Monday, April 13, 2009

Job on Deceitful Apologists

Got this from Eve Tushnet's blog.


"Will you speak falsely for God,
and speak deceitfully for him?
Will you show partiality toward him,
will you plead the case for God?
Will it be well with you when he searches you out?
Or can you deceive him, as one deceives a man?
He will surely rebuke you
if in secret you show partiality.
Will not his majesty terrify you,
and the dread of him fall upon you?
Your maxims are proverbs of ashes,
your defenses are defenses of clay."

--Job rebuking his "comforters," Job 13:7-12

Lord, may I defend your teachings, but not with defenses of clay!

Monday, December 15, 2008

Chesterton on Christian Fun

(I got this from the great guys of The Shrine of the Holy Whapping)

The Christmas celebrations will certainly remain, and will certainly survive any attempt by modern artists, idealists, or neo-pagans to substitute anything else for them. For the truth is that there is an alliance between religion and real fun, of which the modern thinkers have never got the key, and which they are quite unable to criticize or to destroy.

All Socialist Utopias, all new Pagan Paradises, promised in this age to mankind have all one horrible fault. They are all dignified. [...] But being undignified is the essence of all real happiness, whether before God or man. Hilarity involves humility; nay, it involves humiliation. [...] Religion is much nearer to riotous happiness than it is to the detached and temperate types of happiness in which gentlemen and philosophers find their peace. Religion and riot are very near, as the history of all religions proves.

Riot means being a rotter; and religion means knowing you are a rotter. Somebody said, and it has often been quoted: 'Be good and you will be happy; but you will not have a jolly time.' The epigram is witty, but it is profoundly mistaken in its estimate of the truth of human nature. I should be inclined to say that the truth is exactly the reverse. Be good and you will have a jolly time; but you will not be happy. If you have a good heart you will always have some lightness of heart; you will always have the power of enjoying special human feasts, and positive human good news. But the heart which is there to be lightened will also be there to be hurt; and really if you only want to be happy, to be steadily and stupidly happy like the animals, it may be well worth your while not to have a heart at all.

Fortunately, however, being happy is not so important as having a jolly time. Philosophers are happy; saints have a jolly time. The important thing in life is not to keep a steady system of pleasure and composure (which can be done quite well by hardening one's heart or thickening one's head), but to keep alive in oneself the immortal power of astonishment and laughter, and a kind of young reverence. This is why religion always insists on special days like Christmas, while philosophy always tends to despise them.

Religion is interested not in whether a man is happy, but whether he is still alive, whether he can still react in a normal way to new things, whether he blinks in a blinding light or laughs when he is tickled. That is the best of Christmas, that it is a startling and disturbing happiness; it is an uncomfortable comfort. The Christmas customs destroy the human habits.

And while customs are generally unselfish, habits are nearly always selfish. The object of a religious festival is, as I have said, to find out if a happy man is still alive. A man can smile when he is dead. Composure, resignation, and the most exquisite good manners are, so to speak, the strong points of corpses. There is only one way in which you can test his real vitality, and that is by a special festival. Explode crackers in his ear, and see if he jumps. Prick him with holly, and see if he feels it. If not, he is dead, or, as he would put it, is 'living the higher life.'
--G.K. Chesterton, The Illustrated London News, 11 January 1908.

(In case a reader doesn't get it, "philosophy" here means the cold, high-brow sort, the sort enjoyed by people pretending to be Nietzschean Supermen.)

Wednesday, November 12, 2008

Gmail Innovates. Y! and MS Makes Cutesy UI's.

You can now talk to your Gmail buddies, a la the Google Talk desktop client.

You can even view their webcams while you talk.

Gmail rocks. I'm not even gonna talk about the many cool experimental features in Gmail Labs. As far as webmail goes, Google is king. Yahoo and Microsoft can shove their drag and drop Outlook-wannabes up their asses.

/end demented fanboyism

Update:

I just couldn't wait, so I went and grabbed the Gmail Video chat plugin:
http://www.gmail.com/videochat

/start shallow analysis

Let's talk pros and cons. First, it's good that you can do voice chats between Gmail and Google Talk, but this capability is somewhat hidden: when you hover on a contact (in the Chat panel) who is running Google Talk but not Gmail, then you click on "Video & more", there is no option to initiate voice chat. Instead, you'll have to start a normal chat session first, then click "Video & more" on the contact's chat "window", before you could find the "Start voice chat" option.

Nonetheless, voice chat w/ Google Talk buddies went well when I tried it. Audio is clear and the ring tone isn't irritating. I was on a Windows XP system, and I used both Firefox and Google Chrome (I'll let others test the less relevant browsers. Kidding! :P). I still need to test this with a web cam, though. Maybe I'll post a follow-up this weekend.

Other issues:

  • There is no ability to send voicemail from Gmail, yet (you can already do this in the Google Talk desktop client).
  • The new chat features are enabled via a plugin, so obviously compatibility is a problem. For now, Gmail Video chat only works on Windows XP or later.
  • Video chat is not yet available in iGoogle. I'm hoping the iGoogle team will use the same plugin if ever they decide to include Video chat in their Google Talk gadget. Wouldn't want to download multiple plugins for this on my slow work PC.
Update: According to Philipp Lenssen, there might actually be a Mac plugin, already. Still none for Linux. Oh well.

Tuesday, November 11, 2008

There is still Hope *despite* you, Mr. Obama

“It’s all wrong. By rights we shouldn’t even be here. But we are. It’s like in the great stories, Mr. Frodo. The ones that really mattered. Full of darkness and danger they were. And sometimes you didn’t want to know the end. Because how could the end be happy? How could the world go back to the way it was when so much bad had happened?

But in the end, it’s only a passing thing, this shadow. Even darkness must pass. A new day will come. And when the sun shines it will shine out the clearer.”
-Samwise Gamgee, The Two Towers

Monday, October 27, 2008

Chesterton on Naturalistic Morality

Obviously, it will not do to take our ideal from the principle in nature; for the simple reason that (except for divine theory), there is no principle in nature. For instance, the cheap anti-democrat of to-day will tell you solemnly that there is no equality in nature. He is right, but he does not see the logical addendum. There is no equality in nature; also there is no inequality in nature. Inequality, as much as equality, implies a standard of value. To read aristocracy into the anarchy of animals is just as sentimental as to read democracy into it. Both aristocracy and democracy are human ideals: the one saying that all men are valuable, the other that some men are more valuable. But nature does not say that cats are more valuable than mice; nature makes no remark on the subject. She does not even say that the cat is enviable or the mouse pitiable. We think the cat superior because we have (or most of us have) a particular philosophy to the effect that life is better than death. But if the mouse were a German pessimist mouse, he might not think that the cat had beaten him at all. He might think he had beaten the cat by getting to the grave first. Or he might feel that he had actually inflicted frightful punishment on the cat by keeping him alive. Just as a microbe might feel proud of spreading a pestilence, so the pessimistic mouse might exult to think that he was renewing in the cat the torture of conscious existence. It all depends on the philosophy of the mouse. You cannot even say that there is victory or superiority in nature unless you have some doctrine about what things are superior. You cannot even say that the cat scores unless there is a system of scoring. You cannot even say that the cat gets the best of it unless there is some best to be got.
- G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy

Sunday, September 28, 2008

Google is the Borg

It's been a while since I last talked about Google (you might think it was just five real blog-posts ago, but that also means it was back in May). Most of the Google news these past few months have deserved nothing more than a tweet or two, if that*-- though of course I still share blog posts about the company all the time-- but things are starting to get really interesting as Google's plans to take over the world, er, I mean their plan to organize the world's information... is taking them to new places (literally, in one case).

Google announced the Android platform last year, and now T-Mobile unveiled the first ever commercial smartphone that runs on it: the T-Mobile G1. I'm really hoping that such open platforms like Android and Openmoko become successful. The competition that could potentially be offered by these dirt-cheap platforms ought to accelerate the development of better, cheaper, more open mobile technologies. And with that, average people will begin to finally find some use in buying smartphones and not see them merely as expensive toys. We could finally be entering an era of smartphone ubiquity.**

Now, we knew last year that Google created a simple Webkit-based browser as part of their Android software, and that should have been a clue to the biggest bombshell they dropped so far this year: the Google Chrome browser. Cynical jokes have been made about how the Google Borg isn't content that people use their sites and is now telling people to use Google sites via a Google browser. You could almost imagine some digital monster crawling slowly but surely, first on a web page, then onto your taskbar... then suddenly you see a clawed, bluish hand reaching out from your monitor and grabbing your throat... Well anyway, Google says they created the open-source Chrome because they wanted to help others make better web browsers, because they want a better Web, because the Web is their home sweet home. Whatever their reasons really are, I'm already shamelessly using Chrome as my primary browser. It doesn't have extensions, but I just love not having to wait forever to load Firefox just to check my reading list. I'm also pretty happy with its intuitive Omnibox search features. Still, the thing is in beta.*** I use Firefox occasionally when needed, like whenever Chrome won't play nice with certain sites (the problems are usually CSS-related). Another problem is it sometimes stalls for a few seconds when switching tabs, which is quite annoying given the amount of multi-tasking I do at work****. All in all, I can't wait for the next Chrome version to come out.

The last bit of news is that the Philippines (among others) is now editable in Google Map Maker. I've been playing with it for the past few days it's been very, very educational so far. See, I once got lost in the middle of the very city I live in because all the jeepneys in the area were going to places I didn't know. Heck, I don't even know the names of half the streets in my small neighborhood. Reading all day and never hanging out with friends during the weekends does that to you. But now I can memorize all the main roads in Metro Manila without leaving the comfort of my house/office/dorm. They always say that travelling the streets and exploring places is good exercise for the body, and so I think I'll go travelling some more now. Let me just open another tab. There you go. Drag, drag, double-click... I can feel the health benefits already!

--
* Okay, okay... I'm just a lazy blogger.
** What can I say? I like to daydream. :)
*** Well, this is Google we're talking about. Most of what they do are in beta. What I meant was Chrome is in very early beta.
**** All work-related... if "work" is defined as "clicking on the mouse of the work computer".

Saturday, August 23, 2008

Anarchy and Chance Part 2: The Small Laws

(This is the second part of my ramblings concerning The Dark Knight movie. The first part dealt with the Joker, and here I deal with Two-Face. Just as with Part 1, I will treat the character, not as a realistic human being whose psychology could validly be analyzed, but rather I will treat him as a philosophical object. In the Part 1 I used Joker as a model of what the atheistic world view rationally leads to in terms of morality. Here in Part 2, I will use Two-Face as a caricature of someone enslaved by sin. I do this to describe my thoughts on certain concepts, not to describe actual people.)

"When you break the big laws, " says the philosopher G.K. Chesterton, "you do not get freedom; you do not even get anarchy. You get the small laws." This succinctly describes, I think, the central philosophical problem posed by the character in The Dark Knight film named Harvey Dent, also called "Two-Face". The villain Two-Face is a mad-man obsessed with little impromptu coin-toss-related laws that govern and dictate his every big decision. Yet even as District Attorney Dent, the White Knight of Gotham, he was already tainted with the seed of his future madness. For all his righteousness and courage and integrity, Harvey Dent already had a dent long before The Joker twisted him completely.

When Chesterton says "the big laws", he means Divine Law, specifically Christian doctrine. It is called big, not just because we believe it to come from The Big Man himself, but because it is always broad, all-encompassing, "catholic". For example, when we say "human life is sacred", we do not just mean the life of good Christians, or the life of decent law-abiding citizens, or the life of those who just so happened to be no longer dependent on their mother's womb. We mean all human life. Christian doctrine is also big in the sense that it is not limited by the ignorance, prejudices, and environment of its followers. An orthodox Catholic from the 21st century and an orthodox (and time-traveling!) Catholic from the 15th century might argue endlessly about politics, cosmology, music, and proper attire, yet their orthodoxy could still remain intact. A 27th century Vulcan might land his time-traveling spaceship in front of them, exhibiting vast knowledge and scientific insight, yet none of that could threaten their Faith one bit (the Vulcan might even become Catholic! Hello Bishop Spock!). When we call Christian philosophy a cosmic philosophy, we mean it!

Lastly, Christian doctrine is big because it is something that is whole. Like Health and Sanity, it is a balance and an intertwining of things in a way that one part cannot stand without the rest. And here we return to Harvey Dent. The problem with Dent, the problem of any typical heretic, really, is that he lost sight of healthy thinking because he was obsessed with one tiny part of sanity, breaking it away from the whole as if it was self-sufficient. Harvey Dent's obsession was basically the doctrine of Free Will, which in his hands degenerated into egotism and the irrational disregard for outside forces.

"I don't leave anything up to chance, I make my own luck."
Chesterton said in his book Orthodoxy that the act of believing in oneself, far from being an indication of future success (as so many self-help books claim), is rather often the first sign of a rotter. And the reason for thing is illustrated by the story of Harvey Dent's rotting. He poured all his hope and passion into a single sane idea, the idea that he has the power to change his environment, that he is not just a passive leaf going with the flow of the river. But he forgot two things. First, that we are all part of a bigger Plan (generally of God, though in this case, the movie makers are the gods :P), and just as there are things we can change, there are also things that are beyond us, no matter how much will we have. And so we have the prayer "Lord, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change." Secondly he also forgot that other people have Free Will as well. He fell in love with his own Free Will, which is another way of saying that he's fallen for himself, which is simply the sin of Pride. And with Pride comes th Fall. Believing completely in himself, Dent was blindsided by the Free Will of an evil clown, and by the time Joker was done with him, that tiny piece of sanity left in him blew up in his face. The Worship of Oneself wasn't so self-sufficient, after all! And in his despair, he took the rest of what was left of his sanity, and smashed it to pieces, leaving behind a bunch of tiny laws and ideas centered upon the complete reversal of his first obsession:
  • We are all slaves of Chance. Our will, our choices and beliefs mean nothing once the coin has been tossed.
  • Chance dictates who is punished and who escapes to live another day. It is the only kind of Justice: "unbiased, unprejudiced, fair".
  • Right and Wrong are merely the opposite sides of the same coin. An action becomes considered right only by Chance.
And all it took was, as the Joker said, "a little push".

The half-baked belief, Free Will becoming mere worship of Self (the "I believe in Harvey Dent" motto comes to mind), shattered into even more fragile pieces, simple truisms that only the insane would call "beliefs". For example, the "slave of Chance" claim is useless because it is simply a sophistic restatement of something that isn't even an argument in the first place: the truism that "things happen" (which is just as insightful as another common truism used by some who enjoy small laws: "I like doing the things I like"). Or in another sense, calling yourself a "slave of Chance" is so useless that it becomes too useful, because just as it explains nothing, it explains everything away. Once you base your philosophy on a truism, all your thoughts can be excused, for you have already excused yourself of Thought itself. Why bother thinking of Ethics, when your best friend Chance has already showed you the way to what you want? Yet whatever sense of freedom such a philosophy gives, in the end it only enslaves the mind.
You think I want to escape from this? There is no escape from this!
For a man who embraces the small laws for everything will discover that everything has become so much smaller. Like a triangle that broke from the bonds of its three sides, he finds himself free from far too much. Having freed himself, for example, from the "chains" of Free Will, he is startled to discover that he can no longer say, among other things, "Thank you", "Please", "I don't like what you're doing", "Sorry", "I forgive you", and "I love you"... at least not without contradicting his philosophy. The man of Chance binds himself with polished, refined, high-class chains that will not even let him pass the salt-shaker if he pleases, and to be thanked for it. Is it any surprise that it won't let Harvey Dent kill a traitor? Chance, after all, is a two-faced friend.

And thus Harvey Dent became Two-Face, the mindless murderous peon of an unthinking coin, somehow imagining himself to be Enlightened, like the atheistic Brights of today who laugh and sneer at believers whilst trapped in their own little prisons.

Yet the Truth shall set you free.


--
Edit: Changed the title of the post to reflect the Chesterton quote. It's what I originally intended, but writing at 2am in the morning can be really bad for one's focus.

Edit: Added stuff to the last few paragraphs in a futile attempt to improve coherence.

Edit: After re-reading Orthodoxy, added another classic Chesterton saying.

Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Anarchy and Chance - Part 1, The House of Cards

I finally got to watch The Dark Knight last Saturday with my parents and my little sister. Just as I treated Wanted as a comedy parodying its supposed genre, I ended up seeing The Dark Knight as something other than an action movie. The few combat scenes and the car chases were a chore to watch and were mostly forgettable. No, instead of an action movie, I saw a set of philosophy lessons (wrapped in a beautiful work of film art, but that's for everyone else to talk about).

Though there were many bossy bad guys in the movie (Salvatore was there, as well as the lame-ass Scarecrow), only one of them stood out, reigning over the rest, the one central villain-- I say he's even the central character-- the Joker. But there's also another character who's almost as important, a tortured man whose villainy emerged only near the end of this tragedy, the pitiful Two-Face. It seems to me as if Batman was just there to connect these two villains, to unite the two stories of evil together. It's as if the title misled us into thinking that the story is about Bruce Wayne's alter-ego, when it actually refers to two things: the laughing "knight" of darkness and the "dark night" of a poor soul. I see the movie as just a framework to present these two sides of a philosophical coin, painted on one side, scorched on the other. It is the Coin of Immorality, spinning madly forever and ever.

***

I'm not a monster. I'm just ahead of the curve.
Just some time ago I was debating an atheist friend about the proper justification for morality. I argued that while I had an a priori justification for morality in the form of a divine Law Maker, he did not. He only had the little random and selfish human commandments invented by sentimental men. None of his morality is real, not in any rational sense. Atheistic morality is the one described by Terry Pratchett's Death in his conversation with Susan in Hogfather:

You have to start out learning to believe the little lies.
"So we can believe the big ones?"
Yes. Justice. Duty. Mercy. That sort of thing.
"They're not the same at all!"
Really? Then take the universe and grind it down to the finest powder and sieve it through the finest sieve and then show me one atom of justice, one molecule of mercy. And yet you act, like there was some sort of rightness in the universe by which it may be judged"
"Yes. But people have got to believe that or what's the point?"
My point exactly.


That is the kind of irrational morality that some sentimental atheists have. "I've got to believe in justice and mercy or else what's the point?" My friend, being a typical enlightened Bright, scoffed at my need to believe in a bearded man in the clouds to give meaning to my life, calling my belief system a house of cards, utterly dependent on one assumption that God exists. Yet one simply cannot justify moral conduct in a world where morality is not real in principle. You cannot consider Moral Law as objective if your Law Maker is nobody but yourself, certainly not if your Law Maker is the mythical Everybody Else, the muddled and chaotic collective opinions of the people around you.

In fact the real house of cards is the belief system utterly dependent on subjective individualist dogmas, improvised to fit the current needs, like a complicated magical house held together only by superstition, like a house of Joker cards held together by kieselguhr infused with nitroglycerine. And it only takes grief or fear or gullibility or even boredom to push one card and topple the house to the ground. It takes one flame to make it go boom.
When the chips are down, these civilized people, they'll eat each other.
The Joker manages to demonstrate this multiple times throughout the movie, destroying one house of cards after another. Promising more wealth to his minions, they conveniently and systematically killed each other, eliminating the need to split up the loot. He knew that the mob bosses' plan to protect their money will fail, and used their fear to coerce them into irresponsibly hiring a madman-- him-- to solve their problems in the most destructive way possible. He made the people of Gotham agree to sacrificing Batman after he murdered the police commissioner and a judge. He threatened to blow up a hospital if a certain man isn't killed after a set time, leading a bunch of supposedly normal everyday people to go on a vicious manhunt. In the end, Joker drove Gotham's White Knight insane... but let's talk about that some other time.

The atheist would of course complain that even Catholics can be immoral, citing as usual the crusades and the inquisitions and the pedophile priests. But they miss the point entirely because while men can flip-flop and occasionally forget the philosophies they supposedly believe in, the philosophies themselves do not change, and the real test is how (and if) a person can be judged by his own philosophy.

There lies the victory of Christian philosophy: while a Catholic who has gone bad is a bad Catholic, an atheist who has gone bad is not a bad atheist. The Catholic can be condemned by his god because the god is bigger than the Catholic and can therefore be a proper judge. But what can atheism say to a Joker? Even if an atheist invents his own materialist moral codes (as they often do), those moral codes cannot condemn him because they are mere inventions of his, and are therefore smaller than him, changeable and disposable.
You have all these rules, and you think they'll save you.

The only sensible way to live in this world is without rules.
And dispose of them he does. Joker calls himself "ahead of the curve" precisely because he's decided to live his atheism honestly and abolish all the illusory rules while his counterparts and enemies still continue to fool themselves with The Big Lies. In Joker we find the true atheist: amoral, hedonist, unreliable, deadly. And in him one finds at last the kind of atheism that cannot be reasoned with by any religious apologetics. He is an unstoppable force, because his philosophy is at the very least rational and consistent.
You have nothing—nothing to threaten me with, nothing to do with all your strength.
Just like anyone who has found an unassailable Truth to faithfully hold on to, there is absolutely no fear in Joker, not even the fear of death. Laughing gleefully as he falls down from a tall building, he reminds me of the stories I read as a child about certain Christian martyrs who died in ecstatic bliss, laughing as they were executed. The only difference is that the Christian martyr laughed knowing that he was about to experience the Beatific Vision of the God he truly loved, while Joker laughed thinking he was about to make the most wonderful dramatic and chaotic exit from the absurd and illusory world. One's Truth was in God, while the other's Truth was in Destruction even unto himself.

Meanwhile, the incomplete atheists and the lukewarm believers could only shake their heads in confusion at the sight of these madmen, the Dogmatist and the Anarchist. They walk away ignoring the warnings of one and the threats of the other, and go on living contentedly and happily in their colorful house of cards.

To be continued in Part 2.

Thursday, June 19, 2008

Sun Tech Days

Last Tuesday and yesterday I attended the Sun Tech Days conference in Shangrila Hotel, Makati. It was the 10th anniversary of the conference. The president of Sun Microsystems Philippines danced. There were lots of squishy thingies being thrown at the audience. The food was great. The speakers were...well, the food was really, really great. :P

The whole of Tuesday was dedicated to showing off the new features of NetBeans 6.1 like the Profiler, the GUI Builder, handy keyboard shortcuts, etc. Support for other languages like PHP and Ruby were mentioned, but this was a Sun Microsystems conference, so they never bothered to demo those.

Yesterday I was assigned by my boss to the Enterprise Track (the other tracks were Desktop, OpenSolaris, and SysAdmin). Here are the notable Enterprise topics discussed (though in some cases, more like blabbered):

  • Groovy and Grails. I was made to believe that we could choose between attending a Groovy session or a JRuby session. Turns out JRuby (an implementation of Ruby in Java) was thrown out in favor of the Ruby-wannabe Groovy. The unique thing about Groovy is that it was created with Java-interoperability in mind, such that Groovy classes can be directly imported for use in Java code and vice versa. This is really handy for people who need to work with other Java developers but who prefer dynamic syntax. Anyway, it was great to see the reaction of people to the concept of closures and to the Rails-like way of doing MVC.
  • Java Persistence API (JPA). This is now Java's standard for mapping objects to a relational database table, basically creating a wrapper for that table. There are of course other ways to do this in Java, like via other third-party APIs (only Hibernate and TopLink were mentioned), Entity Beans, or good ol' JDBC. JPA is cool because not only does it simplify object-relational mapping, it does this without the "unnatural need for special interfaces" (paraphrasing one of the speakers). It simply uses plain old Java objects (or POJO*) and relies on dependency injection** via Java annotations. The overall effect is it makes code look a lot more coherent, not to mention easier to unit test.
  • GlassFish. This is an open-source application server that implements the latest Java Enterprise Edition and uses Java NIO for faster connections. The GlassFish session also gave a glimpse to the next Java EE version and how it will use the POJO and dependency injection stuff as well. Pretty exciting, and it seems my dreams of simpler, more sensible servlet-programming is finally coming true!
  • Oracle's Coherence. For some reason a number of people started leaving the moment the Oracle guy was introduced. Quite a few more left mid-way into his presentation. Maybe because he was a corporate type with a strange accent. Maybe because Oracle is just boring. Anyway, Coherence is a way to store database records in memory, allowing for super-fast data-access. If that sounds familiar, you might've heard of memcached, which is similar but open-source. Most of the speaker's presentation was basically a sermon on the importance of scalability. Scalability is the main advantage of Coherence over memcached as it allows the cached data to be replicated and distributed across multiple machines. This leads to stability even in extreme volume of transactions. Well, okay, but I still wished I could've attended the Java SE 7 demo in the next room instead.
Other stuff I saw demoed included jMaki***, JavaFX, SVG 1.2 support for Java ME (JSR 287), and VirtualBox (running on OpenSolaris). Today it's my team members' turn to attend the final set of talks, the lucky buggers. Despite the incoherence of some of the speakers (pun intended!), the conference made me really excited about new Java platform technologies, and I'm glad the company I work for seems really interested in them. Technology is fun!

Update: I was able to catch up on the last set of talks for today. The MySQL talk (which was about MySQL 5.1, storage engines, and JavaDB) was a lot more interesting than the Oracle talk yesterday.

- - -
* Apparently acronyms make things cooler.
** Dependency injection means JPA will supply your objects with any dependency you specify. For example, if you need an object to be treated as an "entity" that maps to a database table, you simply add the proper annotation to the class definition and JPA will "inject" all the necessary database-related code into the object upon instantiation. You can therefore focus on coding the business-related aspects of the class definition.
*** Mainly they demoed the jMaki widgets integration in NetBeans. Pretty cool.

Sunday, June 15, 2008

Bird Brain tweets for today

  • 10:48 Friendfeed allows you to tweet your comment on a Twitter item right in its interface. Cool! #
  • 10:51 Will go to the dorm this afternoon...right after pizza with family. #
  • 18:44 Dormward bound. Traffic is horrendous. #
  • 21:43 Playing w/ Ruby. Number ranges FTW! #
  • 23:24 Used someone's forwarded chain e-mail to teach Ruby in my alma mater's yahoogroup. Man, I think I'm gonna be in trouble for this. #
Automatically shipped by LoudTwitter

Friday, May 16, 2008

Connecting with others

I think I've figured out why I've been such a terrible blogger for months now, and it's not because I'm too busy with work, or because I'm too lazy to type long entries. No, I've been busy with a couple other things:

  • Checking out what other people are doing and listening to their thoughts.
  • Joining conversations on topics I care about.
Of course there's still the usual looking for cool stuff online to share with you guys, but now I share those stuff as soon as I read them with just a click of a button, with only an occasional small commentary on my part, letting you see them all in one place and comment on them if you want to.

***
I used to really hate it when I end up in blogs filled with posts like "I'm listening to this cool song right now. Oh, and my cat scratched our sofa AGAIN. I feel bored..." Let's not even get into the spelling and grammar problems. Now, if ever I see such a blog again, I'll probably just feel pity that this poor guy isn't using the right tool for the job. That's because I now see the use of letting your friends know the little things that go through your mind, whether or not you're directly talking to them. It's the little things, the outbursts of opinions, the spontaneous thoughts that might be seeds of greater ideas, the personal experiences we have...these things help others empathize and connect with us. That's exactly why chats-- those spontaneous bursts of disorganized information, opinion and reaction-- whether online or in "real life", are so important in friendships.*

The problem with some personal blogs of long ago is that some people (kids, mostly) tried to use them to chat. For one reason or another, this just didn't work. People expected blogs to start conversations, or join existing conversations...conversations that required some level of organized thought regarding topics of discussion...not to talk about the weather or about what you ate in the nearby fast-food chain (or about your current boredom). In short, the kids wanted to chat with someone...to just talk...and to listen...and to connect...but the platform they were using wasn't suited for the purpose. They wanted to chat with the world, but nobody cared.

Now with services like Twitter and Jaiku, everybody could chat with the world, to tell everybody what's up, in a place that cared about what you are doing right now. The best part is you don't have to be on a specific OS, or using a specific application. You don't even have to go online all the time. I receive updates from the Mars Phoenix Lander team every day on my cellphone. I get to read the thoughts of my high school classmates, my sister, or my crush even as I lay in my bed. The feeling of connectedness I get here just blows away anything else I've experienced in any online service, including other so-called social networks. It's just awesome!

***
I've mentioned that blogs are used to join online conversations with the public. It just so happens that I enjoy conversations, be they humorous or argumentative. Now some famous bloggers join online conversations by posting their reactions on their blog, but I realized I prefer another approach. I tend to simply post my response to some blogger, and it's usually very lengthy and blog-worthy in itself, onto his blog as a comment. If you bothered to look, most of the prose I write online will be seen on Slashdot, or on my friends' blogs, or even on random blogs I come across. I never bothered to copy my comments here. As far as I'm concerned, discussions should develop where they started, to keep the arguments in context. It helps prevent bloggers from isolating themselves in their own bubble on an issue. You could always pretend that the debate is on your side when it's only you presenting the issue on your blog. Joining in an actual thread of conversation lets everyone see how you really stand. Sometimes connecting with others can be tough, but it also helps you be more humble and objective. It helps you empathize, which sometimes hurts, but will be good for you in the end.

Light-bulb: Of course, it would be ideal if I could comment on other people's blogs and still have my comments automatically visible to my own blog readers (i.e. the four of you). Maybe the Blogger Team should develop a system to let me view and share the discussions I've joined in any Blogspot page. Better yet, they could team up with the rest of the OpenID Foundation to create a relatively blogosphere-wide system that would track my comments almost anywhere.



_ _
*Which is probably the greatest thing about the company I work for, in that it helps others generate the friendly chaos of "small talk" wherever they are.

Bird Brain tweets for today

  • 07:19 Arrived at the office almost an hour ago. At around 6:30 AM. Stupid timezones... #
  • 07:22 Too bad your Dad made a mistake and got punished, eh, Barack? ;-) tinyurl.com/5o5axs #
  • 11:48 I think I know what motherboard I'll be buying for my next PC. tinyurl.com/5le7n2 #
  • 11:48 ASUS FTW! #
  • 14:00 I noticed that Twitter's IM bot isn't 100% reliable. A few updates from people I follow don't appear, even though I'm online the whole day. #
  • 19:51 I need to learn when a task needs to be left for tomorrow instead of making futile attempts to finish it today. #
  • 20:35 Already two BPI ATMs have failed to reload my prepaid phone. "Special" Services... more like Retarded... #
Automatically shipped by LoudTwitter

Wednesday, May 14, 2008

Bird Brain tweets for today

  • 13:26 This message was sent from my mobile via PHtwitter. Cool. #
  • 13:36 PHtwitters allow for cheap SMS twittering from the Philippines. www.phtwitters.com #
  • 15:30 Microsoft's World Wide Telescope is now up: www.worldwidetelescope.org/experienceIt/ExperienceIt.aspx #
  • 18:10 Work rant: the problem could either be the GSM modem, or the old C code that's using it. I'm starting to hate both. #
  • 18:39 "You have only been gone 10 days and already I'm wasting away..." #
  • 18:40 I suddenly miss my guitar. Should buy new strings later. #
  • 19:32 It seems the GSM modem they bought is just utterly flawed. No need to scour hundreds of lines of tangled C code. #
  • 19:33 Gotta go home now so I can watch Avatar w/o my Mom nagging. :P #
  • 20:26 Forgot that the bottle was open and promptly spilled water on my pants. Wtf?! #
Automatically shipped by LoudTwitter

Friday, May 09, 2008

A Socket for My Brain

Dudes! I just renamed my blog! This is so crazy!!!

It's been years since I realized that "The Brain" can be a very misleading title. People read it and think "Man, what an ego...he's not even that smart!", when in fact I was only trying to convey the image of this blog being a link to my head, a place where I can record the various thoughts and ideas that come into my mind, an online extension of my very faulty memory. More importantly, it's something that helps me express myself to an audience (e.g. all four of you), giving them the dubious privilege of peering into my head without having to use a hacksaw...or Matrix-style mind-hacking. Instead I became known as "the guy who calls himself The Brain".

But then, seeing an opportunity to act on a trivial image problem, I chose to procrastinate. Story of my life. I'd occasionally ponder on what name I ought to use instead: "Hack My Brain" looks cool as part of my URL, but not as a title. "Brain Dump" would look negative for people who don't know what the term meant. Apparently I had a fixation for the word "brain" that wouldn't quit. Well, by the time "/home/focoma/brain" flashed in my head, I decided I just wasn't inspired enough to think of a good title. Or maybe I was just lazy. Anyway my blog title languished in shame for many years (this blog itself barely manages to do better, but let's not go there now).

Then a few minutes ago I spontaneously renamed it to "A Socket for My Brain". Well, clearly the fixation hasn't gone, and there might even be a dash of influence from that strange Keanu Reeves movie. Too bad there's no white rabbit.

Let's just see how this goes, yes? Good night.

Bird Brain tweets for today

  • 10:07 One downside to programming in both PHP and Java is that sometimes one forgets to use String.equals() for String comparisons. #
  • 17:38 A teensy bit of orange misses a teensy bit of yellow. #
  • 18:25 "Planned Parenthood" is an evil euphemism. Let's use the more apt name: Planned Barrenhood #
  • 18:32 "They introduce their horrible heresies under new and carefully complimentary names... The names are always flattery; the names are also ... #
Automatically shipped by LoudTwitter