So a month or so ago, I purchased an iPhone.

Yes me. Yes, an Apple product.

...conscious again yet?

My use of this product has brought me to two conclusions:

1) The iPhone is a well-built, generally well-performing piece of hardware. However, it is limited in very odd ways that preclude any ground-breaking independent development with it. This leads me to my second, much more profound, revelation...

2) I now have an argument for why I hate Apple. When one purchases an Apple product, be it an iPhone, iPod, or i<thing>, you don't just buy that piece of hardware -- you buy the entire Apple ecosystem. While this is somewhat true for Windows / Linux boxes, Apple has an agenda, a master plan, and that is how you absolutely will interact with that device -- even to how you develop for the device. It is a box inside which your entire concept of computing resides.

While there are pros and cons to this approach, it is essentially the same as Apple telling you that it knows best, and that you should be a good little lemming and go with the flow. Apple will decide for you when the box becomes bigger. This rubs me entirely the wrong way. It stifles creative thinking and deboxing of things. In a world where we need to be more flexible, Apple pours more concrete on their computing philosophy fortress -- designed to keep you in.

My previous analysis might lead the reader to believe that I am advocating adding on further information to learn within each concentration.

This is not the case. Rather, it is expressing the opinion that the number of concentrations is out of hand. Therefore, it advocates reducing the total number of concentrations to a more manageable level, and thus necessarily broadening the scope of each concentration.

In order to innovate, you must have many, many points of reference. This is what we are all about -- innovating faster than competing societies.

To this end, the current compartmentalized university must be abolished, and replaced with a much more integrated entity, which will permit instruction in many subjects to all students. In other words, instead of creating an "English major," the scholar would instead be a "Humanities major". Instead of a "Computer scientist," the scholar would be an "Engineering major". We are abstracting away the specifics of highly-specialized majors in favor of a slight tendency to concentrate on some subjects over others.

It is true that the world requires specialists. The first level of a university is not the correct sphere in which to create these specialists, however. For simple specializations, we can use technical schools and colleges. For complex or research specializations, the graduate levels of universities can be utilized. This use of graduate programs is not a radical departure from current reality. Graduate programs are the method by which a scholar specializes more fully in a particular area. However, society needs all of the members of the "highly-educated" elite to be fluent in a vast array of possible viewpoints.

Indeed, if a person wishes only to specialize in a particular field of industry or other work, an institutionalized apprenticeship system is a very attractive answer. It allows the person to work in his or her desired field without undue complications or expense, and is still very beneficial to society, as the person is creating items of value in our economy.

University education is not by necessity the only end of a person's learning experience. History has created, and perhaps prematurely discarded, other possible paths to a secure and happy life for many people that do not require the rigor that should be present in a university course of study.

Liberal Arts (noun): The study of a wide range of subjects, providing the scholar with information relevant for forming a coherent and comprehensive analysis of information received later in life.

This is a simple definition of the concept comprising the prevalent course of study at Western institutions of higher learning. An objective observer would approve of the concept presented herein, which is that the scholar exits the course of learning with the ability to look at any information from a variety of perspectives, and analyze it according to the viewpoints of myriad philosophies.

The first universities in Europe, the Middle East, and Asia adhered to this concept. They provided the scholars in attendance the ability to think deeply about any topic from a variety of related and unrelated perspectives. This, then, is the true purpose of a "liberal arts" degree: The ability to reason carefully from any perspective.

European universities, emerging in the late middle ages and Renaissance, taught their students how to think. Students did "major" in some subject, but the subjects were not the silos they are in most modern institutions. Instead, the student chose his own course of study, relevant to what he wished to learn. Instead of the universities being administration- and teacher-driven, the students were in charge of their own destinies, and took that responsibility very seriously.

However, it is the unfortunate truth the most "liberal arts" programs in modern times are simply the acquisition of a meaningless piece of paper for the purpose of stating that the bearer attended an institution of "higher learning". The current program of liberal arts study is comprised of information that does not allow the recipient to reason with problems posited to them today.

Many liberal arts majors are not capable of contributing to society in a manner more meaningful than listing historical dates, or citing the works of obscure authors from centuries past. They cannot correlate past and present events, nor can they tell you why an author's works are important in our present time. Or perhaps only telling you what golf club you should use in a particular situation. This is not a failure of the scholar, but of the system which is entrusted with preparing the scholar. But this travesty is not the only problem facing "liberal arts" today.

In the past, science was an offshoot of natural philosophy. It was a reasoning from a liberal arts perspective about how the world might work. As it matured, it emerged from the field of "liberal arts" into its own more stringently defined course of study. This course of study has branched and branched again into the many and varied technical studies present in modern universities.

The problem here is that the liberal arts have somehow, in the course of divorcing science, lost the focus on the scholar's need to reason and use logic to determine truth and falsity.

This lack of instructing a modern liberal arts major on how to carefully reason through any question or problem from a variety of perspectives is at the core of why our society is crumbling. When the supposedly "learned elite" of a society are incapable of carefully comparing their society to others, of determining from history just what similarities and differences the current state of the world has to another point in time, the society will be incapable of discerning what ideas are beneficial to its own preservation, and which ideas will slowly erode its very core.

In the late 1800s and 1900s, Western civilization was at the forefront of human progress. Many choices were made with far-reaching ramifications. Some of these choices were made poorly, and we are still paying the price today.Universities were producing almost entirely liberal arts majors, who were of the older style, reasoning from many perspectives. However, in the late 1900s, and continuing now in the 21st century, Western civilization is dependent on the continued amity of civilizations categorically different from our own. We are no longer capable of inventing, developing, and producing all of our own needs. Instead, we administer the process, and provide comforts to ourselves.

We can only provide so many services to ourselves before the lack of anything of value catches up with our society. We can only consume so many things of value without producing anything before our current friends no longer need our services.

The problem of the "liberal arts", then, is tightly intertwined with our overall economic potential. If the people we place over us as learned scholars are, in truth, incapable of correctly analyzing information, of producing items or information of worth, our society cannot endeavor toward the greatest human goal.

In order to create scholars capable and prepared to face the myriad problems of the modern world, we must first revert, then enhance.

First, reversion. We must look back to the roots of the concept of a University. The University is to be a place where a scholar will learn a very large amount about a few subjects, but also a great deal about many other subjects peripherally or even objectively unrelated to his or her primary course of study.

To continue our reversion to useful education, courses of study must be less strictly defined. Accreditation of a university or a program within a university should not be based upon a checklist. Instead, a student should be able to craft what he or she feels is the most useful course of study corresponding to his or her passions.

This is not to imply that a scholar should have complete control over what he or she decides learn. The scholar should not be able to pick the path of least resistance to a degree. To allow this defeats the entire purpose of our reversion.

Secondly, we must enhance the course of study known as liberal arts. The most common course of study for liberal arts majors is almost entirely focused on the humanities. While the humanities are necessary for a well-defined perspective on the world, one that is not entirely quantitatively bound, they are not sufficient to analyze the problems of the modern world.

To this end, universities must provide liberal arts majors with a much stronger focus on reasoning and logic. It is a betrayal of the purpose of a university if anyone in any major graduates from such an institution without them at least knowing what modus ponens and modus tollens are.

Furthermore, while a solid foundation in reasoning would serve any person of any major well, it behooves all universities to provide liberal arts majors with a refocused course of study that encompasses the modern necessities of science and mathematics. While these two composite subjects are primarily the domain of specialists in those fields and engineers, a truly liberal modern education is incomplete without the scholar understanding and being able to apply the principles presented therein.

Taking these steps will save society. As it currently stands, Western civilization is incapable of picking up the pieces if we were to lose our technology. Knowledge is being lost due to our system of education focusing either entirely on humanities or entirely on a technical ivory tower of information. It is true that some passing service is made to the original concept of a university, and that students in one tower are permitted to visit the other tower for short periods now and again, but this nodding acquaintance with the denizens of separate camps is abusive to the spirit of the ideal university.

Instead, graduates of a university in any major should have a focus in one area or another, but be very strongly grounded in history, language, natural sciences, mathematics, and philosophy, whatever their concentration. To permit any other concept of instruction to have sway is to relegate the University to a technical school or a simple college, teaching but one concept. This will allow our society the resources it needs to not only remain in the vanguard of progress, but to protect what it already knows.

With little exception, civilization has progressed fastest when two rules were observed. These rules govern the rights to individual prosperity. They are central to western culture, and the abrogation of them is, even now, leading to our civilization's demise. Below, these rules are expounded.


Man has the right to attempt to prosper.

By so saying, we assert that man is born with the divinely-given right to attempt to better his station. While it is true that some are born in a position more conducive to rapid prospering, no one may deny man the right to attempt to prosper, within the limits of law. This law, however, may not entirely remove this right to attempt to prosper.

Whether a man makes use of this right or not is entirely his decision. The failure of a man to prosper may have many causes, be they internal or external, but this failure will occur in many cases. It is not something to be wondered at, but something to be taken as a matter of course. Other men will succeed where some have failed.

It is the greatest of human endeavors to attempt the putatively impossible, and to prove it possible in fact. This endeavor does claim its share of victims in the pursuit of that greatest of goals, and their attempts are placed as signposts along the path to success.

Never give up, despite any adversity that may face you, however. Pursue that greatest goal with vigor and passion. Grasp the prize, and carry the cause of mankind forward with you in the vanguard of progress.


Man does not have the right to expect to be provided for.

No man is permitted to expect that his needs shall be provided for by his fellow man, with no labor or effort of intellect of his own.

Indeed, similarly, no man may demand of you your own goods and resources without just cause. This just cause must be one where the man requiring the surrender of your assets has performed or delivered a service or goods to you, and is therefore due just compensation.

Should a man not deliver any thing or concept of value to you, he has no right to demand of you any portion of your assets, be the demand made directly or indirectly, as through the government.

Truly, the government has no right to demand of you a portion of your income or other monetary disbursement beyond that amount used by the government for your protection and continued well-being. The government may not deliver funds taken from one section of its citizens to another section. It is not the purpose or place of the government to be an institutionalized charity.

This truth can be further subdivided into the following:

• No man may expect any funds to be given to him for nothing.


• No man may expect any goods to be given to him for nothing.


• No man may expect any services to be rendered for nothing.


• No man may expect any favors from any other man.


• No man may expect any respect without cause.


• No man may expect any voice without proving his voice relevant.


• No man may expect to be granted status beyond his rights by virtue of being.

These several truths are immutable. The violation of any of these truths leads to the downfall of a civilization. They are a slippery slope.

Should a man be granted some service, goods, or funds without cause, it is out of grace, not by the man's rights. The man should respond to such actions with humility, and seek to further himself by the application of this gift. The man who squanders the gracious gift, and does not seek to better his own station is detrimental to the progress of society. Repent, therefore, of the sin of expectation. Instead, work diligently to improve yourself, and have grace on those whose plight is worse than yours. Do not, however, give away all that you have worked diligently to gain to those who will not work towards their own improvement.

Western Civilization is in a deplorable state.

Our culture, as a whole, is shallow. This, by virtue of having been allowed to metastize for decades, has led our once-noble society to the brink of ruin.

Although the comparison has been made before, the culture is at the stage when the Roman Empire was distributing free bread, and providing circuses to its populace, in order to keep them quiet and compliant. Our society, also, is given "free bread" (welfare), and has an ever-expanding array of "circuses" (television, movies, the internet, tabloids...) to keep them occupied with trivial thoughts. Much like the Roman Emperors, our leaders have capitulated to the whims of the mob, and permitted them to revel in their basest states.

Think deep thoughts. Stop wondering about what will happen in your favorite show's next episode. Instead, contemplate how you can further society as a whole. Think about where society needs to go to preserve it from those who would destroy it from without or from within. This is not an easy task. It requires more effort than changing the channel on your TV. If it were simple, there would be no need for a mass societal movement toward revitalizing the philosophy our nation, our culture was founded upon.

We are, by nature, an open civilization. This is excellent, and highly to be praised. But this should not be espoused to the occlusion of our initial premise. The premise is that man, allowed to work toward an end goal of his choice, will be more productive, more efficient, more innovative, more valuable than any number of men set to a task by force.

Western Civilization stands at the brink of utter ruin.

Join the fight to preserve free thought, free speech, free movement, the freedom, indeed, to be free. Proclaim your allegiance to mankind from the citadels. Fight to preserve every person's ability to think freely for himself or herself.

Become yourself what you see that the culture needs. I challenge you to adhere to the six tenets of reform:

1. Think deeply.


2. Learn deeply.


3. Question deeply.


4. Engage deeply.


5. Refute deeply.


6. Prove deeply.

Think carefully about what you know. Learn new skills, new information, new concepts, so that you may examine your opinions in a greater context. Question why others hold the opinions they do. Question why you hold the opinions you do. Engage yourself and others in discussion on issues you are an expert in, or are a novice in. Teach where you can, learn always. Refute falsehood where it raises its head. Do not permit untruths and half-truths to continue when you can destroy them. State and prove what is truth always. Let none call you false.

Remember the concepts of yes and no, right and wrong, on and off. Opposites exist in this world, and the opposite of your culture deprives you of the right to an opinion. Tolerate new points of view, but do not compromise your foundations. Respect others' rights to their own opinions. Examine your own opinions carefully and continually. Do not be afraid, however, to debate what is perceived as truth by yourself or by another. Learn where others stand on issues, so that you may, yourself, more carefully craft your own opinion on the issue.

I continue to be amazed at how utterly useless the documentation for Java is.

To make matters worse, it is presented in a completely unreadable format. I still have not found out wtf an "Initial Context" is, or how to set it. Which is all I wanted to do in the first place.

gaaaahhhhh.

test1

This should be quick:

div id="profile_bandschedule"

table bordercolor="#6699cc" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="440" bgcolor="#6699cc" border="0"

Yeah...by the way, they had four stylesheets up at the top...and some <.style></.style> tags...

So close!


...so very, very far.

Semester is coming to a close once again. This semester was actually pretty fun. I only had one really bad test (so far). One test to go, and three projects to do.

GC 350 Project:

This is a very fun class overall, and the project is no exception. My project consists of 20 individual types of part that are collectively assembled into a grinder vise. Like GC 120, this class uses Solidworks. The focus is getting tolerances right.

Deliverables:
- 20 solid models of parts.
- 1 part assembly (one of the parts is compound)
- 1 model assembly
- Technical drawings (from Solidworks) of each non-standard part
- Hand sketches of each part, and of the overall assembly. Can't use straightedge or protractor/compass.
- Technical drawing of overall assembly.


ENG 331 Project:

This class isn't bad. Lot of writing involved (I wonder why...?). Project is to create a ~10pg proposal on something. I chose a project from Sony Ericsson. Easier to write if I've already done it >_< :P. Really there's only one *deliverable* here -- the proposal itself. With front and back matter, my proposal is 17 pages long. Yay.


ST 370 Project:

Heh. We're going to test the speed of ice melting in various substances at various temperatures. We had to think of something >_>.


AND THEN IT'S FINALS!

GC 350 Final Worry Level (of 10): 6.5
ST 370 FWL: 8
CSC 230 FWL: 7

I'm really not that worried about GC. I'm pretty sure I'll do ok on that final. CSC final should be relatively simple. The ST final I need to do relatively well on to get an A...

Meh.

See you later.

"
We're here for your liver.

But I'm using my liver.

You sign this card?

Yes, but...

Well, we're here for your liver!
"

-Monty Python & The Meaning of Life.

Ah, the flu. You don't cough too much when you actually *have* the flu. But afterwards...

Well.
Then you become an involuntary organ donor.
By hacking up a lung.

I thought it was funny...

In other news, here are a few funny quotes from my various professors:

Normally, professors give you some stats to give you an idea of how you did compared to the rest of the class. But in...

ST 370 (Statistics):
"Can we see the statistics for this test?"
"No, I didn't do them."

The real reason behind this was that he had just finished the grading before he left to go to class. The delivery of the quote just made us all crack up, though.

In my class for C:

CSC 230 (C & Software Tools):
We learned that a computer is really a:

"Supersonic abacus"

and that these abacuses contain:

"amorphous bags of memory"

These are two of the funny analogies that my prof uses to describe programming concepts -- the latter is heap memory. He's a fun guy. Little long-winded, though.