Keepers of the Truth

In life I have a philosophy which I try and live by:
Always keep a list of goals to achieve and keep working toward your goals.

This week I have achieved yet another of those goals. I went to the Apple Computers headquarters in Cupertino. Was it an awsome, awe-inspiring experience? No, not so much. I mean I had fun walking around what little of the campus I was allowed to see and looking at the way they designed their offices and how they allowed their employees to do their own thing (think differnt) and such. It wasn't like, "Oh cool I have to get a picture of this or that." I didn't say much of "Look at that guy (I did say that about one guy who just has an awsome feel to him (More on him later)." It was just the joy of being at a place I had wanted to visit for quite a while. I'm the only Apple geek among most of my techi friends. I have a good friend who used to say that I was going to take over Apple one day. I have others who just don't get it. Anyway, I'd always wanted to go to Apple headquarters and now I write this just a few minutes walk from the place where it all happens. I'm still giddy just thinking about it.

Overall, what we did was little, although I now know how to post podcasts and I've used the Apple iLife and iWorks suites which are really cool. I would love to just sit down for a few months and get lost in this stuff, but I know that I'm going to have to go back to my office on Monday and get back to the real work I do. I just hope that I'll be able to use part of what I learned in what I do everyday.

I do want to talk just for a moment about one of the keynote speakers who talked to us. His name is Kim Silverman, Ph.D. He is a man of great stature not only in the way he looks, but also in the way he thinks and acts. He's the principal research scientist at Apple Computers and is overseeing the speech recognition and text-to-speech projects in OS X. First off, he looks just like Professor Dumbledore or Merlin or any of the legendary wizards we see on TV (I also heard him refered to as Santa Claus, but I didn't really see that as much). He spoke and made a presentation that just made everyone of us drop our jaws in awe of his speech. He could make the computer just and dance just with the sound of his voice. It was an awsome sight. Then when we were at a reception later he came out and did magic tricks for us. He's a very accomplished magician and he put on quite a show. He started with a trick where he used me as the audience participant. I was very skeptical at first, but soon, I was just sitting there wondering how he pulled it off time and again. Here he was standing close enough for me to touch and he pulled my card out of a deck multiple times. I had my eyes firmly on the deck and never once did I see how he did it. I thought I had it once, but then he pulled the card out of somewhere completely different from where I thought he'd placed it. I was amazed! Later, after he'd gone around the room doing other slight of hand tricks I got a chance to talk to him. I told him how much I enjoyed listening to him present and see him perform. I told him that it was like magic what he could do with the computer. He said, "I think that part of what makes effective technology is making it act like magic." or something like that. I was just so overwelmed by what he did. If you ever get a chance to see this guy in action I think you too would feel as I did. It was a great way to end a great week!

Bald Man posted a blog and it got me thinking (He does that to me alot, and I appreciate him for that). What is our world view? How is it that we think about things when relate to them? Usually when I do things, I try and use a philosophy I learned from Alister Crowley "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law. Love is the law, love under will." What I was told that meant when I first heard/read/whatever it is that "You can do whatever you want, as long as it doesn't interfere with what someone else wants or does in a negative way." I do my best to do that. I try and live by the "Golden Rule" and treat others as I wish to be treated. Those two things, I think define a lifestyle that if we were all able to follow, would lead to great things.

The problem is that there are a whole lot of us in the world and it is hard to do something that doesn't effect someone else, and maybe in a way that is negative to them. Things were so much simpler when we had a smaller world view. Back 200 years ago we most likely wouldn't know what was going on 100 miles from our town. Today, 100 miles might be a daily commute. Back in 1800 the newspapers didn't come out but maybe once a week in most towns and they only told of violence maybe once a month. Today we have 24 news and 24 violence, but when we really review that, how much of that is local in 1800's terms? Did the world get more violent or did we shrink the world with technology?

There was a time when we were much more careful about what we did because it really had more of an effect on our lives. How many leaders were willing to sound the battle cry knowing that they were the ones who actually went first into battle? I think that I am more willing to say that a leader had to fully believe in what he (Sorry ladies, I think I am being historically PC here)was fighting for back then as opposed to today. Would bush have pushed for war in Iraq if he was on the first plane flying into battle (See previous war experience)? But each of us personally had to be careful of what we did back in those times. I might get upset and kick the tire on my car. Most likely it won't damage my car (else I'm stronger than I thought or my car is junkier than I thought), but in 1800 a swift kick to the spokes of a wagon could have easily broken a spoke or spooked a horse. Even the little things mattered a little more. For most people a penny was a lot of money at that time. Do you think that many people abused things they spent 100's of dollars on, or treated them so they might break? Sure some did, but I think most didn't. Today, $100 is a minor thing for many people and who cares if this one breaks, I can go to Wallie-World and get me 2 more for the price of one.

No, I can't say that I have followed both law and rule to a T. I know I have broken both, but I do try. That is part of the problem. It really can't be done totally, and in this case, trying is the best we can do. Let me give an example... Smoking. I don't smoke because second hand smoke can harm others. Ok... Seems good to both Law (don't impede on the will of others to not be harmed by second hand smoke) and Rule (I don't want others to force me to deal with the side effects of their habits I don't share). But wait, there's more. Here is where it doesn't work to both Law (By not doing it I'm harming those people who make their living from the tobacco crop. I know that many people think that those farmers can just plant something else, but alot of farms are suitable for only certain crops, and so tobacco fields most likely won't grow wheat. Besides, I may want to smoke.) and Rule (I'd hate for someone to not do something just because I don't want them to, no matter how good it is for them. Also, I want others to use my "product" (I do have a job ya know) and would hate to think that they aren't because they are being polite to someone else (It does happen in my line of work)). So I have to decide, which is better? Usually I will decide one way, but sometimes I might go another on any given issue. It seems it would be so much easier in a smaller world where I didn't have to decide if I wanted to buy someone made in a sweatshop in China where the people at least are making something for their labor or to not buy and keep them from making the pennies they may need to put food in their mouths.

Ok, I think I need to have an unbiased opinion on this. I watched Saturday's match between Brasil and France and I was really unimpressed with the whole game. France won, 1-0 on a restart free kick where Henry got behind the defense unmarked. That was the one shining moment in an otherwise unremarkable game. France had 2-3 players on all the best Brazilians making it so every time Ronaldo touched the ball he was surrounded and he resorted to Maradona style dives to attempt to gain the calls.

Speaking of the calls, I thought that the referee did not really stay consistant with his calls. In fact, on the play where France scored, a Brasilian (I don't really recall who) was all but raped by two Frenchman (Nothing surprising there) to a no call, but then on the French attack someone got touched for a call. That is not the only example, but really inconsistant in my opinion.

No, I'm not blaiming the officials for the Brasil loss. They lost it themselves by not figuring out how to get past the French defense better, by not putting in a stronger or more comfortable striking line toward the end of the match to force a goal. In fact, look at the side which took the pitch for Brasil... No Emerson, Adriano did not start, Fred did not come in (He did well in round robin play as a late sub), and where was Robinho prior to the 80th minute? I was very disappointed in this game, and the handling of the Brasilian lineup.

What really gets me though is the press. During the match I had to listen to the announcers talk about how any time someone tried to attack Zidane they were showing lack of respect (even worse if they touched him on the tackle), but when they contained it was because he commanded such great respect. Did he play well? To me I think he played a good game. Yes, it is true he is a top quality player, but I don't think his played warrented then or now all this talk about how wonderful it was. He did drop that ball right onto a running Henry's foot. Beautiful touch that! He did make a few good touches to beat some defenders. Nothing more than Ronaldinho did though.

Maybe I'm just too biased. I'm not a fan of the French, on or off the pitch. This is something that started before the '98 World Cup when France spanked Brasil in the finals (Ok, before that I didn't realize France had a soccer team, but that will show how much respect I gave them). No, this has nothing to do with the recent "War on Terror" - Freedom Fries stuff. I think France was right to stay out. Anyway, am I just too biased to have seen a GREAT game from Zidane? Did I miss the magic? Please, let me know what you think.