I noticed that my nVidia Control Panel gave me 3D controls that enabled a red/cyan (blue) 3d effect as well as the other 3D setting like the Avatar and Alice in Wonderland use. Since I didn't have the $600+ to spend on the monitor and glasses needed to do the other, I looked for some old school 3D glasses. I found Blockbuster had some but they were magenta/green...
I got home and Googled for 'World Of Warcraft nvidia 3d magenta green' and one of the results that came up ( http://gameolosophy.com/games/rpg/world-of-warcraft/how-to-play-world-of-warcraft-in-3d-works-for-other-games-as-well/ ) is what I used to get my results.
I have an EVGA nVidia GeForce 9800GT with 1GB of RAM Onboard the video card and am running Windows 7 Home Premium 64bit (OEM).
The process described below is specifically for enabling you to purchase a 15 cent pair of magenta/green 3D glasses, as available at Blockbuster Video Stores, to play World Of Warcraft in 3D. Though you can play other games in 3D as well, the main point of this is to first get the nVidia 3D settings to work with magenta/green glasses instead of red/cyan glasses.
To do this, make sure you have an nVidia card (duh) with the most recent driver. The driver installs the nVidia Control Panel, which you can access by right clicking on the Windows Desktop.
Open the nVidia Control Panel, and select 'Set Up Stereoscopic 3D'. Check the 'Enable stereoscopic 3D' checkbox. When the window comes up, it will use the red/cyan coloring, so just check the red octogon on the left and the blue triangle on the right and continue. Check the box that on the left, that shows the box within, floating... then continue. Then you're done with enabling the 3D...
Now, it's time to do the quick registry hack...
WARNING! I take no responsibility if you mess up your system and am only offering what worked for me.
That said, all we are really changing is actually allowing color to work with 3D, changing the red to magenta and changing the cyan to green.
So, Click the Start Button, and type 'regedit' (no quotes) and the 'Regedit.exe' app should appear, which you will click, and it *should* require administrator access.
Now that Regedit is running, I would just suggest going under the 'edit' menu, and selecting 'find' to search for 'Stereo3D', which after a few seconds (around 30 seconds on my machine) it will give you a result that is for me under the path
Computer\HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Wow6432Node\NVIDIA Corporation\Global\Stereo3D
Keep in mind, I run a 64bit version of Windows 7 so, your key path may be slightly different, though I would say that if it ends in \NVIDIA Corporation\Global\Stereo3D, then you're probably in the right place, especially if the regkeys I mention next are in that folder...
So, you're first going to look for: StereoAnaglyphType
it will have a data key of 1 or 0x00000001 (1) but when you double click on StereoAnaglyphType, you will see there is a textbox where you can replace the '1' with '0', which you should do. When you accept that, you will see that the 'data' has changed to 0x00000000 (0)
that was the first change. only two more...
first, the LeftAnaglyphFilter should be changed to ff00ff00
second, the RightAnaglyphFilter should be changed to ffffff00
the LeftAnaglyphFilter should show the data now as 0xff00ff00 (4278255360)
the RightAnaglyphFilter should show the data now as 0xffffff00 (4294967040)
The last step in setting up the changes to use magenta/green are to set the permissions for this registry folder, which you can access from the 'edit' menu.
Edit>Permissions
Select SYSTEM (though it seems at this step it's arbitrary which user you choose) and click ADVANCED
The window that then opens has the 'permissions' tab, which will let you select 'SYSTEM' and click 'Edit'. When the 'Permission Entry for Stereo3D' window pops up with "SYSTEM" as the user in the textbox, check deny on all of the entries, except for 'Full control' and 'Read control'. Neither of those two should be checked to either allow or deny. Click OK.
Now select "CREATOR OWNER" and we're only going to deny this the ability to overwrite the changes so, check Deny next to "Write DAC" and Deny next to "Write Owner". As above, dont check allow or deny on any of the other entries. Click OK.
You should now have two "SYSTEM" entries and two "CREATOR OWNER" entries, one of each with 'special' permissions. Click OK. Click OK again to close the "Permissions" window. Now you should also be okay to close the Regedit program window.
For good measure, you would be advised to reboot to ensure the settings have taken effect, though I don't think that is actually necessary in this case.
Launch World Of Warcraft and log in to the character of your choice. Press 'esc' to bring up the menu to change "Video" settings. On the left hand side, there is now a third entry for 3D settings (as this is one of the few games that actually has controls for 3D built into the GUI). You can enable or disable the Stero 3d effects within WOW, so long as the Nvidia Control Panel has it enabled.
I will share where I keep my settings but note that you will have to adjust when you zoom in and out. If you can find a happy medium where you're not so close that you can see what is going on around you in a battle but not so far that you split in to a two characters when you go into an inn, then you probably will be okay most of the time, though, I do find it necessary to make adjustments often, as required.
I usually keep the top slider at somewhere between 10% and 20% and keep the bottom one around 15% to 40%. The top slider adjust the focal point of where your character is in relation to your amount of zoom. The bottom slider adjusts the depth of field for the 3D effect. If you zoom to a point where you want to view the character in game, then go in to make the 3D adjustments, adjust the top one first, trying to pick a point, like the character's sword or shield on their back, and use the slider to align the two (magenta/green) so that your toon comes into focus. Then adjust the bottom slider. I find that if I have the top slider at 10%, it makes no sense to have the bottom slider any lower than 10%, since at that point, there's nearly no depth of field. In other words, the bottom one seems to always be adjusted slightly more than the top one, to the right. but both are almost always best when they are left of the half way point...
Top
_____0________________________________
Bottom
____________0_________________________
That's roughly what works for me, though, you WILL have to make your own adjustments to suit your visual comfort zone.
The long and short of it is that for a paltry 16 cents (after tax) you can now play World Of Warcraft in 3D.
Light Bless You...
;)
Monday, March 29, 2010
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Article 1, section 8
Someone I know was asking how it was legal for congress to have passed the health care reform bill. This person referred to three of the amendments 9, 10 and 5. The answer is not in those amendments to the Constitution that were added when the Bill of Rights (protecting the people's rights) which did little more than add more content to the Constitution. The answer most likely was in the actual Constitution, Article 1, Section 8 (most likely in the case that this person was taking issue with).
The idea that somehow any law that people disagree with is unconstitutional, requires little more than a look at the 4 items listed above. The sole argument does lie with the Article 1, Section 8 ( see http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec1 ).
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"
As I read that, the 'general Welfare' is the well-being of the United States, and the United States are 'we the people'. With regards to regulation, one must look no further than a few lines later in the same section:
"To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;"
In other words, their duty is to make the laws and regulations that provide for the well-being of the people and this country. That is so long as they meet the obligation in Amendment 5 that 'no person shall be... ...deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law, nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.". That is the part to which I believe my friend was holding up as evidence against the legality, which actually proves its legality. The Congress could not be charged with not putting this bill under a microscope, which I would say qualifies as 'due process of law'. Not to mention, if we're to interpret the taxation aspect, which I'm sure the 'tea-partiers' are fully aware of the taxation aspects of this ( as I'm sure they all are of the tax breaks that 95% of middle class people HAVE received since President Obama took office ). Oh, but since Article 1, Section 8 charges the Congress with imposing tax at it's discretion, through due process of law, then let's just refer to Amendment 9 to make sure that the people aren't being taken advantage of... Well, since Amendment 9 prioritizes the rights of the people to be retained in the case of their being an argument over the wording that might infringe upon ALL PEOPLES RIGHT, as enumerated by the Constitution, those seeming to be of most significance, the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. For all involved to have equal rights to these, the well-being of a person seems to be of utmost importance to equal rights.
And in closing, to address Amendment 10, it is worded in such a way as to state that IF the Federal Government has no law (which must hold for the nation as a whole), it then falls upon the states to make such laws if desired or needed. I'll make a simple point as to the necessity for the regulation reform in health care. A person who has a terminal diagnosis who has private insurance in one state, has no options to see a specialist in his state, within his 'circle' to perform the surgery needed to eliminate the patient's condition (as in the removal of a tumor). So the person is referred to an specialist out of state who is able to perform the procedure but because of the different regulations in the state, not requiring the insurance company to honor their 'customer's' needs, for which the customer has been paying insurance for, the state has no say in requiring the insurance company to respect the coverage. Where is the person's rights?
The idea that somehow any law that people disagree with is unconstitutional, requires little more than a look at the 4 items listed above. The sole argument does lie with the Article 1, Section 8 ( see http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec1 ).
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"
As I read that, the 'general Welfare' is the well-being of the United States, and the United States are 'we the people'. With regards to regulation, one must look no further than a few lines later in the same section:
"To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;"
In other words, their duty is to make the laws and regulations that provide for the well-being of the people and this country. That is so long as they meet the obligation in Amendment 5 that 'no person shall be... ...deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law, nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.". That is the part to which I believe my friend was holding up as evidence against the legality, which actually proves its legality. The Congress could not be charged with not putting this bill under a microscope, which I would say qualifies as 'due process of law'. Not to mention, if we're to interpret the taxation aspect, which I'm sure the 'tea-partiers' are fully aware of the taxation aspects of this ( as I'm sure they all are of the tax breaks that 95% of middle class people HAVE received since President Obama took office ). Oh, but since Article 1, Section 8 charges the Congress with imposing tax at it's discretion, through due process of law, then let's just refer to Amendment 9 to make sure that the people aren't being taken advantage of... Well, since Amendment 9 prioritizes the rights of the people to be retained in the case of their being an argument over the wording that might infringe upon ALL PEOPLES RIGHT, as enumerated by the Constitution, those seeming to be of most significance, the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. For all involved to have equal rights to these, the well-being of a person seems to be of utmost importance to equal rights.
And in closing, to address Amendment 10, it is worded in such a way as to state that IF the Federal Government has no law (which must hold for the nation as a whole), it then falls upon the states to make such laws if desired or needed. I'll make a simple point as to the necessity for the regulation reform in health care. A person who has a terminal diagnosis who has private insurance in one state, has no options to see a specialist in his state, within his 'circle' to perform the surgery needed to eliminate the patient's condition (as in the removal of a tumor). So the person is referred to an specialist out of state who is able to perform the procedure but because of the different regulations in the state, not requiring the insurance company to honor their 'customer's' needs, for which the customer has been paying insurance for, the state has no say in requiring the insurance company to respect the coverage. Where is the person's rights?
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Ubuntu 9.10 - A Slightly Abrasive Take On Why Ubuntu Is Facing An Uphill Battle...
Today is October 29th, 2009 and Canonical Ltd. has just released the latest version of it's computer operating system, Ubuntu 9.10 (nine point ten, not nine point one... meaning 20'09', 10th month), which has been given the code name, 'Karmic Koala'.
There have been a number of very nice improvements from the 9.04 (2009 ,4th month) release. Ubuntu 9.04 is the first Linux-based system I have ever continued to use. What I mean by that is that I've run many 'Linux-based' operating systems based off debian, suse, fedora, etc... but as a friend of mine put it, I always ran into a serious 'deal-breaker' that caused me to pass on a 'Linux-based' system.
That said, I find Ubuntu to be the first 'Linux-based' OS that is usable to a degree that I would expect. It is highly-configurable, which I personally love. I've used Apple's OS X as my main system, as well as most of Microsoft's Windows OS's (currently running Vista 32bit and have the beta of Windows 7 as well). I really like OS X because it's Unix style system allows for basic use by less technically adept users but also allows the more techy individual to have pretty good control. Windows falls short of this in my opinion because Microsoft seems to assume all end-users 'should' be Microsoft certified or at least have used a version since Windows 95. Microsoft's approach to it's expectations of it's user base to use Windows, while claiming 'it just works', is like Fox News claiming it is 'fair and balanced'... Neither should make those claims... actually Microsoft has more of a right because it could be that their saying "it just (barely) works" or "it just works (if the stars are aligned just right)".
Back to Linux-based systems... The thing I've heard, as at times in the past have also believed, is that Linux (in the broad-generalized term that includes all Linux-based systems) is developed by pimply-faced teenagers or middle-aged perverts, both of which are unemployed or barely employed and while living in their parents basement, program this linux operating system as a hobby because they are angry at the establishment.... In fact, most of the people who contribute code to the development of the linux kernel, and other of the larger open-source projects like the Gnome Desktop Environment, and Open Office, are college graduates who have good paying jobs in IT for large corporations, many of which are Fortune 500 companies... Linux is NOT just for teenagers who need a hobby. A majority of the web-servers that host websites on the internet are running on Linux-based systems like Red Hat(the current 'leader in enterprise linux' which also distributes the Fedora OS, a derivitive of Red Hat), Solaris and Open Solaris (a linux-based derivitive from Sun Microsystems, the company responsible for Java as well as OpenOffice). In fact, even Microsoft's own Bing.com search engine relies on some sort of Linux Server to accomplish its prime-directive... Funny, as you'd think they'd prefer to use Windows Server 2008 for that job... huh...
Anyway, the point of me writing this article is sadly that there are only a few things that are sadly keeping people from adopting a very solid Linux-based Desktop Operating System like Ubuntu in their homes.
1. People are generally lazy. Capitalism relies on the tried and true marketing techniques where a vendor is expected to reassure the consumer that 'we will think for you, you can trust us, this is what you're getting and this is why you should go with us...'. When it comes to Operating Systems and Computers in the home, Apple actually has a very competitively priced product but Windows PCs are marketed using a deceptive technique of deferring the cost of ownership over the lifetime of the machine... People are not encouraged to factor in the quality of the computer's parts, not to mention the way they are actually designed to work efficiently with eachother, nor are most people educated enough to sort through that information. Apple includes a lot more useful tools that come with the OS X operating system that is specifically designed to work seamlessly with the hardware that is also built to Apple's specifications...
Because people are lazy, and therefore would rather trust a stranger who 'sounds legit' most people don't factor in the amount of trouble they have already dealt with when they have used their Windows based PC. People who actually switch to a Mac don't just switch and automatically know where everything is. They poke around. They Google stuff to find out 'how to do' whatever it is that they know their computer should be able to do.
That leads to the second point...
2. Average computer users are afraid of the word Linux. Linux inspires thoughts of a system that only an uber-geek can use, made up of command-lines that use commands that you 'just have to know'. Linux inspires thoughts that 'I can't use Linux because I don't know any programming'... or I don't know how to compile source code...
It's easy to predict, sad as it is, that most people who migrate to Linux-based systems feel so out of their element that it's like they even forget that Google exists... Okay, so you're wireless driver doesn't work... Oh God, the I guess Linux isn't ready for primetime... I've never had a driver issue on a Windows machine... (that's sarcasm) REALLY!?
Bottom line, Ubuntu is a Linux-based system. Linux is only the Linux Kernel. All Linux-based OS's stem from a few derivitive Linux kernels. Ubuntu uses a derived Debian Linux Kernel. Ubuntu is only one of hundreds of other Linux distributions (or other Linux-based Operating Systems). Ubuntu is almost without a doubt the most mature of all the current 'distros' (distributions). It is very stable and very fast. It requires a user to grasp a couple concepts that are only slightly different than Windows. A lot of it is just knowing 'what button do I push to do this'. Concepts like drag and drop and browsers that connect to the internet and Word processors and media center software and mp3s and all of that stuff is all there. Can you use Windows software? I answer with a question, Can you use Mac software on a Windows machine? Ubuntu is not Windows... However, Ubuntu (and many other Linux-based systems) can run "WINE" which can run many Windows programs within a Linux-based system like Ubuntu. Ubuntu comes with WINE pre-installed. However before you use WINE to run Windows Programs in a emulated environment (since it can be slower and sometimes buggy because it's trying to mimic Windows' software architecture) you will come to find that there is most likely an equivilent to the Windows program within the Ubuntu Software Center. The Ubuntu Software Center (new in 9.10) gives you a straight forward interface to access thousands of free applications that you can add to your computer.
Give it a try... You can download a 'liveCD' which runs Ubuntu from a CD without installing it on your computer giving you the ability to try it out before actually making any changes to your system. Keep in mind, you may not get the full experience of Ubuntu by running the LiveCD like you would when you actually install it. If you have a certain component like your ethernet or wireless card not being recognized while running the LiveCD, that DOES NOT necessarily mean that does not work with Ubuntu. It could be that it will be recognized flawlessly when the OS is installed. It could mean that you have to do a little Googling and might have to access the 'Terminal' and type in a couple command lines from a web page.
The huge benefit of Ubuntu is the Open Source community... If you have an issue with a certain card, there is almost always someone who has already found a way to make it work and has documented it. If it's a driver issues, there may be a programmer who has been able to take the open-source code for another ethernet card and get it to work with the card you have. This is increasingly the exception. In most cases, installations of Ubuntu at this point can be quite painless.
Good luck.
There have been a number of very nice improvements from the 9.04 (2009 ,4th month) release. Ubuntu 9.04 is the first Linux-based system I have ever continued to use. What I mean by that is that I've run many 'Linux-based' operating systems based off debian, suse, fedora, etc... but as a friend of mine put it, I always ran into a serious 'deal-breaker' that caused me to pass on a 'Linux-based' system.
That said, I find Ubuntu to be the first 'Linux-based' OS that is usable to a degree that I would expect. It is highly-configurable, which I personally love. I've used Apple's OS X as my main system, as well as most of Microsoft's Windows OS's (currently running Vista 32bit and have the beta of Windows 7 as well). I really like OS X because it's Unix style system allows for basic use by less technically adept users but also allows the more techy individual to have pretty good control. Windows falls short of this in my opinion because Microsoft seems to assume all end-users 'should' be Microsoft certified or at least have used a version since Windows 95. Microsoft's approach to it's expectations of it's user base to use Windows, while claiming 'it just works', is like Fox News claiming it is 'fair and balanced'... Neither should make those claims... actually Microsoft has more of a right because it could be that their saying "it just (barely) works" or "it just works (if the stars are aligned just right)".
Back to Linux-based systems... The thing I've heard, as at times in the past have also believed, is that Linux (in the broad-generalized term that includes all Linux-based systems) is developed by pimply-faced teenagers or middle-aged perverts, both of which are unemployed or barely employed and while living in their parents basement, program this linux operating system as a hobby because they are angry at the establishment.... In fact, most of the people who contribute code to the development of the linux kernel, and other of the larger open-source projects like the Gnome Desktop Environment, and Open Office, are college graduates who have good paying jobs in IT for large corporations, many of which are Fortune 500 companies... Linux is NOT just for teenagers who need a hobby. A majority of the web-servers that host websites on the internet are running on Linux-based systems like Red Hat(the current 'leader in enterprise linux' which also distributes the Fedora OS, a derivitive of Red Hat), Solaris and Open Solaris (a linux-based derivitive from Sun Microsystems, the company responsible for Java as well as OpenOffice). In fact, even Microsoft's own Bing.com search engine relies on some sort of Linux Server to accomplish its prime-directive... Funny, as you'd think they'd prefer to use Windows Server 2008 for that job... huh...
Anyway, the point of me writing this article is sadly that there are only a few things that are sadly keeping people from adopting a very solid Linux-based Desktop Operating System like Ubuntu in their homes.
1. People are generally lazy. Capitalism relies on the tried and true marketing techniques where a vendor is expected to reassure the consumer that 'we will think for you, you can trust us, this is what you're getting and this is why you should go with us...'. When it comes to Operating Systems and Computers in the home, Apple actually has a very competitively priced product but Windows PCs are marketed using a deceptive technique of deferring the cost of ownership over the lifetime of the machine... People are not encouraged to factor in the quality of the computer's parts, not to mention the way they are actually designed to work efficiently with eachother, nor are most people educated enough to sort through that information. Apple includes a lot more useful tools that come with the OS X operating system that is specifically designed to work seamlessly with the hardware that is also built to Apple's specifications...
Because people are lazy, and therefore would rather trust a stranger who 'sounds legit' most people don't factor in the amount of trouble they have already dealt with when they have used their Windows based PC. People who actually switch to a Mac don't just switch and automatically know where everything is. They poke around. They Google stuff to find out 'how to do' whatever it is that they know their computer should be able to do.
That leads to the second point...
2. Average computer users are afraid of the word Linux. Linux inspires thoughts of a system that only an uber-geek can use, made up of command-lines that use commands that you 'just have to know'. Linux inspires thoughts that 'I can't use Linux because I don't know any programming'... or I don't know how to compile source code...
It's easy to predict, sad as it is, that most people who migrate to Linux-based systems feel so out of their element that it's like they even forget that Google exists... Okay, so you're wireless driver doesn't work... Oh God, the I guess Linux isn't ready for primetime... I've never had a driver issue on a Windows machine... (that's sarcasm) REALLY!?
Bottom line, Ubuntu is a Linux-based system. Linux is only the Linux Kernel. All Linux-based OS's stem from a few derivitive Linux kernels. Ubuntu uses a derived Debian Linux Kernel. Ubuntu is only one of hundreds of other Linux distributions (or other Linux-based Operating Systems). Ubuntu is almost without a doubt the most mature of all the current 'distros' (distributions). It is very stable and very fast. It requires a user to grasp a couple concepts that are only slightly different than Windows. A lot of it is just knowing 'what button do I push to do this'. Concepts like drag and drop and browsers that connect to the internet and Word processors and media center software and mp3s and all of that stuff is all there. Can you use Windows software? I answer with a question, Can you use Mac software on a Windows machine? Ubuntu is not Windows... However, Ubuntu (and many other Linux-based systems) can run "WINE" which can run many Windows programs within a Linux-based system like Ubuntu. Ubuntu comes with WINE pre-installed. However before you use WINE to run Windows Programs in a emulated environment (since it can be slower and sometimes buggy because it's trying to mimic Windows' software architecture) you will come to find that there is most likely an equivilent to the Windows program within the Ubuntu Software Center. The Ubuntu Software Center (new in 9.10) gives you a straight forward interface to access thousands of free applications that you can add to your computer.
Give it a try... You can download a 'liveCD' which runs Ubuntu from a CD without installing it on your computer giving you the ability to try it out before actually making any changes to your system. Keep in mind, you may not get the full experience of Ubuntu by running the LiveCD like you would when you actually install it. If you have a certain component like your ethernet or wireless card not being recognized while running the LiveCD, that DOES NOT necessarily mean that does not work with Ubuntu. It could be that it will be recognized flawlessly when the OS is installed. It could mean that you have to do a little Googling and might have to access the 'Terminal' and type in a couple command lines from a web page.
The huge benefit of Ubuntu is the Open Source community... If you have an issue with a certain card, there is almost always someone who has already found a way to make it work and has documented it. If it's a driver issues, there may be a programmer who has been able to take the open-source code for another ethernet card and get it to work with the card you have. This is increasingly the exception. In most cases, installations of Ubuntu at this point can be quite painless.
Good luck.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Opinionated and Judgmental
I am opinionated and judgmental. That is typically what people who don't take the time to truly understand the meaning of what I (or others) say sometimes actually is. I can often be brash and if a given statement is taken even partly out of context, that meaning of the statement in question can be completely mis-taken and thus misunderstood.
I think many people feel exactly this way. I think many people overlook the subtleties in communication. I think so often when someone says, "now you're just arguing semantics" that it's because "the argument is the semantics". Few seem to ever identify that as the point of contention.
So, am I opinionated because I have opinions that I occasionally share? Am I opinionated just because I have opinions? Despite the actual definition of the word "opinionated", I have acquired the connotation of the word "opinionated" and integrating it as a negative word to with a definition which would better be defined by the word "over-opinionated". I embrace the fact that I have opinions and I will occasionally share them, especially when I have actually given some thought to the opinions that I have really earned, rather than just having opinions that I've heard others say that on the surface I might think I agree with.
Now, am I judgmental? Occasionally, yes. Is it wrong to be judgemental? I'm not so sure... However, I also think there is a difference between making a judgment and being judgmental. Again, the argument is the semantics. I believe we are served by making informed judgments related to our part in things. We make judgments about whether to make one decision or another. Being judgmental is, I think, more of a generalized sweeping judgment that would border on a pre-judgment or being prejudiced (being essentially the correct word that is used to represent the concept I'm illustrating). The point I am getting at is lacking one more angle though, unlike the previous example. Is being judgmental also necessarily judging? I don't think so. I think it's the subtle understanding of the wording of the not so subtle concepts that surround making a judgment about how to judiciously excercise or not excercise the concepts presented here.
I think from a strictly practical view it is important to not be a judging individual where as I think it might be alright occasionally to be judgmental about certain things. The thing that I think is important to maintain when being judgmental is an attitude of understanding, tolerance and acceptance that the actions of others or the situation you are being judgmental about may not be anything you actually have any right to have a judgment about, as it may not involve you at all. If that is the case than you have an opinion and if you express that opinion you may be called, "opinionated and judgmental".
So, I guess this was a shorter post but I believe it is an important one.
l8r,
Chris
I think many people feel exactly this way. I think many people overlook the subtleties in communication. I think so often when someone says, "now you're just arguing semantics" that it's because "the argument is the semantics". Few seem to ever identify that as the point of contention.
So, am I opinionated because I have opinions that I occasionally share? Am I opinionated just because I have opinions? Despite the actual definition of the word "opinionated", I have acquired the connotation of the word "opinionated" and integrating it as a negative word to with a definition which would better be defined by the word "over-opinionated". I embrace the fact that I have opinions and I will occasionally share them, especially when I have actually given some thought to the opinions that I have really earned, rather than just having opinions that I've heard others say that on the surface I might think I agree with.
Now, am I judgmental? Occasionally, yes. Is it wrong to be judgemental? I'm not so sure... However, I also think there is a difference between making a judgment and being judgmental. Again, the argument is the semantics. I believe we are served by making informed judgments related to our part in things. We make judgments about whether to make one decision or another. Being judgmental is, I think, more of a generalized sweeping judgment that would border on a pre-judgment or being prejudiced (being essentially the correct word that is used to represent the concept I'm illustrating). The point I am getting at is lacking one more angle though, unlike the previous example. Is being judgmental also necessarily judging? I don't think so. I think it's the subtle understanding of the wording of the not so subtle concepts that surround making a judgment about how to judiciously excercise or not excercise the concepts presented here.
I think from a strictly practical view it is important to not be a judging individual where as I think it might be alright occasionally to be judgmental about certain things. The thing that I think is important to maintain when being judgmental is an attitude of understanding, tolerance and acceptance that the actions of others or the situation you are being judgmental about may not be anything you actually have any right to have a judgment about, as it may not involve you at all. If that is the case than you have an opinion and if you express that opinion you may be called, "opinionated and judgmental".
So, I guess this was a shorter post but I believe it is an important one.
l8r,
Chris
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
The grounds for dignity...
There are some people in The United States Of America who irresponsibly vote, ignoring all the platforms of individual, save for one. These 'one issue voters' seem to most often be the anti-abortionists. However, there are other 'one issue voters' that only vote based on a candidates position on euthanasia or death-penalty. The three issues I'm going to focus on in this observation are primarily the three mentioned already. These issues are abortion, euthanasia and death-penalty.
The contradiction that I often find insulting is that there are those who will vote on all three of these issues and argue that they are taking the position becuase of their religious beliefs. It is usually insulting because these same people often tend to argue that they are against abortion but then do little if anything to aid someone who needs help with raising a child. These people argue against end of life decisions for others but then never take steps themselves to aid these elderly people in any way.
I have found that often the same people who argue 'right to life' are the same people who are 'pro-death penalty'. The hypocrisy is astounding really. The argument against my opinion usually comes from an angle of 'the person who deserves the death-penalty made a choice where as the unwanted unborn child that was the result of what these people judge to be immoral acts of fornication should have the right to life'. However the argument falls short because you really can't make that logic in that argument work for end of life rights. To be clear, there is a difference between 'end of life decisions and rights' and 'euthanasia'. Though you may debate the semantics, the two terms for the purposes of this commentary are to be deemed choice and no choice, respectively. In such a case I would be against euthanasia because there is no choice by the individual, which would mean that I would support the rights of individuals who want to make end of life decisions.
The argument so often laid out by those who support capital punishment by death is partly that it serves society not to allow that person convicted of a capital offense to be a financial drain on society.
I believe that the grounds for dignity are far more compelling in any debate where one would argue 'right to life'. I currently view 'right to dignity' as a better stance than 'right to life' or 'right to choice'. The idea of dignity means to me that if a child is unwanted and would struggle through his/her formative years as a child, with the proverbial 'deck stacked against' him or her, then why subject that child to a life that starts in such an undignified way.
The fact is that when it comes to party platforms, the republican party typically stands in opposition to 'right to dignity' because they not only oppose abortion rights but also end of life rights but then they also oppose social programs that would be necessary. I never hear much about the 'christian left', only the 'christian right'. I know there is a 'christian left' because I've known many people who are democrats who also profess a christian faith. But the example here is that the same people who are claiming to be 'christian right' are the same people who would rather impose through governmental regulations ideas that they claim are backed by their beliefs but then refuse to allow those that would be affected by the imposed regulations the understanding and compassion they deserve as humans.
Have you ever seen a die-hard 'christian' who grew up in the church and has lived an extremely sheltered life react to someone else saying they are going through a divorce? The look of complete disgust and judgment that crosses their face is sickening. You may think this is unfounded judgment on my part but I stand by it because I used to be like that.
I was taught to value and respect life. I was also taught to think though and that is right to question and be curious. In respecting life, I learned it was important to live life in an experiential way. I have made mistakes and I have learned from mistakes. I am accountable for my mistakes and have claimed responsibility for my actions so that I won't repeat those mistakes which I've learned from.
What is dignity to you? Do you think dignity is a right? To me, I see that a right to dignity is as much of a right as it is to have rights at all.
I feel I've not been completely clear however, I feel I've been clear enough for you to understand the point actually embraces right to life when that life will be dignified or will continue to be dignified.
I welcome your comments, as always.
The contradiction that I often find insulting is that there are those who will vote on all three of these issues and argue that they are taking the position becuase of their religious beliefs. It is usually insulting because these same people often tend to argue that they are against abortion but then do little if anything to aid someone who needs help with raising a child. These people argue against end of life decisions for others but then never take steps themselves to aid these elderly people in any way.
I have found that often the same people who argue 'right to life' are the same people who are 'pro-death penalty'. The hypocrisy is astounding really. The argument against my opinion usually comes from an angle of 'the person who deserves the death-penalty made a choice where as the unwanted unborn child that was the result of what these people judge to be immoral acts of fornication should have the right to life'. However the argument falls short because you really can't make that logic in that argument work for end of life rights. To be clear, there is a difference between 'end of life decisions and rights' and 'euthanasia'. Though you may debate the semantics, the two terms for the purposes of this commentary are to be deemed choice and no choice, respectively. In such a case I would be against euthanasia because there is no choice by the individual, which would mean that I would support the rights of individuals who want to make end of life decisions.
The argument so often laid out by those who support capital punishment by death is partly that it serves society not to allow that person convicted of a capital offense to be a financial drain on society.
I believe that the grounds for dignity are far more compelling in any debate where one would argue 'right to life'. I currently view 'right to dignity' as a better stance than 'right to life' or 'right to choice'. The idea of dignity means to me that if a child is unwanted and would struggle through his/her formative years as a child, with the proverbial 'deck stacked against' him or her, then why subject that child to a life that starts in such an undignified way.
The fact is that when it comes to party platforms, the republican party typically stands in opposition to 'right to dignity' because they not only oppose abortion rights but also end of life rights but then they also oppose social programs that would be necessary. I never hear much about the 'christian left', only the 'christian right'. I know there is a 'christian left' because I've known many people who are democrats who also profess a christian faith. But the example here is that the same people who are claiming to be 'christian right' are the same people who would rather impose through governmental regulations ideas that they claim are backed by their beliefs but then refuse to allow those that would be affected by the imposed regulations the understanding and compassion they deserve as humans.
Have you ever seen a die-hard 'christian' who grew up in the church and has lived an extremely sheltered life react to someone else saying they are going through a divorce? The look of complete disgust and judgment that crosses their face is sickening. You may think this is unfounded judgment on my part but I stand by it because I used to be like that.
I was taught to value and respect life. I was also taught to think though and that is right to question and be curious. In respecting life, I learned it was important to live life in an experiential way. I have made mistakes and I have learned from mistakes. I am accountable for my mistakes and have claimed responsibility for my actions so that I won't repeat those mistakes which I've learned from.
What is dignity to you? Do you think dignity is a right? To me, I see that a right to dignity is as much of a right as it is to have rights at all.
I feel I've not been completely clear however, I feel I've been clear enough for you to understand the point actually embraces right to life when that life will be dignified or will continue to be dignified.
I welcome your comments, as always.
Friday, September 4, 2009
Jesus has returned but he's a communist!!!
I read a post on FoxNews.com today. I think Fox News is anything but 'fair and balanced'. It's more like 'crooked and biased'. To be fair, I will retract that blanket statement because I'm sure there is an intern who works there who is still 'fair and balanced'. Forgive me, I'm a little irritated. Today is a good example why it's hard not to get sucked into this insanity.
I read an article, ironic as it is, about some 'controversy' over some comments made by Van Jones. I don't really care about the story itself other than it seems to detract from what that story really is about, at least as presented by FoxNews.com. I'll leave alone what the story really is though, to focus on the 'conspiratorial' actions taken by a lowly article comments moderator...
After reading part of the completely off base comments regarding the the relatively off base article, I decided to post a comment. I wrote the comment, hit the 'add comment' button and having had an issue with the FoxNews.com website before, had made sure to copy my text before posting so I could repost if needed. Of course, I took note of the time and when that time passed in the comments cue and other people's comments started appearing that had been posted after mine, I reposted. And then needed to a third time. That's when I noticed the disclaimer below the 'fair and balanced' foxnews.com website comment box:
" Disclaimer: Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive. "
Of course it was again, moderated out. I reposted in astonishment, reading the posts that were bluntly racist in some cases, as well as others that would clearly fall under the category of 'abusive'... Read for yourself: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/03/green-jobs-advisers-past-stir-trouble-white-house-critical-time/comments/
After realizing that my posts were not appearing because the were being selectively moderated out, I reposted my comment with the additional comment directed to the moderator...
=================================
TO THE MODERATOR:
Unforgivable... You're seriously going to moderate that logical perspective that is completely relevant while allowing racial hate speech that is nothing but abusive...
I posted 4 comments and each one was 'moderated' because you chose to exclude me because I obviously do not fit your agenda... No matter, the truth will win.
THE MODERATED UN-POSTED POST:
I would be very interested to know how many of the people out there who profess to be Christian actually get that if they are waiting for Jesus to return to establish his kingdom on earth that it would likely be a socialist/communist society. I guess it's fine to pretend that is what you want on Sunday if you don't really believe it, so long as it makes you look good in front of others... Oh, and that whole love your neighbor thing, not to mention the 'green' co-exist in harmony with the planet so that we don't selfishly use it up or just ruin it for our children and their children... yah, that has nothing to do with capitalism. Capitalism, motivated by monetary gain, does nothing for society as a whole. Money doesn't even care about the individual. Capitalism reinforces greed and selfishness not caring and certainly not love.
=================================================
Of course it was again not posted. I tried once more... nope. Denied 6 times, selective censorship of an opposing viewpoint.
Just to make sure it wasn't a technology issue, I tried to post just the original portion of the comment using an alternate browser... no dice. It was not posted.
As always, I invite comments. Oh, and by the way, I don't moderate them.
l8r,
Chris
I read an article, ironic as it is, about some 'controversy' over some comments made by Van Jones. I don't really care about the story itself other than it seems to detract from what that story really is about, at least as presented by FoxNews.com. I'll leave alone what the story really is though, to focus on the 'conspiratorial' actions taken by a lowly article comments moderator...
After reading part of the completely off base comments regarding the the relatively off base article, I decided to post a comment. I wrote the comment, hit the 'add comment' button and having had an issue with the FoxNews.com website before, had made sure to copy my text before posting so I could repost if needed. Of course, I took note of the time and when that time passed in the comments cue and other people's comments started appearing that had been posted after mine, I reposted. And then needed to a third time. That's when I noticed the disclaimer below the 'fair and balanced' foxnews.com website comment box:
" Disclaimer: Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive. "
Of course it was again, moderated out. I reposted in astonishment, reading the posts that were bluntly racist in some cases, as well as others that would clearly fall under the category of 'abusive'... Read for yourself: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/03/green-jobs-advisers-past-stir-trouble-white-house-critical-time/comments/
After realizing that my posts were not appearing because the were being selectively moderated out, I reposted my comment with the additional comment directed to the moderator...
=================================
TO THE MODERATOR:
Unforgivable... You're seriously going to moderate that logical perspective that is completely relevant while allowing racial hate speech that is nothing but abusive...
I posted 4 comments and each one was 'moderated' because you chose to exclude me because I obviously do not fit your agenda... No matter, the truth will win.
THE MODERATED UN-POSTED POST:
I would be very interested to know how many of the people out there who profess to be Christian actually get that if they are waiting for Jesus to return to establish his kingdom on earth that it would likely be a socialist/communist society. I guess it's fine to pretend that is what you want on Sunday if you don't really believe it, so long as it makes you look good in front of others... Oh, and that whole love your neighbor thing, not to mention the 'green' co-exist in harmony with the planet so that we don't selfishly use it up or just ruin it for our children and their children... yah, that has nothing to do with capitalism. Capitalism, motivated by monetary gain, does nothing for society as a whole. Money doesn't even care about the individual. Capitalism reinforces greed and selfishness not caring and certainly not love.
=================================================
Of course it was again not posted. I tried once more... nope. Denied 6 times, selective censorship of an opposing viewpoint.
Just to make sure it wasn't a technology issue, I tried to post just the original portion of the comment using an alternate browser... no dice. It was not posted.
As always, I invite comments. Oh, and by the way, I don't moderate them.
l8r,
Chris
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Imagine
Moses walked through the desert, led only by God. Jesus did the same. I'm not going to put myself on their level, however, like Moses and Jesus, I've come to the beliefs I have by setting aside all of my religious notions to walk through the desert of the unknown, resting upon the assurance that "God Is" and that if I seek the truth, I shall find it.
John Lennon wrote a song called "Imagine" and so many people seem to not come close to seeing the vision that John was trying to relate. No country, no religion, no war... It's actually amazingly simple, in fact perhaps it's too simple for most people who expect that everything must be complex.
I have come to understand the role that historical events and figures have played in religion enough that I can now look upon the Bible with new eyes. I see the truth within the Bible yet can now also see how historical events, even just the passage of time, has brought us the book that Christians hold dear.
My journey through 'the desert of the unknown' has allowed me to lean upon 'God' without any need for defining what 'God' is other than trusting that whatever 'God' is, "God Is". In doing so I've been free to look into other beliefs and religions. It allowed me to give myself permission to question what I grew up believing and test it. I have found so far that my curiosity to understand the truth about God and spirituality and life in more practical ways has proven to be a grounding force in my life, so far. In attempting to live by the spiritual principles set forth in all religions, I have come to desire a greater understanding of other religions as well.
I was raised as a Catholic, with some Protestant Christians in my extended family. I don't think I could call myself 'Catholic' at this point, nor could I likely call myself 'Christian', though I think of myself as Thomas Jefferson did, who regarded the non-religious philosophies presented by Jesus in the Gospels to be of immense value and guidance. Jefferson said that he felt he could likely consider himself as much or more of a 'Christian' than those who merely claim to be 'Christian' due to Jefferson actually trying to act as Jesus instructed unlike those who were just posturing.
I have become more intrigued in learning about other religious faiths. I have begun reading an English translation of the Quran. I understand that Muslims expect a Muslim to read the Quran in Arabic as it has been for the past 1400+ years. Their reasoning as I understand it is that the Quran has remained the same for that entire period without revision and that the puntuation to stress the inflection of certain words is very important to understanding the meaning. Anyone who knows me and my love and respect of words will know I whole-heartedly respect that. That said, as much as I would like to begin learning Arabic, I feel my motivation for reading the Quran is not to become a Muslim but to draw upon the wisdom that would transcend the translation. I am seeking the truth and though I would like to one day learn not only Arabic but Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, Latin and other more contemporary languages like Italian, French and German, I understand that I am mortal and have a limited time in which to do the things that I place value on.
My interest in the spiritual aspects of religions is first and foremost a personal interest. I am not one who believes in an 'all or nothing' approach. I am at this point interested in continuing to uncover the path that I'm discovering. I know I am not the first to discover it but as I believe I've stated in a previous blog entry, I am no longer interested in divisive beliefs but inclusive ones. Ideas that unite are of infinitely greater benefit than those that divide.
l8r,
Chris
John Lennon wrote a song called "Imagine" and so many people seem to not come close to seeing the vision that John was trying to relate. No country, no religion, no war... It's actually amazingly simple, in fact perhaps it's too simple for most people who expect that everything must be complex.
I have come to understand the role that historical events and figures have played in religion enough that I can now look upon the Bible with new eyes. I see the truth within the Bible yet can now also see how historical events, even just the passage of time, has brought us the book that Christians hold dear.
My journey through 'the desert of the unknown' has allowed me to lean upon 'God' without any need for defining what 'God' is other than trusting that whatever 'God' is, "God Is". In doing so I've been free to look into other beliefs and religions. It allowed me to give myself permission to question what I grew up believing and test it. I have found so far that my curiosity to understand the truth about God and spirituality and life in more practical ways has proven to be a grounding force in my life, so far. In attempting to live by the spiritual principles set forth in all religions, I have come to desire a greater understanding of other religions as well.
I was raised as a Catholic, with some Protestant Christians in my extended family. I don't think I could call myself 'Catholic' at this point, nor could I likely call myself 'Christian', though I think of myself as Thomas Jefferson did, who regarded the non-religious philosophies presented by Jesus in the Gospels to be of immense value and guidance. Jefferson said that he felt he could likely consider himself as much or more of a 'Christian' than those who merely claim to be 'Christian' due to Jefferson actually trying to act as Jesus instructed unlike those who were just posturing.
I have become more intrigued in learning about other religious faiths. I have begun reading an English translation of the Quran. I understand that Muslims expect a Muslim to read the Quran in Arabic as it has been for the past 1400+ years. Their reasoning as I understand it is that the Quran has remained the same for that entire period without revision and that the puntuation to stress the inflection of certain words is very important to understanding the meaning. Anyone who knows me and my love and respect of words will know I whole-heartedly respect that. That said, as much as I would like to begin learning Arabic, I feel my motivation for reading the Quran is not to become a Muslim but to draw upon the wisdom that would transcend the translation. I am seeking the truth and though I would like to one day learn not only Arabic but Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, Latin and other more contemporary languages like Italian, French and German, I understand that I am mortal and have a limited time in which to do the things that I place value on.
My interest in the spiritual aspects of religions is first and foremost a personal interest. I am not one who believes in an 'all or nothing' approach. I am at this point interested in continuing to uncover the path that I'm discovering. I know I am not the first to discover it but as I believe I've stated in a previous blog entry, I am no longer interested in divisive beliefs but inclusive ones. Ideas that unite are of infinitely greater benefit than those that divide.
l8r,
Chris
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)