Mark Rants & Raves

Fun games for your iPhone and iPad

2011-05-09T08:03:00.003-05:00

It's been awhile! I've been busy creating some games for the iPhone and iPad. Check them out!

Hidden Sayings - Picture puzzles (rebus) to guess common sayings
Theme Songs - Quiz using tons of songs from TV, movies, and commercials from the 1950s thru today!
Trivia Fun -thousands of trivia facts in Q&A format, with ability to explore maps and wikis!

Coming soon - a dynamic game for the iPad...
Enjoy!

Here's my games web site

My best books list

2007-04-05T10:51:00.000-05:00

This is of course an impossible task, but I'm going to dive in anyway and hope others join in. So, here goes:

What are some of the best books you've read?

I don't care if they're fiction, science fiction, or whatever. Here are some that come to mind for me:

State of Fear by Michael Crichton - a lot of the "global warming" crowd won't like this book, but it was very well-written and made a compelling argument. Do yourself a favor and read a counterposition to the mainstream media.
Coping with Difficult People by Robert Bramson - you've dealt with them, can't avoid them. Meet the bulldozer, the sniper, the clam, and other "fun" types at work and play.
Stranger in a Strange Land by Robert Heinlein - a scifi classic. Learn what people mean when they say they grok something.
Timeline by Michael Crichton - what an interesting book, especially if you like chaos theory. I think I like a lot of Crichton's books because he does his research to make a book seem so real and interesting.
The FairTax Book by Boortz and Linder - such an interesting and important book. It's amazing to me how much we don't know about an important topic like our money. I wish more people would read it or at least one page of information at www.fairtax.org/fairtax/about.htm
The Positronic Man by Isaac Asimov - I've always been enthralled by the idea of a robot that becomes sentient. This was one of my first forays into this realm, to be followed by Mr. Data and others.
Conversations with God by Neale Donald Walsch - I know a lot of people view this book as blasphemous, but I found that it has some real interesting ways to think about spirituality. It reminds me of the way of life that Buddhism encourages.
The Tipping Point by Malcolm Gladwell - This book fascinated me. I never thought about "viral" shifts in perceptions in the marketplace. Of course, these days social sites are all about viral...
Prey by Michael Crichton - Crichton again brings enough reality into his science fiction to capture my imagination. That's why I've always like scifi over fantasy. In this case, it's nanotechnology that has gotten out of hand. I like where Crichton went with this one.
Disclosure by (yes, again!) Michael Crichton - I can't seem to help myself. I stop to think of a book I really liked and voila, it's a Crichton book. This one was helped because I am a software developer, so I can relate. That's my story and I'm stickin' to it...

So, what do you think? I know I'm missing a lot of good books, so join in and let me know what I've missed.

We're so sorry to have reacted badly to your kidnapping

2007-04-05T06:43:00.000-05:00

Ahmadinejad says that Britain should be grateful that Iran released the hostages. I looked up the term hostage. It said:

"A prisoner who is held by one party to insure that another party will meet specified terms"

So lets see if I've got this straight...

Iran illegally grabs British sailors and marines in Iraqi waters
Iran illegally parades them on television (where are those precious Geneva conventions when you need them?)
Iran decides to release them without requiring Britain to apologize

Apologize?! Apologize?! Are you frickin' kidding me?!

This Theocratic dictatorship and sponsor of terrorists that it's own people want to overthrow has one big set of cajones, I'll give them that. The sad, sad fact is that the democracies of the world will not come together to fight for what's right.

Germany wants to trade with Iran, so won't stand with us.
Russia wants to sell nuclear capabilities (and also wants to be more powerful) and won't stand with us.
France is ticked off that they are not a great power and so won't stand with us.

Western democracies that act like democracies are the USA, Australia, Britain, Japan and a few others. Why does it take something terrible to get people to do what's right? Doesn't Europe remember what happened in the 1930s? Do we have to go through that kind of mess to wake up? If we do, I fear that it may be the end, because I am convinced that the Islamofascists are much worse than the German fascists...if for no other reason than access to nuclear weapons and a willingness to strap bombs onto themselves.

I fear for our civilization and way of life...

Tokyo Rosie does it again

2007-04-03T12:27:00.000-05:00

Geez! Just when you thought you might get a breather from Rosie's rants, she goes off on the British sailors -- they were in Iranian waters don't you know (how does she know?!) I just love whoever came up with "Tokyo Rosie"...that's soo appropriate.

All this, of course, comes after she has said Christian "radicals" are just as dangerous as Islamo-fascists , 9/11 was perpetrated by our own government, and other complete nonsense.

I have to tell you, I've lost all respect for Barbra Walters - it's her show, yet she lets this loon run wild. I would've thought it is for ratings, but the View's ratings are down in the last six months.

I really think that people are going to get sick of this diet of hate, hate, hate. What do you think?

State of Fear and Global Warming

2007-01-02T09:09:00.000-05:00

Let me start out by saying that I am trying to have a reasonable, intelligent, well-thought-0ut discussion about global warming. I am not advocating either side, so please no flames or tirades. That said...

I recently read "State of Fear" by Michael Crichton. I admit that it was a very enjoyable read, including the added material after the body of the book. Crichton obviously did a lot of research (supposedly for two years) for this book. And he has compelling arguments supported by scientific references.

I know that a lot of environmental groups have written counter-arguments because of the book. This makes sense, since Crichton refutes the claims of these groups. Crichton makes the argument that global warming is a religious movement, meaning it is faith-based rather than fact-based. I hadn't really thought of it (or other topics) in this way, but it makes sense to me.

Now, I don't claim to be an expert in this area, but I am trying to educate myself enough to speak intelligently on this topic. And I want to discuss it based on reality, facts, peer-reviewed science, ... So, some questions for those more knowledgeable than me:

Without using any future projections (i.e. guesses), what proof is there that CO2 or other human changes have led to long-term temperature rises on earth? I'm talking about overall, with localized affects like warming in big cities due to lots of asphalt, taken into account.
Given that Antarctica is getting colder with resulting thicker ice, how does "global warming" explain this?
How is "global warming" different than cyclical temperature changes that have occurred before?

I'll leave it at that for now. I know that is a plethora of other items we could discuss, but lets start with this. Again, replies should include peer-reviewed scientific evidence. Posts with unsupported claims will be ignored. That said, replies are welcome and encouraged.

Mark

Melting pot, no more?

2006-05-02T15:08:00.000-05:00

I admit to mixed feelings about the "May Day" protests by and for illegal immigrants.

One the one hand, I know that if I went to Mexico or most other countries illegally and tried to protest that I wasn't being given citizenship, I would be thrown in jail (or worse).

On the other hand, I freely admit and enjoy the benefits of having laborers doing the low-wage jobs in the US. However, there is also some merit to the idea that these laborers depress wages and drive many American businesses out of business. Don't think so? Well, try to start a landscaping business and compete with a family from south of our border.

But given all the pros and cons, the thing that really worries me is that Hispanics seem less inclined to become part of our country. Previous immigrants wanted to learn English and become part of America. Now, you must have noticed that when you go to an ATM machine at your bank, you have to pick English or Spanish; when you make a call and get a voice-driven system, you have to "pick 1 to continue in English or dos por Espanol" (pardon my spelling - I don't know Spanish).

What's up with that?! If you think having multiple languages would be a good thing - add a little cultural understanding - ask one of your Canadian friends how that's working for them.

We have never had immigration, especially from one country, at this volume and speed. Another difference is that we used to foster college educated, professional immigrants. Now, the vast majority are uneducated. Add to this that children born in the US are automatically citizens and this opens the door to many relatives and we have a massive change in the culture, beliefs, and values of traditional America.

I am not an immigrant basher - we were all immigrants at one time. The difference today is that assimilation is not taking place at the necessary levels and that the volume of homogenous immigrants is too high. As a minimum, the following must be required:

Fluency in English
Knowledge of US history
Contribution to the country (i.e. not a criminal, hold a job, pay taxes, ...)

What we have today is not working. Lets fix it! Let your representatives know your position:

Contact Your Representative

The US foreign policy must become non-interventionist

2006-04-13T09:19:00.000-05:00

I recently sent a letter to Representative Ron Paul (R-TX) :

I am not a constituant of yours, as I live in NC. However, I have recently read an article that details your comments on the floor of the House recently and felt compelled to commend you on the clarity your comments lend to the situation the USA finds itself in today.

I have to admit that in the past I would have disagreed with you. I thought that the USA, as the most powerful nation on earth currently, has an obligation to help others around the world. At some level, I still believe that, but I also now realize that, as powerful as we are, we cannot solve the world's problems - not even close. What we end up doing is, as you state:

"Spreading ourselves too thin around the world actually diminishes our national security ... a constant interventionist policy is perceived as arrogant"

Those we try to help often turn around an spit in our eye (or worse). It is a fact that there are many evil people in the world and many terrible tragedies on an ongoing basis. We, as Americans, need to continue to be the compassionate people we have always been, but in a charitable rather than militaristic fashion.

Government is many things, but efficient and timely it is not. We need our government to focus on things that are real problems for Americans:

A social security system that is heading toward bankruptcy as the baby boomers retire
An education system that is failing our kids, with lower test scores and higher dropout rates
A ridiculously large and unfair tax system that no one can understand
A broken immigration system, with millions of unidentified people here illegally
A border that is more open that arguably any other nation, leaving us vulnerable to not only criminals but terrorists

I realize I am preaching to the choir. It helps to know that there are politicians that share some of these views. I wanted to tell you I appreciate it and would be proud to have you as my representative in Congress...perhaps you can talk to your peers from NC.

I don't know how much of America sees this. We hear a lot about the war in Iraq, but what about the many other areas of the world we're involved in? Lets be clear, I am not advocating isolationism. We know from history that does not work in general. However, in the area of foreign policy, I believe we should have learned the lesson by now that trying to police the world will not work - even the USA has limits of what is possible. The result is that the world views us as arrogant...and most of the time, the situation ends up as bad or worse than when we started.

This is quite different from protectionism, which is the polar opposite of a free market system. If you believe in capitalism, private ownership, and free trade (i.e. what America is all about), you realize that trying to control local or global economics does not work and we really don't want to even try. There are ebbs and flows of where industries are primarily located and while that causes temporary regional "pain", it is a reality that cannot be denied. But I digress...

America is a wonderful place, currently IMO the best place. We are a great nation composed of peoples from around the world and we need to be good citizens of this world. But as far as foreign policy goes, we need to take care of our own house and stop asserting our views unilaterally.

The purpose of "hell"

2006-03-09T08:44:00.000-05:00

We all have our own belief systems. That's fine. I'm not trying to change yours, rather to examine why a concept such as "hell" exists.

Some history

So where did a concept of "hell" come from? The English came up with the word "hell":

Hell comes to us directly from Old English hel. Because the Roman Church prevailed in England from an early date, the Roman—that is, Mediterranean—belief that hell was hot prevailed there too; in Old English hel is a black and fiery place of eternal torment for the damned.

The Greco-Romans called hell hades:

The god Hades... received the underworld for his realm... The realm he rules over is also called Hades. Hades is the enemy of all life, gods, and men.

The Hebrews called hell sheol:

The word Hell, in the Old Testament, is always a translation of the Hebrew word Sheol...By examination of the Hebrew Scriptures it will be found that its radical or primary meaning is, The place or state of the dead.

Muslims refer to hell as Jahannam:

Islamic eschatology is concerned with the Qiyamah (end of the world) and the final judgement of humanity. Like Christianity and some sects of modern Judaism, Islam teaches the bodily resurrection of the dead, the fulfillment of a divine plan for creation, and the immortality of the human soul; the righteous are rewarded with the pleasures of Jannah (Paradise), while the unrighteous are punished in Jahannam (a fiery Hell, from the Hebrew ge-hinnom or "valley of Hinnom"; usually rendered in English as Gehenna).

You can read more here.

Motivations

So, why do some (actually most) religions believe in hell? Lets try to enumerate some possibilities:

Guilt

It's easier to keep kids in line, people coming to church, revenue streaming in, ... if you have a hammer to hold over people's heads. Somehow though, all the televangelists and other "preachers" do what they want and then claim that God will forgive them when they're caught. But you better not do as they do!

Revenue

Yes, churches/synogogues/temples are businesses that must have income to survive and grow...not to mention the power that goes along with riches. And the cleric/pastor/priest is paid by the congregation - are you really going to tell me they want to live frugally as Christ/Mohammed/... did?

What if people aren't paying enough attention? Get the big "hell" stick out to whip them into shape. It is so seriously deranged ... I've actually seen people fighting over very expensive spending decisions (read power) in a church while these same people don't care that the church is homogenous race-wise, won't lift a finger to help others, and fight against letting homeless families use the church as shelter until they can get back on their feet (what if they steal something?! Oh my!).

Writings

The Bible, Quran, Talmud, and other religious publications certainly mention hell is some form or another (hell, hades, gehenna, ...). OK, hell is mentioned in religious publications -- who do you think writes these? Human beings! They're people, just like you and I, with all the weaknesses and failings. And I know, before you flame me, that some believe that this was spoken from God and written directly down. If that's true from 1, 2, ... centuries ago, why can't it be true today?! Why do believers so vehemently attack books such as Conversations with God? Can't God talk to someone today, just like (s)he did centuries ago?

If we just look at the Bible for a minute, the numbers of mentions of the three different words for "hell" has changed over time . And these were actual places, like where they literally dumped Jerusalem's garbage.

Lets be honest. Isn't it just possible that the concept of hell is used for well-meaning reasons and doesn't really exist? What should we think of a God that would want us to suffer for all eternity?! I don't know about you, but my God isn't like that! WWJD (WWMD, ...)? He wouldn't allow this for his children IMO.

There are groups that do not believe in hell. E.g., Buddhism views life as a struggle to "do better" - to overcome our shortcomings and aspire to be better people; there is no hell in Buddhism, which is one of the reasons that I associate most closely with Buddhist thinking (and this from someone whose father was Catholic and mother was Baptist and who has been to Methodist and other "organized" religions over the years). For a Buddhist, "hell" is basically torturing yourself by the results of your bad acts; happiness is increased by doing loving, welcoming, positive acts.

I hesitate to call Buddhism a religion since most Buddhists don't consider themselves a religion, but rather a way of life..in fact, Buddhist temples are frequented by people that claim they are Catholics, Protestants, agnostics, Jews, Muslims, ...

If you still believe in hell, what is your answer for someone who hasn't met your criteria through no fault of their own? E.g., if you think you have to accept Christ as your savior, what about primitive tribes in Africa that have never heard of the Bible or Christ? You would honestly sit there in your pompous righteousness and judge that these people would burn in your "hell"?! Unbelievable.

I do understand that without moral constraints, chaos would ensue. Some have postulated that this is a fact and is a contributing factor in the downward spiral of civilization. I just prefer to take the positive motivation of Buddhism over the negative threats of most other belief systems. On a regular basis over the centuries, including the crusades and the recent "cartoon" riots, religion has been involved in many, many horrific events. How ironic.

As I said when I started, if you believe in hell, that's your business. I do not choose to accept that concept for myself. Reasonable, logical debates to the contrary are welcome along with justification.

How do you like paying taxes?

2006-02-26T10:12:00.000-05:00

Think taxes in the U.S. are fair? Naw, everyone knows it's not fair - the friggin' rich are getting away with murder! Right?! Well , you may want to sit down and take a look at this:

That's right - the bottom 50% pay virtually no taxes! So, when you see a report about how some proposed tax cut didn't help those with low income you'll know why: there's no tax to cut!

Politicians that regularly decry that the rich are getting cuts while the middle class is not are pandering to the masses to keep their power. It's all about money all right - the money in their pockets that they get a thousand ways (PACs, "business expenses", ...) in their powerful positions.

Lets face it, with a tax law that is 7500 pages long and largely indecipherable, the only ones that are benefitting are the accountants and the special interests.

If you think there must be a better way than the IRS, take a look at the fair tax proposal. If we can get this proposal passed, it would mean:

No more tax forms to file
Full funding of the government at current levels, including Social Security and Medicare
No taxes for those below the poverty line
No tax on any income - only a sales tax would be collected on what you choose to spend
Read more here

How fair is that?! What's the downside? There's isn't a downside. But if you and I don't push for it, it won't happen. The special interests don't want it. The accountants don't want it. The lawyers don't want it. And they will fight against it. So, unless we want it enough to fight for, we will keep paying others to help us go through those 7500 pages every year. And people and businesses will keep cheating to avoid paying their fair share (putting a heavier burden on those of us who do pay). So, do us all a favor and get behind the fair tax by signing the petition and writing to your politicians.

OK, back to doing my taxes again...if I can figure them out...

P.S. If you question the validity of these numbers, you can look at other sources, including here and here.

We've gone waaaaay too far

2006-02-25T17:26:00.000-05:00

How far do we bend over backwards to avoid unknown mines laid by Muslim clerics? Some mullahs believe those that are not of an extreme bent for their religion and theirs alone are nothing but animals. And of course, it is perfectly fine to slaughter animals.

There comes a time when we have to say "enough". This from the daily dish:

"More capitulation to religious hooey. Yahoo will not allow one Linda Callahan to use her own name for an email address. Why? The name Callahan has the word "Allah" in it. Yahoo will apparently accept "god, messiah, jesus, jehova, buddah, satan and both priest and pedophile," but not 'allah,' 'osama' and 'binladen.' I wish I were making this up. The world is going completely bananas over mullahs."

Of course, we've all been aware of the rioting and murdering hysteria that has been going on because of the Mohammed cartoons. An interesting fact that has gone largely unmentioned is that the most objectionable cartoons were not from the Norwegian cartoonist, but were added by Mullahs who went to Muslim countries trying to stir up trouble.

It's also not true that Mohammed cannot be shown - he has been shown in Muslim books and art for years! I guess it's only true that infidels (that's you) can't show him.

Fortunately, there are Muslims that are speaking out, trying to take back their religion from the violent extremists that are so vocal.

And for the extremists, let me make it perfectly clear: we will never accept Sharia law. We in the free world stand by our way of civilization, with a separation of church (mosque, temple) and state as well as human rights and the rule of law.

Leaning right, whether I want to or not

2006-02-25T17:11:00.000-05:00

I perceive myself as a balanced person, outlook-wise. I know I'm a bit conservative on fiscal issues. And I know I'm a bit liberal on social issues.

But when you have a 20-something offspring, you get a whole new view of yourself. I guess everything is relative... To her, I am a right-wing ideologue. Funny, I don't do most of the things you'd expect if she was correct. I have never listened to Rush or Dr. Laura and I imagine I would think they were way off base if I did. But maybe she perceives this about me because I perceive the left-wing fringe as more vocal and screeching than I do the right-wing fringe. If truth be told, I think most if not all things too far from the mainstream (read moderates) is problematic and worrisome.

She probably hears me rant about the latest insane things people are doing and perceives me tipping more to the right. It is true that I don't have much use for Al Franken or Michael Moore's inane statements (read lies or at least spins) or whats-her-name's war protest. So, if that makes me right of center so be it. It's worth noting that I don't have much tolerance for the insanities coming from the mouths of televangelists on the right either.

So, I guess neither camp would be happy with me as a member and that's OK with me. If she says I'm leaning right, I'll have to accept that for the sake of peace at home.

That said, here are some recent topics that at times amuse and perplex me:

Homosexuality

I am not homophobic at all. I have some really close friends whose sexual orientation doesn't match mine...and that's totally fine with me. Always has been. And I don't really care if they get married and have all the rights therein. Here's my issue: why is there such a heavy focus on homosexuality on TV shows, movies, books, articles, magazine covers, ...? I reach a point where I want to yell "Enough!" Is it absolutely mandatory that every sitcom have a gay person in it?

Now, I know that there are good things that come out of this, such as getting people accustomed to the fact that we have people that are different than us (as wisely noted by my daughter). I guess the legacy media feels it is their job to enlighten us. Maybe we need a better feedback mechanism to let them know that we get it. I suppose that we vote with our wallets.

Affirmative Action

I am all for a level playing field, which is one reason among many that I do not believe that we need to continue preferential treatment for certain groups of people. I think 30+ years of being on the low side of the slanted field is enough. Before you start shrieking about my predjudices, I don't see it that way. I think it does people a disservice to have the attitude that they need help to compete in our free society. What kind of message is that? To aspire to, what, get a handout? Would you want to have co-workers think you got your job because of (shhh) quotas? Now, in those cases where companies do have bigotry in action, I fully support Americans' favorite pastime (not baseball - lawsuits). That's a whole different thing than affirmative action.

Now, I have never owned a slave, parked in a disabled spot, or exhibited any other behavior that in my thinking would categorize me as a bigot. So why should I be penalized for not being born a minority. Hey, when Latinos become the majority in a couple of decades, do I get special treatment then?! You know what - I wouldn't want it. Because I've always worked hard for what I want. I don't need a leg up.

The real answer is and always has been education. Get an education and work hard to be excellent at everything you do. And that should be available to everyone with few means, without skin color, disablements, or any other factor considered. This logical and fair solution is being advocated by a well-known pundit. I happen to support this position.

Abortion

I find it inconceivable that a man, who has never and will never carry a fetus inside him, has the cajones to tell the women of the world what they can do with their bodies! And I understand all the religious (figurative and literal) arguments on both sides. I personally would hope I wouldn't get an abortion if I was in the situation where I was raped or couldn't support a child. If I did get an abortion, that would be my decision, not anyone else's. If you are of the mind that that would mean I would go to hell (which is just something to threaten parishioners with IMO, but that's another rant), I'd have to say that is not a very Christian (or Muslim or Jewish or Buddhist or ...) attitude.

I don't even want to get into the argument about whether the fetus is a "person" at age 5 days or 2 months or whatever. My beliefs are not your beliefs and I am not going to try to pry open your mouth and shove my beliefs down your throat.

And don't even get me going about the hypocrisy of the right to life murderers that kill abortion doctors (oh, so the fetus is worth saving, but this guy can be killed....riiiight).

This is obviously a very difficult subject. Maybe if everyone would take a more loving and welcoming attitude (again, what true religious is really about) and not attack those that have differing opinions, the world would be so much better. I mean, really, are you going to sit there and tell me that you have the answer??

Lean to the left, lean to the right, stand up, sit down, fight, fight, fight

So, by now you've got a little bit of a perception about me. Maybe you agree with my daughter; maybe you don't. I just wish we could skip the fight, fight, fight part.

Later.

P.S. I don't claim to be a maven concerning these topics (is anyone?), so please do not flame me. I am just trying to have an open and honest dialog...which gets harder every day.