codergeek42

With the recent clamour over Nautilus' default spatial-paradigm navigation mode as the default in Fedora, I decided to take a page from the book of David Nielsen and force myself to use spatial mode for a few solid days (at least). Having been a "Browser" user mostly of habit since I first started with Linux in 2003, I want to know first-hand why this decision is making so many people upset.

I'll report back soon with my findings! :)

It took two years of hard campaigning, lots of FUD-debunking, and countless sacrifices of time and labor, but we did it. Here at last, Barack Obama is officially the president-elect to serve as this country's 44th leader. This election brings to the White House the first African-American leader. As his victory has thusly overturned one aspect of our traditional government, my hope is that he as a leader can overturn the setbacks and failures of the past several years and bring this once-great nation back on the road to prosperity and civil freedom.

This victory for Senator (now President-elect) Obama comes only decades after various civil rights laws were enacted to enhance the civil and legal equalities for African American people. That said, many leading polls for Prop. 8 are not looking good: It's likely to pass with about a 52-55% “Yes” vote. Just when I thought we had learned from the mistakes of our history, we go and restrict one of the most basic civil rights of people: to marry the person they love. How is it then, that we as a society emphasize tolerance when we cannot even show such a fundamental right to our own citizens?

Up until this point, signs and ads for Prop. 8 have held a myriad of slogans, such as “Prop 8 = Protects Marriage,” “Prop 8 = Free Speech,” and “Prop 8 Protects Our Children.” These are all absolute hogwash, except for one, which reads: “Prop 8 = Civil Rights” - and that is exactly what this is. While current civil union and domestic partnership laws do give these couples most of the benefits of normally given to a marriage between a man and a woman, it lacks many important aspects of marriage, such as proper employment and insurance benefits for one's spouse (among other things).

One of the main arguments for it was that it passed in 2000 and was wrongly overturned by the State Supreme Court. But just because people agree to it does not make it fundamentally a correct idea. Was slavery wrongfully outlawed? Were the Jim Crow laws wrongly overturned, too? Were the laws denying women suffrage also wrongly overturned? I know what you're thinking, probably: “Oh, but that was different. That was racism and sexism and stuff.” Oh, come now; don't give me that load of crap. This is exactly the same thing, only against another group of people. I, for one, am ashamed at how closed-minded we can be as a society, and even moreso at how dumbfounded we can be to believe the outright lies and scare tactics that were used in advocacy of this proposition. Are we as a people so apathetic that we can simply be spoon-fed this nonsense and believe it so unquestioningly? Can we not think logically for our own selves and realize the idiocy of this?

One thing that strikes me as odd with it is the Judeo-Christian (and similarly-believing) religious groups who advocate against gay marriage and this proposition, but then proceed to preach about tolerance and love to they neighbor. Many (such as the Mormon Church) even went so far as to raise several millions of dollars in support of the “Yes on 8” groups...Why did they not spend that amount on, I don't know, things like feeding and housing more homeless? Hah!

As a final sentiment, to those of you who voted “Yes” on Proposition 8: I pray that you can one day forgive yourself for such irreverence. Until then, live forever with the guilt that you helped directly restrict so many loving couples and their families the happiness of taking their love just a bit further in the eyes of the law. It was you who helped directly remove the simple right of so many millions of people to marry their beloved. And it is you who keep them separate but equal.

(And now that the rant is done...) Fedora 10 (Cambridge) Preview was released today! Go try it out and help make it rock-solid for its full release ! :)

I didn't get a chance to watch it live due to classwork; but thanks to C-SPAN's YouTube channel, I was able to watch it recorded online when I got home last night. I'd like to make a few comments about John McCain's demeanor and stated plans, if I may.

The first question to both of them was, essentially: Why is your economic plan better than his? Senator Obama clearly - I felt - explained his plan to cut taxes for the lower 95% of people and raise them a bit for the remaining large businesses and whatnot that could afford to pay such taxes, citing examples of Exxon Mobile and other oil companies which intake multi-billion dollar annual profits already. Yet, in your mention of the "Joe" that Obama spoke with, you assure Joe that Obama's plan would create fines and levy more taxes on him as a small business owner...immediately after Obama had already stated that small businesses were "the drivers of this economy" and would likely receive a decrease in taxes and be exempt from these fines. "Decrease" and "increase" are antonyms. (That means the words' meanings are opposites.) Please don't confuse the two; thank you. Twice later you state that Obama wants to increase the average family's taxes again. Oy!

Secondly, Obama (near the middle of the debate) specifically explained his affiliations with Ayers and ACORN and why they should not be held against him as a presedential candidate. Yet, a short time later, you go on to claim that all the details about Obama's relationship with Ayers and ACORN need to be known. RIght after he just told you those details. Are you not even listening to what Obama is saying? If you can't even pay proper attention to what one person is saying for 90 minutes, then how are we supposed to trust you to pay attention to what the 200-plus million voters¹ of our Public are saying for a full four years?

Soon thereafter, the two candidates were asked why their running mates would be the better president, should something unforeseen happen to either of these senators as president. Mr. McCain, when you were expounding on Governor Sarah Palin's good traits, you mentioned that she "resigned when she saw corruption." How is this a good thing? Running away from a problem is not the proper way to fix it.

Then, you went on to describe Senator Joe Biden's negative attributes; and said, "He voted against it [...] and obviously we had to take Sadam Hussein out of Kuwait [...]"; and, when mentioning Senator Biden's experience on foreign policy and past decisions he has made thereto, you stated that "He's [Biden has] been wrong on a great many of them." Two claims. No supporting evidence: be it demographics, statistics, quotes from other reputable experts, etc. We want to know what makes the Kuwait situation so obvious. We want to know some examples of Biden's wrong foreign policy decisions. Nothing? Seriously, Mr. McCain, 101-level classes in college teach that aspect of critical thinking. (*sigh*) If you don't tell us why you believe that what you're saying is true and valid, then what reason do we as a Public have to believe the same?

On the the other hand, Obama was very positive in his explanation. He did not belittle Sarah Palin; he merely explained why Biden was superior: more qualified, better understands the average family, etc. - specific and precise support for his claim. I feel that this helps show not just the aptitude for clear content in his talking, but the fact that he is skilled in keeping a debate or discussion peaceful when its topics are otherwise quite heated. This moderating ability is exactly a trait that a good leader requires - especially one who is and will undoubtedly play a top role in the governments of and interaction between nations around the world.

Both candidates were also asked about health care. McCain gave an overview for his plan to reform much of what is already in place and give everyone a $5,000 tax break which they should then further use for health costs. Only a few minutes later, he said, "The average cost of a health plan is about $5,800." So, Mr. McCain, you effectively want us to pay eight hundred dollars, all out-of-pocket, for our own health care. Essentially, encouraging people to accrue debt. As it stands, many can barely afford to pay that amount for rent or housing; how can they be expected to pay twice that for the added benefit of their health care plan?

Before concluding the debate, both candidates were also asked about their education policies. (Where to begin?!) Mr. McCain, you declared that we should recruit military veterans and create more teaching positions by allowing or perhaps encouraging them to become teachers while bypassing credentials and competency/qualtification exams. You want men and women who have just come back from fighting, potentially, a major war or battle...to teach our children and future generations of thinkers. ARE YOU BATSHIT INSANE?!

While I don't feel that Obama's plan is entirely right (I'm in agreement with James Cape on this one), I do feel that he has much of it in the right direction: especially the aspects of it that encourage higher pay for better-performing teachers and requiring oft recertifications, with additional and updated training for those who fail these.

Lastly, Mr. McCain, you mentioned that, instead of making college more affordable, we should increase the availability and repayment flexibility for student loans. Again, you're recommending that instead of fixing a problem, we workaround it by accruing debt.

Senator McCain, you truly scare me. Quite a lot. Increasing debt does not fix an economy. Running away from problems does not solve them. Soldiers as-is do not make good teachers. Aside from that, your age means that, purely from a statistical perspective², we can expect you to die within the next decade and even more likely, to die within the next four years - what would be your term of office should you become president. Not only have you shown yourself to be unfit for presidency in this debate, but Governor Palin has done worse against herself in the vice-presidential debates and if she took office...well, I think (quite frankly ) we'd be in an even more horrid position than we were at the lowest of George W. Bush's presidency.

As a final comment, Senator McCain's appearance and attitude versus Senator Obama reminded me quite heavily of the Nixon-Kennedy debates, wherein Nixon looked very unfocused and distant. This paralleled McCain last night with his squirming in the chair, constant interruptions for often-contemptuous remarks, and rarely ever looking directly at the camera (and through it, we, the American Public). He seemed to be in is own little world, as the saying goes.

This contrasted well with Obama's Kennedy-like behavior: he presented himself as very confident and very prepared, with well-thought out plans of action and many statistical, anecdotal, and other reasons for why he believes his views to be correct. He held our eye-contact through his talking. When watching it, I just felt like Obama was almost talking to me directly; while on the other hand, McCain seemed to be talking only to the audience of that university hall.

If McCain wins this election, the American People will lose, and quite drastically. As Forrest Gump would say: "That's all I have to say about that."
 

Footnotes:

[1] This is according to the population pyramid from the 2000 US Census, assuming a significant majority of those in the "20-24" group and above are eligible and registered to vote. \

[2] The CIA World Factbook 2008 gave 2007 estimates of about 78.1 years for life expectancy at birth, with males having it reduced slightly to about 75.3 years. The United Nations also put out a list average for the 2005-2010 expected period, with numbers in approximate agreement: 78.2 years at birth, reduced to 75.6 years for males.

[No pun intended in the title.]

At my college this morning there was a table near the student center building with a bunch of young Proposition 8 supporters attempting to rally passing students into voting yes. Thankfully, nearly all of the students that were asked are vehemently opposed to the proposition; and to make the experience even more fun, we (as a group) we're debating the proposition with the advocates until they got stumped on facts, multiple times. Of the main supporting advocates in attendance, two young men correctly identified the issue as one of Civil Rights. They then went on trying to equate it to slavery (!!) and - as you can imagine - it all went downhill from there.

One young woman proponent (the wife, as we came to understand, of one of the aforementioned two young men) even tried sympathizing with us: telling us that she knows some gay friends and relatives who wish to get married - to which we promptly replied in thanks for her violent opposition of their happiness. Another of her arguments was that it would allow teaching children about homosexual couples and marriage, which are "morally wrong values." Yet, she admitted to being a couple of months pregnant and held a lit cigarette with her. What moral values does that teach our children, miss?

Along the side of the table were taped signs that proclaimed things such as "Protect Marriage!" "Prop 8 = Free Speech" and "Prop 8 = Less Government." For one, how does restricting marriage (especially that between two people who deeply love each other) protect it? Secondly, what the FUCK does Free Speech have anything to with this? The proposed amendment reads as follows:

"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

Nowhere in this is Free Speech mentioned. Nowhere. Not once. Cluestick, anyone? Last, but not least, is the "Prop 8 = Less Government" spiel. Someone please explain something to me about that. Prop 8, if passed, would add (keyword!) government restrictions to marriage. How does adding to it make it less?!

In conclusion, HOW DAFT ARE YOU PEOPLE, SERIOUSLY?!

The pen may be "mightier than the sword," as is said; but the trained mind is far sharper.

We just came back from an El Torito restaurant nearby, where I took my dad out for Father's Day, and I cannot help but to think, "What the heck is up with El Torito's chefs?"

My dad and I both had to get our orders switched twice because the dishes they gave us were too spicy, even though we had explicitly told our waiter that we did not want any spices on them at all - which he seemed to comply with at first, since the dishes came with the sauces and salsa on the side, and those are normally the significantly spicy parts of the meal - but this was not a good kind of spicy. This was just spicy for the sake of being spicy. Even the meat had tiny pieces of Jalapeño or something in it.

I can definitely understand adding spice, even very strong if necessary, for the sake of augmenting the food with a specific tang of flavor (such as is done for many east-Asian dishes, and many meats used in Italian cuisine). But this was not it. No addition to taste or anything of the sort. It was just for the purpose of ensuring that one's throat burned sufficiently as the food was swallowed. (As a minor comparison point, those who know me know that my mom is of Spanish descent, and even she had trouble eating it because of the spice.)

But I digress, I suppose it's time for ( another meme! )

File dialogs do not automatically update to reflect new drives, such as inserted USB thumbdrives and similar. Fail, Microsoft. Epically.

"I don't like this class."
"I'm going to fail; I just know it."
"Oh, I'm doing really bad [sic] in this class!."
"I'm never going to get it!"
"This is going to hurt."

These are only some of the things I've heard fellow classmates say in various situations: some before an exam, others after taking notes in lecture, yet more in lab/discussion for courses which have these separate. Yet, I can't for the life of me fathom any possible reason for this thinking. I keep trying to reassure people of this and explain it to them, but no one seems to understand: It's all psychological. Your thoughts and feelings about a class will significantly push your grade in one direction - be it positive or negative.

If you truly believe that you will fail a class, then guess what? You will fail it. Telling yourself that you are not good at such a subject will serve only to reinforce your failure. Believing that you will fail makes you susceptible to remember less of what you have studied, not completing your assignments on time, et al.; but on the other hand, if you truly believe that you will do well, you'll be apt to study more, remember in clearer detail what it is you've studied, put more effort into homework and other assignments.

Secondly, if you're taking a class, you should at least put a lot of effort into it. Are you taking the class to kill a few hours every week? Are you taking the class to be with a significant other who is registered for it? Are you taking the class simply to say you took it? I surely hope the answer to these is a resounding "No;" but I perpetually find that the opposite holds true for far too many people. (One is too many.) So many students are simply not trying. Whether or not you are good at the subject; heedless of your studies skills and natural talents - if you never TRY, you will inevitably fail. There is no question about it.

I've done it before (and nearly failed a course in high school because of it); and I see it now in the introductory Music Theory course that I'm taking, as prevalently as it was when I first started my collegiate studies and as prevalently as it has stayed throughout nearly all of my classes. For example, according to a poll taken on the session by the professor, about one third or so of our class has a year or more of formal musical training (in theory, instruments, or some other aspect). Yet, many of these people continually say that they will do horribly, or that they will fail. Many of them simply do not try to participate in class or do practice assignments or other homework. Is it really all that surprising to them, then, when their scores on exams are lower than simple guessing might statistically give them? (I'm not exaggerating on this one, either...)

Likewise, the other two-thirds of our class have no real formal musical background, yet enjoy it and endeavor to do well. We study harder; we participate in class more; we do more practice problems from the book and in the computer labs; we ask questions. Is it not surprising that most, if not all, of these people fare significantly more successful than those with prior musical training who simply do not apply the the effort?

I still cannot find even one iota of understanding or reasoning for it. Why do students put themselves through a class without effort and without faith in their own abilities, then become frustrated when they end up failing the class or otherwise obtaining a horrible mark for it? I'm stunned at the sheer lack of will power people have to studying. Sure, some - perhaps many - classes are boring. I will absolutely ascertain the validity of that statement without question. But, as any senior student will tell you, it's better to just take it with stride and strive to do your best. Do well in a boring class once, and you can rid your mind of it afterward. If you can't learn to overcome these things in academia, especially as an undergraduate student or before, then you will not be able to overcome them later on in life, when their ill effects are far more cataclysmic to your well-being.

That said, once you've overcome it, the time comes to learn how you learn. (Bare with me, this will all make sense momentarily.) Some, as I am, are very visual people. For instance, when dealing with mathematics, I write down everything and draw graphs or simple figures to illustrate the problem any time I possibly can. In my studies of music, I've come to always have an mental image of the grand staff and the basic piano keyboard as applicable and how the notes in question relate to each other on both. Studying Biology, I make diagrams for myself of the process(es) in question. Even when taking notes, I do this. My notes tend to be much more like a flowchart or brainstorm than simple lists of points as are given to us in the lecture slides of the professor: arrows going every which way, having more important or relevant items in larger text size, etc.

Some might learn more suitably through audio (reading the text aloud, recording and replaying the professor's lecture, et al.) or various other methods. Find the way that you learn the best, and if you can adapt yourself to that method, your learning will be more efficient - your notes will be more easily studied, you'll probably remember a lot more of what it is you study for the exams and whatnot, etc.

Now that my rant is done, I'd like to add that I've amended my old Blog's configuration with some Apache Redirect-fu, so if all goes well any links to my old feed should point to that of this LiveJournal, and stuff should (hopefully) stay unbroken with that. :)