Works of Art (1 of 2)

I once worked at a shoe store in some mall. It was a small store. Most of the time, I was the only person. This was around the time when I was about 17 or so, and likely sometime during the period following the start of the Persian Gulf War. The day the war started, the malls where empty. Attendance at the mall never really recovered while I worked there, even after the war's end. I had many long hours to do nothing. I was supposed to look busy to make it seem as though there was always activity within the little store, but there was no one in the mall for which I could look busy.

Being 17 and being stuck, I began to explore my limited surroundings. For whatever reason, I started playing with the shoe polish. I don't know how or why I got started with this. In secret, I started making miniature paintings with the shoe polish. I still have three of those works. I don't consider them half bad for what they are: shoe polish on card stock paper. I may be the only person in history to explore this medium. Here is one those surviving works.

This one is Girl catching up. It depicts one girl running after another that is impatiently waiting. The color represents the angst between the two and perhaps a bit more. In modern terms, one might call them frienemies. The inspiration may have been some of the girls that frequented the mall.

I may display the other surviving works soon.

Identification of years

How many people actually know that there is no year zero on the common Western (Gregorian) calendar. This creates logical problems that are hard to deal with in the lay population. Most people assume an understanding and use of zero. I would even catch myself thinking in terms of having a year zero had I not known a little more about our calendar than the average bear. Bottom line, on our calendar, the year 1 BC is followed by 1 AD.

Just as there is no year zero, there is not zero century. Our 21st Century is 2001 to 2100. The last year of the 21st Century is 2100, not the first year. That's fairly counter-intuitive. This does force me to think when I talk about periods in the 16th through 19th Centuries. It is very easy to think that 18th Century is the same as the 1800's.

So, there is no year zero, no matter how confusing that ends up being. Until we choose another calendar system, this will be a contentious issue.

Another point to discuss is how to identify years. The most common method for years counting backward is B.C., and A.D. for our current era (years that count forward). These two abbreviations refer a previously accepted date for the birth of Jesus Christ. It is now commonly agreed that if Jesus Christ did exist, his birth was more likely between the period of 8 and 4B.C. This means the start year of our calendar is pretty arbitrary, as it is not associated with any particular event. Yet, we still use terms that directly reference Jesus' birth. Alternative terms that have been proposed are BCE (Before our Common Era) and CE (our Common Era). This turns the arbitrary date away from being Christian centric, but in a way, it still attempts to enforce that old world calendar on others. I see BCE/CE used more frequently these days, but I do not believe it will ever become the norm.

To accept the arbitrary nature of our calendar and to establish some Information Age standard, those Europeans have come up with a supposed standard ISO-8601. This document is meant to be an international standard, but isn't really in common use. The problem with ISO-8601 is that is renumbers the years that count backwards. 1BC becomes 0000 and 2BC becomes -0001. Unless every history book ever written is updated to this new attempt to renumber the years, I doubt ISO-8601 will ever be in common use by anyone other than software programmers.

Month of buzyness

It's kinda funny that "business" cannot be used to describe busy-ness anymore, and that's where the word comes from. Oh, any way does that U sound like a long E?

Anyway, yes, I've had a moth of busy-ness. In-laws were visiting town from out of the country (Hong Kong/Austrilia). Not to mention, it is tax season. Also, I've been busy with work, and my technical blog over here. Also, fitting time in for friends when I can.

Drug Pushers

I used to be in favor of allowing drug companies the right to directly advertise their products to consumers. However, the more time that goes by, the more I realize the misguided ideology of this line of thinking. History now bares witness to the facts that reveal several truths about this matter.

Pharmaceutical companies do not do nearly the research that they need to in order to determine the effectiveness of their drugs before they start selling them to customers. Also, when such research is not favorable, they delay the release of the information to the public in order to drive more sales. The most recent example of this is Vytorin (and its component Zetia). These drugs were proven to reduce bad cholesterol. However, a dangerous assumption was made that this inherently also reduced the risk of heart attacks. The fact is that the drug does not reduce the risk of heart attacks. The drug companies of Schering-Plough Corp. and Merck & Co. marketed this nearly useless drug for two years after they knew it did not work for the purpose it was intended, according to AP in their article.

Pharmaceutical companies spend hundreds of millions of dollars on marketing campaigns. This is taking money way from research and development. In my opinion, it is also likely the major reason that drug costs are raising drastically since the band on drug advertisements was lifted.

Advertising drugs directly to the public encourages self-diagnosis. People are trying to be their own doctors. Advertising, along with the establishment of the Internet has given hypochondriacism new life and even legitimacy. Self-diagnosis is very dangerous.

Given these reasons, I am now in favor of re-establishing the restrictions on advertising for proscription drugs. This will help reduce the chances that corporate greed will take advantage of Americans. It will help reduce the cost of drugs. It will help provide for more R&D funding into new treatments. And, it will help reduce dangerous hypochondriacism and self-diagnosis.

Life Confuses Me.

My simple statement about me: "Life confuses me and I'm comfortable with that confusion."

I don't need to have beliefs about things I don't know or can't confirm. I tend to develop notions, but I generally understand that these are just ideas that should not be taken as more than that. So, yeah, there is a lot about this world I don't understand; and I don't need to understand them to live my life.

The Earth is Flat and the Heaven supported above us?

There is a misconception that the bible states the world is a sphere.  There is no evidence for this misconception.  However, some interpret Isiah 40:22 to mean the bible says the Earth is a sphere, but that scripture does not say this.  In fact, that scripture makes other false statements about the nature of our world and the Universe.

From the King James Version:

"It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:"

First, a circle is not a sphere.  Second, it makes reference to the heavens as being a curtain stretched over the Earth as a tent.  This is actually in line with the beliefs at the time.  The surface of the Earth was viewed as flat, and the heavens were assumed to be stretched out over it, like a bowl turned over being placed on top a support, or like a tent covering. Many scriptures refer to the heavens in this manner. Check out Genesis 1:8, 2:4, 11:4, 28:12, just for starters.

In fact, some translations of the first creation account in Genesis 1:8 describes god as calling into existence the firmament of the heaven.  A firmament is a support or pillar.  To extend the simile of Isiah 40:22, it is the tent pole upon which heaven is held up above the Earth.  This is intended as literal, not poetic.  This was the literal belief about the nature of heaven used throughout the Bible's Old Testament.  It is a holdover from Egyptian mythology which stated that a large mountain was arisen from the sea to support the heaven.^[1]

To further the bowl reference, this word firmament is an interesting derivative.  In the Hebrew, the word used for firmament is raqiya which means an extended solid surface or flat expanse.  Raqiya is derived from the Hebrew word raqa, which means beaten out or to spread material by beating, hammering, or stamping.  This is a reference to the process of making a metal bowl by hammering metal flat.  Thus in Job 37:18 we read about Elihu asking Job "Can you beat out [raqa] the vault of the skies, as he does, hard as a mirror of cast metal." (From the Kings James Version: "Hast thou with him spread out the sky which is strong, and as a molten looking-glass?")  Additionally, Job 22:14 makes reference to the "vault of heaven", sometimes translated as "vault of the sky" or "arch of heaven" in the context of discussing where god resides.^{[2][3][4][4 backup link]}

To get back to the idea of the Earth being flat, many scriptures make references to the Earth being built upon a foundation. Note Job 38:4, Zechariah 12:1, Hebrews 1:10, Revelations 13:8 and Revelations 17:8.  The Earth is also described as being fixed in place in scriptures such as 1 Chronicles 16:30.

All of these promote the idea that the ancients had false concepts about the nature of Earth being flat and heaven being placed over the Earth and supported somehow so that is does not fall.  It shows that the writers of the bible showed an acceptance and believed in these false concepts.

----

Though not used as a resource for this article, I also recommend reading The Three-Story Universe (backup link).

Evolution of Mammal Traits

Sometimes I am just fascinated by how mammals became, well, mammals. It is wild to think that the incredible variety of mammals we see today, from the smallest mouse to the biggest whale, all came from just a handful of ancient species. And a lot of what makes us mammals is not what people typically image.

Take our hearing, for instance. Most people do not realize its unique composition. We have three tiny bones in our inner ear, the malleus, incus, and stapes, that work together to give us our amazing hearing. The first two actually evolved from bones that other animals use for their jaws! This is a huge difference from most other animals. And, of course, there is the one thing everyone knows: we feed our young milk. This is such a complex process that it is no wonder some people find it easier to believe we were just "made" this way. But the evidence for evolution is out there, and it is not all in the fossil record.

A Living Look at Evolution

The platypus is probably the most primitive mammal alive today, and it shows us a lot. It still lays eggs, a very reptilian trait. But, it also feeds its young a kind of milk, though not from nipples. Instead, it secretes a milk-like substance from a hairy patch on its belly. This secretion does not just feed the babies; it also has antibacterial properties that might help protect the egg and the young after they hatch.

From there, we can look at the echidna. This little guy represents a step toward marsupials. It lays eggs too, but it places them into a pouch on its body. This must be what a primitive marsupial looked like before egg-laying was replaced with embryo birth.

Marsupials have their own unique advantages. Because their young leave the womb so early, there are fewer complications from the mother's immune system attacking the embryo.

But then you have us, placental mammals. The placenta is a complete game-changer. It allows the fetus to develop for much longer and in a more protected environment inside the mother. The fact that placental mammals are now the most dominant form of mammals shows this is an advantageous trait.

Even with all our advanced development, mammals have not been around for very long. We have far fewer varieties of species than reptiles, for example. Given how far we have come, I am excited to see what future classes of animals will evolve on our planet.

The most useful website

I serve you, oh great hypnotoad.



I will tell everyone about your new episodes of Futurama. All are ordered to watch them on Comedy Central and to buy the DVD.

My Restaurant Reviews

I've been reviewing items online almost as long as I've been on the internet. I've started leaving reviews of restaurants in Silicon Valley now. Check them out here:

My Restaurant Reviews

Currently, I have reviews for Straits, Pizza Antica and Thea. So far, my reviews are centered around Santana Row, but it will expand.

Home schooling does not mean Parent schooling

In recent news here in California, there is a case in the courts now that is reinforcing California state law which basically says "persons between the ages of six and eighteen" are to be in "public full-time day school," or a "private full-time day school" or "instructed by a tutor who holds a valid state teaching credential for the grade being taught". This has been state law for a very very long time. Yet now, we have scofflaws that claim they have a right to teach their own children whatever they want. Homeschooling is legal in California, as long as it is conducted per state mandated curriculum and by a licensed instructor. The excuse used by the scofflaws? "Parents should not have to attend a four-year college education program just to teach their own children." It's the old argument, "Oh my god, this is too hard to do right, so I'm just going to do it wrong and be happy!" Lazy, lazy, lazy. Oh and cheap too! You don't care enough about your child's education to pay for it yourself (since you don't want the state to do it)! Mr and Mrs Long, in my opinion, you are lazy, selfish, and cheap jerks who obviously don't do enough reading into anything to know what is the truth. You have no business trying to pass on your ignorance to anyone's children! That said, it is important for parents to teach their children about their own experiences, beliefs, hertitage, etc. Parental schooling does not mean home schooling. It is not a replacement for a formal education. It is something that should be done in conjuction with a formal education. Home schooling is just a place to do it if the law is followed. Parental schooling is not the same thing. If you don't agree with something taught in the classroom, then discuss it with your children. It is as simple as that.

Weeklong birthday

This has been a weeklong birthday of sorts. Monday, Allie took me out to Red Lobster. I had something with two lobster tales. It was fairly good, but at it made me miss Legal Seafood in New England. Yesterday, Ronie and Fern had a small a BBQ for me at their place. They got a super rich chocolate cake. We took home the remainder of the cake, but I'm not sure how I'm going to eat it all. Tonight, Allie and I invited her parents to join us for dinner at Cascal in downtown Mountain View. They ended up paying for it it with the excuse that it was still my birthday.

First time in awhile

For the first time in awhile, I went out. I met up with Miriam and some of her friends a Old Pro in downtown Palo Alto. The evening wasn't too crazy. There was some new randoms from her work place. I had trouble making it there though because I wasn't able to leave work until like 7pm. It was fun getting out for the evening. Allie, oddly enough, had separate plans for her friends, also in downtown Palo Alto on the same evening, but those fell through and then she got sick. Otherwise, she would've come too.

Journeyman

Here's a show I am disappointed to see go. It might have been kept on for a full season had the writers strike on happened when it did. I know a lot of people had trouble getting into the show too. I personally enjoyed the show a lot.

Obviously Married

I looked at my ring finger today with no particular intentions. I started playing with my ring. That's when I saw it. It is official. My ring finger is now has an indelible ring of reddish coloration under my wedding ring. It's weird. It's like, I had the thought that,"Well, there really is no going back now." I can no longer take off my ring and expect no one to know I'm married. I never did this for that particular intention, of course. In fact, I was often concerned when I had to take my ring off out in public because there was no identification regarding my wedded status. Now though, the mark is unmistakable. The worry changed to, "What will people think if I have to take my ring off and they see this mark? Will they think I'm trying unsuccessfully to hide the fact I'm married?" It's funny how this stuff works; no middle ground.

Pop goes Mensa

Every once in awhile, even the elite among us must venture into the realm of pop culture. MENSA, it turns out, is no exception, apparently. Their chairhuman just came up with his "Top ten smartest shows of all time (in no particular order)". Leave it to a MENSA member to list a top ten of anything in no particular order. Now, it must be made clear that MENSA in no way takes itself too seriously beyond the actual endeavor to find smart people. This is a group of people that freely laughs at themselves. So, in an effort to give closure to any readers of my article here, I ask forgiveness from both MENSA chairhuman Jim Werdell and Fancast for re-publishing their list, as follows (my commentary is in red):

1. M*A*S*H – It had smart repartee and was so much more than a comedy. Yeah, I'll watch its reruns when I'm bored and nothing else is on.

2. Cosmos (with Carl Sagan) – Sagan was able to communicate something extremely complicated to the layman and do it well, and that’s unusual for a scientist at his level. It should be noted that Carl Sagan became an outcast among his peers in the scientific community because of his attempts to make science accessible to the everyone.

3. CSI -- The way they use science to solve their programs is intriguing to viewers. Only if all the worlds problems could be solved with a bit of science within an hour.

4. House – Again, it’s high level type of show; it’s the personality that makes it a winner, plus it deals with science. I am enjoying this show, but find I can't watch its reruns.

5. West Wing – you had to pay attention to stay up with it. The repartee was fast and furious and you needed a fairly high level intelligence to keep up with it. I did enjoy this show a lot. It would've been nice if we really had a President like that. It's impossible.

6. Boston Legal – It’s primarily because of the characters. The story lines are okay, but the characters are incredible and the writers give them great dialogue. I can watch this sometimes. 

7. All in the Family – The show dealt with social issues before its time and was on the forefront of trying to show people’s feelings, beliefs and the complexities of personality, in both a serious and comedic way. This was an important show in its day. It's ironic that a show with its social content couldn't be aired today even though we all think things are better now. I think its more that we are happy with how effectively we are hiding the underlining issues now.

8. Frasier – The repartee was sensational; the main characters were very good. Even though they portrayed people who were likely of high intelligence, they also showed their weaknesses. This is a great show that I can enjoy watching over and over.

9. Mad About You – It’s a personal favorite, I loved the characters and the back and forth. It was very smart. This was a good show that went deep into human relationships. Sometimes a little too deep.

10. Jeopardy – It’s about the only game show that really tries to test people’s intelligence. There’s very little luck involved, and there are few game shows like that. I don’t watch it all that much honestly, but from what I’ve seen it tests more than knowledge, it tests  intelligence too. It's fun at times, but isn't really about smarts; instead about who can memorize the most information.