I woke up this morning with a craving for a specific song by the group Carbon Leaf. I discovered this band when the song "Life Less Ordinary" from their Album "Indian Summer" came with an MP3 player that I bought. I liked the song, and ultimately bought the album "Love Loss Hope Repeat". At some later time I bought "Indian Summer" and I have to say that I am consistently impressed.
Thankfully I could listen to the song "What about everything?" (from "Indian Summer") this morning, otherwise it would have bugged me for a while more. But I still really like that song, and I am listening to the rest of the album as I write this blog, and enjoying it. I just thought I would share, and hopefully you might enjoy them, too.
I was listening to the December 1st broadcast of the Michael Medved Show, and the topic of nationalism came up. This was in relation to the recent tragic bombings in Mumbai. Specifically, nationalism is necessary to rally people for a collective cause. Individually, as Americans, we are very independent people, but because of
nationalism, we come together as a group to fight evil. India has been having increased trouble with terrorism specifically because of problems with a lack of nationalism among their Muslim population. Most specifically, one of the
leading political parties in India relies heavily on the Muslim vote, and so they water down and destroy any anti-terror legislation that comes up.
Anyway, in the process of talking about how nationalism is important, and that it is good to be nationalistic, I suddenly realized that this is a similar argument to how marriage is important and is good. And the other side of both these arguments are simultaneously similar and self-contradictory.
First, marriage is an important institution specifically because it represents the union of opposites. This union is essential for a stable nation, stable cities, stable parents, and stable children. Some people, however, believe that marriage is really only for government benefits (visitation rights, etc.). The recent debate over Proposition 8 frequently states this, but it leaves out 1 really important fact: gay couples already have all the same rights as married couples under California State law. California has already enacted Civil Unions which have all the same rights and privileges as marriage, just with a different name. So why do people want to change the definition of marriage if they do not gain any other government benefits from it? Because they want to force people to accept their relationships as being equivalent to marriage, which they are not.
One key way that gay marriage proponents cloud the issue is by stating that it "will not hurt your marriage", and that "why is marriage such a sacred word to heterosexuals? Why can't you just let them also have marriage?". To which I respond: (1) It hurts the institution of marriage, and (2) if marriage is so unimportant that it should be easily changed to include homosexual unions, then why do they want the name "marriage" so bad? Why isn't "Civil Unions" enough? This is a nasty double-standard. (For a fascinating perspective on gay marriage as it relates to polygamy, read this blog.)
Second, nationalism is an important facet of society because it represents the union of society toward large goals. In particular, for Americans, it is directed toward freedom. Americans vary widely in their origins, dreams, and goals, but our national unity comes from our fight to defend freedom. There are a lot of people in the world who say that they are "citizens of the world", and that it does not matter what country we come from. And yet, these people frequently choose to live in the U.S. If no country is better or worse than another, why not live in Burma? or Uganda? or Iran? I'm sure that these are lovely places to live and do work. Of course, I am just illustrating how big of a double-standard this mindset is.
The pursuit of removing nationalism is an attempt to show how equal each person in the world is, but it also has the sad fact of ignoring how different each person in the world is. While nationalism has the nice property of accepting how different each person is while celebrating how unified we each are. Marriage does exactly the same thing: If men and women were not so different from each other, then why get married at all? what does each person bring to the table? But marriage definitely accepts that both people are very different from each other, but their difference do not matter when coupled with the fact that they are unified in the goal of raising a family.
And this brings up a good question which I like to ask, because so much of our culture does not understand this anymore: What good are men?
I read a great book a few years ago called The 5 Dysfunctions of a Team. This book talks about how companies can build up their teams through showing the 5 big things that cause teams to work less effectively. I don't remember 4 of the dysfunctions very well, but I remember one dysfunction very well: lack of conflict.
The Author, Patrick M. Lencioni, uses a fictional story to illustrate all of the 5 dysfunctions, and does it very believably and effectively. But lack of conflict stuck out to me because it seems to go against everything we are taught in church, hear from our friends, and told by society. How often do we tell ourselves we don't like the fighting that happens on the news, or in politics? And yet, life would not be interesting if it were devoid of conflict.
I know at hearing that, most people want to scoff at my assertion that conflict is essential to happiness, but I still believe it is essential. How many boring meetings have you been to? You sit there for an hour or two, practically (or literally) fall asleep, even though it is bright out. And yet, you can go into a dark room, sit wide-eyed and engaged for an hour or two, and come out awake and at times, enlivened: go watch a movie.
So what's the difference between a boring meeting and an engaging movie? The movie has much less interaction from the viewers, while the meeting can often have much more interaction, so it is not physical engagement. It isn't the lighting. The loud noises, maybe, but I have a nephew who can sleep through that. It's the conflict within the movie. Good vs. evil. Good-guy vs. bad-guy. Relationship building vs. relationship destruction (chick flicks are movies, too...). This is why a good plot matters: it builds conflict, draws people into it, adjusts the conflict to keep it interesting throughout the film, and then pays off the conflict with a meaningful resolution. This is also the dirty secret of the news: news people rely on conflict to sell their wares.
Despite how much journalists claim they are all about presenting the news, they are not trying to sell the news: they are trying to sell advertising. The nightly news ends every segment of their show with a tease about the upcoming segment. The tease is meant to put a little conflict into your life so that you will want to have it resolved and will hang on through the commercials to get the pay-off. They leave the weather till the middle, and the sports till the last so that people will hold through the commercials. They concentrate on showing news that is more horrific simply because it is more engaging, and they want your eyes and ears around when the commercials come up.
TV shows do exactly the same thing (House M.D. anyone?). Only it can be worse: at the end of the season they may give a giant cliff-hanger to get you to hold through the summer. And what if the season is canceled? Then we have to live with not knowing how the series ends (Thank you Traveler).
Conflict is also how talk radio works: the best ones have a healthy level of conflict. And the dirty secret is that a lot of liberals love talk radio, even though they may vehemently disagree with the host. Music radio does the same thing by trying to balance new, good music (more expensive) with older music (cheaper), so that they can keep you listening, particularly through the commercials. This is also what can make or break video games. As well as blogs, about any topic (unfortunately, I do not trust enabling the comments on these blogs because I would need to implement some sort of CAPTCHA to keep out SPAM bots, and I don't want to do that yet...it's not about whether or not I trust your comments...honestly...who throws a shoe).
Anyway, what does this have to do with meetings and church? Have you ever been to a meeting or Sunday School lesson where you come out completely invigorated? I guarantee you that conflict was involved. People presented interesting ideas or interpretations, and thoughts were shared. Sometimes people disagreed quite forcefully, but hopefully it never came to blows. In the end, if everyone is centered on the same goal (i.e. understanding the scriptures and God while still maintaining friendships), then the meeting will go well. In fact, as Lencioni states, conflict is a sign of trust. Where there is trust, there is teamwork. The reverse also holds: if there is no conflict, there is no trust. If there is no trust, there is no teamwork.
But if we are in a constant state of tension, won't we end up fighting constantly? Maybe. But let's look at some scriptures, first. One of the classic anti-conflict scriptures is 3rd Nephi 11:29-30:
29 For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another.
30 Behold, this is not my doctrine, to stir up the hearts of men with anger, one against another; but this is my doctrine, that such things should be done away.
Yikes. How can I disagree with a direct quote from Christ: contention is of the devil. I guess I am supporting the devil here...but not really. I believe that there is a difference between contention and conflict. Conflict is a subset of contention. Within many movies, the conflict is is outright contention, while chick flicks and good family films aren't necessarily so.
So what is the difference between conflict and contention? I believe that the true heart comes with the "with anger" clause of Christ's statement on conflict. I can disagree with someone without getting angry. When we both have the same ultimate goals, we can amicably disagree about paths toward that goal without being disagreeable.
In fact, I believe that the world is designed this way. Let's read some more scriptures. 2nd Nephi 2: 11:
11 For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my first-born in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility.
Opposition is essential, otherwise there is no life, only death. That's amazing. So where else do we see these differences that make us alive? I have a long list of places where I see teamwork, and as a result I also see conflict:
- Ourselves: Body and Spirit. Sex drive and respect for other people.
- Marriage: husband and wife. Female and male. Femininity and masculinity.
- Family: parents and children.
- Work: boss and employees. Company and customers.
- Church: leadership and flock. Neighbor to neighbor.
- Government: collective good and individual benefit.
The list could go on, but I see these as forming a nice pyramid of teams, trust, and conflict that affect every-day life. And I see the key contributions of these conflicts centered in how we find a common goal between the conflicts. When two people have a common goal with different approaches and they can agree that that is their common goal, then conflict can happen, safely within that environment.
- Ourselves: Our personal happiness.
- Marriage: forming a family.
- Family: building close relationships, raising children, teaching virtue.
- Work: building looser relationships while taking care of basic needs.
- Church: building virtue within people individually and collectively.
- Government: protecting the society as a whole (which I believe is what Obama really wants when he says he wants everyone else to have a chance by "spreading the wealth"...I just do not agree that is the right approach to long-term sustained protection for society).
Building and managing conflict within our lives, not being afraid of conflict, but harnessing it for the good of everyone is a very good thing. Sometimes it is very hard to see where that line is, but I believe that we can all learn to distinguish that line, as long as we truly care about everyone. And I mean everyone.
I've been getting a lot of material lately from various Democrats in Utah. One thing I notice is how conservative Utah Democrats are. This is a good thing. But it also means that the differences between Republicans and Democrats in Utah are even more important.
There is no better place to see these differences than looking the Democratic and Republican platforms. The platforms are important because they lay out what the part as a whole strives for, and is a good indication of why people have joined that party. People do not join a party because they believe it is perfect, just that it is closer to their ideals than the other party. Then, people work to persuade the rest of the people in that party to move in their direction. When there are fewer differences between parties, then the differences are even more important because they signal the reasons that a majority of people have joined that party.
So let us highlight some of the differences between the Republican and Democratic party platforms. One thing to keep in mind is that things mentioned within the platforms become priorities for the people in those parties to get enacted by government, so things that one platform mentions and the other does not mention does not mean that the other party does not care about that issue, just that the other party does not believe that it is necessarily the role of government to get involved in that aspect of human life.
Limited Government
One of the key things I see mentioned in the Democratic platform is "Open and Limited Government". This sounds very nice because it is a guiding principle of the Republican platform, as can be seen from the section in the Republican Platform about "The Proper Role of Government". So what do each mean by "limited government"? Republicans mean that government should protect "life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness". I agree with this, although it can have somewhat broad interpretations. While Democrats mean that government should be limited to doing "what we cannot do individually". I can find no other statement about limited government in their platform and I find this statement to be contradicted in the other priorities of their platform, such as for "Social Security", "Health Care", "Education", and "Energy" where they call for much more government involvement.
Education
Both parties believe in better education. However, their approaches are very different. Republicans call for better accountability to individual tax payers through competition while Democrats call for more money. This is an area where I have very strong feelings. As we learned with last-year's vote about school choice, we spend $6500 per student in Utah. Democrats look at this value and lament that it is very low compared to national averages. However, the scores of our students are very high nationally. Which is a better indicator of success: per-pupil spending or per-pupil graduation rates and testing scores? I prefer the latter, and Utah is doing very well. More money, then, is obviously not the answer.
The answer, as any teacher will tell you, is more parental involvement. Throwing more money at the problem will not get more parental involvement. But, if people have more choice in where there children go to school, parents will start to be more involved in their children's education. With Utah spending $6500 per student, and 30 students per classroom, Utah is spending $195,000 per classroom in Utah. Where is this money going? There is no reason that Teachers cannot be paid 50K per year, with health benefits and retirement funds, while still spending less per child. The UEA is getting in the way of the kinds of things that would actually help our children and our teachers. For instance, I believe that giving teachers 401 Ks instead of pension plans will go a long way toward improving teacher salaries, happiness, retirement, mobility, and consequently improve how our children are taught. But I digress...
Energy
This is a curious one. Democrats address it directly, while Republicans do not. But as I stated earlier, this means that Republicans believe that Government should stay out of the way of private individuals in their pursuit of energy. Democrats state that they want to reduce dependence on foreign oil, but that it should be done through "mass transit, conservation, and alternative energy sources". Nowhere do I see encouragement to drill locally to get oil, which would go a long way toward reducing our dependence on foreign oil. The Democrat proposals also mean more government involvement in personal decisions: I will be "encouraged" to ride mass transit more frequently, I will be "encouraged" to conserve. I ask, can't I make these decisions on my own?
And speaking of "alternative energy solutions", they oppose the largest alternative energy source we have: nuclear energy. They oppose the waste of nuclear energy, and hence the source of that waste. From my experience, this is mostly out of fear of the invisible and unknown. Most people don't realize that the Tooele (Pronounced "two-will-ah") Army Depot. The Government stored the kinds of nerve gas there that can kill a hundred thousand people with a single drop of the nerve gas. Nuclear waste is nowhere near as dangerous as that.
Most people don't realize this, but they are radioactive themselves. The typical 150 lb person gives off at least 4000 pieces of radiation per second. And those are typically not gamma rays, which are the most energetic radiation, but which typically goes right through people and never does any damage. No, this radiation is beta radiation from potassium, which is one of the most radioactive, naturally-occurring substances on earth, and it is essential to muscle operation. Without potassium, you die.
The beta radiation is more dangerous because it is "ionized". Betas are fast-traveling electrons. When they get near something with a more positive charge, the go toward it and typically hit it. When they do, they do two things: one, transfer energy to that positive thing, and two, tear that positive thing away from whatever it is attached to.
Betas are typically stopped by a sheet of aluminum foil, which means they do not have to travel far before they are attracted to something and hit it. This means that within your body, the beta radiation is going to hit some other cell and cause damage, including to the DNA within those cells. However, our bodies are very resilient: they can detect and repair that kind of damage quickly and easily. The only real problems with radiation occur when someone is overwhelmed with radiation, and that just does not happen with the modern ways in which nuclear fuel and waste is produced, transported, and stored. There is a lot of fear out there stopping people from making rational decisions in this matter.
Conclusions
The Utah Democratic party is making a lot of promises within their platform. Understanding these promises and their consequences, is very important to this and future elections. I believe that they have a good heart about many of their goals, but the means they wish to use to get to those goals I believe are very flawed and end up hurting more people than they help. Please pay attention to more than just what the politicians tell you their agendas are: read their platform and see where their party as a whole wants to move.
One of the problems that I am seeing more frequently than ever in Democratic politics is a hidden meanness. I was finally able to put a name on it when I got a robo-call from Claralyn Hill. She's a Democrat running for State Representative here in Utah. But it took a lot of digging to find that out. It is not prominent anywhere on the main pages of her site, but I suspected it simply because she does not mention her political affiliation. Check under "Links" and then you find a link to the Utah Democratic Party Platform
Later in the week I got a flier from her with the tag line "Vote the Person". This sounds nice at first: I don't vote straight party ticket, and I think everyone should always read the information and promises of each person before voting and vote on each person individually. But assuming that I vote the party and trying to convince me not to is a hidden meanness: at the outset she is being condescending to me and my neighbors.
Now I assume she is a generally nice person. I'm not certain, but I think her husband was in my Stake Presidency a while back. I never really knew him, but I never heard anything negative either. In fact, I do not assume that Democrats are evil or mean people, either. I have a lot of the same values as they do, especially when it comes to our need to care for the poor. However my key difference is that I do not believe that having the Government do it is helpful for the poor: private charities do a much better job every time.
Now, I believe that Barack Obama is engaging in the exact same kind of meanness. He keeps saying that we all need to come together (sounds nice), but that Republicans are being divisive (meanness). How can he bring us to the table when he believes that we are divisive from the outset? Why is it that "shame" is used so heavily to try and accomplish things?
Now, this is the tricky part, because it is hard for me to see each time it happens to me, but it happens. People say one thing, while being guilty of that exact thing at that moment. I was having a discussion with a friend of mine about a month ago. She said she wanted the political process to be more civil without talking about how "evil" or "wrong" the other side is. She also wanted people to actually learn something from the process of political talk and she believes that isn't happening. And yet, implicit in her remarks was a belief that I am evil and wrong for listening to talk radio, and that I am somehow stupider for it.
I tried to ask her if she believe I am stupid or evil for listening to talk radio, and she of course said no, but she got angrier as she said it. I immediately told her that I have learned a lot from talk radio, and that I get information from a lot of sources. In fact, talk radio has taught me how to think. She immediately retorted that she does not need anyone else to tell her what to think.
It was getting late, and I could see she was agitated, and I did not want to make it worse, so I just dropped the conversation. However, it took me another day before I realize how angry I got at her comments. Particularly because of how hypocritical she was being: In her assumption of me not being well-informed, being told what to think, and being "evil" for having the opinions I do. This secret meanness is something that people are relying on more and more. They make me feel guilty for something I have not done. They make me feel guilty for something that I might do to offend them. Little do they realize that they have done something to offend me. I may be a little slow with my wit, but I know when I am being manipulated.
It even happened to me once in a Biology class at BYU. In that class, the teacher had us read a bunch of papers about environmental problems and solutions and then he had us write a paper about them. All the solutions sounded nice and reasonable, and when I started writing my paper, I was in conformance with those papers. However, as I thought a lot more about those solutions I realized how much people would be loosing from them, and how they did not consider why our current economic system has moved to where it is and how it blesses millions of people every day. I realized that these author's suggestions would actually be harming millions as a result. And so I discarded my first paper and rewrote it accordingly.
With that second paper, I was very lucky: the teacher did not grade it, his TA's did. I actually got a comment about how it was the best paper the TA had read, even though it went completely against the environmental statements the teacher had made.
Standing up for my beliefs will not always work out (my friend has yet to talk to me after our conversation a month ago), but I am steadily learning how to recognize hidden meanness. I don't yet know how to articulate it quickly, or how to respond to it, but hopefully I will get better at it as I go on. However, remember this one question as you listen to candidates talk: Are they doing the same thing they are claiming their opponent is doing? I always see the hypocrisy when I finally get around to asking myself that question.
If carbon emissions are really hurting the environment, then trees are cleaning up the environment, and just writing a book can help the environment. So can building houses and furniture.
Trees breath in carbon dioxide and sunlight and breath out Oxygen. In the process, the tree takes water and using photosynthesis it creates the building blocks for a tree. This is how the tree grows taller and wider. This is how it also produces leaves.
Now, if that tree falls over in the forest, it just rots, releasing a lot of that carbon back into the atmosphere. Some of it gets trapped underground as dirt piles up on top of it, but most trees stay very exposed after dying. If the tree stays upright after dying, it is taking up space that a new tree could be using to grow. If that tree dies in a forest fire, all that carbon gets released back into the atmosphere and it takes a long time for many forests to get back to where they were in carbon content before the fire.
But if that tree is chopped down and then replaced with a new seedling (like modern American lumber corporations do), the chopped-down tree represents carbon that is trapped indefinitely. Why indefinitely? Because people generally care for wood products very well. We coat them in paints that help show their natural colors while keeping the wood from ever decaying because Oxygen can't get back into the wood to break it down (think kitchen tables). We also take shavings from creating our wood products and turn them into more wood products: particle board is just glued-together wood chips that we use to make cheaper book shelves. Ans speaking of book shelves, we typically take care of books, even when they are dime-store paperback romance novels (basically garbage from the outset). And when we are done using our wood products, we typically do not burn them, but instead bury them in landfills, thus trapping that carbon underground.
By burying these products in landfills, that carbon gets trapped underground from now on. Some of the weirder ideas I have heard for carbon scrubbers on power plants is to just pump the carbon dioxide into underground aquifers. These aquifers are a couple miles underground and will not be disturbed for a long time. However, all we are doing is creating underground soda water. How is burying our wood products any different.
By the way, the title for this blog is a bastardization of a phrase I got from "The Simpsons". In the early seasons of the show, Krusty the Klown had a reading program titled "Give a Hoot: Read a Book". Which, of course, is a bastardization of at least one other program: "Give a Hoot: Don't pollute". I found that my adjustment to this phrase to be very fitting for this topic, so I used it.
McCain regularly talks about ear-marks, and how he wants to stop them. Barack keeps saying that the waste that they represent is worth ignoring. Now, what does this have to do with Rudy Giuliani? Reducing ear-marks is precisely the way to drastically reduce government spending. How is this possible? Very simply: when you show you care about the little things, the larger things will take care of themselves.
This is a peculiar lesson that I learned from reading the fine book Tipping Point by Malcolm Gladwell. The sub-title of this book is “How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference”, and one of its key examples is Rudy Giuliani in how he dealt with and drastically reduced crime in New York. The way he did this was through tackling two smaller areas of crime: graffiti and turnstile jumping.
Covering over graffiti, and arresting the perpetrators in an area can have a large effect on crime, simply because it shows that people in that area care about their neighborhood. This is sometimes called the “broken windows” effect from a famous book by George L. Kelling and Catherine M. Coles., and it has also been applied to running businesses. When buildings look dilapidated and un-cared-for because they have broken windows and graffiti on them, good people avoid the area: it reeks of crime. In addition, bad people flock to the area: it looks like an easy score.
“Turnstile Jumping” is what happens in the subways of New York, where people jump over the turnstile instead of paying the 50 cents to get on the subway. These are minor offenses, but because no one was willing to enforce the payments, they occurred more regularly and encouraged higher crime within the subway, including graffiti.
So Rudy Giuliani started to crack down on graffiti, particularly on the subways. First, they started to just paint over what people did (frequently called “tagging”), while trying to catch them in the act so that the perpetrators would be the ones paying for their crimes. The day after a tagging occurs it would be painted over so that all the public places kept a clean, cared-for appearance, because they were cared for. Number one, this discouraged the perpetrators simply because no one could really see and “appreciate” their work, so they were less inclined to tag. Second, these people were being caught and kept from engaging in these acts again. And third, but most important, it discouraged crimes in those areas because public officials were regularly near-by, and because these places looked like people with means and effort cared about them.
In addition, Giuliani cracked down on turnstile jumpers and saw a huge decrease in crime, and a huge increase in citizen satisfaction. The police did not have the time and effort to arrest someone for jumping a turnstile: this meant trotting them to the main office to fill out paperwork and ultimately incarcerate them for a 50 cent crime. However, Giuliani created mobile offices which were busses fitted out to provide an easy way to prosecute the jumpers. Officers would arrest the jumpers, hand cuff them, and line them up along the subway wall to wait for the mobile office to arrive. This had the triple effect of being more efficient, and hugely humiliating to the jumpers, and very reassuring to New York’s citizenry. In addition, these jumpers frequently already had warrants out for their arrest: when people are committing larger crimes, they are also likely to be committing smaller crimes. This ultimately made the police system much more efficient. To this day, when I watch a movie centered in New York, I regularly notice the police officer standing guard in the subway. (I’m pretty-sure that 16 Blocks is a recent example of this).
John McCain’s plan to curb “pork barrel” projects or “ear-marks” is precisely this same philosophy: by showing that we care about the small spending in government, we encourage the people working in government to care about the larger spending in government. We also discourage congressmen from trying to be dishonest with tax-payer money. But if we take the Barack Obama plan, and just ignore the little pieces of waste, the people working within government get the idea that “it does not matter if [they] cheat a little, or lie a little about what [they] do with [our] money, because [they] are just small potatoes anyway: it’s the bigger programs that are the real problem”.
Thinking like that is not right. I do not steal from work, even just a ream of paper or a pen once in a while simply because it is not worth it in the long-run with how I treat my employer. Frankly, I think businesses should be willing to pay as much for resources for an employee each year as the employee is being paid. However, that is not a decision I will make for myself, I have to persuade my boss that it is in their interest to upgrade my computer every few years: $5000 in machines and software every few years is an extremely tiny portion of what they are paying me. Any business that is stealing software is not thinking very carefully about where they are really spending money, and is involved in much shadier business practices. RUN if you know your boss is doing that.
A year or two I got to thinking about how I negotiate my way around complete strangers
in the store. I tend to use the phrase "sorry" a lot as I stop my cart,
try and get around people, etc. When other people say "sorry", I usually
respond with "no problem". Accompanied with each "sorry" was
some sort of crouch as either they or I slinked by. But none of these phrases seemed
very satisfying. I wanted something better.
Saying "sorry" each time I caused someone else an inconvenience just seemed
to feel like I was saying "Sorry I exist". Doing that just makes me depressed,
especially if I say it more than 2 or 3 times in an afternoon. So I decided to stop
saying "sorry"...or at least say it when it seemed more appropriate.
Instead of saying "sorry", I say "Excuse me" and after I have
passed the other person, I say "Thank you". Instead of saying "no
problem", I say "You're welcome". I know...if they say "Sorry"
it doesn't make sense to say "You're welcome", but I am just trying to
respond to what they should have said, which is "Excuse me" followed with
a "Thank you". Or even just a "Thank you".
I have been doing this pretty-much most of the time for the last year at least,
and I like it. Once in a while I revert back to the old "Sorry", but I
am making progress. And I think saying "Thank you" makes me feel better,
too. Instead of feeling like I say "Sorry I exist", I am really saying
"Thank you for noticing and deferring to my needs". I have found this
much more satisfying, and I plan to continue it.
I still say "sorry" when I engage in conversations with other people,
though. If someone says something that I genuinely feel sorry for, I try and apologize.
I especially like being able to say "Sorry" when I have a plan for changing
my future behavior. And in fact, I sort of expect other people to have a plan to
change when they say "Sorry" to me. I know that most people do not have
the same opinion on this subject as I do, so I do not hold them to it. However,
some people abuse the word "sorry" and I get annoyed with them when they
do.
I don't like it when I use "sorry" to say "I'm sorry
to have brought up a touchy subject", or "I'm sorry you hamster died".
When people abuse "sorry" this way it feels empty, and I think I want
it to have meaning again. Hopefully I can bring the word to have greater meaning
in my own life, and maybe it will rub off on others. I know that already I see people
smile when I say "You're welcome", and that alone tells me I have
given them just a little more meaning in life.
I was listening to Michael Medved recently, and he made what seemed to be an off-hand remark about our economic crisis: The problem is Government Spending, not sub-prime loans. Basically, because the government is borrowing money, it is harder for the rest of America to borrow money. He then went on to other topics, but I found this to be a very profound comment on our crisis.
In order to spend money, Congress must get the money from somewhere. It has three choices to get the money: (1) raise taxes (which actually lowers tax revenues), (2) print more money (which is a hidden tax on Americans by making each dollar worth less, causing purchases to require more dollars), or (3) borrow the money (which means they expect future tax revenue to cover the borrowed money). The first two make life harder on current Americans while the third delays the pain to future people. Borrowing the money is especially attractive because congressmen could be kicked out in 2 years, so they do not have to worry about paying it back, the guy 5-10 terms from now has to worry about that. So borrow it is!
When people
lend money, they are giving out money to people they expect to eventually return it. When China lends money to the U.S., they want that money back, plus interest. They don't care how they get it back, they just expect to get the money back. They could lend the money to people within China. They could lend it to England, France, Germany, Japan, Iran, or any of a number of countries. But they decided that the U.S. is a safe enough bet with a large enough return that it is worth lending money to us. This means that other countries have to look at other places to get their money.
(By the way, this is also why it is good that the Japanese bought up American companies back in the 80s. It says that they believed in the American worker more than they believed in the Japanese worker to grow their
money.) Before Russia's collapse 20 years ago, they were issuing treasury bonds with 85% returns. This is a fantastic deal for lenders who know they will get their money back, but Russia was desperate to get cash to keep themselves afloat, which they couldn't do, and eventually defaulted on those obligations.
There is a limit to how much money can be lent out. If I lend money to James, I do not have as much money left to lend to Jill, and vice versa. China and the other people of the world only have so much money they can lend. By lending to the government, they have less money they can lend to other people or invest in the stock market. This means that it is harder for people who want money to expand their businesses, etc. to get that money.
They have to either pay more interest on the loans they get, or they have to offer some other incentive that encourages people with money to give them money.
The U.S. government doesn't pay very high interest rates
for the loans it takes. This makes it less attractive as a place ot invest. However, it guarantees those interest rates with American tax dollars, so it is a very safe place to lend money. As a result, people are more likely to loan their money to the government because they are certain they will get their money back. If they lend their money to Zimbabwe, they probably won't. In addition, because the U.S. is always on the prowl for large quantities of money, the government is a great place to go to loan out a large sum of money. A multi-billion-dollar loan is harder to make when it has to be divied out in 5 million-dollar chunks.
One big loan is easier to deal with than several hundred smaller loans.
Now, here is the key problem: because the government is taking out these loans, there is less money for the rest of the country to borrow. This is why there is a shortage of credit within the system. This is kind of like in "It's a Wonderful Life", how if everyone suddenly went to their bank and wanted to borrow money to buy houses (I know, in the movie they wanted to withdraw all their savings, but I needed a more fitting way for people to pull their money out), the bank would run out of funds because even though the bank is worth millions of dollars, most of those dollars have been lent to other people. The funds the bank has on hand are kind of a slush fund that helps keep the bank employees fed, and takes care of all the little withdrawls that people perform every day (a check here, a bill there, etc.).
So, because the government is hogging a large chunk of the available credit (i.e. money that can be loaned), and it is getting increasingly difficult for average Americans to get the credit they need to keep their company operating normally, the best way to free up that credit is for the government to take out less credit. This means one of three things: (1) raise taxes (this just makes everything more expensive), (2) print more money (same problem as before), or (3) quit spending so much money. However, although option 3 is the best from a tax-payers perspective, from a politician's perspective, that is a lost opportunity to impress the people back home and hopefully keep their job.
We need government to spend less money, but that will not happen until we have a majority of people in the house and congress with spines strong enough to finally say "No" to anything that is not essential for the government. In the mean-time, we definitely need a hatchet and not a scalpel to cut out the waste.
I regularly hear about Barack Obama's plan to help our energy crisis, and it is basically to reduce consumption. This sounds good, because if we use less, the resulting higher supply will cause prices to go down, and we will produce less greenhouse gasses. Ignoring the fact that the US is a net negative carbon producer, and that Nuclear Power should be every greenie's best friend, I want to know how this will work without it costing the average American household more than $40,000 each.
The underlying principle behind both left and right proposals on energy is basically the free market: supply and demand. Right = increased supply means lower prices ("Drill, baby, drill"). Left = lower demand (consumption) means a higher supply, and ultimately lower prices ("Invest in conservation"). However, one of the consequences that is behind the left's proposal is that Americans will have to do with less in the mean time.
The only way to lower my consumption with my current set of tools (car, lights, etc.) is to use them less frequently. I already walk to campus 2-3 times per week. This is a nice 30-minute walk for me, each direction, and I enjoy it. It's also nicer on my car. However, not everyone has the luxury of frequently walking to their destinations. They may live too far away from work/school/stores, or may have some other reason that they must drive that far. I think in many cases, people could drive less and would have happier, healthier lives (although I haven't lost any weight yet), but I do not want to force people to do that.
The left regularly proposes to increase mileage standards on cars. Ignoring how this can actually adversely affect vehicle safety, this is a good idea for future cars, but not existing cars. It is not easy to go to the local shop and get a new engine for my car that will make it 40% more efficient. I can do that with light bulbs, but I have to pay much more for a light bulb that takes 30 seconds to fully warm up, doesn't typically last as long as the box says (I replace a bulb in the bathroom once every 3 months) and can aggravate my migraines (I can see the flicker when my head is not doing well...grumble grumble).
So, with my car, my only recourse to increased energy prices is to simply drive around less frequently. Thankfully, I mostly just go to school and back each day. But what about everyone else. Most households have existing cars: the average American has 2.28 vehicles.
If each person in America wanted to save on their gas with a more fuel-efficient vehicle, they would have to replace their current car. If they truly cared about the environment, each person would not resell their car, otherwise some other poor bloke would be driving that damaging vehicle. Newer, more fuel-efficient cars cost upwards of $20,000 each, which means each household, to continue driving the same amount (i.e. get the same number of things done in a day), would have to spend over $40,000 to buy 2 new cars, with no way of recouping the cost of the vehicles they already own.
How does increasing conservation actually help conserve the most important American resource: time? At $40K a household, this is a year's pay out the window just to save money on fuel. This is bad economics, and really is just a tax on every American hidden in the niceties of words. Worst of all, this keeps poor people poor, and rich people rich because only the rich can really afford to plunk down $40K on a whim to save energy.
Increasing the supply of fuel in our economy is really the only way of helping every American live better, happier lives. I know that Americans are smart and will conserve in their own ways to deal with the current scarcity of resources. However, I believe that the best way to help everyone is to try and make as many resources as possible as abundant as possible.
Drill...Baby...Drill...
When we create an enemy out of someone, we usually become their enemy as well. Some would say this applies to the war on terror, which it does: The terrorists made an enemy out of us, so we made an enemy out of them. But this is not the point of this article. I've been thinking lately about our current economic crisis, and the causes thereof. I've been listening to several pundits, and to the candidates (yes, I watch the debates, even though they tend to put either make me really mad, or really sleepy), and I've been trying to put my finger on the problem at hand. Someone on YouTube posted a great video about the history of this problem. The video is very well done, and tends to blame the Democrats for this problem. However, I do not think the Democrats are the real enemy in this problem: their ideology is.
Their ideology is that rich people are the enemy. This has been the foundation of their party and many of their pieces of legislation ever since wall street crashed in 1929, and is even more evident in the rhetoric associated with this crash. The Forgotten Man is a fantastic book that describes why the great depression was so long. The basic point of the book is that with Hoover and FDR, government policies scared the people on Wall-Street, and so they tended to hold onto their money instead of investing it in places where it can grow. Thinking about it from the perspective of "enemies", congress made wall-street the enemy, and their legislation is aimed at punishing these enemies: higher taxes, close loopholes, increase income tax, fine them for not providing health coverage, etc. Consequently, wall-street became the enemy of the rest of the US by holding onto their money: less willing to invest, less willing to extend credit, etc. In direct relation to the causes of this crisis, congress made banks the enemy, forced them to engage in risky business practices under the banner of "affordable housing", otherwise they would get sued.
I believe that the best way to successfully get out of this crisis is to actually make rich people our friends and neighbors again. I know that it is fashionable to demonize rich people, and that Jesus is quite explicit about how difficult it can be for rich people to get into heaven. However, he also tells all of us to love our neighbor: and aren't rich people our neighbors too? Or are they exempt from being our neighbors?
Of course, I believe that rich people are our neighbors. These are people with a lot of wealth, but also many problems, some of which are attendant with that wealth. I find it strange that so many people want to be wealthy themselves, while still demonizing people who are already wealthy. Even more peculiar are rich people who demonize themselves all in the act of trying to sound saintly (e.g. Warren Buffet and his call to get congress to tax him more). In many ways they are very heroic: America's wealthy are the most generous people on earth, and through their inventions, corporations, and foundations, they have blessed millions of people, and are on their way to blessing billions.
The strangest thing about America's wealthy is that they are often self-made Millionaires. This is something I learned from The Millionaire Next Door. As a result, these people really are our neighbors who have moved up through the ranks, and helped enough people to become independently wealthy. In many cases within the U.S., the third generation of wealthy families are poor again, while in Europe, "old money" families have been around for centuries.
So, how will being neighborly to rich people help you? I believe that being neighborly can have a tremendous impact on both us and our neighbor. When it comes to the rich people we know, it is usually our boss who is rich. We come and try and work for the company, but we are often backhanded by calling our company or boss "The Man". This is not helpful. "The Man" is still human, has a lot of problems to deal with, most of which are centered around their business. By understanding their business, we can help the business grow and succeed. When it does succeed, if you have a good relationship with your boss, he will notice your contributions and where they actually help. If he doesn't really know you, how can he notice your help?
However, succeeding because your boss succeeds is not guaranteed. If he does not notice you despite you being a necessary part of their life, then they may not ever be as neighborly as they ought. In which case, being too helpful would be fruitless, and being mean would just create new enemies. Just move on from that job to one that you can enjoy, which has a boss you can get to know, ant who will appreciate your efforts. For this reason, I greatly support 401 K's over pensions, and personal health-care plans over company-supplied ones: they allow workers to have much greater mobility.
In relation to this, I am often brought to think about scriptures in the Book of Mormon, and Doctrine and Covenants. I especially like these scriptures over those in the Old and New Testaments because they are more likely to list out caveats and reasons for eternal punishments. One of my favorite is D&C 56:16-17:
16 Wo unto you rich men, that will not give your substance to the poor, for your riches will canker your souls; and this shall be your lamentation in the day of visitation, and of judgment, and of indignation: The harvest is past, the summer is ended, and my soul is not saved!
17 Wo unto you poor men, whose hearts are not broken, whose spirits are not contrite, and whose bellies are not satisfied, and whose hands are not stayed from laying hold upon other men’s goods, whose eyes are full of greediness, and who will not labor with your own hands!
Although verse 16 condemns the rich, it is only those rich that will not give their substance to the poor. I believe that foundations are one way that our rich give to the poor. Another is "micro loans" which are so helpful in poor countries around the world. I really like verse 17 because it condemns the poor, and clearly spells out why the poor are condemned: they must be willing to work, for most are certainly able. Within the U.S. many of our poor are those who match verse 17. Outside the U.S., the poor are poor because of people who match vs 16.
Being neighborly to the rich will make them more apt to help make us all rich. But treating them like the enemy will only widen the gap between the rich and the poor, and in the end will embitter us all and make us all poor.
So, I downloaded the newest CTP (Community Technology Preview) of Windows Vista. My apartment complex has such a narrow pipe to the Internet, it took forever (literally, several days at a high of about 20K/sec, and lows of 5 K/sec or less). But I wanted to play with some of the features of Vista that were left out of Vista Beta 1, so I endured.
Now, after having endured so much pain when installing Beta 1, I thought I had learned enough to make this installation relatively painless. I was wrong.
Dual-Boot Pain
I first tried to just boot from the DVD and install the OS directly. This did not work very well. Installing this way only installs as a single OS, without recognizing any other OS's on the current computer. Unfortunately, installing from Windows will fail because I cannot install the drivers that allow Windows to deal with my RAID controller correctly. As a result, I had to install from Windows XP so that it setup itself for dual-boot. Then I had to install by booting from the DVD. Not too much of a pain, but still obnoxious.
This time, however, it came with LDDM (Longhorn Device Driver Model) compliant drivers for my video card, so that I did not have to install them explicitly. Thank goodness I have a nicer card that I know is compatible. MS is targeting Video Cards with 64 MB of Video RAM, but it will probably be a while before they are completely ready for it.
The News
So, after reading around on places like the Windows Super Site, and Longhorn Blogs, I realized how CTPs are different from Betas. When MS releases a Beta, they disable a lot of their cool features that are not stable enough. Sometimes their features are just introductions to the system's potential, and as a result, are not complete in stability or functionality. As a result, they just throw a few compiler switches, and BAM they are all turned off. Compilers are wonderful that way.
Well, the CTP has them all turned on, so that they can be seen in all their glory (albeit flaky). For example, the "Windows+Spacebar+Tab" feature is pretty cool-looking, but as of yet, it does absolutely nothing. I had heard that it was "Windows+Spacebar" and tried all sorts of combinations of that and "Alt-Tab" before I figured out it was actually "Windows+Spacebar+Tab". I really like how it lines the windows up: they just fly from where they currently are into a neatly-stacked formation. You can really see what you are looking at, even though you can only see each window at a slant: current Video Card processing power is awesome.
Free Cell
Also, this CTP has new versions of all the classic games provided with Windows. They look and feel much nicer: being smooth instead of pixelized. My favorite game provided with Windows is Free Cell (It is available for the Pocket PC, but nor for free...at least not when I got my Pocket PC). So I played it...It looks great, feels great, finally moves slow enough to see on a real computer, but is still missing some features. It still enforces the requirements of FreeCell, but it does not show any intermediate animations like the previous version does. I'm sure that those will be added in time.
Mine Sweeper
I also played minesweeper. That got a much-needed make-over, too. Finally, Windows has made it easy and straight-forward to make stunning, appealing, easy-to-use applications. I can't wait to get used to playing with Avalon so that I can create applications that take advantage of those new powers.
Release Date
Reading around, it sounds like Vista Beta 2 is supposed to be out this December. I'm not sure I can believe these reports, but it would be nice. This would mean that Vista might actually be released next Summer, instead of next December like I had thought...but I'm not holding my breath. I would much rather get a solid solution, than one leaking at the seams.
Intel made a 64 bit processor a few years ago (the Itanium), but it was
nearly incompatible with 32 bit code. It would emulate a 32 bit Pentium
processor (probably using the Windows Hardware Abstraction Layer
[HAL]), so you could run applications written for previous versions of
their processors.
AMD was much smarter: they created 64 bit "extenstions" to the existing
x86 chipset. For some reason, they decided to call this new
architecture x64, but oh well. Anyway, these extenstions basically
allow you to run 32 bit code natively, as well as 64 bit code natively,
without big performance hits, or having to increase the number of
transistors on the chip dramatically (e.g. 1 set for 32 bit, and
another set for 64 bit).
Not so strangely, Intel now provides the exact same architecture.
Apparently (and this is a big rumor I have never followed up on to
validate), intel developed the x86 architecture, the US government
would not do business with them until they published their chipset so
that other manufacturers could create them and get more competition in
the marketplace. As per their publishing agreement, anyone who makes an
extension to the x86 architecture, must publish that architecture as
well. Well, x64 is an extension to x86, so now Intel can take the
instructions and produce an architecture that accomplishes the same
thing. AMD got a huge start on the market (schools like BYU bought huge
supercomputers with those processors in them). Intel makes processors
that are not as physically hot, so they are less likely to melt, and
tend not to get flaky after a while. (My last computer was an AMD
Athalon, and it worked well for about a year...but I lived in an
apartment without air-conditioning, just a swamp cooler, and it
overheated a few times, and was never the same again).
Anyway, back to Windows. I have an AMD 64 300+, so it is a 64 bit
processor. I have yet to take advantage of the added computing power
(faster floating point and long int computations), so I thought I would
give it a try.
Virtual PC
Don't even try it. It won't work. I thought that the VPC would just use
the underlying CPU as the processor for the VPC, but it doesn't.
Apparently it restricts itself to the good old x86 architecture. There
are probably some plugins that will get around this, but I don't feel
like tracking them down.
Under my assumption to just install it on the VPC, I tried several
times, but I regularly got errors about invalid 32-bit executeable
code. Thinking about it, this is a big hint about why it would not
install: Windows XP, 32-bit edition, does not recognize 64-bit
executeable code. This is especially true if you try and install under
windows as a Dual-Boot system by just popping in the DVD while running
a 32-bit windows edition.
Dual-Boot
If you look at my previous blog about my
Windows Vista installation woes,
I left out a lot of references to my attempts to install the 64-bit
version. I tried at a few places, got frustrated, and just left it
alone. I am planning to install it eventually, but now that I have
through through the problems, I understand what is going on now, and I
will try and explain some caveats you should be aware of if you try and
install the 64-bit version of Windows (XP or Vista).
Driver Incompatability
64-bit windows is incompatible with 32-bit drivers. This is too bad,
but I can completely understand. Partly, it is good to just get a clean
start in driver design when doing a new kind of chipset (which Windows
may or may not have done), but also, if you are communicating with the
processor and RAM in 64 bit, why not communicate with everything else
in 64-bit.
As a result, I went looking for 64-bit drivers for all the hardware on
my computer. I found it on the MB manufacturer's website, but they were
all marked "beta". Since I am installing a beta OS, I did not want to
compund the problem by installing it on top of beta drivers. They are
probably very stable, but this is where I gave up.
Conclusion
Just to wrap up:
- You should probably install the 64-bit version of Windows as a dual-boot system.
- You need to boot from the 64-bit DVD to install since the 32-bit version of windows won't run it's code.
- You need to have all the drivers
for the 64-bit version available and on a separate CD so that you can
install them (putting them on a Floppy will not work...refer to my
previous blog).
Once you have all these in place, the installation should be very
smooth. Whether or not you need the added power, or even that any of
your applications will take advantage of the added power, is a whole
different ball-game. Take this into account when you install a 64-bit
OS, because you may not be gaining anything from it. When I have a
machine with more than 4 GB of RAM, I will probably truly upgrade to a
64-bit system. Until then, 32-bits is all I need.
I have been having a lot of fun just installing Windows Vista Beta 1, and wanted to document all the hassle involved.
Preparing For the Installation
These are my initial machine specs
- AMD64 3000+ processor
- 160 GB SATA hard drive on a RAID controller. I am not using the
RAID configuration because I do not have any other drives to help speed
things up. Also, I am not interested in hard drive speed right now.
- 2 GB of RAM (more than enough for my needs, as well as Vista's)
- Built-in Gigabit Ethernet card, although my network only handles
10/100, and the shared connection at my apartment tends to only get
about 30 K (so many bandwidth hogs out there)
- 6 USB 2.0 cards
- Radeon 9200 SE with 128 MB of RAM - dual-monitor compatible
- 2x20"Flat Panel Dell monitors (1600x1200 resolution on each, with
only 1 dead pixel between the two...so 3200x1200 resolution altogether).
Originally, I had Vista running in a Virtual PC (VPC), but discovered some things
about VPC that made me cranky. I gave VPC 1 GB of RAM, but it still ran
very slowly. Also, the VPC only has 8 MB of Video RAM, even though my
video card has plenty to spare.
So I decided to go with a partitioned install with dual-boot.
Rather than post-partitioning my harddrive, I scanned the Saturday ad
for CompUSA and found a 200 GB SATA drive for $100 and just bought it
and installed it. Windows noticed it just fine, and using the Computer
Management console (Start->Control Panel->Administrative
Tools->Computer Management), and then went under "Disk Management"
to partition and format the HD into 4 equal-sized chunks (just for
future installs).
First Attempt
At this point, I tried to install Vista, and ran into my first
unexpected problem: Disk Managment requires a reboot for Vista to
accept the drive. So I assigned a drive letter to it, rebooted, and
attempted to install again. Vista actually recommends that I install from Windows as I try to do a dual-boot system.
The Vista installation screen is very nice. It has 2 major steps (very
easy and clean), so it is straightforward to install everything. I just
need to give it the key, select where to install itself, and then let
it run. It copies a bunch of stuff over to the new partition, reboots
the machine, and...(wait for it)...blue screens.
Apparently, Vista needs a driver for the RAID, which is a complete
"DUH!". I am used to installing on an IDE drive, which is much easer
because all the drivers are identical. My machine also has IDE slots,
but those are also on a RAID, which is different from my SATA RAID...do
it doesn't matter that I could have bought the 250GB ATA drive for $100
instead (like I need the extra 50 GB right now...I haven't even filled
up half of my original hard drive.).
Second Attempt
So I tried to install via the CD, but could not get it to use the
drivers off of the floppy they were provided on. Apparently Vista will
only look for drivers on CDs and USB drives. This is fine...I think
that floppies should be done away with: I can get a good-sized USB
drive for cheaper than a floppy drive, and it is
far more reliable.
My biggest problem was getting my machine to boot again to Windows.
Every time it tries to reboot, it automatically boots to the Vista
installer, instead of Windows XP. Every time I get the the dual-boot
screen, I cannot enter anything at the keyboard. Apparently, there is a
BIOS setting to allow "Legacy USB Support", but I was unaware of what
it is and what it does. I had to borrow a PS/2 keyboard from a friend,
and finally get myself back into Windows XP so that I could diagnose
all these different problems.
Third Attempt
Finally, I enabled legacy USB Support in my BIOS (It allows me to use
the keyboard, but does not pass on the keyboard to applications unless
legacy support is enabled...go figure). I also prepared a CD with my
RAID drivers on it (perfect waste of over 600 MB of space...but blank
disks are cheap, so who cares).
Finally, I am able to reboot, get back into the Vista Installer,
provide the RAID drivers, select the drive I am installing on and
install the OS!
And Vista is aweseome. However, initially, it does not look as fancy as
it can, because it does not have the right drivers installed for the
Video Card, even though I have plenty of Video RAM to handle "Areo Glass".
Because I have an ATI Video card, I went to the ATI website and
downloaded their Vista drivers. Of course they are Beta, but they are
fairly stable (I have not noticed any problems, yet). Unfortunately, my
machine started to lock up, and eventually, it would quit booting. This
is caused by several problems
- I did not write down the exact kind of video card I have right before installing
- Windows Vista thought I had a Radeon 9250
- I installed drivers for the Radeon 9800
- It ultimately corrupted the BIOS
ACK! I felt terrible. It was 1:30 in the morning. I was tired of
watching stuff on my TiVo while waiting for Vista to install, and I did
not have the brainpower to get my machine up and running again.
Needless to say, the next day (Sunday) I was really cranky.
Fixing Everything
On Monday, I had a flash of insight: before taking it to a shop to have
it fixed, try wiping the BIOS. So I did. And I discovered that I could
boot my machine again, and it complained about a corrupt BIOS. Not
pretty. But, there is a BIOS recovery tool for my BIOS, so I use it,
and everything is hunky-dory again. I setup my machine to boot to
Windows XP by default (because my sister needs to use the computer, and
does not need the confusion of a completely new and different OS). I then head to work, munging over my plan for that evening.
That evening, after I came home, I went to CompUSA and bought a new
Video Card: an AGP Radeon 9550 with 256 MB of RAM for $100. Sweet! I
also bought a cheapo PS/2 keyboard so that I never run into issues with
a computer again (My brother took my last keyboard when he took my old
computer with him to college in Missouri).
I took it home, installed it and made sure that Windows XP did not have
a cow. It really appreciates it, and now Bejeweled 2 (which my sister
loves to play) finally runs without skipping.
Then, I installed it for Vista. Finally, I could give it the Longhorn
Device Drivers (LDD) for the video card and get Aero Glass running
again. Just the fact that Windows Vista takes advantage of the Video
Card makes a huge improvement in the reactivity of the OS. All the
applications are snapper because the CPU isn't doing all the rendering
work itself. But Aero Glass is just awesome in itself. Whenever a
window pops up, it actually starts slightly smaller and very
transparent and fades into view and slides to its full size. There are
no jagged edges on anything so it looks completely smooth and natural.
When you minimize a window, you can actually watch it shrink, instead
of the dinky flashing blue title bar trick that previous versions of
Windows use.
Aero Glass also has this really neat translucent effect is applies to
the title bar and frame of every window: you can see through it, but
you can't see anything distinctly behind it: everything blurrs. Some
people complain that it looks aweful when you have several title bars
stacked on top of each other, but that is not the purpose of the
effect. The purpose is to demonstrate what can be done, how easy it is
to accomplish that effect, and how fast it renders.
Coming Up
I plan to start playing with WinFX: the 100% managed code (.NET) SDK
for Windows Vista. I have installed the SDK, and I have played with the
new graphics system which replaces GDI. I will put together blogs on
this as I play with it.
One of the huge improvement of Windows Vista is that is 100% managed
code. This makes it much more open in its functionality, as well as
much easier to program to through any language. Another great feature
is that you will not need to have an Intel or AMD (x86) processor to
run the OS, meaning we, as consumers, will now get greater competition,
prices, and performance out of the processors available to us. Intel
processors will be the dominant processor for several years to come,
but it will start to loose market share, greatly.