The Way of the Johnny

2011-12-31T11:52:00.000-05:00

Wow, yet another year gone, and I only had 1 blog post in 2011! I promise I'll post more in the coming year (I don't believe in New Years resolution, so that's probably as close as I'll get to one). Like last year, I wasn't sure how many things actually happened this year because it was such a blur, but here they are as best as I can remember at the moment:

The Bad

The father of close family friends passed away. I've known the family for most of my life and losing him was like losing an uncle. May the soul of Francisco Buenconsejo rest in peace.
Needed laser retina surgery AGAIN because I had a torn retina for the 3rd time

The Good

Photographed 1 wedding (better than none!)
Attended my cousin's wedding
Got more house projects done
Worked on reviving the Filipino American Society

The Awesome

Celebrated 3 years of marriage with Sophia
Found out Sophia was pregnant with our 2nd, and the baby will be a boy!
Celebrated Cecilia's 2nd birthday
Watching Cecilia develop even more

10 Years Later, I Still Miss Dad

2011-03-15T11:45:00.008-04:00

This year, 2011, marks the 10 year anniversary of my dad's death. Thinking about everything that has happened in my life since he left this world, it feels like the decade has just flown by. Since his death, I've graduated college, worked for 3 different companies, I've been unemployed twice, met and married my wife, and had my first child. It's sad to think dad wasn't around physically for all these events in my life.

One of the things I've been surprised by over the years is how little things remind me of dad. A commercial on TV, a scene in a movie, music, food, and just about anything else can conjure up memories. And after having my first child, seeing anything associated with fatherhood can also trigger thoughts of dad. It's bittersweet to think that my wife and I had our daughter when I was the same age as my dad was when him and mom had me. I am going through a lot of the same experiences he did, so I feel a closeness to my dad I didn't feel before, but I can't talk to him about it. And he won't be able to meet his grandchildren in this life, only in the next.

I don't mean for this to be a depressing, sad post. If there's one thing that has given me comfort over the years, it's my Catholic faith. My dad was a good man, but he had his flaws. Don't all dads? I have memories of dad being a great human being, and memories of dad behaving not so greatly. So is he in heaven? I don't know, and unless the Church proclaims him a saint, no one can know for certain. My hope is that he is in purgatory, because that means he's on his way to heaven, and it gives me great comfort to know I can continue to pray for the rest of his soul. Even if he can't help me anymore, I can still help him. And when I enter into the next life, I hope to see him again.

Eternal rest grant unto the soul of Pedrito Acierto, and may perpetual light shine upon him.
May his soul, and all the souls of the faithfully departed, through the mercy of God, rest in peace.
Amen.

Goodbye 2010!

2011-01-01T00:39:00.005-05:00

Last year, I did a "The Bad, the Good" type list for the year, so I thought I'd do it again this year. I wasn't quite sure how many things actually happened this year because it was such a blur, but Sophia and I were talking and there were indeed a lot of things that happened. So here they are as best as I can remember at the moment (had a little wine to ring in the New Year):

The Bad

Had to replace the Element's windshield 2 times
Needed laser retina surgery because I had a detached retina for the 2nd time

The Good

Got a job!
Photographed 3 weddings
Got lots of house projects done
Elected president of the Filipino American Society

The Awesome

Celebrated 2 years of marriage with Sophia
Celebrated Cecilia's 1st birthday
Watching Cecilia develop: going from being non-mobile to walking, babbling more and more, starting to eat solid foods, etc., etc.

My Headphone Soapbox

2010-12-30T09:45:00.015-05:00

I've written before about the headphones I use and I still use them to this day (here's a blog post I wrote years ago about them). Recently I modified the PX100's by replacing the ear pads with bigger replacement pads from Radioshack to make them more comfortable. I also cut a hole in the middle of the pads (called the quarter mod or nickel mod to describe the size of the hole) so I could hear higher frequencies better. The modifications have made a BIG difference and I find the PX100s have a whole new character. They're much more comfortable now and sound much better. Here are some photos I snapped:

After doing the mods, I got to thinking about headphones in general and how overpriced they can be, especially for those well marketed headphones made by Bose and Monster Beats by Dr. Dre. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a headphone snob by any means and I do think the headphones by Bose and Monster Beats sound very good. But I don't think the quality of sound of Bose and Monster Beats headphones warrants their high price.

To illustrate my point, here's a frequency graph I got from HeadRoom which compares the Monster Beats Solo headphones with 3 headphones I own (Grado SR60, Sennheiser PX100, and Sennheiser HD280 Pro).

The frequency response for Bose headphones weren't available because HeadRoom doesn't sell them, I'm guessing because of Bose's licensing costs.

The Grado SR60s have the flattest frequency response, which explains why they sound the best to me and why they have the most detail. The HD280 Pros have a little more bass then the SR60's and the PX100's have less treble than the SR60s. But take a look at the Monster Solos, they have the least amount of treble out of all the headphones, along with having a LOT of bass. This will lead to a lot less detail and clarity in the music. Here's another graph showing both the Monster Solo and Studio headphones compared to the Grado SR60s and Sennheiser PX100s:

The Monster Beats Studio headphones (green line) have a pretty flat response, but the Grado SR60's is still flatter.

Graphs are well and good, but where I really have my beef with Bose and Monster Beats is the cost of their headphones. Bose's Triports start at $150 while Monster Beats Solos start at $179. For better sound (in my opinion), you can get Sennheiser PX100s for $69, Grado SR60s for $79, or Sennheiser HD280 Pros for $99.

So why do Bose and Monster Beats get away with this price gouging? Like the graphs show, I think they fool people into thinking they have better sound by increasing the bass frequencies. Generally, I think people judge sound quality by the amount of bass (I used to be like this too). Those with more refined tastes listen for both bass and high frequency treble (I find car audio guys are like this). Professionals, like Audiophiles and recording engineers, listen for a flatter, more detailed response because this more accurately presents the music as it was meant to be heard. Personally, I prefer detail and flat frequency responses because I have a home recording studio and I need detail and accuracy for mixing purposes. You can't mix well if you're getting too much bass or treble from the speakers or headphones.

We all want better sound. Those earbuds and headphones that are packaged with iPods and other mp3 players just don't cut it. But, good sound doesn't have to be expensive and I hope I've shown that with this post. The next time you're at Best Buy and a person in blue tries to sell you Bose or Monster Beats headphones, don't let them talk you into buying them before you've sampled some Grado, Sennheiser, or other great headphones out there.

Get Angry!

2010-11-05T14:29:00.005-04:00

There seems to be a big epidemic out there right now that people are really concerned about. The news did reports on people who suffered from this disease. It was spreading wildly and there were rallies against the disease saying it must be stopped. What's this disease I'm writing about? Anger.

If that first paragraph seemed like hyperbole, it was. I don't think all the anger out there is a big deal, but for some reason people seem to be really concerned about it. I have even been accused of being an angry, paranoid right wing nut. That's fine, but anger happens for various reasons and I feel the news media and people who don't like the angry reactions expect us all to be more Vulcan (logical with no emotions) than human. I happen to believe we should be more human than Vulcan.

The best way I can illustrate how anger isn't all bad is to relate to you my experiences in customer service. I've never worked in a customer service position per se, but working at an embroidery shop and as an engineer at an architecture firm, I have plenty of experience dealing with customers and clients. And yes, I've dealt with some who got angry. Here are my observations about why anger happens:

-The most obvious reason customers get angry is because they don't get what they ordered, or they don't get it on time. I've had to rush orders when deadlines were missed. I've also had to redo orders when we made mistakes on an order. The customers have a right to be angry and when we were truly upfront and honest about our mistakes, their anger was curtailed most of the time. The government has not been upfront or honest with their mistakes as of late and the improvement to the economy they promised is way overdue. Sounds like a business that has messed up, doesn't it?

-Another reason customers tend to get angry is when they feel they are not being heard. I've had to correct orders when one person who took the order didn't communicate all the information to anyone else, hence the customer felt we didn't listen to their requests. Recent polls have shown most people feel the government no longer listens to them. Sound familiar.

-Lastly, some customers are just naturally angry people and can't be appeased. This rarely happens and is by no means the norm, but these people are out there. The best thing to do is just be patient with them and try to meet their requests as much as possible. I wish the government would at least try to appease people's anger instead of saying they're too angry and ignoring them.

If the government acted more like a responsible business, then maybe fewer people would be angry at them. People have a right to their anger, especially when they feel their government isn't doing the job they were created for: serving the people. Now, I must say that it's not right for angry people to take out their anger on just anyone. We should all be civil and be able to debate and discuss without yelling. But in the end, anger is just a symptom of something deeper and it only manifests when no other means of communication seems to work. There's no clearer way of communicating dissatisfaction than anger and it seems that's the only way to get the government's attention nowadays. Hopefully this will now change with the government now more balanced.

New Blog Design!

2010-09-07T13:56:00.004-04:00

It's been awhile since I updated this blog and, based on my experiences creating a new ACE Photography website using Squarespace, I was considering just closing this blog down. It was just looking really antiquated next to other blog engines out there (like Squarespace, Tumblr, and Wordpress). But I was pleasantly surprised today to see that Blogger had some new templates to offer. I found a template I liked, changed the background and colors to my liking, and lo and behold, you are now looking at the newly refreshed "The Way of the Johnny" blog.

I'd like to get back to writing posts again, so be on the lookout. But for now, enjoy the new look and, while you're at it, check out the archives. There's some juicy stuff in there!

Music as Art, Theater, or Entertainment

2010-05-31T14:08:00.004-04:00

"Music is a language." - Victor Wooten

"Music is a listening art." - David Burge

I saw the tv show "Glee" for the first time over Memorial Day weekend at a cousin's place. So many people are fans of the show and I wonder what makes it so popular, even after watching finally watching it. I also wonder why American Idol is so popular, even after so many years. Being a musician, I don't consider either show having the best quality music, but I also realize high quality music isn't the point of the shows.

As a musician, I believe music is an art form worthy of lifelong study. I like the quotes above very much because I think music is a means of expression, just like a language is. And music is more about listening than it is about making sounds. Musicians just have a more highly developed sense of listening.

With American Idol, Glee, and the rise of show choirs lately, it seems to me that music as art is in decline when it comes to the general public. What's more, I think music as entertainment has become the main way people relate to music. Take "Glee" and show choirs for example. Music is the aural wallpaper that acts as a background to the performers singing and dancing. I think the same argument can be made for popular acts like Lady Gaga, who has taken Madonna's approach to the extreme, making music theatrical.

Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with music as entertainment. I love Michael Jackson, who was the quintessential entertainer. But he was also a musician, who wrote, produced, and performed much of his own material. What's more, he could take any song and make it his own through his own musical abilities. No doubt, most people paid more attention to his performance skills with this dancing and theatricality on stage. For me, the music he made was at the root of his appeal more than his performance skills, and I think his music will in the end be what people remember from him.

The singers who appear on American Idol are very skilled performers and entertainers, but I wish there would be more art involved. All the greatest musicians have spent years and years not just performing, but writing and composing music and honing their listening skills. I'd like American Idol contestants to present original material and be critiqued on that skill. I think it would also be cool to subject contestants to listening tests by having them learn a song in real time on the air. I've written before about how these types of tests are given to contestants on "So You Think You Can Dance", so I think Idol contestants should be similarly tested. We're supposed to be finding true musicians, right?

Maybe I'm just being too picky, or maybe I'm just out of touch. All I know is that my guitar and bass students don't come in asking to learn Lady Gaga (which I wouldn't teach them anyway). They want to learn music, so I teach them music. If my students spent as much time practicing their technique, theory, and songwriting as they did watching Idol or Glee, they'd be better musicians than I am. I can only hope!

How the Toyota Acceleration Problems Prove NFP is Not the Same as Contraception

2010-03-16T10:31:00.008-04:00

If you go onto YouTube and search for Fr. Euteneuer/Sean Hannity, you'll see a very heated "discussion" where a cultural Catholic (Hannity) criticizes the believes of an orthodox Catholic (Fr. Euteneuer). The main issue of disagreement was contraception. The Catholic Church teaches contraception in all its forms is wrong and approves natural family planning (NFP) for birth regulation. Hannity doesn't agree with the Church as says that contraception is necessary for people how aren't Catholic because it's better than having abortions. Hannity also claims NFP and contraception are the same thing.

They aren't. But, unfortunately, most people still think they are, even Catholics. So I was thinking about a good analogy to explain the difference and I realized a good one relates to the recent acceleration problems with Toyota brand cars. Here's how the analogy works:

Let's imagine the forward acceleration of a car as intercourse. The inadvertent acceleration of a Toyota car is analogous to loss of self-control. If the car doesn't move, we avoid a pregnancy.

Now, let's imagine Toyota decides to fix the acceleration issue by programming the car to apply the brakes as soon as the accelerator gets stuck. The actual acceleration is not stopped. This is the thought process to the argument that people can't control their sexual urges. So if people can't control their urges and they're going to have sex anyway, they should use something to prevent a pregnancy. Those are the brakes in our car analogy. The acceleration still happens, but the car is prevented from moving forward. What if the brakes overheat and give out? What if the car doesn't engage the brakes when it's supposed to? What if the condom brakes? What if the pill doesn't work? This is contraception.

Next, let's imagine a Toyota owner decides to avoid any risks, play it safe, and just leave the car in park. They'd rather not worry about Toyota's fix being defective and, instead, they practice restraint until the right time when the problem is truly fixed. If the acceleration happens, the car is in park, so the wheels won't even turn because the transmission isn't in drive. This is how NFP works. If you don't have sex, you can't get pregnant, simple as that. Women and men's bodies are truly respected because their natural body changes are not changed or interrupted.

Even though the results of both approaches were the same (the car doesn't move, or there's no pregnancy), the intentions of both methods are totally different. Contraception seeks to interrupt or change the body's natural processes to prevent a pregnancy. NFP respects the body's natural processes to regulate the frequency of pregnancies.

Lastly, I'd like to reiterate the Church's teaching, because it is often mis-represented. The Church DOES NOT teach that you should only have sex to become pregnant. Read Pope John Paul II's "Theology of the Body" to see how much the church approves of sex, if you have any doubts. But, the Church DOES NOT approve of unnatural means to achieve or prevent pregnancies. This applies to contraception, but also the way a baby is actually conceived (artificial insemination is not approved).

I hope this analogy helps in understanding the difference between contraception and NFP. Like any analogy, there are flaws. But I think this a fairly good way to explain the Church's stance on this issue.

Free Photo and Video Software Suggestions for Windowz

2010-02-17T02:06:00.008-05:00

I love photo and video editing on my Mac. For photography, iPhoto is a wonderful application I use for casual photos and Aperture 3 is what I use for my serious, professional quality photography. For video, iMovie is easy to use and can give great results.

But we also have a netbook in the house (Asus EeePC) which runs Windows XP and it gets a lot more use than the Mac does. Between my wife's iPod Touch and the EeePC, she doesn't even use the Mac anymore. She also takes a bunch of photos and videos with her Canon Powershot SD1000. So, to me, it makes a lot of sense to dedicate the EeePC to my wife's photos and videos. It has a fairly big 160GB hard drive and has a decent screen. The question that comes up is: What software can I use on this low powered netbook for editing Sophia's photos and video? More specifically, is there free software out there that can come close to doing the same job as iPhoto and iMovie do on the Mac?

I'm happy to say that I've found 2 programs that work well on the netbook and do a pretty good job even with its MUCH weaker hardware. Here they are:

For photography - Google Picasa

For videography - Windows Movie Maker and Google Picasa

Google Picasa

This is one impressive program! It's not quite as elegant as iPhoto on the Mac, but it's more elegant than most Windows programs. And it's amazing how fast and powerful this program is on a netbook. It has almost as many photo editing tools as iPhoto and can even handle RAW files. And it does a very good job organizing photos and can even sync them to a Picasa web album if you so choose. The video editing capabilities are very basic and don't give you much in the way of creativity, but if all you want to do is combine video clips and put a title at the beginning, Picasa can do that. Then you can even publish the video directly to YouTube. Seriously, this program is so good, it should be a required download for any Windows user who has a digital camera, and that's just about everybody. Did I mention that it's absolutely free too?

Windows Movie Maker

Unfortunately, our netbook is still running XP and has the old version of Movie Maker. But hey, if you want to have more creative options than just combining video clips and putting a title in the beginning, this is your program. Between each clip, you can choose from a bunch of different transitions. And you can even adjust the look of each video clip with some basic filters. And Movie Maker also has plenty of title animations to choose from. Unfortunately, this is also a fairly hard program to use because it's very much based on menus rather than a visual graphical user interface (a la iMovie). I haven't tried the new version of Movie Maker for Vista and 7, so I can't comment how easy those versions are to use. However, once you get used to the menu system of the XP version of Movie Maker, it's not so bad. And hey, like Picasa, it's free, so you can't complain too much about its flaws.

Opinion: The Real Issue is Gov't Control

2010-02-05T19:09:00.005-05:00

I don't know if you've noticed, but the issues of healthcare, the economy, etc. lately are being argued on two totally different planes on both sides. The liberal Democrats (president Obama is one, of course) are saying that anyone who opposes healthcare reform, economic stimulus, etc., etc. doesn't want what's best for the country. But they're completely missing the point of the conservative's argument. No one is arguing against improving healthcare, economic growth, etc. This may be obvious to most of you, but it doesn't seem to be obvious to the liberal Dems (and ergo their supporters): most people aren't in favor of more government control.

I, for one, am all for healthcare reform. I just don't want the government taking control of healthcare. I'm also for economic growth. I just don't think government handouts will improve the economy. And you know what? I personally believe most people are of the same mind set. Scott Brown won Kennedy's office not because of Republican votes, but because independents are starting to turn against the liberal Dem's agenda. I think that's why Bayh is not going to run for Indiana Senator again, because he had to support the Dem's agenda and it's costing him the vote of the moderate Republicans.

Now don't get me wrong, I think we do need some government control, but I think it should be the State governments who have more control than the Federal government. This is how the founders of our nation set things up and, unfortunately, the nation has strayed far away from that. But I think grassroots efforts like the TEA parties and FairTax are moving us in the right direction. And Reagan also believed in less Federal gov't, which is why he made major tax cuts, saving the nation's economy. History has proven this approach works, so why aren't we doing the same thing now?

I'll leave you with 2 questions, which sums up my own short argument against what the liberal Dems are attempting.

1. Can you name more than 3 Federal government created programs or agencies that actually do their job cheaply, efficiently, and as well as was originally intended when they were created?

2. Can you honestly tell me more government control of healthcare, the economy, energy, etc. is really what we need?

"Here sir, the people govern." - Alexander Hamilton, June 1788

"We lose ourselves when we compromise the very ideals that we fight to defend. And we honor those ideals by upholding them not when it's easy, but when it is hard." - BARACK OBAMA, Nobel Lecture, Dec. 10, 2009

Thoughts on Using the Video Mode on Digital Cameras

2010-01-14T12:35:00.017-05:00

Being a new parent, I've found that I'm starting to take a lot more video. I consider myself a still photographer first, but I'm really starting to get into videography. Especially since I can take video on my Canon EOS Rebel T1i, I'm enjoying the ability to get shallow depth-of-field in both my stills and my videos. Smaller point-and-shoot cameras can even take HD video now. I was using my Canon Powershot SX110IS for video, but it was only capable of taking a maximum video resolution of 640x480. So I've upgraded to a SX200IS, which is capable of 720p, 30 fps video. This way video from both the SX200IS and T1i will be in HD.

Getting a camcorder would be nice, but at this point I can't afford one and I don't feel a need to get one. However, camcorders are specially built for video, so they have features that are absent from most still cameras. This makes taking video using a still camera somewhat of a challenge in some situations. On the other hand, I've found the video my cameras take have certain advantages over camcorder video. Here are my thoughts and experiences using my still cameras for video:

1. Camcorders have autofocus, while most still cameras don't autofocus in video mode. Like taking a still photo, you focus first, then start recording. If the camera or subject moves, focus will be off. This means you have to pay much more attention to focus when shooting video with a still camera.

2. Related to #1, camcorders have a deeper depth-of-field than still cameras taking video. With a still camera, you can get a fairly shallow depth-of-field for that "background and/or foreground out of focus" look. The reason for this is that still cameras have a bigger image sensor than consumer camcorders. Unless you have a professional grade camcorder, it's very hard to get a shallow depth-of-field with a consumer camcorder. I ran some tests with my sister's camcorder to verify this.

3. Digital cameras have better lenses than camcorders. The lenses on digital cameras have to be better because they capture a much bigger picture than video camcorders. At most, video is up to 1,920x1,080 pixels (1080p HD video), while even a 3 megapixel camera captures an image that's 2048x1536 pixels. My T1i's images are a whopping 4752x3186 pixels. The bigger the image, the more resolving power is required from a lens, and a digital camera's lens is already resolving a picture at least 4 times bigger than what's required for video.

4. Holding a camcorder is much easier than holding a digital camera during video recording. Ergonomically, digital cameras are designed to be held for a couple seconds to take a picture. Camcorders are designed to be held up much longer for long video clip recording times. And digital cameras usually don't have a moveable screen, while most camcorders have a screen that can be rotated and tilted for easier viewing in whatever position the camcorder is held. One way around this issue is to use a monopod or tripod with a digital camera, or even with a camcorder for that matter.

5. Relating to #4, camcorders are designed for longer video recording. Digital cameras aren't designed to record a 2 hour band concert nonstop. Unless I have a tripod, I usually keep video clips fairly short, anywhere from a couple seconds to a couple minutes depending on what I'm recording. With a camcorder, you could just hit the record button and let it go for as long as you have space on the recording media. Again, one way around this is to use a monopod or tripod. I was able to record my brother-in-law's wedding this way, putting my digital camera on a tripod and making sure I had enough memory cards.

6. Speaking as a photographer, it's nice to be able to take both still photos and video with the same camera. It makes more sense to me (and to the camera companies it seems) to have digital cameras able to do both stills and video. Camcorders, on the other hand, don't take very good still images. Their strength is in their video recording and I think that's how it should be and will be in the future. Still cameras are more common nowadays and I think eventually the camcorder will become more of a specialty product. On the other hand, still cameras will continue to improve in their video capabilities. We're quickly approaching that "fusion" camera that can do both photos and video equally well. There are movies already being shot with DSLR's. So the next time you shop for a camcorder, try checking out the video freatures of digital cameras. Their video capabilities may be all you need.

A Commentary on Moral Relativism

2010-01-13T12:51:00.009-05:00

I've been wanting to write about moral relativism ever since I attended a local symposium entitled "The Constitution . . . in the Age of Obama". While the symposium was supposed to be about the Constitution, the symposium speakers spoke more about moral relativism and the natural law. The reason for this is that the Constitution, as written by the founders of the USA, was written from the basis of natural rights, which has a direct relationship with natural law.

While there are many theories on what constitutes natural law, all the theories have commonalities, namely that there exists law(s) which are set by nature (and by extension, God. if you're a monotheist) that are valid everywhere. Thomas Jefferson believed in natural law, as did Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas. The idea of natural law has been around for thousands of years.

So what is moral relativism? And where did it come from? Dr. Charles E. Rice, who spoke at the symposium I mentioned above, explained that the modern idea of moral relativism came about during the Enlightenment period of the 18th century. The ideas of moral relativism can be summed up in 3 main ideas:

1. There is no God/divine being

2. Everything is relative

3. The individual is most important

A moral relativist would say there is no such thing as a universal moral truth. Since there is no God/divine being, religion makes no sense, and all moral teaching originating from religions is only true for those religions. Right or wrong only depends on your point of view. And the only measurement for what's right is each individual's own views. What may be right for one person might not necessarily be right for another. There are no universal truths.

The ideas of moral relativism are common in our present American culture. One can see moral relativism ideas common among scientists, artists, entertainers, journalists, and politicians, to name only some highly influential people.

We can see the implications of moral relativism.

The Catholic Position and George W. Bush Jr. REDUX

2010-01-04T17:15:00.007-05:00

**Note: In my original unedited version of this post, I received some comments stating I was being too judgmental and arrogant in my language. After much thought and second opinions, I believe this resulted from the fact that I mixed my own opinions with the facts I was trying to state. I saw no problem with this before because I write my blogs unedited and uncensored as I think of them, in much the same way a person keeps a diary or journal. However, in the spirit of Catholic apologetics, I must be charitable to those who disagree with my views while at the same time not being afraid to voice my opinions. Therefore, in the future, I will make a concerted effort to post my opinions in separate blog entries from entries with more apologetic, factual material. This way, I hope to achieve both my goals of debunking factual errors stated about the Catholic Church (and other subjects I'm passionate about) and of voicing my uncensored opinion on all kinds of subject matter.

I recently received a comment on my post "Dance with the Devil." I had to reject the comment because the person tried to bring up the subject of George W. Bush Jr. and how he wasn't really pro-life, abortion went up during his presidency, he approved torture, Pope John Paul II condemned the Iraqi war, etc., etc. Even though my post had nothing to do with Bush, this person couldn't help but take the opportunity to condemn the Bush administration.

However, I would still like to post a reply to his comments because he listed sound bytes as if they were facts. It's easy to take sound bytes as facts if they're listed very quickly in succession and no research is done to check them. So I'd like to respond to each criticism with the facts:

He approved torture

I take it this is a reference to waterboarding. Unfortunately, the definition of torture has been expanded to include "extended interrogation techniques." True torture leaves permanent damage, mentally and physically, on the victim. Waterboarding does neither. It's an interrogation technique practiced by the military on themselves to interrogate prisoners for information. Islamic militant terrorists perform true torture when they cut off limbs of American soldiers.

He started a war Pope John Paul II condemned

Pope John Paul II never directly condemned the war in Iraq. What Pope John Paul II DID say was that military action and terrorism never solves anything. The Catholic Church's just war doctrine states that war can be necessary in only certain criteria. The war in Iraq and Afghanistan may or may not meet the criteria depending on who you talk to. Even Pope Benedict XVI stated this when he was Cardinal Ratzinger. For a list of commentary on this subject, see this website:

http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/justwar/#additional_wot

He did not speak out against genocide nor do anything for the environment which Pope Benedict XVI spoke out for

George W. Bush has made a statement about the Armenian Genocide. Here's a press release:

http://www.anca.org/press_releases/press_releases.php?prid=3

And when it comes to the environment, the Bush administration didn't see it as a priority. The war in Iraq and the economy were their main concerns. It wasn't until Gore and Obama made the environment a political issue that it became a major issue. The earth has been heating up since well before the industrial revolution. In fact, it's been heating up since the last ice age ended. It's very hard to prove without a doubt that the temperature of the earth is rising because of CO2 and it's a scientific fact that water vapor affects the earths weather much more dramatically. Any scientist who tries to model weather changes to prove the greenhouse affect can't recreate the affect of CO2 that apparently most scientist see. If you've studied chaos theory, then you can never be sure of any causal affect to a nonlinear system like weather. And there's no possibility of studying a closed weather system without CO2 for a control sample.

As for Pope Benedict XVI, his stance on genocide are obvious. When it comes to global warming, he too calls for true evidence and facts rather than the political ideology so many environmentalists are pushing. Please see this article:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-501316/The-Pope-condemns-climate-change-prophets-doom.html

These are all the points about George W. Bush Jr. which the commenter had made and I hope I have answered each point thoroughly from the Catholic point of view. The commenter had purported to be writing from the Catholic point of view himself. If he had done a bit more research on all his points, he might have reconsidered the points he was trying to make.

The Catholic Position and George W. Bush Jr.

2009-12-31T23:14:00.009-05:00

I recently received a comment on my post "Dance with the Devil." I had to reject the comment because the person tried to bring up the subject of George W. Bush Jr. and how he wasn't really pro-life, abortion went up during his presidency, he approved torture, Pope John Paul II condemned the Iraqi war, etc., etc. It's all the stereotypical objections I hear from Obama's supporters. Even though my post had nothing to do with Bush, this person couldn't help but take the opportunity to condemn the Bush administration.

However, I would still like to post a reply to his comments because he listed sound bytes as if they were facts. It's easy to take sound bytes as facts if they're listed very quickly in succession. So I'd like to respond to each criticism objectively with the facts:

He approved torture

I take it this is a reference to waterboarding. Unfortunately, the definition has been expanded to include "extended interrogation techniques." True torture leaves permanent damage, mentally and physically, on the victim. Waterboarding does neither. It's an interrogation technique practiced by the military on themselves to interrogate prisoners for information. Islamic militant terrorists who cut off limbs of an American soldier is performing torture.

He started a war Pope John Paul II condemned

Pope John Paul II never directly condemned the war in Iraq. What Pope John Paul II DID say was that military action and terrorism never solves anything. The Catholic Church's just war doctrine states that war can be necessary in only certain criteria. The war in Iraq and Afghanistan may or may not meet the criteria depending on who you talk to. Even Pope Benedict XVI state this when he was Cardinal Ratzinger. For a list of commentary on this subject, see this website:

http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/justwar/#additional_wot

He did not speak out against genocide nor do anything for the environment which Pope Benedict XVI spoke out for

George W. Bush has made a statement about the Armenian Genocide. Here's a press release:

http://www.anca.org/press_releases/press_releases.php?prid=3

And when it comes to the environment, the Bush administration didn't see it as a priority. The war in Iraq and the economy were their main concerns. It wasn't until Gore and Obama made the environment a political issue that it became a major issue. The earth has been heating up since well before the industrial revolution. In fact, it's been heating up since the last ice age ended. It's very hard to prove without a doubt that the temperature of the earth is rising because of CO2 and it's a scientific fact that water vapor affects the earths weather much more dramatically. Any scientist who tries to model weather changes to prove the greenhouse affect can't recreate the affect of CO2 that apparently most scientist see. If you've studied chaos theory, then you can never be sure of any causal affect to a nonlinear system like weather. It's sad to see scientists, who should be skeptical of any theory, are backing such a problematic theory as global warming.

These are all the points about George W. Bush Jr. which the commentor had made and I hope I have answered each point objectively from the Catholic point of view. The commenter had purported to be objective himself. If he had done a bit more research on all his points, he might have reconsidered the points he was trying to made. But I doubt he will reconsider any of his statements or beliefs, even when the facts are contradictory. That's okay, because all people will ultimately have to face judgement with God. And if you're Catholic, He will judge you on your true faith and loyalty to His Church and the Church's teaching, NOT by your politics.

The Worst of the Best Years So Far . . .

2009-12-29T00:35:00.002-05:00

As 2009 comes to an end, I think back on the year and a lyric from the Jonathan Coulton song "You Ruined Everything" comes to mind: "The worse of the best behind us." That's exactly how I feel about 2009, in a nutshell. 2009 has by far been the best year of my life so far and I can already see life will only get better from here.

To summarize my year, here are 2 lists (and 1 bonus list), one consisting of the bad events and one consisting of the good events in my life (for the record, since everything on the internet will be around indefinitely):

The Bad

-Laid off from my job at Design Collaborative

The Good

-Bought a house and moved in with the love of my life

-Inherited a sweetheart of a dog

-Found out Sophia was pregnant

-Found Sophia a great car

-Took and passed the Indiana professional engineering licensing test

-Had my first real photography gigs

The Awesome

-Celebrated 1 year of marriage with Sophia

-Welcomed Cecilia Rose into the world

Quick Compact Camera Tips

2009-11-05T20:06:00.002-05:00

I'm really enjoying using my new Canon powershot SX110 compact "superzoom" camera. The image quality is nowhere near as good as the Rebel T1i, but it's a great portable camera that I can take with me everywhere for any photographic opportunity that may pop up. Like the title of one of my favorite photography books says, the best camera is the one you have with you.

I have my compact camera settings dialed in so I can quickly pull out the camera and shoot at a moment's notice. I'm not afraid to dive into all the camera's options because I'm used to dealing with all the settings on the T1i. I'm also an engineer and a nerd, so complicated electronics don't scare me. But most people just aren't like that and usually use their camera on fully automatic because it takes too long to change camera settings. Even then, compact cameras can be slow to use.

If you'd like to speed up the operation of your compact camera, the following hints might help. I've found using these particular settings really speeds up my compact camera and chances are they'll speed up yours too.

1. Turn off picture review. When the camera shows the picture you just took on the LCD screen for review, the camera slows down because the camera is busy displaying the picture. Turning off picture review ensures the camera will be ready to take another picture immediately after you lift your finger off the shutter button. When you want to see the pictures you took, use the play button instead, which most cameras have.

2. Turn off any start up pictures. When you turn your camera on, it usually shows some kind of image on the LCD screen (usually the manufacturer's logo or name). Go into your camera's menus and turn this image off. When you turn on your camera, it will be ready to take a picture sooner than if it had to show the start up image.

3. Turn off all sound effects. Playing sound effects uses processor power, which can theoretically slow down your camera. Turning off all the sound effects ensures the processor doesn't waste any time accessing the sound files required for the sound effects. And a side benefit of turning off the sounds effects is that you can more easily take pictures of people without them knowing it (unless the flash fires).

4. Turn off the flash whenever you can. It takes time for the camera to recharge the flash, sometimes a long time if the flash fires at full brightness. If there's enough light in your environment, turn off the flash.

5. Use continuous shooting (or burst) mode whenever you can. If you're trying to photograph a pet, a kid, or a sports event, set your camera to the sports/action preset, then set the camera to continue shooting when the shutter button is held down. Your camera will operate at its top speed.

6. Lastly, have fun experimenting. There's really no better way to learn to use your camera quickly than by experimenting.

Subtle Differences Between DSLR's and Point-and-Shoots

2009-10-19T12:30:00.004-04:00

I've purchased a new point and shoot camera: a canon powershot sx110is. I was getting frustrated with the lack of zoom range of my powershot 590is, so I decided to upgrade to canon's lowest "high end" point-and-shoot camera. A G11 would have been nice, or for that matter, one of the new micro 4/3 cameras, but I don't have the money right now to get one. And I don't need a powerful point-and-shoot anyway, just one that's small enough to be portable but has a zoom range that makes it flexible while still having manual controls. The sx110is fit the bill.

I was looking through some Flickr photos taken by users of the sx110is and there were some comments about the camera that I found interesting. A lot of the users said the sx110is was the closest camera they've come to having a DSLR. And others said they decided on the sx110is as an alternative to a DSLR.

I used to think this way. Before I got my Canon Rebel XT, I was considering a "super-zoom" camera because I thought they could as much as a DSLR. Boy was I wrong! Having switched to a DSLR, there is a world of difference in capabilities between the high-end super-zooms and full DSLR cameras. BUT, great photographers can take great pictures with ANY camera, it's just a matter of what you're trying to achieve and what equipment you need to get there.

So I thought about the differences between super-zoom cameras and DSLR's and, aside from the obvious differences (fixed vs. interchangeable lenses, LCD viewfinder vs. through-the-lens optical viewfinder, etc.), I have come up with some subtle differences that aren't immediately obvious. Here they are in no particular order:

1. Low-light performance with a DSLR is much better than a super-zoom. I can set my Rebel T1i at 1600 ISO and have usable no-flash pictures, while point-and-shoot photos are totally un-usable above 400 ISO. This is a side affect of the tiny sensor in point-and-shots. To take low-light photos with point-and-shoots, a flash and/or tripod must be used.

2. Because of the tiny sensor in point-and-shoot, shallow depth of field is hard to achieve compared to DSLR's. Depending on your subject matter, this is either an advantage or disadvantage. But, since the depth of field for point-and-shoots is so much bigger, image composition becomes more important. It's too easy to have cluttered photos with point-and-shoots because everything tends to be in focus. I find using my point-and-shoot a great exercise in composition. Unfortunately, composition is the last thing most point-and-shoot users think of.

3. Since point-and-shoot cameras are physically much smaller than DSLR's, they can take pictures that physically aren't possible with DSLR's. You can place a point-and-shoot in your refrigerator, in the corner of a desk full of stuff, in a drawer, and in all kinds of tight places. Try putting your point-and-shoot in a tight spot and see what pictures you can get. It's fun.

4. Related to #2, macro shots with point-and-shoots have more of the picture in focus compared to DSLR's. With DSLR's, you need a special macro lens, lots of light, and a small aperture to get a deeper depth of field for macros. With point-and-shoots, you just need to set the camera to macro mode and shoot.

5. Lastly, point-and-shoot cameras are a lot less noticeable than DSLR's. You can sneak pictures of people, places, or things with a point-and-shoot. It's hard to do that with a big DSLR with a big lens.

What the Constitution REALLY Says, Pt. 1

2009-09-07T11:52:00.002-04:00

Remember the Constitution? It's that document that created the nation I (and you) live in and it's a wonderful, divinely inspired document. Unfortunately, it has been abused and stomped on over the years and our nation presently finds itself in an identity crisis. What the USA used to stand for was true freedom as revealed in natural law. But now the USA is at the brink of becoming a socialist nation, slowly falling under ruler's law. One of the weapons liberals, socialists, and communists use to achieve this change is misinformation and ignorance . . . misinformation about what the Constitution and our founding fathers said and keeping the people ignorant of the true meaning and intentions of the Constitution and our founding fathers.

I (and I venture to guess most people) believe the founding fathers had the right idea about our nation. I believe the original intentions of the Constitution are what made (and make) this country great. And I, like so many people, forgot what the Constitution and what our founding fathers had written in creating this great nation of the USA. Well, after taking a short refresher course about the Constitution, I would like to write this short series of blog posts about what the Constitution actually says about the 3 branches of government and the powers allotted to them by the Constitution (and more importantly, we the people).

The President
Article II of the Constitution creates the Executive branch of the government and spells out the responsibilities of the president. There are only 6 areas the president is responsible for, and those are as follows:
1. Chief of state
2. Commander in chief over the military
3. Chief executive office of the executive branch of government
4. Chief diplomat in handling foreign relations
5. Chief architect for needed legislation
6. Conscience of the nation in granting pardons or reprieves where he feels justice requires them

That's it. Anything else the president does is outside the original responsibilities assigned to him by the original Constitution. So what happened? How did the president become what he is today, seeming to be able to create legislation, offices (like the Czars), and orders at will?

It was Theodore Roosevelt who said he was authorized to do anything unless the constitution specifically prohibited him from doing it. However, this is a direct violation of the 10th amendment to the Constitution, which states that "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." In other words, any powers not specifically given to the US government are reserved for the states or the people.

It's All About Control

2009-08-26T13:17:00.004-04:00

I was talking with one of the owners of the guitar shop I teach at and we got onto the subject of photography because I gave him one of my business cards (acephtgrphy.shutterfly.com). He was still using his Nikon D60 in automatic mode and I was telling him he should read the manual and learn to use P mode. DSLR's are meant to be used in the more manual settings rather than the automatic settings. Here's a great website for all you DSLR owners who still use it in automatic mode:
http://www.photoaficionado.com/situationroom/manual.html

This started me thinking. With the prices of DSLR's constantly dropping and with more and more consumers able to buy them, the sheer photographic possibilities available to everyone have exponentially increased. Heck, I wouldn't have been able to afford a DSLR even 5 years ago, but now the cameras, lenses, and equipment are at a very reasonable price. So this makes me ask the question: why are there still so many people who aren't taking advantage of what their camera can do?

I think one of the main factors is that cameras have a horrible user interface. There are so many menus and buttons on a camera, even on consumer point-and-shoot cameras, that most people don't ever learn what their camera is capable of. Reading the instructions is the main remedy for this, but as the owner of the guitar shop told me, most people want to just start taking pictures. If camera manufacturers were as concerned with user interface as Apple is with their computers, then for sure cameras would be a lot easier to use and more people would take advantage of their capabilities. Unfortunately, no camera manufacturer is working on user interface, so we're stuck with all the buttons and menus . . . at least for now. The iPhone may change things in the future.

Another factor is that people upgrading from a point-and-shoot to a DSLR are still thinking in point-and-shoot mode. In other words, taking pictures was just about pointing the camera and pressing the button. However, taking this approach will only result in pictures that look the same as if a point-and-shoot camera was used. Taking good pictures with a DSLR requires a MINDSET change. The tutorial website I linked to above has a great analogy of cooking and I would like to extend the analogy to DSLR cameras.

Using a DSLR camera is like becoming a cook. With a DSLR, you have control over all the ingredients that makes a great recipe (e.g. picture). If you were a great cook, would you have another cook make all your recipes and food for you? This is exactly what is happening when you use a DSLR in automatic mode. The camera makes all your decisions for you, so the quality of your pictures is left up to the camera. But to take better pictures, or to be a better cook, you need to study how the ingredients affect the end results. You need to experiment with the ingredients/settings and see what happens. You need to learn about aperture, shutter speed, ISO sensitivity, white balance, lens focal lengths, and lighting. Sound like a lot of stuff? Cooking is more complicated than learning a DSLR camera . . . trust me, I'm learning to cook (and I'm still learning photography too, but I digress).

I think once people make this mindset change and start thinking of a DSLR camera as cooking, then it won't seem so complicated. Today's cameras are so much better than cameras 10 years ago. Even point-and-shoot cameras have more power than my dad's old 35mm SLR camera did. So why not learn how to harness all that power? And once you learn what you're doing with a DSLR camera, the skills you learn transfer to point-and-shoot cameras. Your pictures will start looking better even with less capable cameras. So get out there with your DSLR, take it out of automatic mode, and start cooking some great photos.

The Beat Goes On

2009-08-20T23:43:00.002-04:00

I've started taking piano lessons from my mother-in-law and I'm looking forward to improving my piano-tickling skills. But she told me something interesting, and that is to NOT use a metronome. Being a bass player and a part of the rhythm section in numerous bands over the past 8 years, I found it strange that I should practice without some kind of beat. I enjoy music without a rhythm section and without a beat, don't get me wrong. I just found it interesting that she made it a point not to use the metronome.

And I also found it interesting that there is so much controversy over using a metronome. I won't bore you with what I've found, just Google "metronome" for yourself. There seems to be a lot of people out there, both past and present, that really hate the metronome. Why? What's the big deal with something that gives you a beat?

I think a musician's view of the metronome must be colored by the type of music they play. Classical music does have a beat, but composers and classical musicians like to play with the beat and tempo of a song to add drama to the music. A tempo is usually specified at the start of a classical piece to reference the tempo the composer had in mind for the piece. But the conductor or players of the piece may slow down or speed up the piece to meet their artistic interpretation. They may even choose to change the tempo slightly during the performance for dramatic effect. Thus, a metronome is only a tempo reference.

However, if the musician plays in a more rhythm instrument based style of music (jazz, rock, pop, hip-hop, etc.), the metronome can be a valuable tool for developing a good sense of the beat. This is especially true for drummers, bass players, rhythm guitarists, and other musicians intimately involved with keeping the beat of the music. And having a developed sense of the beat is essential if a musician is to play with a rhythm section, whose primary job is to keep (and embellish) the beat of the music. Truth is, very few musicians out there have a perfect sense of the beat and are able to keep the tempo constant. But if a musician can develop their rhythmic sense to a high level, then they will be able to follow any beat or rhythmic change in the music.

I had a professor in college who taught jazz history and music theory. This professor was also a composer and a saxophone player who was classically trained, but loved jazz. He was a very good musician and knew all kinds of theory, but whenever we listened to jazz, he would sometimes lose the beat. Why? I think playing with a rhythm section wasn't part of his musical training, so he wasn't use to keeping a constant awareness of where the beat was.

At the same time, I've heard musicians playing solos that were perfectly in the beat, which turned out to be truly boring. Why? Sometimes a person can be trapped by the beat and lose all sense of rhythmic drama by keeping a constant beat. You could say they played too "metronomically". And I think this is why some musicians have a fear of the metronome: they're afraid of being trapped into playing with the beat.

For me, the metronome is just a tool and, if used correctly, it can be a very fun tool to use. Someone can develop a good sense of jazz swing by using the metronome to tap on beats 2 and 4. You can develop a good sense of funk by having the metronome tap 1 and 3. You can use the metronome to substitute for a drummer during practice and, who knows, you might develop a better sense of the beat than a drummer. Then you'll be in the same place as those who hate the metronome: playing with the beat.

It's All About the Sound

2009-08-06T20:01:00.007-04:00

I've been teaching guitar lessons at a guitar shop for about a month now and it's been a great experience. Teaching students really tries your patience, but it's also very rewarding to see them learn and figure things out.

But this post isn't about teaching, it's about the guitar. I play a Yamaha FG-332-1 acoustic guitar in the lessons I'm currently teaching. It's a wonderful sounding guitar and it was my dad's before. It has a nice full, round sound and the action is a bit high, but I play bass normally, so the action isn't really that high to me. The shop where I teach guitar sells Chinese made guitars and I won't tell you how much they are, but let's just say that they're less than big name brand guitars. A LOT less. And the sound quality of the guitars? Let's just say that they're worth the price that the shop owner pays for them, NOT the cost that he sells them (which is almost 10 times what he pays for them).

What really gets me is that the shop owner (let's call him B) makes a big deal about how good the guitars sound and that the guitars are made of solid wood. My guitar, on the other hand, B said was made form plywood. This bothered me, so I looked up the Yamaha FG-332-1 on the the Internet and it is NOT made of plywood. Rather, it is made of laminated wood, which means that the exterior wood that one sees is only a thin layer of wood that is glued to the body, which is made of a cheaper type of wood. The guitar is solid on the inside, but the outside is only a thin aesthetic veil. Plywood is multiple layers of wood glued and pressed together. So I think B had his terminology mixed up.

In B's mind, "plywood" guitars are inferior to solid guitars, but he could plainly hear my guitar sounded really good. So what gives? Well, it's obvious that there's more to a guitar than whether it's solid or laminated. There are lots of other factors to consider in making a guitar sound good, including the bracing design, quality of the woods used, and age of the wood.

But in the end, it's all about the SOUND of a guitar. The guitars that B sells in his store are fine for beginners who haven't yet developed an ear for hearing good guitar tone, but anyone who has developed somewhat of an ear can plainly hear the differences between a decent guitar and a guitar not worth the wood it's made of.

Of course, this emphasis on sound can be taken too far. There was a guy in the shop who was looking at the guitars and I was talking to him about taking lessons because he was a beginner. He didn't want to start lessons until he had a guitar that sounded great and he knew the guitars in B's shop weren't worth buying. The guy was looking for perfection. But what did he expect? Did he think he'd learn quicker if he had a sweet sounding guitar? Did he think that his wrong notes and badly tuned strings would somehow sound better if his guitar had perfect tone?

A professional musician can make even a cheap instrument sound good, while a beginner can make even the best sounding instrument sound terrible. Realistically, musicians have to balance their skills with their instrument. But in the end, don't judge an instrument from what it's made of (I've heard a cardboard bass sound fantastic). To put it simply, the only thing that matters is the sound.

Ten Traits of Modern Technology Not to Hate

2009-08-02T10:14:00.013-04:00

My mother-in-law gave me the article Ten Traits of Modern Technology I Hate by Michael J. Rayes and I read it mostly out of curiosity. Here's a link to the article. While I agree with some points in Mr. Rayes's article, I disagree with many of them. I'm probably about 10 years younger than Mr. Rayes (judging from his website and short biography) and I grew up at the tail end of Generation X. Although Mr. Rayes is well versed in technology, I believe I have a different, more positive view of technology because I grew up with it as an integral part of my life in the consumer sense.

So, without further ado, here are my 10 responses to Mr. Rayes's Ten Traits:

10. Technology has always created an "artificial" generation gap
Every generation in the 20th century has had some kind of technology that separates generations. When the car was invented, I'm sure the grandparents and parents who were used to horse-and-buggies had no clue how to drive them. Were their kids impatient with them? Probably. There was a generation gap. How about the first TV? Or how about the first radio? I'm sure kids were impatient with their parents who had to keep asking them how to turn on the device or change the channel (this still happens to this day, BTW). Kids will always be impatient with their parents or grandparents who don't know how to use modern technology. I don't think this is a generation gap that was artificially created by technology, I think it's a gap that has always been there and it will always be there.

9. Technology is easier for youth to learn
It's a fact that kids can learn better than adults do. This is not to say that adults can't have a well developed learning skill, and many do, but kids neurologically have an advantage. Because kids nowadays grow up with technology, they naturally can learn it better than adults do. This doesn't mean they're smarter, of course. But I believe it would be easier for a kid to learn hacking than a fully grown adult.

8. Technology is being treated better by corporate
Corporate personnel are constantly improving their relations with IT. I don't have IT experience with a big corporation, but the companies I've been with have been very favorable towards their IT personnel. Because technology is still a huge growth market and more companies are in need of good technology, corporate personnel are warming up more towards IT people. And it's up to IT people to stand strong for what they believe is needed.

7. Everybody must keep up with changing technology
Technology is constantly changing. IT people need to constantly keep up with more up-to-date technology and information. Is this any different from other professional careers? All professionals must keep up their education so they can perform their jobs more effectively. With the internet, keeping up-to-date with modern technology and information is much quicker and more accessible than ever. Yes, the tech sector changes more quickly than any other sector, but as long as the IT personnel like their job and have a desire to keep learning, they will keep up.

6. A casual workplace is just another workplace
When you're a programmer or technology worker who sits in his or her cubicle all day and doesn't have any meetings except with your manager, does dressing up really matter? It depends. Apple computer is one of the most innovative technology companies in existence and they have a casual workplace, and the CEO Steve Jobs has presentations in his jeans and turtleneck. Microsoft presents a more "professional" image with their CEO Steve Ballmer dressing in the traditional slacks, collared shirt, and tie. Both companies are innovative and professional. The way they dress in the workplace is not a factor in their work ethic.

5. Technology isn't broken, but it needs better quality control
Technology is improving all the time and companies are trying harder now than before to make technology more accessible for more people. The mouse is a perfect example. Sure, it's bad for the wrist, but more people use the mouse as their main interface with the computer rather than the keyboard. Technology companies are taking a cue from Apple and are now emphasizing usability and well thought out design . . . just look at how the cell phone industry has changed since the iPhone came out. Technology is still in its infancy and it will become more and more transparent as time goes on.

4. Using a computer is as social as using any other means of communication
Using email, instant messenging, chat rooms, and social networking sites (Facebook, Myspace, and Twitter come to mind) is real communication. Like the telephone for early 20th century people, the internet is just another means of communication. And I don't think hand writing a letter is really any more social than typing an email on a keyboard. Communicating on the computer is just another method of communication.

3. Addiction is a product of the person, not the object
Yes, it is easy to get carried away with technology. There's no arguing that. But addiction is a whole other subject. If someone gets so addicted to something that they exhibit the same symptoms of an alcoholic, then there's something wrong with the person, not the object of addiction. Not everyone becomes addicted to alcohol, and those that do become addicted have an addiction problem. The same is true of narcotics, food, and computers.

2. Technology isn't as expensive as it used to be, and it gets cheaper all the time

Technology and computers are constantly dropping in price. Netbooks are low cost laptops as low as $250. A complete desktop system can be bought for as little as $399 now. You can get a free cell phone with a service plan. And there's a huge used and refurbished market out there where older technology can be bought for much cheaper than the new price. Yes, technology is another fairly big expense. However, unlike other big expenses (like a new car), technology is constantly improving and today's $399 computers have more power than a $2,000 computer did a couple years ago.

1. Technology can connect people to God like nothing else before it

Cars help people get to church all the time, helping people come to Church to connect with God. Cars are man made from elements directly from the earth. Are cars less God's creation compared to horses pulling a buggy? Technology can't be made without elements from the earth, which was created by God, so to say a computer is less God's creation than linen (which is also man made) is absurd.

And there are many, many resources on the internet which can help anybody to connect more to God. There are websites about saints, there's a Catholic encyclopedia website, there are many websites on apologetics, and even the Vatican has its own website and YouTube channel. Technology makes it possible to connect with the Church and with God more now than at any other time in history. Like so many other times that God calls to His people, you need only seek Him in the right places.

Using Your Side Mirrors Correctly

2009-07-18T11:37:00.017-04:00

I was driving to my mom's place yesterday and saw an accident almost happen. I was on a 4 lane road and was in the left lane on my side when the person in front of me decided to switch to the right lane. However, there was a car in the right lane about a car length behind, but the car in front of me didn't see it and started switching. Fortunately, that car that was in the right lane honked their horn and the car in front of me swerved back to their lane. It was pretty obvious the car in front of me couldn't see the other car because it was in their blind spot.

This made me think, how could this situation be avoided? There are all kinds of things you can do, including actually turning your head to check the lane or buying some supplemental wide angle mirrors you can stick on you side mirrors. But there's one solution I found that eliminates the blind spot forever: adjust the side mirrors.

For the past 5 years I've had my side mirrors adjusted as described by this CarTalk website. I have found this eliminates the blind spot normally left by the side mirrors and saves me from turning my head to check lanes before switching. I can concentrate more on what's in front of me. If everyone had their side mirror adjusted this way, we would have a lot more safe lane changing going on.

So this makes me ask the question: is this what side mirrors were originally designed for? I believe so, because adjusting the side mirrors with this method makes so much more sense than adjusting the mirrors to see the back corners of your car. Yes, you need to see the back corners of your car when you're backing up, but you only do that maybe 2% of the time you're driving your car. For the other 98% of the time, you're on the road driving your car forward with huge blind spots that could be eliminated by simply adjusting your side mirrors.

The next time you go out, try adjusting your side mirrors this way. You may ask yourself why everyone doesn't do this. Here's the link again:
http://www.cartalk.com/content/features/mirrors/index.html

Free Stuff

2009-07-14T11:06:00.006-04:00

Buying or getting a new computer is great, and it's even better if you get it at an incredible deal. But the deal can quickly be ruined by one thing, and that's software. Yes, software usually comes with a computer and it's necessary to make the computer useful. But, depending on what software you need, things can quickly get very expensive very quickly. If you plan on doing music recording or movie editing and you don't want to get an Apple Mac, be prepared to spend hundreds of dollars on software alone. And we all know Microsoft Office is the standard in productivity software, but it also costs an arm and a leg.

I've set up quite a few computers for friends, for my mom, and I've set up virtual machines on my Mac, all needing software to meet various needs. Thankfully, there are a lot of free software alternatives our there that can meet most, if not all, of the average user's needs. Here's my list of software I think will give most users all the functionality they will need on a daily basis.

Avast Anti-virus Free Addition - a great, free anti-virus that's lightweight and uses program behavior monitoring rather than just code analysis.
Open Office Suite - Sun's free office suite is a great alternative to Microsoft's office suite and will most likely take care of your needs.
Pidgin - Your one-stop chat client. It can sign in to all the major chatting engines (AIM, Yahoo, Google chat, MSN messenger, etc.).
Firefox - The most secure and most customizable browser out there. Plus it's a lot faster than IE.
Thunderbird - A great email client alternative to Outlook. It doesn't have calendaring or notes built in, but do you really need those for your regular email usage?
iTunes - Nothing to say about it, really.
Picasa - A great program for organizing photos and for basic editing, printing, emailing, and blogging.
GIMP - For more serious photo editing or graphics, this is a great free alternative to Photoshop.
VideoLAN (VLC) player - This multimedia player can play just about all audio and video files out there.
Audacity - Free DAW with plug-in capabilities. If you want to start podcasting or even making some music demos, try this program.
Katmouse - This great little program lets you scroll in windows that are in the background or below the top window.
Objectdock - I'm a Mac user and I like the dock, so if you do too, try this program out. It gives you a dock in Windows that looks and behaves like the OS X dock.

Pointing and Shooting

2009-07-07T13:39:00.011-04:00

I love my DSLR, which is a Canon EOS Rebel XT. It is the reason I've become an amateur photographer. But I also really enjoy using my smaller point-and-shoot camera, which is a Canon Powershot A590IS. The Powershot is not as fast or as flexible as the Rebel, but it has some
real advantages over the Rebel. Namely, the Powershot is portable and light.

The technical picture quality from the Powershot is not as high as the Rebel, which isn't surprising. But great pictures are still possible with the Powershot and with any small point-and-shoot camera. Here is a list of things you can do to greatly improve the photos from any
point-and-shoot camera (with examples):

1. Don't use automatic mode. Automatic mode will only provide good pictures in lots of light and all the pictures will look the same. Instead, use the "scene" modes, which use camera settings optimal for the situation or environment. Use portrait mode if you're taking pictures of people. Use night mode if it's night time. Use macro mode if you're taking picture of something small and up close. Make sure you read your camera manual to find out what scene modes your
camera has and how to use them.

Here's a picture I took using my Powershot's "fireworks" mode:

2. Don't be afraid to get close. It's a cliche, but pictures are much better the closer you are to your subject. Even if you're taking a picture of a huge building, zoom in as much as you can to fill the picture with the building. If you know how to use the "macro" mode of your camera, try getting really close to something and taking a picture.

Here's a picture I took of some rain drops on my sister's umbrella:

3. Use a stand. Why didn't I say tripod? Because you can use all kinds of other devices as a camera stand. One example is the gorillapod, which is a tripod with bendable legs. Another great substitute is a bean bag . . . just put the beanbag on a surface, then press the camera down into it. Using some sort of stand for your camera allows you to take shake-free pictures in even the darkest environment.

Here's a picture I took right before the fireworks began in Chicago:

4. Lastly, this is also a cliche, but don't be afraid to experiment and break the rules. One such rule that is usually stated is to keep the sun behind your back. But if you actually face the sun, you can get some really cool effects by creating sun beams and flairs in the pictures. Here's an example:

Windows 7 is Impressive

2009-06-05T18:06:00.010-04:00

Yesterday, I finished installing Windows 7 on my mom's computer. I upgraded my Macbook Pro with a SSD drive, so I took the old HDD, bought a 3.5" HDD enclosure adapter, and threw it in my mom's Dell Dimension E510 desktop computer with the intention of installing the Windows 7 RC on it. I'm very impressed with Windows 7 RC on my mom's desktop. Before I get into my list of observations, here's a short list of the E510 specs:

-CPU: Intel Pentium D 2.80 GHz
-RAM: 2.5 GB
-HDD: 2.5", 120 GB, 5400 RPM
-old HDD: 3.5", 80 GB, 7200 RPM
-wireless network adapter: Netgear
-Monitors: (1) 15", 4:3 ratio Dell connected via VGA and (1) 17", widescreen Dell connected via VGA to DVI port using adapter
-Keyboard and mouse: wireless Logitech set with Dell label
-Printer: Canon Pro9000
-Scanner: Epson
-And various USB devices (muli-card reader, 30 GB external HDD, etc.)

As you can see from the specs, my mom's computer isn't the most powerful out there, but it's more than enough for her needs, which boil down to using the internet, email, word processing, and accounting. I wondered how the slower hard drive would affect the performance of the computer, but I was pleasantly surprised. Here are my observations:

1. Windows 7 is snappier than XP. Even with the slower hard drive in my mom's computers, Windows 7 feels faster. I don't have any benchmarks, but Firefox for example loads faster in 7 than XP. And the UI seems to react quicker to mouse and keyboard inputs without any noticeable slowdown when running multiple programs. Granted, the snappier performance may be a result of the Windows 7 install being fresh while XP is the original install on my mom's computer, so there's plenty of bit rot. I'll have to pay attention as time goes on, but it's still impressive to me that Windows 7, with the full Aero interface, is faster than XP in this case.

2. Windows 7 automatically found drivers for most of my mom's hardware. I was originally thinking that I would have to reinstall drivers for all of mom's equipment (wireless adapter, ethernet card, USB controllers, scanner, printer, etc.). Turns out Windows 7 was able to use my mom's computer immediately and I didn't have to install drivers for all the internal hardware. 7 even found drivers automatically for my mom's scanner, webcam, and external harddrive. And Windows 7 was able to disply the correct resolution on my mom's 17" widescreen monitor, whereas XP couldn't. I thought the limitation was in the video card, but 7 proved that theory wrong. Windows 7 wasn't able to load a driver automatically for the Canon Pro9000 and, not surprisingly, the Apple Airport Express interface software needed to be loaded. But, even with these small caveats, Windows 7 saved me a lot of time having to hunt for install discs.

3. I still get lost in the way the OS options are organized. As I said in a previous post, 7 is organized like Vista, so I just need to learn where options are located. I'm sure I'll be able to find my way around the OS more quickly in the future.

4. I like the new taskbar. Microsoft has made the taskbar similar in some aspects to the 2D dock in Mac OS X. Instead of the annoying blocks with the names of the running programs, the new taskbar only shows an icon for running programs. I think this makes the taskbar look much, much cleaner. Yes, the taskbar is now double the height, stealing some space from the desktop, but with the taskbar cleaner, it's not a big sacrifice.

5. Windows 7 has built in sub-pixel rendering tuning options for text. This is a really great feature and something OS X could use. With 7, I was able to fine-tune the sub-pixel rendering of fonts on each screen so text was easier to read. This will help my mom to have less strain on her eyes.

I'm really liking Windows 7 and look forward to the final release so I can install it on my mom's computer. The RC is so good, I hope that Microsoft doesn't add any features to the final release. Bug fixes only, please.

So You Think You Can Sing

2009-06-03T21:29:00.003-04:00

I've never liked American Idol. Being an instrumentlist and trained in jazz, it's pretty much the opposite of what I like in music. Don't get me wrong, I like really good singers, and I've learned a lot about singing from my wife (she's classically trained). But to me, American Idol feels too much like overblown karaoke.

But I DO really like So You Think You Can Dance. I grew up doing Filipino folk dances and had lots of fun learning ballroom dances from my parents, so I have an appreciation for great dancers.
From what I observe on So You Think, the bar of excellence is much higher on that show in relation to Idol. If Idol adopted the following approaches (maybe it does already, but I haven't watched in months), I would definitely be more interested in watching:

1. Make the singers learn original songs. The dancers on So You Think have to learn new choreography in different styles and have to perform the choreography with very little practice. Even if Idol has the singers learn original songs, they should start testing the singers in earlier rounds.

2. Make the singers sing in more styles. The dancers on So You Think have to be judged on their mastery of all styles of dance, so singers should be judged on all styles of singing. And the styles shouldn't be limited to popular styles (pop, country, r&b, rock), but also in non-popular styles and classical styles. Perhaps there should even be international styles included, but that might be too much for an American audience.

3. Have more judges. As far as I know, Idol has had only 3 judges and they have been consistent the entire run of the show. So You Think has 6 or 7 judges, which makes the level of dancing higher. If there were that many judges on Idol, maybe the singing would be better overall.

4. Have the singers write their own songs. Yes, I know most singers aren't songwriters, but So You Think has their dancers do their on choreography at least a couple times. Why not have all the singers on Idol try their hand at songwriting?

If Idol learned these lessons from So You Think, I would definitely watch it. In the meantime, I'll enjoy watching the excellent dancing.

First Impression of Windows 7

2009-05-27T11:02:00.004-04:00

I listen to Leo Laporte on the TWiT netcast network and lately he's been raving about Windows 7, so I decided to give it a test drive. I use VMWare Fusion my my Mac to run Windows XP, so it was a natural choice to try running the Windows 7 Release Candidate in a virtual machine. Fortunately, VMWare had a tutorial on their website on how to accomplish this, so I downloaded the 64-bit Windows 7 ISO, installed it in a virtual machine, an presto, I've got Windows 7 RC on my Mac. Following are my first impressions of the operating system.

1. Windows 7 feels snappier than XP. The fact that I'm using 64-bit Windows 7 compared to 32-bit Windows XP might be a factor in this. And I assume Windows 7 is better able to take advantage of the Mac's Core2Duo processor compared to XP. Whatever the factors are, it's really nice to see Microsoft improve the speed of Windows dramatically from Vista.

2. Windows 7 retains the same control panel structure as Vista. I don't use Vista daily, so I get lost sometimes trying to change the operating system settings (security, user accounts, updates, etc.). I'm still used to how the XP control panel is structured. Once I get more time in front of Windows 7, I'm sure I'll get used to where settings are located.

3. This is not the final version, so there are still some bugs. I tried to set auto logon, but the instructions Windows 7 gave to do this didn't work. No real surprise here.

4. The look of the operating system is essentially the same as Vista, which is good or bad depending on your own personal preference. I personally think it's a big improvement over XP. I'm tempted to compare it to OS X (and even various Linux distributions), since that's my operating system of choice being a Mac user, but I'll resist that temptation. Compared to past Windows versions, 7 is definitely the best looking version thus far.

On a side note, the look of the taskbar in Window's 7 is now different from Vista and it looks oddly OS X-like. When programs are started, an icon pops up in the taskbar without text, making the taskbar look similar to the OS X dock in 2D mode. The behavior of the taskbar is still the same as Vista, so this is only a cosmetic difference. Being an OS X user, I like the cleaner look of the Windows 7 taskbar.

That's it for now. More to come as I continue my trial of Windows 7. So far, I like Windows 7 enough that I plan on upgrading my mom and my mother-in-law to it once it is finally released later this year.

How My Wife Uses Our Netbook

2009-05-25T10:32:00.004-04:00

My wife and I have 2 computers in our household: a Macbook Pro 2nd gen. and an Asus Eee PC 4G. Both of us also have iPod Touches, which I consider mini computers. I wasn't sure how the Eee PC would be used when we moved into our house. The Macbook Pro is a lot more powerful, has a bigger screen, and functions as our desktop computer replacement. And we can check our email, surf the internet, and install all kinds of applications on our iPod Touches. So where did that leave the Eee PC 4G?

My wife came up with an answer: use it as our 1st floor computer in the kitchen, living room, and dining room. The Macbook Pro usually resides in our basement where my home studio gear is and the iPod Touches are convenient, but can be cumbersome to type on (the virtual keyboard is awesome and Apple did an outstanding job with the predictive correcton, but nothing beats the speed of a full QWERTY keyboard on a laptop). So here's a list of the ways we use the Eee PC 4G, which can be easily applied to any netbook:

1. Assistant Cook
My wife likes to look up recipes and it's handy to have the Eee PC in the kitchen, which is where we keep it when we're not using it. She can also look up the ways to prepare ingredients, like how to prepare the rubarb we get from our plant in the back yard.

2. Email
Self explanatory.

3. Shopping
Home improvement is one of our main activities and Sophia uses the Eee PC to shop around for curtains, furniture, and other things for the house. The screen is a little small, but it's adequate. All of our new 2" blinds were ordered using the Eee PC (and they look great!).

4. YouTube
It's fun to lookup video on the Eee PC. The videos can be choppy sometimes and you can forget trying to play HD video, but the regular quality videos look fine once the buffer is full.

5. Blogging
As I mentioned above, the full QWERTY keyboard is easier and quicker to type on and this makes the Eee PC ideal for blogging. It's a pleasure to type up a blogpost and email it to my Blogger blog account using Thunderbird. The keyboard isn't full size, but my wife's hands are smaller than mine and she finds not problems with the smaller keys.

I'm sure we'll come up with other uses for the Eee PC, especially since we have a baby on the way (is it okay for the baby to be doing that!? Quick, look it up!). But if you find you need a second computer for basic computing needs that's readily available and portable, get a netbook. It may become your most used computer.

Why I Use a Mac

2009-05-21T15:33:00.003-04:00

I got my Macbook Pro 2nd gen. about 2 years ago and I'm still loving it. I recently upgraded the hard drive to a Corsair solid-state drive and it's pretty awesome to have programs launch in less than 1 second. But this blog article isn't about a new hard drive, it's about why I use a Mac and why I still use a Mac (and will probably be using Macs from this point on).

I get a kick out of the newest Microsoft "laptop hunter" commercials and I also get a kick out of the Mac vs. PC commercials. Both are equally biased and both bend the facts in favor of the respective companies agenda. But, as far fetched as they tend to be, I notice both Windows users and Mac users repeating the same "facts" in their discussions of which platform is better. Truth be told, each platform has its advantages and I'm not going to even try addressing the differences. Computers are indeed personal and I wanted to give the reasons why the Mac is the right platform for me. Here are my reasons listed in no particular order of importance:

1. Windows
Now that Macs can run Windows, I don't have to give up Microsoft Money. I use Microsoft Money to keep track of my wife and my bank accounts and other financial accounts. I've been using it since the late 90's and it's nice to not have to start over with Quicken on the Mac. Then there are websites that are only compatible with Internet Explorer or files that can only be run on Windows Media Player. And, since I run Windows in a virtual machine via VMware Fusion, I can just delete the virtual machine when it picks up a virus or spyware and create a new one. To borrow a metaphor, I can have my cake and eat it too.

2. High quality media creation built-in
Sure, Windows comes with built in media creation software (Windows movie maker for example), but nothing beats iLife for it's ease of use, flexibility, integration between the various pieces of software, and here's the most important fact: HIGH quality results. The music, movies, DVD's, and photos you edit and create with iLife aren't professional quality, but they're very close to commercial quality. In fact, I was able to use Garageband and iPhoto for over a year with awesome results until I needed more powerful software for commercial reasons (I got Aperture because I started doing photography for the company I work for, and I got Logic Express for an upcoming album I'm helping with for the praise and worship band I play with). For quick home projects and for casual photos, I still use Garageband and iPhoto because they're so easy to use. I've used iMovie a little bit and find it just as easy to use and look forward to getting a good video camera so I can use it more. To do the same thing on Windows with the same quality results, you would need to spend hundreds of dollars in software, which would quickly close the price gap between a more expensive Mac and PC (I still wonder why people don't factor software costs into buying a PC compared to a Mac).

BTW, this is the reason I wanted to get a Mac in the first place. It is still the standard when it comes to music recording and other media creation.

3. Much, much safer from viruses and malware
Yes, there are viruses out there written for the Mac, but none have spread enough to worry about. Because Macs are in the minority, it's not worth it for a virus (and other malware) writer to attack them. It's security by obscurity. Yes, if Macs become more popular, viruses and other malware will be written for them. But as of right now Windows computers are much more profitable to attack and I can have peace of mind knowing I won't get any kind of malware. Having dealt with viruses on my friend's and family's computers, I think it's worth the extra perceived costs to buy a Mac for the safety. After all, what's the monetary value for peace of mind and having no worries about getting a virus?

4. The hardware design
I like the design of Macs. Jonathan Ives, industrial designer at Apple, is always pushing the envelope of what's possible with computer design and it's not wonder that most computers used as props on tv shows and movies are Macs. Other PC makers have stepped up their quality of computer design, but Apple is still a level above all others. Have you seen the new unibody Macbooks and Macbook Pros? Only Apple could pull off executing such a radical design, bringing it to market, and creating a new design standard which all other designs must compare to. It's not accident Apple is said to be the luxury car of computers: power meets beauty.

5. OS X
There's so much to say about OS X as an operating system. No, it's not perfect and it has its own set of problems and quirks. But compared to Windows, I still find it more usable and simpler to use. Yes, OS X has become more complicated over the 2 years I've owned my Mac, but it's still easier to use and more intuitive than Windows. Windows 7 may close the gap in usability and intuitiveness, but we'll see what Apple does with Snow Leopard. I'm an engineer and I enjoy messing around and tweaking Windows, but there's more pleasure in using OS X and having it just work as computers should.

There are a lot of other little reasons I still love my Mac (like the magnetically attached power cord), but I just wanted to list the major reasons I'm still happy with it. Depending on your own personal preferences and needs, these reasons may or may not relate to you. In the end, a Windows PC is both better and worse than a Mac. It all depends on what you want out of a computer. But don't let the commercials and people's opinions be your basis of deciding what you want. Gather the facts, know what you want to do with a computer, and above all, try out both Windows PC's and Macs.

Dance with the Devil

2009-05-17T15:45:00.004-04:00

I just watched both Fr. Jenkins and President Obama's speeches at the Notre Dame University commencement. I'm not surprised by anything Obama said, who basically advocated "dialogue" by forgetting about our differences, which include our religious beliefs. He addressed the abortion issue by basically sidestepping the moral question and appealing to people's emotions, which the audience ate up. It's no suprise that Obama won't lift a finger to stop abortion (and no, reducing abortion is not the same thing as making it illegal).

What really disturbed my was Fr. Jenkin's stance. I knew he was a lightweight when it came to standing ground for Catholic teachings, which include the Magisterium and the USCCB, but what he said in his speech basically amounts to "dancing with the devil." Fr. Jenkins really believed that having Obama come over would help open up the president's heart to the Catholic position. This is all well and good, but where does this "dialogue" necessitate that Obama recieve an honorary law degree? It seems that Fr. Jenkins thinks he can change Obama's heart through pure "dialogue." But has Fr. Jenkins forgotten that, as Catholics, we are to preach the Truth to the darkness? Has he forgotten how insidious Satan can be? Does Fr. Jenkins think so much of himself as to ignore the Magisterium and the USCCB because he thinks he can do what the Pope can't and change Obama's heart?

I hope Fr. Jenkins someday realizes how naive this approach is. He is playing right into the hands of pro-abortionists like Obama in continuing the "dialogue" with the result of more pro-abortion laws. Words mean nothing, only actions, and the only actions Fr. Jenkins and President Obama have shown are in the direction of approving pro-abortion views. When you dance with the devil, you can't change him, he only changes you.

Trying IE8 and Going Back to IE7

2009-05-11T13:30:00.003-04:00

I downloaded the new Internet Explorer 8 last 2 weeks ago when it first came out so I could see what all the fuss was about. I had heard mixed review about IE8 and wanted to see for myself how it ran on my work desktop (3.2GHz P4 with 3 GB of RAM, Windows XP SP 3).

Basically, here was my experience with IE8: it was slow and kept crashing. Truth be told, IE7 crashed on a daily basis for me and I was hoping IE8 would resolve this, but it didn't. IE8 was not only slower, but it slowed down my computer in general and crashed more often than
IE7. I don't know what it does to the underpinning of Windows, but I noticed the graphical speed of Windows slowed down noticeably after installing IE8. What I mean by graphical speed is the minimizing, maximizing, and switching of windows, refreshing of the desktop, and
other graphical animations of Windows.

Did I mention IE8 crashes more often then IE7? This is not necessarily an IE8 problem, but more of a compatibility problem. The company I work for uses software for job tracking and time sheet tracking. The UI for the software is done through IE, thus compatibility with IE is an
issue. The software would crash pretty much daily for me in IE7, and not just the software I use for work, but Adobe Acrobat would cause IE7 to crash too. I thought IE8 might resolve these issues, but it tended to crash even more when using the company software. Adobe Acrobat
seemed to work okay, but IE8 would crash sometimes crash with no apparent reason, which would then cause all Microsoft software on my computer to stop responding. Sure, IE8 did a great job running the company software in IE7 emulation mode, but this would not prevent the
crashing.

I got tired of all the crashing, so I downgraded back to IE7 via Microsoft's own website and software. The graphical speed of Windows is back and IE7 crashes as much as before but less than IE8. I can only say that my experience with IE8 left a lot to be desired. I'm sure
someone with a new PC who only surfs the internet will be happy with IE8, but if you run corporate software through IE7 on a computer that's 1-2 years old, I would recommend you stick with IE7.

Sandboxing - The Future of Internet Security?

2008-10-22T11:19:00.009-04:00

Being a computer geek and the default tech support for some of my family and friends, I have had to deal with computer security at the consumer user level. Sure, there´s the usual anti-virus and anti-spyware software installation on every Windows machine I run into, but this isn´t a full-proof way to ensure viruses, spyware, malware, and other don´t make it on a computer. As Leo Laporte says, the user´s behavior is the most important barrier to blocking bad guys from getting into a system. No matter how good anti-anything software is, it can´t stop a gullible user from clicking a false link on a website that downloads malware to said user´s computer. People need to monitor their behavior.

So, what to do when users just won´t change their behavior? How would you handle the computer of someone who just doesn´t care about keeping their computer secure? The solution I have been using lately is the one that I use myself: sandboxing. Check out the short wikipedia here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandbox_(computer_security) . The version of sandboxing I am writing about pertains to virtual machining. With the power of computers increasing as prices drop, most people will be buying more computer than they really need. Dual core processors and 2 GB of RAM are now standard and in a year, quad cores will most likely become standard. With all those cores and RAM, why NOT run a virtual machine?

On my Macbook Pro, I run Windows XP in a virtual machine via VMWare Fusion. If the Windows XP virtual machine gets a virus and I need to wipe the virtual machine, the process is as simple as erasing the virtual machine file and starting from scratch. I don´t have to reformat the hard drive of the laptop, all I need to do is save files from the virtual machine and create a new one. It´s a MUCH easier process than dealing with a ¨real¨ windows machine.

I would like to mention 2 cases in which I used this approach to protect someone from their own bad internet behavior. At the beginning of each case, I´ll list the host computer operating system, virtual machine operating system, and some basic information about the computer which contains both.

1. Sandboxing Windows
Host OS: Xubuntu 8.04
Virtual Machine OS: Windows XP Home
Computer: Toshiba laptop with 1.6 GHz mobile celeron processor, 1 GB RAM

This was done on a cowork´s brother´s laptop because his brother was not security minded at all. The laptop got a virus on it and would not boot up past the Windows XP loading screen. My coworker had to re-install Windows XP Home every year or so because the laptop would get a virus due to the laptop being used for internet gaming and who knows what else (Limewire?). So I presented the idea to my coworker of installing Linux on the laptop, then running XP in a virtual machine, since his brother would still need XP for games. I also mentioned that he would no longer have to reformat the harddrive and simply just delete the virtual windows machine if it got a virus. He thought this was a fantastic idea and we proceeded to set up the laptop.

Because of the speed and age of the laptop, I chose Xubuntu version of Linux as the host operating system. Linux has no viruses, so it made sense that it would be the best host system for my coworker´s brother. The CD/DVD drive was broken, so I had to install Xubuntu with a flash drive. VMWare player was used for running the virtual machine and I set up the virtual Windows XP Home machine (using my coworker´s brother´s installation disk) on my work computer, then copied it over to the laptop using an external hard drive (I allocated 20GB to the virtual machine, but it only ended up taking up 4 GB). Once I copied over the virtual machine, it ran fine on the laptop. I made a hidden copy of the virtual machine in another directory on the laptop so if the virtual machine gets a virus, my coworker will simply have to erase the infected virtual machine, then copy over the clean virtual machine.

2. Sandboxing Linux
Host OS: Windows XP Professional
Virtual Machine OS: Ubuntu 8.04
Computer: Custom built PC, Core 2 Duo Processor (can´t remember the speed), 2 GB RAM

My friend´s computer got a Trojan after letting his neighbor use his computer. We tried wiping the computer and my friend even got the Trojan off (or so we thought) using some anti-virus software, but the symptoms returned after a couple weeks, so he had to re-install windows.

Because of this, I suggested he only use the internet through a virtual machine. This way, if a virus is downloaded from the internet, it would only be on the virtual machine and not on his windows partition. He could still use the internet under windows for updates and for his banking (he uses microsoft money), but for ordinary surfing, the virtual machine would be safer. He agreed with the idea and I went ahead and installed VMWare player and downloading a read-made Ubuntu 8.04 vitual machine. He now uses the virtual machine for his general internet surfing.

I really think sandboxing is a much better way to keep computers secure compared to just using anti-anything software. Why not have a virtual machine as a sacrificial barrier? It´s almost a given that computers will get infected and sandboxing allows users to protect the main host operating system (which would be windows for the majority of users). With the power of computers nowadays, it´s easier than ever for regular consumers to run the powerful software needed to run a virtual machine. Sure, it´s entirely possible to keep computers infection-free with good behavior, but for lots of people, this is just not possible.

The next time you get a infection that forces you to re-install windows or to buy a new computer, consider using sandboxing.

Security at the Expense of Privacy?

2008-08-07T15:07:00.004-04:00

I listen to Leo Laporte´s TWiT netcasts regularly and I recently heard something on TWiT #154 that got me thinking about our privacy in this day and age of fear of terrorism. For your reference, federal agents can now confiscate laptops or any other electronic device without any suspicion of wrongdoing. This is obviously unconstitutional and a violation of privacy. But, with security checks so tight now and with the public´s fear of terrorism, how far are people willing to let their privacy be compromised in the name of security?

Sometime right after 9/11 happened, I remember hearing about a survey that was taken among Americans. The issue that was polled was whether people were willing to let their personal records be checked if there was any kind of suspicion of terrorism. Most people who took the survey said they were willing to let their personal records be checked.

I´m sure you see where I´m going with this. What´s to stop federal security agents from searching not just your personal records, but everything you own? And once the agents have all of your information, what will happen to it? Some would argue the government and security agencies already have all of our private information and this may or may not be true. But with laptop confiscations no longer being based on suspicion, it seems like our privacy is systematically being eliminated.

I want to feel safe as much as anybody and I realize that all the security checks we have now are necessary, but I really hope we are careful how much of our privacy we choose to give away. Freedom and privacy are inextricably linked and once we loose our privacy, how far behind will our freedom be?

Fun with Light Fixtures Part 1

2008-07-03T10:46:00.006-04:00

One of the things that makes my job very enjoyable is lighting design. Yes, I'm an electrical engineer and I like dealing with voltage, current, and power, but my job also requires me to be a lighting designer. Lighting, after all, runs on electricity and in fact our entire electrical system was originally invented by Edison so everyone could have light (Tesla later came up with a better system that we now use, but that's another subject).

I deal with mostly commercial grade lights that meet certain photometric needs (light color, distribution, brightness) and aesthetic needs (I work with architects after all). There are a lot of cool light fixtures out there, but there are also a bunch of wacky, weird, and just plain ugly light fixtures. This is the first part in what I hope will be an ongoing series of the most unique light fixtures I have seen.

First, here is an octopus chandelier:

The sea shells sure add to the look, don't they? This fixture is made by Adam Wallacavage.

Next up, we have some bucket lights:

This is truly what recycling is all about. I especially like the fact that they kept the handles too, I mean, why waste them? This fixture is sold by Baselite.

FHR Finally on the Web!

2008-06-24T10:40:00.003-04:00

I've been working on a website for the Lifeteen band I play bass in and I think it is finally ready to start advertising, so without further ado, go check out the official website of Frankie and the Holy Rollers!
http://sites.google.com/site/frankieandtheholyrollers/

From Safari to Firefox, to Safari, and Back to Firefox

2008-06-18T09:27:00.008-04:00

I love Firefox and I had started using Firefox 2 last year after reading how good it was in a computer magazine. I switched over from Safari on my Mac and love the customization options of Firefox. My favorite add-on is the Foxmarks bookmark syncronizer, which lets me have the same bookmarks on all the computers I use at home and at work.

But, I had the same complaints as others: Firefox 2 was a slow program and a RAM hog. So when Apple released Safari 2, I tried it out and was happy with how fast it was. Safari has RAM hogging issues too, but the speed was worth it. However, Safari also has this annoying habit of freezing my computers for several seconds for no good reason. And of course, Safari is not customizable as much as Firefox is.

Now I'm back to using Firefox, specifically version 3. I went ahead and downloaded it on "download day" (after many, many tries) and installed it on both my work computer and Macbook Pro at home. I'm happy to say that it is just as fast as Safari and all my add-ons are working properly. My only complaint right now is that alternate themes are not yet available, but this will change in time.
Update: Alternate themes are available, however not all themes are compatible with Firefox 3. If the theme is compatible, the button for adding the theme will be green. If the theme is not compatible, the button will be white and unclickable.

Xkcd has a comic appropriate to this subject and I definitely agree that maybe we take our web browsers a little too seriously. But I think Firefox definitely deserves all the fuss. Stop using Internet Explorer or Safari and download Firefox 3 now!

Obama and McCain: Where Do They Stand on Catholic Issues?

2008-06-05T21:30:00.014-04:00

Now that history has been made and Obama is the first African American presidential candidate (Hilary resigning from the race is merely a formality), I felt compelled to write about who will likely be the two main candidates for presiden: Barack Obama and John McCain. And I would like to present each candidate's position as they relate to the most important issues for Catholics.

What compelled me to write this post is the fact that I know of quite a few Catholics who will be voting for Obama or Hilary (when she was still in the running). This really made me think, because the Democratic party does not hold many of the same beliefs as the Catholic Church. This is especially true for the main issues that Catholics should be concerned about. For a great explanation of the top issues for Catholics, please see the Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics which can be found at the Priests for Life website.

Why are there Catholics who won't be voting like Catholics? Does the separation of church and state extend to the separation of political beliefs and religious beliefs? This seems to be the case and it is very disturbing to me. Yes, there are a LOT of issues and problems each presidential candidate must address and I am not saying these other issues are not important, but as a Catholic, Jesus has given us a Church to guide us in the opposition of evil. Therefore, we should heed the Church's warnings on when politics and laws are in direct opposition to God's law.

I think a lot of Catholics out there are simply not educated on the most important issues of God's Church and I hope to provide a little education here. Be warned that if you are Catholic and continue to hold on to the beliefs that are in opposition to the Church, then you are in a gravely sinful situation and I hope that you may reconsider your position and reconcile your beliefs with the Church.

I have listed each issue as it is listed in the Voter's Guide and after each issue, I list Obama's position, then McCain's position, then my comments on which candidate is the most Catholic in their position. For information on each candidate's stance I tried to limit myself to using information available on each candidate's official website. I used Google to search for articles containing the candidate's position when the information was not available from their website.

1. Abortion

Obama: Like so many pro-abortion politicians, he doesn't come outright to say he supports aboration, but instead says he supports a woman's right to choose. He is opposed to overturning Roe v. Wade and champions "reproductive choice."

McCain: "At its core, abortion is a human tragedy. To effect meaningful change, we must engage the debate at a human level."* His website states that Roe v. Wade must be overturned, but it does not state that he will try to overturn the law. Instead, he proposes nominating judges who will not "be in the business of legislating from the bench."* He also seems to be in favor of States deciding on a more local level whether to make abortion illegal or not.

Who is more Catholic? Obama's beliefs put him in direct opposition of the Church. McCain is much closer to the Church's beliefs with one small caveat: abortion can still be legal at the local levels. However, it seems he does indirectly support overturning Roe v. Wade and this is a major step in the right direction. McCain gets the Catholic vote.

2. Euthanasia

Obama: Euthanasia is not mentioned and addressed directly on his website. The only reference on his website is from a blogger by the name of Tricia. Obama stated that he regrets voting for government intervention for Terri Schiavo in an article on www.worldnetdaily.com.

McCain: Euthanasia is not mentioned and addressed directly on his website. The only reference happens in an article that is linked to his official website and McCain implies that he may be against euthanasia. But his position is not clear.

Who is more Catholic? Both candidates do not address this issue on their website. Obama would not vote for government intervention for Terri Schiavo if he had a second chance. This is contrary to the Catholic Church's position on the issue. McCain's position is vague and more clarification is needed.

3. Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Obama: He supports the use of embryonic stem cell research. On his website, he tries to soften this fact by stating that he is a co-sponsor of an Act which only allows the use of "excess" embryos donated from in vitro fertilization clinics.

McCain: He opposes the "intentional creation of human embryos for research purposes."* McCain also opposes the use of human embryos gestated in animals. He supports amniotic fluid and adult stem cell research.

Who is more Catholic? Obama again directly opposes the Catholic Church with his beliefs, while McCain is moslty in line with the Catholic Church. McCain does leave a window open by not stating a position on other human embryos (aborted embryos, for instance), therefore not opposing ALL embryonic stem cell research.

4. Human Cloning

Obama: He does not directly address cloning on his website. According to blog.bioethics.net, Obama voted against a 2001 bill that would have banned all types of cloning. He has stated he is against "human cloning," but this is a vague statement.

McCain: McCain oppose human cloning and voted to ban it and any such experimentation under federal law.

Who is more Catholic? Obama's position is vague and he needs to clarify his position more, but he may not be against ALL cloning. McCain's position is clear and it is in line with the Catholic Church's position.

5. Homosexual "Marriage"

Obama: According to pewforum.org, Obama supports repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Obama also supports civil unions of homosexual couples and voted against a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

McCain: Believes that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. However, he does not come out and say he directly opposes homosexual marriage and instead wants legislatures to create the laws and not the courts.

Who is more Catholic? Obama's position once again is in direct opposition of the Catholic Church's position. McCain's position point toward the Catholic position but it does leave some room to homosexual "marriage" to be allowed.

*Quote is taken directly from the candidate's website.

New Favorite Comic

2008-05-27T11:45:00.007-04:00

I just discovered this new comic called xkcd from reading my usual RSS feeds from my favorite technology news websites. I highly recommend you read it if you're into technology, even if it's just a passing interest. Not all of the comics are as geeked out as the one pasted above, so don't be intimidated. What are you waiting for? Go read some xkcd!

Eee PC Comic Review

2008-05-22T20:10:00.002-04:00

FYI:

I recently got an Asus Eee PC 4G and I like it a lot and wanted to write a brief review of it. There are a lot of reviews out there, so I wanted to present my review in a unique way. So, I got the idea to make my review in the form of a comic. I was heavily into comics in grade school and high school, so this lets me relive my adolescence to a certain extent. I took pictures of my favorite childhood stuffed animal Littlefoot (from the original Land Before Time animated movie, not the crappy sequels) with my Canon EOS Rebel XT and created the comic in Comic Life. I thought it turned out pretty well and I may just continue to do reviews and other articles in this fashion. Hope you liked it!

Comic created with Comic Life from plasq - http://plasq.com

First Time

2008-05-16T15:21:00.000-04:00

Hello, this is my very first blog. After some debate, I decided to get a blog because I have a wide range of interests (Catholicism, music, computers, photography, architectural lighting, etc.) that I would like to write about and share my thoughts about. I already have a music blog (MOG) at mog.com/samuraijohnny and I'll link there appropriately.

Hope you enjoy this journey into the bloggosphere with me!