as well and it affected their behavior and conversation. This was not a pleasant revelation to me. While I may have cheered technology's progress and wished it would, if anything, accelerate; I didn't want society to change this fast, particularly since many of the changes I saw were in my estimation undesirable.
I am now in the middle of my 40's; and while it may be premature to generalize on the fifth decade of my life, I believe I have begun to accept the inevitability of change. It remains the case that I do not like many of the changes I see in society; but in truth it does not take much effort to find changes I do appreciate. What is however more important is that I have come to realize that complaining about change is like railing against the wind – a profitless exercise as the wind continues to blow regardless. Instead, I take comfort in the knowledge that every change I don't like will also have its season and will change again in due time.
There is a phrase which I have grown to appreciate in my 40's. I did some research and have discovered many different stories about who first provided this wisdom. One story says it was the counselors of a Chinese Emperor who were asked to find a phrase to inscribe on an archway that would be true for all time and all people. Another said it was a poor jeweler who lived in Solomon's kingdom who inscribed these words on a ring to fulfill Solomon's request for a "magic" ring that would make a happy man sad and a sad man happy. Still another said it was the advisors to a European king who wanted one phrase that would get the king through all life's situations. Perhaps all of the stories are true as the wisdom of this phrase could easily have been discovered independently by many people in history.
The phrase?
"This too shall pass."
Posted by Steven at 08:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
June 14, 2005
Life : Still Alive
Unfortunately, all of my deep thinking of late has been focused on work (which I have made a rule not to talk about in my blog) and on a draft of a novel a friend is writing (which it would be inappropriate to share). On top of that, I spent a good chunk of Saturday morning looking through boxes in the storage locker, and inhaled enough dust to give me respiratory problems for a few days, so I haven't exactly been full of energy. Sigh.
I briefly contemplated pulling out a "ringer" topic – something I could dump out a few hundred words on without having to think about it much (I have many pet subjects which would serve nicely); but I realized that was a step on to a slippery slope. I do this blog for fun, for me. As soon as I start to post something because I feel I have to, I start down the path which will lead to my hating it.
I will say that reading my friend's novel made me go back and re-read some of my old fiction. My goal is to get the rest of my photo albums finished by the end of the summer, and then make another go at finishing a novel of my own starting in the fall. I still struggle with whether what I am writing is worthwhile; but I want to at least be able to say I finished it.
Posted by Steven at 08:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)
June 15, 2005
Life : Overload
Today was an all-day departmental offsite. We did a post-mortem on a (nearly) finished project and talked a lot about what should change to improve things in the future. As an introvert, I reached my input limit by mid day, and without any time alone to process things I was in overload soon thereafter. Fortunately, I understand myself better now, and have some strategies which allowed me to stay involved to then end; but I definitely need a few hours of quiet time now to recover.
Posted by Steven at 07:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
June 16, 2005
TV : The Inside
This is a very dark psychological thriller wrapped inside a police drama. I like the mission statement that Tim Minear (the producer of the show) set out on the show's official web site:
This is a show about damaged people – the only interesting kind there is – and about how their damage sometimes makes them especially suited to the work they do. Our heroes are FBI agents who investigate serial crimes, and each episode contains interesting surprised as the theory of the case evolves; but I've made every attempt to keep the stories clean and simple, so that the focus stays on the characters.
In brief, the show is about the FBI's Los Angeles Violent Crimes Unit, run by Supervisory Special Agent Virgil "Web" Webster. Special Agent Webster has been given him a great deal of leeway from the FBI in how he runs his team because of his track record of success. He has assembled a hand picked team of agents, and then uses them (in the worst possible sense of the word "use") to solve cases. There was something familiar in how Webster manipulated his staff that it took me a while to place – the character of the Director, Eli Cross (played by Peter O'Toole) in the 1980 movie "The Stunt Man". If you have seen that movie, imagine Eli cross running an FBI office and dealing in violent crimes instead of making a movie and you have some idea of what "The Inside" is like.
Webster's latest recruit to the team (replacing a woman who committed suicide as a part of solving a case for Webster) is Special Agent Rebecca Locke, who as a child was abducted and held for 18 months before she escaped on her own. Her childhood experience has left her psychologically scarred, and she was denied entry to the FBI's elite "profiler" program after failing the psych exam; but Webster hired her to become his teams new profiler, counting on her baggage to actually help the team (and, perhaps, to make her easier for him to manipulate).
Have I made it clear that Webster is not a very nice guy? A couple quotes:
Webster: [woman is being held hostage by Simon] "Simon Gunther!" [Simon turns around, and Web shoots him] "Let her go! Damn, I got it backwards!"and
Webster: "Our pasts are what we are made of."
Paul Ryan: "So what are you made of? What's your past?"
Webster: "Good night, Special Agent Ryan" [walks away]
Posted by Steven at 02:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
June 19, 2005
Faith : Evolution and Christianity
With events in Kansas and Pennsylvania, the debate between Evolution and Christianity is once again in the news.
As a Christian, my own views regarding evolution have varied over the years. There have been periods where I have believed that key doctrines of my faith relied upon the idea that God created all life on earth fully formed, and therefore evolution was not the explanation of the formation of any species (although I always acknowledged its role in developing variations within species). There have been other periods where I was quite content with the idea that "God created Man"; but that He did so using the process of evolution – controlling the "random" mutations and events to eventually produce the life-form He desired (it is very much a part of my faith that God often works indirectly). There have also been a multitude of intermediate positions I have adopted between these two extremes.
Likewise my views on evolution itself have changed over the years. In my youth, I accepted the classroom description of evolution as scientific fact. Eventually I was exposed to some of evolution's detractors and realized that while it was an interesting and powerful theory, it was far from being "proven". Instead, there were serious discrepancies in the application of the theory to history which, while not disproving evolution, at least required additional work before the theory could be accepted.
The watershed event in my own thinking about evolution occurred when I was exposed to the field of Computer Science known as "artificial life", which deals with using biological concepts to guide software engineering. The idea being that there are problems that have been "solved" in nature which we can learn from in doing our own engineering.
For instance, there is a technique known as "genetic algorithms" by which you "breed" (as opposed to write) programs. You start with a random set of programs, and then evaluate them on how well they do the desired task (initially they do quite poorly). You select those that did best, and then mix their code together (using certain rules) to produce "offspring" (adding a few random modifications for good measure). You then repeat the cycle until you have a program that does what you want. The bottom line is that the technique works, and in fact works quite quickly. Further more it has been used to create programs which no human knew how to write (for instance, it has been successfully used to write programs that predict financial markets). If the description wasn't clear, this technique employs "evolution by (intelligent) selection" to write software. The bottom line here is: evolution as a mechanism to produce complex systems works. Period. Anyone who says otherwise is sticking their head in the sand.
Another branch of "artificial life" involves creating computer simulations of living things. The driving principle is that we can't use nature's solution until we understand them, and the best proof that we understand is that we can produce accurate simulations of them. It was here I experienced the other side of the coin. There was a research project I became interested it (and hope to still develop someday, so I will omit the details here), which required being able to "evolve" simulated organisms. Now this had in fact been done before by several people; but those simulations had limitations which made them problematic for my research goal. So I started to devise and test my own evolution simulation. What I discovered was that while evolution works, it is very hard to make it work without "stacking the deck" – constructing and controlling the environment very specifically to get what you want. I discovered that the limitations I saw in other simulations where in fact short-cuts to make them work, and that producing a more general solution like the one I needed was going to be very hard.
I started to write here a some what technical description of the issues I discovered (including a "fixed" version of Haldane's Dilemma as applied to the Cambrian Explosion); but I decided to stick to the bottom line. I have convinced myself by my own research that evolution by natural selection is a problematic solution for explaining the diversity of life on earth. I do not rule out that evolution occurs; but I find it very hard to believe it as the sole explanation for life here.
Still that's just what I believe today. As stated before, my opinions on this subject continue to evolve (pardon the pun) as I am exposed to new information. I will however say that there are three principles which I have always believed in:
1. That the diversity of life on earth exists according to God's design – regardless of the process used to create that diversity.
2. That evolution by selection works as a mechanism and can produce quite complex systems.
3. That there is no conflict between Christian scripture and science when both are fully understood and properly interpreted.
Posted by Steven at 09:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)
Observations : An amusing linguistic point
So I was doing some Bible research (don't worry – this isn't another "faith" posting) – looking at some issues in the original Greek vs. English translation, and in the process stumbled across the following amusing point. Acts 19:19 talks about a bunch of people who had practiced magic who converted to Christianity and brought in their old magic books and burned them. Now the word translated "sorcery", "magic" or "curious arts" (depending on the translation you are looking at) is the Greek word "perierga" which is a compound of two Greek words: "peri", meaning "around" (from which we get words like periphery) and "ergon", meaning "work" (from which we get ergonomics). So the word translated "sorcery" or "magic" literally mean "work around". I just find it interesting to think of ancient magicians as hackers looking for work-around's for the laws of nature.
Posted by Steven at 10:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)
June 20, 2005
Life : Captain Caption
I'm still slogging through captions for the pictures I have of our first trip to the UK. I have selected about 250 pictures (out of 600), divided them into 2 albums, and am now putting captions for each picture. The problem is that this trip was 10 years ago, and I find myself double checking on web sites to make sure I am remembering things correctly, which is slowing down the process significantly. I am just over half-way through the pictures. This is however the last step to getting two more albums up on my gallery, so there is some significant light at the end of this tunnel. I think this is going to be the hardest of the albums I am doing (the rest I either remember better or just have less to say).
Posted by Steven at 09:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
June 21, 2005
Thoughts : What do "priorities" mean?
Conventional wisdom is that people should prioritize all of the things which vie for their time and "work on the highest priority task first". On face value that sounds like really good advice, and certainly many people spend way too much of their time on tasks which are in fact unimportant to them.
The problem is that this simple model of "work on priority #1 until it is done, then work on #2" breaks down once you introduce tasks which either never complete or which have specific deadlines. Here are two examples:
- The classic statement "my family is higher priority than work". So that that mean you should quit your job and spend all of your with your family? Well, no….. So what does it really mean to prioritize family vs. work?
- Let's say you have two tasks: Task A which will take 1 week and is due in 3 weeks, and Task B which will take 8 weeks and is due in 10 weeks. Now let's say it is much more important that you get task B done than task A. Does that mean task B is higher priority and you should work on it until it is done, by which time it will be too take to work on task A? What if you are not sure if Task B will take 8 or 10 weeks, so you aren't sure if you have time to do task A as well? How do you prioritize them now?
I think real life requires more complex ways to think and talk about priorities.
First, I think all priorities should always be stated as goals with specific deadline. You should not set as a priority "write my first novel"; but rather "write my first novel by the time I am 30". That allows you to really think about how important it is to do someone by that point in time. It also allows you to have a task in your priority list multiple times. It might be a middle priority to "write my first novel by the time I am 30"; but a very high priority to "write my first novel by the time I am 60". Having both statements on your priority list I think is quite useful, and helps priorities other tasks which might aid those goals (like taking writing classes).
Second, I think ongoing priorities (like family) can be looked at as recurring goals. While it is hard to know how to apply a statement like "family is more important than work", I think it is easier to prioritize "spend 20 hours with family each month" vs. "work overtime to complete project X on time". Again, you might have the same task listed twice with different granularity. You might have the goals to "spend 5 hours each week writing" and also "spend 20 hours each month writing"? While they may have the same effect over the long haul, there may be things which are more important to you for an individual week which are not more important than making monthly progress.
Posted by Steven at 11:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
June 23, 2005
Life : Comfort games
I play a lot of computer games (although not as many as I used to – I've decided that there are a number of other things which I'd rather spend time on). However, most games only last a couple of weeks on my computer. I'll play then intensively for a week or two (much to Anne's displeasure), and then I'll reach a point at which I suddenly realize I've gotten everything out of the game I'm going to get, and I'm finished with it. I'm usually quite lazy about actually uninstalling them; but it is rare that I return to a game once I have initially played them out.
However, there are a few games which I keep coming back to again and again. Games that I install immediately when I get a new computer. These are the games I come back to when I want to play something; but don't know what. They are to games what "comfort food" is to food. I was reminded of this when I became sick this week and found myself at home from work, playing SimCity4. I actually have a new game to play (Supreme Ruler 2010); but given that I wasn't feeling well, I didn't want to start a new game, so I found my zoning neighborhoods and building roads. Ahhhh.
There are actually a few games that fall into this category for me:
- SimCity 4
- Railroad Tycoon 2(but not RRT3)
- Neverwinter Nights
- Rome, Total War
- Rise of Nations
- And the most comfortable of all: Minesweeper
Posted by Steven at 08:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)
June 29, 2005
Movies : Ella Enchanted
I had meant to see this movie when it was in the theatres; but never got around to it (I don't go out and see as many movies as I used to). Fortunately, Anne and I were able to Tivo it off of premium cable channel and watched it this week. We laughed the whole time, and frequently paused to be able to spot things in the background. The next day we made a special trip to purchase the DVD for ourselves.
The movie is essentially "Cinderella" by way of Knights Tale and Shrek. It is full of anachronistic references (want-ads in the newspaper for "abacus programmers"), cultural references ("If the gauntlet does not fit, you must acquit"), and outright jokes. A couple times it threatened to become overly-silly for me; but always tossed in just enough drama to keep it centered. Well worth the time spent.
Posted by Steven at 10:44 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
Books : Shadow of The Giant
Shadow of The Giant
by Orson Scott Card
Back sometime around '81 a friend of mine lent me his copy of "Unaccompanied Sonata and Other Stories", by Orson Scott Card. I had never such a strong emotional reaction to the written word as I had reading this collection of short stories. Tales like "Kingsmeat" and "The Porcelain Salamander" were about deep truths of the human condition; but rather than being expressed in intellectual terms (which I was used to from most science fiction and fantasy), the stories here were expressed in emotional terms. Card was immediately added to my list of favorite authors, and remains on the of the few authors I will buy hardback books of.
One of the best short stories in the collection was "Ender's Game" – a well written tale of lost childhood and the pressure adults place on children. Given my rather interesting youth, it resonated with me. In '85 I discovered that Card had expanded this short story into a novel, and I immediately purchased it. While the story was the same (and in fact none of the original content was removed, just new scenes added), I was amazed at how different the novel felt from the short story; and how, despite that difference, I also enjoyed the novel – just for different reasons. The novel added more themes without in any way diminishing the original ideas of the short story. Here was a case where a work was expanded without just adding "more of the same". I loved it.
Well, the novel "Ender's Game" begat a series of sequels: "Speaker for the Dead", "Xenocide", and "Children of the Mind". All except the last maintained the high standard I have grown to expect from Card. "Children of the Mind" had some great ideas and great moments; but in my opinion it didn't fit together into a satisfying whole. In addition, Card painted himself into a corner with that book (kind of like Niven with his Teela Brown gene) – at the climax of the story the characters invent what essentially is a wish fulfillment device. It is kind of hard to make an interesting story after that (any problem can be solved too easily).
So it was interesting that in '99, card returned to the "Enderverse" with a new book. However, rather than doing a sequel to "Children…" (which would have been difficult), he returned to the beginning and told the story of Enders Game again; but this time from the point of view of one of the other characters – Bean (the smallest of Ender's team-mates). "Ender's Shadow" was an amazing piece of writing – explaining what was happening "just around the corner" from key events in the original story, and in some cases explaining why things happened the way they did. Bean was a very different; but equally compelling character with his own rather sizable baggage placed on him by adults. Again card managed to create more depth to the original story without detracting anything form it.
"Ender's Shadow" again had begat a series of sequels, although I think in this case it was more premeditated (Card had planned for the sequels in the original work). So there came "Shadow of the Hegemon", "Shadow Puppets" and now "Shadow of the Giant". Each of these sequels explores what happened on Earth after the events of Ender's Game/Ender's Shadow. Essentially the leaders of Earth came up with a solution to one problem; but had not thought about what that solution would mean to the world once the problem was solved. The new Shadow series explores the consequences of such lack of foresight.
The latest book did not disappoint. My only question is – is this the last Shadow story? In some ways, Bean's personal saga seems to have been wrapped up. However, there is an enormous loose end left dangling out of the book which begs for some kind of sequel. I'm just not sure if Card means to follow that up with another Shadow book, or if the idea is to start a new series with other characters.
Posted by Steven at 10:45 AM | Permalink | Comments (6)
Life : The importance of recreation
You may have noticed that I haven't posted for a few days. The short answer was that I got burned out - not of blogging; but of life general. I knew when I added the x-GCC'er mailing list and teaching the Tuesday night study to the mix that some adjustments to my priorities would be needed. What I hadn't realized was that even my old priorities weren't giving me the balance I needed in my life.
What I wasn't spending enough time on was recreation.
I had been very careful to sort through all of the things on my plate and make sure I was only spending time on things I thought were "of value". The problem is, I didn't place enough value on just plain having fun. Yeah, I watched TV; but the only shows I watched were those that that were "meaningful", and that focus in "meaning" meant that I wasn't watching just to have fun – there was a purpose to it. In addition, I had almost completely stopped playing computer games (not an explicit choice, I just didn't have any time left to play when I got everything else done – or rather when I ran out of time doing those other things).
What I discovered was that without at least some time to do things "just for fun", regardless of what other value they might have, that my ability to actually enjoy the other activities drained away. Everything – even things I would normally enjoy – became a "chore" that "had to be done" because I had deemed those activities to be worthwhile. I think this effect is related to the same reason why the fastest way to get a child to hate some kind of food is to tell them it is good for them. I had selected a list of activities for my life that were "good for me", and suddenly they weren't "fun" anymore.
The answer of course is to plan on spending some limited amount of my time doing things that are completely value-less. Things I do only because they are fun. This is essentially desert – to be eaten along with a balanced meal. I think I have juggled my priorities again to allow me this freedom. We'll see how it goes.
Posted by Steven at 10:47 AM | Permalink | Comments (5)
June 30, 2005
Thoughts : Why do people bother?
As far back as I can recall into childhood, I believed in at least a generic God – someone who created the universe with some purpose. At Age 10, I made an explicit and intentional decision to become a Christian, and while I have certainly refined my definition what it means to be a Christian many times, there has never been a point at which I did not believe that there was a meaning and a purpose to the universe.
I'm thinking about that because with the movie of "Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy" having come out this year, I have been re-watching the original BBC TV show. Now for those who have only seen the movie (which has an unfortunate happy ending tagged on to it), the original British story was an exercise in pure, unadulterated nihilism. The whole point of "42" and all that was that the universe didn't have any meaning, and everyone one was just fooling themselves into thinking there was one.
I think this is best captured in the patter of the Master of Ceremonies at Milliways – the Restaurant at the End of the Universe (I'll note that the American movie ended before they got to Milliways). Here's a sample:
"Thank you ladies and gentlemen!" he cried, "thank you very much. Thank you so much."I quote all this because it represents exactly what science teaches.
"Ladies and gentlemen," he said, "The Universe as we know it has now been in existence for over one hundred and seventy thousand million billion years and will be ending in a little over half an hour. So, welcome one and all to Milliways, the Restaurant at the End of the Universe!"
"I am your host for tonight," he said, "my name is Max Quordlepleen and I've just come straight from the very very other end of time, where I've been hosting a show at the Big Bang Burger Bar - where I can tell you we had a very exciting evening ladies and gentlemen - and I will be with you right through this historic occasion, the End of History itself!"
"So, ladies and gentlemen," he breathed, "the candles are lit, the band plays softly, and as the force-shielded dome above us fades into transparency, revealing a dark and sullen sky hung heavy with the ancient light of livid swollen stars, I can see we're all in for a fabulous evening's apocalypse!"
Even the soft tootling of the band faded away as stunned shock descended on all those who had not seen this sight before.
A monstrous, grisly light poured in on them,
- a hideous light,
- a boiling, pestilential light,
- a light that would have disfigured hell.
The Universe was coming to an end.
For a few interminable seconds the Restaurant span silently through the raging void. Then Max spoke again.
"For those of you who ever hoped to see the light at the end of the tunnel," he said, "this is it."
"And as the photon storms gather in swirling crowds around us, preparing to tear apart the last of the red hot suns, I know you're all going to settle back and enjoy with me what I know we will find all an immensely exciting and terminal experience."
"Believe me, ladies and gentlemen," he said, "there's nothing penultimate about this one."
"This," he said, "really is the absolute end, the final chilling desolation, in which the whole majestic sweep of creation becomes extinct. This ladies and gentlemen is the proverbial `it'."
"After this," he said, "there is nothing. Void. Emptiness. Oblivion. Absolute nothing ..." And for once," he cried cheerily, "you don't need to worry about having a hangover in the morning - because there won't be any more mornings!"
"It's marvellous though," he rattled on, "to see so many of you here tonight - no isn't it though? Yes, absolutely marvellous. Because I know that so many of you come here time and time again, which I think is really wonderful, to come and watch this final end of everything, and then return home to your own eras ... and raise families, strive for new and better societies, fight terrible wars for what you know to be right ... it really gives one hope for the future of all lifekind. Except of course," he waved at the blitzing turmoil above and around them, "that we know it hasn't got one ..."
There are really only two possible outcomes to the universe as understood by science. Either the gradient of the universe is greater than or equal to zero (i.e the universe will either continue to expand infinitely, or will asymptotically approach some maximum size), in which case entropy will event result in a frozen universe without life. Or the gradient or the universe is negative in which case it will eventually collapse in on itself into a flaming singularity. The bottom line in either case is there will eventually be a time when the universe will be unable to support life of any kind. There are no other solutions supported by science. At least as far as "lifekind" is concerned there will eventually be an end to the universe.
So, if your faith is only in science, why bother?
What value is there in raising children, building a better world, creating monuments, etc. Yeah, you might make things better for some number of generations; but eventually there will be no more generations. People may be able to see your monument for many years; but eventually there will be no one left to see them. It doesn't matter if mankind expands beyond this planet, or if some new lifeform evolves and discovers what we have left behind. Eventually they too will die out since science says that the eventual end is universal and inevitable. If the consequences of anything you do is guaranteed to be of limited duration, then why look past your own lifetime? Or your own life?
Frankly, if I didn't have faith – if someone came up with an absolute proof that there is no God and that the universe is a random accident, I could see myself becoming an amoral hedonist. I'd live for my short-term pleasure. I wouldn't break any big laws because I wouldn't want to risk wasting time in prison, and I would be careful not to be so nasty to anyone that they might take harmful action against me; but beyond that – anything goes. If nothing I do matters in the long term – if you think in long enough terms - (and that is the real lesson of science), then why not?
Posted by Steven at 06:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (5)
