I Believe

archives April 9, 2013

I believe we have come upon a proverbial fork in the road where the choices we make now will either plummet us into an ever-darkening decent toward chaos or, if we wake up and act, lead us to the society we proclaim to be the ideal we yearn to achieve. The time has come for us to alter our course. Continuing with the status quo is no longer viable, and will only lead us further into darkness.

Yes, those are dire words. Yes, they invoke imagery that many will challenge as over-dramatized and simply used as an attempt to gain attention. Let us explore, somewhat briefly, a handful of the key points that support such a foreboding tone:

American Rights / Human Rights

“To count by race, to use the means of numerical equality to achieve the end of moral equality, is counterproductive, for to count by race is to deny the end by virtue of the means. The means of race counting will not, cannot, issue in an end where race does not matter.” -- William Bennet and Terry Eastland, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (source)

Until we remove from our vocabulary such ridiculous phrases as "Black Rights," "African-American Rights," "Women's Rights," "Children's Rights," and any other moniker that is not simply Human Rights (or, I suppose, we could continue to use "American" or "Civil"), we will never truly achieve any progress in eliminating racism, bigotry, or whatever term of bias you would like to use. It simply cannot happen. Do you get that? It is impossible to eliminate bias when we introduce it simply by describing some sort of bias in the name. The same holds true for organizations, entertainment, media, clubs, pageants... any introduction of a separate item specifically catering to one group and excluding any other group, by its very nature, perpetuates bias. It is time for change.

Political Agendas and Government Failures

"Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." -- John Adams, from Bartlett's Familiar Quotations

Our government was founded on a set of ideals that we have effectively destroyed: a government of the people, for the people, by the people. We now have a system of government that is run of the elite, by the elite, for the elite. Further compounding the issue, we now have such a complex and over-reaching governmental "machination" that even those with the best intentions merely become absorbed into the bureaucracy. It is time for change.

Education and Intelligence

"The mind is not a vessel to be filled, but a fire to be kindled." -- Plutarch, from Wikiquote

Our approach to education is far too singularly focused on memorization and attempting to pass national standardized tests. Throughout my entire academic career I found only a couple of classes that attempted to stimulate the mind, and those were merely the result of teachers who understood the concept of true education as opposed to any guidelines or attempts by the institutions to fulfill their true purpose. It is time for change.

Common Sense and the Loss of Innocence

"That's what it takes to be a hero, a little gem of innocence inside you that makes you want to believe that there still exists a right and wrong, that decency will somehow triumph in the end." -- Lise Hand, quoted in The Truth in Words : Inspiring Quotes for the Reflective Mind (2002)

We live in a constant state of self/socially-induced naiveté. We prefer to think of it as a state of innocence, and yet I can honestly say that we have lost our collective "innocence." We see right and wrong in action every day and, for the most part, we pretend it doesn't exist or we look the other way. We see the problems with racism, with the state of human rights, with the actions and inactions of organizations and our government, and we still hold to the misguided notion that someone else will come forward and solve our problems for us. We must act. We must step forward and become the heroes we long so desperately for in these times. It is time for change.

Challenging the Status Quo

"Here’s to the crazy ones. The misfits. The rebels. The troublemakers. The round pegs in the square holes. The ones who see things differently. They’re not fond of rules. And they have no respect for the status quo. You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify or vilify them. But the only thing you can’t do is ignore them. Because they change things. They push the human race forward. While some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius. Because the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, are the ones who do." -- Apple Inc.

There really is nothing to add beyond the idea this quote captures. To borrow another line from the same marketing campaign, the concept is that we must "Think Different" if we are to move forward.

Remarks

I do not believe I have all of the answers. I do not believe any one person has even half of the answers. I do believe, however, that it is time for us to quit sitting idly by and watching our nation, our society, our communities, and in many cases even our own households continue along the slow, downward spiral we find ourselves upon now. It is time for change.

I Am...

archives March 27, 2013

... analytical.
... brave.
... complex.
... determined.
... enigmatic.
... frank.
... geeky.
... honorable.
... inquisitive.
... jovial.
... knightly.
... loyal.
... moderate.
... nerdy.
... observant.
... psychoanalytical.
... quiet.
... respected.
... stubborn.
... tech-savvy.
... unyielding.
... vigilant.
... whimsical.
... X.
... youthful.
... z.

Why You Shouldn't Listen To Person X

archives December 28, 2012

I've written, to some extent, about this topic already, but it is tough not to come back to it in light of so many people clamoring to have their opinion heard and judged "correct" by the masses. The concept is simple:

[W]e’re beyond choosing by number. Choose an OS/Hardware combination that appeals to you based on the experience provided.

Anyone, henceforth labeled "Person X," who is a "fan" or "evangelist" of any company or technology will only see the good about their preference, and will view any opposition as negative (feel free to go look up the psychology behind it, as it is quite fascinating. Here's a link to get you started - Why Changing Somebody’s Mind, or Yours, is Hard to Do.). For our purposes, the above statement will serve well as a basis for understanding the rest of this post.</p.

Apple

Apple is a bit of a unique case for this discussion, because it is the only company that controls the hardware and software for their entire product line-up. This is, in no small part, a large reason for both the negative viewpoint and the positive viewpoint possible in any discussion involving the company and its products.

Google

Google is often looked upon as the antithesis to Apple's approach, choosing to work with hardware vendors to bring its operating system to the masses instead of direct control and release of products. Of note is the collaboration between Google and Samsung to provide a curated hardware/software solution that is, perhaps, the closest we've seen to a complete "Google" solution.

Microsoft

Microsoft is an interesting blend of two approaches. Initially, Microsoft only supplied software and worked with vendors to supply hardware. Recently, with the Surface specifically, Microsoft has started working on a simultaneous approach of providing software for those manufacturers who want to build hardware for their operating system, while also pursuing the path of developing their own hardware/software solution. In many ways, Microsoft and Google still share the same approach.

Note: The above summaries are brief and not necessarily completely accurate across all product lines. This is aimed to provide a general starting point for the discussion that follows.</p.

Person X

We all know one (or maybe a few dozen) person that constantly reminds us of how great a particular product is, or of how a particular product can do something "better" than the way implemented in the competing product(s). We tend to smile and focus on something else while they rant, eventually realizing we have to say something to reassure them that their position is understood and valid if we want them to finally move on to another topic. Typically, however, this person really doesn't care about whether their "solution" is actually better for what you are trying to do, they only want to get you to look at their solution as the only one that makes sense.

Before I elaborate further, I'm going to reiterate the one piece that you need to remember throughout all of these scenarios/discussion:

[W]e’re beyond choosing by number. Choose an OS/Hardware combination that appeals to you based on the experience provided.

Personal Notes

Anyone who knows me knows that I prefer the Apple/iOS platform, both for my home computer and for my mobile devices. Most do not realize I also have a Windows PC, a Linux notebook, and work with Linux and Windows workstations and servers at work. I've used a handful of Android devices (specifically the Motorola Atrix, the Samsung Galaxy SII, the Samsung Galaxy SIII, and the HTC One X+), and I have no hands-on experience with Windows Phone 7/8.

When I originally set out to determine which platform worked for me, it was while I worked for a small computer repair shop in Columbus, Georgia. I was a die-hard Windows user, and nothing could convince me to even look at what could be done on any other platform. When my laptop of the time died, I was suckered into purchasing an Apple PowerBook (G4, running OS 9.2). I loved the aesthetic design and attention to detail, so I finally decided to give in. After receiving the laptop I was disappointed, primarily because I could not do anything without fighting the operating system (I was trying to approach it as though it was Windows, which I was used to). After getting frustrated and shelving the unit for six months, I finally decided to give it an open-minded, objective shot.

Fast forward a bit, and the Mac became my preferred platform for everything other than computer gaming. Cell phones were still just phones, and the big feature on a phone of the day was a color screen, I started looking a little closer at Linux as an option for the home, but I never really made any progress. It made more sense to just have my Mac and a Windows PC as a backup/gaming machine.

Fast forward a while later and I picked up a brand new Blackberry on the Nextel network (this was the big silver one with the Java-based OS, I can't remember the model number). I really liked the ability to get email on the go, as I was an IT Manager for a regional institution at that time, and while it worked it was, truly, a horrid experience most of the time. We're going to gloss over this portion, and jump ahead again to 2007.

When the iPhone launched I was instantly interested. Here was a device that was nice and slim (the Blackberry was far too cumbersome not to wear it in a holster), and seemed far more pleasing to use for my needs. Within a month, I bought one.

Since then I have grown to appreciate looking at solutions for their worth, and seeing if a platform or device compliments my workflow, just alters it, or hinders it. For me, the Mac/iOS combination is the best feature set, most seamless experience, and all around most pleasing to use. I like aspects of the other platforms that I've looked at, and I believe the Android OS has come a long way from when it was first introduced. What irritates me is when someone proclaims a device better for something that isn't actually true, or isn't something that matters to me.

Do yourself a favor, evaluate what works for you and make a choice based on that, not on "Person X" trying to sway you with their opinions.

Relationship Strength

archives December 21, 2012

There have been hundreds and hundreds and hundreds (and another few thousand) of articles about building and maintaining strong relationships. Typically the same rhetoric is involved (trust, communication, social circles, etc.) and the article praises the merits of maintaining these key traits in order to survive the apocalyptic world of separation/break-ups/divorce. While there are some pieces in each of these articles that are based on solid advice, the portion that each article typically lacks is the most important part: the how/why.

Before delving into the topic any further, one other piece must be understood: what makes a relationship good? Simply stated, a good relationship is one where the couple has a strong sense of each of them as individuals, as well as a strong sense of the two of them as one unit. Further, a good relationship is also one wherein the couple shares a feeling of connectedness, of safety and security, and a desire to make the other happy while maintaining the distinct understanding that each person is responsible for their own feelings (an observation that often goes ignored, with significant others blaming themselves for the way their partner feels).

To summarize further, a good relationship is one where two people feel connected to each other, feel safe and secure with each other, and share a desire to make each other happy.

This leads to the question of "how do we form such a relationship?" There are three basic pieces that every successful/strong relationship must possess, otherwise it will not last: trust, commitment, and vulnerability. For the sake of clarity, each of these is defined briefly here:

Trust - the feeling and knowledge of relying on another, and knowing that person is honest, caring, and supportive of us.
Commitment - the simple understanding that no matter what happens, we are in this together.
Vulnerability - the openness and sharing of the genuine, emotional self.

Trust

Building trust, especially when a person's past is full of situations or scenarios where trust has been broken, is perhaps one of the most difficult things to accomplish. Try not to target the big topics exclusively and remember that often the small things accomplish more than they get credit for. For instance, the simple act of calling or texting a significant other when running late, regardless of the reason, lets that person know that you understand their desire to make certain you are safe and that you want to alleviate fear. Taking a moment to send a message during the day letting your significant other know you are thinking of them is too often overlooked as a method of reassurance.

Maintaining boundaries that the two of you agree upon is also vital, such as being alone with a person that your significant other might view as an uncomfortable arrangement or scenario. This one can be tricky depending upon the dynamics of the relationship and the societal norms you and your partner hold, but the idea remains consistent: if it causes unease or uncertainty between you and your significant other, it is not worth placing yourself in the situation. The clichéd examples of being alone with a member of the opposite sex by heterosexual men and women fall into this category. If it is a long-standing friendship in question, talk about it with your significant other and make certain they are comfortable with the relationship before it becomes a source of uncertainty or unease. Understanding commitment, and having that knowledge and security that comes with true commitment, goes a long way toward generating and maintaining trust.

Commitment

All too often commitment is forgotten as a necessary and vital part of forming, maintaining, and enjoying a strong relationship. Marriage is supposed to be our ultimate expression of commitment to another, and yet in today's society it is often ignored or tossed around as a buzz word instead of being an honest and heartfelt decision. To make a commitment, and thereby to be committed to another, means that two people have decided that they will proceed through life from a specific point in time until one or the other is no longer present. In short, "we are in this together, no matter what happens."

To commit to another is not a decision or action to be made lightly, and it is something that should only be broken under the most dire of circumstances (such as an abusive relationship, or a relationship wherein one's life is threatened). Knowing that one has placed their full trust in another, and has chosen to stand with their significant other no matter what happens throughout life, is absolutely necessary for a person to lower their defenses and become vulnerable.

Vulnerability

Vulnerability, like trust, is difficult for many people to willingly pursue (especially if their trust in another was broken at some point in their past), and yet it is perhaps the one aspect of interpersonal relationships that absolutely must be present for a relationship to thrive. This is also the one area that tends to be most difficult for logical thinkers (and from a gender stereotype perspective, males) to understand and accomplish.

Being vulnerable means you are willing to tell your significant other how you feel, without placing blame or deflecting your feelings onto something else. For example, being willing to say "I feel hurt" instead of "You hurt me." In essence, you provide a window for that person to see into your heart and mind in a way that allows the two of you to talk about both of your feelings, and how to go about the pursuit of positive feelings instead of negative ones.

While none of these are exhaustive analyses, they should provide a starting point for being able to build a healthy, strong relationship. To read more about this topic, the following two articles are another good place to begin (and are the articles that prompted this exploration into what is necessary to form a strong, enriching relationship).

Sources For More Reading

How to Prepare for Being in a Good Relationship (World of Psychology)
3 Keys to a Strong Relationship (World of Psychology)

Why It Isn't Just One Thing

archives December 17, 2012

Typically I try to refrain from posting about overly controversial topics, especially those that deal with highly emotional or political topics. However, in light of so many ignorant comments, I felt a desire to try to provide a well-rounded account of the things that are currently issues that should be a focus of discussion when talking about how we move forward as a society when dealing with recent tragedies. In essence, I want to try to emphasize that there is not "just one thing" that is the problem, or that we can resolve. There are a number of things that we have to look at and address, some of which must be examined at various levels ranging from the individual to the nation as a whole.

Note that I do not proclaim to have the answers to each piece, and in complete honesty I offer no ideas on how to proceed. However, not to look at each area listed below is as much a folly as trying to latch on a single "cure-all" solution, and the point of this post is to shed light on the assorted pieces of the puzzle.

Gun Control

First and foremost, repealing the Second Amendment and banning all firearms is not synonymous with gun control. Regardless of your stance on an individual owning firearms and their legal right to own them, to immediately call for a sweeping ban and assume that such action is the answer is both immensely shortsighted and extremely ignorant. To call for a ban on assault rifles is certainly justifiable, and reflects at least a modicum of thought, but still does not address the root issue. On the other side of the debate, those that proclaim the cliched "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is also a ridiculous argument, though it is more to the point than calling for a repeal and ban of all firearms.

Regulating gun ownership and education is absolutely a stance that should be supported. Making it more difficult to acquire weaponry through illegal channels is also pertinent, and would be even more important when stronger gun control laws are evaluated and placed into effect. I, for one, would not have any issue with the requirement of background checks being mandated in all states, in addition to a psychological evaluation, for a prospective firearm owner. I do feel, however, that the right to own a firearm is a personal choice that should be retained as granted by the Second Amendment.

Bear in mind, though, that even stricter legislation and requirements do not necessarily affect the ability of someone to acquire weapons and use them, as is evident by the number of shootings in which the weapons were not actually purchased by the perpetrator. This aspect is specifically why the following items are so important to keep in consideration.

The State of Mental Health

Mental health is, perhaps, one of the most important topics that should be addressed. The current state of health care (in general) in the United States is rather appalling, and the measures we have taken to attempt to rectify that area are appallingly ridiculous. However, the purpose of this discussion is to emphasize the stigma and derogatory view of those who pursue psychological assistance instead of looking at health care in general.

The current mindset in America is one of instant gratification. This is especially evident by the flippant way we view looking to medication/drugs to solve problems, instead of investing the time and effort in actually understanding and solving the root issues. When a person goes to see a psychologist, psychiatrist, or even counselor, the focus should be on establishing a mental and emotional baseline followed by stabilization. To be fair, many times this does (and should) include medical assistance. However, all too often the most crucial aspect, the baseline and stability, is overlooked or rushed due to assorted constraints (insurance, resources, etc.). Further, those who do seek assistance are often looked upon in a derogatory manner by society (labeling theory) as being "mental" or "unstable." In short, the state of mental health care must be addressed.

The State of Emotional and Mental Support

Going along with the previous section, there is a significant issue with the state of support for those who need it. This ranges from the support an individual needs from social circles to the organizations designed to assist others through everything from the mundane (life coaching, stress counseling, etc.) to the extreme (correctional facilities, addiction recovery and counseling, etc.). Simply put, many people feel they have no place to turn for help, be it the need to talk to someone or the need to become involved in a specific program. Support for each other is crucial, and should be something that occurs at every level from the interpersonal to the inter-societal to international.

Socioeconomic and Sociocultural Issues

Strongly tied to the aforementioned two, as well as the next two in the list, socioeconomic and sociocultural issues affect all aspects of life. There is no reason to think they should be ignored in this type of discussion. Typically we view these discussions in terms of "class warfare" or in explorations of the population grouped by median income. These tie directly in to the availability of support and care, just as they tie into the values and ideals instilled during growth and development.

This is one area of discussion that simply cannot be further summarized, as volume upon volume of work and research has been put into how various aspects of each affects the mental, emotional, and social interaction of people. Suffice it to say, this is easily a broad range of topics that must be addressed in order for our society to move forward.

The American Ideal

Culturally, we've all heard the tales of America being the place for someone to be able to become whatever they dare to dream of becoming. We also, though, tend to view success according to the way we compare to others. The American Dream (a.k.a the American Ideal) is just as much an issue. The idea is really simple. We place burdens on the shoulders of others in measuring success according to wealth, owning a home or automobile, going to college right after high school, dating then marriage then kids... the list of concepts heard in reference to "being part of life" goes on and on (and in fairness is a part of the socioeconomic and sociocultural issues already referenced). I chose to emphasize this separately, however, because it is something that is quoted all too often in media.

Faith and Belief Structures

To those who proclaim we are seeing the result of "removing God from schools," your argument is just as flawed as those who believe a ban on all weapons will solve the issue. Our country was founded on the principle of each individual having the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You could paraphrase it in a much more direct manner: every person has the right to pursue individual freedoms, guaranteed to citizens by the Constitution, as long as those freedoms do not infringe on the freedoms of another. This distinction and understanding is important when we begin talking about religion, due to the lack of a state/national religious belief and the core principle of religious freedom. There is a counter argument that makes sense, however: this nation was founded as a Christian nation, with specific reference to God.

Quite honestly, this is a dilemma that cannot be dismissed or ignored, but also cannot be resolved. Instead, individuals and their communities should focus on bringing their faith and beliefs back into everyday life through living according to the teachings of their faith. I will not proclaim any religious belief as the "one and only answer." All of the major religions share core philosophies and ideals that are correct. While I choose to believe in what I know to be true, someone with differing beliefs will say the same thing. That is both the beauty and the frustration with religious freedom and tolerance, and it is a right I will not attempt to take away from anyone.

In the end, we simply need to take a step back and embrace the age-old facts: in order to change the world, we must believe and adhere to our faith. We must live according to the teachings, principles, and philosophies we hold dear. We must be the agent of good, and choose to reach out to help each other.

Closing Remarks

If anything is certain, it is that looking at each of the above pieces separately will not work. Singling out any one item and making it a platform for "fixing" a broken society will not work. Our society is broken because of the ways in which all of these things work together to create issues, and things will not change until each of them is properly addressed.

Here's the problem. Our government will attempt to address each one through legislation, which effectively further limits or removes freedoms. This is the crux of the matter. Without a significant change in thinking, without looking at every issue and trying to actually understand and resolve them, the only way our current system can attempt to address these issues is through the limitation and/or removal of individual freedoms. I don't have an answer. I just know that each piece of the puzzle has to be examined, and we have to shift our mindset to look at everything from a different perspective than simple regulation.

Gender Discussions

archives October 17, 2012

Preface:

Over the course of the past few weeks, I have seen a number of comments talking about wanting to know more about women's rights, women's views, or how women are viewed with regards to the political campaigns in the United States Presidential race. I normally try to avoid referencing politics at all here, but the topic reminds me a lot of a couple of things I have discussed in the past and that, as I see it, bear repeating (I highly recommend you look at the post Ethnicity, Gender, and Privilege that I previously wrote). Note that this is not a piece where I am discussing the state of equality or inequality between any groups, be it based on gender, race, age, height, weight, eye colour, hair colour, or any other descriptor that one can use. With that out of the way, I hope you'll join me for an interesting discussion.

Gender Discussions:

The key point I made in my previous post was that introducing a descriptor or characteristic of a person or group into a discussion immediately renders that discussion invalid with regards to rights, policies, laws, or other official statements. Note that general discussion is not included in this list, and that is because the understanding of a group requires examination of the differences between groups. Using the examples of the right to vote and the opposition to affirmative action, I presented the idea that these regulations were not only a source of inequality, but also reaffirmed bias in discussing these topics.

Let's take the concept a bit further today. When we discuss policies, laws, procedures, or rights, we tend to draw from our own experiences in an effort to present balanced discussion. This is normal behavior, but it also introduces an immediate lack of objectivity in the discussion. This is the reason sociologists and psychologists warn about the dangers of classification and labels, and yet we continue to approach topics as though we are all different species instead of merely posessing differing physical traits. Yes, there is a difficulty in explaining cultural and socio-cultural differences without examining those traits, but for the purposes of politics, rights, and laws these differences should be relatively negated when viewing the entire populace as a single classification: human.

Think about it this way, which of the following is actually an example of complete equality, and which ones introduce room for bias:

The right to vote shall not be denied or abridged to any citizen of the United States who has reached the legal age of majority.
The right to vote shall not be denied or abridged to any citizen of the United States, regardless of race, gender, or age, as long as they have reached the legal age of majority.
All citizens of the United States, whether male or female, shall not be denied the right to vote upon reaching the legal age of majority.

The only one that is written from a purely unbiased perspective is the first in the list. Once we start talking in terms of equality, instead of talking in terms of categories, then we might actually start making progress. Until then, welcome to continued inequalities and biases based on the labels we ascribe ourselves every day.

I get that people are concerned about the policies and issues they see as a result of someone viewing them through the lens of inequality. I understand the reason the feminist movement exists, and applaud the efforts taken in trying to promote viewing all people as equal. The issue, though, is still the same as it has been since day one: we still discuss topics through categories and labels. Until that changes, we will never have true equality.

The Religion Problem

archives October 2, 2012

Introduction

No title really seemed to fit quite perfectly, but the "problem" of religion is as good a title as any for the concept of deciphering the issue with distinguishing between religious beliefs, religious practices, spiritual beliefs, and life philosophies. Many describe themselves as "spiritual, but not religious" or "believers in a faith, but disillusioned with the institution." There is a fundamental issue that needs to be addressed when a person is forced to contradict themselves in order to describe their belief in something, and that is the "religion problem."

Background

The Advanced English Dictionary defines religion and faith using the same definitions, though faith also encompasses a couple of other definitions not included for religion. How is it, then, that we have grown to use the two as though they can be (and often are) mutually exclusive? Part of the issue lies in the inappropriate use of English in general, as we struggle to find a way to explain concepts that are difficult to grasp or define in everyday language. Part of the issue lies in the use of "religion" in a manner that encompasses more than just what the definition actually entails. Yet another part of the issue lies in trying to categorize everything as either a religion or a philosophy, without accepting that a lot of things are not quite so simple to categorize. Perhaps most concerning of all, though, is the apparent issue that religious institutions have created a divide among those who share their core beliefs.

Core Issue: Manifest Destiny versus Free Will

Most debates surrounding the concept of being spiritual or religious tend to center around the difficulty with believing that our story is written, from birth to death, for us. This debate takes a number of forms, and is further compounded by examinations of nature versus nurture from the scientific realm. Generally speaking, we tend to state that those who classify themselves as religious believe in an all-powerful, all-encompassing deity who controls everything about our lives. Traditionally religious teachings emphasized these aspects of God, rendering those who questioned manifest destiny uncomfortable at best or categorized as outcasts at worst. Those who identified with the concept of being spiritual tend to accept that there is a deity who is responsible for the creation of life, but did not accept the notion of manifest destiny.

Core Issue: Rituals versus Belief

Other debates take a more intimate approach and focus on the personal beliefs and feelings of each person. These debates tend to center around the idea that traditional religious organizations have become burdened with simply going through the motions and no longer try to examine and understand the doctrine associated with their belief. We see this all too often in typical churches, where there is a default structure of service and a message based on nothing but the reading and scholarly interpretation of scripture. Again, those who classify themselves as spiritual tend to question the personal application and interpretation of such teachings, wanting to form an understanding of the writings and their meaning instead of simply accepting what someone tells them is right or wrong. This same debate is seen in discussions regarding morality and ethical behavior; as society grows more aware of other views and attempts to become more open-minded in accepting cultural differences, we also tend to question things that are "preached" instead of "explained."

Personal Journey and Interpretations

While this is certainly not even close to an all-encompassing discussion of the topics, the background above should help understand the observations and thoughts that follow.

I grew up in a traditional baptist church, and over time I explored a number of other environments when I became disillusioned with the traditional teachings and views presented. Eventually I left traditional settings behind and pursued self-study, looking at various religions and philosophies from all around the world in search of something that made sense. During that time I began to accept that I fell into the "spiritual, but not religious" crowd and tried to understand what it was that made me reject the traditional notions of any deity, and I found that the primary issues I could not seem to resolve internally lay in the realm of disagreement with moral and ethical choices throughout life versus the concept of manifest destiny.

I've often used the example of describing two different people to provide a basic idea of this dilemma: person one who lives in a manner that most accept as good and just, trying to help others and live according to the teachings of their faith, and person two who lives in a manner that most would consider vile, doing everything possible to hurt others and satisfy their desire for destruction. Person one commits a single act of violence in defense of a loved one, and feels no remorse and asks no forgiveness. Person two lies on their deathbed and asks for forgiveness, seemingly wanting to right the wrongs they have committed over their lifetime. According to traditional views, person one would be condemned while person two would be saved, and this has always been a point of view I could not accept.

While there are many ways to approach the above example, and a number of ways to justify or explain either side, the point is simply to think about what it truly means to be spiritual or religious. It isn't to attend services at an institution or to preach to others at every opportunity; it isn't to proclaim that one person is right and another person is wrong, and it certainly isn't to judge or condemn another person. The true goal of any religious organization, and therefore the definition of what it should mean to be religious or spiritual, is the acceptance and understanding of a deity and their guidance on how to make the difficult choices we face. To this end it should be fairly obvious that there exists, on many levels, a fundamental problem with religion as we have grown to define it through various institutions.

The iPhone 5

archives September 24, 2012

Now that I have had some time with the new iPhone, I decided it might be a good idea to try to offer an objective, tempered write-up about a few of the different things I keep hearing in assorted conversations. This is not designed to be a full review, as there are plenty of really detailed write-ups out there already. Instead, this is designed as a piece that reminds us all that everyone's experience with Apple's newest device is not necessarily equal.

Maps in iOS 6

This has to be the one topic that has garnered the most scrutiny and discussion I've seen since the "Antennagate" debacle that was blown way out of proportion. Let me be clear, I have no doubt that a number of users are experiencing the problems they are describing. What I want to remind everyone of is a simple concept, but one that every publication seems to overlook: your experience and my experience will differ, just as your experience is not necessarily the defacto experience everyone will have and neither is mine.

The new maps app in iOS 6 has been absolutely phenomenal for me. I've had more accurate results than what I had with the old maps app in iOS 5. I know that my experience isn't the same as everyone else, but I really would like to know just how many people are having a frustrating experience versus how many are having a phenomenal experience.

As a quick and limited experiment, I took an iPhone 4 that I still have, my Garmin nuvi, and my iPhone 5 and compared basic usage (finding my current location and searching for a couple of places) and had basically the same results across the board. The Garmin and the iPhone 5 pinpointed my location slightly more accurately, and the iPhone 4 returned a couple of additional results that were unrelated to what I was looking for, but overall the result was pretty much the same. I'm not a heavy maps user, but the key takeaway is simple: each users' experience will differ.

Aesthetics and Design

The other point I wanted to emphasize is the one thing that no picture or write-up can truly explain: the iPhone 5 is absolutely gorgeous. The device reminds me of what makes Apple products so appealing to some - the care and detail taken in manufacturing a beautiful, functional, and classy device. For some of us, this is what attracted us to Apple products a long time ago (the only reason I initially bought an Apple laptop was because of how sexy the titanium PowerBook was, and it was from that point forward that I slowly became a complete convert to Apple and OSX).

Seriously, I cannot describe the iPhone in a way that will do it justice. Everything from the look and feel of the device at first glance, to the scrutiny and appreciation of an up-close and personal examination of each and every detail of the phone is a beauty to behold. Remember when the MacBook Pro went to an unibody chassis? Yeah, that type of appreciation for aesthetics in manufacturing simply cannot be described.

Apple versus Samsung/Google versus Nokia/Windows

Without going into any of the legal battles going on, and without biasing any thoughts based on experiences with different devices, I want to emphasize one other key point about the assorted devices now or soon to be available to consumers: everyone prefers a different experience (gee, sounds a lot like the maps concept above, doesn't it?).

My platform of choice is Apple/iOS/OSX. I have a laundry list of reasons for my choice, but the overall idea is simply that I prefer the experience and workflow those devices provide me over any alternatives I have explored. I like a lot of aspects of the Android operating system, and some of the phones out there running the Android OS are pretty nice. I like the concepts shown to us with Windows Phone 8, and if I were looking at going with something other than an iPhone the Nokia Lumia 920 is a very appealing device aesthetically. There are great devices and reasons out there for each platform. Figure out what you need and make the choice based on that, not on the ridiculous notion that you have to compare the specs between devices a, b, c, d, and e and choose based on a number.

In short, we're beyond choosing by number. Choose an OS/Hardware combination that appeals to you based on the experience provided.

Death of the Consumer's Interests

archives September 18, 2012

I generally choose not to write about the state of AT&T, Verizon, or any other carrier. There have been a couple of occasional rants (specifically, my post about Wireless Carriers and Fair Use comes to mind), but I tend to look at wireless carriers as a necessary evil if I choose to utilize the capabilities of current technology.

Today, however, marks a perfect illustration of why I have decided to leave AT&T after being with them since the initial iPhone.

I have an unlimited data plan with AT&T at the moment. This morning, I received the following message:

ATT Free Msg: Your data usage has reached 3GB this month. Using more than 3GB in future billing cycles will result in reduced speeds. You can use Wi-Fi to help avoid reduced speeds. Visit www.att.com/datainfo or call 866-344-7584 for more info.

While I realize that most carriers are trying to move everyone off of their unlimited data plans, this has simply reached a point of taking it too far. First, I cannot take advantage of the hotspot feature of my phone because I am on an unlimited plan, then it is announced that FaceTime will not be available over the cellular network because I have an unlimited plan, and now the unlimited plan doesn't even allot me the ability to go over 3GB of data usage (a first for me, actually) without penalties when AT&T sells bundles of data up to 10GB in size without such a penalty.

Goodbye AT&T. The last straw was the FaceTime deal. This just reaffirms that I'm making the right choice. Verizon may not be much better about the phasing out of unlimited data plans, but at least they're being up-front and honest about the way they are handling business. If I'm going to be forced off of my unlimited plan, I'm going to make sure my money goes to a company that openly states "it's your data, use it how you want."

Social Karma

archives August 28, 2012

Karmic justice is often used as an expression of one "getting what they deserve" or "reaping what they sow." More often than not, the phrase is used when one person feels wronged by another and hopes for some sort of vengeance. While understandable how this mentality has proliferated common thought, it is a misguided interpretation at best. Karma is an elegant idea, and is perhaps best summarized in the following excerpt:

The Pali term Karma literally means action or doing. Any kind of intentional action whether mental, verbal, or physical, is regarded as Karma. It covers all that is included in the phrase "thought, word and deed". Generally speaking, all good and bad action constitutes Karma. In its ultimate sense Karma means all moral and immoral volition. Involuntary, unintentional or unconscious actions, though technically deeds, do not constitute Karma, because volition, the most important factor in determining Karma, is absent. (source - http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/karma.htm - Removed direct link due to being flagged for malware by Google.)

This leads to the principle of "social karma," and applies to every interaction between people. While it may seem a bit redundant, the focus for this concept lies in the realm of social interaction, and not other deeds, thoughts, or actions that apply only to the self. This ties in with the previously posted concept of social reciprocity, but takes it a step further. In essence, the idea is to create a space that welcomes others, whether virtual or physical, and conveys the moral and ethical mindset and ideals of the creator of said space.

The challenge becomes simplistic at this point: do you convey an attitude of "people get what they deserve" in your sphere of influence, or do you convey the attitude of "this is how I want the world to be, and so this is how express myself?" In other words, do you look for others to seek you out and join in your endeavors because of your statements and actions, or do you simply state that others will reap the consequences of their statements and actions?

This approach is the way I have attempted to grow a community around each iteration of weblog that I have created. Up until now it has been quite successful. With Renegade Noble I am starting to see an upward trend in people who view the site, but I still haven't broken that magical barrier of silence from most visitors. Honestly, I'm not sure if it is really feasible to create that conversational atmosphere here, but I will not stop trying. It may be that the assorted topics here are too diverse, or that I simply have not hit upon that one topic that really draws someone in to comment. It may be that those who do visit simply read and go about their day, uninterested in the concept of conversation through a blog interface. Regardless of the root cause, I still adhere to the concept described above: I will continue to create a place wherein the expression of ideas, the discussion of topics, and the overall feeling of being able to freely converse is maintained.

I would like to request some feedback as well, especially in an effort to try to break that magical silence:

What draws you to Renegade Noble?
What topics interest you?
What makes you take the time to comment on something?
Is the site easy to navigate, and can you find what you are looking for?
Is there anything else you would like to say?

Feel free to comment here, or email me, or seek me out on Twitter... all of the assorted ways to contact me can be found at the top and bottom of the site, and hopefully are showing up properly in the RSS feed.

Understanding Security Basics

archives August 7, 2012

The story of how Wired Magazine's Mat Honan was hacked (link to his article on Wired.com) has become quite a scary story. There is credit to the notion that security measures in place across various cloud-based services should be better aligned and standardized, but that is not the topic for this post. The underlying issue that everyone needs to be aware of, is that security is not necesarily about stopping an attack from being able to occur, but about mitigating the damage that can occur as the result of an attack.

Using a strong password, and a different password for each system or site you access, is the standard "best practices" approach that should be explained by anyone with an IT background. The part that is often glossed over, though, is that a strong password is only one piece of the puzzle. Most successful attacks are not the result of cracked passwords, but of the ability for a person to socially engineer the information they need to gain access to some piece of information that proves vital. As in the case of Mr. Honan's unfortunate experience, social engineering was successful again.

How could this have been avoided, then? Certainly better security practices would have assisted in this case, but that comes with the reliance on the vendor of the product or service in question. Is there anything an individual could do on their own to help mitigate such a disaster? Yes.

Mr. Honan mentions the key piece of information that IT professionals have been preaching for years: back up your data. While this would not have stopped the attck from occuring, nor would it have alleviated the stress and headache of dealing with such a nightmare, it would have at least provided a way for Mr. Honan to restore everything that was lost during the attack.

This is the one piece of information I want to emphasize: if you feel it is important, back it up.

In the above case, I do feel as though Mr. Honan has a very legitimate point that everyone should also be aware of:

But what happened to me exposes vital security flaws in several customer service systems, most notably Apple’s and Amazon’s. Apple tech support gave the hackers access to my iCloud account. Amazon tech support gave them the ability to see a piece of information — a partial credit card number — that Apple used to release information. In short, the very four digits that Amazon considers unimportant enough to display in the clear on the web are precisely the same ones that Apple considers secure enough to perform identity verification. The disconnect exposes flaws in data management policies endemic to the entire technology industry, and points to a looming nightmare as we enter the era of cloud computing and connected devices.

The Second Amendment's Meaning

archives July 30, 2012

There has been a lot of dicsussion revolving around the second amendment and its interpretation. It is frustrating to see so many people argue for a point that is not actually made, and it is my hope that this reaches enough people to set the record straight. The second amendment states:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

People keep saying that this means it is only legal to keep and bear arms by individuals who are part of a well regulated militia. This is inaccurate, and has been clarified by the Supreme Court (2008, District of Columbia v. Heller). The court ruled that the prefatory clause, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" stated the intent for the Amendment, but does not place any restrictions on the actual scope of the operative clause, "... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" (see http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/).

This is not an opinion piece. This is not providing any insight into my views on firearms. This is just an attempt to educate Americans, who seem to be so ignorant and opinionated that they refuse to research legal rulings before arguing the meaning of something. Please, do your research before claiming your opinion as fact.

Perspectives

archives July 24, 2012

Introduction

Tragedy. Grief. Despair. These all seem to come in massive waves that threaten to cause a rift in the minds of many Americans, pushing us further toward a mindset that asks what has become of the world in which we live. Often we take it a step further, asking if there is any hope of a brighter, happier future any longer. It is easy to get caught up in the tales of horror, of sorrow, and of sheer frustration born of seeing long-winded, naive or uninformed diatribes concerning any conceivable topic and feel that these are the darkest of times. The world is not that simple, though, and in becoming so focused on darkness we lose sight of all the stars that threaten to break through the black veil of night.

We live in a society that is, without the slightest doubt, of our own design. We have allowed things to happen or not happen. We have chosen to speak out on matters of lesser import, and leave those massive concerns for other people. In essence, we continue to sow the seeds of discord, of blame, and of outright stupidity, and expect that what we reap is something different.

We look at others and see differences and flaws and belittle them, instead of celebrating the differences that provide us with unique perspectives and ideas. We mock or laugh at those who do not see things from our point of view, instead of taking a moment to try to understand why our views differ. We look at others and judge them, instead of accepting them into our world and finding common ground. We shun those who do not meet our standards, instead of accepting them as fellow men and women of a world that shapes us all differently.

Regardless of one's faith, religious views, political ideas, standards, thoughts, or feelings, we are all human. We are all walking upon the Earth and trying to survive through the uncertainty that life brings. In the midst of it all, we are all also making horrible choices as often as we make decent ones.

Extrospective

This week alone has illustrated the above poignantly, but the focus should not be on any single incident or time frame. All throughout the history of the United States these concepts have been illustrated time and again, and yet we still stand complacently by while various members of our society become overly vocal. We watch as events unfold and express our concerns, our thoughts, our feelings... all the while turning inward to manage our own lives and neglecting to act on our concerns, thoughts, and desires for bettering our community, area, state, or nation.

It only takes a simple act of compassion, of reaching out, to profoundly impact a life, and yet we often just walk on by the socially awkward coworker without a word, or fail to muster up the courage to walk up to the gorgeous blonde and just say hello. All too often we get trapped in the stereotypes of the nation, and avert our eyes or path from that Muslim ahead instead of smiling and saying good day. Even worse, we fall prey to the vileness that permeates many of our societal peers, turning uncertainty and a lack of understanding into outward signs of bigotry, hate, fear, and misplaced anger.

Even in light of all that is wrong with our society, there are those who try to stand up and be heard. To be counted among the people who say they will not be silenced and will not stop trying to make a difference. We look at them with contempt, believing them to be fanatics of some sort or another because they choose to act. In short, we even do what we can to make those acts of kindness, the spreading of something good, out to be just another fad or to have an ulterior motive.

We take it even further at times, and resort to irrational arguments and name calling in an attempt to make someone appear to be unintelligent, all because they stood up for an ideal. On the flip side of that, though, all too often those people who stand up for an ideal are the ones who fall prey to the same issues already outlined above, just from the opposing perspective.

Introspective

I spent many years exploring the darkest depths of internal suffering and disillusionment with the world. I looked at things objectively and analytically, and when I felt that that perspective failed I turned to examining my life through the senses and emotions. Neither approach works independently of the other, yet both are necessary in order to effectively change. I examined religious beliefs, practices, and philosophies in an attempt to make sense of everything around me, and I explored the sciences when I felt that religion fell short.

In the end, none of the above are perfect explanations. We must believe in something, whether it is simply in the idea of hope or in the comfort of a deity, whether in the explanation of things through scientific discovery and observation or the objective analysis of the world much like one would examine a puzzle, it is faith in something that drives us forward. For some it is simply confidence and belief in their ability to touch the lives of others, for some it is a complete and unwavering faith in God, and for still others it is any of a massive range of other reasons. This is the beauty of our humanity, and the underlying difficulty with finding agreement among those with differing views. Regardless of what we believe in, or choose to place our faith in, we should all be able to agree on bringing change to the world in which we live.

I place my faith in God, yet that does not mean I feel I should blindly say that God will take care of everything. My life here is still my responsibility, and my actions and inaction, my thoughts and opinions, my feelings and desires, and the path I choose to walk in this world are all things for which I must accept accountability. I have been fortunate enough to understand that life is not only what we make of it, but what we allow others to make of it. My faith, in short, is not a crutch upon which I hope that things will work out, or upon which I can lean and say "please provide for me," but is instead the reason that I know that I have the strength to face this world and make a difference.

I mentioned, briefly, my struggles with trying to understand this world and my examinations of the darkest time of my life. Eventually I saw myself through the lens of an objective bystander, and realized that it was not who I wanted to be. I made the decision to change, and to crawl back from the depths of despair and become the person I am today. Knowing the power of choice, of belief in oneself, and of the strength inherent in us if we simply choose to believe in something, I want to challenge each of you: choose to make a difference in the life of another person.

Conclusion

I chose to write this piece without citing examples or sources for a reason. We tend to look only at the issues cited and debate the nuances around those examples, rather than focusing on the overarching issue. Further, we look into our perception of the facts presented instead of looking at the ideals examined, which only leads to further clouding the issues and creating semantic debates. It is with these ideas in mind that I challenge us all to do our part in bringing about change in our area, be it the community, the region, the state, the nation, or even the world. No focus is too small or too large unless we allow it to keep us from trying.

My goal with this post is to illuminate the things that we must focus on in order to change things, and to realize that change does not mean perfect agreement or harmony among so many varied social and cultural backgrounds.

Wireless Carriers and Fair Use

archives July 17, 2012

There are still a few industries that do whatever they can to give consumers the short end of the stick, and we allow it because we feel the convenience and enrichment of our lives as a result of their commodities is worth the price. None seem more hell-bent on shafting the consumer, though, than wireless carriers (or, more specifically in this case, AT&T).

The iPhone made a significant impact on what we think of as a smartphone, and with it AT&T became a powerhouse once more during the time of their exclusive contract with Apple to provide the iPhone. This positioned them in a pretty solid place as a result of small conveniences, such as the ability to send and receive data and voice at the same time (a feature that, at least for iPhone users, is still only available through AT&T).

Fast forward to today, though, and the iPhone is available through all of the major carriers (well, except T-Mobile), and so it is much easier to compare the fee structure and services provided by AT&T as opposed to the others. This opens up some interesting points for discussion, as well as creating a new point of discussion that I want to explore at the end of this post.

Fair Use

AT&T is rumored (via Mac Rumors) to be looking at charging users to utilize features of the iPhone that are inherent to the device (something we have already seen with the additional charges for MMS messaging without a specific plan, as well as tethering, which still frustrates me). This takes an older question and makes it even more of a concern for consumers: should a company be allowed to restrict what a person can use a device they purchase, in good faith, for? If so, where should the line be drawn and who has the power to enforce that line?

I think the new Verizon Share Everything (via Verizon) plans are the way a carrier should approach service for the new generation of devices (assuming they do not change the current details of the plans, which basically gives you unlimited access to their network for sending and receiving messages and calls and requires you to purchase data "blocks" to be used in any manner you choose). As of right now, this means that an iPhone user could utilize every function of their device, as it was manufactured and released, for what amounts to an "access fee" to Verizon's network. There are not any additional fees for using the capabilities of the phone with these new plans (i.e., no fees to use the tethering/hotspot feature, and presumably no fees to utilize the FaceTime over 3G feature coming with iOS 6). Yes, you have to allocate a specific amount of data to use, and although I do believe a user should be able to pay a flat fee and gain unlimited access to data (like Sprint currently allows, which makes them a very solid contender in today's market as long as you live in an area where the coverage is solid), I can understand the principle of trying to maintain network uptime and availability by requiring users to determine whether they should use the cellular network or another network by way of charging for blocks of data. I don't have to agree with the principle to accept that there is a somewhat logical, and relatively accurate, line of reasoning behind the decision.

What about the experience?

This is the question that, to me, is even more important with a company like Apple behind the product. Apple has long been known for changing things as a result of how they want the end user's experience to be crafted, and in the realm of the smartphone this has been relatively true as well (for instance, the inability to change the look and feel of the interface, the inability to remove stock applications, etc.). However, what happens when the end user's experience is negatively impacted by the service provider? Should Apple leverage its strength to require wireless carriers to be more consumer friendly?

I think the answer should be yes, especially when a company is trying to squeeze profits from consumers just because they want to use a feature of a device. The drawback, of course, is that this could also swing the other direction just as easily, and be used to the detriment of consumers.

All I can say for certainty, at least for me, is that if AT&T chooses to charge fees for FaceTime usage over their network, I'll finally be talking with my wallet and making the move to a carrier that at least seems to have the interests of the consumer in mind. Hopefully enough people will make the same statement to make an impact.

Evaluating a Switch to Adobe Lightroom 4

archives July 11, 2012

I have been a long time user of Apple's Aperture. I originally tried Lightroom and Aperture (the first version of each) and simply found Aperture to be better for my workflow and needs. As both products have matured, I decided it was time to evaluate the two side by side again, and see if that still holds true. There are a couple of things that prompted me to look at Lightroom again, and I'll explain each as we go.

Contents:

Development Path and Updates
RAW Processing
Organization and Workflow
Summary Thoughts

Development Path and Updates

This section is purely speculative, especially given that Apple is known for maintaining rather tight lips about any development path or details for unreleased products. However, there are a couple of things that have me a bit concerned about the future of Aperture, and those concerns fueled my decision to look into Lightroom once more (mostly as a precaution and to have a backup plan, but also to give it an honest shot at impressing me).

First and foremost, I should make certain I mention that I absolutely abhor iPhoto, which means that some of my opinions will be rather biased. I also despise Photoshop, Flash, and the general "software bloat" that I feel Adobe falls prey to, though the same can be said of many companies. With this understanding of the innate bias for or against some aspects of what both companies deliver in mind, let's get to my concerns about development on these two applications.

Apple has made a fairly consistent push toward the concept of easily-accessible, yet powerful, application design. This is most recently obvious with the redesigned experience in Final Cut Pro X as compared to previous versions, but those who know their Apple history will know that this has always been an underlying theme with pretty much every area in which Apple competes (just look at the various refinements and iterations of OSX, for example). While I'm very supportive of this concept, I have concerns about what it may bring for the future of Aperture. Current trends seem to indicate that Aperture and iPhoto are moving more and more toward a convergence of sorts, wherein one or the other could easily become the dominant framework for a new, unified application (and my bet would be that iPhoto would be the framework within which Aperture's feature set would become integrated, not the other way around).

So why is this a concern? Well, quite honestly, I simply have no need of a lot of the features that have been touted as "major features" that have been introduced over time. For instance, I do not care about the Faces feature, and I thoroughly despise the integrated library approach that iPhoto uses (thankfully, Aperture still allows you to set up a folder hierarchy where the images are stored, and referenced by XML files within the Aperture library). Hopefully I'm just overreacting a little based on the lack of any major updates to Aperture in quite a while and am reading too much into the ability to open libraries back and forth between iPhoto and Aperture, but the concern was planted in my mind and caused me to evaluate what tools I should continue to use. It doesn't help the issue at all that Apple maintains such secrecy over the development path intended for Pro Applications, especially when this is something I rely on when I do contractual work.

On the other side of the fence, Adobe has been working pretty hard to show that Lightroom 4 is a response to user's concerns and issues that plagued Lightroom 3. Thus far, Lightroom does not suffer from the same "bloat" that I feel other Adobe applications suffer from, and with Adobe's primary focus being professional application development, we at least have an idea of what path Lightroom will continue to take.

RAW Processing

I'm sure there are a number of detailed breakdowns somewhere on this topic, as I've seen it referenced by a number of other people. Honestly, I don't care about the technical details, but I do care about the appearance of the photos that I edit. In practice, I've seen better quality exports from Lightroom 4 than from Aperture 3. I'm pretty sure this will be addressed if / when Apple updates Aperture, but the difference in what I'm getting from each application today is of far more concern to me than what might be the case in some uncertain time in the future. With RAW processing, Adobe simply has the upper hand at the moment. Given that I'm evaluating the change now, it means this alone has me swayed further toward the Lightroom camp than I might otherwise have been inclined.

Organization and Workflow

This used to be the really major point that made me a devout Aperture fan. I felt more at home with the hierarchical structure allowed within Aperture, where I could set up categories, include albums and other projects with each category, and then if I needed to further isolate something I could use tags. Quite honestly, as I've adopted the use of organizing via tags through other applications, the same organizational structure is pretty easy to recreate in Lightroom. I can create folders and collections that handle my primary workflow, and use tags to isolate / find images I need or want to separate out for publication. Further, the publishing services in Lightroom really streamline my workflow from an export / publish perspective (this could be a post in and of itself, which is not my goal here... if you have specific questions about my workflow let me know and I'll either create specific posts or just respond directly to you!).

Summary Thoughts

All of the original complaints I had about Lightroom have been resolved (and honestly, they could have been resolved in version two and I wouldn't have known). I still like Aperture, a lot. I'm finding myself maintaining two libraries as I evaluate these applications again for my use, and honestly I'm spending more and more time in Lightroom. Once I figured out an easy way to sync photos from Lightroom to an iOS device, I simply haven't gone back into Aperture. I'm torn, because I really do like the simplicity that Aperture offers (and the familiarity with the adjustments) as opposed to figuring out how to achieve the same effects in Lightroom, but at the same time I definitely prefer the final image coming out of Lightroom better than what I'm currently getting from Aperture.

I'll be continuing to run both for a little while, and hopefully the next major revision of Aperture will leapfrog Lightroom and make the decision simply a matter of staying in the Apple camp.

Scam - The Wedding Paper

archives July 5, 2012

Scam: The Wedding Papers (a.k.a Exposures Photography, Nicole Price, Located in Arkansas)

My wife and I originally contacted Nicole Price, operating as The Wedding Papers / Exposures Photography, through Etsy in order to have our invitations done for our wedding. This is the full outline of that saga, including an archive of all of the emails sent and received, as well as pictures of the product that was received. At this point we are out a significant sum of money, and although we could go to small claims court (and with the evidence I am certain we would win), it is simply not worth it to us to invest more money and inordinate amounts of time and stress to take it any further. Instead, I’ve decided to put everything here, and hope that you all will help me spread the word and try to ensure that no one else falls prey to this scammer.

In retrospect, we should have known better than to proceed. However, my wife was pleased with the look of the original samples, and we would be able to use a design she created for a relatively decent price. In the end, this was a hard lesson learned.

For those who want to read through all of the emails, in their entirety, please feel free to view the archive located here (note that there are a number of files there, and I would recommend viewing the PDF outline located here. For everyone else, here is the summary:

From January 15, 2012, until March 24, 2012 we exchanged conversations, both through the Etsy storefront that Nicole had set up (that suddenly vanished after we received the invitations) and through email, that discussed what we wanted and what the costs/fees/etc. would include. We requested a sample, which was supposedly sent on three different occasions, and finally received said sample on the 24th of March.

On March 24, 2012, we made the mistake of agreeing to a contract to have the invitations printed, and sent a check for the full amount to Nicole after being informed that there would be a 15% premium attached to take a credit card transaction (this is the point where we should have stopped and decided to have the invitations done elsewhere).

We were originally informed that it would take between five and seven days from the time the contract was received until the time the invitations were mailed. After not seeing the invitations or receiving any updates, we emailed Nicole asking about the status of the invitations and expressing our concern about them arriving in time. We then made our second mistake, which was agreeing to pay to expedite the order.

Finally, on April 21, 2012, the invitations arrived. What we received was not only incorrect based on what we ordered, but was also unusable. You can see the sample gallery of what we received here. At this point, we had to devise and implement a backup plan, as there was no way we could have the invitations reprinted and out to our guests in time, with the wedding barely a month away. We chose to go to OfficeMax, purchase a printer, and do the invitations on our own that weekend.

Through the month of May we did not pursue the issue further, other than my attempts to contact an attorney in the Arkansas area and see what recourse we might have. Finally, in June, I made contact with an attorney and had a demand letter drafted. That demand letter, and Nicole’s response, are copied here in their entirety (aside from redacting contact information for the attorney’s office):

July 2, 2012
Nicole Price
D/B/A The Wedding Paper
362 Shiloh Road
McRae, AR 72102
CERTIFIED MAIL: 7011 1570 0003 7386 2768
RETURN RECEIPT/RESTRICTED DELIVERY
Re: Jesse and Emily Hart
Dear Ms. Price:
Please know that our firm represents Jesse and Emily Hart. Our clients have informed us that in return for their full and timely payment for wedding invitations, the products you provided were unacceptable as some were damaged, some were not the specified size, and some were not delivered at all.
Difficulties with the Harts’ order include, but are not limited to:
The invitations were warped and completely unusable;
The invitations were not packaged with tissue paper between each invitation as promised which resulted in ink rubbing off on the back of the card above rendering them illegible;
The response cards were of random sizes with single sided-printing, not double-sided and postcard size as ordered;
The invitations were white instead of natural color as ordered;
They did not receive the custom stamp as ordered;
They did not receive envelopes they were charged for.
The product you provided to the Harts was completely unusable. Many of the cards were illegible. The improper sizes prevented my clients from sending them though the U.S. mail as postcards. Additionally, due to the inexcusable delays in delivery, the Harts were not even aware of the poor quality of your products until a late date. This resulted in their inability to order decent products from another company and, as a result, they were forced to create their own invitations.
A person’s wedding is one of the most important events in his or her life. It is a special time to share with friends and family. Because of its great personal significance, everything must be perfect. Shoddy goods and service are unacceptable under any circumstances. This is even truer when one’s nuptials are at issue. Your inability and unwillingness to follow the terms of your agreement with the Harts caused them a great deal of stress and anxiety.
Please know that my clients are demanding $1,200.00, a full refund of all monies paid to you. Unless this office is in receipt of a check in that amount or other satisfactory arrangements made for payment of that sum through this office by July 30, 2012, know that we will institute appropriate legal action against you and/or your business as appropriate. In the event that suit is instituted we will also seek attorney’s fees and costs. Know that upon entry of judgment we are prepared to put process of a writ of garnishment and/or a writ of execution in the hands of the sheriff’s department.
Neither the Harts nor this office desire to pursue this course of action, however, this will be our only notice before the institution of suit unless payment is forthcoming.
Yours truly,
<Redacted>
cc: Mr. and Mrs. Jesse Hart

The response received to the demand letter was as follows:

From: Nicole at Exposures [mailto:expdweddingpaper@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2012 6:18 PM
To: <Redacted>
Subject: RE: Jesse and Emily Hart
Dear <Redacted>:
My name is Nicole Price. I am the owner and sole operator of The Wedding Paper. I am writing in regards to your notice about the Hart couple's wedding invitations.
Emily contacted me as a last minute plan to purchase wedding invitations. I mailed a paper sample with heat embossing done exactly the way we were discussing her wedding invitations to be. We discussed and outlined her contract to be as attached. It was weeks before Emily and Jesse's wedding before Emily submitted payment for her invitations. I will address each of your/her concerns individually:
1. Warped: When the invitations left my possession they were in perfect usable condition. I was never notified of any problems regarding the invitations. While I understand that uncountable damages can occur during transit, had I been notified of a problem, it could be have rectified immediately. Even though Emily was offered and declined damage insurance, I understand the nature of wedding invitations and would have been happy to work out a resolution with her. However, nothing was ever communicated to me regarding an issue.
2. The invitations were packaged with hand-torn bright orange tissue paper, just as agreed between Emily and I. My assistant, Kim, hand placed every piece of tissue. I inspected her work and did not see any missing pieces. The only ink used was a heat binder, so there is no possible way that it was rubbing onto another page. However, as explained to emily prior to her purchase, with heat embossing done by hand, there would be minor transfer that could not be avoided, just as it was on the paper sample sent to her before she placed her order. If she felt that would be a problem, I encouraged her to think about an alternate print plan, or even looking for another printer who does computerized embossing.
3. All enclosure cards are 3.5 by 5. That is wedding industry standard. Nothing larger or smaller was requested, nor paid for. As they are cut by hand, not laser, sizes can vary only slightly. This was also explained to Emily prior to her purchase. I have designed and created wedding invitations for years and have had many happy brides. The size variation of enclosure cards has never been questioned as it is extremely minor. Double-sided printing was discussed and never purchased. Emily contacted me about this specifically. I informed her that double sided printing had not been purchased, but I would be happy to do it if she decided to purchase it. She never made question of it again.
4. Emily chose the paper and chose not to receive a paper sample of it. It is titled "soft white". She was explained that "natural" was not an option in the weight she purchased, but that "soft white" was simply a difference in title, not color. Due to her time restraints, she chose to go with the "soft white", not to be confused with "white", "bright white", "pearl white" or "white" (research can be done to determine the different variations of white and ivory. Emily received the exact paper she chose, in the exact color she chose.
5. The custom stamp was shipped shortly after the invitations. It was returned to me a week later undelivered. I don't claim to know what goes on behind the scenes of the post office, but I emailed Emily, explaining the situation asking to confirm her address. I still have not received a response.
I agree that the hand embossing was not appealing. However, it is EXACTLY what Emily requested, received in person as a sample (at no cost or obligation!) and was warned about. The post cards were completely standard for mailing. (Please research minimum mailing size. It is 3.5 by 5, the standard RSVP size). The Hart's delays were due to their own procrastination in completing their contract. They were explained the time frame for everything multiple times. It is not my responsibility to time manage clients' weddings. If they were aware of the time frame in comparison to their remaining time, I was happy to provide them with the service they wished to receive.
I understand the nature of weddings. I work with brides around the world. It is not my tastes or judgement that matters, simply what the bride chooses to purchase. Emily was full aware of what she was purchasing. She held it in her hands a short time before her purchase.
I am declining a request for refund due to the fact that it is now NINE MONTHS after the beginning of her contract. I would have been happy to assist Josh and Emily in resolving this issue had I been contacted about it. Being contacted nine months later, with nothing to back this claim, leaves me no choice but to decline. Please proceed your legal actions as you choose.
Nicole Price
The Wedding Paper

There are a number of things wrong with her response, which you can easily verify from the emails and pictures linked in the first part of this post. I’m going to break it down here, in summary, though, for ease of following:

At no point in any of the conversation chain was damage insurance offered, recommended, or suggested.
There was one piece of tissue paper, that was not orange in color, between two random invitations. You can see from the pictures how they were packaged and that ink did rub off, even though Nicole states that is impossible, and the transference of some of the ink to other invitations would have been avoided had they been packaged as indicated.
You can see from the pictures that the enclosure cards are not the correct size, as indicated. In the email chain is was repeatedly expressed that double-sided printing was what we wanted, and the last communication we received about it was when Nicole stated she would check her records and get back to us.
You can see from the email chain that there was never any indication that “natural” was not an option in the paper ordered.
We never received notification that an attempt was made to deliver the stamp. While I could not attest to whether Nicole sent it or not, the fact that she has our correct address (otherwise the sample and invitations would not have made it to us) indicates that this is a complete fabrication.
Other notes: Nicole indicated she shipped the invitations on the 16th of April, but the stamp from the postal service shows that they were not sent until the 19th of April. Nicole also indicated that the cost for expedited shipping was significantly high, but the postage was less than $20 through the USPS.

As you can see, we can easily verify that Nicole is not providing accurate information. Further, in her response to the demand letter, she indicates that we started this process nine months ago (the contract is here if you would like to look at it). I’m struggling to figure out how we could have even been discussing the invitations for nine months, much less having the contract begin nine months ago... Even if we go back to the initial conversations, instead of when the contract was sent and signed, we’re only talking about January 15th to July 5th (today). The accurate time frame would be March 24, 2012 to July 5, 2012 at most. I am forced to assume that even basic math eludes Nicole at this point.

Oh, and suddenly my name appears to be Josh by the time we reach the end of her response...

We've decided we do not want to deal with having this drag out any further, but we would like to try to get this out to as many people as possible and warn them about dealing with Nicole Price. We'd appreciate you guys spreading the word. The other names she operates under, based on our experience, are "The Wedding Paper(s)" and "Exposures Photography."

Engagement Photos

archives April 26, 2012

Excerpts. Photographs by Anna Mazurek, annamazurekphoto.com.

Wolfie

archives April 17, 2012

Introduction

Sleek. Dark. Restless. She prowls along the road, growling in defiance at every twist and turn. She was meant to be unleashed; to attack every path with an insatiable ferocity.

Wolfie. The affectionate name given her by her master was both an indicator of her heritage and homage to her graceful movements.

Sunlight glimmers over her dark coat, casting a multitude of starlike reflections along the worn path chosen for today's excursion. She growls as she speeds forward, pushing headlong into another treacherous turn at a blistering pace.

The Details

I purchased a (new to me) Wolfsburg edition Jetta recently. I forgot just how eager a car that is designed for a driver can feel on the road, after having driven a Dodge Dakota over the past few years (I still have the truck, why give up a vehicle that is paid for and gives impressive power when needed?). I have to admit, the Germans know how to design a car that simply feels great to drive. I can see why so much of Volkswagen's business is from repeat customers.

I opted for a certified preowned model for a couple of reasons, obviously cost being one. Since I wanted the 2.0T engine, and since my plan was to do whatever I could to keep my truck, going with a CPO model gave me the ideal blend of manufacturer backing (Volkswagen places a two year/24,000 mile warranty on certified preowned vehicles) and newness. It helps a lot that the car had less than 24,000 miles on it too!

Volkswagen's 2.0T engine, an in-line four cylinder with a turbocharger, is a beast. Paired with the DSG transmission (which you can read more about on Volkswagen's website at this link), the car simply goes. I definitely could not shift as quickly as the computer can, and the shifts are so smooth and fluid it is tough to think of anything that could be better.

Needless to say, I'm in love with the car. I'll probably add a few follow up posts as I really get to play with what the car can do, as well as my adventures in doing different things to/with the car (such as modifying the ECU at some point, via the good folks over at APR).

Ethnicity, Gender, and Privilege

archives August 19, 2010

Apparently there is a "hot topic" in the blogosphere relating to gender issues, specifically in World of Warcraft. While I have not seen the articles specifically (what can I say, I've been busy enough I haven't even looked at my feed reader in a couple of weeks), I've noticed a few comments that prompted the decision to write this post. Note that I have not read the other posts, so there is a chance that a lot of what I state here has been stated already. The purpose of this post, though, is to highlight one of the most common fallacies we commit as a society with regards to understanding other people, regardless of gender, lifestyle, cultural background, color of skin, hair color, eye color, religious practices, sexual orientation, or just clothing choice (and obviously the list is not exhaustive, but you should get the idea). That fallacy, stated somewhat simply, is this:

Once a distinction has been made during a discussion some form of bias is introduced, rendering the discussion no longer productive or objective. In essence, creating a policy or promoting action that specifically targets a group of people based on a physical distinction is, in and of itself, rooted in bias.

Note that I am not saying we live in a time of perfect equality. Far from it. Instead, I'm emphasizing that every time we discuss an issue we immediately bias the discussion by saying "x group" or "y group" or "z group." While our discussions focus on any particular group we only perpetuate the cycle. Let's take a classic example:

The Fifteenth Amendment states that the right to vote shall not be denied or abridged on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. The Nineteenth Amendment states that the right to vote shall not be denied or abridged on account of sex. While both of these serve valuable purposes (granting the right to vote to all citizens), both are horrifically flawed in their implementation. Instead of singling out any group, the changes should have been approached as a statement specifically geared toward treating all people as just that, people. The change should have been along the lines of the following:

The right to vote shall not be denied or abridged to any citizen of the United States who has reached the legal age of majority.

Once a condition (in this case race or gender) is singled out instead of treating all people equally we are automatically creating an atmosphere where discrimination is easily introduced into the discussion. The focus becomes the group being discussed instead of the issue.

This concept is not new. When Affirmative Action was first introduced there were a few who understood the very nature of the program was counterintuitive, and the same concept applies to every discussion, to the very foundation of this country: we cannot achieve equality while focusing on segments of the population instead of the population as a whole (paraphrased¹).

I wholeheartedly support the exploration of individual concerns and experiences, but to draw sweeping conclusions and apply those experiences to the population at large is also a fallacy. Stereotypes create discriminatory bias in people's perceptions, just as individual experiences create bias in perception. It's natural, but that doesn't mean we should blind ourselves by stating "women generally do this" or "men generally do this."

This long-winded explanation is meant to serve as a reminder that we, in general, do not think or speak in terms of equality. We almost always speak in terms of personal experience and personal perception. Until we can strip away the use of gender, skin color, or other factors that differentiate individual people from each other and focus on all of us as one diverse group, that group being human, we will always create some form of discriminatory environment (directly or indirectly). Whether you like it or not, everyone is discriminated against in some fashion until such a change in thinking occurs.

Footnotes:

1 William Bennet and Terry Eastland, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Article Link, Original Quote is "To count by race, to use the means of numerical equality to achieve the end of moral equality, is counterproductive, for to count by race is to deny the end by virtue of the means. The means of race counting will not, cannot, issue in an end where race does not matter."

I Am...

Why You Shouldn't Listen To Person X

Gender Discussions

The Religion Problem

The iPhone 5

Death of the Consumer's Interests

Social Karma

The Second Amendment's Meaning

Perspectives

Wireless Carriers and Fair Use

Evaluating a Switch to Adobe Lightroom 4

Scam - The Wedding Paper

Engagement Photos

Wolfie

Ethnicity, Gender, and Privilege

Search Posts

Featured Posts, Family Weblog

Featured Posts, Jesse’s Weblog