It’s nice that major leaders in various sects of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam can come together over something, but I just wish it wasn’t to oppose a gay pride festival in Jerusalem.

The part of this article that made me laugh, however, comes about 2/3 of the way through. Apparently the whole furor was started by some evangelical rabble-rouser at a church in California that meets in a hotel. He was tipped off to the event by “a congregation member who had told Mr. Giovinetti that he was gay for many years and still monitored gay Web sites [emphasis mine]”. Ah yes, those ex-gays. Even though they tend to be hateful, preachy people, you almost have to feel sorry for this guy, because “still monitored gay Web sites” is thinly veiled code for “jerks off to gay porn and looks for hookups on gay.com”. He just tattles on the gay agenda to his minister later.

I am slightly heartened by the fact that, in a cursory google search to identify a few hateful, preachy ex-gay organizations to link to as examples in that last paragraph, that I actually had to dig. The top links were actually all from places like the apparently quite positive and constructive ExGayWatch.com. It’s heartening to see that confused people trying to find their way will see this kind of thing first.

DRMBlog, in the course of considering subscription music services poses some interesting questions about models for media ownership:

• Would you rather rent music or buy music?
• Would you rather rent movies or buy movies?
• Would you rather rent a book or buy a book?
• Would you rather rent furniture or buy furniture?
• Would you rather rent a car or buy a car?
• Would you rather rent a house or buy a house?

Let’s start with the easy ones: I’d rather buy a house, a car, and furniture. They’re physical things (needed in their specific physical forms) that I use regularly. Moreover, I like the idea of owning them and being able to modify them at will.

But what about media like books, music, and movies?

Read the rest of this entry »

I took a stupid career quiz a few days ago, and it got me thinking.

Stupid magazine quizzes are essentially simple versions of “scientific” psychological tests like the Myers-Briggs, and they’re not really very differnt from horoscopes, or handwriting analysis, or psychic readings. Except the people who write magazine quizzes are way less talented than the psychics.

The “answers” to stupid magazine quizzes, just like horoscopes, are broad and vague and at least part of them applies to almost anyone. There’s not really any suprising information there; nothing you didn’t already really know. But the writers of the magazine quiz are at a distinct advantage over the writer of a horoscope: they actually get you to tell them things about you! You answer a bunch of questions and then they regurgitate it back to you.

Psychics, on the other hand, are much more talented. I’m not talking about the people telling us that the world will end in fire and brimstone when the aliens arrive on a Tuesday in 2011. I’m talking about the real working-class of the psychic world, the people who do personal readings, or someone like John Edward. They take a look at you, gathering all kinds of subtle clues about you, ask a few questions and make some really remarkable connections, and hit you spot on. Sure, they might make some broad and vague and all-encompassing statements too, but they carefully gauge how you react and home in on the correct statements, or those that affect you the most. They don’t need no stinkin’ multiple choice questions.

(I don’t actually think psychics have supernatural or paranormal abilities per se, although I wouldn’t be surprised if many of them do this in a subconscious manner and are really surprisingly good at it in ways that are certainly extraordinary or preternatural. And I don’t think that makes them irrelevant or useless at all. But that’s material for a future rumination.)

I just took a stupid career quiz on MSN: Do you love your job? In the tradition of all stupid quizzes, it doesn’t really tell you anything you don’t already know, or couldn’t figure out on your own with a little consideration.

I was a mixture of D’s and C’s, with a B or two thrown in (the “Answer Key” is at the bottom). Basically, if Goldilocks is an A, she likes her job too much; a B, she doesn’t like it at all; a C, she likes it just right. D… well, D is what I’m most interested in, because it’s where I identify most closely. Here’s a little of what it says:

D: It’s the first letter in “dilettante,” which is what you tend to be when it comes to your professional life. You are most likely ambitious and multitalented, but have trouble settling down because it means foregoing other choices. This isn’t necessarily a bad quality — many people change careers several times throughout their lives — but you should try to make sure these switches in direction are based on careful thought and consideration rather than impulse.

This is so me. I was a scientist who got burned out on grad school, so I quit and completely reinvented my resume and started a career as a technical writer. (File this under: Benefits of a liberal arts education.) Now I feel like I’ve pretty much mastered all the things I do in my job, and I’m ready for something new, so I’ve applied to go to library school.

I start to have a problem with what the rest of the description says, however:

Perhaps you’re reluctant to commit to one job or career because you haven’t prioritized your goals. Since it’s impossible to do everything, try narrowing your options by assessing your talents and preferences. Ask basic questions – do I like to work with people or am I happier with solitary pursuits? Do I have a knack for mathematics, science, languages, music, art or sales? Could my interest in a particular field lead to a career or merely a hobby? Can I make money at this? Do I want to do this work 40 or more hours a week? Finding the answers to these questions is the first step toward committing to a career choice.

Well thank you, MSN content-creation monkey, for so neatly mapping things out for me. Now my life is complete.

Seriously, who says I have to “commit to a career choice”? I just don’t really think there’s any single career that’s for me. I know it’s normal for people to change careers once or twice (and change jobs many times), but my life is shaping into changing my career every couple of years or so. And that’s OK with me. (For K folks, see the article in the last Lux Esto about alumni changing careers. I swear that K’s quarters ruined me for anything lasting longer than 10 weeks, and apparently I’m not alone in this feeling.) I think an MLS is also a super idea at this point, because (1) I’d love to go back to school about now, and (2) it’s the handyman equivalent of the academic world, a sort of jack-of-all-trades with information, which I feel will serve me well in lots of careers down the road, whatever they may be.

Yeah, I like this career-changing-every-so-often track. I imagine by the time I “retire” I will have been a climate scientist, a technical writer, a librarian, a car mechanic, an artist, and a fry-cook on Venus, and eight other things. All of which sound like a lot of fun, at least for a couple of years. “[I]t’s impossible to do everything”? My ass.

I’m not a programmer. I’ve never really written a piece of code that’s worth much. I do, however, know just enough to be dangerous. I can read other people’s code and alter it. But occasionally, not being a programmer, I run up against a wall and have to give up after a while.

So far in getting this blog going, I’ve been really impressed with PHP and Wordpress, because I haven’t gotten stuck on anything I couldn’t get over.

Knowing HTML well enough, it’s no big thang to add a little PHP. A lot of the thanks here goes to the people who put out understandable, well-thought-out Wordpress templates. Both PHP and Wordpress are well-documented, which goes a long way too. I found the PHP documentation especially lucid.

The take-home lesson here is: Don’t be daunted. If you have the slightest bit of geek in you (and maybe even if you don’t), you can do this. And even if you aren’t the least bit geeky, I bet you know someone who is.

This is an h4

This is some text. Blah blah blah. This is code.

This is a blockquote. This is some text. Blah blah blah. This is some text. Blah blah blah. This is some text. Blah blah blah a–z. This is some text. Blah — blah blah. This is some text. Blah blah blah. This is some text. Blah blah blah. This is some text. Blah blah blah.

Read the rest of this entry »