Author Archives: Merlin Silk

G-Male – that’s how it’s spelled correctly

4 Replies

If you are a gamer you know Donkey Kong. It was actually the first game my son ever had. I just learned that when I asked him how it’s spelled.

Spelling! This brings us close to the crux of this little article. The name is a translation error, a spelling error between languages, so to speak. Have you ever wondered why a game about a monkey is called DONKEY Kong? Rumor has it that it’s simply a translation error – the Japanese translator just mistook the D for an M and now we are stuck with a Monkey called Donkey. Other data suggests that the Japanese character creator used Donkey as a representation for stubbornness and Kong to indicate the monkey-ness (King Kong is a apparently a term for the generic big ape.)

Whatever is right – I like the first explanation better and stick with it, especially as it allows for a much better transition to the following video that shows that Gmail has been spelled incorrectly from the very beginning.

Here is the correct version – G-Male – and what it really means…

Making a House my Own

Leave a reply

We found a real nice house that is more or less perfect in many regards:

  • big enough
  • lower priced because it needs a bit of work
  • close to friends
  • quiet area
  • big RV garage to be used as storage for business
  • owner very motivated
  • owner open to creative financing
  • open space
  • big property – third of an acre

Altogether, it just feels right, we all like it – so we want it.

Now we just have to create the reality that within a month we move into this place and one of the reasons for this blog post is for you all to help create this reality.

So, now altogether please – create the picture of us being in this house with plenty of money left over from the sale of the old house. Oh, yes, and the old house is bought by a friend for whom it would be real good as he wants to have a family.

Size does not matter

Leave a reply

There is always that little innuendo when discussing the question if size matters.

But I don’t want to get into this, even though I chose that headline to get your attention – – did work if you are reading this, didn’t it?

So, take a look at this one example where size does not matter…

Before the mighty FAA, we are all created equal. Once you have your clearance, it’s yours. You might give it up to let a big guy with 300 passengers go first, as these big guys are probably burning a lot more fuel on idle than I in my single-engine plane will use for a whole trip.

Two tales come to mind. One was that of a flight instructor telling the story at the Pilot’s Co-Op of catching a ride on a business jet once and how the crew was treated to a nice dinner at the FBO when they stopped somewhere for gas. It was only when he saw the bill did he understand why they had been treated so royally.

In the other story, I was a participant myself. It was right after my primary training that I advanced from the Piper Tomahawk to a Warrior at the Pilot’s Co-Op. My instructor, during the checkout on that new type of plane, put me through the paces of practicing my landings. Our airport, Burbank, has intersecting runways. One of them – 15 – was often used for commercial traffic. If there was a 737 ready for take-off on runway 15 and another – smaller – plane on approach to runway 8, the departing plane, and all its 150+ passengers, had to wait. Runway 8 is very long and the length from touch down to the intersection with runway 15 was plenty enough for a little plane to touch down, stop, and leave the runway so they never crossed 15. So, it was customary that traffic control asked the landing traffic if they were able to land short of 15, meaning they had no intention of getting to or even crossing runway 15. If the landing traffic confirmed that they would not get to runway 15, the tower could let the big iron take off on runway 15 while the landing traffic was still on approach to runway 8.

That was standard operating procedure, but now yours truly, a new pilot being checked out at a new airport and on a new plane, enters the picture. On approach to runway 8 for the fifth or so time, I confirmed that I would hold short of 15 and so the tower controller gave takeoff clearance to the Southwest 737 and it started rolling on runway 15, the runway I had promised not to cross or in any way to mess with.

Just then my flight instructor, who I was so glad to have had with me, made the decision that I had messed up the approach – I was too high or too slow or both, floating too far down the runway. He grabbed the yoke – MY PLANE!, pushed the throttle to the firewall, and keyed the mike: “Tower, Cherokee 888 going around!!”

Now that was not good. The 737 was rolling towards the intersection and we, in our little tin can, were now climbing out over runway 8 towards the intersection with runway 15.

Tower: “Southwest 114 ABORT – Southwest 114 ABORT!”

All went well, the 737 stopped before the intersection and we sailed unscathed across the intersection. I was too busy digesting all this so I did not take a good look into the cockpit of the 737 that was sitting right there on my left side. But I could imagine that the pitch of the captain’s voice might not have been as low as it usually was.

We got the expected call from the tower: “Cherokee 888, Tower, contact the tower after landing!” Was I glad that I was only the student, and my instructor legally the pilot in command! A bit after we landed and tied down, I saw my instructor on the phone with the tower – very meek and apologetic – rather different than his usual boisterous self. Fortunately for him, he got off with a warning.

It was a big story at the Pilot’s Co-Op and many guesses were made about how much money in kerosine this incident had cost Southwest. I mostly felt with the poor passengers who did not really know what was happening: the usual bit of anticipation or fear at the takeoff roll and then suddenly screeching brakes – it might have convinced some never to fly again.

I myself only had one instance of “Call the tower after landing!” after hearing “Cleared for takeoff” while the tower had told me “In position and hold”. I was able to weasel myself out with the excuse that I was going someplace further away and could truthfully tell the controller that his tower would be closed when I returned. So, he just scolded me a bit and told me to listen better next time.

Work that turns into Work

Leave a reply

Today – and last week – I had two days where I really understood why outsourcing could be a good thing.

Gigi and I sell real tangible goods – tie-dye 2.0, also called mudmee tie-dye. Gigi is the part of our enterprise who creates the products and who also takes them out to art and craft show. I just sit in the house and stretch out my feelers to potential customers through the internet.

For me, building the site and programming the whole inventory and order handling was the self-assigned internship to learn how to deal with the web. I also learned a lot about marketing which I did not have to do much of when I was only dealing with very few clients in the high-tech and scientific programming, something I had done before venturing out into the new realm of the web.

These last two weekends we had added two new types of shirts that had already created good responses at shows and now our mailing list responded very well. So, after the waves calmed down a bit, I was working till late into the night to process all those orders.

Initially each and every order was met (by me) with big excitement and a quick trip to the paypal backed to print the shipping label and get those items out. Don’t get me wrong, I love it when there are so many orders that it takes me all night to get them ready for shipping – but I also understand why outsourcing can be a real good thing.

Yet before  I can even consider outsourcing I would probably have to ‘blackbox’ my system some more. As it was all handcrafted, there are still some elements in my system that are only obvious to me – because I built them – but not black-boxy enough, so that I  could just hire somebody and let him or her do the order processing.

In case you are a bit curious what this is all about – I am speaking about Mudmee Tie-dye at  JustZen.

The Logic of Logic

Leave a reply

I am sometimes torn between my scientific and spiritual side. Educated in the sciences I appreciate cold pure logic. So, when I run into a lecture likes this by Peter Boghossian…

…I might have my spiritual world shaken up.

When Dr. Boghossian explains that faith-based processes are not reliable, I have to admit that he is right. When he shows us that homeopathy does not work, I am tempted to laugh with him about the ridiculousness of faith in a remedy that does not contain anything (but water). According to homeopaths, the remedy does contain the ‘essence’ of the substance. But ‘essence’ is not something than can be measured, so it really IS only water.

What do I do to get back to my spiritual base?

First of all I have to allow myself to be exposed to ridicule for believing in something that science can’t see. But then I also have to make real to me that there was a time, not very long ago, at that, when we could not measure radioactivity. If somebody at that time postulated something that could kill you within the shortest time without being felt, smelled, or seen, this person would have been certainly ridiculed. I make it clear to me that we cannot measure the ‘essence’ of a substance – yet!

Beyond that argument I try to wrap my mind around the question if we are possibly only looking into a self-fulfilling closed system. Results of religious believes are often explained as self-fulfilling situations – if I believe in the resurrection of Jesus with all my heart and don’t allow any other possibility, I might actually have an apparition that is as real as the cop handing out a ticket for kneeling in the middle of the street.

If this works for a single person, then a group of people can certainly increase the effect and we have those events where blind start seeing and lames start walking. Science has looked at those events with double-blind studies and found that they are all humbug. Yet, they cannot duplicate a parameter they are completely unaware off, so the double blind study might miss essential parameters.

Thus I clarify for myself that science itself is in no way different than the faith they investigate. It is just a different faith – a faith that requires a multitude of observers that all observe the same.

Comparing this with a vivid dream might make this more obvious. Imagine a dream in which you can fly. And also make this a dream where you have a sweetheart that can fly with you (yes, I am thinking of Douglas Adams.) Then add another element that there is a big crowd that cheers you on as you swoop through double barrels and looks deeply embraced with your sweetheart. Would any member in this dream doubt that you two fly?
But, but, but … that’s a dream, that is different!

To which I have to answer: Says who?

Just as I could imagine that in my dream I introduce a scientist that does not believe and demands double-blind studies, so can I imagine that in ‘real life’ I introduced those scientists that tell me that homeopathy is humbug and that they have proven it beyond any reasonable doubt.

For me it boils down to the question if the ‘real life’ is any more real than my dream. And I have to admit total inability to answer that question. Simply from the fact that while I am in the middle of my lucid dream I don’t know that I am dreaming.

Maybe I am dreaming now – I would not be able to tell until I wake up – until then the question has to remain unanswered.

Up to that point any logic is self-contained logic, conclusive within itself, and the logic of science has no more relevance than the logic of astrology or reading tea-leaves. I might have preferences, but that is solely my own, personal decision.

Seeing Without Your Eyes

Leave a reply

I used degrading eye-sight as an excuse to replace my 24 inch monitor with a 32″ TV – and I love it. Now, when I am at the other office with only a 24″ monitor I sometimes have to put reading glasses on to see the smaller part of the photoshop interface.

The idea that, as we get older, our eyes get weaker and we accept to use glasses. There seem to be a strong correlation between the eyes and seeing.

But I have been suspicious for a while that this is not the whole story. Simply because sometimes – and I have not found the pattern – my vision is just perfect. And if it would be weaker eye muscles and less elastic lenses would be the only reason for declining eye-sight, then this would not make sense.

The following video of a painter, born without eyes (!), gives more fuel to that line of reasoning. Now, what really is seeing?

Sexual Emancipation for Men

6 Replies

From the time of my early childhood I have seen the view on gender and sex certainly change. Initially it was the natural order of things that papa was out to work and mama was home taking care of the house and children.

Then came the ‘sexual revolution’ which changed all that. All was turned upside down and put together in a different way. Somehow I ended up with the deep rooted opinion that it is very, very bad to act in a way that could be considered sexist. Only the inner values, which are independent of gender, were considered to be relevant. You were supposed to be sex-blind.

That naturally created some discrepancy between what I could observe and what I was supposed to observe. Let’s take the example of a very pretty girl. One guy who, like me, was drilled to see only the inner values – even though that was rather difficult to do – started a conversation about philosophical questions of life, the universe and everything to engage the intellectual being inside that pretty exterior, and got nowhere.

The other guy just locked his eyes onto her body, drooling noticeable, only able to utter such intelligent thoughts as “Wow, you are so beautiful, can I have your number?” Not a single note about the inner qualities. He usually got the number.

Often the purely sexual aspect is exhibited – oozing sexuality instead of displaying a masters degree or a doctor title. And, funny enough, this is mostly done by the female, who officially works on being appreciated for her intellect and not the cleavage. Let’s take a normal business setting. Men are usually totally a-sexual in such an environment, buttoned up shirt with a tie. But the female executives often show off her non-intellectual qualities. What would happen if men would do that?

All these thought, I have to admit, never really surface totally within me, until very recently, when I ran into a picture of Angela Merkel, the German chancellor.

Ms. Merkel is probably a very intelligent person, at least in the limited political way, so why in the world is she sexualizing her appearance so much. There is no beauty in this as she is not a particularly beautiful person, and whom is she trying to arouse? Or is this just a sport to see how long it takes that male until he finally looks at her boobs? There certainly are other options to dress as you notice when you look at the person in the background behind Ms. Merkel.

When I though about how this would look like if the male part of the political world would give up its boring non-sexuality and let it all hang out as well, I became curious. So I went out to find if it did indeed exist, and to my total surprise, I found it.

George W after the sexual liberation

Wouldn’t that put a completely new face on politics? Please don’t get me wrong, I am not trying to bash either Bush nor Merkel. It is just that here we are offered by these very public figures a way to understand just how much of a double talk exists in the arena of emancipation. We could use any setting in business as well, we would, most likely, find a similar situation.

Hopefully, after draining my brain of inner conflict, I will now be able to just compliment a woman on her looks without the idea of violating the emancipation law. Because, quite honestly, I appreciate female beauty just as any other male. Just as I am sure women appreciate male beauty. Just as a side note, a co-worker of my wife once called me ‘ruggedly handsome!’ I still dearly love Sharon!

What do you think, should men start fighting for sexual equality in politics and business and dress more like George in the above picture?

HDR Photography with an old Camera

Leave a reply

I have to admit that I do not have a decent camera.

I was about ready to invest in either a Nikon D5100 or a Canon Rebel t3i when I learned about the new breed of mirror-less changeable lens cameras – much smaller and lighter but same picture quality as the DSLRs – and that stopped me dead in my tracks because who wants to buy something old and miss the latest and greatest.

But I really wanted to get my feet wet with HDR, which stands for high dynamic range, and combines several images with different exposures into one with a much higher range between the brightest and the darkest parts of the image. much more than can be done in a single frame.

Modern cameras make this a bit easier but I finally had the cognition again that photographers make photos – not cameras. So, I dug out my old Nikon Coolpix 5400 and started to experiment a bit. This camera actually has a feature called bracketing which is useful for HDR photography.

I had to dig into the manual but found out that the bracketing as implemented works well for the purpose of HDR – I can turn on bracketing to take one frame correctly exposed and then, while holding down the shutter release, four more frames are take at -2, -1, +1 and +2 stops. After taking these five shots the age of the camera shows because it takes 10 to 20 seconds to write all that image data to memory card – a whopping 256 MB CF card.

I use the HDR support in Photoshop CS5 to help me combine the 5 shots into one, and here is an early result – a shot of a house for rent that we are going to take a look at tomorrow.

Celebrating the Forth of July

Leave a reply

“Thank you, thank you, thank you!” the man, filled with jubilation, exclaimed.

Hi left hand was missing. It had been the hand with the finger that his golden ring had been stuck on. He had not been able to remove this ring for his master, who really wanted it. The master, being very resourceful, had just taken off the whole hand and passed it to his jeweler to use the gold from that ring for something he might want soon.

“Thank you,” cheered the man again in devotion, “so I may serve you with my right hand to the fullest of my abilities!”

And in reverence for the master he turned to his fellow-men and proclaimed:

“Rejoice, because we are free and brave!”

(little piece of trivia: the Boston tea party occurred over a  tax of 10%)

When Loved-Ones Stop You

1 Reply

Larken Rose is one of the most prominent contemporary anarchists around. Maybe I should stop using that all too emotionally loaded word and better call him a voluntarist. It describes the same but avoids the wide spread misunderstanding what anarchism really is.

A voluntarist is somebody with the philosophy and conviction that a free society must be build on the voluntary interaction of individuals instead of the initiation of force through a government apparatus.

When I learned about Mr. Rose and his ideas they were fundamentally different than they are today as, during that time, he actually took the government serious and actually challenged them to show him where his interpretation of the law was wrong. He was certainly right about the law but very wrong in his assessment that somebody of the challenged cared. He got a time-out for a year which he used, while fed and berthed by the federal government, to write. One of the results of that writing was a novel of the title The Iron Web. I report about this book in another article.

This book subjects the reader to the question “who owns you” and tries to give some hints on how this could be answered and establishes a real-world iron web which is comprised of those people that fully consciously answered it with a resounding ‘I’ and act upon it. If you do own yourself you do not owe allegiance to anybody and certainly not to any government and its laws.

To signal this state of the mind, Larken Rose suggested the symbol at the top of this article and I was immediately busy adding this symbol to a commercial web site selling tie-dye that I ran then and actually still operate today.

But if you have somebody in your space who has not had this change of mind, you have somebody who does not want to upset the powers, and the fear of breaking any of their ‘laws’ can be overwhelming and intimidating.

So, I actually received pressure of removing this symbol not from the adversary but from my ally. I hate to call them adversaries as that gives them power they don’t have intrinsically, but I am lacking a better word.

This is the system how it has been built, it uses indoctrination to make loved-ones the enforcers – that stinks but is a matter that has be be dealt with.