Catch-23

Most of us are familiar with the term Catch-22. It originated from the book with the same title and it is used colloquially to refer to an impossible logical dilemma. Wrongfully, most people understand catch-22 to be a no-win (lose-lose) situation. While the difference should be obvious to some,others have a harder time recognizing which one is which.

An example of a no-win situation (and therefore, NOT a catch-22) would be for example, a woman who sees her son being beaten up by the father. If she calls child protection services, her son will be taken away from her—but if she does nothing, the child will continue to be beaten up. Regardless of the choice the woman takes, the outcome will be unfavorable.

This is not the meaning of “Catch-22”. As explained by Joseph Heller—the author of the book Catch-22— it refers to an impossible logical dilemma. In the book, John Yossarian, who is the main character, doesn’t want to fly in combat, so he seeks to be declared “unfit to fly”. If you are declared “unfit to fly” you are grounded and not allowed to fly in combat missions or otherwise. For someone to be declared “unfit to fly”, they must be willing to take unreasonably dangerous missions. However, the only way to be declared “unfit to fly”, such person must first ask for an evaluation. But if a pilot requests an evaluation, they are regarded as sane, and therefore “fit for flight”. If the pilot does not request an evaluation, he will never get one. This way, there is no possible way to be declared unfit to fly. As you can see, there is no way a pilot can be declared unfit to fly. This is a true catch-22.

I thought it was important to make this distinction so that there are no misunderstandings as you read what follows. My term, Catch-23 is based on the impossible dilemma of catch-22, but it refers to faulty reasoning to which many religious people succumb. I’m going to focus in religion which is the topic where I hear it the most, but it is not exclusive to it.
Catch-23 is the rearranging of reasoning, according of the outcome, in order to fit a certain prejudice, belief or idea. It is impossible to argue against a catch-23 because regardless of the outcome, it is impossible to prove wrong. In fact, when using catch-23, any outcome constitutes “proof” of the argument. This faulty logic might be difficult to point out, because the argument is intuitively correct.

Example 1

When looking at a healthy beautiful baby a person might say: “Look at this baby’s perfection. This is proof that God exists”.

Or

When looking at a baby with a debilitating disorder a person might say: “Look at this baby’s misfortune. This is proof that God works in mysterious ways”.

Example 2

After leaving a certain church, a man who used to do relatively well loses his job, loses most of his money and becomes gravely ill. Someone might argue that God is punishing him for leaving the church.

Or

That same man who does relatively well quits the church. Soon afterwards, he gets a great job, starts making lots of money and becomes very successful. Someone might argue that the devil is trying to keep him away from God.

As you can tell from both examples—regardless of the outcome—the argument for God is valid. It is a catch-23. This sort of logical fallacy is very common in conspiracy theories, in which absence of evidence is evidence itself. This is why arguing against conspiracy theorists is so difficult. If there was evidence that could be produced to support their claim, they would point to it. Since they don’t have any evidence because they believe it is a cover up or something of the sort, it is evidence for their claim.

Catching a catch-23 in regular conversation might be a little more challenging than it seems. Precisely because of the way it is constructed, an argument that can never fail is quite appealing. It is used often in rhetoric by both, the people who know are using it, and by those who probable don’t realize it.

In the scientific method, it is of extreme importance to use a null hypothesis. When I first learned about the null hypothesis, I did not really understand why it was so significant to recognize which way you could disprove your argument. In fact, many authors argue that when you are doing Science, you should always look to disprove your hypothesis (prove your null hypothesis), instead of trying to prove your hypothesis (disprove your null hypothesis). Working this way, it is less likely to commit a Type I or Type II error, since you are trying to prove yourself wrong and not the other way around. When using a Catch-23 there can be no null hypothesis because any outcome would prove the hypothesis. Of course, most rhetoric that contains a Catch-23 is not based on Science, or rational thinking for that matter.

Fix Bad Sectors on ipod hard drive

These are the symptoms:
I get a barely used iPod classic (120 Gbs). I call it “barely used” because it had been taken out of the box and plugged into a computer, but never had it been used before. So I plugged it into my computer and tried to sync it with my stuff. Every time I tried, it would fill up to about 700 songs, then fail on me to the point that itunes froze and I had to disconnect it from the computer. It also made funny noises when it got to that spot. The same would happen if I tried to fill it up with regular files on disc mode. It got to around 3Gbs then fail on me. The funny thing is that after disconnecting and reconnecting it would accept a couple more files, the fail again. I tried everything. I updated itunes, uninstalled it, and messed with the registry. I reset the ipod, rolled back to previous versions--I did a soft reset, a hard reset, a restore. I messed with the utilities, and even did a hard drive test on that white screen you can get to when resetting the ipod.

It was obvious to me that there were corrupt sectors on the hard drive. I did not know just how bad it was, but I decided to keep going. Even though the ipod was pretty much new, the warranty had expired at least a year ago. I was not about to let this go. I am going to describe exactly what I did. I am not saying that this is the best way, or the only way to go about—and trust me, if I had the money I would just buy a new one. So here is a detailed account of what I did. Perhaps, it will help someone out there with a similar problem.

The first thing that is important to note, is that the error was localized at about 3Gbs of information. This was good, because it was close to the beginning of the disc. If it had been on the TOC or another crucial area, I would have been completely done for. Before I continue, I have to make a short stop and mention something. Yes, I did the chkdsk on Windows 7, and I tried to run a few utilities that supposedly flag bad sectors on the ipod. I also tried to partition the ipod. The problem is that ipod was designed as an mp3 player and not as an external hard drive. If you somehow manage to partition your ipod, you will have problems later on when you try to use it. Also, Windows has a hard time reading and modifying the ipod, since it was pretty much created with an itunes interface in mind. So here is what I did. I created two text files (with notepad). One was about 1500 kbs (this is the big file), and the other one was 6kb (this is the small file). I copied these files, each on a different folder. I think I must have created 3000 instances of each file. After doing a restore on the ipod to erase everything, I created a folder on the ipod called “Haystack” (the name is irrelevant). Inside Haystack I started placing the files.





First I did the big ones. Every three thousand files, I created a new folder. I went from Haystack01 all the way to Haystack07 with these 1500kbs files. I did this, until I reached the point with the bad sector. You can tell you are there because the files start uploading really slow, and start marking errors. This is when you switch to the 6kb files. I would create a new folder and start uploading the 6kb files. This takes a while (see creation dates on folders).



Usually the first 20 files go through, then it stops, then it times out. It marks some strange error—source cannot be read, or something like that. Every time it marks an error, tell Windows to skip the files, create a new folder and start again. This took me several folders and lots of files. These files get corrupted, they start showing up in weird characters. Just ignore it. After doing this for a few more folders (each folder containing thousands of these tiny files), you will start noticing that the files start uploading fast and crisp again. Most probably, we’ve gone past the bad sector. This is what happened to me. After passing the bad sector, I kept uploading, the big files again, to give it a “buffer zone”, so as to not have to read these files. You lose some capacity doing this, sure, but when you have a 120 gbs ipod, a few gbs is not really significant.

I tried to sync, and sure enough, I was able to sync all my songs and videos, and had some space left over. That’s it! As long as you don’t ask the ipod to read those text files for anything, you will be fine. The ipod does not need to access these bad sectors, and the rest of the drive works perfectly.
Things to consider: Do not delete these files. These files are necessary because they are occupying the bad sector space. If you delete them, you will just go back to having the ipod trying to write on the bad sectors and quitting on you. Also, DO NOT defragment the drive. Defragmenting is basically reassigning the files to different places on the disc. You want the information to stay put. Therefore, if you defragment your drive, you will destroy all your hard work.



Well, I hope this works for you. It worked for me, and it was the only thing that worked for me. Comments are welcomed.

Don't tread on my fonts!

I've always had a deep interest for fonts and typography. I am by no means an expert, but I like to know the differences between the fonts. Some designers overlook fonts, but they are usually a very important part of any designing process. I think that any designing course should always be taken with a side of typography. What's most important is that people should know the differences between serif, sans-serif and when to use them. I have close to 500 fonts installed on my computer, and I don't use most of them by any means. I have my favorites which I find myself using over and over again. There are also a few fonts on my shit list. These are fonts that people have over used, or that are just horrible. But before I get into that, I want to talk about some common mistakes people do when using different fonts.

(1) Do not use multiple fonts in the same project.
Some people think that using many kinds of fonts on the same thing will actually make it look good. They will throw in Arial, mixed in with Times and some typewriter fonts for good measure. News flash. It doesn't look good. If you are stubborn enough to want to use several fonts in the same project, have them be the same family. Eg, you can use Times New Roman, Garamond and Trajan in one project. But never combine a sans-serif with geometric, with gothic.

(2) Do not use busy fonts for extended reading.
Some fonts are good for design, some are good for reading. People make the mistake that because they like a font like Trajan, it should be plastered in paragraphs of text. This is terrible. Arial, Verdana, Times New Roman, Antique Olive, Garamond, Georgia and all the other popular fonts, are popular for a reason—they have shown to be easy to read for extended periods.

(3) Do not use Gothic fonts when it is not appropriate
Thanks to the logo of Corona, we have people believing that this is a Latino font. No, it is not. These type of fonts are called Gothic (the most famous is called "Old English"). They are supposed to make reference to the Gothic style letter of the Saxon language. The fonts are usually very busy, and pretty. But they prove to be very useless.

(4) Do not use geometric fonts
Geometric fonts are just ugly. The easiest way to spot them is because they look like a collection of circles and sticks. This is the kind of font you were probably taught when you first started writing. If in doubt, just stick to this rule of thumb: If the letter "a" is single storey, do not use this font. Exception: books for children who are learning how to read.




(5) Use caps properly
If you use Studly caps or Caps Lock, there is a chance I might murder you in your sleep.
tHIs iS StuDleY CaPS
THIS IS CAPS LOCK

That'll do for the common mistakes people make when selecting and using their fonts. Now, on to my list. I have seven fonts that I use over and over. They have proven to be great fonts. They look good on almost everything, and they are comfortable to read.

(1) American Typewriter
This is my default font. I use it everytime I'm writing a script. Maybe it doesn't look to great when printed, but I like the feeling I get of using an old typewriter. The font usually renders very well and looks quite sharp.

(2) Garamond
When you print something, it is suggested that you use a serif font. Most people use Times New Roman, which I don't like very much. I prefer the Linotype version "Times". No, it is not the same thing. Garamond is in this family too, except that Garamond is owned by Adobe instead of Rupert Murdoch and it is so much nicer than TNR.

(3) Helvetica
Helvetica won the number one prize in the "best fonts of all times" contest. I am not kidding you. Here is the link. Helvetica is the best font when writing something that will be read off a screen. It is simple, and elegant, and versatile. Much better than Microsoft's rip off "Arial".

(4) Anime Ace
Believe it or not, this is a free font. I only use it for comic strip designs and speech bubbles. It is one of those "handwriting" fonts. Except this one is actually worth downloading and using. By the way, has anyone noticed how overused Bada-boom is nowadays?

(5) Antique Olive
Just a nice font I use when I am in the mood. That's it.

(6) Verdana
Only when I get sick of Helvetica. (Yes, it does happen). Verdana looks really great when there is no anti-aliasing, and you can read it perfectly when it has to be displayed small. If you don't believe me, try it. Photoshop text tool, no anti-alias, and small type.

(7) OCR
This font was designed for... Optical Character Recognition. Hence the name (duh!) But OCR looks great when you are trying to give it a nerdy-tech look.

That's it for the fonts I love. Now on to the fonts I think should die a slow and painful death.

(1) Comic Sans
It looks stupid. It makes you look stupid. The spacing is terrible, and it looks like a child designed it. Kill it, delete it, burn it. I don't want to see it ANYWHERE.

(2) Arial
Why use Arial when you have Helvetica?

(3) Futura
This is probably the most famous geometric font. It is bad. It is really bad. It looks terrible on anything that's printed. The worse part, is that sometimes people used the condensed-thin version of this font.

(4) Script
People that use script (anything in the script family) should not be designing—anything. It doesn't look good. Not even on your wedding invitation. For formal invitations use a classy serif font like Garamond.

(5) Block letters (IMPACT)
Block letters are a bit difficult to find. Impact is the only one that comes bundled with Windows. Please, don't use impact, especially for prolongued reading. Rule of thumb, if your text has more than six words DO NOT USE BLOCK FONTS!

So that's it for my font analysis. Unless you are a graphic designer or a complete geek like me, you will probably not read up to this point, and if you have, odds are you won't know half of what I am saying? What is condensed? What is anti-alias? What is a "storey"? Don't worry. Most people will never use this information in their lives.

You came to our country, YOU learn OUR language

Recently, I came across one of those facebook groups that people make. This one is called “You came to our country, you learn our language”.
Of course, one could argue that nobody really knows what country they’re talking about, or what language is being suggested here. However, it is clear that it refers to the United States and to English. For the most part, Americans are so ethnocentric that they assume everyone on facebook should know what they are talking about—and we do. Let’s not pretend like we are oblivious to what they are referring to.
Here is the point I want to make, though. I speak both Spanish and English to the point that when I am in America, nobody realizes I’m a foreigner. I’ve fooled people by pretending I’m from [blank] and they totally buy it. Works every time. I also do understand the frustration of many Americans when they are told they should learn Spanish simply because other people have migrated to their country and they fail to know their host’s official language. Up to this point, I will agree with every claim made by every person that considers immigrants should learn English. What I don’t understand is the xenophobia that is usually contained in almost every American citizen. Is learning Spanish (or any other foreign language) a bad thing? Would you not grow academically and intellectually if you were to tackle another language other than your mother tongue? Do you expect the entire world to speak your language but make no effort at learning another one? It seems to me that it is an arrogance problem. Most people in Europe learn at least two languages, even if they consider theirs to be the superior one. Most people in Latin America know at least a bit of English, and they don’t feel like they are being pushed to do it. Why the vendetta against anything that is perceived as foreign?
Some people make the claim that before America was actually Mexico and before the languages spoken were different, and before whatever...
I realize that what happened before is long gone and we have to focus on what is happening now.

Yes, immigrants should make an effort to learn English. It is only in their best interest to speak the language if they expect to get a good job and better opportunities in America.

—and—

Yes, Americans should make an effort to learn new languages so they can acquire more knowledge and grow intellectually.

Note: It is funny that on the facebook page, the creator makes several spelling and grammar mistakes. Perhaps they are right in not wanting to learn a new language if they can’t tell the difference between “hear” and “here”.

Today I went to Wal-Mart

We were only looking for a couple of things, and even though I try to avoid Wal-Mart we had to go this time. I don't avoid it because it is "crushing little businesses" or any of that hippie nonesense. I avoid it because it is too big, too crowded and the people too incompetent. If you are severely mentally handicapped there are two places where you will get work, no problem. Office depot (in the area where they handle photocopies) and Wal-Mart. Plus, all the employees, or "associates" as they are douchebaggily called, seem to be on sleeping pills while at work.

I was waiting in line to get my money back from some water containers I had returned. I usually buy purified water for my coffee because I like the taste better than that of tap water. Wal-mart sells water in these 20 liter (5.2 gallon) containers which you return after you have used them, and you get your deposit back. The deposit on each container is about four dollars, so as you can tell, it does add up. As I waited in line for what seemed to be years without end, this guy sneeked in front of all of us, and stood in front of the only employee taking care of this service center. I eyed him as if to say, you better not try anything funny—asshole. You see, Mexico is a country that has no sense of fairness. If there is a line, you can rest assured that there will be an idiot trying to get ahead. They have no qualms about it. I've seen it happening, and sometimes, people are so afraid of confrontation that they just let them get away with it. Not I. I have to admit that I was in a very bad mood, and willing to take absolutely no bullshit. When it was my turn, it happened. The moronic wal-mart employee (sorry about the oxymoron), was about to take care of whatever this asshole wanted, when I said in a very loud voice that could probably be heard across the entire store. "I—WAS—HERE—FIRST." No apologies. I knew that the guy had not made a mistake. I knew that the employee had not made a mistake. They were going to attend to the asshole before myself. The guy looked at me with this malice... I find it hard to describe. As if he wanted to kill me. It was almost as if I was the one fucking HIM over! I looked right back at him letting him know he was not going to intimidate me. That is when I lost it. I told him straight to his face.

I'm sorry, maybe you're only used to marketplaces where people have no manners or a sense of fairness. Maybe they didn't teach you at home that when there is a line, people have to wait their turn. Or maybe, you're just an abusive asshole who thinks your business has priority over everyone else's. Don't pretend like you don't know what you're doing. You are exactly the reason why Mexico is such a shithole. You are what makes this country stink and why it will never reach any progress.

The lady at the desk looked at me, almost as if in shock. I tried to keep my cool, even though I was quite upset. I might have been shaking a bit out of rage.

Through the corner of my eye, I saw the asshole leave. Was he upset? Annoyed? Saddened? I don't care. I just care that I got it out of my system. I will not let people trample my rights. And that, is that.

Our Child's First Toy

One thing I have learned about my stay in New York is that the rumors are true: New Yorkers are loud, unclean, and extremely rude. I've been all around the United States and I can say that without a doubt the rudest people are in New York. Whether they are white, black, brown or green, the New Yorker is, in general, a very rude and uncaring species. Having said that, I must say that I had to put my foot in my mouth the other day, as I was proven that once again, you cannot generalize an entire people into a category.

Naomi and I were running out of clean clothes and we had to do laundry. Laundromats are a dime a dozen in New York since nobody can have a washing machine at home (apparently). Another interesting fact is that since I met Naomi I have never seen her do any laundry, so I end up doing it all. I don't mind. I get a weird sense of satisfaction out of cleaning things (Yes, it's my anal side). I was sitting at the laundromat while Naomi was sleeping in the car. I was watching as the clothes were going round and round and waiting patiently for the rinse cycle to finish. Suddenly a man walks through the door. Big man, in his early sixties. He changed some bills into quarters and headed towards the crane machine in the corner. I have to be honest, I have never been able to win at these crane machines, and I don't usually try as I see it as a waste of money. This specific machine took fifty cents per try. I couldn't help but look at the man as he played the game. Time and time again, he won. I was shocked. He played probably around ten times, and won seven. As he left the premises with all his stuffed animals I couldn't help but to share my amazement.
"Wow, you're good" I said.
"Yeah, thanks...." he snickered at me.

He left and I stayed watching as the clothes went into the spin cycle now. A few minutes later he came back. He had more money with him. I went to the machine to see him play and I wished him good luck. Again, he played a few times, winning more than half of the time, sometimes even double prize.

"So, what do you do with all those toys?" I asked him.
—I give them to charity...
—That is very kind of you.
— yeah, well, we give them to this orphanage... you see, my wife, she has a business where she embroiders things, so we go to the orphanage and we tell the kids who wants them and she... she puts the name of the kid on the toy and then we give it to them. Sometimes for Halloween, or Thanksgiving or Christmas.

I nodded with joy as he told me the story.

"I think that is a very kind gesture." I finally added when he was done.

He walked out of the laundromat and I put all the clothes into the dryer. When they were done, I walked out and put everything in the trunk of the car. I noticed that the man had parked next to me. He signaled for me to come over.

"Check this out." He said as he opened the sliding door to his minivan. On the backseat, there were at least 20 toys, sitting placidly as if happy to go for a joyride. "All these are going to charity... except for the dragon. That one is for my grand daughter—Do you have any little ones?"

I smiled candidly and shook my head. "No. Not yet" I turned to Naomi who was still sleeping and said "but we're expecting!".

The man smiled and pointed at the toys. "Pick one. For your little one... Except the dragon." I looked around and there were all sorts of stuffed animals. Some were good quality, some were pretty bad. I chose a little puppie that looked fit for an infant. "This one!" I said with pride as I took the puppie from within the stuffed animal bundle. The man looked at me and smiled. I didn't know what to say.

As the man backed out and left, I noticed he had a Puerto Rico flag hanging from the rear view mirror. I waved as he pulled out and into the avenue. I don't think he saw me.

Organ Donation Clashes with Religion and Stupidity

Aside from Skin cancer awareness, the most important issue to me is organ donation. I can't begin to comprehend why on earth people would refuse to donate their organs and [probably] save lives in the process. According to most studies, (there is an important one published by Reuters coming from Bristol, UK) over 70% of the people that refuse to donate organs are minorities, and the primary reason given for not donating is... you guessed it—religion. Let's face it, some religions are way more stupid than others, and especially the ones that prohibit organ donation should stick it. However, when one of these minorities needs an organ transplant, they have no problem putting themselves on the lists. From my perspective, this is leeching on to the system of rational intelligent people that actually care about other people and don't let stoneage beliefs dictate their actions today. My first idea was that organ donors could opt out from having my organs being donated to a minority simply because of statistics. People might argue that this is a racist position, and I would not be able to defend it. The truth is that even though the numbers point to minorities not donating, this obviously does not apply to everyone—and it would not be fair for a person that belongs to a minority that actually thinks and has his or herself as a donor. So, this is my idea, and I think that it has merit:

Idea 1: Make the system a donation system by default with an opt-out option. What this means is that if you are pronounced dead, your organs are immediately donated UNLESS you have specified that you wish to keep them. Let's face it. Many people have no problem with donating their organs, but are just lazy and never care to register on the program. By using this system, we would have people opting out instead of opting into the program. This way, the number of organs in banks would be much higher.

Idea 2: This idea I call tit-for-tat because it works just like that. I do not think it is fair that many people choose not to donate when everything seems to be going their way, but the minute they are the ones needing an organ transplant, they suddenly change their whole perspective. This is beyond hypocrisy, I know, but there is a way to fix it. With this system, in order to get on a list for organ transplant, you first must have had at least three years on the organ donation list. You can't really be diagnosed and then want to join the club. No. I think that only people that are willing to donate their organs when they die should be able to receive organs from other people that are willing to donate their organs when they die. That is why I call it tit-for-tat. If not being able to get an organ in case you need it, is not stimulating enough for you to sign up, then I dont know what is.

The idea of reciprocal organ donation is not supported by everyone, even if it sounds like the honest thing to do. In many cases it seems to me like religion gets a free pass (again) and is allowed to do anything. Here is a webpage in which someone asked the same question, and again you can tell that religion gets a free pass and it is "ok" to not donate for this reason. If your religion tells you that you cannot donate your organs when you die, then you should stick with it if you get sick. It is not fair to change your mind simply because you need it. There is no way of changing your mind if you die and find out that you religion is not true. To be fair, MOST religions do allow organ donation, and some are a bit undecided. For a complete list visit this link.

Blacklisted religions (religions that do not allow organ donation):

• Amish


• Christian Science


• Jehova's Witnesses


• Judaism (some groups do allow it, some don't)


• Latter day Saints (Mormons)


• Islam (depends on the particular islamic group)


• Pentecostals


• Evangelicals (some do, some don't)


• Shinto


• Quakers (some groups allow it, some don't)

There might be more religions that forbid it, since this is not an all-inclusive list. In any case, if your religion does not support organ donation, it is a safe bet that you are in the wrong religion.

Donate your organs, donate life.