Do Want

Today I stumbled upon a link involving information about Lego Technic. For those of you unfortunate enough to be ignorant about it, Technic was Lego's line of, well, technical models. That is, they had motors, pulleys, gears, beams, pneumatics, and all sorts of other nifty parts that meant you could build models that actually, you know, did stuff.

Anyways, after reading up on the newer Technic sets (I haven't played with legos since I was in middle school, and I think I may have to start up again), I decided to research some of the new fancy-shmancy "Mindstorms" kits- basically, a programmable microcontroller that can interface with lego motors and sensors (yeah, they have sensors now!).

This all reminded me of a much older kit called the Control Center (I'll find the part number sometime). The Control Center was, in my mind, the predecessor to the Mindstorms line of controllers. It featured three independent motor controls, and was "programmable" in the sense that it could be made to memorize certain motor commands; the motors were controlled using buttons on the front surface. The models one could build with it were amazing- a drawing machine, a dinosaur, all kinds of stuff. I ended up incorporating mine into pretty much all of my models that I came up with. Since most of these were cars, this usually involved using what was called the "East-West" motor port to drive a micromotor for a rack-and-pinion steering system, and a regular high-RPM 9V Technic motor to drive the rear wheels was controlled by the "North-South" motor port. There was a third port, and that usually went unused, unless I had some power accessory I wanted to incorporate (usually, that would be a pneumatic pump for something like a pneumatic arm).

This set brings back a lot of memories; before my parents moved us all out to Forsythe, I had seen this set in the Lego catalog (yeah, I got the lego catalog. My parents got me hooked when they bought me the 9V motor starter kit). Anyways, the set listed for something like $250.00, which for an eight-year-old kid may as well have been $∞.99. Well, I started saving up my allowance, and by the time we moved to Forsythe I had something like $100 saved up for this set that I pretty much dreamed about every night.

Well, on one of our frequent trips to Billings (or we were stopping in Billings on our way back from Missoula, I can't remember), we stopped at Toys-R-Us. Now, we usually stopped there, even though we didn't normally come away with anything- looking back on it, I think my parents used it as a treat to get us to behave well, which makes sense; trips to Billings were all-day affairs, and I can only imagine how grating it must have been to try and manage two (and, eventually, three) young children for a whole day and 200 miles of driving.

So we stop at this Toys-R-Us, and I'm looking at all the Lego sets inside all dejected-like, because they don't have any sets that I both want and do not own. We walk outside, and on the curb is all of their clearance merchandise- inventory that has failed to sell well and that they need to move. Lo and behold, there is my dream set, sitting on the curb, the box somewhat dinged up from being moved around-- and it has a clearance price of $100.

I bought the set, and the rest is history. I literally cannot explain how much joy that brought me, especially when combined with the rest of my (already considerable) lego inventory. After building the models in the book, I used it as the electronic basis for pretty much every creation I had; I even used it to add additional motor controls to sets that didn't originally accommodate them.

Anyways, I thought I'd share. I can think of no other single item that I have owned throughout my life, excepting my first computer and my first car, that have brought me such joy. Looking back on it now, of course, I realize what a simple piece of electronic equipment it was- I could build it myself, now, with way more features- but at the time, it enabled me to do things with my Legos which had previously remained only dreams. This is significant because as a child, my legos were my canvas- they were the medium through which I expressed myself, and through which I explored my own creative abilities.

I am thoroughly convinced that legos and, via subsumption, the Control Center, are a significant reason why I have the interests that I do, or at least caused me to pursue those interests.

New Year's Resolution

One of my New Year's resolutions: post more frequently.

Maybe I should put a sticky note on my laptop...

Holy Shit...

Wow, I haven't posted at all this semester, and it's drawing to a close.

Hopefully I'll write something interesting once all the chaos has died down...

Gay Marriage

So, the lawful marriage of homosexual couples under the eyes of the government is a subject I'm passionate about. Not because I am gay (do I even need to qualify that?), but because I simply cannot stand aside and watch as ignorance and superstition feed the ravenous hatred and bigotry that is so prevalent right now.

I have come to conclusion that I am not pro gay marriage; I'm anti- straight marriage. I don't believe that gay couples should be able to marry so much as I think that straight couples should only be able to be granted civil unions. Marriage is a religious institution; leave it to the houses of superstition to perform the ceremony.

However, the above statement is really just an argument in semantics. A couple, in either Civil or Matrimonial Union, should have equal rights regardless of the sexes of the individuals involved; otherwise, it's sexism.

Interestingly, I've heard the argument that gays do, in fact, have the same right to marry as straights: they are perfectly free to marry a member of the opposite sex, just like everybody else.

The argument falls back on the definition of marriage; the troglodytes who oppose gay marriage provide the following criteria for marriage; you may marry somebody:

• of marriagable age,


• who consents,


• is unmarried,


• and of the opposite sex

What we need to change is the fourth criterion, the one about the opposite sex.

The argument that I've been hearing lately from the assholes on the other side of Proposition 8 could almost be the definition of slippery slope fallacy.

Basically, they contend, if we can "arbitrarily" change on criterion-- the one about being the opposite sex-- why do we retain the others? Generally, you'll hear something along the lines of: "I want to marry my dog, a tree and a couple 3-year-olds. Surely this is equally as valid as arbitrarily removing the sex requirement of the traditional definition?"

Turns out they're wrong. Myriad arguments can be made as to the necessity of the other three criteria: age and consent assure that nobody is being married against their will, and that children are not being molestet; the "unmarried" criterion simply ensures that monogamy remains the norm. This, too, is a candidate for deletion, but let's just assume the monogamy is necessary for the proper functioning of society with respect to government and taxation.

Before we continue, it will be instructive to define the purpose of marriage.

Is marriage designed for the production of children? Not exclusively so, or else couples would need to pass a fertility test before partaking of nuptials; being childfree would be grounds for forced separation and probably legal action on behalf on the part of the state.

Is marriage designed to raise children? Again, not exclusively so; childrearing is sufficient but not necessary reason to be united in legal matrimony. Even if it was, gay couples have been shown to be equally as effective as parents when it comes to raising children.

Is marriage designed to give people who love each other? No. People have been married not because the participants were willing, but because there were advantages to their respective families for doing so, and punishments for refusing. European nobility comes to mind immediately as an example, but this phenomenon is not exclusive to rich inbred whitefolk.

It is this last point that I would like to emphasize. Gay-marriage opponents point out that marriage is not dependent upon "love"; this is both a sad preview of their view of human relationships, and straw that breaks their argument-camel's back.

Very well. Supposing, for the moment, that this is somehow relevant, the opponents have just flushed the relevance of one of their favorite (fallacious) arguments down the drain; that is, the argument that homosexuality is a choice is now entirely irrelevant to the matter.

Because it is pretty well concurred that sexual orientation is not a choice, gay-marriage proponents win the argument either way: believing that homosexuality is voluntary and denying couples the right to marry based on sex is overt discrimination; stating that love is immaterial to the institution of marriage means that you have no reason for maintaining heterosexual-only marriage.


To summarize, here is a list of everything that will happen if gays are allowed to marry:

• Gay couples will get married.

Notice how "holocaust", "persecution of heterosexuals", and "end of the world" are not included on that list?


The reason that there is no "slippery slope" as a result of allowing gays to marry is because removal of the other critera actually leads to bad things. I have provided a list of the remaining three criteria, and what would happen if they were to be removed:

• Age of Consent: Removing this criteria means that babies and small children are molested. If you can't see why this is bad, kill yourself. Seriously.


• Individual gives Consent: non-cooperative marriage is a unique combination of kidnapping and rape. In this instance, the two-for-one is not a good deal. Again, if you don't understand this, I strongly encourage self-termination.


• Individual Is Not Married: This is in place to prevent polygamy and/or polyamory. While pluralistic marriage arrangements are not necessarily bad, they do tend to lead to unfavorable power distributions and the easier exploitation/abuse of the weaker individuals within the marriage group. At this time, I have no comment on whether or not this should be made illegal. I'm leaning towards "not".

In addition to these three, some states have restrictions on the consanguinity of the potential couple; ostensibly, this is to prevent incestuous relationships from ever producing children. While this is a noble goal, the same reproductive restrictions are not placed on other factors, such as drug and alcohol usage or financial stability. These factors are far more likely to negatively impact a child's health, so I have not included incest laws in my criteria.

Me? Poetry? Never...

So, I wrote this somewhat-poem for my facebook profile "about me" section. I plan on changing that part of my profile sometime soon, and I don't want to lose this. It's not very well written, and I am not big on poems, but I think it captures the essence of me.

Here it is:

I am...

perpetually curious.

Always the scientist, usually the philosopher, sometimes the artisan and on rare occasion the artist.

Jack-of-all-trades, master of most.

The eternal student, the jubilant teacher; The magician who will reveal his secrets if asked nicely enough.

The harbinger of enlightenment, the waster of ignorance; child of logic and husband of reality.

Passionate in my rationalism; and thus by neither lovers nor warriors claimed.

The enforcer of the Golden Rule, the arbiter of justice; balancer of your karmic burden.

The last light before you enter the darkness; only grown-ups come this way.

The grateful son, the encouraging brother; probably the only really honest friend you have.

Rarely one to deny enthusiasms; restraint is the product of hopes and desires.

Strong enough to stand alone; nonetheless thankful for friends.

WRONG

I seem to be hearing the following quite often: According to our understanding of the laws of physics, helicopters should not fly.

Helicopters do not defy the laws of physics. The only difference between a helicopter and an airplane is that in a helicopter, the wings move relative to the fuselage.

The Turning of the Tide

So, we have a new president-elect.

He is a man of color, and he has some questionable ties to Islamic organizations. He has made statements in favor of the implementation of some kind of state-funded healthcare program, and he apparently hates guns.

This is not nearly reason enough to hate him.


I did not vote for Mr. Obama. I voted for Ron Paul of the Constitutional Party. However, I told myself before I cast my vote (after standing in line for 3.5 hours in order to re-register, because my original registration application was never processed...) that I would be happy so long as McCain/Palin did not make it to office.

This brings me to my point: I am tired of everybody who voted for McCain bitching and moaning, talking about how Obama is "not their president" or how they're going to move to Mexico. Seriously? STFU. Now you know how the other half of the country felt after the 2004 elections.

Your party fucked up. You may take this criticism seriously, because as libertarian-leaning individual, I normally expect to be attracted to the Republican party more often then not.

(For those of you who are not from the United States, the Republican and Democratic parties basically have a duopoly on our political system. Third parties rarely make it to any meaningful position.)

It is significant, then, that I feel entirely disenchanted withe the GOP. I can attribute this to four primary failings of the Republican party:

They pander to the religious right. Religious people by definition are at least a little out of touch with reality, and deciding policy because of this is not a good idea. Two specific areas come to mind:

• Gay Marriage: If people pay taxes, they have the right to get married. The only possible objection to allowing homosexuals to marry comes from a religious standpoint.


• Abortion: abortion is basically a property-rights issue once you remove religious influence. A property rights issue, that is, with a very clear-cut moral and ethical understanding.

They hate freedom. The Republican party is all about freedom, unless it's freedom of speech, freedom from unlawful search, and freedom from unlawful seizure. Terrorists are the new Communists.

They hate intellectuals. The nomination of Sarah Palin as the GOP's choice for Vice Presidential candidate was basically a slap in the face to anybody who has thoughts. If there are processes of higher cognition going on within your brainpan, Mrs. Palin does not represent you. She is a superstitious talking head, with no interest in discussing issues or resolving problems. She is, in short, the embodiment of everything thas is wrong with America today.

They don't care about the environment. I do not consider myself an environmentalist by the most popular definition of the word. I do, however, consider myself a "practical environmentalist"- I live by a simple credo, one that was passed down to me through my forebears and which has as much relevance now as it ever has, or ever will: Do Not Shit Where You Eat. Republicans would rather continue burning fossil fuels- purchased from the very people who hate us- than invest in new forms of energy and transport. This probably has something to do with their rabid anti-intellectualism (which in turn is almost definitely a product of their superstitious pandering), because only Evil Atheistic Scientists™ would accept the idea of global climate change or an impending energy crisis. Because these people have educations and are capable of logical thought, they are clearly not to be trusted.

The Republicans did this to themselves. If they hadn't fucked up so much, they might could have had the vote of the people they were counting on. It is unfortunate that there are people who believe that Mr. Obama is unfit for the presidency simply because of his skin color, religious affiliation (or lack thereof), or political ideals. These people remind me of cavemen.

Obama is not going to ruin the country- he can't fuck up more than President Bush already has. He already has his work cut out for him thanks to the economy and the war; he does not need the incessant, empty criticism of people who are bitter because their head-in-the-sand mentality was not catered to with another idiot of a president.