Frequent patrons of RyanByrd dot net will appreciate the changes to the Fun->Video page. Instead of raw links to .mpeg, and .wmv files, now those wacky videos are played in a Flash player right in the comfort of your own Flash enabled browser. I know, it doesn’t work in Linux, but hey, whoever said Linux was ready for the desktop? **duck**
Here’s a shout out to Beau Scott of Pictar’s fame for the code and inspiration for the changes.
I’ve been thinking a lot about homographs lately and, in particular, their subclasses. Here is a new word for you: dihomograph*. A dihomograph is a homograph where the pronounciation or syllabic stress of the word changes based on the part of speech. Here are some examples:
- You record a record
- You address an address (when talking about a location, not a speech)
- You contest a contest
- You refuse refuse
- You convert a convert
- You reject a reject
- You subject the subject
- You abstract an abstract
- You extract the extract
- You can envelope the envelope
- You present the present
- You probably can’t incense the incense, unless you do so anthropomorphically
- You can route a route
- You might be able to upset the upset
- Can a defect defect?
*Coined April 19, 2006 Cory Bickmore, Ryan Byrd
While at BYU, I took a Family History class. I diligently hunted down the records for four generations of my ancestors only to find out, in the end, that an aunt of mine had already compiled the information. Clearly, I could have used my efforts more effectively. Well, there is an answer to this problem in sight!
A group of local technologists and engineers (of which group I am a part) has banded together to produce a new offering, Open Willow.com with the goal of a collaborative merging of Family History research the world over. Our vision is to empower genealogical researchers by leveraging and combining work done by individuals in an open wiki-like environment.
Want to be a part of the project? Email me
p.s. Am I the only one who thinks is was crazy to change the name from “genealogy” to “family history?” I’m told the idea was for greater focus on families, but I secretly think it was because people have trouble spelling and pronouncing the word “genealogy.”
p.p.s. So, you want to do some family history work? Where do you go? Here are some Family History links:
- linux open source Gramps project
- the exhaustive Cyndi’s List
- the MyFamilyInc network, which gives BYU students and faculty free access to their sites:
- The LDS Church’s Family Search site
House Bill 4437 has been causing quite a stir across the United States, as well as here in Utah. House Bill 4437 would make “illegal entry into or illegal presence in the United States” a felony. I’m told more than 10,000 people gathered Sunday in downtown Salt Lake to protest the bill. In Monday’s Daily Utah Chronicle, the above-the fold headline described the event as “Marching for Dignity.” Where is the dignity, however, in blatantly flaunting the violation of the law? Dignity comes from abiding by a constitution which protects human rights. Dignity is giving back to the community and participating in its governance. Dignity is not in selectively obeying laws of a country wherein you abide.
The salient problems, as I see them, are numerous. First, there is a basic need for order and regulation in any modern-day civilization. There is a social contract implicit (for those who are born here) or explicit (for those who are naturalized) between the citizenry and the government. The government agrees to provide certain services and to guarantee particular liberties and the denizens agree to obey a set of rules. Where the rule of law is ignored, society and its members suffer. When income taxes are not paid, one freeloads on a system by enrolling children in public schools, using the transportation infrastructure, benefiting from the security that the police and armed forces provide, etc.
From an order and security perspective, it is paramount that those wishing immigration be naturalized, cataloged (with a social security number), screened and filtered. An unregulated entry of immigrants into the country is bad policy. With the illegal flow of people comes accompanying entrance of criminals, arms and drugs. If you’re going to come to America, come through the front door, through a structured process. It is better for America and better for the newcomers. As an illustration, going through the procedure of naturalization lessens the tendency of Mexicans to culturally remain “Mexicans in America”, instead of becoming Mexican-Americans. They would be more likely to integrate into society, learn English and become contributing members civically.
Also, once citizenship is granted, a host of other services (like the benefit of legal redress) become available.
So how do we address this complex issue?
The first step in addressing this problem is containment. The tide of undocumented persons must be stemmed immediately. With the border patrol hopelessly undermanned, only the militarization of the Mexico border by the National Guard will effectively dam the sieve that is our southern border.
The second step is to reduce the incentives for US companies to hire undocumented workers. By making illegal immigration a felony, it equates hiring and housing Mexicans with “aiding and abetting felons”. That means the employers of the undocumented workers are less motivated to hire them if by consequence the employers could serve prison time or be heavily fined. The justice system would need to strictly monitor the construction, agriculture, food and service industries (those companies most likely to hire foreigners) for violators and hand down stiff penalties for infractions.
Finally, with any approach, it is important to balance the sticks with carrots. Once the influx of Mexican aliens is slowed, there must be a system in place for dealing with the 12 million or so aliens currently living in the United States. Immediate deportation of all 12 million is both largely damaging to both side and impractical, particularly given the fact that any children born in the US are by definition Americans. There must be some way for companies employing illegal workers to immediately apply for sponsored guest worker permits. Then, those possessing those permits would apply for fast-tracked citizenship for themselves and their family members. Those not working, or refusing to enroll in the system would be deported.
No discussion of any issue is of much value without consideration of opposing viewpoints. Here below are a number of arguments I have heard against House Bill 4437, followed by my comments.
Argument 1: “They [illegal aliens] do work other Americans are not willing to do (at that price)”. This is likely true, but besides the fact that such a statement is degrading, I think it is better in the long term if we use technology not illegal labor for undesirable work.
Argument 2: “Their cheap labor keeps prices low (on fruit, consumer goods, etc.)” Sure, but at what cost? How many Mexicans are mistreated with no action of recourse? How many Mexicans receive no health insurance or medical benefits and work in unsafe conditions? Maybe it is worth spending a few more cents to purchase a bag of oranges than to encourage lawless behavior.
Argument 3: “We can’t establish policies to hurt hardworking people and their families.” Actually we can, but that’s not even relevant here. Also, the assumption that illegal aliens are hardworking (and by implication more hardworking) than citizens is, in my opinion, unfounded and unsubstantiated. What remains is that the rule of law is essential for the stability of society. I maintain that those same “hardworking people and their families” would be better off as citizens.
Argument 4: “America is the land of the free. As a bastion for freedom, she should not restrict entry into her borders.” America is only the land of the free because of laws. Having no laws (or not following laws) is the same as having no protected freedoms. We must all choose. Remember, everyone benefits from lawful comportment.
Argument 5: “Any immigration law we pass is unenforceable, therefore we should not pass any such laws.” That may be true, but it is irrelevant. Legislature and enforcement are two different things. It is, as I understand it, the duty of the legislature to create laws for the safety and betterment of society; that is, for the public good. The Justice/enforcement system, on the other hand, is tasked with discovering and punishing those who violate laws. Further, even if it is true that a law was entirely unenforceable, that should not prevent a legislature from making the law. For example, homosexuals should not be allowed to marry each other, not because the government could prevent such persons from homosexual actions, but because, homosexuality (when practiced irresponsibly, as it often is) is a public health nightmare (witness the higher incidence and spread of venereal diseases, higher engagement in risky behavior, etc.) and its government sanction is antithetical to governmental mandate. To be clear, laws limiting marriage to monogamous heterosexuals do not enforce heterosexuality anymore than wishing it to be so, yet still, governments are duty-bound (ethically and practically) to legislate (and therein encourage) best practices for health and stability.
Argument 7: “The European pilgrims were illegal aliens. In fact, Mexicans are the original Americans and European Americans are the real immigrants.” Let’s remember that today’s Mexicans are mainly the descendants of Spanish and Native American relations and are likely genetically no more pure “original American” than the average American of European descent. It’s moot, however, because, regardless of genetic makeup, the law clearly delineates those who are citizens and those who are not.
Argument 8: “Any solution to the problem would be too expensive, so we should not try to solve the problem”. How to pay for implementation is a reasonable question to pose. I am for a combination of efficient action, an increase in taxes, and restrictions on the massive pork barreling that is rampant (particularly among the senators from Alaska and West Virginia). This triumvirate approach, I think, provides adequate financing for the proposed operations.
Argument 9: “Legalizing the workers is too costly — we would have to pay them paying them minimal wage. Additionally, there is the potential burden on the welfare system.” These are the two best arguments I’ve heard so far, and that’s why I’ve saved them for last. As I often read in my textbooks, “the solution is left as an exercise for the reader.” Have fun!
Affluenza n. 1. An epidemic of stress, overwork, shopping and debt caused by dogged pursuit of the American Dream. 2. The bloated, sluggish and unfulfilled feeling that results from one’s efforts to keep up with the Joneses. 3. An unsustainable addiction to economic growth. 4. A book about the sickness, published by Berrett-Koehler
I just finished this book by De Graff et al and I wanted to write down a few thoughts. To be sure, the book got me thinking about the way society seems to be headed. Before I include some excerpts from the book, I think I’ll take a little stream of consciousness perambulation. Let’s go:
A rapidly growing business sector in the United States is the self storage industry. Americans simply have amassed too much stuff. Though the average house size has nearly doubled in the past forty years, our appetites for acquiring things have grown even faster. Ours is a culture of consumption and often, of conspicuous consumption. Contrast that to our ancestor’s philosophy of making things last (expressed by Brigham Young as “use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without”). That precept was embodied and adhered to by those who lived through the depression era, but such fundamental concepts are largely ignored today. Today we buy things we don’t need and then friviously toss them aside to purchase the latest new thing. Advertisers convince us that possession is the same as happiness, and so we end up with everything and ironically, at the same time, have nothing at all. Fearing entrance into the trite and cliche, the best things in life are indeed free and are in fact, not things at all.
Ok, thanks for enduring. Before I’m denounced as a left-wing nut, I should state that I do not agree with all the viewpoints expressed in the Affluenza. Though largely a treehugging, recreational-narcotic-using, save-the-whales, make-love-not-war type of a book, it does raise some good questions about the expendency of our evermore commerical-centered fast-paced life. It serves to highlights the ills of society: Over consumption, material-centricity, pollution, greed, Walmart, etc.
Here are some quotes from Affluenza
“More than ever, we have big houses and broken homes, high incomes and low morale, secured rights and diminished civility. We excel at making a living but often fail at making a life. We celebrate our prosperity but yearn for purpose. We cherish our freedom but long for connection. In an age of plenty, we feel spiritual hunger.”
“Advertising has trained us to solve problems with products; the deep structures of our personalities have been wired to medicate any uneasiness with our favorite drug, consumption. Divorce: splurge. Get married: splurge. Graduate with honors: splurge. Feel like a failure: splurge.”
“Ninety-five percent of our workers say they wish they could spend more time with their families”
“You might be well off materially but feel continually stressed out or as though your life lacks purpose or meaning.” I call this “having everything and yet having nothing.”
“The average American household carried about $9,000 in credit card debt during the year 2002… Even college students averaged $2,500… today our national savings rate hovers near zero and in some months falls below that line… sixty percent of families have so little in the way of financial reserves that they can only sustain their lifestyles for about a month if they lose their jobs. The next richest can only hold out for about three and a half months.”
“Normal is getting dressed in clothes that you buy for work, driving through traffic in a car that you are still paying for, in order to get to the job you need so you can pay for the clothes, car and the house that you leave empty all day in order to afford to live in it.”
How many of us feel as if our lives are truly meaningful? How many of us have time in our lives for rest, relaxation and reflection? How many of us are in control of our time? How many feel like their lives are in balance, and that they are living in harmony with the environment? How many of us are not tired frequently tired? How many are in shape physically, and financially? How much time do we have to help other people? How many of us are truly happy?
“Forty-two percent of American workers say they feel “used up” by the end of the workday. Sixty-nine percent say they’d like to slow down and live a more relaxed life.”
“The more Americans fill their lives with things, the more they tell psychiatrists, pastors, friends and family members that they feel “empty” inside. The more toys our kids have to play with, the more they complain of boredom.”
A study found, “Those individuals for whom accumulating wealth was a primary aspiration ‘were associated with less self-actualization, less vitality, more depression and more anxiety.’ [the study] demonstrated the deleterious consequences of having money as an important guiding principle in life.”
“71 percent of Americans are overweight by an average of ten pounds.”
So, those are the problems. What are some solutions?
“if we ‘produce’ our own entertainment, perhaps by learning to be musicians, master gardeners or woodworkers, informed conversationalists, or sports participants rather than ticket purchasing fans, we’ll reduce our financial needs substantially. If we provide some of our own transportation (and exercise) needs on foot — but living closer to work, stores and recreation — we carve a large chunk out of the $7,500 spent annually by the average car owner. In effect, instead of working from January 1 to March 10 just to cover transportation costs, we can knock off in February. Good diet, satisfying work and regular exercise… Cooking with healthy ingredients… Living in an energy-efficient home… Quality satisfies more deeply than quantity.”
Not all is peachy in the book. Many of their illustrations are archetypes out of the book How to Lie with Charts. The book is decidedly pro-democrat and very nearly anti-capitalism. They don’t offer a fair look at the advances science and technology have brought to the modern world. Instead of realizing that the average life expectancy and quality of life have dramatically risen over the years, they whine about how expensive and “worthless” medications are. They complain about eating meat. Instead of listing some of the benefits of the media and the information age, they moan about it all, including National Geographic Documentaries, which they lambaste as “scripted nature.”
In sum, I think the real desire of the authors of the book is not so much for balanced living, but for us all to become overtaxed, lazy, socialistic, pot-smoking, love-festing slugabeds; still I think some value can be pulled from the tares.
In order to be happier, we should all:
- Spend less; get out of debt and start saving
- Conserve more
- Eat less
- Work less
- Garden more
- Be more active
- Do more things in nature
- Be more of participants and less of spectators
- Help others and be connected with others more
- Take time to study and contemplate
- Slow life down
Ironically, Bullfrog Films, who distributes the Affluenza documentary, sells the DVD for an insane $250 dollars. The cost sensitive can rent it for a reasonable $85 dollars.
References in the book:
www.timeday.org, www.newdream.org, www.simpleliving.net, www.simplicityforum.org
Google Maps now has higher resolution maps for many European cities than they do for cities in the United States. You can’t zoom in to the lowest level, for example, on Salt Lake City. You can however, zoom in all the way on Paris, London and Rome. If you’ve never had a chance to visit those fabulous cities, here’s a quick virtual tour: (go ahead and click and drag and zoom around each of the sites)