Rant Fever 3.0

It all essentially came down to me being at a certain age in life where I refuse to deal in drama in anymore. In the end, it wasn't the privacy concerns or the excessive narcissism or the annoying requests or even my fickle desire to return to a time when people actually called each other or wrote each other or went out somewhere to have conversation in order to find out what was going on in their lives. It was a relatively minor incident where a couple of people were offended by pictures that a friend of mine posted, pictures that I wasn't even in. I was offended by them, too, but it's the internet and people are always putting things on the internet that I don't like. There are enough problems in life to deal with without having the internet get me in more trouble.

If I understand Facebook correctly, I will have 14 days to reactivate my account before it is permanently deleted. It is a like a trial separation before a divorce. I brought out the blue papers and Facebook refused to sign. I'm going to go spend more time with my friend Twitter, and Facebook is going to hang out with Mark Zuckerburg, both of them expecting me to come crawling on my knees begging them to take me back.

I'm looking forward to an increasingly disconnected life. My connection to Twitter and LinkedIn is minimal at best. I reckon that it won't be long before my accounts with those services go the way of my relationship with Facebook. I like to imagine myself in five years being a cash-only guy, using only devices that can't be used to help others determine where I am, driving cars almost as old as I am, or even older. And then I imagine myself laughing at everyone else when I'm largely self-reliant and the coming economic apocalypse has crushed our infrastructure and no one else knows what to do. Or the coming zombie apocalypse, whichever comes first. 

I read the introduction to "What Darwin Got Wrong" first (I'm reading all three books simultaneously, but not in any organized way so far), and was struck by a few things:

First, the introduction is titled "Terms of Engagement." I'll let that stand for itself.

Second, the authors write "[i]t is our assumption that evolution is a mechanical process through and through. We take that to rule out not just divine causes but final causes[...]." (page xii) I find their willingness to use the word "assumption" intriguing. Even in the limited sense here, referencing the mechanics of evolution and not evolution itself, it is important to understand that evolutionary theory is just an interpretation of data that exists in the present and not a set of facts that has been observed at any time.

Third, the authors write "[i]n fact, we don't know very well how evolution works. [...] 'Further research is required,' as the saying goes. It may well be that centuries of further research is required." Centuries, they say. In other words, give us some more time and hopefully we'll dig up another fossil or maybe get a chance to observe evolution actually occur. They don't know how evolution works and yet they think it is a better explanation than divine creation. That's mighty strong faith.

Fourth, they state that there can be no general theory of evolution. They can't fit all the pieces of their puzzle together so they're apologizing for it looking so messy.

Fifth, the authors refer to "[...] the Forces of Darkness, whose goal it is to bring Science into disrepute." The "Forces of Darkness" bit was used in a somewhat tongue-in-cheek manner, but they used it twice so there's some reflection to their way of thinking in it. I find it ironic because that kind of high language and dramatic moralizing is exactly what gets us Bible thumping fundamentalist reactionaries ridiculed on a regular basis.

Meanwhile, in "On the Origin of Species," Darwin quotes W. Whewell as saying the following:
"But with regard to the material world, we can at least go so far as this-- we can perceive that events are brought about not by insulated interpositions of Divine power, exerted in each particular case, but by the establishment of general laws." This begs the question: who is establishing the laws? Furthermore, the Apostle Paul writes in his letter to the Romans that "[...] since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made[...]". (Romans 1:20)

Life isn't always easy, but it sure can be a lot of fun if you'll just be quiet and enjoy it.

Drums are amazing; a bad drummer can destroy a great song, and a good drummer can make a mediocre song sound incredible.

I don't think anything is more attractive than laughter.

Pepperidge Farms (owned by Campbells) e-mailed me back a few days later and this was the response:

[quote]The Smiley Goldfish packages have been designed to contain a ratio of approximately 40% Smiley and 60% regular Goldfish crackers, so there will indeed be less Smiley Goldfish in each package than regular Goldfish. I hope this information is helpful to you[/quote]

It is somewhat helpful, but they seemed to have missed the metaphysical ramifications implied in my questions. Yes, knowing there is a designated ratio is one thing, but I want to understand the motive behind the ratio. Is there some sort of company philosophy that necessitates there be less happy fish than indifferent fish? Are happy fish more expensive to make?

What's the real story behind the happy/indifferent ratio?

I've never been a fan of Apple products. I own an HP laptop, I built my own desktop that runs Microsoft Windows Vista, my .mp3 player is a Microsoft Zune. My phone is a Blackberry Curve. I purposefully seek out alternatives to Apple because of my concerns with the way Apple handles EULA and licensing and proprietary formats (I want my stuff to be usable with the rest of the world).

I support Open Source projects and programs. I use OpenOffice and am considering switching my aging laptop to Ubuntu.

I have serious concerns about the way Steve Jobs and company handled the Lost iPhone incident and the way they bullied HTC to get back at Google.

That being said, in that exchange of e-mails, Steve Jobs is clearly the winner.

First, the blogger is clearly attacking Jobs quite angrily over what really are technical issues. Jobs and Apple may be wrong in the way they are handling those technical issues. Locking out Flash from the iPad, and only allowing native-developed applications may not be the formula for success that they are looking for, but it IS their decision. It is up to the consumer to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of a tightly controlled Apple platform vs. a less controlled Microsoft PC vs. the libertarian environment of Linux PCs. Apple is under no obligation to support open source or Adobe or anything else.

Jobs said it best when he said that Apple was creating a brand experience. Apple has packaged all the wonderful possibilities of the computing world into a slick shiny sterile futuristic room. Buying and owning an Apple is an experience. There is no comparable Dell or HP experience. Microsoft is starting to generate an experience in the form of the Zune, the new Mobile 7 platform, etc, but it's not on the level of Apple. I don't think the Apple experience will ever be for me but I'm okay with Apple creating that experience. That's capitalism. They're offering a good that they think people will want to buy.

Second, if bloggers and internet media follow up on this and continue to criticize Jobs's "freedom from porn" line, that's going to be a battle they lose. I guarantee that Jobs can win over a lot of people with that line. Despite our current pop culture climate of anything goes, I believe that the vast majority of Americans still think porn is morally wrong and harmful and don't want their families exposed to it. If bloggers have legitimate beefs with Apple, they need to avoid the porn issue because I think it is one fight they will lose in the long run.

I gained some respect for Jobs after reading that e-mail exchange. That won't make me run out and buy an iPad, but it's nice to know that Jobs isn't as evil as people like Gizmodo and Gawker are trying to say he is.