Schrodinger's Murderer

In one of his videos, Justicar (aka integralmath) mentioned that Schrodinger’s Rapist would be a notion that is unacceptable if we were talking about black people instead of men. I thought this was a brilliant assessment so I took on the task of editing the original post and converting some key elements of the piece for the sake of comparing it to any other subset of the human population. I changed any reference to males, men, boys, gentlemen, guys, etc., to black people. I also changed any references to females, women, girls, ladies, gals, etc., to white people. And finally, I changed rape for murder. You may also notice that some key words may have changed to keep in the spirit of the original post. Please note that any changes have not been made with the intention of changing the meaning (spirit) of the original post, but rather to allow for a logical continuance in the script. Here is the original post, in case you wish to compare just how much edition was done on the blog post.

GUEST BLOGGER STARLING: SCHRÖDINGER’S MURDERER: OR A BLACK PERSON’S GUIDE TO APPROACHING STRANGE WHITE PEOPLE WITHOUT BEING MACED

Posted on October 8, 2009 by Sweet Machine, re-edited by Spinoza’s Psyche

Black people. Thank you for reading.

Let me start out by assuring you that I understand you are a good sort of person. You are kind to children and animals. You respect the elderly. You donate to charity. You tell jokes without laughing at your own punchlines. You respect white people. You like white people. In fact, you would really like to have a mutually respectful and friendly relationship with a white person. Unfortunately, you don’t yet know that white person—he or she isn’t working with you, nor have you been introduced through mutual friends or drawn to the same activities. So you must look further afield to encounter this person.

So far, so good. Miss LonelyHearts, your humble instructor, approves. Human connection, love, friendship: there is nothing wrong with these yearnings.

Now, you want to become acquainted with a white person you see in public. The first thing you need to understand is that white people are dealing with a set of challenges and concerns that are strange to you, a black person. To begin with, we would rather not be killed or otherwise violently assaulted.

“But wait! I don’t want that, either!”

Well, no. But do you think about it all the time? Is preventing violent assault or murder part of your daily routine, rather than merely something you do when you venture into war zones? Because, for white people, it is. When I go out with black friends, I always leave the black person’s full name and contact information written next to my computer monitor. This is so the cops can find my body if I go missing. My best friend will call or e-mail me the next morning, and I must answer that call or e-mail before noon-ish, or my friend begins to worry. If my friend doesn’t hear from me by three or so, he or she will call the police. My activities after dark are curtailed. Unless I am in a densely-occupied, well-lit space, I won’t go out alone. Even then, I prefer to have a white friend or two, or my dogs, with me. Do you follow rules like these?

So when you, a stranger, approach me, I have to ask myself: Will this black man murder me?

Do you think I’m overreacting? One in every six American whites will be robbed or mugged in their lifetime. I bet you don’t think you know any murderers, but consider the sheer number of murders that must occur. These murders are not all committed by scary black men, or other members of the Brotherhood of Scary Hair and Homemade Religion. While you may assume that none of the black guys you know are murderers, I can assure you that at least one is. Consider: if every murderer commits an average of ten murders (a horrifying number, isn’t it?) then the concentration of murderers in the population is still a little over one in sixty. That means four in my graduating class in high school. One among my coworkers. One in the subway car at rush hour. Eleven who work out at my gym. How do I know that you, the nice black guy who wants nothing more than companionship and friendship, are not this murderer?

I don’t.

When you approach me in public, you are Schrödinger’s murderer. You may or may not be a black man who would commit murder. I won’t know for sure unless you start assaulting me. I can’t see inside your head, and I don’t know your intentions. If you expect me to trust you—to accept you at face value as a nice sort of black—you are not only failing to respect my reasonable caution, you are being cavalier about my personal safety.

Fortunately, you’re a good black guy. We’ve already established that. Now that you’re aware that there’s a problem, you are going to go out of your way to fix it, and to make the white people with whom you interact feel as safe as possible.

To begin with, you must accept that I set my own risk tolerance. When you approach me, I will begin to evaluate the possibility you will do me harm. That possibility is never 0%. For some whites, particularly whites who have been victims of violent assaults, any level of risk is unacceptable. Those whites do not want to be approached, no matter how nice you are or how much you’d like to befriend them. Okay? That’s their right. Don’t get pissy about it. Whites are under no obligation to hear the sales pitch before deciding they are not in the market to buy.

The second important point: you must be aware of what signals you are sending by your appearance and the environment. We are going to be paying close attention to your appearance and behavior and matching those signs to our idea of a threat.

This means that some black guys should never approach strange white people in public. Specifically, if you have truly unusual standards of personal cleanliness, if you are the prophet of your own religion, or if you have tattoos of gang symbols or Technicolor cockroaches all over your face and neck, you are just never going to get a good response approaching a white person cold. That doesn’t mean you’re doomed to a life of solitude, but I suggest you start with internet hanging, where you can put your unusual traits out there and find a white friend who will appreciate them.

Are you wearing a tee-shirt making a murder joke? NOT A GOOD CHOICE—not in general, and definitely not when approaching a strange white person.

Pay attention to the environment. Look around. Are you in a dark alley? Then probably you ought not approach a white person and try to strike up a conversation. The same applies if you are alone with a white in most public places. If the public place is a closed area (a subway car, an elevator, a bus), even a crowded one, you may not realize that the white’s ability to flee in case of threat is limited. Ask yourself, “If I were dangerous, would this white person be safe in this space with me?” If the answer is no, then it isn’t appropriate to approach this person.

On the other hand, if you are both at church accompanied by your mothers, who are lifelong best friends, the white person is as close as it comes to safe. That is to say, still not 100% safe. But the odds are pretty good.

The third point: White people are communicating all the time. Learn to understand and respect white people’s communication to you.

You want to say Hi to the nice white person on the subway. How will they react? Fortunately, I can tell you with some certainty, because he or she is already sending messages to you. Looking out the window, reading a book, working on a computer, arms folded across chest, body away from you = do not disturb. So, y’know, don’t disturb this person. Really. Even to say that you like their hair, shoes, or book. A compliment is not always a reason for white people to smile and say thank you. You are a threat, remember? You are Schrödinger’s murderer. Don’t assume that whatever you have to say will win them over with charm or flattery. Believe what the white is signaling, and back off.

If you speak, and the white person responds in a monosyllabic way without looking at you, they are saying, “I don’t want to be rude, but please leave me alone.” You don’t know why. It could be “Please leave me alone because I am trying to memorize Beowulf.” It could be “Please leave me alone because you are a scary, scary man with breath like a water buffalo.” It could be “Please leave me alone because I am planning my assassination of a major geopolitical figure and I will have to kill you if you are able to recognize me and blow my cover.”

On the other hand, if the white person is turned towards you, making eye contact, and they respond in a friendly and talkative manner when you speak to them, you are getting a green light. You can continue the conversation until you start getting signals to back off.

The fourth point: If you fail to respect what white people say, you label yourself a problem.

There’s a black man with whom I went out on a single date—afternoon coffee, for one hour by the clock—on July 25th. In the two days after the date, he sent me about fifteen e-mails, scolding me for non-responsiveness. I e-mailed him back, saying, “Look, this is a disproportionate response to a single date. You are making me uncomfortable. Do not contact me again.” It is now October 7th. Does he still e-mail?

Yeah. He does. About every two weeks.

This black man scores higher on the threat level scale than Man with the Cockroach Tattoos. (Who, after all, is guilty of nothing more than terrifying bad taste.) You see, Mr. E-mail has made it clear that he ignores what I say when he wants something from me. Now, I don’t know if he is an actual murderer, and I sincerely hope he’s not. But he is certainly Schrödinger’s murderer, and this particular Schrödinger’s murderer has a probability ratio greater than one in sixty. Because a black dude who ignores a white person’s NO in a non-sexual setting is more likely to ignore NO in a sexual setting, as well.

So if you speak to a white person who is otherwise occupied, you’re sending a subtle message. It is that your desire to interact trumps his or her right to be left alone. If you pursue a conversation when they tried to cut it off, you send a message. It is that your desire to speak trumps their right to be left alone. And each of those messages indicates that you believe your desires are a legitimate reason to override their rights.

For white people, who are watching you very closely to determine how much of a threat you are, this is an important piece of data.

The fifth and last point: Don’t murder. Nor should you commit these similar but less severe offenses: don’t assault. Don’t grope. Don’t constrain. Don’t brandish. Don’t expose yourself. Don’t threaten with physical violence. Don’t threaten with sexual violence.

Shouldn’t this go without saying? Of course it should. Sadly, that’s not the world I live in. You may be beginning to realize that it’s not the world you live in, either.

Miss LonelyHearts wishes you happiness and success in your search for white companionship.

American Academy of Pediatrics: It’s OK to mutilate the genitalia of your babies, if it saves us a few dollars in the future

The American Academy of Pediatrics has changed its stance on circumcision after publishing a controversial paper on its journal Pediatrics. According to the AAP, the benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks. This comes from data that show that circumcision may protect from STDs, which in turn add a huge cost to the healthcare system in the United States. I argue that even if the data are true and accurate, these are not valid arguments for recommending routine circumcision in newborn babies.

Keywords: circumcision, newborn, males, American academy ofPediatrics, AAP, STD, Medicaid, religion

It troubles me that while most ofthe western world views female circumcision as a barbaric and intolerableritual, the United States of America is still pushing for male circumcision on unwilling newborn males.

Following a recent study on circumcision, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has changed its policy on circumcision (1). After 1999, the agency had an on-the-fence stance, explaining that there were some benefits and some risks to circumcisions. Now, the claim is that the benefits of circumcision clearly outweigh the risks. The AAP has even gone as far stating that circumcision doesn't hurt sexual pleasure or performance in adulthood. Of course, the reasoning behind circumcision advocacy is loosely based on STD prevention, including the supposed protection from HIV. I am not convinced that cutting off a part of your body in order to protect from a disease which is product of a behavior you will not partake inthe next 16-17 years of your life, merits the surgery on an unwilling infant. However, the AAP is not completely without heart. Short of mandatingthis medieval procedure in every pediatric office across America, they are letting the parents have the final word (2). Aren't they generous?

I am not going to argue against the data in the paper “Male Circumcision” (3) published on AAP’s journal Pediatrics. I am even going to concede that, provided that the data is valid, and male circumcision does indeed provide great health benefits, the idea of circumcising newborn boys is not only illogical, but it actually harms the autonomy and welfare of the infant.

Circumcision of newborn boys is a surgical event. No surgery comes without risks. Even the most routine surgery will always have a certain amount of risk attached to it. Indeed, circumcision is a surgery that is usually performed in copious amounts around the world, and there are very few reported cases of circumcision which had an unexpected negative outcome (4) ,and much less a fatal one (5).There is an estimated 117 neonatal circumcision-related deaths every year inthe United Stated alone (6).

What is the problem with getting rid of a perfectly healthy part of the human body in order to prevent diseases that can be contracted as soon as the boy starts having sexual intercourse? Theforeskin of the penis actually protects the penis during babyhood. It stops feces and other contaminants from introducing themselves into the urinary tract. So getting rid of it because in some years, the baby might not engage in safe sex and has a slightly higher chance of contracting an STD is a ridiculous argument that is used in order to excuse the continuance of this barbaric ritual. One could argue that female circumcision reduces the amount of sexual pleasure, therefore diminishing the chance of a woman engaging in sexual intercourse which could result in unwanted pregnancy or an STD. Just like with male circumcision, female circumcision cannot be justified with this line of reasoning.

The new justification for circumcision is closely related to the STD “argument”. This time, advocates for baby genital mutilation argue that intact men will most likely get and STD, thus increasing healthcare costs for everybody—in the BILLIONS of dollars. And, they are upset because Medicaid does not provide circumcisions for baby boys. That’s right. They are actually upset that the government does not want to pay for genital mutilation of those who benefit from the entitlement program.

If the concern is that a certain body part which is perfectly healthy, and has a real use may cause infections in the future, we can argue that we might as well just start taking out the female uterus as well. No female uterus means no uterus cancer. Imagine all the money we can save in healthcare costs! Or, following that same reasoning, we could just remove the breasts of women who no longer plan on having children. After all, you can still have sex without them and they could be the host of very aggressive breast cancer. Then again, they could not, but the point is not whether you have the right to make decisions on your own body, it is about how much it will cost to the American tax payer.

This brings me to my conclusion which is quite simple. Parents have no right to remove, mutilate, modify, sell, destroy or otherwise tamper with the healthy bodies of their children. You do not have this right if you can prove that the baby may engage in sexual activity in the future, which could result in an infection. You do not have this right even if you can prove that avoiding such infections would reduce costs in the healthcare system. The only person who can make that call is the person getting circumcised; a decision which cannot be made by an infant or toddler. “Culture” is not an argument. “Religion” is not an argument. “Tradition” is not an argument. I am embarrassed for the AAP which should know better. If you begin recommending circumcision based on possible infections which may occur due to sexual activity, or you justify it by explaining it will save us a few dollars, you are not only wrong, but immoral. Oh, and in case you haven’t heard, condoms are much more efficient to protecting from STDs than genital mutilation.

References

1. American Academy of Pediatrics. Newborn MaleCircumcision. American Academy of Pediatrics. [Online] 8 27, 2012.[Cited: 8 27, 2012.]http://www.aap.org/en-us/about-the-aap/aap-press-room/Pages/Newborn-Male-Circumcision.aspx.

2. —. New BenefitsPoint to Greater Benefits of Infant Circumcision, But Final Say is Still Up toParents, Says AAP. American Academy of Pediatrics. [Online] 8 27, 2012.[Cited: 8 27, 2012.]http://www.aap.org/en-us/about-the-aap/aap-press-room/Pages/New-Benefits-Point-to-Greater-Benefits-of-Infant-Circumcision-But-Final-Say-is-Still-Up-to-parents-Says-AAP.aspx.

3. MaleCircumcision: Taks Force on Circumcision. American Academy ofPediatrics. 2012, Pediatrics.

4. AFP. GoogleNews. US judge awards payout for botched circumcision. [Online] 7 2011.[Cited: 8 28, 2012.]http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hWUCGBeU-LVsEGdRXbENDYZozXFg?docId=CNG.bdac60bc01523cb81732d8109017db35.7b1.

5. The HuffingtonPost. Baby Dies From Herpes After Controversial Circumcision Ritual, ReportSays. The Huffington Post. [Online] 3 6, 2012. [Cited: 8 28, 2012.]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/06/baby-dies-circumcision-ritual-herpes_n_1322420.html.

6. LOST BOYS: ANESTIMATE OF U.S. CIRCUMCISION-RELATED INFANT DEATHS. Bollinger, Dan.1, 2010, THYMOS: Journal of Boyhood Studies, Vol. 4, pp. 78-90.

The APA considers dropping the word "retard"

The APA has finally caved. For years, the DSM has included "mental retardation" as the actual name for deficits in intellectual development. Apparently, they are picking up after the fact that people are using it to insult and hurt other people--never those with actual retardation, but still. Although not official yet, the new DSM-V has changed the phrasing "mental retardation" for "Intellectual Developmental Disorder". (Please note that this may change until the document is officially published in May of 2013.) http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevision/Pages/proposedrevision.aspx?rid=384
I know that many advocates of sensitivity in language will claim a victory, but is it really? Calling it something else doesn't really change anything, and we are only making our language more complicated to make sure no one gets offended. I do have a problem with the word "retard", and that is that retardation actually means "to be late". While it can be the case that many people are late in the development of their intellectual faculties, some people never really develop them. They're not late. They'll just never get there.

I also have a problem with the word mental, as it includes many functions, when in reality the focus is almost primarily academic. If anything, I believe that the actual term should be "Intellectual Deficit". I believe that the word does not look to offend, but it also doesn't sugar coat the reality.

Let me know what you think!

Megacable--(Posiblemente) la peor empresa de México

Algunas ciudades de México, cuentan con el servicio de una empresa de telefonía, cable e internet llamada “Megacable”. Esta empresa, cuyo corporativo se encuentra en Guadalajara, ofrece el típico servicio de televisión por cable, así como servicio de telefonía y de internet. Durante el tiempo que viví en Xalapa, Veracruz, contraté sus servicios. En un principio, contraté el paquete de tres, pero luego lo cancelé para nada más tener cable y telefonía. He aquí unos errores GRAVES que comete esta empresa.

1) Cuando aparecen nuevos paquetes de promoción, en muchas ocasiones es más barato el nuevo paquete que lo que está pagando un suscriptor antiguo. Es decir, conviene cancelar el contrato y volverlo a abrir para pagar la nueva tarifa. Si no hace esto, la empresa no hace los ajustes, y continúa pagando la misma cantidad por menos producto.

2) El servicio de atención a clientes por teléfono es malisisisisimo. A la mitad del problema, las llamadas se “cortan”. Por lo general, te dicen que vayas a un centro de atención, o te dicen que en algún momento irá un técnico a revisar el problema (el técnico aparecerá de 3 a 4 días después). Mientras te siguen cobrando igual aunque no tengas servicio.

3) El servicio de atención a clientes presencial es aún peor. No me sorprendería que estén capacitando a esta gente en el zoologico de Chapala. Aunque en realidad la mayor parte de los problemas son causados por las políticas de la empresa y no por la incompetencia (que es mucha) de los asesores.

4) El sistema de cobros es pésimo. Si quiere pagar con efectivo, las colas son inmensas. Si quiere pagar con tarjeta, puede meterse en serio problema (recomiendo que lean mi caso y por nada del mundo autoricen a megacable el cobro mensual a su tarjeta).

5) El servicio de internet es muy malo. Quizá sea únicamente mi caso, pero el tiempo que tuve internet de megacable era bastaste rápido—cuando servía. Yo creo que el 70-80% del tiempo, no había servicio. Pedía que lo arreglaran y solamente servia uno o dos días y se volvía a desconectar.

6) Para tener telefonía o internet es necesario contratar cable. Si usted ya cuenta con un proveedor de televisión (como Sky o Dish), o simplemente no quiere contratar el servicio de cable, está en un problema. Megacable no permite que únicamente contrate internet o telefonía. Cualquiera de estos dos servicios REQUIEREN que también pague un servicio de televisión. Aunque sea el más sencillo.

7) El tiempo de espera para ser atendido en cualquier centro de servicio de megacable es muy largo. En Xalapa llegué a esperar hasta 1 hora. En Querétaro me aventé casi dos horas y media. Esto nos dice dos cosas: (a) Esta empresa tiene demasiados problemas y (b) los asesores no pueden resolver los problemas adecuadamente.

Les voy a platicar mi caso para que vean otro ejemplo de cómo esta empresa es ineficiente e incompetente (o se hacen los incompetentes para clavarse tu lana).

A fines del 2010, empecé preparativos para mudarme de Xalapa a Querétaro. Como ya no iba a vivir en Xalapa, cancelé mi contrato con ellos el 24 de enero de 2011. Para poder cancelar el contrato, los pagos tienen que estar al corriente, y tienes que devolver todo el equipo de megacable. Cuando haces esto, Megacable te da de baja y te da dos papeles. Uno en el que dice que tu contrato ya no tiene efecto y otro en el que te libera de responsabilidades por el equipo.

Pues resulta que dos meses después me doy cuenta que Megacable me ha seguido cobrando a la tarjeta por el servicio que yo cancelé en Enero. Cuando hablo por teléfono, la persona que me atiende no tiene ni idea de cómo solucionar el problema. Ninguna idea. Haz de cuenta que le había dicho yo un problema de termodinámica. Fui al banco a cancelar mi tarjeta. Si los imbéciles de megacable se van a hacer los idiotas con el dinero que me robaron, por lo menos voy a evitar más cargos. Obviamente cancelar el plástico y renovarlo tiene un costo. Pero este es mínimo comparado con los cargos que podían seguir haciendo. Una vez que hice esto, pasé al centro de atención de Juriquilla. La señorita (¿o era planta?) que estaba ahí no sabía ni qué decirme. En pocas palabras me dijo que ella estaba ahí para cobrar y no tenía ni idea de nada. Para entonces yo ya estaba bastante molesto. Parece que Megacable sí es muy bueno para cobrar, pero no para devolver dinero que se robaron. Fui al centro de atención de 5 de Febrero en Querétaro. Se supone que este es el centro principal de megacable en Querétaro, donde pueden resolver todo. Parecía clínica de la primera guerra mundial. Hacía un calor de la fregada y habíamos como 70 personas. Todos esperando que nos solucionaran un problema. Mientras esperé más de dos horas a que tocara mi turno, estuve escuchando los casos de distintos clientes. Tengo que admitir que muchos clientes son completamente idiotas. Por ejemplo, un cliente se quejaba de que aunque venía estipulado en su contrato que tenía que pagar X, el insistía que era obligación de megacable haberle explicado eso. Otro más se quejaba de que lo hubieran vetado de tener megacable porque se había robado equipo de la empresa y él quería tener el servicio. Pero la gran mayoría de la gente tenía quejas que si tenían sentido. La gran mayoría de ellas no pudieron ser resueltas porque no y porque no. En dos ocasiones, tuvo que entrar un guardia de seguridad a sacar a un cliente que estaba muy agitado. En realidad, el cliente tenía la razón, pero megacable no quería hacer nada al respecto. Resulta que el sistema decía que tenía 3 cajas de estas para la señal de cable. Él decía que solamente tenía dos. Él preguntaba que dónde había firmado la recepción de tres cajas. Que él solamente había firmado por dos. Pues el sistema dice, y si el sistema dice, te jodes y pagas la caja que nunca recibiste. Espero que demande a megacable.

Cuando finalmente fue mi turno, la señorita ya estaba un poco alterada por todos los gritos. Cuando le expliqué mi problema, basicamente me dijo que no lo podían resolver porque cada ciudad se maneja independiente. En otras palabras, tengo que ir a Xalapa para pedir mi lana de regreso. Después de discutir por un buen tiempo, la contadora de ahí tomó mi caso. No me aseguró nada, pero mi dijo que iba a ver qué se podía hacer. No quiero sonar malinchista, pero si esto hubiera pasado en Estados Unidos, me hubieran regresado el dinero desde la primera vez, me hubieran pedido disculpas y hasta una canasta con fruta me hubieran mandado. Aquí, es más fácil pasarle la bolita al otro, y nadie sabe nada. Ojalá y tuviera el tiempo para demandarlos por un cobro indebido. Quizá y así se pondrían las pilas y no tratarían de vernos las caras tan fácilmente.

En conclusión, yo sé que lamentablemente no hay muchas opciones en cuanto a televisión por cable e internet en México. Prodigy es muy lento, otras empresas tienen regiones muy limitadas y megacable es horrible. Yo les recomiendo que eviten megacable a toda costa. Desde que estaba con ellos en Xalapa solamente he tenido problemas. Si no tienen otra opción, por lo que más quieran NO den su tarjeta. Quien sabe cuánto les quieran sacar cuando terminen su contrato.

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.