Google Maps test

View Larger Map

Test

FlashVars='feed=http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/xml/data_synd.jhtml?vid=91137%26myspace=false'

Testing Microsoft Word 2007’s blog capabilities

I thought that this would be a good opportunity to try Microsoft Word again for blog posts. I don't like using it as much as Windows Live Writer Beta simply because of its emulation of the blog template while writing…it gives a better idea of what the blog will look like when it's posted on the web. There is a bug though, and that is the deleting in Writer. If you hold down the backspace key, it won't show what it's deleted until you lift your finger, which is a minor annoyance, but I wish it would get fixed.

About naming

So now that I have two blogs with virtually identical content (see the WordPress version here), I thought I might touch on one of the differences between the blogs...the name.

The name of this blog on WordPress is Terra Nova, which, as you can see from a Google search, is not an incredibly original name.  However, I think that it is a bit more original than the title of this version.  But this isn't a big issue, because both names are temporary (as is one of these blogs).  I named the WordPress version "Terra Nova", because WordPress was new terrain for me and I felt like I should have a name that was better than "Ben Main's Blog", which I have here.

One of the reasons that I have not settled on a permanent name for the blog is because I don't really have a planned aim with this blog.  I'll probably comment on Sci/Tech news and talk a bit about myself to start, but I don't think there's a defining characteristic I could use for a good permanent name.

Another difference in naming is the url for the blogs.  Beyond the obvious "blogspot" vs. "wordpress" difference, there is the first part.  In this blog it is "alethiareg" while on WordPress, it is "mengbomin".  To just about anyone, both are meaningless unless explained, so I'll do that now.

Alethiareg is a user name I've used for largely for second accounts, second email addresses, and as an otherwise throwaway login name.  I believe I came up with it a short time after reading Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials trilogy, which I would recommend as good reading material.  The "golden compass" for which the American version of the first book is named has the more technical-sounding name of "alethiometer", which according to Pullman in the book, comes from the Greek word for truth "aletheia".  I misspelled that and added reg, which I believe was short for "regular" to make "alethiareg".  The reason I continue to use it in many places is that it is now very easy to remember and it is very unique.  I doubt that anyone else will ever come up with it independently.

As for "mengbomin", this is my name in Chinese class.  In Chinese characters it is 孟柏民 (pinyin: Mèng Bómín).  I thought that this would be a better username for the future as it actually means something to me and is probably nearly as unique as "alethiareg".

If anyone wants to comment on my current names or give a suggestion for a future name for this blog you are more than welcome to do so. 

Trying out WordPress

When I initially started my blog on Blogger, I was not aware of other options for blog posting and I likely didn't really care either.  At the time, I was very excited about all things Google, and since Blogger was owned by Google, I probably viewed it as "one of Google's cool products".

So, as I am blogging again with a bit more knowledge of the web and a more even view of web companies, I thought it would be a good idea to test WordPress against Blogger to see which I like better.  My initial impressions of WordPress are good.  I like the layout and themes a bit better than Blogger and I appreciate the lack of a big bar at the top of the screen.  I will do more fiddling with both before I make a final judgement on the issue.

Until then, I will be posting to both blogs with pretty much the same posts.  This shouldn't be too difficult, since I am using Windows Live Writer (Beta) to write my posts (a pretty good experience as far as I am concerned).

Click here to see this blog in WordPress.

Embryonic stem cells and Bush

If you've been paying attention to the news, you know that President Bush recently vetoed another bill that allocated funding to research on embryonic stem cells saying that "Destroying human life in the hopes of saving human life is not ethical."

This is a disappointing development that is apparently backed by faulty reasoning. If Bush were really so opposed to the destruction of embryos, then he should be actively campaigning for an end to in vitro fertilization (IVF), which would serve as the source of embryos for the research that this bill concerns. What is so immoral about using cells from embryos that would otherwise be discarded to help cure diseases such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's? Since the act of destroying embryos by itself isn't worth Bush's attention, why is using them to help others so immoral? There doesn't seem to be any reasoning behind this view.

Further down, there is another argument that lies at the heart of many pro-life mindsets, and that is that anything that can be defined as a human life somehow has intrinsic value that should not be breached. This is the view behind the idea that abortion of any sort is murder, as human embryos can be defined as human life and thus should be treated as if they were people.

While such a view is internally consistent (it would be nothing short of embarrassing if such a popular and influential view were not) and understandable if one takes simplistic view of morality and value, it is flawed. Value is given by circumstance, not by definition, and the circumstances surrounding human embryos are most certainly different than those surrounding newborns, children, adolescents, and adults. For one thing, early embryos lack a nervous system, making them unable to feel, think, or desire anything.

Another difference is that not nearly as many resources are needed to arrive at an embryo as are needed to arrive at a newborn. Basically, all that is needed is one egg cell to be successfully fertilized by a sperm cell. In the case of IVF, this is achieved in a lab, though the act is more conventionally initiated in the bedroom. What is produced is a cell that multiplies, creating a ball of cells. This organism, while technically human, is capable of little.

For visual purposes, this is a microscopic view of an 8-celled embryo courtesy of Wikipedia:

The value of this organism lies completely in its potential. If, as in the case of IVF, multiple embryos are created and some are unused by the owners, the potential for these embryos to become human beings will go untapped. Of course, this is not to say that these embryos become valueless. These embryos are made of stem cells, which have the potential to differentiate into any type of human cell possible, which gives them great value in the realm of stem cell research.

This brings us back to the original topic. By throwing out these embryos, we are discarding something of great potential value. And so, by saying that vetoing this funding bill it is Bush that is pushing the immoral position and that is to destroy something that could be made useful in the medical field.

Some of my thoughts on mp3 players

Since my last post was about my experience with getting my mp3 player replaced, I figured that I'd post my opinion.  I know I'm not the foremost authority on the subject, only having owned one mp3 player for myself, but I think I have enough experience with them to make a few comments.

Apple's iPod mp3 players dominate the market.  In the minds of many people iPods and mp3 players are equivalent sets rather than the former being a subset of the latter, as the actual case is.  For instance yesterday, my mother, knowing full well that Apple did not make my mp3 player, asked if my iPod had arrived.

I think it is unfortunate that iPods hold the market share they do, not because I hate Apple or feel that people shouldn't own them, but because they are not the best devices one could buy for their price.  Take the iPod nano.  It is a thin flash mp3 player.  It does not have video support or an FM radio (you can get a radio add on for $49 from Apple).  Furthermore, it has a troublesome file structure, forcing one to edit the songs via iTunes unless they hack the player.  The 2GB version costs $149, the 4GB version costs $199 and the 8GB version costs $249 according to Apple.

In contrast, the mp3 players in SanDisk's Sansa e200 line does play video and has a built in radio.  According to SanDisk, the 2GB version costs $120, the 4GB version $150, the 6GB version $170, and the 8GB version $199.  Both the 4GB and 8GB versions are $49 cheaper than the corresponding nano.  Yet, the majority of buyers who buy flash memory-based mp3 players buy iPod nanos over Sansa e200 series players.

Now, I'm not going to say that SanDisk's player is better for all people.  It's not.  For one thing, it doesn't support games.  I'm not one to play games with handheld devices, so that didn't matter to me.  As well, for some, the touch scroll wheel of the nano is preferable to the mechanical scroll wheel of the e200 series (for me the situation).  Others may find that the form factor of a nano is worth plunking down an extra $49 dollars.  To me, if it fits in my pocket with room to spare, I'm happy.  However, given the features and the prices, I cannot believe that the nano's market share is due to rational, knowledgeable choices being made by users.

Of course, there are other mp3 players beyond those produced by Apple and SanDisk, which happen to have the first and second place market share respectively, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if there were comparable players that have better features and/or a better price tag than both.  For instance, I have little doubt that there exists a flash player that works with a different format or formats than the space-consuming .mov format that the e200 series uses.

This is one of the irksome things about the e200 series.  Video is converted to a 90° rotated scaled down .mov file (one of the formats used by Apple's Quicktime player).  Presumably this is so that the player can directly play it without using many resources, but since it is uncompressed, it can sometimes take up more space on the player than the original file did, even if the original file was of higher resolution.