- The preacher is not a megalomaniac, or a free speech advocate, or a skillful activist, evil or good. He's a deer in the headlights. Probably wishes more than anything to just get this behind him.
- Destruction of one's personal (inanimate) property, including book-burning, is a perfectly acceptable form of protest and should be defended in principle - and practice.
- If lives are lost because of this, the blame will be with those who would commit murder.
- There is a bias in the "West" about which religions can be protected or attacked.
- The President should have privately spoken to the man, rather than publicly.
- The only redeeming value in this whole thing, is that it reveals some of the internal contradictions of our "tolerant" society.
- The preacher should not go through with it, because it is contrary to the central message of Christianity - love God above all else and your neighbor as yourself. It certainly will not further the Great Commission.
5/21/2010
Mayor Daley Threatens Gun Violence for Questioning Gun Control
"If I put this up your butt, you'll find out how effective it is. Let me put a round up your, you know." Strange words from our otherwise eloquent and contemplative mayor. This is his response to a reporter's question about the effectiveness of a 28 year gun ban in Chicago.
To be fair, it is quite aggravating to be called out publicly, and when you so thirstily pant after power, any challenge to your authority likely will stir angry feelings. But wow, to me this illustrates how personal this is to the mayor. The idea that things could get any worse is absurd. How difficult is it to see the failure of Chicago's successful erasure of constitutional rights, to keep the power of life and death in the hands of the elect.
"You have to go through driver's ed, you have to get a license, you have to pass a test for drivers, but you really don't have to do anything to own a gun." What offends me most by this explanatory statement offered by Daley, is his failure to observe that driving is not a constitutional right, where self-armament is. Not to mention he's lying or just ignorant of his own state's laws. In fact, Illinois is the only state that requires a state issued permit to purchase either a rifle or handgun. Illinois is one of two remaining states that have no provision for the concealed carry of firearms by citizens. Illinois has some of the most restrictive prerequisites for gun ownership in the entire U.S.
There's some statistical stuff out there about the effect of gun bans on violent crime. Yeah, lies, damn lies, and statistics. It's a place to start anyway. The lessons described in 25 years murder-free in 'Gun Town USA' may not apply to Chicago, but it's worth a moment's consideration.
"In March 1982, 25 years ago, the small town of Kennesaw – responding to a handgun ban in Morton Grove, Ill. – unanimously passed an ordinance requiring each head of household to own and maintain a gun. Since then, despite dire predictions of "Wild West" showdowns and increased violence accidents, not a single resident has been involved in a fatal shooting – as a victim, attacker or defender."
"By comparison, the population of Morton Grove, the first city in Illinois to adopt a gun ban for anyone other than police officers, has actually dropped slightly and stands at 22,202, according to 2005 statistics. More significantly, perhaps, the city's crime rate increased by 15.7 percent immediately after the gun ban, even though the overall crime rate in Cook County rose only 3 percent. Today, by comparison, the township's crime rate stands at 2,268 per 100,000."
No, it's not apples to apples. But comparing Morton Grove to the rest of Cook County is pretty interesting. Now that Morton Grove has chosen not to provoke a fight against 2nd amendment rights advocates, we may have a chance to see if crime jumps, falls or flatlines.
Either way, thank God I'm out of Chicago.
To be fair, it is quite aggravating to be called out publicly, and when you so thirstily pant after power, any challenge to your authority likely will stir angry feelings. But wow, to me this illustrates how personal this is to the mayor. The idea that things could get any worse is absurd. How difficult is it to see the failure of Chicago's successful erasure of constitutional rights, to keep the power of life and death in the hands of the elect.
"You have to go through driver's ed, you have to get a license, you have to pass a test for drivers, but you really don't have to do anything to own a gun." What offends me most by this explanatory statement offered by Daley, is his failure to observe that driving is not a constitutional right, where self-armament is. Not to mention he's lying or just ignorant of his own state's laws. In fact, Illinois is the only state that requires a state issued permit to purchase either a rifle or handgun. Illinois is one of two remaining states that have no provision for the concealed carry of firearms by citizens. Illinois has some of the most restrictive prerequisites for gun ownership in the entire U.S.
There's some statistical stuff out there about the effect of gun bans on violent crime. Yeah, lies, damn lies, and statistics. It's a place to start anyway. The lessons described in 25 years murder-free in 'Gun Town USA' may not apply to Chicago, but it's worth a moment's consideration.
"In March 1982, 25 years ago, the small town of Kennesaw – responding to a handgun ban in Morton Grove, Ill. – unanimously passed an ordinance requiring each head of household to own and maintain a gun. Since then, despite dire predictions of "Wild West" showdowns and increased violence accidents, not a single resident has been involved in a fatal shooting – as a victim, attacker or defender."
"By comparison, the population of Morton Grove, the first city in Illinois to adopt a gun ban for anyone other than police officers, has actually dropped slightly and stands at 22,202, according to 2005 statistics. More significantly, perhaps, the city's crime rate increased by 15.7 percent immediately after the gun ban, even though the overall crime rate in Cook County rose only 3 percent. Today, by comparison, the township's crime rate stands at 2,268 per 100,000."
No, it's not apples to apples. But comparing Morton Grove to the rest of Cook County is pretty interesting. Now that Morton Grove has chosen not to provoke a fight against 2nd amendment rights advocates, we may have a chance to see if crime jumps, falls or flatlines.
Either way, thank God I'm out of Chicago.
5/02/2010
Gnome Shell will destroy the scene
But not in a good way. Apparently, we're six months from Gnome Shell (the most user-facing component of the gnome 3.0 Desktop) going "live" this september with Ubuntu 10.10. Oh my. This will be the most controversial and hated moves of the open source desktop dramas.
Gnome shell is about as friendly as a bear with bees in it's mouth. Instead of categorized program menus (like every other desktop that uses program menus) Gnome Shell provides you with a 5x7 grid of icons and truncated names. This offers the user with such jems as "Uninstall" and in my case two identical icons, both labeled "Armegetro..." Ok, one is Armegetron Server, and one is simply Armegetron (both are cool Tron inspired lightcycle games). So, uh, gnome overlords, how am I supposed to know which is which? I guess just memorize, or click-and-pray.
Other highlights are "Configure ...," "Google ga...," and "Google ga...," "Manage Pr..." ok, you get the idea. I wonder, why didn't the gnome shell developers? You also probably thought to yourself by now, "Quit belly-aching, and just hover over the icon. I'm sure there's a pop-up notification." But, you'd be wrong! Probably violates some undergrad's idea of an HIG.
Always visible in the err... "Activities Overview Mode," is a list of 19 most recent items. There's no way to clear them. Not from the err... "Activities Overview Mode," menu anyway.
And about that "Activities Overview Mode," it is basically a start-menu that consumes about 1/5 of your screen, shrinking the rest down "OS X expose" style. Looks really neat, the first time. By about the 10,000th time you've seen "GNOME Shell take advantage of the capabilities of modern graphics hardware" you are sea-sick enough to have to go lay down for a bit. Another cool misfeature of the "Activities Overview Mode" is that you cannot simply click the desktop to exit the "Activities Overview Mode," rather, you must click an expose'ed window. Why? Dunno.
And that's the overall feel I get from using this beta version of GNOME Shell. Why? Dunno. And it seems like the whole thing was stitched together by people who will simply expect you not to ask "why?" But should you, and should you be granted an answer, I'll admit it likely won't be "dunno." But if the answer is given in a moment of honesty, it would probably be "because we say so."
I could go on. But it's just bumming me out too much. I'll just go back to using the very thoughtfully designed and innovative Google Chrome browser. I mean, the "desktop" is becoming more and more of an unwelcome necessity these days anyway. As I've said before, I've chosen GNOME as my (often abusive) partner, and I still hope for things to improve. Yeah, I'm a sucker. But I've got time: six months.
Six months to see what changes, and hopefully, six months to prove my prediction wrong: GNOME Shell will be the most ridiculed and reviled major desktop overhaul in the history of Open Source Desktops.
Gnome shell is about as friendly as a bear with bees in it's mouth. Instead of categorized program menus (like every other desktop that uses program menus) Gnome Shell provides you with a 5x7 grid of icons and truncated names. This offers the user with such jems as "Uninstall" and in my case two identical icons, both labeled "Armegetro..." Ok, one is Armegetron Server, and one is simply Armegetron (both are cool Tron inspired lightcycle games). So, uh, gnome overlords, how am I supposed to know which is which? I guess just memorize, or click-and-pray.
Other highlights are "Configure ...," "Google ga...," and "Google ga...," "Manage Pr..." ok, you get the idea. I wonder, why didn't the gnome shell developers? You also probably thought to yourself by now, "Quit belly-aching, and just hover over the icon. I'm sure there's a pop-up notification." But, you'd be wrong! Probably violates some undergrad's idea of an HIG.
Always visible in the err... "Activities Overview Mode," is a list of 19 most recent items. There's no way to clear them. Not from the err... "Activities Overview Mode," menu anyway.
And about that "Activities Overview Mode," it is basically a start-menu that consumes about 1/5 of your screen, shrinking the rest down "OS X expose" style. Looks really neat, the first time. By about the 10,000th time you've seen "GNOME Shell take advantage of the capabilities of modern graphics hardware" you are sea-sick enough to have to go lay down for a bit. Another cool misfeature of the "Activities Overview Mode" is that you cannot simply click the desktop to exit the "Activities Overview Mode," rather, you must click an expose'ed window. Why? Dunno.
And that's the overall feel I get from using this beta version of GNOME Shell. Why? Dunno. And it seems like the whole thing was stitched together by people who will simply expect you not to ask "why?" But should you, and should you be granted an answer, I'll admit it likely won't be "dunno." But if the answer is given in a moment of honesty, it would probably be "because we say so."
I could go on. But it's just bumming me out too much. I'll just go back to using the very thoughtfully designed and innovative Google Chrome browser. I mean, the "desktop" is becoming more and more of an unwelcome necessity these days anyway. As I've said before, I've chosen GNOME as my (often abusive) partner, and I still hope for things to improve. Yeah, I'm a sucker. But I've got time: six months.
Six months to see what changes, and hopefully, six months to prove my prediction wrong: GNOME Shell will be the most ridiculed and reviled major desktop overhaul in the history of Open Source Desktops.
4/29/2010
New DIY lens - massive f minimal DOF
This image is slightly underexposed. Camera image data shows: Shutter speed to be 1/8000s and ISO to be 200.
Yeah. Yikes.
The lens
This lens started life in the cinema. It actually was a projection lens. There are only three elements, a front element about 4 inches across, and two rear elements around an inch and a half each.Here's Big-eff with a hacked together focus system and EOS adapter in one. Future posts may include a "how (and why) I did it" section. For now, enjoy more photographic oddities.
Look at the cute little fireplug!
3/27/2010
CBN TV - The Uncut Brian Welch Interview - Video
CBN TV - The Uncut Brian Welch Interview - Video
I'm not really a fan of Korn. Ok, I'm not at all a fan of Korn, but this interview is really interesting to me. Brian "Head" Welch still exhibits the damage years of drugs and alcohol can do, but, I get the strong sense that this is an honest, open and genuine man. Maybe I'll check out his solo stuff. It's a long interview - be warned.
3/22/2010
What's old is new.
Recently I shared some photos I took with a self-modified Canon FD mount, 135mm f2.8 prime lens. This is a lens manufactured in the 70's and 80's for canon FD 35mm SLR cameras like the A-1 AE-1 etc.
When Canon switched to the EOS system in the 80's they introduced the EF and later EF-S lens mount system. In creating a new camera mount, they created a whole new revenue source, as photographers wanting to upgrade to an EOS body, had to upgrade their entire collection of glass.
Yikes. Well, fuss or not, the new Canon auto-focus lenses were appealing, as were the new plastic fantastic bodies. You can't easily adapt an FD lens, because the EOS bodies had a much longer focal plan distance.
Well, as they say "there's nothing you can do that can't be done" and I've had some success modifying *some* FD lenses to work on an EOS body - specifically my 7D.
Early, not particularly compelling, results can be found here: http://picasaweb.google.com/ryanpg/Portraiture135mmManualDIYLens#
Since most current Canon DSLRs don't have manual-focus-friendly focus screens, i.e. no split screen or microprism ring, getting a sharp capture can be challenging.
So the question was put to me, why?
Most people seem to like the initial results. A few have wondered why I'm interested in such things. After all, rebuilding camera lenses sounds pretty intense. People express interest, even excitement, but it's still a little perplexing as to what, if any, benefits there are to wrestling an "old" lens on a "new" camera.
Below is an email I sent recently, containing a few of my thoughts regarding this question.
A fellow photographer in reference to my modded 135mm f2.8:
"That is really cool. How did you get into doing this? What made you want to try it?"
My response:
"Thanks. Many factors.
- I believe current glass is way overpriced. I know there's a lot of engineering and tight tolerances involved, but seriously $2K for "L" series lenses? They roll em off the assembly line just like they do every other product. Seems like marketing and market control. *
- There's a lot of really cool old glass out there. Sometimes it can be bought for a reasonable price, sometimes cheap. It's just a shame to see it go to waste.
- I like to "tinker around" and this is an affordable way to do it - and get some interesting results too.
- Ever notice how different all the multi-coated lenses look, compared to good "old-fashioned" glass? I bet you have. My FD mount 135mm lens has two or three elements. New stuff has thirteen elements with AS glass, coatings etc. blah blah blah... The less glass the better IMHO. Sometimes the new lenses just look harsh to me. No character you know?
- Today, manufacturers can design highly precise lenses using software. They simply dial in the compromises they want to make, to achieve the exact lens they want to bring to market. I like the idea of a person or group of people, intimately familiar with photography, working to design a lens with the characteristics they WANT, that's why a name like Zeiss, originally meant something. There was an aesthetic driving the design.
Btw, I think it's funny how companies tag the Zeiss name on currently manufactured lenses. Zeiss has been dead since 1888. A "Zeiss" lens made today is no different from a canon or sigma or promaster for that matter - in that it's designed on a computer.* Funny really.
Whew! that was almost a rant! I still use current EF mount lenses though too - I just can't justify spending $1,000 for an auto-focus but softer version of my $25 modded 135mm. For portraiture do you really want to rely on auto-focus anyway?
Also, I think a lot of people who complain (myself included) about digital not resembling film, are actually complaining about the optics rather than the sensor. I'll attach a couple full-resolution images. I'd appreciate you're thoughts about how "film-like" the b/w one looks.
By the way, the only thing done on these was a little white-balance and exposure adjustment, and some noise removal on the color one. No sharpening at all.
So yeah, to sum it up - I'm just cheap! :)"
Footnotes:
* I do love Canon and Canon tech. They along with Nikon have really pushed the technology in amazing ways. It's incredible what kind of camera can be held in the palm of the hand for under a thousand.
** I don't mean to disparage the Zeiss optical company, as I understand things, they are still innovators especially in the area of microscopy and biomed technology.
3/19/2010
I love google. But I married Gnome.
Now, I'm a loyal guy. More than just willing, I'm committed to making things work. I have been using the Gnome desktop for 11 years now. ELEVEN years, and all this time waiting for things to improve, filling out bug reports (as I've been scornfully told to do). Yes, I've gone through the onerous and complicated process of signing up with "bugzilla" and submitting bugs. Guess what? I've got open bugs from 2003 still marked "NEW."
I've invested a lot in Gnome.
But google is exciting. I can't help it, it may be due to my gullibility and tendency to respond to marketing as some have suggested privately, but really, what marketing has google done? Essentially, they've established themselves as a brand by doing cool things. Rather than promising to do cool things once everyone's on-board. And they see the amazing potential in free open source software and development. Yet, they never use "it's free software" as an excuse for a poor product.
Gnome and the other free and open source desktops are a huge disappointment to me personally.
In 2005, the Gnome Project started the now laughable "10x10" campaign. The goal was to grab 10% of the desktop market by the end of 2010. At the time, I was behind the idea 100% and feeling good about the possibility of some innovation and quality software bringing people on board the linux and FOSS ship. Well, how're they doing? Linux - regardless of desktop - may have actually broken the 1% point! Whoop-de-do! Utter abysmal failure.
Guess what, that's about to change.
Google released Android in October of 2008. They now hold 15% of the mobile phone market [note: based on mobile web consumption - sales figures show a more modest 5-7% range - thanks Chuck]. In 16 months, Google did in the mobile phone market, what gnome could not do in ELEVEN YEARS on the desktop. [Ed. note - the following hypothetical quote will sound best if you imagine it being said by a very tearful Sally Struthers] "Oh, oh, oh... But you're comparing apples and oranges! The mobile market is different than the desktop, windows blah blah blah, Mac OS, whah whah wha... Become a heating and cooling specialist in the comfort of your own home!" [Ed. note - I got carried away, sorry.]
Guess what Sally? I'm going to make a prediction. Google's chrome-os will gobble up more than 15% of the netbook and portable market in less than two years. In fact, I'm going to suggest, Sally, there will come a time when your visit to the Best Buy computer aisle will be illuminated by linux desktops - not running gnome, KDE or any other of the desktop environments who've already had their decade-long shot. But running google's Chrome-os. Oh, and I also predict it will be quickly ported to X86 hardware too.
And when that happens, I know who I'll be betting on to get to the 10% mark first. And it won't take 11 long, painful years, and I won't have to create an account to file bugs, and I won't have to listen to lame excuses. I'll be one of the 10% running that desktop OS. And I won't be using Gnome.
Final thought: the reason the linux-based Open Source Desktop hasn't caught on with the public, is simply because... it sucks. But there's a sea change ahead Sally. And I want to say "Thank you google, for android, chrome and soon for chrome-os. Thank you for vindicating me. For validating my years of FOSS advocacy. Thank you for brining the ideas and principles I feel strongly about, to the people who have, turned away in apathy to my appeals for participation in free open source software. Thank you for giving them a compelling reason to use open source software - to enjoy it. Thank you for never once shifting the blame or responsibility for your shortcomings on me, the user. I'm on board!"
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)