Heckler: “You drink that stuff? They’re really bad for you?”
Me: “What’s so bad about them?”
Heckler: “They’re loaded with sugar. Do you want diabetes?”
Me: “I drink sugar free. What else is bad about them?”
Heckler: “er… um… they’re just bad.”

…and that’s how most conversations go.

Some people point out the high caffeine content. Some of those same people also drink multiple cups of coffee a day. Pot calling the Kettle black, anyone? Caffeine can cause dehydration, which I knew long before I started drinking energy drinks, so I usually drink 12-16oz of water alongside my energy drinks.I also drink them slowly: a single 16oz can will last me the whole day, and I often don’t even finish it, because I hate the “spike and crash” feeling of drinking one quickly.

Finally, searching the web, I find carbonation (fizz) is a problem. CO2 is a waste product, so ingesting it isn’t the healthiest thing you can do. Lately I’ve gravitated toward the tea-based energy drinks, which have little or no carbonation, and even with the carbonated ones, by opening it in the morning and sipping it slowly throughout the day, by the end of the day it’s pretty flat. As with the coffee snobs, many of my hecklers may also down multiple sodas a day, thereby ingesting more carbonation than I ever will.

So: sugar, caffeine, carbonation. In other words, soda and coffee. And yet soda and coffee are acceptable, but energy drinks are evil?

1. Developers must read the users’ minds.
2. Databases must be able to enter their own data.
3. Software must do all a user’s work for him/her, but in such a way that the user still gets the paycheck.
4. Deadline is yesterday. Data critical for completion will be provided by the user tomorrow.

Square Enix (Makers of Final Fantasy)
RSA (Makers of the SecurID token)
Lockheed Martin
Google China
Canada’s Conservative Party website
Sony
Citibank
Codemasters

Update (6/13/2011)
We can add the International Monetary Fund and Spain’s Police website to the list, though they both have suspects.

I’m computer savvy and security conscious. In spite of my simple precautions, though, I’ve been affected. Since I’m a gamer, the number of game companies in that list concerns me. I noticed a dramatic increase in spam after the Square Enix hack, even though the last Final Fantasy game I played was #8. I have apparently been signed up for eleven (!) life insurance policies and a dating site since the Sony hack, though fortunately those firms called to confirm my information and I was able to halt the applications.

All this to say, if someone like me is affected, you can guarantee less savvy users will be affected. It’s time to take cyber security more seriously, for myself as well.

“They can also publicize organizations and groups that help build positive social skills and self-discipline (e.g., Boys & Girls Clubs, Scouting, martial arts classes).”

Martial Arts classes as a way to prevent bullying? Now THAT’S funny.

This is, in my opinion, an example of the upside-down thinking of a society that is moving away from absolute morality (inspired by God). They are partially right, in that all human life is valuable. The problem with the perspective of “respecting a murderer’s life” is that in doing so, they are disrespecting the lives of the murderer’s victims, both those actually murdered and those of the affected loved ones. Also, since many murderers are repeat offenders, failing to execute a convicted murderer is disrespecting the life of their future victims. The only way to guarantee that a murderer will never murder again is to execute them.

So, it isn’t a question of respecting human life. It’s a question of which human life do you respect more: the victim’s or the murderer’s? A murderer has already devalued his or her life by performing such a reprehensible act. To avoid the death penalty is, in fact, giving the murderer more respect than he has earned and disrespecting and devaluing the lives of all other innocent humans.

In short, avoiding the death penalty is disrespectful to human life.

“Sometimes destroying a destroyer is the only way to protect the innocent.”

I’m not just talking about the plastic water bottles that we throw out after one use, which are themselves boxed in cardboard and covered with still more plastic. I’m talking about repair and reuse.

I throw out lots more stuff than my parents do, because at some point in my childhood I realized if I didn’t it would pile up and I never would have made it out of my landfill of a room to go to college.

For many years, I repaired computers for a living. There are so many computers and parts I’ve acquired that have only minor problems with them, but it’s somehow more efficient to purchase a new one than it is to hunt down the cracked solder or other minor glitch that keeps the existing one from working. I’ve talked with people from Eastern European countries who are shocked that the cost of repair in this country is often higher than the cost of replacement.

So, we throw potentially useful stuff out. Appliances, electronics, vehicles - big stuff. Stuff that in a different society could be repaired and reused becomes trash to us in the race to minimize cost and downtime.

This isn’t an indictment, merely an observation. I think it’s a strange way to live, though I wouldn’t want to reverse the Industrial Revolution to stop it. I doubt we can sustain this pattern in the coming centuries, but in the meantime, I’ll continue to wince as I throw stuff out that might be useful in a different time and different place, simply because I can’t live in a landfill.

On an episode of The Big Bang Theory, chief geek Leonard has just broken up with his girlfriend, Penny, and his friend Sheldon has to “choose Team Leonard or Team Penny.” Sheldon responds, “Which team chooses last? I’m always the last one chosen unless there’s a kid in a wheelchair.”

Which brings me to my point: people extol the virtues of sports in creating camaraderie,  give-and-take, a sense of belonging, blah blah blah.

Maybe so, but only if you already fit. For non-athletic geeks like myself, team sports are a source of insult, pain (both physical and emotional), and humiliation. If you aren’t “good enough”, the team rejects you and you bear the brunt of collective ridicule.

I have found I enjoy sports in which I challenge myself to grow without the constant comparison and competition. Rock climbing, archery, and karate are examples. Those are areas where I can exercise and succeed without being assaulted in the locker room for missing the goal.

While team sports certainly provide community and fitness to a significant percentage of the population, perhaps we should remember that not everyone fits that mold and provide alternatives that don’t involve toilet swirlies.

An opinion piece on the article asks the question: what do we do when rights collide? How do we resolve the clash between the Christians’ right to exercise their faith vs. the homosexuals’ right to choose their own lifestyle?

Most enlightening about this article were the comments: Almost all of them, including those by self-proclaimed Christians, reveal reasoning based on social ethics.

These days, whenever someone says something is “immoral” or “unethical”, I immediately have to ask: based on which system of ethics? There are three prevailing systems of ethics out there: Relative Ethics, Social Ethics, and Religious Ethics. (There are others, but they’re employed by the “elite few”, who rarely apply them consistently.)

Relative ethics don’t survive under scrutiny. Essentially, that’s the belief that whatever an individual believes to be right is right. This system collapses, since it leaves no room for any kind of moral comparison. Court cases would be reduced to: Judge: “Do you believe you did the right thing when you murdered that person?” Defendant: “Yes.” Judge: “Not guilty.” Most people who say they believe this are either deluding themselves, or really believe social ethics, which is a modification of relative ethics.

Social ethics are simply: “what the majority says is right, is right.” In other words, if the majority of people in 1850 believed homosexuality is wrong, it was wrong. Now that the majority of people believe it’s right, it’s right. This gives some basis for moral decisions, but it’s clearly a shaky foundation. As a society’s perception changes, so does the standard of right and wrong, and no moral knowledge can be relied upon long term. It appears to me this is what the majority of people believe today.

Religious ethics is the belief that there is an absolute moral standard, revealed by God in a religion’s holy book. (Bible, Qu’ran, Vedas, etc.) Historically, this has been the basis for morality in many societies, and still is in many Islamic countries. This gives the most concrete basis for moral decisions. (I won’t get into the debate over the validity of moral systems in the various religions at this point.)

So, the issue of who’s rights should win out in the issue of Christian vs. Homosexuals is a question of which moral system you employ. If you employ social ethics, then according to polls 74% of Britons believe homosexuality is a legitimate lifestyle, and the homosexuals should win. If, however, you employ Christian-based religious ethics, which condemns unmarried sexual relationships in general and homosexuality in particular, the Christians win.

My goal in this article is not to debate “who should win”, but rather to prompt your thinking about which moral system you use. And once you recognize that, to ask yourself, is that the best moral system I could use?

I would argue that religious ethics are the only stable way to go, which means those readers who do not claim a religion may need to struggle with the question of should they claim a religion, and if so, which one?

Particularly interesting about this discovery is the fact that the planet is orbiting a red dwarf star - a small, dim star of which there are a huge number in the universe. For scientists who believe in macroevolution, this is a big boost. If there are a huge number of habitable stars, there should be a huge number of habitable planets, and that many more chances for life to evolve. If this is borne out, Earth isn’t “special” and fine-tuned, and therefore less likely to be the product of an intelligent designer.

But, like many discoveries that initially look like a boost to anti-Thiests, red dwarf stars have a dirty little secret: they are much more violent than our sun. They have much more frequent, and more violent, flares than our own sun. Since these stars are smaller and dimmer than our sun, their habitable zone is much closer to the parent star, thereby exposing a habitable planet to these violent flares and a much greater dose of radiation than our planet suffers. This does not bode well for the existence of life on these planets.

So, it still looks like the Earth is a special place, most likely designed by an Intelligence.

To understand why I say this, you first have to understand my perspective on science and the Bible. First, I firmly and unshakably believe scientific inquiry will never succeed in refuting the Biblical text (long term). So, when scientists want to question aspects of the Biblical record, I say “bring it on!” God is bigger than science, He is not threatened by science, and His Word will stand up to the harshest and deepest probing. The more we poke at, question, investigate and search the Bible, the better we will understand it and its Writer.

Frankly, I’m ashamed of religious people who say you “shouldn’t” ask a certain type of question. If you think there are questions we “shouldn’t” ask, I say “your god is too small!”If God is truly God, infinite and all-powerful, no question we limited, semi-powerful humans could dream up will threaten Him in the slightest.

So, why atheist scientists? Couldn’t Christian scientists probe and question the Bible?

Certainly they can, but Christian scientists will be too gentle. Also, since they come from a Biblical worldview, there are certain questions they won’t think to ask. Atheists, because of their motive is to disprove the Bible, will dig deeper, present harsher criticism, interpret things from a different worldview, and think of questions a Theist never would. And in doing so, they will uncover aspects of the Biblical text, and its Writer, that will enlighten a believer’s perspective.

In short, an atheist’s harsh questioning of the Bible enriches the lives of Christians by uncovering aspects of the Creator that we might have otherwise missed.

So, Bring It ON!