Yeah they're real.

And she is so excited to have them...

Why does this amuse me so?

Guitar Hero Wisdom

Shopping the Next 9/11

But we thought of them... Or is it a blank story?

Alcoholism in Today's Youth

Children don't get the big cups

Happy Vitamin C Day!

Btw - happy penguin appreciation day!

Happy Gravity Day!

This is the day that we join together and appreciate gravity! Think about what life would be like without gravity... it starts with being very careful pushing off the ground. The hydrological cycle would be all out of whack. As a matter of fact, the oceans would just turn into giant spheres - it would be really easy to drown in them... Actually, the atmosphere would become one giant haze of dirt and moisture. Actually, that wouldn't be a problem, because the atmosphere wouldn't hang around. Not that big a deal considering the planet itself would drift apart. As would the sun. As a matter of fact, without our buddy gravity, the universe would die a quick, cold death.

So let's hear it for gravity:
For he's a heavy old fel-low, for he's a heavy old fel-low, for he's a heavy old feee-eee-llooow, which nobody can deny...

It marks the first in a calendar full of appreciation holidays. It will include indoor plumbing, friction, oxygen, and possibly fleece. What basic comfort of life do you think we should add to the 366 days (Feb. 29th is Gregorian appreciation day?) of appreciation calendar, and why?

Purpose Poll Results

Do you have a true purpose in life? (9 replies)
6 - No. There is no such thing.
1 - No. I have not chosen one yet. <- My vote
1 - Yes. But I don't know what it is.
1 - Yes. And I know exactly what it is.
0 - Yes. It is divinely managed.

These results are informative - "No. There is no such thing" was the answer I least expected. It makes me aware that I am far from alone in wrestling with coming to grips with a universe that seems to lack inherent purpose. Thank you all for your input!

Lessons on Failure

When all you see is gray in front of you, you can turn around or keep advancing. You might be stopped by a concrete wall, but sometimes you will walk right through the fog.

As I said, it was my goal to determine my true life purpose by the end of last year. By that very measurable metric, I have failed. What is interesting is that I was much more public about my goal than nearly all previous occasions, but having failed publicly, I am not ashamed or deterred. I do not feel guilty like I have in the past.

I am not discouraged because I am continuing my efforts. When you experience a setback, you can truthfully say "I failed to meet goal X", but it is not a true failure unless you give up on a goal you still desire. In shorthand: you don't fail when you get knocked down - you fail when you don't stand up again.

I consistently explored my purpose through writing. I did not track it as I should have, but I think I wrote every single day. My self-discipline did slip in that I allowed myself to get sidetracked in writing about such things as my camera and transportation technology. I will expand in the future on my experience with mental and physiological effects that occur to distract me from topics I have resistance to.

While I did not achieve my goal, I have made progress toward it. I have had to define (sometimes for the first time) my assumptions about reality, belief, potential, the law of attraction, and other fundamentals. This exploration has been enlightening, and is already changing some of my beliefs - making me a more positive person.

Additionally, I have engaged other people in discussion about core beliefs. The most common response when I inquired about people's true purpose was "I don't have one". This is reinforced by the purpose poll results. At least one person was very content with their purpose, even though she did not have some sweeping, earth-changing goal. As with writing I wandered into adjacent topics while conversing with people, such as religion - which was illuminating, even while less focused on my goal. I will continue to increase conversations with others to get their take on the meaning of life.

I feel very close to my purpose. I will definitely have it described in clear verbiage by March 14th (Einstein's birthday) - also the deadline for my goal of losing another 11 pounds (the latter goal in light of multiple ideal-weight references).

Next

Did you hear about the zen monk who ordered a hot dog? He said he had one with everything.

I have a problem - when I look at a list of movies, none of them seem to interest me, but if I just start watching them I get drawn in and usually enjoy myself. Especially anything with a wreath from an independent film festival. And so, we sit down to watch a movie and "The Secret" is beaten out in popularity by "Next". One on-demand click and five virtual dollars later, the movie begins.

The basic plot is that our protagonist played by Nicholas Cage (a selling or detracting point depending on your predisposition) can see up to two minutes into the future. This means he can dodge bullets - but not in a Neo way ("I'm saying when you are ready, you won't have to") but more of a trial and error way. At one point in the movie their over-abundant CG budget is put to giving a feel for how his premonition works - he walks towards a bad-guy who empties a clip at him. Or rather _into_ him. With every step and bullet, the splits into potential paths - each possible body fading out as it is shot - leaving an un-riddled Cage face to face with the bad-guy (who is holding an empty pistol).

After the movie, a friend was contemplating how the character's vision worked. After all, wouldn't he get exhausted running all of those potential options? A single 30 second action could take hours worth of trial and error to get "right". I shared my view that it was intended that the split selves - the potential futures didn't happen - he _knew_ each possibility. Thinking on the fly I noted that he just set in his mind his desired outcome and all the possible outcomes were sorted by that desire until one outcome that resulted in what he wanted came to him.

In this explanation, he only walks one path - the one that gives him the results he seeks. I recognize that this is the plot of a fictional movie, but it is useful as a visualization of a hypothesis (a mental experiment as Einstein was prone to). Is this a metaphor for understanding how the law of attraction works? You set your mind on an intention and within the boundaries of reality, you take the path that reaches that desire.

It relates to your actions in a massive, unknowable universe. He can dodge left or right, but it takes into account the actions and reactions of the gunman - atmospherics, physical interactions.

This ties into determinism - it ties into the physics theories that there are infinite parallel universes - one for every possible permutation - all static in "time". Dynamic action - choice - time itself is caused by the meandering we take through those possible realities. The hard part is to understand that the universes aren't spawned at the moment of choice - they are always there - always have been - as they will be even if they are not taken. This touches on duality - and determinism. If I go left, the universe in which I go right still exists. I go left and right. Schroedinger speaks of this - on the quantum level. This is the game that might be played by the smallest building blocks of matter as we know it.

Wouldn't this effect become compounded the higher perspective you take - the more particles in the mix? Is it so hard to imagine that these interactions quickly exceed our comprehension and seem to us free will? So many possibilities that we feel the sensation as total freedom of choice. Is that not the truth then? But doesn't it mean that there is _one_ universe that we experience from start to end - the one that has all the outcomes we perceive? What is behind the coincidence that Pandora chooses to play "Building Tension in 2 Dimensions" right now?

What's interesting about all this? If I hadn't seen "Next", I would have watched "The Secret" - a documentary about the law of attraction. No matter what path I took between those two, I would have gotten a similar lesson. But those were the two I was attracted to - more so than Shrek 3. I'm off to reflect a bit more on this.

Happy New Year!

On Reviews and Fair Warning

Lord help us all... I have a new camera. I have replaced my Canon SD400 with (brace yourself) the Canon SD1000. I'm not all about the new and the cool, it was just time to finally do something about the fact that the 400's display was cracked.

This brings me to the topic of reviews. Speroni spoke of reviewing media, so let me share a few words on something I am passionate about: cameras.

First, the bad... the official, branded, black leather Canon camera case. I stored my venerable SD400 in a sleek little hip holster (sleek in a "I'm Batman" way) but looks aren't everything. It had a very secure magnetic closure - a cross between a magnet and a snap that you usually see on purses. It was easy to access and secure, but the male end of the snap was on the case's flap, so whenever I drew out the camera the snap would drag across the camera, scratching it.

Since the Canon SD series has very spiffy metal cases - mostly stainless steel - I took to storing the camera screen-out so that the snap (lightly) scratched the front casing instead of mucking up the screen. All fine and well - except the female portion of the snap embedded in the case falls directly on the LCD viewing screen. At some point pressure was put on the case which cracked the screen. And I thought the purpose of the case was to _protect_ the camera. Did I mention this was an official Canon accessory?

Fast forward through a lot of procrastination and we get to modern times. I was given (by a very generous elf) the bestest of the best in the Canon SD line - the SD900. Yep, the best is numerically less than the "almost best" SD1000. Don't ask me. This 10 mega-pixel, titanium cased beast packed a flash that could match the instantaneous energy output of a blue dwarf star. This latter feature was actually a point of criticism - the flash would appear to wash pictures out a bit (but man would it help in fighting vampires).

The thing that turned me off was the size. With the 10 mpix came larger optics. With that came a curvier case than the SD400, but a noticeably bulkier size. Also, despite sporting a lightweight titanium case (so light-skinned I thought it was plastic at first), the specs say it weighs around half a pound. I got so far as buying a case for the 900 - mind you, the Canon cases are designed the same way still, so it was after market - and you knew when this bad boy was on your hip (as a friend pointed out, personal defense is an option when swung by the carry strap).

My specific deal to get the SD900 involved returning my old SD400 (his name is Charles) to Canon's refurbishing department for them to keep. Ultimately, nostalgia won out and when push came to shove, it was the sleek SD900 that ended up being shipped back. Call me a sap.

So, finding myself in the same situation I started, I bought outright the Canon SD1000 (well, the aforementioned elf did anyway). This is the good part of the review. I am thrilled with the SD1000. It is the same size as the 400, but with more flush screen and controls (not at all annoying - as it might first appear) it appears even _smaller_. After all, shouldn't new versions of technology be _smaller_ than their predecessors?

The feature-set is the best Canon has to offer. It has an automatic mode that will get you through most point-and-shoot situations. In low light or very mixed light situations there are "manual" modes you can use. In these you can control exposure level, ISO (up to 1,600 - of course it gets grainy at the higher settings), and coloring (not just sepia and B&W - it has full Photoshop-ish controls built-in). You can adjust lighting quality for various outdoor and indoor situations (this makes a world of difference in situations like "florescent").

There are pre-set specialized modes like "Indoor", "Snow", and "Fireworks". I am a personal fan of the "night snapshot" setting which both uses flash then instantly adjusts to capture existing light. This is meant for getting a clear shot of a tourist in the foreground of the Eiffel tower at night, but works for rich colors in all sorts of situations (if you have a steady hand).

There are other "way-cool" features - many not on the SD400. There is multi-target face recognition (anyone see the "your father isn't a horse's ass" commercials?) that goes so far as to assign the photo to the "People" category (yes, it has multiple categories like "Scenery" that you can tag photos with for organization). There are all sorts of timer settings - you can set a custom timer to wait 7 seconds then take 3 pictures. The details are everywhere - you can even choose the type of transition the photos do when flipping through the review mode. With this camera you will be doing a lot of "hey, come check this out" for a while.

Let's get down to brass tacks though - how well does it take pictures? Image quality is excellent - I trust Canon above all other brands in this department. I'll go head to head with any other brand on the quality of point-and-shoot photos. The flash is ample, without being overwhelming (flash intensity settings would be nice). I don't have much detail in this all-important area of review, that's because this camera (as the 400 before it) just shoots great photos - in all sorts of lighting conditions (especially if you know how to use manual shooting modes).

The SD1000 is a 7 mega-pixel camera, which is more than ample for me (and if you are reading this - more than ample for you too). While I don't need more pixels, it does have one side benefit - a digital zoom that you can use. The swan at the top of the post was shot beyond the 3x optical zoom - it was maxed out to about 12x. The viewfinder saw the swan as a blurry mess at that zoom level, but the resulting picture speaks for itself.

I shoe-horned the camera into an equally sleek looking Lowepro Napoli 5 camera pouch. It also has a magnetic closure, but no exposed metal parts and nothing but posh padding to caress the camera when it is holstered. Did I mention the Canon brand case is still designed the same (defective) way?

I don't know what "compact point-and-shoot" is supposed to entail according to the professionals, but the Canon SD1000 gives you point-and-shoot "plus" in a sub-compact package. If you are looking for a digital camera and have $150 (as of now) - then you will not be disappointed by the SD1000. Nay, I guarantee you will be thrilled with this quality camera.

Oh, and this development means good things for frosty moments from a photo-blog perspective (get it - "development" - what would you all do without me?)...

Overheard Christmas Carol

You better watch out... you better not die. Santa Claus is coming to town...

From the mouth of babes...