tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-136380902024-03-07T16:41:01.339-07:00What SilenceThis is the PERSONAL blog of Jeremy Rice. If you maintain a professional relationship with me, I ask that you STOP READING. Thanks and sorry.Jeremy Ricehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12256074521855601742noreply@blogger.comBlogger502125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13638090.post-34792368982408362282011-07-15T10:08:00.004-06:002011-07-15T10:08:50.691-06:00The Six Basic Pleasures TheoryI don't have time to flesh this out, but I just had a thought that I'd like to explore later.<br />
<br />
Theory:<br />
<br />
There are six basic paths to pleasure, for a human:<br />
<ul>
<li>enjoying a physical experience (e.g., sensory input)</li>
<li>enjoying a shared experience with someone else (i.e.: laughing at a joke)</li>
<li>enjoying a sense of accomplishment (for example, "I just jumped 12 feet, I rock!")</li>
<li>enjoying a sense of recognition (for example, "Dude, you just jumped 12 feet, you rock!")</li>
<li>enjoying a sense of connection (best example being love)</li>
<li>enjoying a sense of purpose (be it participation in a project, a sense of nationality, or religious experience.)</li>
</ul>
I'm not sure, as I type it out. But I have to get back to work.Jeremy Ricehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12256074521855601742noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13638090.post-22747436325649745562011-06-23T15:16:00.000-06:002011-06-23T15:16:23.478-06:00FaithParadoxically, perhaps, I am a person of faith.<br />
<br />
According to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith">Wikipedia</a>:<br />
<blockquote><b>Faith</b> is trust, hope and belief in the goodness or trustworthiness, of a person, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concept" title="Concept">concept</a> or entity.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-dict_0-0"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith#cite_note-dict-0"><span></span><span></span></a></sup><sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-1"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith#cite_note-1"><span></span><span></span></a></sup> Religious faith is a belief in a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendence_%28religion%29" title="Transcendence (religion)">transcendent reality</a>, a religious teacher, a set of teachings or a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Being" title="Supreme Being">Supreme Being</a>. Generally speaking, it is offered as a means by which the truth of the proposition, "things will turn out well in the end," can be enjoyed in the present and secured in the future. Consequently, religious faith appeals to "transcendent reality," or that reality which is beyond the range of normal, physical human experience (e.g. the future). "Transcendent reality," therefore, constitutes a reality which is off limits to the rigors of scientific inquiry such as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability" title="Falsifiability">falsifiability</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility" title="Reproducibility">reproducibility</a>. However, <a class="mw-redirect" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheists" title="Atheists">atheists</a> and <a class="mw-redirect" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostics" title="Agnostics">agnostics</a> criticize religious faith as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superstition" title="Superstition">superstition</a>, categorizing it with other forms of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schema_%28psychology%29" title="Schema (psychology)">belief</a> that are not based on measurement of material things.</blockquote>I trust that the universe is on the right path... whatever that may be. I do occasionally wonder if this means I have some kind of residual theistic tendencies, but I think if that's the case, it's certainly far more <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism">pantheist</a> than theist in a traditional sense... but the point is that I do, in fact, have faith that the universe will "end well". Since that's a completely non-scientific, unprovable notion, I must call it faith, and it's not one I can get rid of. ...nor do I have a strong desire to. Think of it this way: if I'm biologically programmed to have this kind of faith, then it's probably for a good reason, and it's not an instinct I care to shut down.<br />
<br />
I've been giving this some thought, lately, and it occurs to me that I also believe that if I believe the universe itself is on the right path, I should logically believe that the constituent pieces of the universe (most usefully, the Earth and its inhabitants, and more proximally, <i>me</i>) are doing "what they need to do" to get to whatever end-point the universe as a whole is pointed toward.<br />
<br />
Specifically, I've been contemplating whether or not this constitutes a kind of moral compass. That is, if whatever it is my life is supposed to amount to is a "good thing" in light of the "Big Picture", then I should probably continue doing what it is I'm doing.<br />
<br />
Begging the question as that clearly is, I still find it pragmatic and useful... an interesting line of inquiry, as it were, into a deeper understanding of my own personal moral compass... my "intuitive morality," as it were. As I continued to think about this and try to hone the question a bit, what I was left asking myself was, "what qualities go into my definition of the word '<b>better</b>'?"<br />
<br />
This is, I think, a useful question. I believe every individual is entitled to their own definition of the word. ...That is to say, I don't believe there is an absolute universal (meaningful) definition of "better". ...But this line of reasoning I've found myself on does justify (fraught with fallacy as it may well be) understanding one's own definition of the word.<br />
<br />
Of course, all the conflict in the world is borne of differences in opinion about what would be "better"... from "it would be better if the world comprised of an Aryan master race" to "it would be better if I didn't have to listen your drivel about philosophy, Jeremy." Some absolute, universal guidance on what's better would be tremendously useful in terms of quelling everyday stress, if not global violence and strife. But, alas, as someone who believes that the universe is on the right course, and there are no obvious answers as to what's ultimately "better", I'm left trying to accept that everyone has their own sense of the word, and in the grand scheme of things, that's for the best. ...ironically.<br />
<br />
Regardless, the utility in an understanding of my own tendencies has been of tremendous benefit. (Or, at least, if feels that way.) After asking myself a series of "what would make ____ better" style questions, I found some recurring themes for <b>what I consider "better"</b>:<br />
<ul><li>parts contributing to the whole</li>
<li>an awareness of a system's context</li>
<li>steady challenge which isn't overwhelming</li>
<li>adequate size (leaning toward the minimal, here)</li>
<li>a level of diversity ...as an ideal example, I point to the biodiversity of a mixed temperate forest as an ecological model: clear order with "standards," with complex and interesting outliers that fit into the whole.</li>
<li>understanding a majority of salient elements, with a trickle of mystery as new elements are discovered</li>
<li>general comfort, with only occasional excitement</li>
<li>acceptance of what clearly <i>is, </i>with a general, low level of measured growth</li>
<li>maximized beauty, without ruining functionality </li>
<li>as much creativity as can be managed without burning out</li>
<li>an emphasis on future possibility, second to an enjoyable present state (and a de-emphasized history)</li>
<li>excellent constituent parts in the system</li>
<li>a (reasonable, modest) sense of meaning</li>
</ul>...The last bullet point is perhaps key: the idea that one's personal preferences leads one toward some kind of <i>meaningful life</i>. I think that's what this whole thought process was about, and as such, I've found it rewarding.Jeremy Ricehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12256074521855601742noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13638090.post-66028657999634016292010-08-03T13:43:00.000-06:002010-08-03T13:43:36.673-06:00Tick.<div style="text-align:center;margin:0px auto 10px;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgDZmC0xP_iRVYZ7cscjxWFYMxde4iwYKGqa_XGth9XPgpxvMKtT_b197rpXWyavA-F23p7fqx_kGPyw_-alZcY26dH2pmEYw1Cl_m2KjGnsUS1ucOgXfyQ5Yx0o2qORuj6d1MJ/s1600/Photo+on+2010-08-4.jpg"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgDZmC0xP_iRVYZ7cscjxWFYMxde4iwYKGqa_XGth9XPgpxvMKtT_b197rpXWyavA-F23p7fqx_kGPyw_-alZcY26dH2pmEYw1Cl_m2KjGnsUS1ucOgXfyQ5Yx0o2qORuj6d1MJ/s320/Photo+on+2010-08-4.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a> </div><div style='clear:both; text-align:CENTER'><a href='http://picasa.google.com/blogger/' target='ext'><img src='http://photos1.blogger.com/pbp.gif' alt='Posted by Picasa' style='border: 0px none ; padding: 0px; background: transparent none repeat scroll 0% 50%; -moz-background-clip: initial; -moz-background-origin: initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: initial;' align='middle' border='0' /></a></div>Jeremy Ricehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12256074521855601742noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13638090.post-62146722901238994352010-06-12T11:16:00.000-06:002010-06-12T11:16:42.360-06:00Games I Would Buy if Ported to the iPhoneI just bought the Carcassonne app for my iPod Touch, and I really enjoy it. They did a wonderful job capturing the experience of the physical game for just $5. Add that to Settlers of Catan (which is quite good, though I find that the computer picks on the human with the robber, and that gets <i>old</i>), and Hive... and three of my favorites are available in my pocket. Which is damn cool.<br />
<br />
I also just bought the original, old-school "Prince of Persia" for a buck. Hard game! But cool to re-play. And Archon! I <i>loved</i> Archon as a kid, and it's a <i>blast</i> on the iPod.<br />
<br />
...Now, mind you, there are some <i>superlative</i> new and original games for the iPhone/iPod. The best ones I've seen so far are Space Miner (hilarious), Dungeon Hunter, Red Conquest (even if it kicks my ass on the easiest settings, it's brilliant), Spider: the Secret of Bryce Manor (this is bound to be an all-time classic, favorite game), Spirit, Strategery, Tilt to Live, and Orbital. ...Not to mention the myriad Tower Defense games (which are mostly quite fun).<br />
<br />
In all, I haven't been so excited about computer gaming since I was 10, playing on the Intellivision and Commodore 64. ...Which is to say, it reminds me of one of the happiest times of my life. I am *loving* this.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-large;"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">Old School Games</span></b></span><br />
<br />
There are quite a few old-school C-64/Intellivision games I would love to see properly ported to the iPhone (meaning: updates to the controls, since the iPod doesn't have a normal joystick or keyboard... and possibly updated graphics, as long as they are "true to the original," as Archon managed to be). For example:<br />
<br />
<b><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pool_of_Radiance">Pools of Radiance</a> / Curse of the Azure Bond / Secret of the Silver Blades / Pools of Darkness</b><br />
<b><br />
</b><br />
...I would totally play these over again, if they were in my pocket and didn't take 15 minutes to load.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRtwlc_WJNM"><b>Advanced Dungeons and Dragons</b></a><b> (Intellivision)</b><br />
<br />
Man, did I love this one. Simple, you can play it in five minutes, and it's nerve-wracking in a good way. :)<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57qE1arvo3U"><b>Seven Cities of Gold</b></a><br />
<br />
Quiet, interesting game. I'd love to see a straight port of this, actually, with just a few control updates. Nothing too fancy.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M.U.L.E."><b>M.U.L.E. </b></a><br />
<br />
...Begging to be put on the iPhone!<br />
<br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Below_the_root"><b>Below The Root</b></a><br />
<br />
Meditative, spiritual adventure game. Loved roaming among the treetops.<br />
<br />
<b><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sid_Meier%27s_Pirates!">Sid Meir's Pirates!</a></b><br />
<br />
Another one of those early, easy, open-ended games that you can waste hours in, a little at a time.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-large;"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">More Recent Games</span></b></span><br />
<br />
It would be pushing the limits of the technology, and it would require some "dumbing down" of the graphics and possibly a bit of the play, but I'm betting they could do a reasonable job of moving some of the more recent computer games to the iPod. I'm not expecting to see Half-Life 2 anytime soon, (that would be TOO COOL), but I'm betting they could pull off some playable and enjoyable versions of a few of my better gaming experiences:<br />
<br />
<b>Morrowind</b><br />
<b><br />
</b><br />
This would, of course, require some major dumbing-down and (in particular) <i>much</i> more basic models, but I'm betting they could pull it off. ...Would it be worth it, monetarily, to but six months' development into it? Probably not. So I'm not holding my breath. But, for the record, I'd definitely put $15 down on this one.<br />
<br />
In fact, I'd pay $5 for a "developers log" app that would keep me posted with development news and help pay for it.<br />
<br />
<b>Knights of the Old Republic</b><br />
<br />
Again, it would take some work getting the models simplified, but this would be really enjoyable.<br />
<br />
<b>Myst / Riven / Etc...</b><br />
<br />
...Why haven't they put these kinds of games on the iPhone already?! I've seen a few, but they haven't looked particularly good (and those that did I read were really hard).<br />
<br />
<b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-large;">Board Games</span></span></b><br />
<b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-large;"><br />
</span></span></b><br />
...Of course, there are a *lot* of board games that I would like to see on the iPhone! Some that jump out at me:<br />
<br />
<b>Stratego</b><br />
<b><br />
</b><br />
There are already a few implementations of this, but they all suck. We need a nice one.<br />
<br />
<b>Cathedral</b><br />
<b><br />
</b><br />
Simple and effective abstract game, it's one that I really like, and could be elegantly done, quickly played, and enjoyable.<br />
<br />
<b>Talisman</b><br />
<br />
Okay, go ahead an laugh, but I really had a lot of fun with this back in college and would like to play mindless dungeon-crawling in perpetuity every now and then. Maybe it would loose something with out the silly friends and cheap pizza, though.<br />
<br />
<b><a href="http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/624/quoridor">Quorridor</a></b><br />
<br />
...Waaaaay too expensive to actually buy, so I'd love to pay $3 for an electronic version. It's a simple and interesting abstract game.<br />
<br />
Actually, there are a whole bunch of games I would pay up to $5 for to be able to play solo:<br />
<br />
Arkham Horror, Dominion, Elfenland, Ticket to Ride, Power Grid, Pandemic, Puerto Rico, Runewars (and the new one... RuneLords or something?), Galaxy Trucker (another one that's too expensive for the real thing--and would adapt well), Dune (the '79 version--too hard to find these days), Twilight Imperium (too much of a hassle to play for real!), ZERTZ...<br />
<br />
<br />
...And, crap, now I'm looking at Board Game Geek again. More talk about this later.Jeremy Ricehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12256074521855601742noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13638090.post-68862716829712592362010-05-19T21:41:00.000-06:002010-05-19T21:41:40.473-06:00Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs - NotesThese are some notes that I took while learning about Maslow's "Peak Experiences."<br />
<br />
A peak experience involves:<br />
<br />
<div><br />
</div><div><ul><li>Intense happiness</li>
<li>Heightened sense of reality</li>
<li>Expansion of awareness</li>
<li>Feeling one with the universe</li>
<li>Clear thinking and understanding</li>
<li>Feeling more powerful</li>
<li>Loss of placement in time and space</li>
</ul></div><div>Hints:</div><ul><li>Experience fully, vividly: be present.</li>
<li>Make a growth choice 12 times a day.</li>
<li>Shut out external behavioral clues.</li>
<li>When in doubt, be honest and take responsibility.</li>
<li>Be prepared to be unpopular.</li>
<li>Make peak experiences more likely.</li>
<li>Identify your defenses and give them up.</li>
<li>Do not do things that do not reinforce your goals. DO things that do!</li>
<li>Find a mentor who has achieved your goal.</li>
<li>Avoid nay-sayers.</li>
<li>User visual reminders.</li>
<li>Track your progress.</li>
<li>Focus on positive. Forgive the negative.</li>
<li>Find social support.</li>
</ul><div>Superior Traits:</div><div><ul><li>no fear of the unknown</li>
<li>self-acceptance</li>
<li>accepts reality</li>
<li>no unnecessary inhibitions</li>
<li>focus on mission in life, devoted to duty</li>
<li>serene</li>
<li>lack of worry</li>
<li>alone without being lonely</li>
<li>self-starter</li>
<li>owns behavior</li>
<li>non-stereotyped</li>
<li>present</li>
<li>has peak experiences</li>
<li>awe</li>
<li>loss of placement</li>
<li>expects good</li>
<li>kinship with good, bad, and ugly</li>
<li>profound relationship with few</li>
<li>friendly with many</li>
<li>humble</li>
<li>discriminates between means and ends</li>
<li>tedious = enjoyable</li>
<li>unhostile humor</li>
<li>self-depricating</li>
<li>creative</li>
<li>resists enculturation</li>
<li>indignant of injustice</li>
<li>has imperfections</li>
<li>impatient when stuck</li>
<li>resolves dichotomies</li>
<li>no "conflict"</li>
<li>wise</li>
<li>child-like qualities</li>
<li>more interested in stuff than <i>having</i> stuff</li>
</ul><div><br />
</div></div>Jeremy Ricehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12256074521855601742noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13638090.post-3336118887297371862010-05-19T21:27:00.000-06:002010-05-19T21:27:04.166-06:00Pragmatic Thinking And Learning (Notes)I'm just "dumping" the notes I took while reading the aforementioned book (which I highly recommend), so as to have a copy of these online. Perhaps you'll enjoy the read, perhaps it's a waste of your time. Feel free to skip this post.<br />
<br />
1. Consider the context.<br />
<br />
2. Use rules for novices, intuition for experts.<br />
<br />
3. Know what you don't know.<br />
<br />
Dreyfus Model (1970s research):<br />
<br />
<ol><li>Novices need recipes and rules, are detached observers, and erroneously consider everything as important in every situation (particularly when trouble-shooting).</li>
<li>Advanced beginners do not want the big picture.</li>
<li>Competents can trouble-shoot; are intuitive and resourceful; but are not capable of self-correction.</li>
<li>Proficients <i>need</i> the big picture, correct poor performance through reflection, learn from others, apply maxims properly. They self-correct.</li>
<li>Experts work from intuition, are ruined by rules, focus on relevant information, and are part of the system (rather than outside it). They show more self-doubt, know what they don't know. They usually cannot teach their craft. It takes roughly ten years of concerted <i>effort</i> to get to this level.</li>
</ol><div>4. Learn by watching and imitating: imitate, assimilate, innovate.</div><div><br />
</div><div>5. Keep practicing to remain an expert.</div><div><br />
</div><div>6. Avoid formal methods when innovating / being creative.</div><div><br />
</div><div>8. Capture ideas constantly to get more of them.</div><div><br />
</div><div>Picasso: "computers are useless: they only give you answers"</div><div><br />
</div><div>9. Learn by synthesis ... and analysis.</div><div><br />
</div><div>10. Good designs (aesthetics) actually <i>work better</i>. Make the interface nice.</div><div><br />
</div><div>We learn best with a well-defined task, challenging but doable, with informative feedback you can act on, with opportunity for repetition and correction of errors.</div><div><br />
</div><div>12. Engage more senses for better cognition. (Note I skipped 11; it didn't strike me as worthwhile. There may be more skipping later, too.)</div><div><ul><li><i>Seeing</i> is the crucial artistic skill.</li>
<li>Create an R-mode, L-mode flow for learning.</li>
</ul></div><div>13. Lead with R-mode, follow with L-mode.</div><div><ul><li>"Write drunk, revise sober." - Writer's adage. </li>
<li>Get used to it first (get "a feel for it"), <i>then</i> learn the rules.</li>
<li>Dr. Galin, UCSF: Three responsibilities of the teacher to the student:</li>
</ul><blockquote><ol><li>Train both L-mode and R-model.</li>
<li>Train to use the best mode suited to the task.</li>
<li>Train to integrate both styles.</li>
</ol></blockquote><div>Anne Lamott: "Perfectionism is the voice of the oppressor." ...Go ahead and write a really shitty first draft. Trying to do better can keep you from writing anything at all.</div><div><br />
</div><div>14. Change your routine to exercise your mind.</div><div><ul><li>Use functional shifts in words to excite the mind. (changing parts of speech and adding unusual suffixes/prefixes)</li>
<li>Anchoring bias is when you get primed with a thought, a'la Derren Brown.</li>
<li>Need for closure is a bias. Keep your options open!</li>
<li>Fundamental attribution error ascribes personality as the cause of action, rather than context.</li>
<li>Confirmation bias: choose facts that fit, ignore others.</li>
<li>Self-serving bias: win = my fault, loose = someone else's.</li>
<li>Exposure effect: prefer familiar things.</li>
<li>Hawthorne effect: we change behavior when studied.</li>
<li>False memory: suggestion. "Every memory read is a write."</li>
<li>Symbolic reduction fallacy: bad analogies.</li>
<li>Nominal Fallacy: labeling something means you understand it.</li>
</ul><div>19. Be comfortable with uncertainty; defer closure.</div><div><br />
</div><div>21. Hedge your bets with diversity. Your way may be wrong!</div><div><br />
</div><div>22. Allow for different approaches/biases from different people.</div><div><ul><li>Bumper stickers and customization of your car are alpha markings and correlate with road agression.</li>
<li>"Lizard Logic": </li>
</ul><blockquote><ol><li>Flight, fight, or be paralyzed with fear</li>
<li>Immediate gratification.</li>
<li>Dominance. </li>
<li>Territoriality.</li>
<li>Blame.</li>
<li>Moral buckets (good vs evil, no greys) </li>
</ol></blockquote>23. Be the evolved one. "Breathe, don't hiss."<br />
<br />
24. Trust intuition. ...but verify.<br />
<blockquote><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">Self-tests:</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"></div><ul><li>How do you know?</li>
<li>Says who?</li>
<li>How, specifically?</li>
<li>How does what I'm doing cause this?</li>
<li>Can you measure it?</li>
<li>Compared to what/whom?</li>
<li>Always? Any exceptions?</li>
<li>What would happen if you did/didn't?</li>
<li>What stops you from...?</li>
<li>Can you define it's opposite? </li>
</ul></blockquote>You are primed by your expectations. Most of perception is based on prediction!<br />
<br />
<ul><li>Every decision is a tradeoff.</li>
<li>"The mind is not a vessel to be filled, but a fire to be kindled." - Mestrius Plutarchos (Plutarch), 45-125 BCE</li>
<li>Latin "educare" means "to draw out".</li>
<li>SMART: Specific, Measurable, Achievable (not overwhelming), Relevant, Time-boxed.</li>
<li>Have a concrete plan over several time horizons. It will change, but "the planning is more important than the plan." (I think that was Churchill.)</li>
<li>Diversify your goals: "it minimizes risks... riskier projects have greater rewards, so you want both risky and non-. At least all learning investments have value, though!</li>
<li>By investing time regularly in learning (meaning: schedule your learning time), you average out the return on your investment: some time more valuable than others. Create a ritual of investing time into your goals. Waiting for the muse invites procrastination.</li>
<li>Set reminders to re-evaluate your goals periodically. ...probably in line with your time horizons. Also schedule time each week for each goal/objective. Probably 2 or 3 sessions per week.</li>
<li>Study groups are more effective than being self-taught, according to research.</li>
<li>The part of your brain that handles reading is very small. The rest of your body doesn't really "do" language, so reading is the least effective way to learn. Watching and mimicking is the most effective. When reading, read deliberately: recite important things, ask questions, <i>use</i> the information. Stimulate your brain.</li>
<li>Retrieval is key for learning. Test yourself. Best iteration is 2 hours, 2 days, 2 weeks, then every 6 months.</li>
<li>"Chance favors only the prepared mind." -- Louis Pasteur.</li>
<li>Mental preparation which involves an inward focus of attention promotes insight.</li>
</ul><div>31. Documenting is more important than documentation.</div><div><ul><li>Put yourself in the problem. Anthropomorphism helps leverage experience.</li>
</ul><div>37. Permission to fail is the path to success. ...give yourself a "failure permitted" zone.</div><div><br />
</div><div>38. Imagine success repeatedly. Put your mind in that groove of doing things right.</div><div><ul><li>"Trying fails. Awareness cures."</li>
<li>Consultant's rule of three: if you don't have at least three possible solutions and at least three ways each could go wrong, you haven't understood the problem.</li>
<li>Study at U-Mich finds multitasking robs 3/8th of productivity. One thing at a time!</li>
</ul><div>...Apologies if this was of no use to you. ...Go read the book! :D</div></div></div><br />
</div></div></div>Jeremy Ricehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12256074521855601742noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13638090.post-39158117471888461462010-01-30T08:16:00.000-07:002010-01-30T08:16:48.451-07:00Goodbye Facebook, Welcome Back BloggerThe events of the past five months have been life-changing: I am not the person I once was. I feel the need to write about it, and so I am "returning" to the use of Blogger.<br />
<br />
The same events have, at best, ruined my local relationships, and what made Facebook "work" for me was the ability to keep up with all of them, make plans with them, and the like... there's no use in that now, so there's little use in staying on Facebook. Sure, coworkers and family are there, but I can keep up with them by other means. C'est la vie.<br />
<br />
The following series of posts will be intensely personal. If that's a problem for you (and for coworkers, it SHOULD be), unsubscribe to this blog and stop reading.Jeremy Ricehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12256074521855601742noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13638090.post-75689531925076320562009-11-25T11:14:00.000-07:002009-11-25T11:14:15.149-07:00The End.In case it hasn't been clear: I don't really blog anymore. :)<br />
<br />
I expect this will be my last post, barring the odd little need to put something online for some reason or another.<br />
<br />
<br />
Thanks for watching, guys.Jeremy Ricehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12256074521855601742noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13638090.post-84227291397048096602009-10-27T13:52:00.002-06:002009-10-27T13:52:50.058-06:00Don't Ask.<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkIbUHccpkam1piwECjiE3Ww79gnIIyLRByN_cesPu6HqgDzKft1Ed5sOuZFNetkXcszPfHXaqhLkZWMzH1N5y-1DLT9WY2LL6aFoTETFnx7yxXrC4-hE55shEaEKxbBFeGHHJ/s1600-h/crazy_dream.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkIbUHccpkam1piwECjiE3Ww79gnIIyLRByN_cesPu6HqgDzKft1Ed5sOuZFNetkXcszPfHXaqhLkZWMzH1N5y-1DLT9WY2LL6aFoTETFnx7yxXrC4-hE55shEaEKxbBFeGHHJ/s640/crazy_dream.jpg" /></a><br />
</div>Jeremy Ricehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12256074521855601742noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13638090.post-20098998229602303302009-10-14T10:19:00.004-06:002009-10-14T10:25:04.882-06:00The Padlock is an Illusion.<div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div><p>I just found <a href="http://markedwardcampos.com/files/mcamposfinal.png">this</a>. Since I had a (new) padlock handy, I thought I would give it a quick shot.<br /></p><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 262px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg0SFiSrLtumHDJBr6XaIOVI-Ff-KOSivMRB4mDPzJu_e6_Trn0zaxW2ZrZFrQlvZaOlBZjq7CguU9cki45Td5TXoAh8uDFP9KEP9iwqSeBWKUd-eGlkj-yCq8ZJ3jJpyKhdkNU/s400/open+a+padlock+in+100+tries.png" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5392492169628683202" /><p>The first step was a little awkward, but it worked.<br /></p><p>The second step was brain-dead easy.<br /></p><p>The third step was too tedious for me to try without really <i>needing</i> to do it, so I just looked up the right block of codes, then looked at the code on my lock to see if it would work.<br /></p><p>And it wouldn't! I was terribly upset about this.<br /></p><p>But I tried it anyway... and it <i>worked</i>. Surprised by this result, I fiddled around a bit and discovered that the second number was really sloppy. For me, it worked on 11, 12, 13, and 14.<br /></p><p>I didn't try all the variants on the first number, but I did notice that the first number was also "sloppy", and worked on other numbers than the number given on the package.<br /></p><p>In other words, the padlock is a ruse; an illusion. It's not as "secure" as it makes you think it is.<br /></p><p><b>Cool.</b><br /></p><p><b><br /></b></p></div><div style="margin-bottom: 9px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; width: 400px;"><a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/us/" rel="license" style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-decoration: none;"><img alt="Creative Commons License" src="http://i.creativecommons.org/l/by-nc-sa/3.0/us/88x31.png" style="border-bottom-style: none; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-style: none; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-style: none; border-right-width: 0px; border-top-style: none; border-top-width: 0px; border-width: initial; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;" /></a> <span href="http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/StillImage" property="dc:title" rel="dc:type" style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;" dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Master Break</span> by <a href="http://markedwardcampos.com/www.markedwardcampos.com" property="cc:attributionName" rel="cc:attributionURL" style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-decoration: none;" cc="http://creativecommons.org/ns#">Mark Edward Campos</a> is licensed under a <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/us/" rel="license" style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-decoration: none;">Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License</a>.<br /></div>Jeremy Ricehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12256074521855601742noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13638090.post-78432441940182613352009-09-30T16:57:00.000-06:002009-09-30T16:57:01.836-06:001kBWC Whimsy IV<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjJ7X9NhewCTt-FkhsmrdvIM1E3DIg7CdY47FNKiJNOOWfhWZChjThApsT7I5S6ANOHToMG_BYKs_aJ_MNU5Tcrf7SGbilFyzwbPbC1VwG_HbXxmIt1lKMCydrb3-RUdDdAyFWN/s1600-h/WhimsySet4.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjJ7X9NhewCTt-FkhsmrdvIM1E3DIg7CdY47FNKiJNOOWfhWZChjThApsT7I5S6ANOHToMG_BYKs_aJ_MNU5Tcrf7SGbilFyzwbPbC1VwG_HbXxmIt1lKMCydrb3-RUdDdAyFWN/s400/WhimsySet4.jpg" /></a><br />
</div><br />
The bottom two are actually copies of Blank White Cards that can be found on Flickr. I did so without permission, but I did leave a comment to them later saying I'd done so...Jeremy Ricehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12256074521855601742noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13638090.post-21565510579054122192009-09-30T16:55:00.002-06:002009-09-30T16:55:43.209-06:001kBWC Whimsy III<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhr-ONiD3X00oECi8eO35vw4IeTqmuubQFYMNEk8pAEcEmDt-Ma372MBDfbMqvskIdDKECSyBNqz103EPDlIw2h4AHVfNUQVctxeJrOeBHSNc45CCWXPVVxDcbi28VO-7URFpOw/s1600-h/WhimsySet3.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhr-ONiD3X00oECi8eO35vw4IeTqmuubQFYMNEk8pAEcEmDt-Ma372MBDfbMqvskIdDKECSyBNqz103EPDlIw2h4AHVfNUQVctxeJrOeBHSNc45CCWXPVVxDcbi28VO-7URFpOw/s400/WhimsySet3.jpg" /></a><br />
</div>Jeremy Ricehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12256074521855601742noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13638090.post-28398600399082228292009-09-30T16:54:00.000-06:002009-09-30T16:54:38.476-06:001kBWC Whimsy II<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEicbvyXml-6QZ6oPEJdrzluqSTu0SSKH6hwhE4v_qMLGuChn9dNjuDt-lGrLaOrTEIrEzYxhBm3Z54Sn0GQ43wBmAZPmied52kdzA40cMexqxJCtcf8WLHlermQh8mfPN9X11ZK/s1600-h/WhimsySet2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEicbvyXml-6QZ6oPEJdrzluqSTu0SSKH6hwhE4v_qMLGuChn9dNjuDt-lGrLaOrTEIrEzYxhBm3Z54Sn0GQ43wBmAZPmied52kdzA40cMexqxJCtcf8WLHlermQh8mfPN9X11ZK/s400/WhimsySet2.jpg" /></a><br />
</div>Jeremy Ricehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12256074521855601742noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13638090.post-63496982218759060482009-09-30T16:53:00.001-06:002009-09-30T16:54:55.203-06:001kBWC Whimsy I<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhm4DK9COuaFVh6hAq_0p7wWGY-CUl_79LpLj8fDYNne6s0FmQLFrKRsvvCuAqPtslXZivYTkxmY6OhSXeCNCbbtWfgcroPYZ38nNZZ8oLXOdjW2aBNPNdE0brxaaZqdahdI4iP/s1600-h/WhimsySet1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhm4DK9COuaFVh6hAq_0p7wWGY-CUl_79LpLj8fDYNne6s0FmQLFrKRsvvCuAqPtslXZivYTkxmY6OhSXeCNCbbtWfgcroPYZ38nNZZ8oLXOdjW2aBNPNdE0brxaaZqdahdI4iP/s400/WhimsySet1.jpg" /></a><br />
</div><br />
Yes, I've gotten somewhat carried away with the art on Blank White Cards. None of these were drawn during a game, nor do I have the skill to pull that off in such a short time. ...These cards have become, over the past month or so, an excuse to draw and to not care too much about the details. Whimsy becomes acceptable, which is something I generally don't tolerate in a sketchbook or--PTB preserve us--on sheets of good paper. But I can easily pull out half an index card, take 5 minutes, and draw up some silly idea now and then.<br />
<br />
I've been doing almost all of these based on pictures I find on the internet. I try and find photos to work from, but sometimes I "copy" peoples' art work. That feels a little dirty... but they make excellent cards, they generally are known to "work" compositionally, and they take away the hard work of abstracting lines and forms from photos. It's sometimes a chore fitting them onto such a small "canvas", but I'm enjoying that challenge. Actually, I feel like I'm learning a lot about simplifying line-work, which has been a weakness for me.<br />
<br />
Little doses of creativity smattered throughout the day. It's fun.Jeremy Ricehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12256074521855601742noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13638090.post-13008775954212981462009-09-14T13:46:00.004-06:002009-09-14T14:46:38.142-06:00Understanding the Tea Party III: A ResponseThis is part three in my ongoing attempt to understand the Tea Party's underlying motivations.<div><br /></div><div>So, in the previous entry, I outlined what I felt were the four underlying causes for the Tea Party's stance on government:</div><div><ol><li>Constitution</li><li>Capitalism</li><li>Freedom of choice</li><li>Private Industry over Public Works</li></ol><div>So, here we have rational ground upon which to have a discussion. (...because how do you respond to "Obama's plan is just like Hitler's!")</div><div><br /></div><div>And here, in brief, are my feelings on the subjects:</div><div><ol><li><b>Constitution:</b> Sorry, I only weakly support it. I agree that it was brilliant in its time, and it got us where we are today, and some of the underlying ideas still hold true. ...but I also believe in agility and adaptation, and I don't think a 250-year-old country can be run based on two pages of text which are outdated, particularly in light of what we understand about equality and social justice now. In fact, if I had my way, <i>every</i> law would have a sunset date established when it's signed. If it remains relevant, it will be re-enacted.</li><li><b>Capitalism:</b> Well, I'd be quick to agree that it was a great way to boost a country from obscurity to super-power, but I would just as quickly point out that it leads to corruption and pathological corporations and concentrated power. So, again, I only weakly support it. And I <i>certainly</i> support strong regulation. Super-strong, even. Left to their own devices, corporations are <i>designed</i> to act amorally, and thus must be restricted.</li><li><b>Freedom of choice: </b>well, this is a bit of a misnomer. I certainly believe in personal freedoms (and consequent responsibility). But in the context of mandatory health care, the argument strikes me as a little odd. ...I suppose if you prove that you'll be able to pay for your own medical expenses, I wouldn't argue against your freedom to pass on the plan, and I'd be amenable to some kind of partial kickback/tax-break for your doing so. Still, this seems like such a border case that I feel like we're wasting our breath. As for choosing where your taxes get allocated? ...Sorry, no, I don't believe you have that right. The whole point is to benefit the <i>entire</i> community, and your interests are necessarily biased. A brief lesson in cognitive bias will make that clear. This may seem like a personal burden to you, but that's the cost of a moral society that has the resources to help those less fortunate.</li><li><b>Private Industry over Public Works:</b> whoa, nelly! This is where our opinions part in irreconcilable ways. I whole-heartedly support the Commons. I believe in externalities. I believe that a nation of people should act toward unified goals. I believe in constant improvement of the system. And when you shout "that's communism!", I may just have to shrug and say "perhaps it shares some qualities." And when you shout "the scariest thing a person in need can hear is 'I am from the government, and I am here to help'", then that's where I say we need to improve the system, not disband it. I believe that the greatest accomplishments of mankind are collaborative, public works, not private industry. Art and Science, man. Art and Science! They are the pinnacle of human potential: our collective actualization. ...Now, clearly, industry fuels public works, and I'm cool with that. ...as long a industry behaves as morally as possible, and is <i>continuously</i> pushing itself to be "better", in a moral sense. </li></ol><div>...So, it seems I disagree with the Tea Party on every subject I can cull from their torrid comments. My opinion of them has changed slightly, during this process: I feel like I understand their motivations a <i>little</i> better, and while I still see those motivations as greedy and a bit ego-centric, at least I feel my <i>understanding</i> improved.</div><div><br /></div><div>That said, I probably went into this pre-judging them, and with more than a small dose of confirmation bias, so I'm not surprised that I come out the other side feeling equally "icky". So perhaps my sense of heightened compassion is bullshit. But I'm afraid I am too far along in my self-justification of liberal beliefs. I can't grant them any more clout without losing my ideals. I'm afraid I disagree fundamentally. A society should be more about morality than "earning"... and I'm too jaded to move away from that opinion, despite its flaws. (...and I recognize at least <i>some</i> of my belief's flaws!)</div><div><br /></div><div>Overall, though, I can't help but feel this exercise was worthwhile. But that's likely just a kind of "post-purchase rationalization!"</div><div><br /></div><div>On the subject of cognitive dissonance, however, I must admit I still have some serious dissonance. I have friends and family who believe the Tea Party line. I want to continue to believe that they are good people, but I have to wrestle with my underlying assumption that their beliefs are rooted in greed.</div><div><br /></div><div>I'm still not sure how to resolve that. So, to that end, I'm no better off than when I began. [sigh]</div></div></div>Jeremy Ricehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12256074521855601742noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13638090.post-82294911880165951092009-09-14T13:17:00.003-06:002009-09-14T13:39:08.202-06:00Understanding the Tea Party II: What Lies BeneathThis is part two in my attempts to understand the motivations of the so-called Tea Party. It is based on a very limited look at what they're saying, and of course, my own personal experiences with Libertarians.<br /><br />Yes, Libertarians. Though I suspect it will upset both groups of people to make the claim, I have yet to find any evidence contrary to the theory that the Tea Party is motivated by an overlapping set of ideals as Libertarians*.<br /><br />What are those ideals?<br /><ul><li>The government shall hold no powers not expressly outlined in the <b>Constitution</b> of the United States.</li><li>America is built on <b>capitalism</b>, and the law should maximize those effects: particularly by taking as little in the way of taxation as possible. Notably, taking more money from the rich is biased and unfair.</li><li>Furthermore, the use of taxed money cannot be used for programs which the people do not individually support. Doing otherwise is stripping people of their <b>freedom of choice</b>.</li><li><b>Private industry</b> should never have to compete with public works.</li></ul><div>Put even more succinctly:</div><div><ol><li><b>Federal government is too large.</b></li><li><b>Federal spending is out of control.</b></li></ol><div>...That's my attempt to be as fair as possible. But here's what I hear, every time people make these arguments:</div><div><ol><li><b>Stop taking my money.</b></li></ol></div></div>...I've decided to ignore a lot of the arguments I highlighted in the previous post. Most of them struck me as being <i>ad absurdum</i> arguments (ie: "His actions are tyrannical despotism") or speculation ("the health care plan will put us $1 trillion further into debt"). I wasn't surprised by these fallacies (even Liberals were using them during Bush's administration), but they're easily dismissed with a little rationality, so I've left them out.<div><br /></div><div>It's also worth noting that there is likely underlying-if-unacknowledged-racism (particularly to justify his lack of claim to the presidency) and hypocrisy (if they were equally upset with Bush, why not march on D.C. in the last eight years?), but I'll leave these points to those better-suited to addressing them.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>* I have not found <i>confirming</i> evidence, notably, of the argument that taxation is, in fact, abuse. Libertarians are quick to claim that taking a person's money is, in fact, an assault on that person, period.</div>Jeremy Ricehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12256074521855601742noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13638090.post-10078274162596880272009-09-14T11:56:00.001-06:002009-09-14T12:33:06.218-06:00Understanding the Tea PartySo, I'm trying to understand the argument that the "tea party revolution" has, and I'm outlining some of the arguments they make in <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzUrv3SdJdo">this video</a> and <a href="http://reason.com/news/show/136032.html">this post</a>. The latter is specific to the health-care plan, but so be it. This will be long, and I will be using a lot of quotes, because I want to get this first draft as <i>accurate</i> as possible. Then, later, I'll try to characterize the ideas behind them as fairly as I can (which is to say, I can't honestly do it fairly, so it will be biased, but hey, it's my blog).<br /><br /><ul><li>Obama represents unlimited government, which is evil.</li><li>Obama represents unlimited spending (of money the gov't doesn't have), which is evil.</li><li>The stimulus money hasn't been spent, yet we're getting back on track, and the gov't is holding on to the money.</li><li>One person said "I don't know where [the government] got the idea that you can spend yourself into prosperity". </li><li>Obama represents tyranny, which is evil. Some have said his actions are a "despotic abuse of authority".</li><li>The government must be smaller. "Reduce the size and scope..."</li><li>The government has far exceeded the scope of the Constitution.</li><li>We need to return to the ideology of Thomas Jefferson and George Washington.</li><li>Taxes must be lower. The government is taking too much of its people's money.</li><li>They want "smart, hard-working American people to be given the opportunity to earn, and to keep what they earn as best they can." ("That's what this country is all about.")</li><li>The government is taking away people's choice. Some have even said "he's trying to take away our way of life."</li><li>The government is getting involved in areas which it has no experience accomplishing.</li><li>Obama's allies will "attempt to destroy your business and reputation" if you "offer any [alternative] ideas" as in the case of Whole Foods' CEO recently.</li><li>Obama hasn't met with a single Republican on health care reform since April, despite calling himself bipartisan.</li><li>Obama claims to be centrist and willing to fight his own party, but only does so on straw-man points.</li><li>The health plan will destroy large businesses and force small businesses to stay small to avoid health insurance costs.</li><li>The health plan forces every American to have insurance, and doesn't allow them the choice not to have it.</li><li>Insurance companies are sure to lose money because they will have to insure those with irresponsible lifestyles.</li><li>Insurance companies are sure to lose money due to "mammograms and colonoscopies, on demand, no matter how needless your visit may be".</li><li>Government-run options "have in nearly every other arena" "crowd out" private competition, and Obama is lying when he says otherwise. Interestingly, in the same breath, they'll say things like "As we all know, if any organization has demonstrated an uncanny ability to control costs, drive innovation and foster competition, it's been government."</li><li>If a gov't-run insurance company could "pay for itself" and "change the dynamics of the competition", then, they argue, why can't a private company?</li><li>Obama is lying when he says the health care plan will cost nothing to you, and that it will not affect the deficit. They point to "the Congressional Budget Office's $900 billion estimate (and The Lewin Group's $1 trillion estimate)."</li><li>The health care plan may lead to government rationing for seniors.</li><li>It is unreasonable to expect to extract $1 trillion dollars in savings from cutting "waste" in the insurance companies.</li><li>The health care plan represents mandates, which are evil.</li><li>The health care plan represents price controls, which are evil.</li><li>The health care plan represents regulations, which are, for the most part, evil.</li><li>The health care plan represents added costs, which are evil.</li><li>Obama is acting politically, to push "his very own entrenched ideology."</li></ul><br />Other things to note:<br /><br /><ul><li>Most of these people are quick to say that Bush was equally guilty.</li><li>Most of these people are not pro-war.</li><li>Most of these people are not pro-life. At least, that's not their beef for now.</li><li>Most will identify as "former Republicans" and "Libertarians".</li></ul><br /><br />Problems with this analysis:<br /><br /><ul><li>I am biased against it and cannot provide a fair account of their beliefs.</li><li>All of these are quotes, representing individual's ideas, not the beliefs of "the movement", which is a more slippery beast.</li></ul>Jeremy Ricehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12256074521855601742noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13638090.post-48562888864730090462009-09-14T09:28:00.000-06:002009-09-14T09:28:09.572-06:00Derren Brown's TrickOkay, the two people actually reading this blog have both asked what Derren Brown's trick was for predicting the lottery. I doubt either of you are going to like it. He used crowd-sourcing.<br />
<br />
He ostensibly calls it "deep maths", but explains it, quite simply, as averaging. He didn't go into details (or so I've inferred from other people's discussions on the show--I haven't watched it since it's only aired in the UK), but at the simplest level, what he did was average the predictions of 24 people.<br />
<br />
Here's where I think he left some things out. He's said earlier that it "took a year of preparation". Given that fact, here's what I think he really did:<br />
<br />
<ol><li>Got together 24 of his closest friends.</li>
<li>Had those friends watch the lottery very closely over the course of a year, having each person do their best to "see patterns" and "predict" what the next lottery's results would be.</li>
<li>Lather, rinse, and repeat this over the course of about a year (at least 50 lottery draws).</li>
<li>Arrange each person's predictions on a linear scale (lowest to highest), and average each participant's guess in order (so: average everyone's lowest guess, then next lowest, and so on).</li>
<li>Measure the results carefully, of course. I imagine the results would get better over time as people get a better "sense" for how the numbers fall, so to speak.</li>
<li>When the group clearly has better-than-average results, start buying one lottery ticket each week. ...You've gotta pay your participants. : )</li>
<li>At some point, decide that this is "working" and risk it all on one week's prediction.</li>
</ol><div>Of course, I could be completely wrong!</div><div><br />
</div><div>That said, this is an experiment that is simple enough to attempt, with minimal expense and merely a moderate investment in time (30 minutes a week for each participant). I plan on trying it, actually.</div>Jeremy Ricehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12256074521855601742noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13638090.post-86089481044905190202009-09-14T08:29:00.000-06:002009-09-14T08:29:53.933-06:00Something's Gotta GiveI believe in diversity. I seems healthy to have a host of competing ideas, particularly in the political arena.<br />
<br />
Are things going too far?<br />
<br />
Bush's behavior was completely unacceptable to me (I was calling for his removal from office), and clearly Obama's behavior is completely unacceptable to some people now (who are calling for his removal from office)... and I fail to see any common ground upon which both sides can comfortably stand. Our respective senses of morality seem too far apart to reconcile.<br />
<br />
If the debate comes to blows, I predict the Right wins. They are stronger-willed, better-suited, and more willing to bend morality to their favor and find advantage.<br />
<br />
I fear that time approaches.<br />
<br />
I would prefer a more amicable separation.<br />
<br />
<br />
But at this point: I prefer separation.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
How horrible is <i>that</i> thought?<br />
<br />
[sigh]Jeremy Ricehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12256074521855601742noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13638090.post-1243939757141145552009-09-09T16:00:00.001-06:002009-09-09T16:00:32.380-06:00Derren BrownI'm a Derren Brown fanboy.<br><br>So I found myself more than slightly giddy tonight when he...<br><br><br><font size="4"><b>Predicted the UK lottery numbers. All six.</b></font><br><br><br><br>This changes things.<br> Jeremy Ricehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12256074521855601742noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13638090.post-3015466813622195942009-09-05T15:35:00.001-06:002009-09-05T19:03:49.410-06:00My Latest Obsession: Photography (Now With Lists!)Notice I said "Photography," not "Cameras."<br /><br />That's key.<br /><br />Truth be told, since just before my birthday, when I bought myself a Nikon D100 with a (nice) 28-70 close-up lens, my obsession was cameras. And for some time afterward, too. In fact, for a time, I was regretting the D100 and wishing I had gone with a <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPOh59-Y65Q">Lumix LX3</a> or a <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHcI7Doc6v8">Canon G10</a>, instead. But then my musings shifted from which box had the best hole in it to a question of how to best let light into that box.<br /><br />Much like with music, I have no aspirations to be "professional", whatever that means: this is just another hobby for me. Ultimately, perhaps, I would like to be able to draw/paint my own photos--recall, if you will, that I plan to retire into professional art--but that's further down the road. But as of right now, my goal is to build a portfolio of <i>great shots.</i> Photos that like-minded people would see and remark: "Wow. Nice."<br /><br />To that end, I wanted to understand what I personally consider "great".<br /><br />I've spent almost every night since my birthday drifting off to sleep looking at photos on flickr, and have amassed a rather bulky-but-well-honed <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/whatsilence/favorites/">collection of favorites</a>. I've subscribed to a few photography blogs and twitter feeds, too. Typical obsessive behavior for me. : )<br /><br />As a result of that study, I've noticed a few patterns in what works for me. Of course, the obvious things count: you must have the right focus/depth of field/shutter speed/exposure, and a good subject. But here are the things that really work for me, specifically:<br /><ul><li><b>Details:</b> things others probably overlooked.<br /></li><li><b>Remarkable subjects.</b> That which makes me think, "I want to see that myself." Even a weak photo with an intriguing subject still <i>works</i>. This includes "I would like to know that person," "I would like to go there", "I would like to do that," and even "What's going on, here?" ...that last one particularly through juxtaposition.<br /></li><li><b>A sense of mystery.</b></li><li><b>Relatively simple composition. </b>Perhaps I'm just too easily distracted.<b> </b> </li><li><b>Texture.</b> </li><li><b>Isolated, bold colors. </b><span style="font-style: italic;">Isolated</span>, mind you. Too much is... too much.<br /></li><li><b>Muted colors. </b>I really love photos with smooth, desaturated reds and yellows.</li><li><b>A sense of place, context, or interaction.</b> I like it when there are (unidentifiable) people or animals in the shot. I like being reasonably sure where the shot was taken, or at least what it's like there. These add meaning, time, <i>zeitgeist</i>. Of course, that meaning <i>matters</i>, now: I don't like aggression, for example. </li><li><b>Art happening:</b> painters painting, photographers shooting, dancers dancing, crafters crafting. It makes humanity feel redeemable.</li><li><b>Glowing tones.</b> This works especially well in B&W.</li><li><b>Narrow Depth of Field.</b> Sure, sometimes a wide DoF is warranted, but by and large, I will be more fascinated with the narrow shot. Even tilt and shift, for example [<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tilt-shift_photography">wiki</a>][<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/gringod/135925902/">example</a>] works well for me. Someday I'll own a view camera.</li></ul>And here are the things that really DON'T work for me (aside from the typical stuff like wrong exposure/DoF/composition, bad subject, or clipping the subject):<br /><ul><li><b>Tilting the camera</b> to be "artsy". Some people really like this: I am NOT one of them.<br /></li><li><b>Copyrights.</b> Seeing a copyright, name, or logo plastered along one edge of an image makes me fume. Seriously: if you <i>insist</i> on posting a copyright with your photo (and I would argue pretty vehemently that cc-by-nc-nd is a far better option anyway), put it in plain text far enough OUTSIDE your image so as to avoid disturbing it. It is unprofessional to do otherwise. <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/makingpixels/">Some people</a> go so far they make me violent... particularly when they have ruined a fantastic photo with this kind of bullshit. <b style="font-style: italic;">HULK SMASH!</b><br /></li><li><b>Clichés,</b> for the most part. There are a few exceptions for me (trees in fog, for example), but typical stock photography styles make me click "next" quickly, even if the shot is great in every other way. Sunsets, for example. It has to be a <span style="font-style: italic;">really spectacular</span> sunset to warrant my time. ...This may be due to the fact that I live in New Mexico, though. : )<br /></li><li><b>Smiling</b> <b>at the camera.</b> It is <i>exceedingly</i> rare that I like a photo where the subject is looking at the camera and smiling.</li><li>Subjects (people, specifically; dogs too) that <b>I</b> <b>probably wouldn't spend 10 minutes with</b> in real life. Sorry: if you're shooting people (/dogs), your photo will be judged on the subject as much as on the photo. Such is life.</li><li><b>"Guess what this is."</b> Thanks, no. If it's not clear from the shot, I tend to click "next" regardless of how nice the composition may seem. If you really want to do that, paint it.</li><li><b>Color shots</b> that were supposed to be black and white. Call me old-school. If the color isn't <i>fantastic</i>, make it B&W (or sepia, sure).<br /></li><li><b>Dead-center subjects.</b> Some people do this for "symmetry", so perhaps that's what I don't really like...</li></ul>Jeremy Ricehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12256074521855601742noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13638090.post-57582040445267474872009-08-18T16:50:00.001-06:002009-08-18T16:50:52.606-06:00My Stance on Climate Change...So much for avoiding political topics...<br><br><br>As I suspect is true of most of you: I have friends on both sides of the political fence.<br><br>Some of them are very ...shall we say... <i>vocal</i>, when it comes to "debunking" climate change.<br> <br>Here's my take.<br><br><i>I don't care whether climate change is a reality or not.</i><br><br>Seriously. Don't care. Haven't read the research one way or t'other. The argument is being made to push our country into taking better care of the environment, specifically by cutting emissions, keeping forests healthy, and reducing our use of deletable resources.<br> <br>I don't give a <i>rat's ass</i> whether or not climate change is real because <font size="4"><b>...we need to be doing these things anyway.</b></font><br><br><br>Now STFU and take care of your planet.<br><br> </angry><br> Jeremy Ricehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12256074521855601742noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13638090.post-66745862200382731732009-08-14T08:14:00.000-06:002009-08-14T08:14:19.904-06:00Sick of Political BickeringAs the title implies, I have become rather disenchanted with hearing people's bickering about political... stuff.<br />
<br />
<br />
So I apologize for posting this.<br />
<br />
<br />
But... <i>seriously?</i> <a href="http://derrenbrownart.com/blog/2009/08/george-bush-invade-iraq-thwart-gog-magog/">Is this true?</a> In short, the article implies that GWB called the Fance's Chirac to goad him into the war on religious grounds.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
...'Cause if that's true, it is <b>completely uncool with me.</b>Jeremy Ricehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12256074521855601742noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13638090.post-89074578786168241862009-07-11T08:19:00.000-06:002009-07-11T08:19:17.991-06:00Gun ControlA friend of mine recently brought up the issue of gun control, about which I have several things to say. I felt the urge to write about it, and a quick search reveals that I've never actually explained my position on this blog. So here it is.<br />
<br />
First, the exposition of my position:<br />
<ol><li>People should be allowed to own guns. As many as they want, as deadly as they want.</li>
<li>It is reasonable (and wise) to train/license these individuals <i>before</i> they own such weapons. Several tiers of licenses may be appropriate.<br />
</li>
<li>There should be very, <i>very</i> strict penalties applied to crimes committed with guns (or, really, any weapons). Even an attempted crime. Even an ostensibly accidental crime. One of these penalties should be that you are not allowed to own a weapon again. Ever.<br />
</li>
<li>There should be very strict penalties for allowing your weapons to be used (by others) in crimes. It's up to <i>you</i> to ensure they never are. One of these penalties should be that you are not allowed to own a weapon again. Ever.</li>
</ol>I am not going to make the Constitutional argument. While I think it's a fine document, I'm going out on a sacrilegious limb and saying that the Constitution should <i>not</i> be the end-all, be-all of legislation. It was written 200 years ago. Things change.<br />
<br />
I think my stance boils down to two core beliefs. I am of the opinion that <b>personal freedom should be the default stance.</b> Namely, a person has a right to own a weapon. Secondly, <b>preventive legislation is almost always a mistake.</b> This is related to the first belief, but slightly different.<br />
<br />
A few logical questions arise at this point. First, where does the line get drawn? Should I be allowed to own a bomb? A tank? A nuke!? A mortar? A flamethrower? I don't know. I agree that there should be a line somewhere, and that it has something to do with the risks involved (of accidents). But, for now, we're talking about guns... and I don't know of a gun that should be outlawed.<br />
<br />
The second question is what I really came here to write about. The opinion that, for example, assault rifles are <i>designed to kill.</i> I've often heard this argument: if a gun is specifically made to <i>kill people</i>, why should anyone own it?<br />
<br />
I'll admit it's a good question. I'm tempted to address this concern by saying that the design of something shouldn't affect the legality of it, but I don't think that's going to convince anyone. It's an opinion.<br />
<br />
Instead, what I want to suggest to these people is that they're focused on the wrong thing.<br />
<br />
First, there is media bias to consider. The people who make these arguments are <i>probably </i>all people who aren't "into guns", so their only real exposure to them is through the media. And thanks to the whole "if it bleeds, it leads" thang, by and large their exposure is based on people being killed by assault rifles in mass-murders. Usually, it seems, perpetrated by children. In schools. Against other children.<br />
<br />
So here's what I suggest: what you want is not a ban on guns. What you want is to prevent mass murders. You see assault rifles as a perfect tool for this crime, and a tool that seems ill-fit for any other job than mass murder.<br />
<br />
...And you're willing to sacrifice a personal freedom--one that you would never elect to take anyway, conveniently--to help prevent these crimes.<br />
<br />
To this I say: noble purpose! ...But, I fear, misguided.<br />
<br />
I think the guns used in these crimes are a convenient and iconic target for your ire. I think that your perception of the people from whom you deem fit to strip these freedoms are not people you hold in a positive light. Who cares if some hick asshole can't buy one more gun that was really <i>made</i> for killing people, anyway? Boo-frikkin-hoo. I can understand this point of view!<br />
<br />
I just don't feel it's enlightened. Or, really, <i>right</i>.<br />
<br />
I'll say again: I think the ultimate goal of stopping mass-murder is a noble one. And I'd love to have some intelligent people spend some amount of time analyzing what might have been most effective in identifying this risk and intervening. But until I see demonstrable proof that outlawing assault rifles (or, worse, guns in general) is going to have a <i>dramatic </i>effect on the number and/or severity of these crimes, I remain skeptical.<br />
<br />
And while I'm skeptical, I stick to my <span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>[resists the urge to use a pun]</i></span> position on the subject:<br />
<ul><li>Personal freedom should be the default stance. <i>Even if it's not a freedom I elect to use. <b>Even if the people who use it are people I don't generally like.</b></i><br />
</li>
<li>Preventive legislation is almost always a mistake. Until it can be clearly demonstrated that it makes a profound difference, it is <i>not</i> worth removing people's personal freedoms. It is better, to my mind, to rely on people being accountable for their actions. ...Even if that action involves forgetting to lock their gun chest.</li>
</ul>Anyway. I don't really mean to pick a fight. I just wanted to get my thoughts down on paper. ...so to speak. I also wanted people to know that I've thought about the subject and made what I think is a fairly rational decision, whether you disagree with it or not.<br />
<br />
In closing, I'll just point out, if it isn't clear already that I don't own a gun. In fact, I've never even held one, let alone shot one.<br />
<br />
That said, I <i>don't</i> have a problem with people who own guns. ...I have <i>plenty</i> of friends with large numbers of guns, and they are good people. I think it's a common mistake to think that gun-owners are universally (or even mostly) assholes.<br />
<br />
As a last thought, I'll extend that a bit: I think a majority of people's political opinions are governed by the types of friends they've made. This is (<a href="http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/nate_silver_on_race_and_politics.html">demonstrably</a>) why city-folk tend to be more liberal: they usually have more <i>types</i> of friends.Jeremy Ricehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12256074521855601742noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13638090.post-19671791758050508432009-07-09T22:11:00.000-06:002009-07-09T22:11:50.131-06:00On the Tedium of Being a Scientist (or Skeptic, at least)Over the past three years, I have really tried to "up" my level of rational thinking. My skepticism. I've taken the stance that conjecture is nearly worthless; taking action without solid evidence of its efficacy is generally wasteful. Assumptions are almost always a mistake.<br />
<br />
Note, there are some exceptions that would detract from the point if enumerated.<br />
<br />
The inescapable problem with this attitude is <b>tedium</b>.<br />
<br />
When someone asks you whether to use "which" or "that" in a sentence, you have to look it up. When you complain that something isn't working the way you expected, and someone suggests how to fix it, you question whether that's a legitimate solution. ...And if you eventually decide to "just try it", and it works, you're never satisfied that it wasn't just coincidence. When people ask interesting but less-relevant questions during decision-making meetings, you call them on information bias.<br />
<br />
You spend inordinate amounts of time researching decisions, refining processes, and measuring progress.<br />
<br />
You can't listen to <i>any</i> mass media, because it's so chock full of unverified, rushed assertions, presuppositions of guilt, and contextual bias. You can't read opinion pieces, because they are so lop-sided and single-minded. You spend some amount of time after any serious discussion looking up the other participant's claims. You discount people's stories because they are "anecdotal".<br />
<br />
When someone asks you to confirm something you're "pretty sure of", you take the time to look it up again anyway, because you know memory is fallible. You question your decisions, because you're aware of confirmation bias. You refuse to make relative distinctions because of the contrast effect.<br />
<br />
In short, your entire life comes into question. Everything progresses more slowly, because of your perpetual uncertainty. All in all, what you might have shrugged off and just <i>did</i> all become long processes with multiple steps.<br />
<br />
The worst part about it, of course, is that there is no turning back. Ever. Because now you <i>know</i> that those old behaviors were wrong. Simple, biased action is rooted in falsehoods. Now you're on the path of "truth"--or some reasonable epistemological approximation of it. Nothing less is even worth considering. It's just <i>wrong. </i><b>Not. An. Option.</b><br />
<br />
But it's hard. : (<i> </i>Jeremy Ricehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12256074521855601742noreply@blogger.com1