it’s official

Jul 2009 08

Dear world,

I screwed up. I missed a crucial deadline to study abroad, and let too much time lapse. I was not willing to gamble on not getting my visa in time, and so therefore have chosen to request deferment for the study abroad program until a later date.

I was not in a place where I felt as though I could put in the effort it would require to get a visa, and then have it come too late for me to attend the program I was going to attend.

I will be trying to study abroad later on in my academic career, but it will not be fall semester of the 2009-2010 school year.

Feel free to contact me with any questions.

Sincerely,

Jake

Uncategorized Twitter It! No Comments »

[insert worthwhile post below]

Jun 2009 17

so, I was gonna write something useful tonight. That’s not happening. I’ve kinda blah lately, I think it’s the lack of human contact and the sitting in front of a computer all day long coding.

Something needs to change, I need to force myself on people (or something that sounds less creepy). I don’t like this up and down-ness that happens. I want stability.

meh.

Uncategorized Twitter It! 1 Comment »

this thing still exists?

Jun 2009 07

Apparently so. Past few weeks have been busy, what with spending time in the $cities (you’ll know what I mean by ‘the cities’, if you don’t, I’m not telling you) and going to a conference at Stanford University.

Time spent seeing my lady-friend was awesome, and makes the whole distance thing that much harder.

California was also awesome, good to see those people again, topics were informative, weather was nice and sushi was cheap. All around a good time.

I don’t really have a topic, I just realized I haven’t written in forever. Hopefully I’ll be able to come up with something soon.

TTFN

general Twitter It! No Comments »

the fat lady started singing

May 2009 08

Classes are officially over for this year. I’m a little bit bummed, because I made a lot of good friends through newspaper and what-have-you that were seniors. This means, then, that they’re graduating. Some are off to Pittsburgh, others to Kentucky, but regardless, they won’t be in Morris.

It’s awesome that classes are done, I’ve got 2 papers and 3 finals to finish up, and then I’m done-sies (not a word, I know). Ooh! The EC/AI project that Martin and I have been working on (with another kid who’s online presence I’m not wildly aware of, he’s @ChronoProdigy on twitter.) is finished, and we’ll be “presenting” it on Wednesday. I hope to do a more in-depth post, possibly as the first post for my “professional” site that I’m considering (think resume, but more in depth, a list of projects I’ve done/worked on, etc. etc. Basically a way to market myself).

I’m excited for summer to start.

general Twitter It! 1 Comment »

I don’t care about your religion, or your phobia, I care about equality for all

May 2009 06

There is a bill going through the Maine legislature right now that will allow homosexual couples in Maine to be allowed to marry, and be given full marriage benefits. The bill passed through the Senate with a vote of 21-14, and then moved to the House. The Maine state House then voted to pass the bill, with an amendment, with a vote of 89-57. Because an amendment was added, the bill must go back to the Senate, and if passed there, then to Governor Baldacci’s desk.

Up until recently, Governor Baldacci was an opponent of gay marriage. However, after a hearing, both proponents and opponents of the bill left messages with Governor Baldacci’s office. Governor Baldacci the apparently took all of these notes, and called each one back, individually. According to one blogger who received such a call, the conclusion that seemed to be reached, without Governor Baldacci actually explicitly saying this, was that if the bill were to reach his desk, it would be signed into law. Today, the bill went back to the Maine state Senate, was put to a vote and passed with 21-13, with one person not present. Governor Baldacci has signed the bill into law, making Maine the fifth state to allow gay marriage!

There are a number of different arguments against gay marriage, ranging from: “The bible says it’s a sin, so it is therefore wrong” to “There’s no reason for homosexuality to be natural, as it doesn’t produce offspring” to “It’s just weird” to “Allowing gay marriage to occur will send the wrong message to our children about what marriage and love means”. I don’t want to refute all of these arguments, it’s been done before, and that’s not what I want to say.

Gay marriage is, at it’s core, a matter of equality. Equal rights, equal protection by the state, and even equal ability to profess one’s love to another in a socially accepted way. There are gay and lesbian couples all over this country who have professed their love to one another, and who have made the commitment to each other in a “non-official” way (I say non-official here to mean not state-recognized, not to diminish the reality of their commitment). With respect to each other, these couples are “married”, they just can’t become recognized, or get the same tax, visitation, and adoption benefits as straight couples.

I’m sure similar things were said about the women’s suffrage movement: “The bible says it’s the job of the man to care for his wife, why would a woman need to vote?” or “It’s weird seeing women trying to go against the societal norm”. In case you hadn’t noticed, women are now allowed to vote (it’s still true that women don’t make as much as men in equivalent jobs, and there are some other things that need to happen for “true” equality with respect to women’s rights).

We’re all humans on this planet, and everyone has an equally valuable life. People all do equally valuable things, and all have equally valuable opinions. Furthermore, everyone is deserving of equal rights, be it property rights, marriage rights, ability to work, ability to adopt children, or even ability to say what one wants to say. We don’t censor people’s speech because “it’s weird”, and shellfish are sold for food almost everywhere, despite the bible explicitly forbidding it.

Everyone deserves an equal shot at their unalienable right, the pursuit of happiness. Everyone deserves an equal ability to purchase a home. Everyone deserves an equal ability to be with, commit to, and marry whoever it is they choose. I commend Maine on their very progressive stance on the issue, and I urge Minnesota to follow the lead of Maine, Iowa, Connecticut, Massachusetts,  and Vermont. Equality isn’t about religion, isn’t about tradition, and isn’t about making people comfortable with everything that is happening around them. Equality is about making things fair, just, and, as redundant as this sounds, equal. As a nation we need to look towards a day when everyone, blacks, Latinos, Native Americans, men, women, homosexuals, transgendered people, anarchists, socialists, and name-your group-that-I’ve-left-out-here get treated as human beings and with the same level of respect, dignity, and political status as every other group.

NOTE: I had written this post without the knowledge that Maine had passed the bill. I then saw that the bill had been signed into law, and modified the post. If there are inconsistencies, please let me know! Go Maine!

general Twitter It! 3 Comments »

the role of the media

Apr 2009 29

I find myself on a constant quest for new information, be it news, theories, whatever. Ultimately, I don’t really care what it is, but I want to know what’s happening, and I want to know it as soon as possible. Generally speaking, people get their information from the media. Whether it’s newspapers, watching news on tv, reading current events blogs, or listening to informational radio, people get their information from somewhere.

Because of this, the information people are fed has an inherent bias to it. It’s impossible for a writer to be completely objective, regardless of how hard they try. In order to be truly objective, the human element needs to be removed from something, because as humans, we process everything we’re told. So even in regurgitating news, we’re unintentionally passing on our own interpretation of what we were just told. It is arguably possible for people to move past the small bias that stems from an attempt to be objective (vs. a very large bias when no attempt to be objective is made), but it’s important to remember that there will always be bias.

However, there seems to be something else at play in the mainstream media. Yes, clearly there is bias, this has been established. However, it seems that certain types of media, particularly mainstream media, have other prioritites. Most mainstream news organizations are multi-national corporations. Take MSNBC for instance. It used to just be NBC. National Broacasting Corporation. Then deal was made with Microsoft, and the two corporations became partners, and MSNBC was born. Does this matter in the long run? Perhaps not, it’s conceivable that Microsoft just wanted name recognition and a news service for their search engine. However, it’s also conceivable (but perhaps unlikely) that Microsoft has a vested interest in the news that gets put out by MSNBC. I’m not insinuating that Microsoft is censoring news stories, or even that they’re actively putting “spin” on the news being reported. Would a writer for MSNBC tend towards writing favorably when discussing NBC or Microsoft, if only because these two partnered companies pay the writer?

Granted, this is all conjecture, and it sounds a bit “conspiracy-theorist”, but take it as an exercise for the reader. It seems that news sources aligning themselves with other organizations, even if it’s only monetarily, puts another level of inherent bias in the news, as presented to the consumer. Furthermore, these mainstream media companies are just that, companies. The bottom line of a company is to turn a profit. For media companies, this means maintaining subscribers, funding yourself with advertisements, etc. On a national level, in order to maintain subscribers/users, there is obviously a balance between what is actually happening, and what your readers care about. If readers stop caring about what a company is printing, the readers stop reading.

The independence of any news source is crucial to the ability of a news source to be objective. As stated, once a news source aligns itself with an organization or viewpoint, whether it’s monetarily, acting as a soap box for the organization or viewpoint, or even taking what the organization or viewpoint professes at face value, and re-reporting this, the objectivity is lessened. The mandate of any news source is to present the news to the public, in a “fair and balanced” (please ignore the Fox News connotation, as they are anything but) manner. A news source cannot, and should not claim to maintain a level of objectivity while aligned with any organization. Should an organization want to put their own subjective spin on what is happening within the organization, said organization perfectly capable or putting out their own news.

Furthermore, there’s an argument to be made that in the pursuit of objectivity, a news source should be playing devils advocate and asking the dissenting questions. It is arguably the job of a news source to question everything in public discourse, and act as a watchdog over things like government, corporations and businesses, police, politicians, and ultimately even the people themselves. This is the mandate of a news source, and nothing that I’ve seen has ever met this goal.

Consider for a moment the recent presidential election. The mainstream media, generally, was very pro-obama. I acknowledge, so was I. However, it seemed that the majority of what was being said about Obama, was what Obama’s campaign wanted said. No, I’m not insinuating that Obama’s campaign told the mainstream media exactly what to print. However, it does seem that the media took a majority of what was said at face value. I consider myself very left-leaning, but one has to wonder where the concept of “liberal media bias” stems from. Arguably, the mainstream media was fairly biased in favor of Obama (presumably because the previous 8 years left everyone jaded). This isn’t objectivity. This level of bias is a disservice to the public, to the Obama administration, and ultimately, to the news companies themselves.

general Twitter It! 7 Comments »

what is stability?

Apr 2009 23

Why is it that nice weather seems to make everything better? I’m more clear-headed, less worrisome, less filled with anxiety. The sun makes me want to run around and frolic (yes, I said frolic) instead of sitting at home and feeling… lonely? Feeling something that I don’t like, it’s not really lonely, but sort of it is.

Shouldn’t I be more stable overall? Shouldn’t I have control over my inner-me? Isn’t that what stable people do?

Inspired (sort of) by Martin

I stand here illuminated,

as though the sun has burned

all the pressure away.

It’s rays touching all,

leaving nothing dark

the path is clear, concise

I get to choose

general Twitter It! No Comments »

they say we must support the troops, but why do they get to decide?

Apr 2009 22

Recently, there was an email sent to our student listserv urging students to get out and “support the troops”, because a local group of soldiers was getting deployed. The email went on to say that it was important to support the troops, regardless of political affiliation. This seems to have been a fairly common theme over the past 6 years or so, with the “support the troops” mantra being chanted nationwide. This idea of “support the troops also seems to have and an implied sub-mantra “dissent and disagreement don’t have room in this conversation, our troops need support, and by voicing your anti-war opinion, you’re not being supportive, and are therefore a bad person”. Maybe that’s just me, and maybe I’m reading into it too much, but this is the sense I get from the majority of the “support the troops” pushes that I’ve seen.

It’s curious to me that “support” has seemingly turned into “implicitly agree with” in the context of the troops and the military in this country. I say turned into, but I don’t actually know, it’s possible this has always been the sentiment, and I’m just noticing it now. Superficially, I think people are saying “show the troops getting ready to be deployed into very tough situations that you’re here for them”, which, on a superficial level I don’t disagree with.

However, because of the connotations expressed above, it seems that “support” has taken on a different meaning. In attending a rally for troops getting ready to be deployed, and waving a flag, and clapping for them as they leave, it seems as though there are other messages being sent. If I were to go to one of these rallies, and wave a flag, and clap for the troops as they leave, I would feel as though I were implicitly agreeing with their decision to go into the military, the tactics they’re going to be instructed to use while deployed, and ultimately the concept of war and destruction as a whole.

The issue is, I don’t. I admit to being a little bit extreme in my views on war and pacifism, but I stand by them. I don’t agree with people’s decision of going into the military. First, because I think the military uses unfair recruitment techniques, and I feel as though many new recruits get caught up in the grandeur of serving one’s country, the education bonuses, and the “cool” jobs they’ll get to do if they score high enough. I also disagree with the tactics the military instructs their soldiers to use, although this is probably rooted in my idea’s of non-violence. Water boarding isn’t ok, nor is other forms of torture. Keeping people held indefinitely, in a state of legal limbo, and without any hope of them ever getting released in Guantanamo isn’t ok (yes, I know this is supposed to be over, I know those people are being released, etc. That still doesn’t remove the wrong that was initially done). Furthermore, I disagree with the idea that war is the best way to solve certain problems. Invading a sovereign country, destroying people’s homes, completely destroying and rebuilding a countries government, and staying in a country for almost 6 years is not ok. We’re not building an empire, we don’t have a mandate from anyone to bring democracy to the world, and ultimately, we were wrong.

So, if I disagree with what seems to be implied in “support the troops”, why would I do so? I acknowledge that these soldiers are going into a scenario that will be very taxing on them. The things soldiers will do and see is enough to scar anyone for a lifetime. War isn’t pretty, and it’s not glorious. Ultimately, at least for me, the question boils down to the meaning of support in this context.

There’s an argument to be made that returning soldiers deserve our support as a country. Veteran’s benefits are not what they used to be, and many veterans are not being supported in near the number of ways they need support. There’s not a very good mental health system for these soldiers, and overall, the benefits are lacking. I’m all for building up veterans benefits, soliders go through way more than the average civilian, and should be helped back into the society that had them do these things. That said, there are a lot of people in this country right now that are seeing things that are also very emotionally taxing. What about the homeless people (in some cases also veterans) who don’t have a place to live, don’t have clean clothes, don’t have money or a job, and have no idea where their next meal is coming from? Don’t they deserve support also? What about the people working in shelters, soup kitchens, food shelfs, and other organizations that see homeless people come through every day, and know the situations of each one of them? The workers have food, have a job, have a house, but are tasked with seeing large numbers of people who don’t. That’s got to be emotionally taxing. What about those who’re wrongly imprisoned, for any number of reasons, and are subjected to knowing that they’re innocent, but stuck within a system that is designed to keep them their, against their will. A system that is designed to not believe them. What about those people who need support of a mental health system that doesn’t have the funding it needs? Isn’t being subjected to a “let’s try this drug and see what happens” mentality incredibly taxing?

I’m not saying that any of these situations deserve more money or time than the situations of troops returning home. Nor am I saying that any of the people in these situations are have it worse than the soldiers on the ground. What I am saying is that to me, putting money and time towards helping these people is what support means. Put money and time towards veterans benefits, that’s fine. In fact, if the nation can build up a support network for people who need help, but can’t get it, I think soldiers, homeless people, people with very emotionally taxing jobs, and mental health patients could all benefit.

Isn’t there a way to tell the troops “I disagree with your decision, I disagree with the orders you’re going to be given, I disagree with the necessity of your job, but when you get home, and after seeing what you’ll have seen, I think more money should be given to a support system for you, and I’ll be working while you’re away to reduce the need for your job”? Some would say that this all fits under “support the troops”, but I disagree. At the risk of giving the soldiers one more thing to worry about as they’re being deployed, it seems reasonable to me to make stipulations in your support. Perhaps this is too blunt, and perhaps the soldiers need more uplifting messages as they’re about to be dropped into the middle of a very emotionally and physically taxing situation. Maybe instead of being so negative, something like “I think war is wrong, and i think you shouldn’t have become a soldier. My form of support will be political action to bring troops home, and getting the United States to stop fighting wars in general” should be said.

For me, support doesn’t mean “I stand behind you whole-heartedly” or “I put you and your work on a pedestal, because you’re going through a lot in your line of work”. For me, support means “I want to help you get out your very painful, unfortunate set of circumstances”. It means actively working to stop the practice of starting wars, it means working to increase the support system nationwide (and not only for veterans), and it means being politically active to elect those who will work for this type of “support”. Yes, I support the troops, but I don’t give the military and the soldiers a free “support card” that puts them on a pedestal and protects them from criticism and dissent.

general Twitter It! No Comments »

Google Summer of Code 2009 is on!

Apr 2009 20

I’ve been accepted to work for the OpenAFS organization within Google Summer of Code 2009! I’m super excited, and more in depth description of my planned project will follow, but I’m going to be trying to implement a re-order of the server lists (as OpenAFS is a distributed filesystem) by using network statistics, instead of the quasi-random way it’s done now.

Congratulations to all of the accepted students in Google Summer of Code 2009, and best of luck.

To those students who haven’t been accepted into the program, chin up! It’s not that you’re not capable, or that your application wasn’t good. Nor is it likely the case that your organization doesn’t want you. Summer of Code was scaled back this year, as a whole, which means less students were accepted over all. I’m sure your organization would love to have you still, and you should definitely talk ot them, and express interest in still working on your project.

general Twitter It! No Comments »

static to noise ratio

Apr 2009 16

I’ve been thinking recently about the concept of blogging, and what it means in certain contexts. In a lot of cases, bloggers are breaking news before mainstream news sources do. Other times, blogs are putting a new, different, perspective on something that is currently happening. It’s part of what happens on the internet, and it’s become almost common knowledge at this point.

You’ll find mainstream news sources picking up what prominent bloggers say, and using it as a source for their own reporting. Other times you find bloggers picking up what other bloggers are saying, and building off of that. It’s almost as though bloggers have become the front-line filter between what’s happening, and what gets reported.

Recently, one of my friends wrote about his thoughts on political issues, which he doesn’t normally do. I’ve been finding a lot of what this particular person writes to strike a certain chord with me, and it hits home more than what I find myself reading elsewhere. I acknowledge I’m biased, and I acknowledge that a lot of what he writes isn’t exactly synthesis of what’s going on around him, but more his general view on the world.

This concept made me wonder what bloggers are actually doing. Yeah, a lot of them are reporting things first, but many do also put their own outlook on it into their writing. In terms of fact, you tend to need to sift through the opinion stuff. That said, there’s a lot of good material, and many times, the opinions are well thought out.

What you’ll often see when reading through blogs is that they’re addressing a current political issue, seemingly in the hopes that someone, somewhere, will read what they have to say. I think this seems to be the crux of the issue. You find mainstream news sources (I’m looking at you CNN) occasionally taking posts from the internet (or blogosphere, if you prefer that term. I don’t) and using these posts as a basis for their reporting. How do they pick what they report on?

Because of the apparent level of opinion on a topic that gets put into blog posts, it’s clear that blogging isn’t just idle writing by people who are bored. It’s clear that people think they have an audience, or they wouldn’t continue doing it. Presumably these people’s audience tends to agree with the people writing, or they wouldn’t continue to read the writing. What this means, in the end, is that there are large amounts of people with similar opinions on issues, expressing these issues on the internet. One would think politicians would pay attention to this.

What seems curious to me is this: Arguably all of these bloggers, and readers, and commenters, and people linking to other blogs all have valid, viable opinions that are worth discussing. Why aren’t their views being discussed until after they filter through the mainstream news media? It seems as though it’s because there are just simply too many people, all talking at once. Consider for a second the general metaphor of signal in the noise (derived from old broadcasting terminology, the signal is what you’re looking for, the noise is a bunch of other junk that is also broadcast, but not useful). It seems, at least superficially, that all of these bloggers (and subsequently commenters, etc.) have opinions at least relatively worth listening to. If we follow the previously mentioned metaphor, all of these bloggers are signal.

Clearly there’s a lot of other stuff going on (the noise in our metaphor), but even still, the signal should be getting picked up. To a degree, it is. Things like the Huffington Post try to take the best of their pool of bloggers, and give it a public face. Places like CNN tend to take stories that are showing up in a lot of blogs, and synthesizing them further, then reporting them. Is this really where blogging is headed? Are bloggers really just the front-lines of news? Does news really have to go event->blogs (potentially repeated 10 times)->mainstream news->the masses? That’s potentially n+3 times of interpretation of what happens (where n is the number of bloggers the stuff goes through before it hits the final blogger that then causes mainstream news to pick it up).

I’m not sure what my point is, it’s 2:15am, and I should’ve been asleep an hour ago. Ultimately, it seems as though bloggers aren’t being heard the way they should be, which really boils down to the idea that the masses/governement/mainstream news isn’t really listening to the opinions of the people. Yes, bloggers have a lot of signal in the scheme of the overall broadcast, but I worry that even this signal from the bloggers is too noisy. That is, by the nature of blogging, and having lots of people doing it, the signal becomes a type of noise in it’s own right. How do we find the signal in the signal in the nosie?

general Twitter It! 2 Comments »