Rantings o'the Big G

The limits of engineering

2011-03-15T00:01:00.001+08:00

A while back, I posted on the utter disgust I felt towards a particular short SF story concerning its abuse of the 'big lie, little lie' technique. I am reminded of it again at the immense and rather awesome (in the original sense of the word) earthquake + tsunami in Japan.

Japan's facing some nuclear fears over partial meltdowns in its reactors. The failsafes built into the systems... well, failed, one after the other. And no wonder, because whatever else Man has achieved, he's yet to make anything that's completely Nature-proof.

Now Japan's had a raw deal in terms of the nuclear world, having been bombed not once but twice. You would think that they would be the LAST people to go to nuclear power, and indeed it took them 20 years to move from 1 to 5 reactors, and just recently they were debating whether or not to increase those numbers. I'm guessing that the answer would be a pretty emphatic NO! at this stage. You'd also think that they'd be the ones to ridiculously over-engineer fudge factors into their nuclear reactors, with firsthand knowledge of what failed containment would do. Keep that in mind.

There's a limit to what can be done with human engineering efforts. You can fudge the factors a fair amount, but you hit diminishing returns after a point, and beyond that, it's just astronomically expensive. You'd have to have a really, really good reason to expend any amounts of money after that point - something usually reserved for mission-critical applications. Something governments - and Sir Richard Branson - can and would do.

Space travel - and I'm guessing the Japanese are thinking nuclear power plants - deserve that kind of astronomical expenditure, literally. That story still strikes me as being horribly unrealistic.

Free? Not so much...

2010-12-31T00:18:00.000+08:00

Probably not a big deal for most of you, but I would like to talk about 'free' software for a bit.

Richard Stallman is the man to go to (and blame) for the start of this entire issue. He created a bunch of UNIX-like tools and called them GNU (short for GNU is Not Unix). GNU would go on to become almost a separate OS by itself, only lacking the kernel, and when the Linux kernel came about, hey presto! some few generations later you get Ubuntu.

Now Stallman came up with something called the GNU General Public Licence (GPL), which in its preamble states that the licence is supposed to *give* you rights, not take them away. The GNU Foundation stands for free software, where free stands for 'free as in speech' and not 'free as in beer', although the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive. In this, Stallman's a bit of an odd cookie, because for a time he was entirely against the entire 'open-source' movement, which called for the sources of all software to be freely available for examination... a necesary byproduct of the GPL.

My point is, free software... isn't. Not if distributed under the GPL, and not especially under GPLv3. It may be free beer software, but it certainly isn't free speech software. Not in the way we understand free speech. You see, the GPL is an infectious licence. If you want to use GPLed software in any significant way in your own project, you also have to release it under GPL, or a GPL-compatible licence. And you had better make sure that you follow every single detail of the licence carefully, otherwise they'll sic their lawyers on you.

Worst of all, many in the FOSS community will do exactly the same thing. It has always struck me as strange that for a bunch of people seemingly against copyrights and patents and making money over software, they are the first to wield the power of the courts. NOw I know that there are many reasons, but essentially, there is no real common ground for these fanatics. You will note that most of the proprietary software companies will release freeware programs, and even work in open source, but watch and see if it works the other way around. It's like watching a software jihad in action, only there is no God but GPL and Stallman is its prophet or something. And oh yes, Microsoft is the Great Satan.

You want a truly free licence? Try this one out.

DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO PUBLIC LICENSE
Version 2, December 2004

Copyright (C) 2004 Sam Hocevar

Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim or modified copies of this license document, and changing it is allowed as long as the name is changed.

DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO PUBLIC LICENSE
TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION

0. You just DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO.

Or, this one.

You can use this code in whatever way you want, as long as you don't try to claim you wrote it.

Let's see some FOSS guys use THOSE licences. Which, by the way, they can - they're valid free software licences, and Debian Linux distros come with software under the WTFPL.

The best kind of fiction

2010-06-23T20:49:00.000+08:00

When you read a book, you generally want some form of escapism. I mean, can you imagine reading a book that details what you do on a daily basis all over again? Only if explosions or a torrid affair came about in that book would you read it, I imagine.

Which is why some people favour F&SF. It is, after all, no sillier than Mills and Boon, and it is generally nice to fantasise about riding a dragon, or traversing whole parsecs in seconds. At some point in any kind of fiction genre, however, the suspension of disbelief suddenly fails, and the unreality of it all becomes all too apparent.

It can be a fine line to toe, and really, at what point does it stop being escapism and start becoming a Wallbanger? Well, I argue that the line is in human experience and human nature. That is to say, if you set out to change anything or everything else, you must maintain realism in human nature, and if you set out to change human nature, everything else must remain realistic. And of course, if you're not writing about humans at all, then you had better stick to very well-known tropes.

Take for instance one of the worst pieces of tripe ever written in SF-dom, in my experience. I won't give you the title, that's how disgusted I am with it, but essentially the whole plot revolves around space travel that is precisely calculated to the erg, so much so that any unplanned factor (such as a stowaway, say) would make that travel trip an utter failure, and must be dealt with as swiftly as possible to return to the planned numbers. Surprise, surprise, on one of these rescue mission trips, the pilot discovers a stowaway who didn't know the rules and just wanted to go see her brother. The pathos, and indeed the whole thrust of the story revolved around the harshness of the rules, so she had to be jettisoned to save everybody else...

... and while emotionally tearing (which is one of the reasons I don't like it), it's also headbangingly unrealistic. In any day and age, but especially one involving space travel, for goodness' sake. I mean, think about it. Any engineer worth his salt will tell you that in order to build a bridge meant for 2-ton trucks, you first design a bridge that can withstand 10-ton trucks. Generally, you do that because you cannot predict how long your bridge has to last, or what kind of stresses it will undergo, or what will happen to the bridge in the future. Fudge factors and safety calculations like this are second nature to any engineer - and that's just to build bridges! Can you imagine the kind of fudge factors that would be built into something as dangerous and as hostile to human life as interplanetary travel?

Think about it for a moment. Think about the amount of money that was poured into making Man go to the moon. Think about Mission Control. Think about the ridiculous level of training astronauts go through even *today*. Or take more mundane, more run-of-the-mill examples. Think about air travel. How much effort goes into safety and security (whether they work or not is immaterial). How much goes into ensuring that even in the worst case scenario (engines blow up or shut down cold), the airplane can still function as a glider. How much sheer thought and engineering went into it, and the enormous fudge factors used in planning fuel requirements for any flight - including RESERVE fuel! And you want us to believe that all of this was thrown away the instant we met something as inherently unnatural as microgravity and outer space?

The artist behind Schlock's Mercenaries describes this as "the big lie and the little lie". If you want us to swallow the big lie (i.e. space travel), you need to ensure you don't tell the little lie (no fudge factors in engineering).

The author of that short story I mentioned above did not follow this maxim. It spoiled the story for me.

Archived message (cross-posted)

2010-05-07T20:51:00.001+08:00

One thing I really hate is abuse of resources. In this case, some script kiddie so-called 'hacker' is launching a DoS (yes, present tense as I write this) against BakaBT, which is one of the cooler torrent sites out there. I hate hate hate this kind of thing, so if this is the only thing I can do, then by golly, I will do it.

And to you, you stupid kid, what the hell do you think is going to happen when several hundred thousand angry otaku start narrowing down your physical location to within a few metres? Beware the power of 4chan, and quite possibly a grand alliance if you keep this up.

Below is the message that, as requested, I am posting verbatim.

------xxxx------
How to save an Internet community
Hello BakaBT community and people of the Internet,

We need your help! Please spread this message everywhere on the Internet.
If you have a blog, twitter or myspace or know someone with a blog, twitter or myspace copy this message verbatim!

I am writing this message right now as my community website is unreachable due to a continued DoS attack.
A DoS attack is a Denial-of-Service attack that drowns all normal traffic going to the server by sending a tremendous amount of (fake) traffic.
It is the bane of any website owner as there is very little you can do against it, other than hope the attack will stop or invest in special expensive DoS protection hardware.

The demand of the attacker is that we remove information we posted about his person a while ago on our blog after he did an earlier (simpler) attack.
We managed to dig up all sorts of interesting information thanks to another site (www.0xyg3n.com) which had also been attacked by the same 'hacker'.

Our site has been down for 24 hours, after which the 'hacker' promised to stop the attack and give us 1 week to remove the message.
The attack never stopped, normal traffic was able to siphon through so the server seemed reachable. But this means he obviously can not, or will not, negotiate with us.

We have thought a while about what to do, and we have reached some conclusions:
Apparently there is something valuable in the message that we posted as the 'hacker' is spending a fair dime attacking our server (DoS attacks 'sell' for about $60 for 24 hours).
There is nothing that we can do to make him stop this attack. Yes, we could give in to his demand, but why would he stop the attack then? He sure isn't stopping now. And then what is next? last time he asked for my resignation.

So, we have decided to fight fire with fire. Fight a distributed attack with distribution, and for this we need your help!
If you have a blog, twitter or myspace, or know someone with a blog, twitter or myspace, copy this message verbatim!
If this message is copied many times to many different sites all across the Internet no one will be able to erase it from the Internet.
What happens to our website and 6 year old community? I don't know. It would be a shame to loose it over something so trivial.

Below is a summary of the information we found about him (please copy this as well as that is the whole idea of this message!):

--
I also have his home IP from the comments 77.162.16.18 [...] Anyway since then I have noticed I’ve been getting hits for people doing a search for his site 0xyG3N.info (which I’ll point out has been offline for some time) I would also just like to say that his site has nothing to do with me everything I do online is only via 0xyg3n.com [...] He also uses the username roffamaffia which I suggested he should go back to using. He also uses kyuubinyuu@hotmail.com as an alternate email to the msn one.

I also know his name which is mesut baysan he’s 15 and lives in Dongen Noord-Brabant Netherland oppps. I also have a home address but I’m not going to post that up as I’m not sure if its totally correct or not. I also have some other details that I’ll save for a later post if needed.
--
Our Twitter: http://twitter.com/BakaBT
Our blog: http://blog.bakabt.com/2009/08/23/kdos/ (use Google cache if the domain is unreachable)
Our backup blog: http://baka.applehomicide.com/2009/08/23/kdos/
0xyg3n's blog (not the hacker): http://www.0xyg3n.com/?p=555 about his encounter
Looks like http://gbatmw.net/showthread.php?tid=13506 they were having some problems with 'Mesut' as well.

E-mail / Live:
- us3n3xt@live.nl (old)
- amaterasu_@live.jp (latest known)

Known nicknames:
- 0xyG3N (note the capital G and N)
- Roffamaffia
- Sasuke-

Help us save our community and give power back to the webmasters!

Maundy Thursday

2010-04-01T22:53:00.001+08:00

As Holy Week draws to a close, with Good Friday just around the corner and Easter but three days away, it behooves me to reflect a little on what I've been doing on my life, and what lies ahead; for me on a personal, small scale, and for the world as a whole.

As if blogging hasn't been sparse, but I intend to increase it.

Powered with Zemanta

2010-04-01T22:51:00.001+08:00

Okay, so this is a simple notification that I'm using ScribeFire to write some of my posts, and that it's using something called Zemanta to load tracking pixels. I usually hate these things, because they give a whole lot of data, sometimes unintented, to the guy who's put them up on the pages (in this case, that would be me). But the low-down on Zemanta is kinda thin, and I have absolutely no idea how this is supposed to work.

Anyway, let's trial it out, and see if it drives my readership from 1 to 0.

Gong Xi Fa Chai

2010-02-12T21:05:00.000+08:00

Wishing everyone a Happy Chinese New Year!

Merry Christmas!

2009-12-25T11:41:00.000+08:00

To anybody reading my blog: Have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

This is the time, as Advent draws to an end and Christmas Day is upon us, that we take the time to commemorate Jesus' coming into the world two millennia ago, taking on our humanity upon Himself, living as one of us, being born as a helpless babe in the meanest of conditions. And we anticipate with readiness His Second Coming; not as a babe but as a King and God, not in a stable but from the heavens, ushered not by the animals but by the hosts of Heaven trumpeting His triumphant return.

To any Jewish readers; Orthodox, Conservative or Reform - rejoice! Messiah is coming! Be ready to receive Him when He comes. No one knows the time nor the place, but we know that it is soon.

Banhammer III: Banhammer Resurrection

2009-12-11T12:55:00.000+08:00

Okay, so if anybody's interested, Ace hosted two epic, epic threads on his blog. On the topic of banninating anybody who hides their racism behind lame jokes. Major simplification, but hey, at 5,000++++++ comments combined, are you gonna read through allathat or believe me? :)

Anyways, in sheer link whorage style, have at it! The third round of Banhammer, hosted on this crappy blog nobody ever reads. Give me some love! Send me dirty pix! (Hot Chicks, Hot Lezzies, Hot Trannies only, don't need some old geezer showing of his schlort.)

Post inspired by crystal here.

The Mega Threads

2009-12-10T22:12:00.001+08:00

Gentlemen, I am proud to own myself a moronblogger. Indeed, it was the esteemed Ace of Spades who was my gateway to political blogs and the world of blogging in general - yes, Instapundit is indeed the Blogfather, but Ace was the one who showed me the way.

Therefore, when the Head Moron himself deigns to write a rant (and follow it up subsequently with another one), it behooves me to read closely and carefully, and to apply his guidance to my own writings.

But dude. 3,300++++++ comments? On one post alone? I only contributed about 1% to that volume. I daren't venture near the second thread, for fear of creating Skynet on Pixy's servers.

Incidentally, I agree with what Ace had to say... eventually, after he explained himself clearer. But hey, these things do happen even to the very best of us.

Well played, Allahpundit

2009-11-25T22:45:00.001+08:00

Holy crap.

Okay, so let me set the scene for you. Allahpundit, one of the resident bloggers on HotAir, posted a little bit on the Navy SEALs that have (as is their right) called for a court-martial into their alleged busting of some jihadist's lip. That's right, they're in the dock for the charge of having given a military-murdering Muslim terrorist a fat lip. Or so said jihadist claims.

I know, you all thinking WTF? I agree, I agree. Nothing controversial about that, really. But here's what happened. AP says, hey, these guys will probably escape with nothing more than a slap on the wrist. And it's a good thing, he says, because then other troops will be reminded not to do anything more seriously stupid that can be used to politicise the issue.

Ooh, that got on the hackles of Uncle Jumbo at Blackfive, and he's unleashed several cans of whoopass on AP. AP links to him, and well, next thing you know, ~300-400 comments everywhere.

Okay, here's the thing.

1. AP's paid to do this sort of thing. Get traffic for HA, I mean. I don't know if he set out deliberately to light a fire under some milblogger somewhere, but you can't blame him for wanting to capitalise on the reaction. See, this sort of thing is unlikely to really cause any major damage amongst the VRWC-type blogger community, but for at least a day or two, it will get said community seriously engaged. Engagement means comments. Comments mean traffic. Traffic means $$$.

2. And really, Uncle Jimbo went waaaaaayyyy out of his normal route to beat up on AP. I mean, Uncle Jimbo got het up over, afaik, three or four words of AP's entire post. That, and the tone which suggests AP believes they did.

Let's be honest. Would any of us care if they did, on a personal level? Not me, that's for sure. I'd be surprised it was only a fat lip. I'm sure SEALs could come up with creatively painful ways in which a person could slip, trip, fall, or otherwise hurt himself without any visible or evident marks anywhere - which leads me to think they probably didn't do it.

Now, AP probably didn't know that there's no such thing as a wrist slap in the spec ops community once it reaches court-martial level. Hell, *I* didn't know that either, until Uncle Jimbo, ah, enlightened the rest of us non-military types. Which is itself deserving of a rant. I mean, wtf? WTF!!!??? Isn't the whole idea of a court or a tribunal or whatever it's called to CLEAR YOU OF WRONGDOING IF YOU'RE FUCKING INNOCENT!!!??? So you're telling me some REMF looks over these guys' records and goes, "Hmm, says here they were court-martialled, but they were cleared of all charges and specifications, and in fact the President of the Court is fully convinced they didn't do anything, but we're gonna deep-six their careers anyway and give them administrative discharges"? Doesn't that suggest there is something seriously FUCKED-UP about the process?

Seriously. Who. In. Hell. is gonna know THAT? Sure as hell no actively serving squid's gonna blab to a well-known blogger with ties to Michelle Malkin (and hence Fox) and lose their jobs over this, right? Is AP supposed to go hunt up retired squids to get the real deal from them, when he didn't even know that apparently the Quintessons are in charge of military justice - at least as it pertains to actual members of the 'friendly' force?

3. And the level of insanity on display is truly amazing. It's not DKos level, nowhere near that, but for the right-wing blogosphere, it's practically a full moon. Guys, when you compare AP to LGF, you instantly make yourselves and your arguments irrelevant. AP and CJ cannot even be classified as the same species. AP's still nominally Republican, he can still laugh at himself and at others, and he has not afaik lowered the banhammer in a massive way, nor has he himself started shooting out hate-filled and maniac posts on a regular and frequent basis.

He made one post, and no doubt, he screwed up somewhat. And you're crucifying him over it. Mind you, I understand if you've been storing up a fair amount of negative feelings towards AP; but he's been at it for ages and I'm not about to let him get under my skin.

And really, if AP was the purple RINO who's out to sink the right wing, you're making it real easy for him to claim victory. Instead of the story being the shameful way in which the current Navy and Administration is treating its elite military units sent to do the dangerous and dirty work, it's now on how AP's pissing everyone off. Well done, gentlemen, what a way to take the spotlight off the true travesty.

At the end of the day, AP's just doing his job. Maybe a little more effectively than he thought, but the mark of a good businessman is the ability to take control and ride serendipity. All the way to the bank.

Good job, Allahpundit.

Now get back to work.

Where’s the proof?

2009-10-16T23:37:00.002+08:00

One of the blogs on my blogroll, Samizdata, had a post on Tony Blair and atheism or something of the sort, I forget. Anyways, it quickly shifted tone in the comments to centre on the what is the nature of God, religious belief and whatnot. You know, the usual stuff when you get clashes between atheists and religious people.

Although, perhaps that’s the nature of the problem. Atheists refuse to believe that they, too, espouse a religious belief. Which, to modern ears, sounds quite logical; after all, atheists don’t have a belief in a god, or many gods. But when you break down that simple statement, you begin to understand the scope of the nonsense that passes of most of atheism nowadays.

You see, the nature of the issue is simple. Atheists say they hold a negative belief; they do not believe in God (or gods). They go on to say that this does not mean they believe that there is no God. Why is this important? Well, because that positive statement “There is no God (or gods)” is a theological statement and a theological belief, which makes it religious in nature. And atheists can’t admit they, too, have a faith of sorts.

This is clearly demonstrated using any other example. If I don’t believe in acupuncture, it’s not really that that I don’t believe in its existence, but that I don’t believe in its claims. However, if I speak of not believing in the Yeti, then indeed I don’t believe in the existence of the Yeti. Which means I believe the Yeti does not exist.

Right, moving along then. The other reason, of course, is because when you espouse a positive belief, you can be challenged to prove it. Far easier to espouse it negatively, that is to say, you do not hold on to a particular belief. But logically, you see, in every instance but especially this one, you cannot readily escape the situation. The statement “There is a God (or gods)” can either be true, false or undetermined; logically speaking. Those who believe it say it’s true. Those who don’t believe it say either it’s false or undetermined. Those who say it’s undetermined are called agnostics. Therefore, atheists are the ones calling it false. And if that statement is false, then then the opposing statement “There is no god” must be true. And if so, then by the Law of Contradiction, the atheists must believe the opposing statement is true.

Well, if that is the case, then the atheist must also defend his position. He cannot assume it as given or as a default. If he wishes to do so, then he admits that his belief is, rather than something rational, in fact is more of an axiom than anything else. Which leaves him on exactly the same level as any other religious believer, who also base their metaphysical framework on axioms.

But here’s something I want all atheists and agnostics to think about carefully. As a Christian, I am constantly being asked why I believe what I believe. Part and parcel; you have to be ready to defend your faith. But let me turn the question around to the atheists in a different form. What would make you believe in God? Bearing in mind that we’re talking about an omnipotent Being that is far beyond our understanding and our intellect to grasp.

You know what? I’ll bet anything you like that every single atheist will have a different answer, and it will all involve God acting like a cosmic performer trying to ace His audition. Oh, there are some atheists who have seen the evidence, and changed their minds after reviewing the facts, but the rest? Hah!

Whereas I can tell you that if you show irrefutable proof that Jesus Christ never existed, or that he died and was buried and NEVER ROSE AGAIN, that would end Christianity dead in its tracks. This is because Christianity is a religion rooted in historical fact. Atheism isn’t.

Relationships

2009-10-05T23:04:00.001+08:00

It should come as no surprise to anyone that I am a conservative-leaning sort of fellow, both fiscally as well as socially. Hence, I do subscribe to quite a largish number of right-leaning blogs, most of which are in my blogroll. One of these blogs, or rather, new media platform, is Pajamas Media. Their Web Video platform, also known as PJTV, showcases commercial-free conservative and libertarian (and yes, the occasional lefty) voices mostly in talk-show formats.

One of them is Mrs Instapundit, Dr Helen Smith. And I was just catching up with her video on polyamoury. Here's the thing in itself; she prefaces it with talking about gay marriage and how many of us fear the slippery slope down to polygamy and polyandry and so on. Lo and behold, she finds two people who are heading up the World Polyamoury Federation or somesuch, and puts them up front and centre.

Now, mind you, they played it so straight I wasn't sure whether they were on the level or whether there was a large amount of tongue-in-cheek involved in the whole video. Certainly, the two reps sounded quite serious, and Dr Smith herself asked cogent and in all appearance serious questions about their philosophy and way of life. Still, I can't quite tell.

They state their first principle is Hippocratic; first do no harm. I am reminded of this because basically, human relationships are, on a fundamental level, broken. And instead of repairing it, or aiming to restore right relationships, these people are going in the exact opposite.

You see, humans have an incredible capacity for emotion and commitment. And the level of emotion and commitment put into anything depends very much on the proportionate amount you are invested in it; both how much you have invested in it, and how much of the investment itself you have.

It stands to reason that if you have invested 10% of yourself (time, or money, or effort) in something, you are going to be much less committed and emotionally involved in it than if you have invested 75% of yourself in it. Similarly, you would expect that if you are amongst ten thousand other investors, you would care much less than if you are amongst only five. Or two. And if you are the sole investor in something, chances are you're going to care a lot about it.

What happens when you are invested in something that has a limited number of other people also invested in it? Well, chances are, you will end up with the Yeo Hiap Seng debacle. Everyone has a different opinion and agenda, you see, and trying to move forwards in a united fashion was almost impossible - indeed, by the third generation, it was completely impossible and destroyed the family relationships between the Yeos. Now imagine the same situation repeated many-fold as you are not only invested in one, but multiple such investments. You will end up with conflicts between the various investments you have made, unless you are exceedingly careful in managing your investments.

What makes you think that sexual and intimate relationships between people are any different to this? In the YHS incident, no one has any real answers. The only thing that may have worked was ensuring that a single party was dominating, so that you could have a proper leader and an indisputable direction. Fancy trying that in a marriage! The Bible records many accounts of polygamy (one man having multiple wives)... and not a single one of those accounts was it ever recorded that the man had less than the usual marital conflicts. In fact, with the two or more wives constantly jockeying for position, it was more of a headache than usual!

In relationships as well as in economics, you see, it makes sense to specialise. There is always something in which you have a comparative advantage; there is always something you are better at, proportionally, than others. You specialise (i.e. become exclusive) and then you trade. When you try to be too diverse, hold too many positions, a significant amount of your resources go into simply maintenance rather than real growth and real productivity. It is the same with relationships. Even if you fell in love with twins, there will always be one of them whom you will love more, care for more, cherish more. Try to maintain both relationships and inevitably, everyone gets hurt.

Of course, that's assuming that everyone's got skin in the game. If you're not really invested in the relationship, then you don't get hurt as much... but that kinda defeats the whole idea, doesn't it?

The Roman Polanski conundrum

2009-10-02T01:19:00.001+08:00

He raped a 13 year old girl. He pleaded guilty. He ran away to France before he was sentenced. He has been a fugitive from justice for over three decades.

Those are the facts of the matter. Why is there a conundrum?

Good question. One would have to ask Hollywood and the elites that question.

The sexual drive is very strong. You can make 7 year old children look smokingly sultry - let alone a girl who's on the verge of developing into womanhood. So what? Millions of men are able to restrain themselves and not behave like a bunch of mongrels over a bitch in heat. Roman Polanski not only showed a lack of impulse control, he premeditated the rape of this girl. He got her drunk, drugged her and then raped her in as many ways as he could think up of.

And he showed no regret or remorse after that.

Well, fuck him. I hope he gets the book thrown at him. You'd better watch your step, 'cause pedophiles don't have a very good time in prison.

I really cannot believe this subject is even up for discussion.

Next up, Obama and Co try to squirm health insurance crappiness into law despite their fellow Americans telling them how much they hate it. Conservatives need to keep up the heap against these bozos in Congress and the White House.

The Decalogue - Core laws for morally upright individuals

2009-09-28T23:32:00.001+08:00

The Decalogue, or the Ten Commandments, is quite possibly the most important set of laws ever legislated. After all, it had to be given twice. They are recited at church and synagogue services, and they do form the bedrock of the Western, Judaeo-Christian legal framework -and they said you couldn't legislate morality. Yes, you certainly can.

It behooves us, therefore, to take a close look at these commandments - all of which, by the way, are reinforced in the New Testament (except possibly the law of the Sabbath, but then again the precedent for the Sabbath is pre-Abrahamic), so it's not as if Christians get a free ride on this!

I thought I'd start with the first commandment that had an explicit promise tagged on to it. This happens to be Commandment No 5;

12 “ Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the LORD your God is giving you.

(Exodus 20:12, NKJV)

North Asians (the Chinese, the Japanese, and the Koreans) tend to take this commandment waaaayyyy too much to heart. Confucius, one of our greatest sages and philosophers, was the one who recommended ancestor worship - extending our honour and reverence for our earthly parents beyond the grave, which is one step too far. But it just goes to show how important we view our elders.

Now, none of God's commandments are particularly onerous. And you'd figure this one was easier than most; after all, our parents were our source of life. They fed us, clothed us, cleaned us up, taught us to fear the Lord (well, mine did at any rate). They are our guardians, guides, counsellors, and cheerleaders. They will punish us when we go wrong against their warnings and instructions, and they will encourage us to get back up when we fall down. It is estimated that parents spend ~USD10k/year on each kid, and I know Asian parents can spend quite a bit more, just for the necessities (we're not talking about moron parents who get their kids designer dresses here). They give up a quarter of their lives to bring us up, and a bit more worrying over us once we're grown.

So, at least, is what the institution of parents supposed to be all about. While it is difficult, gut-wrenching and oftentimes heartbreaking work, motherhood and fatherhood are blessings from God, a direct reflection of His relationship with us, His children. But you know what adolescents are like; we want to be free from our parents' authority, we think we're the ones in the right, and we're outright ungrateful little beasts.

Therefore, to all of you godly parents who are striving to raise your chidren to the best of your abilities, my most profound respect and best wishes. To my own parents, in the unlikely event they read this; I love you. I honour you. I respect all that you have done for me and for my siblings. I hope you can rest easier now that we are established members of society, and while I have yet to marry, the next generation is already here. You have done right by us by any number of standards. Journey mercies, and come back safely from Melbourne.

Anime Awesomeness and Badassery

2009-09-27T01:47:00.000+08:00

I don't know how many people actually read this blog, and of those who do, who is actually into Japanese animation. But for those of you who are, you're likely aware that there are several genres of anime, just like its counterpart media manga. Now, in theory I should be into seinen manga and anime, since that is the age group I'm in, and will be for a while (adult man). But I guess my mental age has never really progressed much beyond shonen (young man). I do enjoy some seinen titles (and also, because seinen by definition includes the more 'ecchi' stuff, then yeah, that too), but for the most part my tastes lie in the shonen category.

Shonen manga and anime, catering as they do to the adolescent male crowd, are heavily action-oriented. Romance, rivalries and whatever else, you can imagine, are at the schoolkid level. Watch a couple of epidoes of Naruto and you'll get the picture.

Now, as Takahashi Rumiko has proven in InuYasha, Japanese culture, civilisation and mythology is exceedingly rich, and indeed, if one adds in the Chinese component as well (which she did), you can come up with an incredible storyline; one that fluidly blends both Middle Ages and Modern World without a hint of Western influence anywhere. Well, except in the technology, of course.

But it is a fact that many Japanese (and not just mangaka) are infatuated with Christianity - or more precisely, Christianity as it is commonly understood with regards to its superficial trappings. This is why many Japanese get married in churches in traditional Christian ceremonies wearing Christian wedding garb, and why Christmas is a MAJOR festival in Japan, and why in a country where 1% of its population are Christian, every other hentai or ecchi manga/anime features nuns and most normal anime have a church or two - complete with priest - somewhere in the storyline. And let's not talk about the weddings; I don't think I've seen a Japanese anime wedding where they actually wear Japanese clothes.

In some ways, this is a shame. One thing is, Japanese culture and tradition is quite rich in and of itself. I mean, you have the shrines, and the miko, and the Buddhist/Zen hermits and monks, and what not. The saddest thing to me, though, is that Japanese have not really used the sourcebook of Christianity as inspiration for their storylines, and this is truly a shame. Well, I've seen a manga depicting the life of Jesus, but that's hardly a genre in itself, and I think it should be.

Because, when you read the Bible, you notice that large chunks of it can be turned straight into a bizzaro-world shonen anime with absolutely no changes required. Mind you, most shonen anime is bizzaro-world. Gigantic freaking mecha fighting each other, ninja flying through forests and replicating themselves, katana-wielding shinigami unleashing ki-powered attacks in mid-air, aliens with power levels OVER NINE THOUSAND!!! - suffice it to say, there's not that many shonen titles out there that are focused on 'slice of life' where life is pretty ordinary and drama-free.

But right from the start, the Bible gives mangaka a run for their money - not to mention their imagination. In Genesis 3, when Kami-sama (God) chases Adam and Eve out of the garden, He places angels with HUGE FREAKING FLAMING SWORDS to guard against anyone trying to return. Won't you like to see what a KyoAni team could do with the Tower of Babel, which pierces the heavens? How about Lot fleeing Sodom and Gomorrah? Lava rising from the ground and several meteors hitting the city setting everything on fire. Yu-Gi-Oh! had the Namonaki Pharaoh (Aten); heck, I'd pay real money to see the Ten Plagues hit Egypt. And the part after that, when 300+ people got swallowed by the ground? Oh yeah!

That's just the first two books. You want to get a truly awesome, badass, what-do-you-mean-it-wasn't-made-on-drugs storyline? Just animate the Revelation to John without changing it in any way. Some choice scenes;

2 Immediately I was in the Spirit; and behold, a throne set in heaven, and One sat on the throne. 3 And He who sat there was[a] like a jasper and a sardius stone in appearance; and there was a rainbow around the throne, in appearance like an emerald. 4 Around the throne were twenty-four thrones, and on the thrones I saw twenty-four elders sitting, clothed in white robes; and they had crowns[b] of gold on their heads. 5 And from the throne proceeded lightnings, thunderings, and voices.[c] Seven lamps of fire were burning before the throne, which are the[d] seven Spirits of God.
6 Before the throne there was[e] a sea of glass, like crystal. And in the midst of the throne, and around the throne, were four living creatures full of eyes in front and in back. 7 The first living creature was like a lion, the second living creature like a calf, the third living creature had a face like a man, and the fourth living creature was like a flying eagle. 8 The four living creatures, each having six wings, were full of eyes around and within. And they do not rest day or night, saying:

      “ Holy, holy, holy,[f]
      Lord God Almighty,
      Who was and is and is to come!”

9 Whenever the living creatures give glory and honor and thanks to Him who sits on the throne, who lives forever and ever, 10 the twenty-four elders fall down before Him who sits on the throne and worship Him who lives forever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying:
       11 “ You are worthy, O Lord,[g]
      To receive glory and honor and power;
      For You created all things,
      And by Your will they exist[h] and were created.”

(Rev 4, NKJV)

12 I looked when He opened the sixth seal, and behold,[e] there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon[f] became like blood. 13 And the stars of heaven fell to the earth, as a fig tree drops its late figs when it is shaken by a mighty wind. 14 Then the sky receded as a scroll when it is rolled up, and every mountain and island was moved out of its place. 15 And the kings of the earth, the great men, the rich men, the commanders,[g] the mighty men, every slave and every free man, hid themselves in the caves and in the rocks of the mountains, 16 and said to the mountains and rocks, “Fall on us and hide us from the face of Him who sits on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb! 17 For the great day of His wrath has come, and who is able to stand?”

(Rev 6, NKJV)

The Woman, the Child, and the Dragon

1 Now a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a garland of twelve stars. 2 Then being with child, she cried out in labor and in pain to give birth.
3 And another sign appeared in heaven: behold, a great, fiery red dragon having seven heads and ten horns, and seven diadems on his heads. 4 His tail drew a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was ready to give birth, to devour her Child as soon as it was born. 5 She bore a male Child who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron. And her Child was caught up to God and His throne. 6 Then the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, that they should feed her there one thousand two hundred and sixty days.

Satan Thrown Out of Heaven

7 And war broke out in heaven: Michael and his angels fought with the dragon; and the dragon and his angels fought, 8 but they did not prevail, nor was a place found for them[a] in heaven any longer. 9 So the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
10 Then I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, “Now salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of His Christ have come, for the accuser of our brethren, who accused them before our God day and night, has been cast down. 11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, and they did not love their lives to the death. 12 Therefore rejoice, O heavens, and you who dwell in them! Woe to the inhabitants of the earth and the sea! For the devil has come down to you, having great wrath, because he knows that he has a short time.”

The Woman Persecuted

13 Now when the dragon saw that he had been cast to the earth, he persecuted the woman who gave birth to the male Child. 14 But the woman was given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness to her place, where she is nourished for a time and times and half a time, from the presence of the serpent. 15 So the serpent spewed water out of his mouth like a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away by the flood. 16 But the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed up the flood which the dragon had spewed out of his mouth. 17 And the dragon was enraged with the woman, and he went to make war with the rest of her offspring, who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.[b]

(Rev 12, NKJV)

Man, that last scene? Tengen Toppa Gurrenn Lagann has nothing on that!

You want to do something ecchi or hentai? The Bible offers plenty of scope for that (of course, you'll have to expand it as the Bible does not often go into too much detail of how things worked out). For example, there's Lot and his daughters after they got him good and drunk. Then there's David and Bathsheba. And Jacob who was tricked into having Leah before Rachel (which is itself a funny as well as ecchi scene). Judah and his daughter-in-law Tamar. And the one book in the Bible that goes into mega-detailed expansions of love scenes, the Songs of Solomon.

Yes, all in all, if you anime writers want to have ready-made material for a really good series, the Bible is a fairly good place to start.

The Damaged Human Condition

2009-09-27T00:41:00.000+08:00

All people have some form of damage or another. Generally speaking, of course, most kinds of damage are not fatal or life-threatening, and you might not even be aware of it, because this damage is not necessarily expressed in physical terms.

A sociopath, for example, has a damaged psyche precisely at the place where the conscience lives. The have little if any sense of empathy or sympathy, and they do not have an impulse governor which stops them from anti-social behaviour. A milder version of this might be what we call 'thick-skinned'. It's not that a sociopath is likely to become an unholy demonic terror, but that sociopaths are not restrained by their conscience. You can have a sociopath who's a principled man, for instance, and he masters his impulses intellectually, because he has made the conscious decision to comport himself with the laws of the land.

Autistic people on the other hand have damaged on underdeveloped socialising skills. While a sociopath does not see other human beings as people such as himself, but rather as puppets to be toyed with, an autistic person may very well know that here is another human being, but is utterly unable to interact with the other person. Mildly autistic behaviour can be manifested in people with Asperger's, and even milder versions of such behaviour can be noticed in nerds, geeks, otakus and the like.

And then, of course, you do have damage that manifests itself physically; cancer, genetic diseases such as cystic fibrosis and haemophilia, congenital defects such as blindness or deafness (which can also be the result of accidents or just an accumulation of crap the world throws at us on a daily basis), and so forth.

An interesting form of damage is what we call psychosomatic diseases, which are essentially mental stresses manifesting themselves physically. Believe it or not, the fear of needles has its roots in the vasovagal reflex reaction, which is a real problem that causes plunging blood pressure and probable unconsciousness. The fear of certain words (yes, words, don't ask me why) can actually leave me trembling and too weak to move for minutes. Well, not so much the words themselves, I suppose, but what they represent. The term vasectomy, for some reason, is a sure-fire way to kill me.

Well, anyway, all of this has a point to it. We are living under a curse. And it's a powerful one. This curse has incredible far-reaching effects - and one of its effects is to render a large chunk of humanity completely insensate to it. The curse has deprived us of agelessness and immortality, dominion over the world and every living thing in it, lordship over Earth, and has introduced pain and suffering and grief in its place. It has sundered our access to the spiritual world and the supernatural realms from our space-time continuum, and has twisted all paths but one to lead to either nowhere - if you're lucky - or to darkness and doom and damnation. It poisons all our attempts to blot it out; food, drink, glitz and glamour, sex, drugs, music, literature, plays, TV, friendly companionship... it all sours after a while. It has permanently damaged and distorted the rightful relationships between man and woman; brother and brother; man and God. Worse; its effects cannot be escaped or nullified from within - it is a universal curse. This, above all else, is why everyone of us has one form of damage or another.

But there is a way to break the curse. There is a way to escape it. There is a way to regain all that we have lost by our ancestors' willful actions in wanting to go our own way. Jesus is that Way.

Thanks, Chris!

2009-09-25T20:13:00.000+08:00

I hope you've gotten the second payment - they certainly took it from my CC. The only problem is that either the idiots at the USPS or the morons at Pos Malaysia decided it was a good idea to squoosh the drawings in half and shove it into my postbox. Next time, I'll pay extra for FedEx or UPS or DHL or something other than government-run bureaucrats.

The Unity of Christians

2009-09-24T23:43:00.004+08:00

You know, I was going to put up a post - and a long one too - with regards to Roman Catholics and their strangeness in refusing Holy Communion (also known as the Last Supper, or the Eucharist) to non-RCs. Well, to be more precise, to 'other Christians who are nonetheless not in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church'.

And oh boy, it would have been a major post. I would have gone into the specific reasons why the RCs prohibit Holy Communion save under exceptional circumstances (and impose conditions even when those circumstances are encountered), why those reasons didn't hold up, and what they were doing was actually a divisive act and not in keeping with the mission of the Church Universal.

But then, I found out to my dismay, that there are other Christian groups who are equally blockheaded and moronic in their insistence that their way was the right way (or that they were the only group who truly obey God, and that their worship is true worship). So, I decided to expand my post a little bit and address what I see to be the core issue.

This much is true; the universal church has no divisions. We are all members of the Body of Christ. We are all brothers and sisters (the term Christian was originally a derogatory one, something along the lines of 'Bible thumper' or 'God-botherer') in Christ. Paul went to great lengths in his epistles to wipe out potential tensions and divisions in the church. Jesus in His prayer asked that we may all be one, as He and His Father are one.

I agree, by the way, that denominations are not what God wants out of His people. We're not going to Heaven and asking which of us was Baptist and which of us was Anabaptist. But the question is, is it really so bad as to say that we are entirely different churches - or faiths, and that we worship entirely different gods? The answer to that should be... not really, not any more. Yes, there was a time when the wrong answer could have you tortured and killed. That time is no longer, and should never have been.

You see, the way we think of denominations has been warped over the centuries. Well, to be sure, when this first came up, it was a matter of importance, and it came up right from the very beginning. The first hint of a denominational split can be seen from Paul's own letters, where he describes a potential rift between people he baptised, and people Apollos, a fellow church-worker, baptised. Paul deals with this in his usual no-nonsense manner, asking bluntly whether Paul was crucified for their sins, or whether it was Apollos' body which was broken for them.

It continued on; you can see this in Gnosticism, Arianism, Monophysitism, and countless other doctrinal differences which the church summarily dealt with as heresies. But what we would consider as the first true denominational split occurred around the 10th century AD, when the Eastern Orthodox churches and the Roman Catholic church would split from one another. The split wasn't really over doctrine, or even worship methods, mind you, it was over church governance. The Orthodox churches believed that since the Apostles died, apostolic authority died with them, and the churches should be self-governing, fairly autonomous with a minimal hierarchical structure, and the highest administrator would be the Patriarch over a particular geographical area. The Roman church, on the other hand, believed that apostolic succession was maintained in Rome, as St Peter, upon which the church was built, laid his hands on his successor the Bishop of Rome (and the Bishop of Rome subsequently lays his hands on other Bishops and so forth). Hence the Bishop of Rome should be the Big Kahoona, or the Pope (Father).

We all know about the Protestant Reformation movement, and since then there have been even more denominations that have come up. But here's the thing; with no exceptions, denominations are basically segmented by either (a) geographical location or (b) certain specific worship traditions/rites. The Anglicans are basically offshoots of the Church of England. The Methodists are an offshoot of the Anglicans. The Lutherans threw out the unbiblical and quite frankly sacrilegious practices of the RCs during the time of their formation. The Presbyterians are the Church of Scotland. The various Orthodox churches are named after their locations; Greek, Syrian, Russian. The Baptists practice full body immersion baptism and strict teetotalism. Messianic Jews (Jewish Christians, the first Christians there ever were) maintain the Law of Moses in its fullness. By the way, I don't have a major problem with that; it's quite clear that they do so as a matter of choice (and out of a sense of obligation, true, but I do not believe they think it is salvific in nature). Generally speaking, we ALL agree on the doctrines of Christianity; what is a salvation issue and must be defended to the end, and what is not and hence a matter of choice.

Okay, there are exceptions, where doctrine is the separating issue. There is the Roman Catholic church. And there are the cults, who are not considered Christian in any sense, except as Christian heretics. Which is why there are a number of Christians who think the RCs should be considered a cult as well. But they do agree on the salvation issues as well, so maybe we can cut them some slack.

The point is, Paul himself says that for issues that are not core (i.e. not as important), freedom and not stumbling your brother are the two main points to consider. Some Christians (like the Messianic Jews) do not believe in eating food offered to idols. Others (like the Seventh Day Adventists) believe in keeping the Sabbath (Saturday) holy. (Just noting that the ISO calendar defines Monday as the 1st day of the week, so maybe they should be keeping Sunday holy instead). In both instances, Paul says let everyone be persuaded in his own mind. So if the Baptists insist on not getting drunk, this is alright. And the Anglican believes that only ordained men can be celebrants of Holy Eucharist, this is alright too.

And so, at the end of the day, almost all denominations break down to a bunch of people who generally feel comfortable with a given set of worship practices and traditions. As we are all different, and we all play different roles in Christ's Church, I do not believe that we should use denomination as a stumbling block. Mind you, I look forwards to the day when I can say unambiguously, "I am a Christian", and not have to qualify that with "I am an Anglican". That day is closer than you'd think, though - many newer churches don't care about denominations any more.

The End Of The World: Is That So Bad?

2009-09-24T00:33:00.001+08:00

Well, yes, yes it is. To any conservative, this is an obvious answer. After all, the way I understand my strain of conservatism;

Because humans are generally prone to failure and lack much foresight, it is always better to deny or delay new laws and new ways of doing things until we are sure they don't have any unintended side effects or consequences.
By the same token, we hope that our forebears understood the same thing, and therefore whatever laws and ways of doing things we currently carry on from the past would have had the necessary testing and trials by fire.

Hence, while change is the only constant, it does not follow that it is always a good thing. Of course, sometimes it is the right course of action, but usually the best kind of changes are those that bring us back to the fundamentals. And in any event, there is usually nothing wrong in examining and testing things out first.

The end of the world, by definition, will completely wipe out our current existence; we may carry on living, but our ways of life and thinking will forever be altered, and there will be no turning back. No conservative on the face of the planet will sign up for that, unless it is really going back to the way things were really meant to be in the first place.

Scientists are (or should be) inherently conservative creatures. You do not change the understanding of the nature of physics unless you have compelling proof; proof that will satisfy a hard scientist is not something you throw together in a matter of hours. Technology progresses and changes at a rapid pace, sure - but the underlying sciences do not.

In Christian theology, however, the end of the world, while not something to be wished for or hastened or predicted, is however to be prepared for. It is a time when God declares human history to be at an end, and prepares Creation for judgement. We do not know when this will happen; we do know what must happen first, and so in a sense we 'know' when it will not happen yet (for example, one of the things that must happen before the end of the world is that every tribe and every tongue must have had the chance to hear the Gospel and turn to Jesus - God does not say that we have to do the witnessing because He is quite capable of doing it Himself, but it is a reasonable assumption). This is a major change, and our ways of life will be irrevocably altered. Unless, of course, our way of life is already closely matching the way our new life is supposed to be like. Then the change will not be so terrifying.

On something of a tangent. In the anime series Clannad, one of the episodes deals with a girl who lost her parents due to an airplane crash on her birthday. The details are unimportant, but one of the things that make this series one that tugs on the heartstrings is a short segment on how her parents' last thoughts were of her, and of making sure that her birthday present and their last well-wishes - possibly penned in the last moments before they hit the ocean - reached her. They placed the present - a teddy bear - and a letter that asked the finder to pass it on to their daughter in a suitcase, which passed from person to person, country to country, continent to continent, until after several years it finally reached the hands of the girl. It is a short segment, but a powerfully emotive one as we see the travels of that battered suitcase - and hear each person in his or her own language asking the next bearer to pass it on.

Why do I bring this up? Because in a way, it reminds me of what is to come. In Revelation 7: 9-10, St John records,

9 After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could number, of all nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, with palm branches in their hands, 10 and crying out with a loud voice, saying, “Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!”

Which is why we say that the world will not end until this comes to pass - that every tribe and every tongue is represented in that great throng in Heaven. But God has His own ways of ensuring this comes to pass - so it's not as if we should be complacent about it either.

Now, just to give you a glimpse of how radically different the Christian concept of Heaven (and eternal life) is to the rest of whatever other religions have to say, you have to grasp the love and the intimacy that ideally exists mother and child, father and son, husband and wife, brother and sister. Now, picture those emotions, the commitment, the closeness... and now understand that we will be sharing that with everyone else in Heaven, and individually and corporately, with God our Father through Christ our Brother. That's how the Church Universal is described; as the Bride of Christ. Now you know why Jesus says in Heaven there is no marrying or giving in marriage - because there is no need. The closeness, the intimacy that was previously sanctified and celebrated and exemplified only within the holy institution of marriage is now available to everyone. Our fellow Christians are our brothers and sisters. There will be no more hunger, and no more thirst, and no more sadness, for God will fill our every need and desire. We will be clothed in the Glory of God, and His Presence will light New Jerusalem. There will be no more war, no more pain, no more sorrow. Every day will be the best day ever, because every day will be spent in God's presence singing God's praise, and every day will be better than the day before.

You know, some of you might be thinking, jeez, what a boring afterlife, but think harder. What would your ideal afterlife be like? Playing unlimited PvP WoW? Unlocking all the mysteries of the universe? Having an unlimited stomach capacity in the universe's largest buffet with a global selection of foods, wines and spirits? Having an eidetic memory and being able to read all of history's works, hear all of the music in all of time, see all the plays, maybe watch history unfold and knowing what really happened during the Flood? Becoming a demigod with incredible powers?

Hmph, how limited a vision. God says that he who truly receives and believes the Gospel and turns to Jesus with all his heart is already more than a conqueror, a prince and co-inheritor of the Kingdom of God, enrolled in spiritual warfare against not flesh and blood, but against powers and principalities, fully armed and armoured by God, and upon death exempt from God's condemnation, having received His mercy and grace, provided with Human Body 2.0 (Resurrection version), which by Jesus' demonstrations is pretty awesome, having all physical, intellectual, emotional and spiritual needs filled to overflowing. He will never be lonely, because he will be surrounded not only by his fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, but by God our Father Himself. Every day he will learn something new, something awesome and something incredible, which will cause him to praise God more and more; not that he needs any further encouragement, because praising God is the right thing to do anyway. If you thought the Internet was pretty cool for allowing all kinds of people all over the world to communicate to each other, imagine what Heaven is like, with people across time and space.

People do ask, you know, why Christians believe what we do. I do not presume to speak for anyone else, but this is my answer; nothing else makes real sense. Agnostics cannot give a clear answer to save their afterlives; it's all a Great Maybe to them. Atheists answer, but it is a bleak, soul-crushing answer, and quite frankly, what is the point of consciousness now when it becomes oblivion then? Hindus and Buddhists sacrifice their individuality for nirvana or enlightenment, which also snuffs out your being in favour of becoming One with... whoever. Yeah, thanks, guys. Let's not even talk about the Muslims, whose idea of a physical, sensual Paradise cannot even agree amongst themselves whether you get 6 dozen nubile females or seedless dried-up old prunes.

Author Review - Edward Marston

2009-09-21T22:13:00.001+08:00

First, a little rant about the way literary publishers treat their customers.

Almost everything can be delivered digitally nowadays; from music to videos to sermons to software to TV. In most cases, the cost is a mere formality, and in many cases, free (for examples, check out Hulu, or Joost, or CrunchyRoll for anime/TV). So why is it that so, so many book publishers can't do something as simple as ebook delivery in a universal open format readable by everything under the sun?

Now, there's no doubt I prefer electronic formats in many cases, but not all. Isaac Asimov came up with an essay on why we should prefer paper-based books; he's got a point. They last much longer in terms of physical medium (properly treated, manuscripts can last thousands of years; try that with even optical discs), super-portable, required minimal energy to use (sunlight works quite well), etc and so forth blah blah blah. But you can't beat free.

Baen gets this right. There is even a site out there that serves up almost everything Baen has ever published for free, courtesy of Baen. In CD format, of course, since what they do is distribute the CDs with selected books as a promotion - but they allow redistribution. Baen itself maintains a limited selection of works from authors who volunteer their works in this manner. This is the Baen Public Library. What's even better is that the exact same mechanism is used to deliver their ebooks via their Webscription service. That is, every ebook that is delivered to you via Webscription comes in multiple formats (RTF, PDB, LIT, HTML amongst others), all open and all (once you have it) technically shareable.

Now, let's go to another ebook publisher, Ellora's Cave. Yes, it's erotica, and no, I've not shopped there before, so take this with a large pinch of salt. But notice amongst all the pretty pictures and all the nicely-written hype they don't bother telling you what formats your book's available in. That's because you get to pick. One. And if you regret it, you get to pick. Another one, upon which you PAY AGAIN.

Stupid, stupid, stupid. This is the Internet age, baby. People are going to convert your pretty little DRMed format (or even if it's open) into something more useful, like a PDF or an RTF, so you might as well offer the various options upfront.

---
OK, time for a slightly lighter tone. I'm going to continue with my author review series, and this time with a lesser-known name, Edward Marston.

Edward Marston is the pen name of Keith Miles, and he specialises in detective/crime novels. But set in an earlier era, say, oh, post-1066 England, or Puritan times, or Elizabethan times.

I was going to link to some of his books, but if you click the link above, you'll get a reasonably complete bibliography, complete with some Amazon links (of course, the guy's an affiliate, but so what, so am I).

However, you will note that some of the series don't get linky love (why?) so I'll do what I can to remedy that.

The Domesday series is the first one that I read, and I got hooked on it really fast. It's about two census officials, Ralph Delchard, a full-blooded Norman, and Gervase Bret, a half-Saxon. Now, this takes place pretty much after William the Conqueror won the Battle of Hastings (well, a few years later, at any rate), so you can imagine there's still a lot of resentment towards the invaders. It's an interesting read.

The Wolves of Savernake: A Novel (Marston, Edward. Domesday Books, V. 1.)

The Ravens of Blackwater: A Novel (Marston, Edward. Domesday Books, V. 2.)

That ought to be enough to get you started. You can go on to the Nicholas Bracewell series next, which he wrote first but I picked up later. It's about the bookkeeper (manager/accountant) of a theatrical troupe, and of course the troupe itself. Remember, this is during Elizabethan times, when actors were looked on very much like prostitutes. Okay, a bit of an exaggeration, but close.

Then you can go on to the Restoration Mysteries series, which is about the unlikely friendship between architect Christopher Redmayne and constable Jonathan Bale (who happens to be a Puritan).

The King's Evil

The Repentant Rake (A Restoration mystery)

Why do I like these stories? Well, due to the historical background, I suppose, and the Christian-ness of the setting, I guess. Plus, the murders, heh. Now, it does have romance of sorts in these books, but it's understated and the storyline is more the murder and stuff. If you've read Brother Cadfael before, then you'll have an idea of what to expect from Edward Marston.

For whatever reason, Borders doesn't stock it in Malaysia, and neither does MPH, which kinda limits my choices. And by the way, don't bother looking for it via P2P either; I tried no dice.

Hot Air finally strikes back

2009-09-20T21:51:00.000+08:00

Okay, so onto the story of LGF vs the Right-Wing Blogosphere. This will probably get my account banned for sure, but let's see.

So LGF has been embroiled in a holy war with the rest of the Right-Wing Blogosphere, starting with Gates of Vienna, then Atlas Shrugged, Jihad Watch, The Other McCain, Pajamas Media, and the list goes on and on and on. The banhammer has been falling mightily and swiftly over the past year and some, and now LGF is almost indistinguishable from a lefty blog.

Hot Air has been linking to LGF as part of the GWOT, but after LGF commenter Killgore Trout spammed the comments section with racist terms (I understand he's been very fond of the word nigger, although presumably Allah and Ed have been hard at work cleaning it up; as for me, I'm late to the party so anyone with more details please do let me know).

Well, after that, Hot Air decided to do a bit of housekeeping...

So long, LGF. It was good knowing you. Come back anytime, there's always going to be a soft spot and a hard blogroll for you.

PS Robert Stacy McCain says if I link to him, he'll guarantee a link back. I have no problem being a link whore for a while, so here it is :)

Animes I have watched and am watching

2009-09-20T20:56:00.001+08:00

Apropos of nothing, simply because I have another 2 days worth of weekend, here's a short list of anime I can recommend to anyone (but especially young men, because that's the genre I'm normally stuck on "shonen"). Please note that I am Chinese, and like the Chinese, other North Asians (Japanese, Koreans, Vietnamese, etc) have surnames first, given names last. You guessed it, most of these are 'recommendations' from TVTropes.

Yu-Gi-Oh! The original one, at any rate. The English dub is fairly alright (which makes it a Surprisingly Good Dub), although the Japanese one has better melodies.
Ranma ½. Again, the English dub is pretty good. Funniest show I've seen in ages. But it is a Takahashi Rumiko work, so you really need a lof of patience with the Takahashi couple that Ranma and Akane are.
InuYasha. Another Takahashi work; note that most of her works are NOT completely animated primarily because they are soooo looooonnggg.
Yu Yu Hakusho. Well, this one was the first anime that really started my inner otaku going.
Naruto. Seriously.
Nogizaka no Himitsu. Man, they should have labelled this an 'ecchi' anime, because there's plenty of fanservice in terms of panty shots and even the odd yaoi scene (although that's in the manga Haruka reads, subsequently fainting and getting convenient amnesia).
Suzumiya Haruhi no Yuutsu. Watch this, watch this!
Azumanga Daioh. Words fail me.
Lucky Star. You know Azumanga Daioh above? Well, imagine that on crack. Oh yeah, this is worth it.
Saber Rider. Yes, this goes back to my childhood days. Real retro.
Tenshi na Konamaiki. Eh, could be better.
You're Under Arrest. 3 seasons, several OVAs, if you can get this. PS check out Aoi Futaba the trannie police'woman'. Ain't nobody can tell me she's a man, baby.
Koukaku no Regios. Taka Fansubs started this one, and so far it looks good. I don't know if there will be a second season, but I do surely hope so.
Full Metal Alchemist Brotherhood. This is the second anime, which apparently follows the manga storyline much closer. Be reminded that the first anime goes its own way fairly quickly, at the behest of the mangaka (manga author) and it's worth watching on its own.
Element Hunters. This is targeted at children (so not sex, no romance, and definitely no fanservice). Eh, Dattebayo picked it up which is why I'm following it.
Midori Days. Short but sweet. Not half bad.
Ouran Koukou Host Club. Supposedly more of a shojo comedy, but I enjoyed it nonetheless.

Anime I am currently watching or plan to watch

Maison Ikkoku.
Urusei Yatsura.
Hunter x Hunter.
Naruto: Shippuuden.
Bleach.
Suzumiya Haruhu Season 2. Although it probably finished already. But note that half of it is KyoAni (Kyoto Animation) trolling us.
Kamen no Maid Guy. Now, see, TVTropes calls him hard gay, but I haven't seen any evidence of that yet. BUt I've only finished the first episode, so who knows?
Scrapped Princess.
Hayate no Gotoku.

I'll update this post with links once I'm feeling more energetic.

TVTropes: Its usefulness and awesomeness

2009-09-20T20:25:00.002+08:00

Some time earlier, I blogged about the site TVTropes, which is sort of a wiki for, well, anything entertainment-related, so it would seem. Here are some of the things I use TVTropes for:

Looking for anime/manga. Generally, TVTropes gives you a good first look at what the storyline is like, and assuming you know what the various tropes are, also what to expect from the manga or anime in question. This is my primary use of TVTropes, sad I know.
Looking for video/PC games. This is especially good because you get an all-round look at the games in question - sort of mini-reviews, plus you get to know in a fairly in-depth way what the game is all about, how you should play it, and so forth.
Inspirational stories. These stories are under the Real Life sections of Crowning Moment of Awesome, Crowning Moment of Heartwarming, and Crowning Moment of Funny. And you would expect these sections to be under the Sugar Wiki, of course.
Just generally keeping up with current culture. Contrary to popular belief, TVTropes has extensive Real Life coverage, so you can get information on Wimbledon as much as Stargate.

What else can you use TVTropes for? If you actually read this blog, put it in the comments!

WTF is Obama thinking?

2009-09-18T13:22:00.000+08:00

No, seriously. What The FUCK are you THINKING, Barack Hussein Obama??!!!

You know, up till now I haven't really done anything overtly political on my blog. Why should I? It's my blog, and politics in Malaysia blows. Politics elsewhere also blows, but I do read stuff and now I'm beginning to catch up again. But this, I had to get on.

This latest idiocy - no, just plain tantrum throwing - by the so-called President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama (yeah, I'm calling you out, buster! Internet Tough Guy or whatever) boggles the mind and I really have to ask, what the fuck is he thinking?

Okay, maybe the missile shield business was symbolic. But it sure as hell was an important symbol to the Poles, and to the Czechs. And you just went and PISSED ALL OVER IT, you stupid fuck! And for what? Simply because GWB did it, and so you gotta trample all over everything he came up with? You moronic inbred lapdog, you aren't fit to tie the shoelaces on Bush's feet, and he was no saint. You didn't even get any kind of deal from Russia, and you have just made the world a more dangerous place.

But oh no, that's not all this miserable mongoose did. He went ahead and tried to pass this massive crapfest known as healthcare reform. Yeah, and you got pwned by about a million Americans protesting across the country and in DC on this very issue, while you were elsewhere, you fucking coward!

He pissed on Honduras, which did everything in accordance with its laws and statutes in removing a renegade President trying to set himself up as dictator-for-life. Why, were you jealous that you can't pull the same kind of shit in the USA? You prick-lover, you're chummying up to bastards such as Iran and Venezuela's dictators and fucking over allies like Honduras and the UK.

Words cannot begin to express how disgusted I am with this, this, this... this CREATURE. Impeach the motherfucker and be done with it. I would say hang him for treason, but you'd have to trial him first, and won't that be a waste of resources all round. Just get rid of him and stuff him back in Chicago where he can't really harm anyone - after all, ACORN just got defunded.

Blog update

2009-09-14T21:52:00.001+08:00

About time I updated my blog. Some stuff on my blogroll is gonna have to be reorganised, some stuff edited, updated, added or removed. So do expect one or two disruptions.

Updates: Completed so far:

1. RSS feed updates. Blogger's had its fair share of problems in the past, but really it's been my fault. I haven't read most of the political blogs for about 6-9 months (since President BHOmbastic's election victories), so quite a number of blogs have updated their sites, including the RSS feeds.

2. A couple of feed removals.

3. Blog additions. Blogger ate my post, so I'm not going to regenerate it. Suffice it to say that I've added a new section called TechnoBlogs, which showcases some of the IT-related stuff I've been reading during my hiatus from the political blogosphere.

Logical Practicum 2 - Evolution part 4

2009-09-14T16:36:00.004+08:00

Now, the final bit in this practicum (yes, it's been a long one, but hey, biology's a complicated subject) looks at some of the more interesting logical issues and consequences of evolution.

Understand that evolution posits random, undirected processes ever so slowly leading up to amino acids, then RNA, then DNA, then the first self-unicellular organism, then so on until we reach Homo sapiens. To be sure, I don't really know that they consider us the top of the evolutionary ladder, but it seems a reasonable enough conclusion.

Okay...

The logical consequence here is that random, undirected processes led to systematic, directed processes (life itself, along with all that makes up metabolic and other cellular activities). This is the logical equivalent of saying that a soused drunkard's random meanderings across the streets of Jaipur can lead to his conducting groundbreaking physics research resulting in his Nobel Prize win. Forgive me if I say this sounds less than plausible, of even possible. No offence to people from Jaipur.
Further, another logical consequence is that ultimately meaningless activity leads to meaningful activity. What I refer to by meaningful is actually looking at reason, purpose, as well as information. Every living being both acts and reacts, and always with a reason and a purpose - more importantly, an understandable cause. The usual analogy here is that a few million monkeys pounding away at typewriters for a few eons can produce Shakespeare. Which may be true - but tell me, without human intelligence to decode their output, would Shakespeare's works have any meaning? Certainly not to the monkeys, and not to the worms that will eventually swallow their output. For information to be transceived, you ultimately need both an intelligent sender and an intelligent receiver. Otherwise, the information is useless and meaningless - but as we can see all over the place, genetics proves RNA and DNA far from meaningless.
The final logical consequence that can be drawn here is that unthinkingness led to consciousness. This is the most laughable consequence of all, because nowhere else will you find this being seriously put forward. For example, the SETI project's main idea is that you can find signs of intelligent life simply by monitoring radio signals. If in the midst of random, generally undifferentiable noise you pick up a prime number sequence, or Fibonacci's sequence, or the Borg transmission "We are the Borg. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile", that is a prima facie case for intelligent life, because only intelligent beings can transmit that kind of stuff. Yeah, okay, but the clear evidence for intelligence in the biological computers and mechanisms we call living beings doesn't constitute proof of Intelligence.

Putting all three together, you can see that the general chain of thought is that random and undirected processes can lead to processes with increased direction and complexity. In other words, disorder -> order. This is called breaking the laws of thermodynamics, and you will not believe the ridiculous arguments put forth for why this is possible. You see, the concept of entropy guarantees that the state of the universe will gradually go from highly ordered to highly disordered - or more pragmatically, the amount of useful and usable energy in the universe is running out. Due to energy conversion from one form to another not being 100% efficient, some of that energy gets lost and it cannot be recovered without expending even more energy. Now, there are some people who think the universe is not in a closed state, where this is true. But take a look at why they think so. Yup, some kind of anti-theist or whatever.

In an open system, where external energy is added into the system, you can then have more energy available for useful work, and therefore the laws of thermodynamics do not apply, so goes the argument. However, in every known case where external energy goes into creating and maintaining highly complex systems, there already exist highly complex systems. Where these preexisting systems are not there, adding additional energy doesn't help; rather, it adds to the general disorder.

Furthermore, and this can form the content of some other post, the very model itself relies on several assumptions and requirements that may or may not be valid.

Logical Practicum 2 - Evolution part 3

2009-09-11T23:44:00.000+08:00

Now that we have defined some of the terminology used and misused in the debate, let us examine the limitations and shortcomings of evolution and the scientific method as applied to origins science.

Firstly, note that the scientific method cannot say anything about origins science. This is because no observation can be made of what happened in the distant past ('distant' being relative, but accurate enough regardless). Currently, no experiments can be realistically devised or conducted that would prove or disprove that Homo erectus evolved to become Homo sapiens. Certainly, one cannot repeat these experiments - origins science deals with a sequence of events that occurred once in history that we know of. Therefore, neither evolution nor creationism can properly be called theories. They cannot even be called hypotheses, because we have not observed either in action (again, remember that evolution is the arising of new traits and new descendant species from ancestor species through random, undirected processes). At best, they are models, a framework through which we interpret evidence.

In other words, both of these models are just the updated versions of Kipling's "Just So" stories.

Secondly, evolution flies in the face of Occam's Razor -but in order to understand this, we need to digress a little into the world of statistics. If you have a standard 6-sided die, which is truly fair and truly random, then each time you roll it, the probability that you roll any given number (say 1) is 1/6, because each outcome is equally likely. Likewise, the probability of any given sequence of number rolls is equally likely, hence 1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1 is just as likely as any other sequence of 15 rolled numbers. Statisticians would say that therefore, you shouldn't be surprised if you get this sequence of rolls.

Well, yes. Statistically, this is true. However, in the real world, by the time you roll the 7th '1' in a D&D game, odds are overwhelmingly in your favour that (a) you're fucking up the die roll or (b) someone has gimmicked the die or the surface on which you roll to give you continuous critical failure rolls. This is because you are no longer operating in a vacuum.

Evolution also does not operate in a vacuum. In order for it to be a viable explanation/model, it must explain a large series of steps, some of which I highlight below;

Life from non-life
Multicellular from unicellular
Sexual reproduction from asexual reproduction
Animal from plant (or vice versa)
...
Verterbrate from invertebrate
...
Warm-blooded from cold-blooded
...
Irreducibly complex systems from scratch

Each ellipse represents several more steps that needs to be explained. Taken one step at a time, maybe you can explain the evolutionary pressure and possibilities, but remember, this is all random and undirected. It's not as if the organisms in question can decide to evolve lungs from gills and start the process going for several generations.

But just to give you a hint of how difficult it is, the simplest self-sufficient organism currently known to mankind is the Mycoplasma genitalium, with 580,000 base pairs. In genetics, the four amino acids that form our genes (and the base pairs) are AGTC; adenine, guanine, thymine and cytosine. They come paired, so essentially, our genes are both digital binary storage systems and binary computers. The chances of evolution bringing this organism to life (remember that life is an atomic state; either something is alive or it is not alive) in one fell swoop is 1/2^580,000. It's too large for the Windows calculator to output, but to give you a hint? 2^100,000 is 10^30103. That's step 1. You calculate the rest of it.

Thirdly, evolution flies in the face of information science. We know that information exchange must involve at least one intelligent source, and our genes are computers, with DNA being information. Take a good look at the simple organism above. Its genes, amongst other things, have functions for redundancy, repair, replication, energy conversion and locomotion, as well as other cellular activities. And all of this is achieved with essentially half a megabit (or 64KB) of information. How does it do that? Well, it uses a very sophisticated compression algorithm, because if you took the genetic data from position 1-8, for example, it does one valid thing, and if you took positions 2-9, it does another valid thing. This is the stuff of legends, stuff that only Mel the Real Programmer would pull.

The healthcare debate

2009-09-10T00:15:00.002+08:00

Being Malaysian, I wonder at the American debate raging over ObamaCare. Not that the debate exists - obviously, as being more conservative than anything else, I can see why anyone would be shocked and horrified at the idiocy President BHOmbastic is spouting forth. No, my wonder is at some people on the left who seemingly do not wish to examine what they are putting forth and comparing it with other countries.

I will be upfront about this post. I really have very little clue about the details of country-specific healthcare systems, so this is really just my take on the matter, having experienced the Australian and Malaysian medical system firsthand.

In Australia, the country-wide health care system that serves all Australian citizens (as well as Australian Permanent Residents, New Zealanders, and some specific EU countries that have similar systems) is called Medicare. This provides for all clinic visits, and free health care at government hospitals. It is paid for by taxpayers in the form of the Medicare levy, which can be up to 2.5% of your taxable income. International students in Australia have to pay a certain annual fee (at the time I was there, around AUD275) to get student coverage identical to that provided by Medicare. Presumably, foreign workers have to pay a substantially higher amount for the same coverage.

Australia also has a private health insurance system, which kicks in for private hospitals and other stuff that Medicare doesn't cover. Let me repeat that. All private health insurance systems ride on top of Medicare, and the only 'replacement' is whether you use a public hospital or a private one. But... for this single 'private option', shall we say, the Australian government actually pays you to take up private health insurance. Up to 30% of your insurance premium, in fact.

For clinic visits, doctors can choose either to bulk-bill (charge you nothing and collect from Medicare directly) or not (in which case you pay upfront and claim back from Medicare). Guess what; doctors hate bulk-billing. They much rather charge you upfront; you go try collect from Medicare. And of course, only the Uni had a walk-in clinic - all the other clinics had appointment times in the weeks or months.

Okay, so that's Australia. Malaysia's got a slightly different scheme. The Malaysian healthcare system is split into two separate and completely distinct components; private and public. All Malaysian citizens have access to the public clinics and hospitals at ludicrously low prices. In fact, they're really just token charges - and if you are a (retired) civil servant, you get it for free. Well, for cattle class treatment, anyway. Even then, for first class wards, you get ludicrously low rates; $80/night. Treatments are similarly ridiculous in pricing; $200 per chemo treatment. Of course, you also get the long lines, the queues for treatment, etc etc etc.

You also have the private clinics and hospitals. Every doctor who wishes to be licensed in Malaysia must work for 3 years in the government healthcare sector; after which, he is free to set up shop and practice anywhere and anyhow he pleases. This is a completely free market situation; within 5 mins walk of my house, I can count upwards to 10 GP clinics, 3 OB/GYN, any number of dentists, and 4-5 of the alternative quacks. You also have the private hospitals, and they're good enough that medical tourism is a viable model for them. To fund these trips to the hospital, you get what's known as medical/health insurance - but only for inpatient treatment. There is no such thing as individual outpatient insurance - if your company doesn't offer it, you pony up the cash yourself. Medical insurance for hospital cover starts from $300 annually.

So, in Australia, the government practically begs people to take up the private option. In Malaysia, those who can afford it quickly buy private health cover themselves, because nobody wants to go to a public hospital if they can help it. Which is really unfair to the public hospitals, because they are of fairly good quality... for government, anyway. But that's the way it is.

I must wonder, therefore, why the morons in the Left want to impose the public option, when others want to get away from it.

Logical Practicum 2 - Evolution part 2

2009-09-09T22:05:00.002+08:00

Let's have a look at the terminology surrounding the debate, and understand fully what's going on.

Science comes from the Greek word scientia, which simply means knowledge. Previously also known as natural philosophy, science is simply the body of knowledge we have built up about the world (the universe, really) and what we understand of the way it works. Traditionally, the main branches of the sciences are physics, chemistry and biology, and in a general sense everything else we call science can be expressed in terms of these three branches.

The scientific method, which is the single 'trusted' method of adding new things to the sciences, is a simple one;

You observe a certain phenomenon, or certain phenomena. You notice a certain pattern.
Based on your observations, you make a conjecture of why this pattern is so. This is called a hypothesis. It is important that your hypothesis is falsifiable - i.e. can be proven false. This is not to say that it will be proven false, but that there is at least one condition that, if true, means your hypothesis is wrong. This is important because the next step...
You devise, carry out, and document rigorous trials to test your hypothesis true or false. These trials are called experiments. The purpose of these experiments is to see whether your hypothesis can identify result Y given conditions X, basically.
If your hypothesis is shown to correctly associate outcomes with the starting conditions (i.e. has high predictive value), and everyone with your documented experiments can replicate the results, and for any given value of X can correctly provide the correct value of Y (within experimental error, of course), then it is no longer a hypothesis (which is an unproven conjecture), but a theory. Theories are anything but unproven; theories have withstood the test of time and varying conditions, and almost always provide the correct answers.

There are two underlying assumptions behind the scientific method; there is ceteris paribus, which means 'all else being equal' (and so you must control the rest of the variables during the experiments), and there's cause and effect, which simply means (a) for every effect there is at least one cause, (b) the cause comes before the effect and (c) causes can be (but are not necessarily) themselves effects. See how the scientific method works now? A hypothesis is simply saying that ceteris paribus, A -> B, where A is the cause (or causes) and B the effect(s).

The term evolution, as is understood in evolutionary and Darwinian biology, is referring to the change of one species into another over a (usually epochal) period of time. It looks at how new organs and traits can arise that differentiate the ancestor species from the descendants, and the descendants from each other. This is also known as macro-evolution. It is important to note that evolution is described to be a random, undirected process - i.e. it does not require a guiding intelligence to have it started or kept going. The current favoured mechanism for evolution is mutation, which is the process of transcription errors in genetic replication.

The term natural selection is the process through which a species adapts to its environment. Essentially, if an individual of that species exhibits a trait that is more favourable in a particular environment, then it is likely to live longer and produce more offspring than a comparable individual without that trait. The offspring, in turn, if the trait is a genetically determined one, will also live longer and produce even more offspring. Eventually, the species in that environment will have far more individuals with that trait than not, and hence, the trait seems to have been selected. This is also known as micro-evolution.

Creationism refers to the work of a Creator that designed and formed all living things. A creationist believes that far from life being a random and undirected process, Someone deliberately designed, developed and set loose the entire ecosystem in one go - not necessarily in an instant, but within a very rapid period of time.

Okay, so why is evolution against all logic and common sense? That comes up in the next part of the series.

Logical Practicum 2 - Evolution part 1

2009-09-04T21:22:00.002+08:00

As with all the series of logical arguments for or against a certain topic, it is essential to note each party's preconceptions, so here's mine. I hold the position of Young Earth Creationism, one of the most vilified, derided and laughed-at positions to hold in the whole origin science field - and yet, I maintain that I came by this position honestly, after much thought and consideration - and moving away from my previous position as a Theistic Evolutionist - due to the evidence. Not to mention that being a YEC puts me squarely in the best of company, with the majority of my fellow Christian saints who have gone to their glory before me.

The YEC position is a simple one to grasp; fundamentally, a Christian YEC accepts the Bible's creation account in Genesis on its face value; hence the world was created in six days (and God rested thereafter on the 7th), and working forwards from that date, using the Bible's internal chronology (and genealogy) until we come to events whose secular dating is known, a figure of ~6.5k - 7k years since Creation is obtained. As contrasted with the current Big Bang model of the earth being ~4.3x10^9 years, and the universe about 3x that, hence the term Young Earth.

Now, the YEC position is not just in terms of cosmological and geological timeframes, but of course in terms of origin science, the position also specifies that God created all life already differentiated into the different kinds, as opposed to the evolutionary model of one common ancestor life form which diverged into the various species we have today.

As an evangelical, orthodox and fundamentalist Christian, the YEC position is a distillation of all the various doctrines which currently make up the only logical and tenable model to hold that is consistent with the Biblical picture. As with all science, the latest word is never the last word, so I expect further refinements to happen along the way.

Onwards to the logical issues at hand. In order to make sense of the debate, the terms must be clearly understood and agreed upon. I'll do this in the next post. Can't make these things too long, after all.

Logical Practicum 1 - Homosexuality

2009-09-02T09:59:00.000+08:00

What's with this series? Don't I have a lot of them around? And why only certain topics? Is it a case of 'methinks the lady doth protest too much'?

Well, not really. But also yes. I come across many, many Web sites that hash the same old tired arguments over and over again, and nobody ever seems to get anywhere in a hurry. Not that I'm going to change that in a hurry, but why don't people think these things through? Hence, my way of venting is through my blog - that maybe one or two people actually read. Still.

So, Topic One: Homosexuality.

In order to approach the issue logically, it is also important to examine one's own biases and axioms. When you lay out the presuppositions, then at least people know where you're coming from and can reason with you as well.

So, here is the Christian take on the matter. I'll linkify everything once I've got the necessary supporting evidence and such - but believe me, this is not a major problem were it not for my inveterate laziness.

1. Homosexuality is a sin (against God's divine will, plans and purposes for human beings)
Homosexuality is part and parcel of the twisted, warped, inherently sinful and evil nature of Mankind ever since Adam and Eve fell from grace. In this, it is not different from covetousness, greed, sloth, arrogance, homicidal impulses, lying, and so forth. Insofar as it is human nature to do these things, it is human nature to bear sexual attraction towards someone of the same sex.

2. Homosexuality is sinful in thought, word and deed - but not in mere existence
Like every other sin, however, homosexual impulses are a form of temptation, and we should be fleeing from it, not giving in to our base impulses. Therefore, it is not a sin to be tempted, just in giving in. Similarly, while it is no sin to be alcoholic, it is sinful to give in and drink to excess; nor is it a sin to be a paedophile, but only in giving in and harbouring the thoughts, or speaking the words (think chatrooms) or acting it out.

3. Homosexuality is classed with other sexually immoral practices
The only sanctioned sexual activity (one not only permitted, but celebrated, encouraged and revelled in) is monogamous sex between husband and wife in holy matrimony. Everything else (fornication, adultery, necrophilia, zoophilia, homosexual activity, BDSM, auto-asphyxiation, etc etc etc) is just dead wrong. Marital sex is the only form of sex God intends, as written right from the start in Genesis, and reaffirmed by Jesus.

It is important to note that the Bible as a whole does not speak about sexual orientations as we are wont to do. Instead, it speaks about sexual practices i.e. the result of giving in to various temptations and lusts. It is really obvious that the Biblical view of humanity is that our kind is a complex kind, and that the sexual attractiveness of others is not a binary thing. So, that too is my view - homosexuals are classed not by orientation per se, but by actions.

Having set forth my prejudices therefore, let's move on to the meat of the argument. The causes of homosexual attraction are usually the linchpin of the debates and arguments of its acceptability - after all, if it can be proven that this is no choice, but 'wired in' from an early age, then as it is said, what harm is it? And why persecute us for something we cannot help?

This is a specious argument. Thought crimes are not prosecuted, or so one would hope. Note that any 'laws' against homosexuals as such are usually only aimed at their behaviour (i.e. actions), and usually at sodomy. Public opinion and the actions of bullies react otherwise to the stated laws of the land, of course, but you cannot hope to change that by passing new laws.

So, let's set aside the Christian viewpoint for a moment, and consider a secular look at the root causes of homosexuality. Again, homosexuality is usually seen in a binary viewpoint - either you're gay or you're straight. And if you were previously straight and now you're having a homosexual relationship, then either you were faking (closeted) or you're really bi - but you can't have 'turned' gay - it's not contagious and people cannot change your orientation.

This is important; homosexual advocates cannot admit that you could really have been fully heterosexual earlier on in life, and then later on become fully homosexual - or even bisexual - because if they admitted that then (a) the charges of 'recruitment' and 'perverting morals' are so much more easily substantiated and (b) the converse is also true i.e. you can have been gay and now you can go straight. Either way, the element of choice has now been injected into the picture, and the cry of 'I can't help myself! It's not my fault!' is answered by 'Yes you can, you just don't want to'. The whole platform of gay rights hinges on this - if you can choose, then why should we give a toss when you choose poorly?

Anyway, let's accept the argument that for the vast majority of homosexuals, no element of choice exists; they truly cannot help themselves. Let's take it one step at a time. Suppose a person is 'born gay'. There are two major factors at play within the womb to make this turn out, genetics and the environment. Time to examine each one.

Here's an interesting fact about genetics. Ceteris paribus, any given set of genes (say, the entire genetic makeup of a human being) will always express itself in exactly the same way. Any inherited traits will also be expressed identically. Hence, if you have identical twins, if one of them has cystic fibrosis, the other one must also have it. Similarly, if you have haemophilia, so must your identical twin/triplet/tuple. Strangely enough, there is a sufficient body of research indicating that in pairs of identical twins, sexual orientation is not a 1:1 match. That alone is enough to say that genetics plays no significant role in determining sexual orientation.

Moving on to the environment then, you can imagine that the womb is a shared environment between identical twins. It is always remotely possible that one twin gets more exposure to certain hormones or other compounds and hence develops into a homosexual, but seriously, we can probably throw that out of the window as well.

Okay, so sexual identity is not fixed at birth. Which means to say, the external environment plays a role. This changes homosexuality from a pre-existing condition to something that occurs to you as you walk through life; neither fixedly genetic nor congenital, but something that happens during your growth and maturity process. This is really the root for many mental disorders such as kleptomania. Actually, that was a lie. We don't really know the root causes of kleptomania, just as we do not really know the root causes of homosexuality. But just as kleptomania can be treated, so can homosexuality, and don't let anyone else convince you otherwise. You'll never be free of homosexual temptations. but here's the secret - nobody else is free from their temptations either. We all have our crosses to bear - granted that homosexual attraction is a hard cross to bear.

Here's another secret. Jesus of Nazareth, God's own Son? The Perfect Sinless Man? That guy? He is truly human, being tempted in every way just as we are, and yet without sin. Think he might know a thing or two about temptation and resisting it?

Infatuation

2009-08-23T22:33:00.002+08:00

Not just the title of a John Farnham song, no.

Most people have at least one or two in their lives. They call it puppy love, or crushes - it's more or less just an abandonment of your reason and usually at the start of your adolescent life, when you fall head over heels for someone. It usually doesn't amount to much, really, but it does cause a lot of emotional turmoil when you're in it.

By the time I was seven, I was already sexually aware (girls aren't icky, and never were for me), but really, my first crush was when I was 13, and starting secondary (junior high) school. What can I say, it was a classmate of mine yclept Joy, and she was indeed a joy to behold. The second one was my friend Brandon's younger sister, and oh yeah, she was something else as well. But you know, I guess I think that of all my crushes. The third was May Young (not her real name, but awfully close), in my college days, and if you have ever seen Azumanga Daioh's Sakaki-san, you have a picture of her, more or less. And then there was Kristen and Joanne from Uni. Joanne's married, so that's that, but the rest? You kinda live in hope, you know?

These things never really panned out for me. Primarily because I have the socialisation skills of a thermonuclear device, but also because approaching girls/women in a courtship mode tends to have me go all to pieces. Especially ones that I like a whole lot. And then, there's the unmistakable fact that I've the mind of a dirty old man.

What brings this up? Well, the second girl I've ever had a crush on, my friend Brandon's sister? Just met her quite by accident today. Betcha she still thinks I'm a gibbering, blithering idiot. Which, {sigh} is still what she turns me into, after all these years. My heart still beats about 50% faster, my metabolic rate goes into overdrive, and damn me if my face isn't all red after that encounter. It was pleasant, even if it was only small talk, and for all I know she was all like 'ugh, just hurry up and get out of my life', but lacking evidence of the latter, I choose to live in hope.

Argh. Those people who have parents arrange marriages for them? Lucky buggers. They can skip all this nonsense.

Author Review Intro - Lois McMaster Bujold

2009-08-22T21:40:00.001+08:00

Okay, so this little disclaimer first. I'm not important enough to get sponsored or paid or opinions and stuff, so everything here is my take on the matter. The authors I put up here are those I personally like and have read - so you'll never get anything from J.K.Rowling here. I mostly read F&SF, Christian stuff, but back in the day I've read mysteries, children's books (so yes, you'll get Enid Blyton here maybe), detective-stuff, some mediaeval stuff, and even romance (although not much of that). I encourage people to purchase stuff they like; I do, although not as much as I should, maybe.

Well, I guess I should start with a short background. My family got into technology early - relatively speaking - as my father was an electrical engineer back in the 60s, and hence he was knee-deep in telecommunications and network gear. And computers that drove the electrical switches they had back then, of course.

Of course, our exposure to computers in the house started with the IBM PC. My cousin managed to persuade his parents to get him one. It was an incredible machine at the time; it had two 360K floppy disk drives, which meant you could boot DOS off one and play Karateka or Budokan off the other. You haven't lived until you played one of those games in monochrome, let me tell you.

In my primary (elementary) school days we had Apple IIs in school for the computer club and experimental lessons. Fun to play with Apple Basic back in those days, too.

My brother then managed to persuade my father to get us a 386DX-33. It was quite powerful back in the day; 8MB of RAM, 120MB hard drive, and we also had a second drive weighing in at 250MB. It came with DOS 5 and Windows 3.1 - and two floppy drives, one 1.2MB floppy and one 1.44MB microfloppy each. And a VGA screen, but no sound. it cost 5 bucks back then to copy a disk, and we had such classic games as X-Wing, Lemmings 2, and Wing Commander Privateer.

So, you know, when my father got a Toshiba Pentium-powered laptop, it was fully kitted with a 13' TFT and wow! It had a modem as well. Now, this was way back in 1995, so it was one of the very first ones with Chicago preloaded. Very expensive, and it had Internet connectivity through what was then known as the TM Intranet. Very cool, and so I made my first website at Geocities shortly after that.

Now, I had a bunch of book reviews on that site, and since Yahoo! decided to terminate Geocities, I figured, what the heck? I'm bringing it back now. And my first author to be reviewed here is Lois McMaster Bujold.

I'll keep this short. The MS keyboards are nice, but not conducive to very long posts, really. Lois McMaster Bujold is one of my favourite authors, and for some reason I cannot fathom. Somehow, she writes like a man, and her heroes are men, true men - even the women. Their characterisations resonate with me somehow, and they seem real to life.

So, what does she write? Well, everything, really. Science fiction was where I got my introduction to her. She started with a heroine called Cordelia Naismith, following up with her offspring, Miles Naismith Vorkosigan. Miles is short, and a cripple besides, but man! I really, really get into his character. Bujold then went on to write fantasy, with what I call the Chalion series. This one switches protagonists in each book (although in the same universe), but Cazaril (the first book's protagonist) really captures how a man in his position would feel (and how I would like to think I would react, really). HEr next big series is the Sharing Knife series, which is published by HarperCollins and a whole lot more romance-ish in feel. Still, very good.

Enough of my blathering, I guess. Some information:

She is a Baen author. Which means, she's on (a) the Baen Free Library and (b) Webscriptions
If paper is more your thing, here are some sample publications to get you started. (Links go to Amazon; for a full biblipgraphy click on her name further above in the post)

A Civil Campaign. This is one of the later books in the Vorkosigan saga, and details Miles (now 30) trying to woo the woman of his dreams, Ekaterin Niles Vorsoisson. Only problem is, as the title suggest, this is a civil campign, and Miles is far more familiar with military campaigns, Sun Tzu and The Art Of War-stuff. It can work, but if the girl is question finds out, which of course she does, watch out for the fireworks...
The Curse Of Chalion. What starts out as a search for employment for the strangely humble but very capable Cazaril turns into the three most harrowing moments of his life as he seeks to tutor a headstrong princess and navigate her way through perils, political intrigue and Prophecy (not to mention my alliteration). No, he doesn't get the princess, but he does get a Goddess living with him for a while, that should count for something.
Beguilement. Lakewalkers and farmers are not supposed to love each other. Die for each other, sure. Friends, partners, business associates, no problems. But love and marriage and especially the baby in the golden carriage? Absolutely not! So what happens when Dag, a morose and seeming epitome of the Lakewalker ideal falls head over heel for a half-pint, pregnant bundle of energy who's also, by the way, a barely legal farmer girl? Find out...
Legacy. Well, Dag got off easy with the woman's side, and now he's off home to show off his new bride to his family. You know this isn't going to turn out a bed of roses for them - or does it? After all, roses are thorny...
Passage. Walking the earth with your bride by your side is a tempting idea, but when your brother-in-law is tagging along...? And now your bride wants to go down the river in a boat, and her brother has fallen for the engaged boatmaster - or should that be boatmistress - and you have somehow or other acquired two hitchhikers on the run from their village elders. Well, Dag, you know no one said life would be easy...
Horizon. From my previous descriptions, you'd think this was just a standard romance story. But the romance has a serious backdrop; Lakewalkers have access to abilities which they call 'groundwork' but which everyone else calls magic. And they need it to fight off Very Bad Things called malices. Dag's had a good run at 26-odd malices so far, but he's ever met them one at a time. What happens when you get two?

--Preview of my next Author Review post--
Now, there's no doubt I prefer electronic formats in many cases, but not all. Isaac Asimov came up with an essay on why we should prefer paper-based books; he's got a point. They last much longer in terms of physical medium (properly treated, manuscripts can last thousands of years; try that with even optical discs), super-portable, required minimal energy to use (sunlight works quite well), etc and so forth blah blah blah. But you can't beat free.

Baen gets this right. There is even a site out there that serves up almost everything Baen has ever published for free, courtesy of Baen.
--End preview--

Linux vs Windows

2009-08-13T01:06:00.001+08:00

Truth be told, I hate Linux. Or rather, I hate using it in any significant way. It's not the kernel I hate, or the distributions, or even the interfaces. No, it's the Linux attitude.

Here's what I mean. Take your average Joe, who's trying to use computers in his own way. He's not terribly technologically-inclined, but he finds his way around. He's just installed Ubuntu, and now he's looking for a way to play his favourite MP3s. For whatever reason (we do not know, and Joe has even less clue at this point), he cannot do so.

Now, under Windows, WMP comes with a fairly complete help system, but nothing in there helps, so off goes Joe to the Internet, and starts searching for WMP troubleshooting tips. He can browse through Microsoft's immense support library, and he can see a whole lot of third party sites that may offer some advice as to why he cannot play his MP3s.

What is the situation on Ubuntu? Well, first thing Joe sees, he sees a site that looks something like this. Wow! That really reassures Joe! Let's quote a bit from here...

Eventually you need to install a current totem-pl-parser too.
But a simple download, unpack, ./configure, make and sudo make install is sufficient.

Guys, I dunno about you, but a Windows user can simply download - and in many cases, the download can automagically install itself as well (if the user selected the option). But I'm being unfair - this is not really a troubleshooting site, is it? Let's look on further.

We find this site on Fedora. But it does mention Rhythmbox (Ubuntu's media player, amongst many), and MP3s, so yahoo! However, the first few sentences say getting it to play MP3s is one hellaciously difficult task. But at least we're getting somewhere!

Now, Joe's not genius-level smart, but he figures, hey, I downloaded this Ubuntu, so maybe the people who let me download it know something about this issue. So off he goes and does what he should have done in the first place, right? Now he's at help.unbuntu.com, maybe that will get him somewhere. And it kinda does, really. Joe may have to dig around, but some persistent work and he will get the answer (in this case, the MP3 decoding libraries were not installed, so Joe has to install them)

Okay, so after a bit, we can say that someone with a bit of tenacity can get somewhere. What will happen, though, if you tried to post this issue in a Linux user forum? I'll tell you what. RTFM, GTFO, STFU, RTFM, did you RTFM, you luser? Go back to Windows, you n00b!

Yes, I think Joe will be taking their advice.

An open letter to RapidKL

2009-08-08T23:19:00.000+08:00

Like they will ever read my blog, right? But I shall do it nonetheless.

Dear upper management of RapidKL;

It is said that in China, ministers used to have to work for some time yearly in their area of expertise. Hence, if you were the Minister of Mining, you would have to spend a week or a month digging for coal or somesuch.

Perhaps you should consider such an exercise - or at least you should take public transport for a month or so exclusively. That way, you may better understand the frustrations of us who have to do so.

It is ridiculous that you still cannot provide us with anything resembling accurate timetables after FOUR years of operation. The best you can do is "uh, we start at such a time, and we run every X minutes" and even then you cannot guarantee the timings, not even to within 15 mins. I have personally had to wait 90 minutes - that's ONE AND A HALF HOURS - more than once for a bus that's supposed to be on a 20 minute frequency.
Have you had a look at the websites of many public transportation systems in the Western world? Just take a look at them, please. Not only do they have timetables, but they have ROUTE PLANNERS, inclusive of maps and detailed instructions. The technology is not difficult to implement; heck, you can ask Google Maps or Microsoft to help you out here. And they keep the information up to date. Your website, on the other hand, stinks. We have to use JavaScript, it is not viewable in alternative browsers such as Opera, you still boast of all-day tickets when you will be changing it over NEXT MONTH - in short, there is no value-add to your website at all. Tell me again, what the heck do you have it for?
You ask us to carry small change - worse, to carry EXACT fare. Why? Why can't you allow your drivers to have some facility for making change? Are you afraid of fraud? Can't your drivers count? I am not asking that your bus drivers change for RM100 bills - obviously, there needs to be some limit to this sort of thing. But for crying out loud, if I have an RM5, you should be able to give me back RM4.
I don't even want to discuss the LRT, which air conditioning is lacking at the best of times, which is perennially packed to the brim during peak hours, and where the rides are as smooth as using a Jeep to go across Taman Negara.

We are trying to achieve industrialised, First World status as a nation over the next decade. I fully realise that the general public have issues, but surely some measures can be taken towards resolving some of these problems with the public transportation network. For Malaysia, please.

The Melancholy of Suzumiya Haruhi

2009-08-02T10:57:00.001+08:00

Now, I've been watching (and reading) a series called Suzumiya Haruhi no yuutsu (and as you can tell from the title, that's what it means in Japanese).

Most people think this is a great series, because you cannot really narrow down the genre. Is it SF, or F, or is it a slice-of-life, or with a mythic arc? Yes, pretty much all that and more.

Suzumiya Haruhi is God - except she doesn't know that. This is the premise of the entire series in a nutshell. If Haruhi wants something, Haruhi gets something. Which is a really neat way of explaining omnipotence. She has the ability to rewrite all of existence, so when she wanted to meet up with aliens, ESPers, time travellers and sliders, she meets up with them.

The anime adaptation was done some years back, mid-2000s, of one or two of the light novels. This year, the news that they would be adapting a second season was met with hails of great joy, because the studio had been trolling the fans for years now concerning the second season.

Guess what? They're trolling the fans again, and in Magnificent Bastard, grand-scale, Haruhi-style trolling of epic proportions. They started off with repeating the first season, but then they slipped in a new episode. But after that, 6, count 'em, SIX entire episodes of the new anime was pretty much the same episode repeated over and over.

Now, the storyline they're adapting actually specifies that time has been looping August for 10k+ times, due to Haruhi not wanting to finish summer vacation. But the storyline only exposes the last loop. The anime has gone through 6 loops, and shows no signs of abatement.

That's how you troll, guys!

Edit: Make that seven. 7 loops. Of the same day. Over and over. This is trolling to incredible heights. It had better be worth it. You hear me? Make it worth it!

Bing! Microsoft's done it!

2009-07-28T20:58:00.001+08:00

I'm a little slow to get on the bandwagon here, but over the weekend I went out and tried Microsoft's 'new' search engine, Bing. And no turning back - I've now set it as my default search engine on all my browsers, Speed Dials and all.

It really is something else, and far better than the previous Live Search. You get previews, better suggested searches, and the interface has been tweaked to give it a faster feel. Overall, worth a look, and mostly worth the switch.

Must say that Microsoft is slowly getting better at this. Windows 7 seems be what people expected and wanted Vista to be (and Vista is not a bad OS if you stick to the standard scenarios), they're much, much better with trials of their various software products (and even free versions in some cases), and their hardware has always been alright in my books.

Some random ramblings

2009-07-21T21:21:00.001+08:00

Anime and manga make trannies look good. Guess you can get away with suspension of disbelief when you're the creator of the works in question.

They don't make games like they used to. Nothing beats old-style platformers, side-scrollers and console RPGs - which is why they remake 'em for the newer machines.

Losing weight is hard. 3500 kcals is a pound gained or lost, more or less, but you can eat your way through that in days. Try burning that off in the same amount of time.

President BHOmbastic is a first-class idiot. But he's currently a popular first-class idiot, so we shall have to leave it at that.

Evolutionists and animal wrongs groups should not get along. The one insists that Man is no different from the natural order (although maybe at its pinnacle currently), the other insists Man is a blight on the natural order and should be expunged (or at least severely curtailed).

Animals and even plants use sex as a tool of domination, as a weapon, as a form of play, and as a form of aggression. Being better than them, we humans should know better and use sex as a procreative mechanism alongside a way of showing intimacy. The fact that it can be pleasurable is just a bonus.

Intimacy in friendship can be expressed without sexual meaning and contact. The fact societies seem to be unable of recognising that any more leads to the conclusion that we are in fact degenerating, and not progressing.

By and large, subtitles are a superior solution to dubs, especially if they're soft subs. Plus, you get to learn dribs and drabs of foreign languages while you're at it.

Supremacy

2009-07-10T23:14:00.000+08:00

Probably a bad word in the USA. White supremacists, after all, like the KKK, most likely corrupted the meaning of the term, and quite possibly beyond recovery. Weird, when the term 'supreme' simply means 'top', or 'paramount'. The Supreme Court, after all, exists as the highest court of the land, sure - but there are other courts, and it does not mean these courts are powerless, or without honour, or without meaning.

Notwithstanding this, I am not ashamed to to admit that I am a Chinese supremacist. Of possibly the worst kind. It is my sincerely held belief that the Chinese will someday TAKE OVER THE WORLD!!! MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!

Hang on, though. When I say Chinese, I don't mean 'race' or nationality or governmental structure. No, none of that really matters, an adopted Indian into a Chinese family is a Chinese too, even if he's got darker skin. What I'm talking about is culture and mindset - mind you, an ideal culture and mindset. Not all Chinese will have the same background or the same understanding that I'm putting together here, especially since it only ever really existed in philosophy, but most of us will have an appreciation for these cultural values.

1. Filial piety.
The Chinese people are well known for this. Confucius himself commends honour and reverence towards one's parents - of course, he soon elevates it to ancestor worship which is where we part ways. Showing respect to our parents, taking care of them in their old age as they took care of us in our youth, loving them while they are still here... these are hallmarks of Chinese culture and tradition since time immemorial. Why is it important? Because the old fogeys have a lot to teach us, and the wisdom of the ages is not to be dismissed lightly. A culture that abandons its aged (or leaves them for welfare types to look after) denigrates all the contributions they have made before - and who then would want to sire children as ungrateful as they are?

2. Close-knit family structure.
Your old-time Chinese family was more of a clan structure than anything. Uncles, Aunties, Great-grandmothers, third cousins twice removed, all living in the same family compound as one big (mostly) happy family. Cuts down on the incest potential, due to the Westermarck effect, promotes unity within the clan (which is really, really good if the clan controls half of the area), and you will never really be alone (okay, good and bad, but at least you will always have playmates). In some places, this still exists - the Khoo family in Penang is a really famous example.

3. Fanatically numerical.
Okay, I could have said money-faced, but that's not true. Chinese understand the value of money is not in itself, but what it can do. You will notice that our acquisition of money is for varying reasons, but never as a form of boasting or high score. Our obsession with mathematics is partially at work here, but moreso our need to guarantee worldly security. Singaporeans, for instance, have a 4C saying which marks the financial success of a person; Car, Condo (because in Singapore, much like in Japan, owning an actual house marks you as high-class), Credit card, Cash (and some people are adding Country club to that list). We understand that cash is the real commodity, and it is our buffer, and so you will almost never see old-time Chinese run up obscene amounts of debt if they can help it. Heck, my sister paid off her first car in cash. Alas, gambling defeats many Chinese.

4. Education is King.
Or at least Mandarin-level aristocrat. No, seriously. This can be (and sometimes is) taken too far, but Chinese kids are harangued at by their parents day and night non-stop to excel academically, even if that means having tuition, the purchase of expensive reference materials, the sadistic homework of 1000 mathematical equations to prove every day... Back in Imperial times, the national examinations was the proof of Chinese meritocracy. A farmer's son, if he applied himself diligently enough, could rise in sufficient rank to become Chief Imperial Advisor or somesuch. Or, you could get your balls chopped off and become a Chief Imperial Eunuch, which is also kinda powerful but the price is too high for most, I suspect.

5. Government: Truly the last resort, Less is Best.
By and large, the common people of China took this one to heart. Government to them meant three things; (a) Taxes and other onerous demands (b) Licences and other bureaucratic nightmares, and (c) the perilous pathway to true power. Unless you were aiming to become a scholar (and hence an Imperial civil servant, and therefore part of the system), you applied for your licences, paid your dues, and kept your head down hoping the Imperial Government took no notice of you. For its part, the Imperial Government acknowledged this. If you are properly licenced (that includes brothels and religious houses, by the way), and you paid your dues properly, by and large it left you alone. Yet at the same time, any citizen of the Empire could beseech justice and be heard. Of course, once you did this, the Magistrate became the plaintiff, and you a mere witness. This was meant to be used as a last resort, when self-arbitration and blood price could not work something out.

You will note that most if not all Asian cultures believe in these principles - shows you how influential China and India were back in the day. You will also note that a particular type of belief system - and political alignment - shares many of these values. I leave the rest as an exercise to the reader.

Something different

2009-06-20T23:21:00.000+08:00

Some of my posts here have lately been content heavy, not to mention rather speculative and philosophical. I thought I would go for something light and absurd for a change.

One of the things that bugs me about places like the USA, with a supposed 1st Amendment rights to freedom of speech, is the dichotomy between brothels and pornography - especially hard-core pornography. It seems to me (and correct me if I'm wrong), that the only practical difference between the two is who pays and gets paid. But before we even get into that, there is an even deeper issue, one that demonstrates the problem whenever you divorce law from morality. Bearing in mind, of course, that there are issues when you couple the two together.

Apparently, in many Western countries, you can be as much of a slut as you want to be, not a problem. As long as it is consensual on all parties, you can hop from bed to bed to bed in the same night, entertain multiple sex partners at the same time, and get up to stuff I don't even want to speculate about... but only if you don't get paid for it. Yes, that's right, if you want to monetise your body, it's illegal - as long as you don't go into the pornography business.

Okay... so taking it to its logical (and ludicrous) extreme, the easiest way to run a legal brothel is to, em, videotape everyone and everything? Can't be that easy; after all, porno actors get paid, and you probably have to join the SAG or something. And of course, there's the question of how widely you have to distribute the resulting 'film' in order to qualify as a publishing house. But, assuming you can get all those details out of the way... well... what's wrong with my logic, right? Right?

There is definitely something very wrong with this whole setup.

Evolution? Get real - Introspective Series part 4

2009-06-05T23:08:00.001+08:00

One of the aspects of Christianity (and a number of other religions / belief systems) that has received a lot of flak and press ever since Charles Darwin came up with his infamous work on the Origin of Species is the Creation story, or as I like to put it, the Reason We're Here.

Darwin may not have started out this way, nor perhaps would he have gone as far as he did if he knew what we now know, and it is certainly not beyond the realm of possibility that he would not have approved of the current state of affairs as regards origin science. Nevertheless, the fact remains that he popularised the idea of (macro) evolution, which has been tweaked and played with and refined until it has become what it is today. Now, I used to be an evolutionist, so to speak, but my viewpoint on this matter has changed, and I am now comfortable with calling myself a Young Earth Creationist. Yes, I am one o'them YECs.

Let's clear up some terminology first, because as with many other issues, much confusion and flaming can be avoided or minimised with making clear the definitions of the argument. A lot of people refer to the Theory of Evolution, but really, this is a misnomer. Evolution is a model; nothing more, nothing less. A theory is something provable (and falsifiable, of course), something concrete that you can work with, and usually attached to an accompanying mathematical formula. Evolution is nowhere so clear cut. The next term we really need to clear up is 'evolution'. Macroevolution, which is what I'm talking about here, is generally understood to refer nothing less than the Grand Unified Theory of How All Living Things came about through {some random, undirected, veeerrryyy long-term process} (currently genetic mutations leading to beneficial traits that can be acted upon by the pressures of natural selection) that enabled the expansion of some progenitor life form into the myriad species, genus, family, order etc before us today. What a mouthful, isn't it? Here are the takeaway points, though - firstly, it is generally supposed to link all current life forms back to a single unicellular organism some few billion years ago. Secondly, the process is random and undirected. Thirdly, the mutations are beneficial and lead to new organs. That's all you need to remember about evolution.

Why don't I believe in it any more? Why have I switched from this model to the YEC model? Well, okay, let's take it a step at a time. Origins science is a misnomer all by itself. The scientific principle by which we try to understand the natural world around us is a logical one of cause and effect. You observe an effect, postulate a cause for that effect (hypothesis), devise a method of proving or disproving your hypothesis (experiment), and you refine until you have something that is reliably repeatable to provide you the results your hypothesis calls for. Then, and only then, do you have a theory - when other people can take your work, plug in new values, and within experimental error have the numbers your theory predicts they should get.

You can't do that with origins science. You cannot prove that chimpanzees and humans evolved from the same proto-primate, nor can you prove they were created separately by God. We weren't there to see it happen! What we do have are a bunch of observations - and all you can do with observations is form a model. Neither evolution, or OEC, or YEC, or for that matter panspermia, are theories; they're all models.

That doesn't answer the question. What does is that evolutionists require me to believe the following sequence of events happened in a completely undirected fashion and by random;

0. The complex, error-tolerant encoding systems of RNA and DNA
1. The move from non-life to life (abiogenesis)
2. The move from unicellular to multicellular organisms
3. The move from asexual reproduction to sexual reproduction
4. The specialisation of cells into various tissues and organs
5. The move from exoskeleton to endoskeleton
6. The move from cold-blooded to warm-blooded
...
X. The move from ground travel to wings
X + 1. The production of irreducibly complex structures
...
and so on.

Now, remember, none of these have been observed to occur. There is no eyewitness evidence, nor for that matter, is there sufficient forensic and circumstantial evidence for this. Yes, evolutionary biologists have come up with possible explanations for some of the above, but (a) not all and (b) while any one of them may be plausible, the sheer number that need to happen is ludicrous.

This is what nails the lid of the coffin shut for good, though. The number one underlying process that powers all these explanations? That's mutation - which is the only way genetic code can change, because meiosis and mitosis have very powerful error-correction built in. And not once, not once, has mutation managed to come up with a new structure. Modifications of existing structures, yes. Co-opting of structures from other life forms, sometimes. But inventing cone cells from rod cells or vice versa? No.

The field of genetic manipulation is known as genetic engineering. It is a very, very young field, and genetic engineers work with biological constructs rather than physical ones, or chemical ones, or digital ones. We now know that the 'simplest' biological organism is far, far more complex, with more moving parts and interactions than anything humans have ever put together. In fact, the closest metaphor we have is in the field of software engineering, because that's what genes are; they're software programs. How close is the metaphor? We're using algorithms based on genetic interactions in software engineering.

The fear of GM foods is, put in software terms, that if you introduced a feature into an existing software set, you run the real risk of also introducing bugs. No software developer would ever let a new feature set leave the dev lab without thorough regression testing, and genetic engineers should take that into account as well.

Here's the thing. Engineers work with things that are designed. The Information Technology field, including software engineering, is based on the fact that somebody came up with the programming languages, compilers, interpreters, storage systems and processors with which you ply your art. There is a certain elegance in the way living creatures are put together that collectively forms a giant flashing beeping sign pointing at the Great Software Developer. We talk about the design of the hand, or the eye, or the blood-clotting system, because there is no better word to describe what we're dealing with. A design implies a designer always... except when dealing with God, apparently.

Even the most strident atheist evolutionary biologist will not deny that life appears to have been designed. The simplest answer and solution to why this is so, well, is because life was designed. So I believe, and so I profess.

A cult dissected

2009-05-31T21:28:00.000+08:00

Are cults bad? Yes, they are, for the most part. It's not always what they teach, but it's the effect they have on their members, and the society at large. The problem is, they proliferate like cockroaches, because people have a need to congregate and belong to something larger than themselves. Cults are not only religious in nature; there are personality cults, for instance. It may be useful to know, generally speaking, just what a cult looks like.

Now, I'm not taking aim at any cult, but just laying out what I think the general characteristics of a cult are. Why do something like this when there are a few million other sites out there who can do the same thing (and in fact do the same thing)? Well, because I can - it's my blog, after all. But also because I think a lot of people can benefit from a mature discussion of cults and cultic behaviour. I know, I know, many atheists (especially of the strawman kind, of which there are distressingly a large number) believe all religions and belief systems are cults, but bear with me.

Doctrine
Contrary to popular belief, cults do not necessarily have to espouse different doctrines to mainstream religions. Heretic cults do, but not all cults. However, if you do espouse mutually antagonistic doctrines to the core doctrines of a mainstream religion, then by definition you are a heretic cult, and there are no two ways about it. For example, in Christianity, almost all denominations are in agreement that (i) the Triune God created the universe (let's not quibble over the amount of time it took, because let's face facts, time is a relative thing whether you're a YEC like myself or not); (ii) Mankind was created to be stewards over creation, but we screwed it up; (iii) Through God's plans, which included raising up a people and a nation unto Himself, the Israelites (or the Jews, as they are commonly called now), so that His Son Jesus Christ, a Jew born to Jews who is somehow both fully God and fully Man, having a dual-nature, may be born and raised in their midst, we now have the opportunity to become part of God's family, and (iv) we may become godly but not Godlike or Gods ourselves. Any group holding doctrines contrary to this and still calling themselves Christians are cults. Of course, if they don't self-identify as such, then they may or may not be cults; not sufficient information.

Membership/Conversion/Retention
A surefire way of identifying a cult is by looking at the way they treat their members. Some or all of these may apply;

Their idea of obtaining new members is aggressiveness and persistence. Sometimes annoyance, but that is a subjective issue. Unfortunately, the ways and means of such expansions are hard to pinpoint; at some stage, though, it may simply become the law of the land.
As you delve deeper and deeper into the inner councils of the cult, there are initiation rituals that become less and less open to the rest of the world (and even the group itself).
You are encouraged very strongly to limit your social exposure to fellow cult members. Your entire life must revolve around cult activities and group interactions, so much so that even your marriage is dictated by such membership. Marriage to a non-cultist (if permitted at all) must serve to bring them inside the cult, and your children must be indoctrinated into the cult as soon as possible. In some cults, your money is sucked away from you, and you're basically guilt-tripped into this.
Exiting the cult is forbidden on pains of death, or worse. What could be worse? Well, a total severance of your former relationships, even with your spouse, or children, or other family. You will be shunned, a social pariah amongst the other cultists, generally blacklisted and blackballed. In severe cases, 'interventions' may be staged which include brainwashing, social reconditioning, etc.

No matter how large or outwardly respectable any organisation is, if two or more of these apply, then you are surely dealing with a cult.

Outsiders
All cults look on outsiders (non-cultists) in one of two ways (and there is no third way); (i) potentially future cultists, and thus to be persistently approached, or (ii) fools and enemies of the state, either to be destroyed on sight or to be judiciously used to further cult goals before discarded and destroyed, depending on how dangerous and intelligent they are perceived to be. Outsiders are never seen as neutral; if they cannot be brought into the fold then they cannot be trusted or relied upon as friendly.

All of this, by the way, is the default, 'ideal' operational mode of a cult. That is to say, it's the theory, at any rate. In practice, it's not so simple as all that. It depends on the size of your cult, as well as its influence on the neighbourhoods and communities the cult has a presence in. It also depends on how committed the individual cultists are - as with all groups, you can have those ranging from the most fervent fundamentalists, to those who are Cultists In Name Only. Of course, the range is not as great, and by the very definition of a cult you'd have far more committed members than not.

Applying these rules of thumb, however, can help you identify a potential cult before you enter into any kind of relationship with them. By these yardsticks, JWs and Mormons are cults, Islam potentially verges on being a cult, and sadly enough, historically speaking, Roman Catholics and Protestants both have acted in rather cultish manners.

Such cultish behaviour, by the way, is only exaggerated online. Go ahead; join any Internet forum you wish; say one on, oh, Manchester United. Then say something complimentary about Barcelona, or Real Madrid, or Liverpool. Just try. I guarantee you, you will instantly see what I mean.

The nature of identity

2009-05-27T22:53:00.001+08:00

Typically, amnesiacs on TV are shown to ask "Who am I?" as the first question out of their mouths when they come to. For any number of reasons, the show usually then revolves around them trying to rediscover their memories, so that they can recover themselves and reclaim their self-identity.

This post is not so much looking at identity as how the world sees it, or what the legal definition of it is. What I am trying to discover here is how we perceive identity - that is, how do we see ourselves?

The nature of our identity is of primary importance - if we know who we are and why we are, then we can have a better idea of where we want to go, or what needs to be done to get us to who we want to become. The question then arises: who are we, and how do we construct our identity?

It's a complex issue. The Judaeo-Christian view of Man is holistic and threefold; body, mind and soul. We are expressed in three dimensions, that is to say; physically, mentally and spiritually. None of these are more important than the other - you cannot function as a proper human being without any of the three. So naturally, one would hope that people understood and accepted their identity as holistic in nature.

Alas, this is not the case. As we know, many people make a single facet of their being an identity unto itself. Bad enough that someone else does it to you, but to do it to yourself...? An identity is not a simple thing. I am a Chinese by descent (and if I had a choice, that too), Malaysian by nationality, male by right of XY chromosomal pairs, fat by genetics and behaviour, omnisexual by impulse and heterosexual by choice, a marketer by education and trade, a Christian by God's grace, an Anglican by birth, baptism and confirmation. That does not even begin to sum up my identity, or how I see myself, not by a long shot. I have yet to describe my temperament, my likes and dislikes, my hopes, dreams, goals etc.

But here's what really gets me. I am no stranger to discrimination; you cannot be a Chinese Christian living in Malaysia and say honestly that you have never been discriminated against in a systematic, non-personal way. And indeed, by no means am I race-neutral or colour-blind or what-have-you; Chinese are the superior race and destined to conquer the world one way or the other (although espousing Anglo-Saxon values alongside Chinese ones, speaking English and spreading the Gospel by preference so I'm not saying your typical Ah Pek is going to cut it). But that isn't all of who I am, not even a quarter. Yes, it underlies me, but I am certainly not going to march up and down the streets of Putrajaya just because of it - and when I see this Feminist Pride, or Gay Pride, or Black Power stuff disgracing themselves in front of the world, it really really bugs me.

Now mind you, it's not the 'in-your-face' stuff that bugs me - the dressing, or the strident voices, or the interminably anvilicious speeches. That's all an irritation, but I can turn off the telly, no big deal. No, it's the fact that... I dunno, that it demonstrates a certain degree of shallowness to the people who turn out in these things. It's one thing to take pride in an achievement, you see, so if you're in a parade because you're part of the police force, or the Navy, or the fire brigade, then march proudly, because you have made a conscious choice to serve in a particular capacity. The Scottish bagpipers can take pride in their mastery of that... unique musical instrument, shall we say.

But no, these jokers are going in the various X Pride parades and marches for something they (supposedly) have no control or choice over. Worse; they define themselves, and derive their identity, from a single facet of a single dimension of their being. And to such people, I would like to pose this question: W. T. F?!

Seriously, think about it. In the same way that racists react negatively to you because you are a Negro, you are the flip side of the coin, but you still accept other people's definition of you as a Negro, or a Latino, or a homosexual. You buy into their perception, only that you're saying it's a good thing, not a bad thing. You derive your self-worth and your self-identity from being part of a group largely defined not by actions or ideals, but by a singular characteristic (physical in many cases).

Isn't there more to you than that? Aren't you worth more than just your genitals, or your skin colour, or your prurient thoughts? Wouldn't it be better if you could say that you are proud, not because you are a woman, but because you are the Mayor of Tokyo? Or not because you are gay, but because you are a faithful husband and biological father of three? Or not because you are black, but because you are the CEO of AGL?

As stated earlier, identity is complex. There is no doubt that our physical selves are fundamental and core to the way we see ourselves. And of course, we shouldn't be defining ourselves solely on our achievements either. ALl I am saying is, we shouldn't accept other people's stereotypes of ourselves and adopt that as our identity; there needs to be more than that.

Sadly, I cannot see these people coming out in full force during Asian-American Appreciation Week as demonstrating any kind of depth to their character and showcasing the fullness of their identities. But then again, I'm tired and it's near bed time. Quite possibly my own brans have shut down by now.

And now, for something completely different

2009-05-20T21:58:00.000+08:00

I have been saving up my leave, and will continue to do so for the rest of the year, so that I can go back to Australia for a visit. My siblings are there, after all.

One of the things I miss about Down Under is the food. Even though Malaysia truly has an outstanding selection of food choices, nevertheless there are certain economic peculiarities about Australia that make for a gourmand's paradise.

Some examples; in South Australia, where I spend most of my years, chicken breasts were muchly prized (presumably because they were lean meat) and hence most of the restaurants and hawker outlets cooked with chicken thighs, drumsticks and wings. Another thing is that Malaysian restaurants, especially the non-German and non-Chinese ones, are predominantly pork-free, this being a nod to economic reality with a Muslim-majority population. I miss my pork ribs and bacon, what can I say?

But the one thing I miss the most, which is available only in two North Adelaide shops AFAIK, is the AB. Usually bowdlerised as Atomic Bomb (because you'll feel like you'd explore after eating it), it's actually short for abortion, and it's as messy as the word implies. With a base of Aussie chips (sort of short, fat fries), yiros meat (chicken, lamb or both), garlic sauce (and lots of it), chilli and BBQ sauces, it is truly heart attack food. And oh boy, is it ever tasty...

Yes, it's silly to spend a few grand just to have some food. but oh, so satisfying.

TVTropes introduction

2009-05-15T20:31:00.000+08:00

I have been spending the past 3 months or so rummaging through the most fascinating little site known as TVTropes. It is a listing of, well... let's explain a bit of terminology as used by the site first. The term trope, in context, is a kind of mnemonic shortcut based on a cultural understanding which allows storytellers (it says TV, but really storytellers in any medium) to tell their story without explicitly setting everything up. To give you an example, if I wanted to tell a fairytale, all I need to do is add a princess, a handsome price, maybe an evil stepmother, and a good witch. Once I have all these elements, the story practically writes itself! Each element (trope) carries a certain expectation with it, and tells the audience what to expect. Its usefulness, therefore, is limited to the viewer having seen (or at least possess some familiarity to) this kind of setup before; for example, if you have never seen Mythbusters or Top Gear (Braniacs, Smash Lab etc etc etc) before, then you might not understand why there is such a thing as Education Through Pyrotechnics.

It is an immensely time-consuming site, which is why I haven't resumed my old habits of dropping by my usual blog haunts. Not to mention, incredibly addictive. The worst thing is, you can now see all of these 'tropes' in real life; when I see two girls chumming up, immediately I'm thinking LesYay. Remembering my old schoolmate, who was a HotLibrarian as well as a Meganekko, whose voice never went above a whisper except that one time when it created an EarthShatteringKaboom, I am reminded that you really need to BewareTheNiceOnes.

Have no idea what I'm talking about? Go to the site and search the terms, one of the most fun things to do.

TVTropes is fun, don't doubt it. There is a seriousness behind it, though, in the sense that mostly, these tropes come about because there is a common body of knowledge and cultural osmosis, so to speak, that enables the storytellers to draw upon shared experiences that most people will be able to grasp. Because of this, there is a certain amount of realism in these tropes, which can be looked at in a deeper sense - and that is what I will be thinking about for the next few posts. Assuming I can tear myself away long enough to post, of course.

Programming Languages and Salvation

2009-01-14T23:00:00.000+08:00

Ooh, I'm on a roll here.

How do these two compare? But first, some digression to set up the topic.

Here is a 1 year old comparison of the top 5 most popular programming languages in use (source is TIOBE, go ahead and quibble with their stats if you want, but I just want to make a point here).

19.022% Java
15.931% C
10.116% C++
9.161% Visual Basic
8.882% PHP

What do these languages have in common? You won't think they did, really, but here's what - they're not as 'correct' as Ada. Let's take them one at a time.

Java is really popular because it supposedly allows you to write code that's easy to port - move to a different system altogether. It is not strongly typed, though, and it is quite easy to write very buggy code.

C is the quintessential old-school programming language, and has been called the portable assembler, not without reason. Usually, you would use C to write really low level stuff such as device drivers, operating systems, and code for embedded systems. And it is super easy to write WTF code.

C++ is an object-oriented superset of C, which simply means you can write WTF code in even more ways. What fun.

Visual Basic is a Microsoft offering, and it should come as no surprise to everyone that a lot of Windows software is written using VB. And because it looks easy to use, WTFs wander everywhere amongst the VB community. A lot of programmers look down on VB programmers, to be honest.

PHP is really a web-centric scripting language; but even using it in its proper environment WTFs are also everywhere.

Now, let's look at the more 'safe' languages - where it's harder to write code because the language (and the compiler which enforces the language) forces you to write proper code which is more correct and more bug-free - and what are the numbers associated with them? Well...

Pascal (an Algol-variant, and hence kin to Ada) comes in at ~0.67%, and Delphi (another Algol variant) weigs in at 3.3%. C#, a stonger-typed language with Java-like (and hence C-like) syntax, comes in at 5.6%. Ada isn't even in the list.

We now know, therefore, that despite the various weaknesses of the top 5 programming languages, they are in use by over half of the programmers around. But why? All general-purpose programming languages are Turing-complete; that is to say, whatever you want to compute in one, you can theoretically compute in all the others. So why use an unsafe language, when there are plenty of safer ones around? Well, the answer is that programmers don't like safe languages. Let the runtime or the garbage collector take care of potential memory leaks, why should I have to write code that manages this? Why do I have to explicitly typecast? Let the language do the conversion for me. Now I must note here that not all programmers are like this; many just grew up with C, for instance, or its descendants, and Ada is very verbose.

Never mind that. In the early era of Windows, it was a cooperative multitasking environment. Windows 3.x as I mentioned earlier had no notion of security whatsoever. Microsoft assumed that if you screwed stuff up, it was because you didn't mean to (why would anyone deliberately stuff up, after all) , and so its safety precautions were based on that.

Strange, because the first PC virus came on the scene 1986 as a joke. And now, of course, we know that given the right way and the wrong way of doing things, people will inevitably choose the wrong way if it seems easier than the right way. Raymond Chen's blog is replete with examples of such behaviour.

Software engineers and developers, especially those who write operating system code, now know that they can no longer assume the 'user' or programmer to be benign. In fact, their default position is now to consider all the many millions of ways someone can try to break their system, and toughen it up even more. This is why system administrators lock down corporate and public computers, after all.

And now you begin to see how this ties in with salvation. You will not find a single IT guy out there worth his salt, who believes that people are by nature well-behaved on computer systems, they just need the proper knowledge and tools. Not one. To a man they will affirm that most if not all users are either incurably stupid, incorrigibly pig-ignorant, or far more convinced of their skills than they actually are skilled. To make things worse, they themselves slip up too.

Which is what Christians including myself have been saying all this time, really. People are not good by nature. We're lazy. We prefer the easy way, even if it's the wrong way. We're plain bad.

And we need someone who's like us, and yet not like us, to break the cycle.

Windows Vista and Jesus Christ

2009-01-13T22:59:00.001+08:00

Hah! Betcha you didn't think I could write something coherent about the two subjects, right? Well, I can and I will. But first, some background.

One of the things that people get seriously flustered (and frustrated) about the Christian view (or doctrine) towards Jesus is our insistence that He is dual-natured; both fully God and fully Man (at the same time, but that goes without saying). Some claim He is merely a man (Muslims, you know), others that He is 'only' God (Arians come to mind). Still others say He's half/half. Hmm. Sorta biracial, you might say. Homo sapiens and Theos omnipoten, so to speak. We'll get back to that.

Moving now to the security models adopted by operating systems (and you may see why these security models are needed and how they came to be). in Unix and Unix-based (POSIX) systems, there are two kinds of users; root (superuser) and user. Remember that Unix came about on mainframes and dumb terminals; the root was the administrator and basically did all the systems work, and the users were the ones who ran programs and did their work on the computer. In Unix, it was an all-or-nothing scenario; either you were an ordinary user, or you were root.

The Microsoft approach in MS-DOS, Windows 3.x, and on through the 9x series to Windows ME was different. Because these operating systems ran on Personal Computers (PCs), the concept of root and user had absolutely no meaning, and no distinction was made. In fact, in MS-DOS, you had absolute freedom to do just about anything and everything you wanted.

Windows NT and its successors (Win2K, WinXP, Vista, Win2k3, etc etc etc) supported a more flexible security model. There are several different kinds of actions supported by every 'thing' (or object), and the combination of whether you were allowed to perform certain specific actions determined your security level. This allowed for a more granular control over which user can do what, although in the home, usually it amounted to the Unix model of having 'root' (called Administrator) and 'user' (called Limited User). In the corporate environment, it is possible to be much more fine-grained.

Now, you can probably tell what the shortcomings of the first two approaches were, and why I prefer the NT security model. Unfortunately, because a large number of people moved to Windows 2000 from Windows 9x, which made no security decisions and pretty much amounted to the 'Administrator' security level, a large number of applications made underlying assumptions that only held true if they maintained themselves at that level. Hence, even in Windows XP, if you switched to being a Limited User, oh so many programs got screwed.

In Windows Vista, Microsoft tried to change the way in which Windows worked, so that it was practical to run as Limited User and programs did not break. A lot of very interesting (and to me at least, clever) tricks were pulled off to make this happen, but I am only interested in one scenario; where you ran as a member of the Administrators group.

Strangely enough, in the usual way of things, you were a Limited User. You were given all the protections (and limitations) of the Limited User group... until you needed to do something only Administrators can do. At this point, Windows sort of stops everything and asks you whether you were sure you wanted to do something Administrator-ish. Once you said yes, Windows went ahead and did it, and then bang! you're went back to being still mostly protected as a Limited User. The difference between this and running explicitly as a Limited User is that as a Limited User, you needed to call upon a member of the Administrator group (or know the password, which is the same thing) - in this case, you're using your own authority. Doing something Administrator-ish is called elevating your rights, and when Windows asked you to confirm it, it was prompting for elevation.

Now how Windows Vista does this is not the issue here (in fact, it created two security tokens, IDs if you like, and if you could get away with using the limited one, that's what it did, otherwise it would prompt for elevation). So you could ask the question, "Am I an Administrator, or a Limited User?" The actual answer is, both. And at the same time. Go ahead and check; if you have Office 2007 installed, try to run Excel twice. You should get two windows of Excel, one with Book1, and the other with Book2. But, if you run Excel once, and then again using Run as administrator, both windows of Excel with report as Book1. That is to say, Excel is running both under you as Administrator, and you as Limited User.

Which goes back to the original issue of Jesus' nature; is He God, Man, both, or half of each? The answer is the same; He is both fully God, and fully Man, and at the same time - just as you are fully Administrator, and fully Limited User, at the same time. Now, no analogy is perfect, and the Trinity as well as the dual-nature of Jesus Christ, are and will likely remain mysteries. However, this one comes pretty close.

Are you fully Administrator (otherwise known as God-mode)? Yes; you can pretty much run everything as Administrator. One of the interesting things is that the Administrator token (or ID) is passed on, so if you initially ran Explorer in Administrator mode, everything is thereafter run using the Administrator token.

Are you fully Limited User? Yes; if you answer every elevation prompt (otherwise known as that pesky thing UAC) negatively, your privileges remain that of a Limited User for everything.

Are you both at the same time? Yes; you can mix and match all you like. As you've seen, you can run any program as Administrator and Limited User at once. In fact, that is how you are recognised by Windows, because of your two security tokens - Windows recognises you as both simultaneously, and will treat you in however you want it to.

Here's one more thing. If you were in the system as a normal Limited User, then if you needed to do something in God-mode, you needed the password of the Administrator. This is because you are actually using the authority of the Administrator to do it. In the scenario I created, you don't have to - because that authority is your own, and in your own right. Hmm, sort of like how Jesus could teach with authority, and the others could not, isn't it?

And that is how the topics of Windows Vista and Jesus Christ can be tied together.

Are those tests useful for anything?

2009-01-11T21:28:00.001+08:00

You may notice that I have a few of these personality test results on my blog. Do they mean anything?

Well... yes and no. I'm not trying to brag that I'm a dorky nerd or a geek... not exactly something mainstream guys are likely to admit to, right? Nevertheless, they do provide you some insight into my personality. Although, not the best method around, but it's close.

Strangely enough, I don't like being pigeonholed by others. I can pigeonhole myself, sure, but no one else had better do so. To make it slightly more difficult, I deliberately go out of my way to do stuff I otherwise won't do.

Hence, while my base personality outline is Male, Heterosexual, Christian, Nerd/Geek, there are elements foreign to the stereotypes (or what I perceive the stereotypes to be, any way - you're welcome to correct me).

For example, take a look at the theme I've got running on this blog. It's PINK, ain't it? Not something you'd expect from a guy, but there you are. And I read (present tense) romance novels (and series, like the Sweet Valley High stuff) and older classics like the Anne of Green Gable series. Also, not exactly something you'd expect from a straight guy, no?

Of course, F&SF genres don't usually mix with Christians - at least, some more fundie type Christians. Strange, because I consider myself as one of those fundies - YEC, plain reading of Bible, infallibility of original authographs as dictated by God's Holy Spirit, etc etc etc. But there you are - I'm a huge (A)D&D fan, not to mention Eddings, Feist, Goodkind, and so on.

And, of course, lasciviousness *is* something you'd associate with nerd-types, but hey! I'm not exactly unsociable...

Now, if you were trying to fit me in a category, like the abovementioned 'tests', then overwhelmingly by base type comes out. But some degree of 'skinning' and customisation has occurred, you know?

GeekBlogger Interlude 2

2009-01-09T00:15:00.001+08:00

Reading Raymond Chen's blog (The Old New Thing) is an eye opener. Now, to be fair, I do not consider myself a programmer. I can program, true enough. But I'm a WTF programmer. Good enough to know that the code I read is pretty bad code, good enough to see how it can be made better, but crappy enough to know that a fair amount of my code will look like WTFs all by themselves. Nevertheless, I can criticise with the best of them, and providing I lurk long enough, can masquerade as a 'native'.

One of the things that come up in his blog (All The Time) is compatibility. Has anyone ever wondered if you can run 16-bit Windows 3.x code in Windows Vista? You can. You can run 16 bit DOS code in Windows Vista as well, should you really, really want to. And when you consider the sheer differences between the design of DOS (which is not really an OS by modern standards - well, a crappy, minimalistic one at any rate) and the design of Windows 16-bit and Windows 32-bit, this can boggle the mind. Some of the stuff Microsoft programmers manage to pull off will both awe and appall you. It's truly miraculous how Windows manages to run, and run reasonably well (as of writing, my uptime in Vista with two browsers (and ~10 tabs in total), 2 P2P programs, various TSRs - well, the Win32 equivalents thereof - an antivirus, a dual-pane file manager and various sundry programs executed and exited is 318 hours or 13 days 6 hours).

In 64bit Vista/XP, however, you can't. That's because the V86 mode (Virtual 8086) which Windows relies on to do 16-bit code cannot be switched to when you run in 64-bit mode. This is slightly beside the point - even moving between Win9x and WinNT code bases, and heading into WinXP, Raymond Chen and the rest of the Windows core teams had lots of fun (read: blood, toil, tears and sweat, not to mention swear words) ensuring that every buggy piece of Windows software managed to run in the next version of Windows - even when these buggy Windows software did stuff they shouldn't.

That's what compatibility means in the computer world. When we say that Jack and Jill are compatible, we usually mean that they were made for each other. But when some IT geek says Jill is Gina-compatible, he's not talking about lesbian soulmates; oh no, what's he's saying is something to the effect that JILL (e.g. Java Identity Login Layer) can masquerade or take the place of GINA (Graphical Identification aNd Authentication). BTW, I don't think JILL actually exists, okay? I just made it up on the spot. So when Jack goes out with Jill, he's actually thinking he's having a date with Gina. And when he's makin' sweet, sweet love to Jill, he's actually crying out "Gina! Gina! Gina!"

Let's face facts: this situation sucks. Because Jack expects Gina-like behaviour, Jill can't act like herself - even if Jill's way, way smarter, and far prettier, and much better in the sack. It would utterly crash Jack to find out that he's not gettin' jiggy with Gina.

A proposed solution from some people is virtualisation. This is where instead of ensuring Jill behaved and acted like Gina, it was like having a copy of Gina's personality (call her schizo-Jill) instead. That way, Jill remains Jill, and Gina's still Gina.

Now, normally people think of virtualisation as actually installing a virtualisation software like Virtual PC or VMWare or something, but wouldn't it be better if instead of virtualising the whole machine, you only virtualised the high-level stuff? After all, Jill's a Woman, and so is Gina. You don't have to fake the hardware bits much, really, just the parts that matter. Strangely enough, Windows could accommodate that sort of behaviour. And why not? The original Windows NT was designed to be as modular as possible. You had the low-level micro-kernel, the HAL (Hardware Abstraction Layer, which provides a single view of hardware regardless of what it was underneath), and then you had the subsystems which rode on top of the low-level OS. Windows NT and its successors (Win2K, WinXP, WinVista, and soon enough, Win7) supported almost every subsystem there ever was. OS/2 (which was the original default subsystem, believe it or not), DOS, Windows 16-bit (otherwise known as Win16), Windows 32-bit (Win32), Windows 64-bit (presumably Win64), and Unix (via the Interix subsystem). In fact, the only major desktop OS subsystem Windows has never implemented (or have implemented by someone else) on the NT platform is the MacOS - and the Mac's running BSD (a Unix) on Intel processors now. So the idea's not as stupid as it sounds.

One problem. When you speak of a subsystem in NT, what you're actually talking about is the API, or Application Programming Interface. This is a contract - if you're programming on Win32 APIs, it pretty much says that "As long as you promise to do ONLY what is documented functionality in these APIs, we guarantee that as long as we implement Win32 APIs, your program will work flawlessly". In theory, of course. In practice, there are a largish number of programs that don't do this. Instead, they peek and poke into internal structures and directly do stuff assuming these structures will never change. In effect, instead of calling Undress(Girlfriend), they look at what the Undress() procedure did, as well as which structures it was manipulating, and proceeded to call Unfasten(Blouse.Buttons); Unzip(Skirt.Zip); Unhook(Bra.MetalClasp); and so on. And then the next version of Undress() did something different like Unzip(Dress.Zip); Eat(EdibleBra) and the program blew up because it didn't expect that. And yet, both procedures are Undress(). And it is the same Win32 API you're talking about.

Is there a proper solution? I don't know. But it's surely interesting trying to find out :)

New Year Stuff

2009-01-07T22:54:00.000+08:00

Okay, so the new year has rolled around - Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

Still on my GeekBlogger Interlude, until the end of Jan, more or less (Chinese New Year falls on Jan 26th, which coincidentally is the very date for Australia Day). So, let's continue to roll, shall we?

When I consider all the possible programming languages in the world (at least those that vaguely look like English), I come back to my first ever programming language learned (aside from scripts/batch files); Ada. What do I like about Ada? Well, pretty much everything, really. It's clean, it's elegant, it's named after the first ever programmer (woman programmer, at that!), it's fully documented, but the biggest thing I love about Ada is that it's really, really hard to write WTF code with it. The IOCCC gives you an idea how easy it is to bugger up C source; doing the same with Ada requires two hundred times the amount of creativity and ingenuity (or sheer bad luck).

C is, as many people have put it, a portable assembler. We're not exactly at the MOV AX, CX level when we use C, but you can certainly emit some seriously bollixed source code in C. There are programming languages out there that will compile whatever you write (the compilers for these languages pretty much modify your code until it does something, just not necessarily what you want or thought it would do); Ada compilers pretty much sit on your code until you fix everything.

Considering that Ada is a real-time, concurrent, multi-threading, object-oriented language used by the military all over the world, it's really no wonder it's mighty hard to bring down. But see, here's the thing. If you learn to code in Ada, switching to any other language is going to suck balls, and suck hard. In Ada, there's a lot of stuff that the compiler enforces on you that other languages call 'good coding practices'. If you write code in Ada, it's practically impossible to get buffer overruns - simply because the language prevents it. Move over to another language, much less strongly typed and where your input is not sanitised... say, VB, or even C++, and bye bye! to your compiler checks.

Of course, you could always emit Ada-like code in such languages, but you also have to write your own buffer-overflow detection and prevention code. And that's stupid - the compiler should do that for you.

So, yeah, anyways, I like Ada a lot.

A GeekBlogger Interlude

2008-12-19T22:51:00.001+08:00

Having finished a fun time of the US elections, being slightly disappointed that Mr BHOmbastic won, and moving towards the end of the year (thus having done even less work than usual), I thought I would switch my blog reading focus from the conservative blogs to the tech blogs instead.

Now, obviously, part of it is simply the fact that just reading political blogs can lead to a bit of a burn out (not that it's a real excuse), but really I just happen to be a geek. One who is overweight, nay, even obese, sure, but a real geek nonetheless. So I find myself perusing Shark Tank and The Daily WTF (What The Fuck!). Sharky, unfortunately, updates once a day only, whereas Alex over at TDWTF updates more often - but more importantly, I haven't read all of Alex's blog, and I've read all of Shark Tank.

What can I say? The comments are funny beyond belief, especially if you grok code (even pseudocode), and there are some posts that cannot be believed. :) More to the point; even though I'm a lurker (by choice; most people there code in C, .Net or Java or other OOPs and I code mostly in Ada) there's a sense of connection to the whole software development community (Raymond Chen, for instance, hangs out there every now and then, aside from his own blog).

One of the best posts I came across was on the abuse of the C preprocessor. For those of you who may not know what is going on, the C programming environment includes a pre-processor, which takes your source code (plain ASCII text, mostly) and applies some pre-defined transformations to it. This, amongst other things, allows you to abstract some of C's rather terse syntax and operators. For example, you could do something like

#define TRUE 0
#define FALSE 1
#define FILE_NOT_FOUND -1

in your code, and when the pre-processor swept through your code, it would automatically replace every instance of TRUE, FALSE and FILE_NOT_FOUND with the integers they were defined as. Hence, you could say something like "return TRUE" and it would be the same as "return 0".

Now, it goes without saying that the preprocessor is a pretty powerful tool, and while C is not the only language to have it, it is one of the languages that often gets seriously wacky evil code written, where the evilness depended on the preprocessor.

Well, you can read all about it yourself, but suffice it to say that someone beat up on C badly enough to turn it into a variant of Pascal or Ada. The true punchline for me, though, was the comment on skinnable programming languages. Don't like a specific language? Don't use it! Find one that you like, and skin the old language to meet the new one.

Maybe you need to be a geek or a nerd to appreciate the humour. It nearly killed me laughing. The thought of someone beating up on C++ to turn it into Visual Basic (while still using the C++ compiler and other tools) was bad enough, but even worse was my remembering that the IOCCC once had a winning entry that used precisely this method; the best thing was, it was a perfectly compilable program on two languages, but it did something different depending on which language compiler you used.

I'll stop boring you lot now, but the whole idea of skinnable programming languages greatly appeals to me. Just one last thought; a compiler converts your source code (in human readable text, however complicated it can seem at first glance) to machine language (binary bits of 0s and 1s). Compilers for different languages convert different source code to the same machine language. Won't you call that the ultimate skinnable programming language?

Blog update

2008-11-25T19:52:00.001+08:00

Yes, the Big G is still around. Just haven't had much time to update my blog much; regretfully, real life is interfering somewhat.

No matter, I have some vacation days coming to me around Christmas, so that's when you'll get a whole slew of stuff from me.

The Big G is Joe too! A Moronblogger Rant

2008-10-18T14:21:00.001+08:00

Going around the conservative blogs today is the idea that we are all 'regular Joes' and we should say as much to the effete political elite... whoever and wherever they may be. This idea strikes close to my heart and the American dream is not restricted to citizens of the USA, so here's my go at it.

Alright, listen up, ladies and gentlemen, girls and boys, and you motherfucking dickheads and cuntlicking bitches in the press, and in Washington, and in the so-called halls of power everywhere governments exist; I AM JOE!

I am the offspring of an engineer and a stenographer, who were civil servants when civil service was still an honourable thing to do. While I don't mind office wear, I'm most comfortable in a tee and briefs - boxers if I have to. I eat in coffeeshops and not cafes most if not all of the time. Plain water from the spigot does me just fine. I buy regular eggs and cook regular chicken and dump a whole lot of garlic and pepper into my food. I do my own washing, iron my own shirts, air-dry the laundry, hand-wash the dishes and take out the garbage. Hell, I even download my own porn.

I AM JOE!

I want lower taxes, less government interference, and every newspaper can go FOAD and DIAF for all I give a shit. I want transparency and accountability from the assholes in Parliament, or Congress. I want freer markets and dammit, I want you bastards to keep your hands off my guns!

I AM JOE! And so are many of my friends. So just go away and let us do our stuff. Or we will throw you out of office and into obscurity, if your luck does not fail you.

F&SF - the genres for the anal-retentive

2008-10-12T17:13:00.001+08:00

So, I was reading about an interview conducted by Terry Goodkind (writer of the Sword of Truth series), and in the course of this interview, he says this...

Throughout the series, my goal has been to steer the covers away from
traditional fantasy covers because I'm not writing fantasy. I'm
accidentally published by a fantasy publisher so I get thrown in with
that genre, but my books are no more fantasy than a detective novel is
a "gun book." What makes me nuts about the fantasy genre is that,
unlike any other genre, people become obsessed and focused on
irrelevant things. For example, in a detective novel, if a detective
has a Snub Nose 38, no one asks him questions like "Can we know more
about the Snub Nose 38?" or "Have you ever thought of doing some kind
of special story just about the Snub Nose 38?" It's a distraction.

Now, it is no secret that Terry Goodkind is an objectivist, at it shines through every single page of his books. As a Christian, I can take about half of the stuff he's talking about - after all, I'm not a Randian, but I am conservative - but amongst the other things I can't take is that drivel quoted above. Terry, you ass, whether you like it or not, you are a writer in the F&SF genres. And here's why.

You notice other genres don't have people obsessed and focused on irrelevant things as in the fantasy genre? You dimwitted knucklehead, what about Science Fiction (SF)? Or do you consider them one and the same? You dyslexic amoeba, you wanna know why this is the case? Let's enlighten you...

F&SF are parts of a larger genre known as 'speculative fiction'. Yes, you can argue about it if you like, but most people intuitively 'get it' about what spec-fic is. The other fiction genres (not in speculative fiction) all have one thing in common - they use our current space/time continuum as the backdrop to their stories, and assume the same (or broadly similar) historical events up to the moment of the fiction's start. That means to say, using the example as given above, if you really wanted to know about a snub-nosed .38 Special, you could actually look it up. Now that I come to think about it, in the USA, it's entirely possible that you have an Uncle Andy who was once a PI, and you can ask him about it. Long story short, the piece of fiction does not have to deal with so-called 'irrelevant' details because they are details assumed in knowledge of the reader - or easily accessible to the reader.

In speculative fiction, especially the F&SF parts of it, the only information you can assume the reader knows about your world is human nature (perhaps, and only if you're dealing with humans in the first place). That, and what you decide to reveal. Now, how you do these reveals, obviously, is up to you. Most SF place these reveals as part of the storyline (take Stargate: SG1, for instance, where Col O'Neill is forever never understanding what Carter and Jackson are explaining, so they have to slow down and dumb it down for his benefit - and ours); others in footnotes, endnotes and God-notes aka 'authorial asides' (George Lucas does this somewhat with his prologue bits in Star Wars). Still others weave it into the whole story in bits and pieces, so that after you've read the whole thing, you get the idea.

Now, many authors will say that it's really the storyline that matters. It's the character development and the plot that are the drivers for the story, and not the 'details'. But have they, and you, ever considered that this is only true if the 'details' don't jar the readers out of their suspension of disbelief? The alternative is what I call Japanimation syndrome - 'Anything Goes!' But the only reason they get away with it is because anime is often so over the top it's expected, and written off. I mean, where else in the worlds of fiction would it be so hard to get plane tickets from Japan to China, so that you can dunk yourself in some hot springs? And yet that is the entire premise of Ranma 1/2. Or to become so hideously overpowered that even after you die, you can come back to life every so often and kick the ass of anybody? Dragonball ring a bell? And then there's the card game whose rules always favour the storyline progression, or Yu-Gi-Oh! could not have been so lucky. If you wanna go that route, then do a Discworld-type story - but even then, you know.

Incidentally, this is not true for 'shared universe' stories. If you're writing a Dragonlance series, or a Forgotten Realms novel, you can dispense with all of the details, but only because Wizards of the Coast has done the hard work for you. Why do you think that Tolkien's considered the father of epic fantasy? Because he fleshed out his world so completely, you can translate the Bible into Sindarin or Quenya.

Hence, Terry, F&SF are genres where you supply the details. And because the people who read F&SF are the kind of people who like details (hence the title of this post), you'd better make sure the details are as correct, as detailed, and as logical as necessary. And if you think you've got a problem, you haven't met my sister yet. Working in the microbiological sciences field, she constantly nit-picks CSI for its magical PCR machines that can do stuff in that time-compressed manner TV is so good at.

Conservatism Big G Style - Introspective Series part 3

2008-10-10T23:04:00.001+08:00

With the Nov elections in the US coming up soon, it may be instructive to see why I, a non-American, self-identify so closely with the conservative Republican framework. It certainly is true that my take on the matter is uniquely my own; however, it does track quite closely to that of the typical right-winger.

However, before we get started, let's have a look at the framework I work off - Christianity.

- Religious Belief - Christianity
Now, all kinds of people have all kinds of ideas about what religion is. I prefer to think of it as your fundamental life axiom. Regardless of your upbringing, everything around you - your social interactions, the world, events, information, life itself - in short, all you think, all you sense, all you experience - feed into your sense of how things 'ought to be'. You can call it metaphysics if you like, but really, it's just your platform, your foundation, upon which everything else is built.

By this working definition of mine, atheism is a religion. Naturalism is a religion. Marxism, even, can be a religion. And certainly, if you see everything through a political lens, then Leftism is a religion too.

You can't run away from this, by the way. Axioms are unprovable assumptions; first principles, upon which everything else is derived. Even if you say you are a freethinking rationalist, you are working off the assumption that everything has an rational explanation, the vast majority of the time, such an explanation will involve only that which is bound by space/time and matter/energy. Which you can't prove. Ever.

For me, that framework, the foundation and the lens through which everything else is experienced and interpreted, is called Christianity. God, in the Persons of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, created the universe and all within it ex nihilio (out of nothing), and in 6 days (the 7th being Their day off). Mankind was given great responsibilities and unbelievable freedoms, but managed to screw up a pretty sweet deal anyways. Throughout history, God has been hard at work doing things both behind the scenes and in open view to reverse the effects of Man's screwups. This work got focused through the children of Abraham, known as the Israelites, and later on also known as the Jews, who God does not give up on even though they, like the rest of mankind, kept messing things up. It culminated in God the Son coming down to Earth, dwelling amongst us, and we now know Him as Jesus Christ.

See, this is what I'm all about. The Christian framework, in my case, was arrived at through reason. Now, God chooses many ways to initially hit someone over the head with the truth - in my case, He used my thinking. In other instances, He uses dreams, visions, even implants convictions. It matters little - the end result is that eventually, we put our faith in Jesus. And we start using our heads, our hearts and our bodies to live for Him.

What are the implications? Why would conservatism work hand in hand with Christianity so nicely?

1. Mankind is innately sinful; hence, in a world that has abandoned Judeo-Christian values, it is best to appeal to enlightened self-interest. Hello, free markets!

2. God is a personal God, and He demands personal commitment from His children. Hence, no letting the 'government' handle charity - this is meant to be our work, done in private enterprise.

3. Jesus said to render Caesar's stuff to Caesar, and God's stuff to God - creating the very first separation of Church and State. This was true during Israelite times, too, after Saul became King. But it wasn't 'Church' then. :)

4. God created us in His image, hence human life is of great value because God values us. Therefore, death is a very serious issue, to be used as a form of punishment and deterrence only when absolutely necessary.

5. We march inexorably towards the end of history, but we do not know when that will be. Hence, we should continue to be watchful, alert and vigilant, ever-ready for whatever may come. This is a very short distance to having strong and well-trained, well-educated military, and disaster preparedness.

These are just a few of the things that I will be looking at over the next few posts, but it should give you the idea that Christianity and conservatism go together quite well. Not that you can't be a Hindu conservative Republican, of course - look at Tushar D! :)

The Bailout

2008-09-29T21:13:00.001+08:00

Okay, so a little primer on how stuff works (in this case, money), which no doubt everybody already knows, but anyways, let's examine how bad the credit crunch situation really is.

The first thing people need to realise is that 'the economy' is not a monolithic thing. The very word itself can be quite misleading - most people associate 'economy' with low-prices, or money-saving. And some people have a vague notion of a cloud-like thing called 'national economy'.

If you were truly self-sufficient; you grew, raised and hunted your own food, you made your own buildings, you designed and manufactured your own furniture, cutlery, utensils, what you wore , etc etc etc, you had your own oil well, doctored your own cuts... well, if you could really live like that, then you won't need to be part of any exchange or trade transaction. But because this is not the case for the vast majority of people, we tend to stick to doing what we're best at doing, and trading with someone else (exchanging of goods or services) for what we need. These transactions, taken as a whole across a particular area, is what constitutes that area's economy.

Let's look at the process of exchange. The fundamental exchange is one of barter; I have chickens which you want, you have goats which I want. We negotiate and haggle for a bit, but eventually we agree that I will give you 10 chickens in exchange for 2 goats. Putting aside such complications as perhaps I would have been willing to trade 12 chickens for 2 goats or that if I threw in another chicken you would have given me 3 goats (price elasticity of demand/supply), this is an economic transaction, and again, the economy is made of all of these transactions taking place over a given location.

Believe it or not, our current economy can still be simplified into barter exchanges. The only difference is, we have all more or less agreed that by and large, ONE side of these exchanges will involve a common commodity - money. When a person is exchanging money for something else, we call him the buyer. The one receiving the money, we call him the seller. Only, this hides the reality that we are both buying and selling - I am selling my money for a product, and the other dude is buying my money with his product.

The thing that happens with a money economy is this - because money is now the fundamental and common form of value exchange, the size and health of the economy can be tracked through the amount and velocity of money. We'll get back to that.

Banks are strange companies. They buy and sell money, much like moneychangers, but instead of giving you a service in return, they buy and sell money with... more money, or the promise thereof. You see, when you deposit money into a savings account, or a fixed/term deposit, you're actually selling your money to the bank for 8% (or whatever rate your bank offers) more of your money back in a year's time. They go out and sell that money for even more money, which is what we call loans. But where does that money eventually end up? Right, either in that very same bank, or a different one. It is exceedingly strange, isn't it? Wealth and money appear from nowhere, seemingly. You can even calculate the theoretical amount of 'come from nowhere' money generated in this way - it's called the money multiplier.

Or rather, it appears from the future. And the perception of the future. And regardless of whatever had happened to cause people's perception of the future to change (i.e. there isn't enough money in the future), the credit crisis means this;

1. The amount of money decreases as people withdraw their funds from the banks; once because actual currency is being withdrawn from circulation, and a fair bit more due to the loss of the multiplier effect. This shrinks the economy.

2. The velocity of money reduces, as people start hoarding their money; this reduces the number of transactions out in the marketplace, and shrinks the economy.

Is the bailout needed? My gut feeling says yes, but it is more the idea of the bailout that is needed. If you can restore confidence in the future, the problem that is to come won't be so bad. Again, we have made money the common form of value exchange. We need it to continue circulating, and in similar quantities as before.

FLAMING SKULL UPDATE - A Moronblogger Expose

2008-09-23T00:08:00.001+08:00

No, not gonna steal it. However...

Barack Hussein Obama (hereafter referred to as Mr BHOmbastic) is A. BIG. FAT. FUCKING. LIAR. And so is his campaign team.

You can follow the chain of proof from these following locations;

MyPetJawa (primary link and from which all others derive)
Ace of Spades HQ (and followup)
Patterico's Pontifications (and followup)
Michelle Malkin
Little Green Footballs

Waiting for...
Instapundit
Hot Air
Pajamas Media (oh well, Insty's part of PJM, isn't he?)
Rush Limbaugh

The essence of it all? I, being in Malaysia and in little trouble of getting into any libel / defamation / slander trouble, will spell out what seems to be the main thrust: David Axelrod, Mr BHOmbastic's chief media strategist, quite possibly under direct orders, has hired a notorious PR firm to conduct an absolutely despicable astroturfing campaign against the current Governor of Alaska, and Republican Vice Presidential candidate, Sarah Palin. Not only against her, but against her whole family. Worse, they not only did this campaign, but they tried to cover up their tracks after this story, this expose broke on the right-wing blogosphere.

Expect every single moronblogger on the Moronosphere to be carrying news, and the larger ones to be constantly updating, about this one. Me, I'm just gonna sit back and let the big guns handle the show.

The absolutely craziest thing? They fucked up the campaign in such elementary ways - like using their own names and initials.

Karl Rove, You Magnificent Bastard. You've managed to do it again. :)

Life Update

2008-09-21T22:10:00.001+08:00

Well, so I got paid last week and did the usual round of stuff that I do after getting paid.

1. Transfer funds from payday account to working accounts.
This is a boring, but utterly necessary thing. I have an account with an international bank, because this is where my employer maintains its business accounts. But foreign banks in Malaysia don't connect to the MEPS (interbank ATM network), so withdrawing money from a local ATM costs RM10 each transaction. Enough to buy a Big Mac meal and then some. So, have to shift money into a local bank account, where there are far more branches and ATMs all over the place, and if it I use another local bank ATM, it's only RM1.50 per transaction. And into my Visa debit card, of course. I love those things.

2. Pay off bills.
Now, usually, this is done by my parents but this week, they're off on 'vacation', so I gotta do the dirty job.

3. Buy computer stuff.

Yeah, this is what I really wanna talk about. I got myself a new router (a DLink DIR-300), as well as a UPS (some cheapo local brand), and the Microsoft Wireless Desktop 3000. And suffice to say, I'm enjoying the latter purchase immensely.

The keyboard is a ridiculously light affair, and means that I can practically type lying down. Which I am, sort of, on my bean bag, at least.
The media/web function keys are a cool addition which I never had on any of my keyboards before, so I'm having fun playing with them. About the only thing is that it's really too light - I'm a heavy typist, so I'm having to relearn my skills.

The mouse is a different afffair. It's solid and heavy enough to have a bit of heft, and the middle click key is, well, you know it's been clicked. However, I could do with a more tactile scroll wheel - most mice I've had gove you that 'click' sensation when you've moved the wheel a notch, which I find tends to improve my accuracy when scrolling.

How about the router? Well, I got it expressly for the ability to do heavy bit-torrenting. I spent the better half of today trying to get my ADSL modem back to bridge mode, however, only to find that it's hellishly difficult. So I have up on that. But so far, the router itself seems to be standing up to some punishment - it's my modem that's playing up. I'll have to see what I can do about that.

My next paycheck is gonna go into upgrading my graphics card. And then, some RAM to push my system to 3GB. After which, it will be time to upgrade my processor. At this point, hopefully I will have sufficient funds to buy another system, which I will turn into a server/router on its own.

Yup, I really don't have much of a life beyond this. I certainly hope I can find a girl whose interests sort of fit my own.

Linking policy

2008-09-19T00:18:00.002+08:00

It's a really simple one.

1. Whenever I'm not too lazy. Search engines are your friend. Don't believe some of the stuff I wrote? Check me on it! Then come back and tell me what I messed up.

2. Not and never to Excitable Andi, RAWMUSCLESGLUTES himself. This is a Moronosphere-wide ruling, promulgated by the Moron-in-Chief himself. There are no exceptions. Same thing with all lefty sites and blogs, unless they're rational. I'm sure there are rational lefties out there who can discuss stuff in civil discourse.

3. Not to Wikipedia unless absolutely necessary (there are NO suitable links found elsewhere to illustrate my point). Wikipedia is filled with lefties that don't believe in ANY of the constitutional amendments.

4. There is no 4. Really. If there are any other sites that are crappy and I shouldn't link to, I'd appreciate knowing.

Bonus! Plagiarism policy

1. This is the Internet. Your copyright I will observe insofar as attribution goes. Otherwise, I'm gonna dump in as much of your post as I deem necessary to work with it.

2. Iowahawk is the sole exception, due to a clearly stated request of his NOT to publish whole posts. This is the Burge For President Clause, and supercedes all other clauses. A similar exception exists for Bill Whittle - have you ever seen how much verbiage each of his posts is? Good verbiage, but still!

3. This policy is only when I intend to dissect, rip, or otherwise tear to shreds or parody and make fun of a particular blog post. Otherwise, I'll just write up a link and tell everyone to RTWT. I'm fundamentally a lazy guy; cut and paste is too much hard work unless I really got worked up about it.

4. I'm in Malaysia, even if Blogger is not. There ain't no such thing as copyright as it applies to the individual. I can own and use pirated stuff, as a person. But I will observe the niceties; a link, as per policy, definitely attribution no matter what.

5. What are you so worked up about, anyway? It's not as if I have a million readers or something.

Game theory - a moronblogger introspective

2008-09-18T14:01:00.002+08:00

Okay, so this is inspired by Ace going just a little off the reservation (go ahead and read it, he's in my blogroll on the sidebar, and I'll try to link to it when I'm not as lazy or off work) and wtfhesaskingabouthowmanyabortionstheobamashad!!!!

Right. Except, this is not normal nor usual behaviour. Not even for Ace. So, what's led to this?

That's where game theory comes in.

Basically, game theory tries to predict how rational 'players' will act in given scenarios. The most appropriate one referred to here is the Prisoners' Dilemma. But I'm not here to explain how it works (you can read up on it). In this instance, we're dealing with a multi-iterative version that maintains state (we remember what actions were taken in the previous iteration). And the 'best' strategy is called 'tough-but-fair'. We didn't start the fire, but we will surely end it only when the other guy does.

Remind you of anything?

Right, MAD. Mutual Assured Destruction. Where both parties have so much to lose in starting something, this practically assures (a scary, tense, and none too stable, as each party strives to gain the advantage) peace. But what happens when one side pulls the trigger? Not if, but when. Once that decision has been made, and the ICBMs are flying, and your SDI systems have been activated, what do you do? You pull the trigger yourself. You take out your nuclear card, read the appropriate code groups off, and authorise the launches. And God have mercy on us all.

This is what Ace proposed.

Thing is, though, rational beings usually shy away from this kind of tactic. At the real MAD level, the risks were simply too high to contemplate 'cheating', the payoffs too low. The Soviets knew this - their game was survival as well, and while the USA kept upping the odds, it never got to the point when the Russians went "Ah, bugger it, let's end the world".

Problem: What if the 'opponent' knew you would not use the 'tough-but-fair' approach, and you would continue to (in the classic Prisoner's Dilemma language) keep silent?

Problem: What if the 'opponent', regardless of what he knew, did not act rationally? IOW, did not follow the expectations of game theory?

Well then, you're in for a world of hurt. Because in the first instance, you are not willing to 'punish' the other 'player' for escalating, and the risk/payoff matrix suddenly becomes far more favourable for him. And in the second instance, the risks no longer guide his decisions while they still guide yours. In any case, you are suddenly on the defensive. And a defensive game is not often a winning game, especially if the other player had seized the upper hand.

Now, I grant you that this is game theory - it's very nice on paper, but acting it out always entails more complexity. Nevertheless, the basics, the fundamentals of game theory, do seem to underpin a large number of decisions we make. Which makes the dichotomy really, really strange.

The right-wingers, by and large, grasp the second problem quite well - especially when it comes to Islamic terrorism. They do not act rationally or according to the Western playbook. Accordingly, we have to play by their understanding - overwhelming power, shock and awe, not only showing them the iron fist but using it, and demonstrating an instant willingness to use it, and succeeding time and time again, before displaying the velvet glove.

The left-wingers instinctively use the first problem against us too - whatever else they may say, they know deep down somewhere we would rarely stoop to their level of mudslinging and rumour-mongering, and generally acting like primordial slime - so they feel safe in deploying all of these against us, confident that we would not react by pulling the same tricks they did.

Well, I for one don't like being fucked in the ass, even if it was figurative and by proxy. I have absolutely no problem acting like an ass (or a Democrat, same thing really), and while my dick is not so big, it's still gonna hurt when I ram it up your shithole. I know this is an un-Christian attitude. I will have to account for it someday. That didn't stop me from sitting on a particularly obnoxious girl who was bugging me all through recess. And even as a kid, I was fairly hefty.

And it's not going to stop me from pulling out all the stops. Ace has inhibitions - blunted and blurred by Val-U-Rite as it often may be; I don't. Or rather, my inhibitions are intellectual. I won't say I was a sociopath, no - but it comes close. But I will say this much:

I've seen pictures of Obama's kids. I won't have asked the question posed in the first link, nor what it implied - because in my opinion, the only possible answer is not only a 'No', but a 'Hell, NO!' Take that any way you want.

And then, you have Ace in his truly fine moments. We don't actually have to descend to the level of the Libtards, because we can surmount them. Bear in mind that this is Ace on maybe 75% max of his theoretical output of awesomeness (he's sick, as in using Nyquil and some concoction of monkey-brain and amniotic fluid, but mostly Nyquil).

Give us Day by Day (our daily bread)

2008-08-26T09:59:00.005+08:00

Or in this case, our daily read.

Chris Muir needs help. Give generously, my children, and blessings be upon thee*.

As for me, I'll scrape some funds up from somewhere and send it over to him. Somehow. And hey, I'm in Malaysia, so you Americans don't have any excuse.

* The two or three of you who read my blog, anyways.

Edit: Well, well, the power of capitalism at work. Within 5 hours, apparently, he's got his target. And then some. So, it's off until Nov 2009. And I haven't even been able to send the moolah yet. But you bet I'm gonna do it tonight. And although Chis probably doesn't want this, the link above is still active, and you can still backdoor in and sneak some money to him. And yes, the download link (for the Sam level, at least) is still active too.

Edit 2: Holy cow! 58MB! Now that's value for money :)

The Blind See - Introspective Series part 2

2008-08-14T20:32:00.002+08:00

No, this is not a post about a vision-impaired Pope*, although that in itself might make an awesome post. This post is instead about blindness, and how there are none so blind as he who would not see.

Now, there are all kinds of congenital conditions of blindness, and for the purposes of this thought experiment, I want to pick one where the entire optical pathway does not exist. At least, insofar as the eyes as well as the optic nerves are missing from a man's physical makeup. Here's the experiment; how do you explain sight to such a man? In a way he will truly understand?

This is a serious question, and one I can find no answer for. We take sight so much for granted - indeed, of the world's 6-billion-plus people, approximately 50 million are totally blind (well, have been found to be, at any rate, the true number may be more, let's say double), and of that figure, ~12% are congenitally so - we would be hard-pressed to explain it to someone who has never experienced light. Let me put it this way. 12 million people out of 6,000 million is 0.2%. Now, remember (or be enlightened, heh heh) that sighted people receive 70-80% of information concerning their surroundings from vision. Hence, 99.8% of us rely on (or have at some point relied on) light and sight to give us 80% of the information we use to be situationally aware.

So go on. Such an overwhelming majority of people surely should be able to answer this question as posed on Yahoo! Answers, right**? But do you know what the best answer was, as rated by viewers? "You can't." I like the further response here...

I would wouldn't bother to attempt to describe something that the blind have no concept of. They would have their own map of the world using their remaining senses, such as sound and touch.

Now, you gotta figure, vision is crucial to sighted humans. I would go so far as to say that it is fundamental to everything we do. The slightest impairment of our vision can have a devastating impact if we're not careful. But none of us can explain something so simple, so obvious, so... ubiquitous, to someone who has no concept of it.

Let me go further. How do you describe red-hot chilli peppers to someone who literally cannot see red i.e. someone with protanopia (red-green colour blindness)? You can't, because they don't have the referents.

So, I hope this has got your brains spinning. Because the last series of questions I want to pose on this topic is taking this issue, and turning it entirely around. On what basis should a congenitally blind man, lacking eyes and optic nerves, believe any of us when we speak of the concepts of light and vision? What is he to make of us when we speak of light as both wave and particle? What meaning would the double-slit experiment have for him? And of what particular use would light be to a blind man?

Why these questions? Well, I thought it'd be apparent to anyone by now where I'm going. But just to clarify, I am speaking of spiritual blindness. I don't even want to talk about adherents of other religions besides Judaeo-Christianity; they're like the colour-blind people. But to the atheists and agnostics who may somehow stumble across this blog (yeah, right, but God does work in mysterious ways), think very long and very hard about your own preconceived ideas and skepticism. Aren't you acting a great deal like a blind man, who never having either the equipment or the experience, cannot conceive of such a thing as vision and does not believe in it? Indeed, the blind man has it far more right when he says, "Sight may be true and right for you, but not for me".

All throughout my life as a Christian, I guess I have always been wondering how best to share the Gospel. Only last week did I come across this tactic - throw the question back at them. How would you explain something so fundamental to your life to someone who has no personal or rational reason whatsoever to believe you? Aren't congenitally blind men believing us about sight pretty much on faith? Aren't we in effect saying "Take my word - and the word about ~99.8% of the world who can see or once could see"?

The good news is, once we were all blind like that. But Jesus came into the world to make the blind see, and so He does - both the physically blind, and the spiritually blind.

* One of them would be Clemens XII.

** You can read the full list of responses here. There are some truly strange answers, like asking them if they dream. Uh, would they dream in vision? Why would they?

Normality - A Moronblogger Article

2008-07-19T21:07:00.002+08:00

So, I get to thinking about normality. I get cheesed off, you know, at LGF nowadays. I shouldn't, really - It's Charles' blog and money that's keeping it, and obviously a huge number of commenters and readers like him adding more of the anti-ID, anti-creationist stuff that he's doing right now. As a creationist, this obviously doesn't quite fit my bill, but I'm not gonna complain on his blog. I'm not really even gonna complain on my own - how many people actually read what I have to write?

But here's what gets me going; evolution, you see, is an upward transitionary path. You get from something less complex to something more complex; from a single-cell creature to a multi-cellular creature, to invertebrates, to vertebrates, to warm-blooded vertebrates and so on. But we all know the unthinking universe does not work like that. The Laws of Thermodynamics pretty much guarantee that the inevitable result of time, and even energy, into any system, is disorder. You know what the only way to reverse this is? Intelligence. Intelligence, and information, and energy, and time, can equal increased order or more complexity. It doesn't guarantee it, but it does make it possible.

This, by the way, is really what Charles and most every conservative knows. Because conservatism requires intelligence, and hence it's hard. The default (or normal) position of just about everyone on the face of the planet is to be lazy, ignorant, stubborn, self-centred and stupid. We start out like that when we're kids, and we have to be educated and trained out of it. Don't believe me? See what's happening now in the public school system in the States. Why is the usual tagline that you're more likely to be liberal when young and conservative when old? That's because the older you get, the more work you're likely to have done (or have to do), and the more mental power you have to exercise. Conservatism is a thinking man's game, and it is not the default. Democracy, or at least the truly useful type of democracy, is also not normal. Why are autocracies the major form of government throughout most of history? Because people are lazy, and prefer to have someone else do their thinking for them.

Remember when I said that intelligence is necessary but not sufficient for order and increased complexity? There is a great deal of intelligence in our cellular makeup (in fact, in cellular makeup, period). How the immune system recognises 'normal' cells and goes after everything else that doesn't belong, how the sensory organs transmit messages back to the brain, how our metabolic functions regulate our temperature, how our whole body struggles to preserve life at all costs - these are not simple tasks and require the dense information carried by our DNA, and the autonomic systems.

To get to what we call 'normal' or 'healthy' human physiology requires a lot of coordination and meshing together of interconnecting parts. And sometimes, it is not enough. We end up with blind and deaf and dumb people; autistic people, folks with allergies, haemophilia, cystic fibrosis, and a whole host of other congenital diseases. As if that's not enough, during our lifetimes we have to put up with arthritis, osteoporosis, rheumatism, cancer. Let me tell you, we are losing ground just trying to maintain our current states!

This, by the way, is why we say the price for peace is eternal vigilance. And why we have to fight to preserve our civilisation and our culture every generation. Because the 'normal' for us is actually an ideal situation, and that ideal situation requires a lot of effort to maintain. The actual 'normal' is war, poverty and barbarism.

Which brings me to the real point of my post. You know that there are militant deaf people out there, and also people who amputate (I call it mutilate) themselves because their mental 'idea' of themselves do not include a particular limb or other body part. In other times and other circumstances, we would try and counsel them out of it, won't we? We would think that a deaf person, given the opportunity to hear (maybe through artificial cochlear implants, or nerve regeneration, or whatever) would be crazy not to accept with gratitude, won't we? And someone who chops his right leg off because he though it didn't fit in with the rest of his body, even though it was physiologically sound, we would think needed to be put in the asylum, true?

And yet, such people and others like them do exist, and we put up with them - more, we encourage these insanities.

It does not give me much confidence.

EDIT: Yes, I am talking about SRS folk. For those of you who think this is some kind of sonic enhancement scheme, it also stands for Sex Reassignment Surgery, the let's-chop-of-your-balls-and-invert-your-dick-to-make-it-a-pussy-instead kind of surgery. But, the parallel situations I mention above are in fact real situations - not some twisted shit I dreamed up just to illustrate my point.

This one thing I don't know, though. Are there actual psychologists who recommend that a person who just feels wrong with a right arm get it amputated? Or who defend the militant deaf family's right to keep their daughter deaf or something?

If there are not, then I fail to see why there should be any difference between that and issues involving your genitals. If there are... words will fail me at that point. But let me just point out that a mere 5 decades ago, homosexuality was categorised and defined as a mental disease - and still is, in many parts of the world. Psychologists don't necessarily know everything, and I wouldn't appeal to their authority.

Life, Youth and Death - Introspective Series part 1

2008-07-12T08:53:00.002+08:00

And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the
garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil,
for when you eat of it you will surely die."

Genesis 2: 16-17 tells us that death is the result of a single act of disobedience to God, what we call sin. And what brings this post about? One of my church members has recently passed away of a heart condition; she was a member of my parents' cell group as well, so there was a certain degree of closeness there. And she was also close to my parents' age, so you can imagine that mortality is very much on my mind right now, selfish man that I am.

Our Catholic brethren would have it that this immortality or undyingness that existed in the Graden of Eden was preternatural; i.e. given by the grace of God and withdrawn from the baseline 'natural' man when he committed sin. A form of 'plug-in immortality', if you will. I don't buy it. Because nature is also by the grace of God; if He did not create the universe and all that is within it, we won't be here to discuss anything. Besides, we know God created Adam and Eve and endowed them with exactly what He wanted them to have, so it was part of Man's nature to be immortal right from the start.

And we blew it. Big time. Because of this one action of Adam in not restraining either himself or his wife, all of nature itself is blighted. We do not usually notice the blight, because we too are blighted. But it can be guessed at; our killing for food (NTTAWWT), the constant (and I mean constant, even in our own individual lives) swapping of wrong for right, the struggle for supremacy between races, religions, tribes, tongues, sexes even.

But the greatest blight of all is death. It is NOT in our nature to face death as we face all other adversities. We run and hide from it like from no other threat. We deny it, we fight it, we do everything in our power to delay its oncoming onslaught. We react like no other living creature does in the presence of death.

It is said that men are at their greatest, physically speaking, at around ages 18-21. This is when the muscles are at their best tone, when the fertility is highest, well, everything is all good withal. It must be true; otherwise why would men of all ages beyond this try everything in their power to return to that age? Maybe God created Adam to be around that age (I don't know). Certainly, however, I don't feel all that different from 21.

I do not fear death for myself. Although I don't want it either. I have HOPE in the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, through whose Spirit my process of CHANGE from carnal man to regenerate man is enabled and expedited (although it's until an end-of-life process).

Public Transport - Bah, Humbug! - A Moronblogger Rant

2008-07-08T12:58:00.004+08:00

So I wasn't going to do one of these so soon (wanted to do posts on youth, life and death, you know, the light stuff), but RapidKL (a damned oxymoron if ever there was one) has finally pissed me off beyond all recognition. So, here's a moronblogger rant to start the day off with.

The definitive list of why Public Transport sucks

1. Timing and scheduling

There are countries in the world where, whatever you think of the politics, socio-economic milieu, or whatever else, they actually make the damned trains run on time. Germany, at least as of 10 years ago, was one such place - to the extent that should a train run later than normal, even by as little as a minute, they actually give every passenger a fucking excuse letter to show their boss!

Then, you also have countries where the variation is ~5-10 minutes. Still within acceptable parameters, really - Australia is one, Singapore is another.

And you have UTTERLY FUCKED UP places like KL, Malaysia, where they can't even get the crummy, shitty buses to run once an hour when they're supposed to come every 20 mins! You've had two years to come up with a timetable that's even halfway accurate, and all you can say is "Natch"?

2. Comfort

Listen up, you motherfuckers, we the customers of your public transportation system (whichever one it may be), we are Homo sapiens. Thinking Man, comprende? Do we look like sardines to you? No? Then why for the love of all that's holy do you INSIST on PACKING US INTO YOUR BLOODY TINCAN TRAINS like we are?

3. Professionalism

That's assuming you cocksuckers can even read! Half of the bus drivers are stoned off their ass on some shit or another, possibly crack; the other half are perverted dickheads, and in neither case do they actually have a damned license to operate a 10 ton vehicle other than a ballistic missile. I actually, on the day of my college exams, saw a bus crash into a Land Rover RIGHT OUTSIDE MY HOUSE! The bus was sloghtly dented, and the people were fine (so was the bus driver, may he spend 10,000 years as a female camel in Saudi Arabia), but the Land Rover was smashed to all hell and the driver bled all over my college mate's car on the way to the hospital.

4. Maintenance

Look, this is not so hard. Clean the damned trains, trams and buses. It's not rocket science, for fuck's sake. We're not asking for scented towellettes and orange juice everytime we get on board. Just common, decent cleanliness, so that we don't step on someone's leftover gum, or spooge left there from two minks banging each other. Or sitting on such.

And for crying out loud, regular checkups of the equipment, OK? "Dear valued customers, due to technical difficulties the duration between each train is now 7-10 minutes. We are sorry and apologise for the inconvenience." The HELL you are and the HELL you do! If you were really sorry, you won't let it get all FUBAR and SNAFUed in the FIRST PLACE!!! And don't fucking apologise, assholes, FIX IT!!!!!

5. Pricing

Do you know, to get from London to Blackpool by British Rail, and this was 15 years ago now, could cost up to GBP1000 for a group of four? Oh, but buy our yearly family discount pass for GBP200 and kids below 16 can ride for GBP1! WTF?

And why is it that to ride ONE station costs RM1.00 but to ride TEN stations costs RM2.50? Are you serious? Do you bozos (RIP to the original and best Bozo, who was easily 100x smarter than these other clowns running the show) even sit down and plan your pricing strategies, or do you just get stoned and make it up as you go along?

And this is not even to mention the corruption and nepotism going on in tender exercises!

Rant over.

A introspective on youth

2008-07-02T21:45:00.003+08:00

So, my boss' birthday was on Monday. He was born on the same year that I was. Which makes him 28, and in some few months I will be also. Which got me thinking about youth, and the aging process.

Aussies for some reason make a big deal out of their 21st birthday (okay, that one I kinda get), as well as their 30th (this one I don't get). Even as a kid I knew that schooldays were gonna be the best days of my life. Think about it; only half a day in an institution, half of that time goofing off and the other half bullying the teachers. Was so successful that one year my class made each and every teacher cry and run out of the classroom, except our Biology teacher. Who was 6'6", 250lbs and looked like a former Marine DI. (As an aside, he looked like he could not only tear us a new asshole, but do it with his hands tied behind his back, too. Our little antics didn't faze him at all). Compare that with working 8-6 Mon-Fri with a noose around your neck every day (except Casual Fridays, which is alright). And maybe 1 month of vacation, including public hols.

At 28, people will still say you're young. But you're not young young. And part of the problem is when your mind doesn't catch up with your body. This is perhaps the most disconcerting aspect of aging, I find. That, and finding out that many people you know are already married with children. Where does the time go?

See, here's the thing. No surprise to know that adolescent boys are attracted to adolescent girls, right? Of course, it is true that adolescent boys are attracted to females, period. And they're a perpetually horny lot too. Brash, crass, do stuff without thinking, generally acting the way you'd expect a teenager to act.

What happens when that fellow grows up, though? You'd think some degree of maturity would set in. But I find to my dismay this is not the case. I still exhibit, to a large degree, the same characteristics I did 10 years ago. Which, when I think about it, means I haven't grown and changed much at all; now tell me this is all right. You won't, right?

Specifically, I am still perpetually horny, girls in pinafores can still get me going (let's not talk about Japanese schoolgirl uniforms here, okay?), I still play computer games, my parents still get on my case, I'm still tactless and impulsive - you know, nothing much has changed from 10 years ago from my perspective. Except I have a job that I like and I'm good at and I get paid a halfway decent amount for.

Now, what does that all mean? I can conjecture one of two things; either I was already pretty mature back in '98, or I'm a highly-functioning retard with the mental age of 18. Or 15, for that matter. Considering that I call myself a moronblogger, of course the latter is far more likely. Still...

And I am not alone. In certain European countries, people my age still stay with their parents, and are still jobless, and are still acting like the typical teenage punk. I'd love to tie the liberals into this as well, associating govt with parents and nanny-statism and whatnot, but I'm talking about individuals here.

I don't wanna grow old! And I don't want to stay a perpetual youngster either! Life is indeed a complex affair. And you know what? I love it! Because in my mind I'm still a teenager, it's hard for me to grow old. But even as a teenager I was a pretty conservative and world-savvy fellow, so it's not as if I'm still naive.

Over the next few weeks I think I'd like to explore several aspects of my youth, mostly concentrating on my school years.

The Investiture: A New Moronblogger

2008-06-29T15:30:00.004+08:00

Right, so I've decided to take on the moronblogger status. And why not, after all? I drink vodka, I can outswear drill instructors in four different languages, plus hobo-hunts sound like fun. And, while not exactly in the basement, still live with my mom and haven't had any sex in ages. Isn't that the exact requirements for the AoS Lifestyle (tm)? :)

In all seriousness, group identity seems to be crucial, whether on the Internet or off it, and people tend to feel more secure when part of something bigger. So, why go nuts alone when there is plenty of craziness around?

Of course, there's plenty of scope for individuality. All my posts are rants, pretty much, so they tend to be wordy. And hey, it's just me sounding off; it's nice to know somebody's reading it, but not really a major issue.

Therefore, for the duration of this rant (and all others that are moronblogger-labelled), the swear filters come off. OFF, I tells ya. My Christian brethren who visit from my real life, apologies. The instant you see the phrase 'A Moronblogger Rant', just skip it. You're not missing anything important, really.

That being said, let's do my first moronblogger rant. Not much in the way of factual content, but hey, I don't pretend to be an intrepid fact-finding journalist (talk about an oxymoron)

Homosexuality, or as I like to call it, gayism. I'm against it.

Approx 1-5% of all people are apparently wired differently in terms of their default sexual orientation. I don't know the real figures; most likely in a place like Berkeley (Gay Fuckfest Central, it seems to me), the rate is closer to 50% and in a place like Iran, where they get executed on discovery, the rate is closer to 0%.

So, what contributes to it? Well, does it really matter? Some people are apparently wired to like humping animals; Ace himself once linked to such a video (how the hell does he find these perverted shitty things? Of all the crap on the Net and he digs up Donkey Fucking Festival somewhere in Central America). Doesn't make it right. Guy on guy is not right, regardless of whether you find it hot or not. Same thing with girl on girl. Even if I find it hot. Hermaphrodite on hermaphrodite? The jury's out on that one. Ask me after I've reviewed more evidence.

Again, here's the thing. Some things are objectively right and objectively wrong. In an absolute sense. One can argue that for a time, incest (for which there seems to be quite a strong universal taboo) was not wrong (cf Cain, Abram etc); but homos screwing each other is always wrong.

Let me talk about love. It's not sex. It's not 'feeling'. It's a commitment to another person's welfare before yours (although, of course, reason does play a part in human love relationships). Jesus says greater love hath no man than he lays his life down for his friends. Soldiers in the field know this; which is why they are called 'band of brothers'. Plenty of stories of GIs throwing themselves on grenades to save their comrades; the ones quicker to think on their feet will try to minimise the impact of the explosion on themselves. And we all know what the armed forces think of gays. Indeed, we all know what a large number of military personnel think of active duty women in uniform.

Guys are notoriously known for being unable to commit long-term to a relationship. It takes religion, ideology, common goals and team objectives, or a strong personal reason (and liking the other guy's hot bod ain't it). Gals, because they're designed to form emotional bonds much easier, can make longer term relationships. But again, it does not necessarily need to involve sex.

I don't agree to physical gay-bashing. It's not what we should be doing. But insulting, denigrating, viewing with extreme contempt, yeah, it's not the best solution either, but rub me up the wrong way and watch me unleash my fury.

That's all.

New stuff

2008-06-29T15:24:00.002+08:00

So, I've been away for a good year now, but it's not as if I haven't done anything. I've been running around (mostly lurking) the Moronosphere, the milblogging community, anti-jihad areas, and generally run-of-the-mill conservative/libertarian sites.

But today I decided to have a look at my own blog, and see what I could do with it. Oh, but has Google done a load of upgrading to Blogger! So come around and have a look! I plan to make it a bit more appealing in a while; can't do everything in a day after all.

Rockin' Russell Peters

2007-07-08T15:42:00.000+08:00

Boys and girls, a comedian for your consideration: Russell Peters. A Catholic Anglo-Indian from Canada, this guy rocks! OK, his language is colourful. Blue, for the most part. But check him out on YouTube. You'll enjoy him, if you can put up with his blueness.

I'm Baaaacccckkkkkk!!!!!

2007-06-02T21:51:00.000+08:00

Oh boy, and it's been nearly a year since I last posted anything. Funny... I didn't think it was that long. Well, nothing much to say right now, except that it's good to be back.

I went for my first conference in February (and oh boy, was that a while back). It was great, went great. Speakers were funny and at the same time insightful, and the delegates enjoyed themselves thoroughly. A bit hectic, make that frazzling, but still, all in all a great experience.

Did I mention my sister is getting married end of the year? Incredible news, great news. Fast work on her side, too - she met the lad only last Nov.

Expect to see more of me.

Independence Day

2006-08-31T00:42:00.000+08:00

It's the 31st of August today, which is the Malaysian independence day. Actually, it's the Malayan independence day, which makes me wonder why East Malaysians should be celebrating it, but never mind.

So, Happy MERDEKA! For what it's worth.

I'm an unhappy camper. Cheesed off, really. Just downloaded a backgammon program for my Dad, and am trying it out myself. But let me tell you something. If you've ever been tempted to think that computer opponents stack the deck against you, well they do. Inevitably, wherever it is possible, my dice rolls will be implausibly, even impossibly against me. And everything will go hunky dory with the computer. How is this possible? Well, not having the source for the program, I cannot say. But I'm willing to bet that the so-called pseudo-random dice roller algorithm is plugged into the algorithm of the backgammon playing AI engine for the computer player.

Now, it might not even be intentional, just an unintended side-effect of dynamic run-time interaction of both sets of code. But there you have it, folks, a backgammon program that is nigh impossible to beat without some major strategy involved, not to mention seriously conservative playing styles.

What does that have to do with my title? Nothing, really. Oh, I suppose I could make out that in a similar fashion, the odds are stacked against non-Malay, non-Muslim minorities in this country (and possibly every other Muslim country you come across), but that would be reaching. No, it's just your basic rant against dummkopf programs and the power of observer bias.

A pathetic people

2006-08-26T11:19:00.000+08:00

Civic consciousness is a thing sorely lacking in 3rd World countries. Of course, it is sorely lacking elsewhere as well, but that's more a thing of legalism and the fear of having your pants sued off you. Take for instance the taxi driver who crashed intentionally into a motorcycle with two snatch thieves, causing it to ram into a nearby tree and one of the thieves to have a broken leg. Or Joe Singh, who manages to make a citizen's arrest every week or so by using his superbike to crash intentionally into... can you just imagine what would have happened in the US, where they can sue you if they broke into your house through the roof and hurt themselves in the process?

No, unfortunately, civic consciousness (and the lack thereof) in Malaysia is caused not by legal moronicism, but by the simplest thing of all; apathy. Otherwise known as the 'tidak apa' (doesn't matter) attitude, or the 'frog-in-slowly-boiling-water' syndrome.

A public exhibition and roadshow is under way right now, showcasing the latest in toilet technology. Visitors to this lovely country will soon notice that our public lavatories are not lovely. They're not even sanitary, for that matter. We're not talking about graffiti on the walls; scrawls of lewd comments, phone numbers for gay blowjob offers, stupid yet funny poems, political comments and the like. No, that would make too much sense in a semi-repressive society. We're talking amount the vast majority of people here (a 60%) who, having come from a 'kampong' or village background, find the flush, and even the toilet bowl, a thing of novelty and most difficult to master. They shit and piss everywhere, and never bother to flush. Others, coming on their heels, don't bother either. Still others will simply choose other stalls (and who could blame them) or just hold it in until they get home (and who could blame them either).

Roadside litter is commonplace. People throwing it away or recycling it are rare. Older ladies crossing the road with a younger helper? That's almost unheard of. You may find a few folk ready to give up their seats in the bus/LRT/train, but I won't hold my breath too long.

And that's just the petty things. Nobody wants to become involved in politics unless they're rich or want the prospect to become rich. Our consumer's association is fangless and toothless. Our legal remedies for inter-religious issues have been systematically dismantled over the 49 years since independence. And all of this is because people do not want to rock the boat. Apathy, in a word. If it doesn't immediately, directly and visibly impact them, they don't want to do anything about it. They may grouse about it, make a whole lot of noise, but at the crunch, nothing gets done.

So. Put a live frog in boiling water and it will instantly jump out. Put that same frog in a pot of cold/room temp water and slowly bring it to the boil, and you'll get frog stew. You can see that apathetic people are a pathetic people.

Arrogance, Protection and the Christian

2006-08-22T22:14:00.000+08:00

It strikes me as I write this that Malaysia, for all its troubles, problems and disadvantages to non-Malay, non-Muslim segments of its population, is still my birth country. True, Christians are merely travellers through this world, and hold citizenship in a different Kingdom; one that is more to be sought after and esteemed. Still, unless and until I take up citizenship in another country, Malaysia is still where my earthly citizenship resides. And so I will keep Malaysia's welfare in mind.

Now, there is no denying that there are troubles everywhere. Malaysia is not the only country in the world to be afflicted by idiotic policies; politicians worldwide are moronic by popular definition. But they have to juggle more knives in the air, just to keep themselves in power. It is amazing how the smartest people in the world immediately descend to the lowest level of intelligence when they're in a mob being harangued by rhetoric and hot air.

So what does that have to do with my title? Well, it just occured to me that weblogs are, in effect, publicly accessible diaries/journals. I don't say that I want people to read and react to what I say, but it would be nice to know that somone's interested. That's arrogance for you. It is said that most weblogs are narcissistic in nature; it is hoped that this one would not be so.

Arrogance can take many shapes. My particular arrogance is in my language and research capabilities. Everybody likes to think they're right all the time. The arrogance of Muslims, for instance, is taken in the form of their thinking that they can control the entire world. Their veritable duty, even.

Hence, the many troubles in Malaysia. The Chinese are arrogant in thinking that their numbers are small, but their economic importance makes them a political force to be reckoned with. The Indians are arrogant in thinking that they're small enough not to be bothered, but large enough to fight for themselves when needed. Arrogance, arrogance everywhere.

You can see its outworking in legal systems. The Malaysian Constitution guarantees freedom of worship, as well as the Federal Court as the highest court of the land. Look what's happening now, through. (Lina Joy is but a single test case). In the USA, however, the Constitution is elevated to the statues of almost Holy Writ, enshrined even. Both are wrong, and do not take into account that people are imperfect. Although I might well prefer the US approach more, still it is arrogance at work.

Ultimately, it all boils down to this. In Islam, there are NO guarantees. Which is why the Muslim has to be ever hard at work to preserve the 'Islamness' of where he is. Their protection has to be guaranteed by themselves, and no other. Christians, however, are protected by God Himself. Not against earthly torture, pains and anguish, nor against persecution and diaspora. No, our protection is against the powers and principalities, the spiritual forces of darkness. And our protection is against the sin nature of unregenerate man. Our guarantee is that if we love Jesus our God and Saviour to the end and beyond, we will be with Him for all eternity.

And that's all that matters. That's all that should matter. It is my flesh that argues against laws and regulations that shackle and restrict. Should I care that (if I were Muslim) I can not officially change my religion without some massive inertia to overcome? Perhaps, but it is more important to spread the Word and witness. Must I (as a Christian) fight against the godless atheists and evolutionists that pollute natural science with their noisy unfounded prattle? Surely, it is more important to ensure that people know the truth, that they can discern for themselves. All this world will pass away, but the things of eternity are our treasure, stored up in Heaven.

So keep up the good fight, fellow brothers and sisters in Christ! Onward we march, towards Jesus our Master and Friend indeed.

Money isn't everything... but!

2006-08-13T14:50:00.000+08:00

So, thanks be to God, the Lord Most High, YHWH the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Jesus. In His infinite mercy and grace He has proven me quite employable by giving me two job offers in a single day.

First, Nilai College calls up. Then Marcusevans. Quite an eventful day it was. So I've made up my mind, but I won't publish it today, since I notify them only tomorrow. Even if I'm the only one who ever reads this blog, it's still a matter of courtesy.

I spent all day yesterday (Sat) trying to create a spreadsheet to manage my finances. But doing so with only online resources is an exercise in frustration. Those blasted people at Inland Revenue (i.e. tax collectors, the lowest form of intelligent life during the 1st century AD and I don't think much has changed since then) never update their website and information there is around 3 years old. Considering that taxes here seem to change on an annual basis, this is just not on. Worse, the only material they have which seems to be updated, you've got to pay 15 bucks for. Now, I already want to reduce my tax obligations and you expect me to pay IRD some more money? You must be joking! And they say ignorance is no excuse. Well, it is when you have to pay to know the law!

And what do you get for your 28% (highest personal tax bracket as of 2003) tax? No health cover, no 'dole', no welfare of any sort. Police are on the take (though I'm told that this is becoming a lesser problem, but still!), crime is rampant, public transportation is for the dogs. And if you're disabled good luck to you catching a bus, I can tell you that. One must wonder. And there's no such thing as freedom of information, so nobody knows how much the ministers and ther top honchos get paid to gallivant around the world. Maybe they have to pay their own way (but I don't hold my breath).

Never mind the Taxation people. You cannot avoid death and taxes anyway. But this issue with Socso (Workcover to you Aussie folks). If you start with Socso, you never stop. I wonder if I can get my employers to keep me below the radar until I earn >3k a month. Having to pay Socso until I retire, even when the coverage is so blasted pitiful, is a ridiculous notion. Talk about subsidising bludgers.

Money isn't everything. But seeing blatant abuse of my soon-to-be-paid taxes surely hurts. And for some unknown reason, these guys don't know how to run the Department properly. Have you any idea how long it takes for you to get a refund if you don't chase 'em for it? Try never. But I will render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. After all, I can't take it with me. And neither can they, which is a thought to comfort me through my next 30 years of working life...

Greg

Pains

2006-08-03T12:00:00.000+08:00

Got up this morning and went for my usual 6km walk with my parents. Thereafter could not stay awake.

This was related to my interviews yesterday. Try walking any significant distance in KL city and you'll feel the same way. The air quality is none the best, the gradient is unpreditable and pedestrians are the lowest form of life - we're treated like that, anyways.

Marcus Evans is looking for conference producers. Really cool job, if I can get it. Hopefully I can go far enough in the process.

Take me home, country roads

2006-07-26T21:16:00.000+08:00

I've returned from another two interviews. Oh boy, do they take the energy right out from you. If you're wondering why the title of a John Denver song, well, the manager for the first interview at AIA happens to like it. He also likes hip-hop and Yanni (or maybe that was his juniors' favourites). Ever had background music during an interview? It's interesting, gotta hand it to them.

Will be attending there again tomorrow. Kumon on Friday. DAVOS on Monday. And who knows is gonna call up later this week.

Nilai is a great place. Went there for an interview. Food is slightly cheaper than in KL, and can you believe a double chicken burger for less than 4 bucks? Only drawback is the Komuter ticket, which is about 4.70 or so one way. But then again Nilai is in Negri Sembilan, so I guess it's justified.

I haven't been hired yet, so it's not as if I'm getting paid to flog their place, but I gotta say that the Nilai International College is something else. The lecturers are approachable, the staff are friendly and they've got free transport from various areas around Nilai to their college. On-campus food and accommodation, WiFi hotspots, clean (clean! though slightly wet) toilets - about the only thing I found a little off was the colour scheme of the exterior walls. But that wasn't their fault.

Well, I'm enthusiastic because my brother, who by and large doesn't make a lot of mistakes about such things, thinks Nilai is a good college. I pray they'll seriously consider my application.

Greg

Interview with the Vampire... er, Employer(s)

2006-07-24T19:05:00.000+08:00

Fresh graduate or experienced management type, interviews can be wearing on your nerves - on both sides! My brother is an interviewer himself and he's got plenty of horror stories about interviewees. Well, I can tell a horror story or two about prospective employers myself.

So far, in my search for a job, I've been to about 5 interviews. One I aborted because of horror stories on the Internet. Now, this doesn't necessarily mean it's bad, but caveat emptor and I definitely did. Another (Col Shutters) was my first, and I thought it went all right. I guess my interviewers didn't, because I never heard back frmo them. Still, it was a sales job and that wasn't my main intention, so it wasn't too bad.

Subsequently, I've had interviews from Tactics Asia, Kumon and AIG. I'll be having second interviews with the latter two, and another from Nilai International College. It's going to be hectic, but that's a good sign; the more the better, if I can give 100% to all the interviews.

Prospective job seekers; here are a few tips before you attend your interviews. Nothing hard, just common sense stuff.

1. For crying out loud, make sure you don't lie or hide anything in your resume/CV. You think employers can't check stuff out? They can!

2. Going with (1) above, ensure you can verify/prove what you claim. It's not so important if you say you've attended as an ordinary member the Chess Club while you were in Uni. But if you claim your English is superlative, both written and spoken, then be prepared to do some Shakespeare.

3. Remember details of your application. When they call you up, they might want to do a phone interview. It really helps if you can recall (or have handy) what your job description is and what the company is so that you sound like you know what you're talking about. I got burned by this one somewhat, so I speak from experience.

4. Look stuff up on the Net!!!! This is the one single HUGE advantage we have over those of even 10 years ago; we've got the mighty Google. Use it! Look up the company. Look up the industry. Look up the job. Look up whatever you can so that you'll be as prepared as possible going into the interview.

5. Commit everything to God. Most important step. Quite possibly the only one step you really need to be all-out serious about. Man proposes but God disposes. Paul plants, Apollos waters but God gives the increase. In everything go to the Lord in prayer.

Simple stuff, really. Just go in calm, collected, courteous, charming. Smile a great deal. Have a sense of humour. See the silver linings. Good luck and God Bless!

Greg

Serious business! Food business!

2006-07-17T21:33:00.000+08:00

So, sooner or later I've got to get down to putting some really serious stuff up. After all, what's the point of having a publishing medium, if you don't publish?

But food is serious business, especially when you're Chinese and you're in Malaysia. Last night my parents, brother (and sis-in-law) and myself went to this all-you-can-eat buffet steamboat place. It's called Restaurant Yuen, and it's located in Sunway Mentari. For RM18.80, you can eat from 5pm-midnight, and it's got (supposedly) 100 dishes for you to choose from.

Well! Those of you who know me know that this is a losing proposition for the restaurant, but not everybody eats like I do. And boy, is there a lot to eat. Forget about their Meehoon and Fried Rice; if you're hungry and can't wait for the seafood to cook, go grab their curry chicken. Every 15 minutes on the quarter-hour (give or take), their world-famous chicken wings come out. True enough, after 1 minute they're all gone, so you'd better be standing there long before.

Prawns, fish, crabs, sotong (cuttlefish), chicken, lala and teckhan (cockles and bamboo clams respectively), wantan (dumplings), yong tau foo, - and that's just for starters! Eggs and mee. Amazing amount of food! I stuffed myself thoroughly in 90 minutes, and so did the rest of my family.

OCFers Unite! We have to book the place (they don't open on some Tuesdays), and be there EARLY! You won't believe the queue...

Greg

Caveat Emptor!

2006-07-13T19:31:00.000+08:00

Malaysians beware! There are more than one things to remember when you come back from overseas.

1. Bring your MyKad with you everywhere! A fine not exceeding 20,000 bucks apply if you're ever caught without it.

2. Distinguish between Sales and Marketing. If your prospective job description sales includes 'must have own transport', that means they want you to flog their products face-to-face.

3. Goods sold here are NEVER refundable. Never. So make sure when you buy something it's really what you want. You may exchange defective products but that's pretty much it.

4. EFTPOS (Electronic Funds Transfer at Point Of Sale) is available here in the form of Bankcard. But very few shops accept this as yet, so bring cash. Related to this, Public Bank now charges an annual fee of 8 bucks for your ATM card. Maybank restricts your transaction limit. Read the fine print! M'sian banks don't have Cirrus or Maestro enabled on their ATM cards, so if you want those facilities, keep your foreign bank account.

Did I say being your MyKad everywhere with you?

1st of the post

2006-07-11T13:57:00.000+08:00

In case you haven't caught it, the title for my inaugural weblog entry comes from the Australian slang for direct election, rather than the preferential scheme they use for most positions there.

Greetings. My name is Gregory Kong and I'll be running my mouth off here from time to time. Those of you who were my school friends will know that I talk the way I write. Those of you who know me through OCF will notice my language is somewhat stronger (but no downright obscene words, still and all). Those of you who don't know me, well... this is a good chance! Anyways, welcome to my spot on the Web.

Nothing major for my first entry, except this - If you think that Christianity is wrong, you better thing again. Better yet, take Pascal's Wager. I can tell you that any betting man would.

[EDIT] If you notice that my blog is in pinksh colours, well, it is. I'm assured that it's relatively easy to change the colour scheme, so don't be surprised if it swaps out from under you. I'll be changing the scheme until I find the few (or the one) that I like from the many.

Hopefully, this doesn't make it too much of an eyesore.