I’ll Tell You What…

March 20, 2008

Check, please

Filed under: Deep Thought — Larry @ 10:32 pm

I think it’s time to trade this body in for a new one. :-(

April 15, 2005

Corporate Drone

Filed under: Deep Thought — Larry @ 9:15 am

Sometimes you read the most insightful things on Slashdot. It’s rare, I admit, but it does happen every once in a while. Here’s a quote from this morning that I can relate to in such an intimate way that it makes my heart sink.

It’s your job as a corporate drone to rate management’s decisions on a scale from good to excellent. Anything less might label you as a bump in the road, a thorn in the side.

I have always been one to voice my opinion in tactful ways to the leadership at the companies for which I’ve worked. But I’m starting to get beat down and am becoming a little cynical about the whole system.

At my company we are just past review time and rapidly approaching raise time. After receiving a very dissappointing ranking slot, I’m not looking forward to the small raise that normally accompanies an average position.

*sigh* Battling cynicism is so difficult.

March 26, 2005

Grok

Filed under: Deep Thought, Just Ask — Larry @ 8:08 pm

Here’s another one that is used every once in a while on the net. The word grok appears in the Robert Heinlein book, Stranger in a Strange Land and is part of the Martian language. One of the characters in the book explains it this way:

‘Grok’ means to understand so thoroughly that the observer becomes a part of the observed - to merge, blend, intermarry, lose identity in group experience. It means almost everything that we mean by religion, philosophy, and science - and it means as little to us (because we are from Earth) as color means to a blind man.

If you say you grok something, for example, a programming language, you imply that you fully and completely understand it.

March 22, 2005

What’s a Meme?

Filed under: Deep Thought, Just Ask — Larry @ 7:14 pm

I saw this word used somewhere today and thought it was a strange one. The context in which it was used escapes me at the moment but I think it was used to describe something, eg, that is a meme. Anyway, I looked up the definition and it’s really quite cool.

WordNet over at princeton defines it this way:

meme — (a cultural unit (an idea or value or pattern of behavior) that is passed from one generation to another by nongenetic means (as by imitation); “memes are the cultural counterpart of genes”)

How cool is that?

Some other noteworthy definitions floating around the internet:

  • Nanotechnology Now

    Meme: An idea that replicates through a society as it is propagated through person-to-person interaction, both direct and indirect. Memetics is a field of study that focuses on memes’ role in the evolution of a culture.

  • Levity.com

    A term coined by Richard Dawkins, who defines it as “a unit of cultural inheritance, hypothesized as analogous to the particulate gene and as naturally selected by virtue of its ‘phenotypic’ consequences on its own survival and replication in the cultural environment.”

  • Silicon Beach Westnet

    As defined by Richard Dawkins in The Selfish Gene(1976): “a unit of cultural transmission, or a unit of imitation.” “Examples of memes are tunes, ideas, catch-phrases, clothes fashions, ways of making pots or of building arches. Just as genes propagate themselves in the gene pool by leaping from body to body via sperms or eggs, so memes propagate themselves in the meme pool by leaping from brain to brain via a process which, in the broad sense, can be called imitation.” In this sense, chain letter components are memes.

  • Access eGovernment

    Contagious ideas. Term is used to explain viral marketing.

December 24, 2004

Who was Saint Nicholas?

Filed under: Deep Thought — Larry @ 7:54 pm

Who was Saint Nicholas and who was Santa Claus? Are they the same? I found a website (StNicholasCenter.org) that explains it all very well.

December 21, 2004

Quote - John Stuart Mill

Filed under: Deep Thought — Larry @ 12:31 pm

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.

– John Stuart Mill
English economist & philosopher (1806 - 1873)

November 25, 2004

Happy Thanksgiving!

Filed under: Deep Thought — Larry @ 2:56 pm

Here’s a list of some very good resources pertaining to the Thanksgiving holiday:

September 2, 2004

Zell Miller’s Speech at the RNC

Filed under: Deep Thought — Larry @ 11:00 pm

This is just an incredible speech. Unfortunately, I missed the broadcast of the Republican National Convention but Hal over at The Great Separation posted the speech in its entirety. I’m reposting it for the sake of convenience to my readers and exposure of the speech.

Click Read More… for the full text. It’s worth it!

Since I last stood in this spot, a whole new generation of the Miller Family has been born: Four great grandchildren.

Along with all the other members of our close-knit family, they are my and Shirley’s most precious possessions.

And I know that’s how you feel about your family also. Like you, I think of their future, the promises and the perils they will face.

Like you, I believe that the next four years will determine what kind of world they will grow up in.

And like you, I ask which leader is it today that has the vision, the willpower and, yes, the backbone to best protect my family?

The clear answer to that question has placed me in this hall with you tonight. For my family is more important than my party.

There is but one man to whom I am willing to entrust their future and that man’s name is George Bush.

In the summer of 1940, I was an 8-year-old boy living in a remote little Appalachian valley. Our country was not yet at war, but even we children knew that there were some crazy men across the ocean who would kill us if they could.

President Roosevelt, in his speech that summer, told America “all private plans, all private lives, have been in a sense repealed by an overriding public danger.”

In 1940, Wendell Wilkie was the Republican nominee.

And there is no better example of someone repealing their “private plans” than this good man. He gave Roosevelt the critical support he needed for a peacetime draft, an unpopular idea at the time.

And he made it clear that he would rather lose the election than make national security a partisan campaign issue.

Shortly before Wilkie died, he told a friend, that if he could write his own epitaph and had to choose between “here lies a president” or “here lies one who contributed to saving freedom,” he would prefer the latter.

Where are such statesmen today?

Where is the bipartisanship in this country when we need it most?

Now, while young Americans are dying in the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan, our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of the Democrat’s manic obsession to bring down our Commander in Chief.

What has happened to the party I’ve spent my life working in?

I can remember when Democrats believed that it was the duty of America to fight for freedom over tyranny.

It was Democratic President Harry Truman who pushed the Red Army out of Iran, who came to the aid of Greece when Communists threatened to overthrow it, who stared down the Soviet blockade of West Berlin by flying in supplies and saving the city.

Time after time in our history, in the face of great danger, Democrats and Republicans worked together to ensure that freedom would not falter. But not today.

Motivated more by partisan politics than by national security, today’s Democratic leaders see America as an occupier, not a liberator.

And nothing makes this Marine madder than someone calling American troops occupiers rather than liberators.

Tell that to the one-half of Europe that was freed because Franklin Roosevelt led an army of liberators, not occupiers.

Tell that to the lower half of the Korean Peninsula that is free because Dwight Eisenhower commanded an army of liberators, not occupiers.

Tell that to the half a billion men, women and children who are free today from the Baltics to the Crimea, from Poland to Siberia, because Ronald Reagan rebuilt a military of liberators, not occupiers.

Never in the history of the world has any soldier sacrificed more for the freedom and liberty of total strangers than the American soldier. And, our soldiers don’t just give freedom abroad, they preserve it for us here at home.

For it has been said so truthfully that it is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us the freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech.

It is the soldier, not the agitator, who has given us the freedom to protest.

It is the soldier who salutes the flag, serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag, who gives that protester the freedom to abuse and burn that flag.

No one should dare to even think about being the Commander in Chief of this country if he doesn’t believe with all his heart that our soldiers are liberators abroad and defenders of freedom at home.

But don’t waste your breath telling that to the leaders of my party today. In their warped way of thinking America is the problem, not the solution.

They don’t believe there is any real danger in the world except that which America brings upon itself through our clumsy and misguided foreign policy.

It is not their patriotism — it is their judgment that has been so sorely lacking. They claimed Carter’s pacifism would lead to peace.

They were wrong.

They claimed Reagan’s defense buildup would lead to war.

They were wrong.

And, no pair has been more wrong, more loudly, more often than the two Senators from Massachusetts, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry.

Together, Kennedy/Kerry have opposed the very weapons system that won the Cold War and that is now winning the War on Terror.

Listing all the weapon systems that Senator Kerry tried his best to shut down sounds like an auctioneer selling off our national security but Americans need to know the facts.

The B-1 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed, dropped 40 percent of the bombs in the first six months of Operation Enduring Freedom.

The B-2 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed, delivered air strikes against the Taliban in Afghanistan and Hussein’s command post in Iraq.

The F-14A Tomcats, that Senator Kerry opposed, shot down Gadhafy’s Libyan MIGs over the Gulf of Sidra. The modernized F-14D, that Senator Kerry opposed, delivered missile strikes against Tora Bora.

The Apache helicopter, that Senator Kerry opposed, took out those Republican Guard tanks in Kuwait in the Gulf War. The F-15 Eagles, that Senator Kerry opposed, flew cover over our Nation’s Capital and this very city after 9/11.

I could go on and on and on: against the Patriot Missile that shot down Saddam Hussein’s scud missiles over Israel; against the Aegis air-defense cruiser; against the Strategic Defense Initiative; against the Trident missile; against, against, against.

This is the man who wants to be the Commander in Chief of our U.S. Armed Forces?

U.S. forces armed with what? Spitballs?

Twenty years of votes can tell you much more about a man than twenty weeks of campaign rhetoric.

Campaign talk tells people who you want them to think you are. How you vote tells people who you really are deep inside.

Senator Kerry has made it clear that he would use military force only if approved by the United Nations.

Kerry would let Paris decide when America needs defending.

I want Bush to decide.

John Kerry, who says he doesn’t like outsourcing, wants to outsource our national security.

That’s the most dangerous outsourcing of all. This politician wants to be leader of the free world.

Free for how long?

For more than 20 years, on every one of the great issues of freedom and security, John Kerry has been more wrong, more weak and more wobbly than any other national figure.

As a war protester, Kerry blamed our military.

As a Senator, he voted to weaken our military. And nothing shows that more sadly and more clearly than his vote this year to deny protective armor for our troops in harms way, far away.

George Bush understands that we need new strategies to meet new threats.

John Kerry wants to re-fight yesterday’s war. George Bush believes we have to fight today’s war and be ready for tomorrow’s challenges. George Bush is committed to providing the kind of forces it takes to root out terrorists.

No matter what spider hole they may hide in or what rock they crawl under.

George Bush wants to grab terrorists by the throat and not let them go to get a better grip.

From John Kerry, they get a “yes-no-maybe” bowl of mush that can only encourage our enemies and confuse our friends.

I first got to know George Bush when we served as governors together. I admire this man. I am moved by the respect he shows the first lady, his unabashed love for his parents and his daughters, and the fact that he is unashamed of his belief that God is not indifferent to America.

I can identify with someone who has lived that line in “Amazing Grace,” “Was blind, but now I see,” and I like the fact that he’s the same man on Saturday night that he is on Sunday morning.

He is not a slick talker but he is a straight shooter and, where I come from, deeds mean a lot more than words.

I have knocked on the door of this man’s soul and found someone home, a God-fearing man with a good heart and a spine of tempered steel.

The man I trust to protect my most precious possession: my family.

This election will change forever the course of history, and that’s not any history. It’s our family’s history.

The only question is how. The answer lies with each of us. And, like many generations before us, we’ve got some hard choosing to do.

Right now the world just cannot afford an indecisive America. Fainthearted self-indulgence will put at risk all we care about in this world.

In this hour of danger our President has had the courage to stand up. And this Democrat is proud to stand up with him.

Thank you.

God Bless this great country and God Bless George W. Bush.

August 30, 2004

Was McDonald’s Coffee too Hot for Stella Liebeck?

Filed under: Deep Thought — Larry @ 11:40 pm

You remember Stella Liebeck, don’t you? No, she’s not the “Where’s the beef?” lady from the Wendy’s commercial. She’s the elderly lady who spilled McDonald’s coffe in her lap and sustained 3rd degree burns on 6% of her body. The courts awarded her $2.9 million but it was later reduced to $600,000. The actual settlement amount is unknown, however.

There are a couple of misconceptions about the situation that I thought I’d share with you. I originally posted these answers to a comment posted on WikiPedia concerning the case…

== Answers to common arguments in McDonald’s Coffee Case ==

  • McDonald’s coffee is just too hot!

    According to the The Physics Factbook, the best temperature at which to brew coffee is between 85 C and 93 C (176 F to 200 F). These temperature ranges also correspond to just about all home coffee makers sold today. However, the longer the coffee is exposed to those high temperatures the faster the organic matter breaks down. This produces the bitterness so often found in coffee.

    McDonald’s claimed that they brew their coffee between 195 F - 205 F and serve it between 180 F - 190 F. That is within the commonly accepted range.

  • McDonald’s keeps their coffee at high temperatures because water expands the higher the temperature. This makes it look like one has more coffee than one actual does.

    The question of expansion is mute since the average temperature at which McDonalds keeps their coffee is approximately the same as coffee makers found in homes today. But, for the sake of argument let’s assume the following:

    • Diameter of an 8 oz McDonalds coffee cup (near the top) is 3 in (7.68 cm).
    • Cylinder height = h
    • Formula for a cylinder’s volume is Vc = h x pi x r2
    • 8 oz (US liquid) of coffee is approximately 2.366 x 10-4 m3
    • Average McDonalds coffee temperature (Tmc) = 89 C
    • Hypothetical average coffee temperature for sensitive mouths (Ts) = 60 C
    • Volume Coefficient of thermal expansion of water (B) = 210 x 10-6 C-1
    • Change in Volume = Vd (delta)
    • Change in Temperature = Td (delta)
    • Formula for the change in volume is Vd = B x V0 x Td

    Plugging the numbers into the formula give us:

    Vd = (210 x 10-6)(2.366 x 10-4)(89 C - 60 C)

    Vd = 1.44×10-6m3 or 1.44 cm3

    The change in the level of the coffe in the cup (when full) is solved by finding h.

    h = Vc / (pi x r2)

    h = (1.44 cm3) / (3.1415 x 3.842)

    h = 0.031 cm or 0.31 mm

    The change in volume between these two temperatures is therefore negligle.

August 16, 2004

’’Open Season on Christians’’

Filed under: Deep Thought — Larry @ 11:06 pm

Here is an exceptionally well-written article by Rabbi Daniel Lapin. Wise words indeed.

One-time girlfriend of quirky California Gov. Jerry Brown in the ’70s, singer Linda Ronstadt has been busy lately. She dedicated her song “Desperado” to Michael Moore and his bogus-mentary, “Fahrenheit 911,” she got herself tossed out of the Aladdin casino in Las Vegas, and she gave an interview to a newspaper. Although I doubt this was her intention, she has actually taught us three lessons: One, she and many of her fellow entertainers do have a religion – I’d call it “secular fundamentalism.” Two, it’s open season on Christians, the last unprotected minority in America. Her third lesson, well, I’ll tell you that in a minute…

When loud protests greeted her sycophantic tribute to Moore and his anti-Bush movie, she got thrown out of the Aladdin. The casino management ejected her, not because they are all Republicans but because they are all businessmen. Given current political demographics, it is likely that at least half of any randomly chosen audience is conservative, and business professionals dislike their hired entertainers insulting half of their customers.

How could someone who has been entertaining professionally for 35 years not know that people come to a Las Vegas show to be entertained not to be politically polarized? The answer is of course she knows this, but she is serving a higher cause than her career. She has found religion, the religion of Secular Fundamentalism.

Any seriously committed Jew or Christian would put faith before career. Like countless Orthodox Jews over the centuries, I would unhesitatingly jeopardize my career to stand up for my faith. My many Christian friends would do no less. So why should anyone be surprised when Linda Ronstadt also puts her faith ahead of her career?

Just as both Judaism and Christianity each puts a face on evil, so does Secular Fundamentalism. At this stage in America’s second civil war, the face belongs to George W. Bush. Linda Ronstadt, as one of the priestly class of entertainers, feels the call to denounce the face of evil, and that call of her faith is more important to her than her career.

Her soul told her to say, “The Bush administration is awful, and so lying and so deceitful. And they’re doing so much harm. They’re making it more dangerous for us. They have to be stopped, I think. We have to throw the neocons out.”

Then, in a remarkably candid interview with the San Diego Union-Tribune, the entertainer said: “It’s a real conflict for me when I go to a concert and find out somebody in the audience is a Republican or fundamental Christian. It can cloud my enjoyment.”

What do you suppose might be the reaction if an entertainer would say, “It’s a real conflict for me when I find out someone in the audience is Jewish. It can cloud my enjoyment”? Or what if some politician had once announced, “It’s a real conflict for me when I find out that someone in the audience is homosexual. It can cloud my enjoyment”? Of course almost no entertainers or politicians would ever say anything as bigoted.

But singer Linda Ronstadt did. The point is, however, that she didn’t insult protected minorities like Jews, homosexuals, Muslims or blacks. She insulted what she calls “fundamental” Christians. (Note to Linda: the term, if you must use it at all, is “fundamentalist.”) To quote a line from the lyrics of your song “Desperado,” Linda, “Lighten up while you still can, don’t even try to understand.”

The media and the do-good-kiddy-clubs all explode in paroxysms of righteousness any time a public figure inadvertently insults one of the protected minority groups, but nobody ever demands an apology when a secular celebrity demeans Christianity. That is because many Americans view Christianity as a problem, an execrable obstacle to America’s progress. The rest of us, including many serious Jews, view Christianity as part of the solution to America’s problems. We think “progress” is the problem, and what we need is a return to traditional morality. That is largely what today’s civil war is all about, and Ronstadt has shown us on which side she fights.

Oh, and I did say that I’d tell you the third lesson we can learn from Linda’s antics. It is that she herself has learned little since those far-off days when she consorted with Gov. Moonbeam. She backed losers then and she is backing the losing side now. To quote another line from that song she sang before being banned from the Aladdin Hotel: “We may lose and we may win, though we will never be here again.”

Radio talk-show host Rabbi Daniel Lapin is president of Toward Tradition, a bridge-building organization providing a voice for all Americans who defend the Judeo-Christian values vital for our nation’s survival.

July 22, 2004

Wisdom From the Past

Filed under: Deep Thought — Larry @ 10:08 pm

A 1917 quote from the Rev. William J. H. Boetcker, a Presbyterian clergyman and pamphlet writer:

  • You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
  • You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong
  • You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich.
  • You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
  • You cannot build character and courage by taking away man’s initiative and independence.
  • You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.
  • You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
  • You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income.
  • You cannot establish security on borrowed money.
  • You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they will not do for themselves.

This is often mistakenly credited to Abraham Lincoln. See The Ten “You Cannots” Abraham Lincoln Did Not Say for more information.

July 15, 2004

Wisdom from the Past

Filed under: Deep Thought — Larry @ 7:57 pm

Here’s a quote that’s as relevant today as it was 143 years ago:


The candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court . . . the people will have ceased to be their own rulers.



–Abraham Lincoln, March 4, 1861

Next Page »

37 queries. 3.257 seconds. Powered by WordPress