On the implementation of '==' for deities

So the dude who did the documentary where he ate McDonald's every day for 30 days and ruined his body, well he got a reality TV deal for a show called 30 days.

I watched the first few episodes.  In one of them, a Christian dude spent 30 days living with a Muslim family in Detroit.  Upon visiting a mosque, he expressed the concern that the Muslims were praying to a different God than his, and he didn't want to engage in that.

How, exactly, might one evaluate that question?  If we grant:

• Muslims pray to Allah
• Christians pray to God

How do we know that Allah == God (or not)?

If we allowed the possibility of multi-theism, this would be simple enough.  If Apollo is the sun god and Aphrodite isn't, then we're probably talking about different deities.  There's a distinction in roles and genders.

But Allah and God pretty much have the same role: creator of heaven and earth, alpha and omega, &c.  They even have the same gender, which is either "male" or "undefined" depending on how much modernist revisionism you subscribe to.

Now, some of the things that Allah and God have said or done might contradict one another.  Like, if Allah said that there was no heaven and God said that there was, then maybe we'd be dealing with different deities.

Except: the Christian God said the thing about "eye for an eye" and then the other thing about "turning the other cheek."  Those are kinda hard to reconcile.  No easier anyway than it would be to reconcile the God of Abraham, Moses, Jesus and "Angels in the Outfield" also being the dude who spake to Muhammad that one time about that other thing.

Maybe this is one of those P vs NP things?

There once was a poet named Poe...

Limerick versions of famous poems.

Wikileaks

Clay Shirky has written the most sensible thing I've read yet about Wikileaks.

Even so, I think his writing fails to get all the way to the matter at hand.  His thoughts on the matter operate under the assumption that the United States should operate in a legalistic, democratic manner.

Which brings us back to our old model vs reality situation.

The model of the United States as a democratic, soveriegn Westphalian nation state, bound by a Constitution and the laws of the land doesn't tell the whole truth.

Human organizations obey social truths, not legal truths.  Social truths deal in trust, enmity, loyalty and hierarchy; legal truths deal in egalitarian rights and prohibitions.  Social truths are situational; legal truths are universal.

Consider any human organization of which you are a member.  Perhaps there is a person who on paper ought to be your manager, but whom you actually manage.  Is the nominal leader of your department, company, homeowner's association, Warcraft guild or softball team actually the leader?

Constitutions and laws are legal truths.  They guide but don't restrict.  A speed limit doesn't keep you from speeding.  It's merely one element in a long list of things that influence your driving decisions.

The United States is at or around the height of its imperial power.  There might be laws or treaties that say, on paper, that we shouldn't invade other nations, kidnap folks from Pakistan, torture prisoners of war, knowingly kill civilians or extra-judiciously harass the founder of Wikileaks.  Those are more guidelines than actual rules.

The gentleman and scholar Ron White once recounted a story of walking his dogs in front of a building.  There was a sign in the grass in front of the building that read: "no dogs."  The sign, Ron claimed, was wrong.  It should have said "two dogs."

If the rules on extradition or jurisdiction contradict what the US of A is up to, then the rules are obviously wrong.  The rules that matter are the social rules of hierarchy, power relationships and loyalty.

Will the international community allow us to go after this man?  Most likely.  Will domestic corporations respect the government's wishes and freeze assets, domains and donations?  Almost certainly.  Do whiners in the blogosphere like you me or Clay Shirky have the votes, dollars or guns to have a voice in the matter?  No they don't.

It's not that might makes right.  It's that "might" and "right" are independent matters.

Close the Washington Monument

Hey all, long time no post.  Bruce Schneier is as good a reason to de-lurk as any, so here you go.

The TSA and the thinking that created and maintains it represent a real incarnation of what the philosophers call a "reductio ad absurdam."  Rock-bottom is a different place for everyone.  Taking the shoes off might do it for some, pat-downs might do it for others.

The TSA isn't the enemy of the terrorist.  It's the complement.  The terrorist sets 'em up, exposing a new potential threat.  The TSA knock's 'em down, removing freedoms in a quixotic attempt to enumerate badness.  It's a symbiotic relationship.

If a terrorist does something bad and no one runs around acting terrified, was he really a terrorist?

i of the Tiger

Posted without comment.


ipad + "Eye of the Tiger" from Jordan Hollender on Vimeo.

My journey through the Koprulu Sector

So, I'm updating my Starcraft II (not like they give you a choice in the matter), and the kind little update window wishes me all the best on my journeys through the "Koprulu Sector."

Now, I know a LOT about Starcraft II.  If I were the sort of dude that worried about his image, I'd definitely avoid admitting how much I know about Starcraft II.  I know the names of professional players, the teams they play for, what they look like, what sorts of builds they favor.  And this was the first I've heard of the Koprulu Sector.

The reason of course is that I've not played the campaign.  The reason for me not playing the campaign is that I attempted a single mission and gagged over the dialog and voice acting.  The idea is that the rough-and-tumble independent space-cowboy adventurers are taking on the fascist dictator, deploying their plucky attitudes and checkered pasts in the service of that goal.  Or something like that.  I honestly wasn't paying attention.  The lines were terrible, the delivery wasn't over-the-top enough to be campy, but it wasn't nearly good enough to be... good.  Think of the worst line you remember from Top Gun, being delivered in the manner of the worst moment of acting in the Star Wars prequels.  It's kinda like that, but worse.

The matter of the campaign and the story though got me to thinking.  Perhaps the reason why games like Halo and Starcraft are so popular is the rich backstory.

Take an unpopular game like chess as a counter example.  Where's the story?  Where's the single player?  Yeah, so it's black vs white, but... WHY?  Was there some ancient wrong that demands remedy on the battlefield?  This 8x8 checkered realm surely has a fancy alien-sounding name, doesn't it?  We know the pawns can move 1 space or sometimes two and sometimes diagonal and such, but what's their motivation? Do they have bad-ass, anti-authoritarian attitudes that the teenage male demo can relate to?  Inquiring minds want to know!

Clearly chess doesn't get it.  There's just no DEPTH there, you know?  It's like all that happens is you have two people trying to outwit each other using a commonly known abstract ruleset as the means for their battle.  Who'd be interested in that?

There are likely a few chess tournament trophies in my parents' attic that answer that question solidly, but I haven't the time to check - I'm off to the Koprulu Sector!

This should be obvious

You know all those camps and bases that the logistical arm of the US military has established in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Those guys should be employed creating a safe and sanitary camp for the Hatians that currently really need one.

Just another one of those things our nation could do if it ever wanted to shift resource allocation from destruction to creation.