When I try to set aside time every day to do something, I really gain an appreciation for the effort it takes to produce something meaningful and creative on a daily schedule.
I started this blog as an extension of my old one, but when I did, I decided I would try to write something every weekday. I have not quite done it, but I've been close.
Yet, it is clear that the quality of the entries varies greatly. The amount of time I have each day factors into the quality, as does the chaos clouding my mind on any given day.
So, how in the world does Jon Stewart do it every day? How does he find time to be creative enough to produce an entertaining product that lasts 23-24 minutes each and every weekday?
OK, so that's his job. That helps. And he has a writing team. That helps, too.
But beyond that, I bet he also surveys the world around him for other people doing similar things. I bet he knows what Stephen Colbert and David Letterman and the SNL "News" team are doing.
So, maybe, if I want to get more consistently good at writing a blog, I should read more blogs. Until now, I've really only read Mike's and Lucas's.
On the other hand, for the size of readership I will ever have, perhaps the quality is just right.
Something to think about.
Habits may be hard to break, but in my experience, they are even harder to intentionally start.
The Ideas, Opinions and Musings of Steven T Will. My most frequent topics are movies, games and learning. Oh, and I like to share photos. But since I try to post most weekdays when I'm not on vacation, I delve into other things too: religion, words, news items, quotes. And then, on occasion, I post snippets and wisps. Welcome, and enjoy!
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Boys and their Father
The boys and I started a summer routine this week. On Mondays, we are getting together to play Marvel: Ultimate Alliance on the Wii. We've created a team -- using four characters who are really third-tier heroes. If you have no experience with comic books, you're likely to have heard of only one of them, and that's because Nicholas Cage played Ghost Rider in a movie this year.
The game allows all three of us (plus a fourth character, which is run by the A.I. on the system) to take on the challenge of saving the universe from the threat of a group of evil super-villains. Because it's a cooperative game, we don't compete with each other -- we work together to smash, bash, crash and burn the bad guys.
For the record, I play Doctor Strange (Sorcerer Supreme, Master of the Mystic Arts.) Lucas plays the aforementioned Ghost Rider. Adam is Moon Knight. Our fourth team member is Colossus, the metallic tough guy from the X-Men.
With all the kids in Rochester this summer, I am enjoying having the chance to see them all. In the past, despite the fact that Adam, Lucas and I have game playing as a common interest, we haven't made a point of doing it. This summer, it looks like we will, and that's excellent. Other dads might go fishing with their sons. Or build stuff. Me? I play video games with mine. It's appropriate, really. Don't you think?
I know it will give me something to look forward to on Mondays. And that's always welcome!
The game allows all three of us (plus a fourth character, which is run by the A.I. on the system) to take on the challenge of saving the universe from the threat of a group of evil super-villains. Because it's a cooperative game, we don't compete with each other -- we work together to smash, bash, crash and burn the bad guys.
For the record, I play Doctor Strange (Sorcerer Supreme, Master of the Mystic Arts.) Lucas plays the aforementioned Ghost Rider. Adam is Moon Knight. Our fourth team member is Colossus, the metallic tough guy from the X-Men.
With all the kids in Rochester this summer, I am enjoying having the chance to see them all. In the past, despite the fact that Adam, Lucas and I have game playing as a common interest, we haven't made a point of doing it. This summer, it looks like we will, and that's excellent. Other dads might go fishing with their sons. Or build stuff. Me? I play video games with mine. It's appropriate, really. Don't you think?
I know it will give me something to look forward to on Mondays. And that's always welcome!
Monday, May 28, 2007
Part of the (Pirate) Crowd
Sarah and Leah saw the first showing of Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End and came home very excited. We were told we had to see it, as soon as possible.
Within two days, the boys had seen it, and agreed we needed to see it immediately.
So, Sunday afternoon, Sherry and I went to a matinee. It was excellent. In my opinion, better than the second in the series.
And, as the title of my entry suggests, it was crowded. I wonder what amazing total ticket sales number we'll hear once the weekend is over. It should be high.
Just think, over the past few weeks, the "big summer movies" started coming out. And so far, they have all been "#3." Spiderman 3, Shrek the Third, and now this. I have not seen the Shrek film. I doubt I will. But this is definitely the best of the three, from my point of view. I liked the third Spidey film, but it wasn't even up to Spiderman 2 in quality. It certainly couldn't compete with this installment (or any installment) of "Pirates."
We've also seen a couple of movies on DVD recently. We saw Casino Royale, the latest Bond film. As origin stories goes, it was very good. But it was very much more serious than other Bond stories. And while I think Daniel Craig made a good spy, he's certainly not the kind of suave sophisticate I expect from Bond. We'll see if they move his character along in the next one.
We also saw Déjà Vu, with Denzel Washington. It was not at all what I expected -- well, ok, I expected some sort of crime solving to be involved, but the déjà vu was very interesting. I liked it.
And, yes, we watched Pirates 2 (last night after seeing Pirates 3) and the original (about a week ago.) Those old stand-by movies are easy to watch while playing Magic online.
But it was definitely enjoyable to attend a film in a big theater with stadium seating and a crowd. A fine addition to this Memorial Day weekend.
Within two days, the boys had seen it, and agreed we needed to see it immediately.
So, Sunday afternoon, Sherry and I went to a matinee. It was excellent. In my opinion, better than the second in the series.
And, as the title of my entry suggests, it was crowded. I wonder what amazing total ticket sales number we'll hear once the weekend is over. It should be high.
Just think, over the past few weeks, the "big summer movies" started coming out. And so far, they have all been "#3." Spiderman 3, Shrek the Third, and now this. I have not seen the Shrek film. I doubt I will. But this is definitely the best of the three, from my point of view. I liked the third Spidey film, but it wasn't even up to Spiderman 2 in quality. It certainly couldn't compete with this installment (or any installment) of "Pirates."
We've also seen a couple of movies on DVD recently. We saw Casino Royale, the latest Bond film. As origin stories goes, it was very good. But it was very much more serious than other Bond stories. And while I think Daniel Craig made a good spy, he's certainly not the kind of suave sophisticate I expect from Bond. We'll see if they move his character along in the next one.
We also saw Déjà Vu, with Denzel Washington. It was not at all what I expected -- well, ok, I expected some sort of crime solving to be involved, but the déjà vu was very interesting. I liked it.
And, yes, we watched Pirates 2 (last night after seeing Pirates 3) and the original (about a week ago.) Those old stand-by movies are easy to watch while playing Magic online.
But it was definitely enjoyable to attend a film in a big theater with stadium seating and a crowd. A fine addition to this Memorial Day weekend.
Friday, May 25, 2007
Time for a break
As I enter this three-day weekend, I appreciate the chance to rest my mind.
I hope anyone who reads this has a chance to appreciate things this weekend, too. Appreciate the weather, your friends, your family, the people who served to give us the freedoms we enjoy -- whatever blessings surround you.
I need a break in the worst way.
I hope I can enter next week with a refreshed attitude.
Or at least some rested eyes.
I hope anyone who reads this has a chance to appreciate things this weekend, too. Appreciate the weather, your friends, your family, the people who served to give us the freedoms we enjoy -- whatever blessings surround you.
I need a break in the worst way.
I hope I can enter next week with a refreshed attitude.
Or at least some rested eyes.
Thursday, May 24, 2007
"False Prophets" - Continuing the discussion
Mike has had a couple of very thought-provoking entries in his blog lately. Because they relate to religion, he's interested in my thoughts. So, with as much humility as I can manage, I'll respond to the post he made called "False Prophets."
The specific question Mike asks is "Is it possible to gain salvation from a tainted source?"
So, let me get pedantic, and then let me answer the question the way he really meant it.
Pedantic: From a Christian point of view, there is only one source of salvation, so it's clearly not possible to actually gain salvation from a tainted source.
But that's not what Mike meant, I think. What he means is a combination of two questions:
The issue for evangelicals, and for others who believe that we find God's plan in the Bible not in our human interpretations of what "should" be, is that it's hard to support answering "Yes" to salvation for non-Christians based on the words of Christ.
Many people recognize the famous John 3:16:
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."
This is the inclusive part of the message. It states that believers are saved. It does not state that non-believers are not saved. But just two verses later John 3:18 says
" Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son."
And later in that same chapter, in John 3:36, John writes that John the Baptist says
" Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him."
From these passages, it's hard to understand how God could give us this message, and yet grant salvation to the unbelieving -- especially to those who actively believe something else -- those who have heard the good news, but "reject the Son."
I must get a little pedantic again. Sorry. In this case, I think it's important. You see, in context, Jesus is answering Nicodemus, a Pharisee who came to be a believer. Further, in some translations, Jesus stops speaking after these words in John 3:14-15:
"Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life."
Why is this important? Two reasons. First of all, if one specifically looks for what Christ says, it may be stated that some scholars believe the exposition in John 3:16-21 is from John, not directly from Jesus. For me, even if it's true, John lived among Jesus and learned from him. I believe he represented Jesus's teachings with the 3:16-21. But if some do not, I can see where they might say "It wasn't Jesus who said unbelievers are condemned, so we can't claim we know it's true." I can't follow the logic behind that, when it is applied to the rest of the gospels, or even the rest of John. But it's a possible "out."
The second reason to mention it is the context. Jesus was speaking to a Jew, and not just a Jew, a Pharisee, a teacher of God's word. Nicodemus knew the prophecies. He taught about a promised messiah. If he did not recognize and believe in the true Messiah, then clearly he was "rejecting the Son."
If there is a "loophole" that allows some non-believers salvation (as if God were some shifty lawyer, or could be fooled by one....) then it lies in the implied context. Nicodemus had heard all he needed to hear and knew all he needed to know. If he chose not to accept God's gift of grace, he would separate himself from the gift. But if someone has not heard, and does not know, then are they really "rejecting the Son?"
Now, let's get to the heart of it. I am not God. I do not decide who gets eternal life, and who gets something else.
I don't understand what Jesus could mean by his words in John 3:14-15 other than that life comes from following him (as life came from looking at the uplifted snake), while death -- or whatever the alternative is to everlasting life -- comes from not following him.
The question is "who is saved?" The only way I know to answer that question is to ask God. To hear his answer, I have prayer, and I have what He has said. This entry is based on both.
This is what I believe. And yet, I am imperfect, and my knowledge is limited. So I leave the final answer to God.
-------------------------
[1] Even this is simplified. The Nicene Creed is typically held as the definition for what it means to "believe in Him." Merely believing he exists or existed is not logically enough -- the demons Jesus drove out of people believed in his existence and recognized who he was. That is not enough to save them.
My on-line source for the New International Version (NIV) and its notes is BibleGateway. It's very helpful for searching for verses with specific phrases -- as long as you are familiar with the way NIV is written. There are no "begats" in NIV, so if you're used to the King James Version, you might have a hard time.
The specific question Mike asks is "Is it possible to gain salvation from a tainted source?"
So, let me get pedantic, and then let me answer the question the way he really meant it.
Pedantic: From a Christian point of view, there is only one source of salvation, so it's clearly not possible to actually gain salvation from a tainted source.
But that's not what Mike meant, I think. What he means is a combination of two questions:
- Question 1: If "X" is a follower of another -- non-Christian -- religion, can "X" be saved?
- Question 2: If "Y" believes that a tainted human represents Christ's teachings, and "Y" dies believing that "Y" is following Christ by following the tainted human, can "Y" be saved?
Considering Question 1
Many people would like to believe that the answer to Question 1 is "yes." After all, as Mike says, God is a loving God. It seems like something a loving God would do.The issue for evangelicals, and for others who believe that we find God's plan in the Bible not in our human interpretations of what "should" be, is that it's hard to support answering "Yes" to salvation for non-Christians based on the words of Christ.
Many people recognize the famous John 3:16:
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."
This is the inclusive part of the message. It states that believers are saved. It does not state that non-believers are not saved. But just two verses later John 3:18 says
" Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son."
And later in that same chapter, in John 3:36, John writes that John the Baptist says
" Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him."
From these passages, it's hard to understand how God could give us this message, and yet grant salvation to the unbelieving -- especially to those who actively believe something else -- those who have heard the good news, but "reject the Son."
I must get a little pedantic again. Sorry. In this case, I think it's important. You see, in context, Jesus is answering Nicodemus, a Pharisee who came to be a believer. Further, in some translations, Jesus stops speaking after these words in John 3:14-15:
"Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life."
Why is this important? Two reasons. First of all, if one specifically looks for what Christ says, it may be stated that some scholars believe the exposition in John 3:16-21 is from John, not directly from Jesus. For me, even if it's true, John lived among Jesus and learned from him. I believe he represented Jesus's teachings with the 3:16-21. But if some do not, I can see where they might say "It wasn't Jesus who said unbelievers are condemned, so we can't claim we know it's true." I can't follow the logic behind that, when it is applied to the rest of the gospels, or even the rest of John. But it's a possible "out."
The second reason to mention it is the context. Jesus was speaking to a Jew, and not just a Jew, a Pharisee, a teacher of God's word. Nicodemus knew the prophecies. He taught about a promised messiah. If he did not recognize and believe in the true Messiah, then clearly he was "rejecting the Son."
If there is a "loophole" that allows some non-believers salvation (as if God were some shifty lawyer, or could be fooled by one....) then it lies in the implied context. Nicodemus had heard all he needed to hear and knew all he needed to know. If he chose not to accept God's gift of grace, he would separate himself from the gift. But if someone has not heard, and does not know, then are they really "rejecting the Son?"
Now, let's get to the heart of it. I am not God. I do not decide who gets eternal life, and who gets something else.
I don't understand what Jesus could mean by his words in John 3:14-15 other than that life comes from following him (as life came from looking at the uplifted snake), while death -- or whatever the alternative is to everlasting life -- comes from not following him.
The question is "who is saved?" The only way I know to answer that question is to ask God. To hear his answer, I have prayer, and I have what He has said. This entry is based on both.
This is what I believe. And yet, I am imperfect, and my knowledge is limited. So I leave the final answer to God.
-------------------------
[1] Even this is simplified. The Nicene Creed is typically held as the definition for what it means to "believe in Him." Merely believing he exists or existed is not logically enough -- the demons Jesus drove out of people believed in his existence and recognized who he was. That is not enough to save them.
My on-line source for the New International Version (NIV) and its notes is BibleGateway. It's very helpful for searching for verses with specific phrases -- as long as you are familiar with the way NIV is written. There are no "begats" in NIV, so if you're used to the King James Version, you might have a hard time.
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Whatever it's called, it's good.
I'm looking for a word.
Maybe you can help me find it.
Maybe as I write this, the word will come to me.
I've been having a very stressful time at work lately. When things get overwhelming, I need to find ways to detach, ground myself in the truly important things, and relax.
Over the past couple of days, you can see I've used favorite TV shows, favorite games, and even archiving favorite blog entries. Those helped. In fact, blogging is helping again. Right now.
But more often than any of those, there is one thing to which I return more often than any other. Now, if I were the very model of a modern Evangelical (sing it; it works) I'd say that thing is faith or prayer or something. Well those have helped. But, really, the thing I return to is my marriage.
Today, stress building again, I took a bit of time to find a great place where Sherry and I can spend a couple of nights away from here, celebrating our 25th wedding anniversary in June. I talked to her. I got her opinions. I made the reservations. I looked forward to something. I relaxed. I smiled.
So, what is the word for that? What word describes a place or a person or a relationship to which you can always go for relief, for setting priorities, for calm, for love?
Hmmm.
Maybe the word is "marriage."
It is for me, I guess.
Maybe you can help me find it.
Maybe as I write this, the word will come to me.
I've been having a very stressful time at work lately. When things get overwhelming, I need to find ways to detach, ground myself in the truly important things, and relax.
Over the past couple of days, you can see I've used favorite TV shows, favorite games, and even archiving favorite blog entries. Those helped. In fact, blogging is helping again. Right now.
But more often than any of those, there is one thing to which I return more often than any other. Now, if I were the very model of a modern Evangelical (sing it; it works) I'd say that thing is faith or prayer or something. Well those have helped. But, really, the thing I return to is my marriage.
Today, stress building again, I took a bit of time to find a great place where Sherry and I can spend a couple of nights away from here, celebrating our 25th wedding anniversary in June. I talked to her. I got her opinions. I made the reservations. I looked forward to something. I relaxed. I smiled.
So, what is the word for that? What word describes a place or a person or a relationship to which you can always go for relief, for setting priorities, for calm, for love?
Hmmm.
Maybe the word is "marriage."
It is for me, I guess.
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
"Heroes"
The TV show "Heroes" had its season finale last night. I was excited with anticipation. This has been the number one "appointment TV" show for me this year. It made my list for consideration of my top 10 TV shows ever. Twenty three episodes of excellent fiction. It is exceptional among TV shows for the complexity of the characters, the tightness of the stories, the unexpected perfection of the plot twists, and the respect for the intelligence of the viewers.
There were several directions the finale could have taken. I will not spoil anything for those who have not yet seen it, but I am completely satisfied with what the creative team did. "Completely satisfied" might sound like faint praise, but it is not. There were many details in the episode which could have been left out, but if they had been, I would not have been satisfied. I still would have enjoyed the show, and the season, far more than I would for most any other series. But the creative team took every right step, tied up just the right loose ends, left the right possibilities open for the future -- in short, this was a fantastic end to a great season.
I look forward to season 2 the way I look forward to tender grilled steak with a hot fudge sundae for dessert.
There were several directions the finale could have taken. I will not spoil anything for those who have not yet seen it, but I am completely satisfied with what the creative team did. "Completely satisfied" might sound like faint praise, but it is not. There were many details in the episode which could have been left out, but if they had been, I would not have been satisfied. I still would have enjoyed the show, and the season, far more than I would for most any other series. But the creative team took every right step, tied up just the right loose ends, left the right possibilities open for the future -- in short, this was a fantastic end to a great season.
I look forward to season 2 the way I look forward to tender grilled steak with a hot fudge sundae for dessert.
Monday, May 21, 2007
Call Me Timmy - or Melvin
This entry will be about Magic: the Gathering (aka "MtG," aka "Magic"), a game I've been playing for twelve years now. But it's also about me. If you are not a Magic player, sorry -- this won't make much sense.
One of the truly excellent things about MtG is that it can be enjoyed at many levels and for many reasons. The design and development team knows this, and they have created three "psychographics" for describing the types of players who play Magic. These psychographics describe in general terms what creates a fun, enjoyable experience for those player types.
Every week, Mark Rosewater, the Head Designer for Magic (No, he does not design heads) writes a column about Magic design, and one of his most popular topics is describing the psychographics. Today's article expounds on the basic three (Timmy, Johnny and Spike) and points out how the two new concepts (Melvin and Vorthos) interact with them.
See -- I told you this would not make sense if you don't play Magic. Unfortunately, it might not make sense even if you do play Magic. For you Magic players, at least go read the original article. It's a classic.
Anyway, ever since that original article came out, I've realized that I am a "Timmy." I like the experience of playing. I like cards that are "cool" and full of evocative images. I like big things. Give me a dragon that can burn my opponent to a crisp, and I'm happy. I think I used to be a "Johnny" when the game was new and I spent more time on it. Back in those days, the number of cards was much smaller, and it was easier to wrap my head around the interactions. Additionally, back then I had a group of people to talk to about Magic, so it was more fun to spend time finding card interactions. Now, as pretty much a solitary player, I just like the fun of playing.
Yet, even though I've known I'm a Timmy, and I'm quite sure Mike is a Timmy, I've always known that we are different from one another in a very significant way.
Well, in today's article, Mark Rosewater explains "Vorthos Timmy" and "Melvin Timmy" and now I can see the distinction. A couple of quotes will help:
"Melvin Timmy searches for cards that are fun to play because what they do is fun."
"Melvin Timmy wants cards that excite him because of what they do. ... In particular, he likes high variance in play—that is, cards that have the potential to do great things even if often they don't quite work out."
That is me!
So, how is Mike different? Mike is "Vorthos Timmy." Again, quotes will help.
"Vorthos Timmy likes cards that just ooze impressive flavor. Vorthos Timmy hunts down cards that he wants to get into play because they feel awesome. ... When Vorthos Timmy talks about his games, he tells stories, because to him that is what he lived as he played."
That is Mike!
We are alike in the joy we get from the cards. We differ slightly in how we approach deck building and game play because of how we define fun.
Paul? Paul is a Johnny. I'm pretty sure he is more "Melvin Johnny" than "Vorthos Johnny," but he has definitely made decks based on obscure themes ("Hallowe'en," "Lions, and Tigers, and Bears") but I think he focuses more on creative interaction of cards.
I'm pretty sure this examination of how and why I enjoy my favorite game says something about me at a deeper level. I'm going to let that thought simmer a bit. For now, I'll enjoy the fact that I know I'm Timmy, and Melvin.
One of the truly excellent things about MtG is that it can be enjoyed at many levels and for many reasons. The design and development team knows this, and they have created three "psychographics" for describing the types of players who play Magic. These psychographics describe in general terms what creates a fun, enjoyable experience for those player types.
Every week, Mark Rosewater, the Head Designer for Magic (No, he does not design heads) writes a column about Magic design, and one of his most popular topics is describing the psychographics. Today's article expounds on the basic three (Timmy, Johnny and Spike) and points out how the two new concepts (Melvin and Vorthos) interact with them.
See -- I told you this would not make sense if you don't play Magic. Unfortunately, it might not make sense even if you do play Magic. For you Magic players, at least go read the original article. It's a classic.
Anyway, ever since that original article came out, I've realized that I am a "Timmy." I like the experience of playing. I like cards that are "cool" and full of evocative images. I like big things. Give me a dragon that can burn my opponent to a crisp, and I'm happy. I think I used to be a "Johnny" when the game was new and I spent more time on it. Back in those days, the number of cards was much smaller, and it was easier to wrap my head around the interactions. Additionally, back then I had a group of people to talk to about Magic, so it was more fun to spend time finding card interactions. Now, as pretty much a solitary player, I just like the fun of playing.
Yet, even though I've known I'm a Timmy, and I'm quite sure Mike is a Timmy, I've always known that we are different from one another in a very significant way.
Well, in today's article, Mark Rosewater explains "Vorthos Timmy" and "Melvin Timmy" and now I can see the distinction. A couple of quotes will help:
"Melvin Timmy searches for cards that are fun to play because what they do is fun."
"Melvin Timmy wants cards that excite him because of what they do. ... In particular, he likes high variance in play—that is, cards that have the potential to do great things even if often they don't quite work out."
That is me!
So, how is Mike different? Mike is "Vorthos Timmy." Again, quotes will help.
"Vorthos Timmy likes cards that just ooze impressive flavor. Vorthos Timmy hunts down cards that he wants to get into play because they feel awesome. ... When Vorthos Timmy talks about his games, he tells stories, because to him that is what he lived as he played."
That is Mike!
We are alike in the joy we get from the cards. We differ slightly in how we approach deck building and game play because of how we define fun.
Paul? Paul is a Johnny. I'm pretty sure he is more "Melvin Johnny" than "Vorthos Johnny," but he has definitely made decks based on obscure themes ("Hallowe'en," "Lions, and Tigers, and Bears") but I think he focuses more on creative interaction of cards.
I'm pretty sure this examination of how and why I enjoy my favorite game says something about me at a deeper level. I'm going to let that thought simmer a bit. For now, I'll enjoy the fact that I know I'm Timmy, and Melvin.
Friday, May 18, 2007
Blog Visitor Map
I ran across a cool feature of Google (while reading the "Arlo & Janis" website) and so I created one for myself -- a personal map where people who read my blog can put markers to where they live.
Here's the link to it, and I will put the link near the top of the sidebar of the blog page for future reference.
If it works like it's supposed to, you can use the zoom bar along the side to expand the map out to see the entire U.S. (or more), or you can magnify down to street-level. And then, you can use an option to add a marker. For me, it was as simple as right-clicking while my mouse was over a spot on the map.
Don't feel you have to use the "street level" precision. I just think it would be cool to see Mike's marker in Seattle, Pete's marker in Fort Collins, etc.
The Internet is a strange and wonderful set of arcane wizardry, don't you think?
Here's the link to it, and I will put the link near the top of the sidebar of the blog page for future reference.
If it works like it's supposed to, you can use the zoom bar along the side to expand the map out to see the entire U.S. (or more), or you can magnify down to street-level. And then, you can use an option to add a marker. For me, it was as simple as right-clicking while my mouse was over a spot on the map.
Don't feel you have to use the "street level" precision. I just think it would be cool to see Mike's marker in Seattle, Pete's marker in Fort Collins, etc.
The Internet is a strange and wonderful set of arcane wizardry, don't you think?
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Happy Syttende Mai!
Today is "Syttende Mai."
Translation: "The 17th of May."
Meaning: "Norway's Independence Day"[5]
As a person of Norwegian heritage, I recognize this day as another chance to celebrate. OK, I don't throw a big party [1] but we can all use reminders of freedom and the benefits it brings. And, though I'm biased, I really like the costumes and food associated with the Norwegian people, so giving me another day to think about and experience them is a good thing.
As we might expect in these days of the Internet, there is even a website devoted to the holiday.[2]
Oh, and if I recall correctly, it's the day after Cousin Knut's birthday! Knut is one of our Norwegian relatives, and I hope we can see him again sometime soon. He is truly one of the nice people in the world.
My Syttende Mai celebration will include going to a track meet and watching Leah run the 300m hurdles. The sky is blue, the air is almost calm, the temperature is in the mid-60s - it's hard to get better weather for a track meet.
Happy Syttende Mai, everyone.[3]
[1] Though that's an excellent idea for the future. I'll have to remember it!
[2] There are quite a few, but this little site has the perfect domain name.
[3] Yes, even you Swedes![4]
[4] That was a joke, of course.
[5] Mike tells me that this is really "Norwegian Constitution Day." Ah, well, the way I see it is this: we celebrate July 4, the Norwegians celebrate 17 Mai. To me, that means the holidays are more nearly the same than 17 Mai is to the anniversary of the signing of the US Constitution. Anyone know when that is?
Translation: "The 17th of May."
Meaning: "Norway's Independence Day"[5]
As a person of Norwegian heritage, I recognize this day as another chance to celebrate. OK, I don't throw a big party [1] but we can all use reminders of freedom and the benefits it brings. And, though I'm biased, I really like the costumes and food associated with the Norwegian people, so giving me another day to think about and experience them is a good thing.
As we might expect in these days of the Internet, there is even a website devoted to the holiday.[2]
Oh, and if I recall correctly, it's the day after Cousin Knut's birthday! Knut is one of our Norwegian relatives, and I hope we can see him again sometime soon. He is truly one of the nice people in the world.
My Syttende Mai celebration will include going to a track meet and watching Leah run the 300m hurdles. The sky is blue, the air is almost calm, the temperature is in the mid-60s - it's hard to get better weather for a track meet.
Happy Syttende Mai, everyone.[3]
[1] Though that's an excellent idea for the future. I'll have to remember it!
[2] There are quite a few, but this little site has the perfect domain name.
[3] Yes, even you Swedes![4]
[4] That was a joke, of course.
[5] Mike tells me that this is really "Norwegian Constitution Day." Ah, well, the way I see it is this: we celebrate July 4, the Norwegians celebrate 17 Mai. To me, that means the holidays are more nearly the same than 17 Mai is to the anniversary of the signing of the US Constitution. Anyone know when that is?
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
I don't write about work
Over the time I've had a blog, I know there have been long periods where I haven't posted. (Or is "blogged" the right/accepted term these days?)
I started thinking about it, and I realized that one typical cause of quiet periods is stress at work. You see, I have essentially decided that I will not blog about work. I will sometimes blog about how I feel about work, but I don't write about the work itself, and when my mind is occupied with work, it's often tough to put those thoughts away far enough to come up with another topic which is worthy of blogging.
Why not write about work? First, because so much of my work is confidential. Second, because I look at my blog as a way to escape from work. Third, because it's so hard to explain the context of my job well enough to truly communicate about it. In fact, as I write this, I realize these are the very reasons why I don't talk about my work much to my friends and family.
So, my entry on May 2, 2007 entitled "Paralyzed in the Swamp" was not really about work. It was about how I felt at the time. In fact, I think the closest I ever got to writing about my work was "Second-Hand Swearing." Even then, the topic was really about how work -- and more importantly people with whom I work -- was affecting me.
I think I'll continue this restriction in my new blog. It's worked pretty well. True, sometimes it leads to quiet times. But in the end, I think that's better.
I started thinking about it, and I realized that one typical cause of quiet periods is stress at work. You see, I have essentially decided that I will not blog about work. I will sometimes blog about how I feel about work, but I don't write about the work itself, and when my mind is occupied with work, it's often tough to put those thoughts away far enough to come up with another topic which is worthy of blogging.
Why not write about work? First, because so much of my work is confidential. Second, because I look at my blog as a way to escape from work. Third, because it's so hard to explain the context of my job well enough to truly communicate about it. In fact, as I write this, I realize these are the very reasons why I don't talk about my work much to my friends and family.
So, my entry on May 2, 2007 entitled "Paralyzed in the Swamp" was not really about work. It was about how I felt at the time. In fact, I think the closest I ever got to writing about my work was "Second-Hand Swearing." Even then, the topic was really about how work -- and more importantly people with whom I work -- was affecting me.
I think I'll continue this restriction in my new blog. It's worked pretty well. True, sometimes it leads to quiet times. But in the end, I think that's better.
Monday, May 14, 2007
Hello Goodbye
Today, for the second time in a week, my previous blog site would not accept my attempts to log in. I've been considering getting a new site anyway. Lucas's blog seems to get found by the Google crawler (and now I know why -- Google seems to own blogspot) and, in some egotistical way, I would like my blog to be more likely to get found than it has been.
So, I am moving my musings to this site, for a trial period. If I find I can write as I want, create links as I want, and generally make good use of this site, my blog will move here, permanently.
So, Hello blogspot.com, goodbye angelfire.com.
As a link to my past, here is my previous writing. I may repeat select pieces here, but I may not.
So, I am moving my musings to this site, for a trial period. If I find I can write as I want, create links as I want, and generally make good use of this site, my blog will move here, permanently.
So, Hello blogspot.com, goodbye angelfire.com.
As a link to my past, here is my previous writing. I may repeat select pieces here, but I may not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)