A Blessing for Caleb

Last Friday Caleb turned one year old. I am so proud of my boy. I love watching him grow, I love getting to know him, I love seeing his personality develop and start to show, and I even love all the difficult lessons fatherhood is teaching me right now. Well, I usually love those. Especially when I finally get the lesson through my thick skull.

One of the pastors at our church, Pastor David Michael, adapted a collection of bible passages into blessings that he would recite to his children before they went to sleep. When he showed these blessings to other parents, they loved them, so he published a few dozen of them in a little booklet. I chose the blessing based on Psalm 112 to give to Caleb, and although I can’t quite get through the whole thing reading it out loud, I wanted to share it here with all of you because it means a lot to me. This is what I want for Caleb. I want this for him more than I want anything else in life for myself.

May you be a man who fears the Lord;
May you find great delight in the Lord’s commands.
May your children be mighty in the land. Even to the next generation, may you and your children be blessed.
May you find your wealth and your riches in God.
May you endure in righteousness forever.
Even in the darkness may the light dawn for you.
May you be a gracious, compassionate and righteous man.
May you never be shaken. And may your name be remembered by the Lord forevermore.

I know for certain because of the DNA I’ve given him and the world he lives in that Caleb will find himself in deep darkness at some point his life, either caused by himself, or by circumstances beyond his control. Knowing that God’s light would dawn in the midst of that is the greatest thing I could ever ask for him. Pain is guaranteed, but rescue isn’t.

Caleb, if you fear the Lord, you don’t need to fear that darkness; the light will dawn for you.

Google Chrome

Last night I saw a link to scans of a comic book of sorts drawn by Scott McCloud. He drew it for the debut of a new web browser coming from Google itself, called Google Chrome. Even if you’re not a geek or not deeply into web browsers, I would recommend you check out the comic because it is blindingly brilliant.

I don’t mean to slather the praise on too thick, but outside of Apple’s famous Stevenotes, this little comic book is the best presentation of a new product that I have ever seen. In the space of about 15 minutes it becomes clear that Google started this browser with a very blank sheet of paper and asked a lot of game-changing “What if?” and “Why?” questions. In the hands of McCloud, complex ideas become fluid, and the reader is gently brought through the conceptual motivation behind the browser in a way that really makes one hungry to actually use it. When’s the last time you saw a browser presented with conceptual motives rather than features? Some of the concepts naturally become features, of course, but I’ll bet Google Chrome will, in its early iterations, back up my opinion that ideology-driven software tends to be good software.

Fortuitously, Google released Google Chrome today, so I didn’t have to wait too long after reading the comic book to try it out. Google has currently only released Chrome for Windows, but a Mac OS X client isn’t far behind. (I’ve got Boot Camp and VMware Fusion anyhow.)

Let me give you a quick list of the things I really like about it. I hate to post spoilers of the comic book if you haven’t read it, but if you’re not interested in reading it, then take this as an editorial list of some of Chrome’s interesting points:

  • Designed to crash and hang far less than your current browser. Because… science! (Short version.) If one tab hangs because of a misbehaving website, in most cases your other tabs won’t get punished.
  • Less memory usage over time than other browsers.
  • Uses WebKit, the same rendering engine Safari (on Mac OS X, Windows, or the iPhone) and OmniWeb use. That’s nice because, in general, if a web developer makes sure their pages work in Safari or OmniWeb, they’ll probably already work well in Chrome.
  • Uses a cutting-edge, blindingly-fast open source JavaScript engine called V8
  • Has better, more-complete automated testing than other browsers (probably) have by utilizing Google’s massive website-crawling infrastructure, which is already in place. Also uses Google’s PageRank to prioritize testing. In retrospect, this is a complete no-brainer.
  • Uses the “Omnibox”, which combines the address bar and Google-powered look-ahead search in one box. You will find it vastly superior within five minutes of using it, and miss it when you are in another browser.
  • Also allows the user to search specific websites with keyboard shortcuts via the Omnibox, no special programming or preference customizing required.
  • Has a dynamic “home page” in every new tab created by the user that is automatically customized over time with the sites you use and search with the most.
  • Limits pop-ups without making the ones you actually want to see difficult to find.
  • Contains a built-in ability to turn any web application into a customized stand-alone application you can launch from your desktop. This essentially promotes web applications to feel more like normal desktop apps. (Mac OS X geeks have already experienced this with Fluid.)
  • Has built-in protection against malware and phishing scams.

Certainly all these claims will need to be tested in the real world by real users, but this browser has a very good feel to it initially, and the buzz on the web is confirming that. It’s fast, it’s sexy, and it’s here, at least in beta. If you’re on Windows or you can run Windows, go check it out. I’m not suggesting we all leave Firefox or Safari yet (though if you’re using Internet Explorer, yes, I’m suggesting you leave it) but this browser is one to watch.

I will be most interested to see how (or if) the Safari team responds to these innovations. The Omnibox feels so obvious now that it would be impossible not to copy it.

Pioneer Press Twitter Article with Steph and Me

The Pioneer Press is running an article today about couples who use Twitter and the different ways they handle exchanging such public messages. The article features several couples including Steph and me, and our good friends Kevin and Abby Hendricks. I think the only way to beat being in a front-page article is having a bunch of good friends in the article with you.

I’ve been given a copy of the article in PDF, and permission to post it here. Enjoy!

That chirp you hear? Tweet sweet nothings.

Microsoft Tries This “Funny” Thing They Heard About

Yesterday the news was all over the web: Jerry Seinfeld has been chosen as spokesman for a new Microsoft ad campaign pushing Vista. This fact strikes me as hilarious in every way except the way Microsoft probably intended.

For starters, the upcoming Seinfeld ads are clearly a response to Apple’s much-parodied, much-discussed Get a Mac campaign. For the “funny” in their campaign, Apple chose the fresh, up-and-coming humorist John Hodgman. (Remember, the Get a Mac campaign launched in May of 2006. Hodgman wasn’t unknown then, but he certainly wasn’t as widely known as he is now. Fans of The Daily Show knew him, but not many others did.) In response to this, Microsoft chooses a comedian whose hit sitcom ended in 1998. Sure, people like Seinfeld, but, 1998? For a technology company? This is the image Microsoft is going for? “Welcome back to the 90s! We miss the 90s because we didn’t seem to suck as much then!”

You’ve probably seen Seinfeld (if you’re at least 10 years old or watch reruns, that is). Do you recall what kind of computer Jerry had on his desk in his apartment all those years ago? That’s right: a Mac. He’s a known Mac user. Apple even aired a special version of its Think Different ad during the series finale of Seinfeld which showed a black-and-white clip of Jerry Seinfeld himself as the last in the series of people being honored by Apple in the ad. According to the New York Times, Jerry’s being paid $10 million to be in these ads. I guess the next message Microsoft wants to send besides “Welcome back to the 90s!” is “We can buy and sell you, no matter what your personal preferences used to be.” Apparently Microsoft thinks the only thing we all love more than a 90s sitcom star is one who is also a sellout.

Who knows, maybe the ads will really wow us all. Just like Vista.

Jim Henson and Me

I’ve commented in the past on this blog about how much I love the Muppets. For the last six years a rare “Think Different” poster of Jim Henson and Kermit has hung in my workspace. But I don’t think I’ve ever explained where my love of the Muppets and Jim Henson came from, or how deep it once was. If you’ll indulge me, I’d like to share that story now.

My love of the Muppets started before I can remember, but I’m sure it was due to Sesame Street and The Muppet Show. I grew up watching Sesame Street as a toddler in the late 70s and only very slowly tapered off watching regularly through the mid 80s. I remember Mr. Hooper dying in 1982. I even remember the cast discovering that Mr. Snuffleupagus wasn’t just a figment of Big Bird’s imagination in 1985. Sesame Street characters were in the toys I played with as a child, and their names were among some of the first words I learned.

As if that influence wasn’t enough, my mother owned professionally-made puppets and would put on puppet shows for the kids in our church and in other local organizations. By the time I was six I had joined her (I think my sister had as well). I learned to keep my thumb pointed towards the floor (lest my puppet stare at the ceiling), not bite my words, and on some puppets, operate the rod attached to the puppet’s hand. When I was nine I had a couple of my own cheap puppets (B-list “Chewy Granola” cartoon characters I probably got from a box-top offer) and had tape-recorded my own script for use in my school’s talent show. I performed both characters at the same time. By that time, everyone knew that I was aiming to become a pro, and that I idolized Jim Henson. I loved the way that the Muppets were able to create entertainment that was enjoyed by kids and teenagers and adults, and all for different reasons.

Then, in May of 1990, and at the height of my love of puppetry, Jim Henson died.

I don’t remember where I was when I heard about it or how I felt initially. But one evening later that summer, when I was almost twelve, my family and I were eating dinner at home and chatting. Somehow, a few weeks after it happened, the subject of Jim Henson’s death came up. We had already spoken about it, but not much. They knew I respected him, studied puppeteering, and hoped to join the Muppets, but I think the question of whether my plans had changed had never come up. Perhaps that was the question put to me.

My initial reaction to the question was one of self-protection. I wanted to show that I wasn’t bothered that some old puppeteer had died. I was almost a teenager, and I was supposed to be growing aloof at this point. I made some sarcastic comment like, “Oh, I’m so sad he’s gone. Boo hoo!” and faked crying and rubbed my eyes like a mime.

Then I surprised even myself when my fake tears turned to sobbing. All conversation stopped and my embarrassment grew as my tears splashed down on my dinner plate, and I realized I hadn’t mourned him, hadn’t thought through how my plans might change now that the visionary creator of that world was gone.

I didn’t know it then, but over the next three years I would conclude that they weren’t worth joining any longer, and decide to pursue a career in music. Sometimes I see things they’ve done and feel it was the right decision. Other times I’m not so sure. I love what I do now, but there’s a certain magic and purity to a story like this one that’s hard to resist.

Outsourcing Reality

Steph and I have been thinking and conversing a lot lately about how we, as a society, are losing touch with the day-to-day reality of survival. In some ways this can be seen as progress, and in others it’s a dangerous trend. The difficult part is distinguishing which side each outsourced piece of life falls into.

The following list should show you what I mean. I admit, it’s subjective and made off the top of my head, but it consists of the things I believe are the building blocks of society and human growth. These are all necessary things. In other words, if these things went away or were constricted in some way, it would cause serious problems with the development and survival of the human race.

  • Having something to eat
  • Having necessary household goods
  • Having a building in which to live and work
  • Having a way to get from place to place
  • Making babies
  • Giving birth
  • Caring for and educating the young
  • Caring for the elderly
  • Protecting your possessions and your loved ones

These are things we need as humans. There are exceptions, of course. Perhaps not every single person needs to be involved in making babies, but if everybody stops making babies, we’ve got a big problem. If we don’t educate the young and educate ourselves, we’ve got a big problem. If we can’t protect the stuff we’ve worked to gain and maintain, we’ve got a big problem. You get the idea.

Now, let’s look at how these things were done a few hundred years ago. You probably already know where I’m going with this. If not, see if you spot a trend. (If you see something wrong in my history here, feel free to correct it with citations in the comments.)

  • Having something to eat: People grew crops or knew a guy down the road that grew them. They owned weapons and hunted for themselves.
  • Having necessary household goods: People carved or crafted the things they needed (toys, utensils, working tools) and occasionally ordered the complex stuff from a catalogue.
  • Having a building in which to live and work: People built their own houses using wood from their own nearby forests, and helped their neighbors and nearby towns to do the same.
  • Having a way to get from place to place: People walked or rode the horses that their family or nearby friends raised. Sometimes they got on boats and rowed or sailed, but it was rare.
  • Making babies: Duh. (This one’s hard to “improve”, huh?)
  • Giving birth: Often done in a person’s own home, perhaps with the help of a local doctor or a neighbor.
  • Caring for and educating the young: Very long ago, done almost entirely by a child’s family and close friends. Education of children and teens began to move into the school in the 18th century.
  • Caring for the elderly: When and if they survived to an age at which they needed care, they were taken care of in their children’s own homes. When they died, their family and friends embalmed and buried them.
  • Protecting your possessions and your loved ones: This one varies widely based on exactly which part of the world you’re in. In the Western world, until around the 17th century, most civilizations expected their people to protect their own personal possessions except in cases of invading foreign armies. There were governing bodies to resolve disputes, of course, but people owned weapons and used them according to the laws of their land.

The trend, of course, is that people tended to have a deep involvement in the necessary elements for their and their loved ones’ own lives. If you were hungry, you generally had to go out and kill or harvest your own food. You taught your own kids, and cared for your own parents. As a side note, its an interesting trend that the rich were less involved in each of these elements, choosing instead to pay someone else to take care of them in their stead.

Now let’s compare the old ways of doing these things with some of the newest developments in each field. Some of these are not the most popular way in which these things are done, but they are new developments which are rising in popularity. (“Rising” is a relative term, and I am not at all suggesting these will be the only way these tasks are done in the future.) Note that when I say “we” below, I’m not talking about individual people, but rather most of the people in a given society that does these things.

  • Having something to eat: Go to the grocery store and buy what we need from a farmer (or farming corporation) we never met who uses methods we’re unfamiliar with.
  • Having necessary household goods: Go to Target or Wal-mart and buy whatever we need for amazingly low prices, having no idea how these things are made, what is in them, or how to fix or improve them.
  • Having a building in which to live and work: We hire architects to build our homes and places of work for us. We hire other people to fix and upgrade them because the inner workings of the structures are sometimes so advanced that we don’t know how to fix and upgrade them ourselves. (Especially in the case of plumbing and electrical work.)
  • Having a way to get from place to place: We buy cars (which we can’t build) for long journeys, Segways for shorter ones. We’re more mobile with airplanes (which again, we couldn’t make ourselves) and we only go on boats for fun.
  • Making babies: There are new ways to do this too, though they’re not as popular for obvious reasons. We’ve got surrogate pregnancies, test tube babies, in vitro fertilization, and soon enough, cloning.
  • Giving birth: Usually done in hospitals with professional doctors and nurses, lots of bright lights, IVs, and monitors we can’t read.
  • Caring for and educating the young: Done by government-hired professionals with degrees in things we haven’t studied, even for kids as young as two or three, all the way through one’s twenties and up.
  • Caring for the elderly: Nursing homes with professional nurses and help staff help our elderly. We keep them generally out of sight and out of mind once they can no longer care for themselves. When they die, a professional embalms them, a professional does their funeral, and someone else digs the hole and buries them. Someone else even tends to the graveyard.
  • Protecting your possessions and your loved ones: In some places, like America, a person is still allowed to own guns and protect their stuff. But in other places, like Australia, gun ownership is illegal. (When Steph and I asked an Australian friend of ours who visited us recently what people there did if there was real trouble, she just said, “Call the police.”)

Before you jump all over me for that list, let me point out that I’m not saying these developments are all bad. What if we don’t all need to know how to grow our own food? In these more modern times, we have the freedom to spend time doing something besides going to “corn class.” I’ll be the first person here to cheer for the doctors and nurses that helped deliver Caleb. After Steph’s pre-eclampsia had gotten under control and Caleb was born, I asked one of our nurses, “What would have happened a hundred years ago in this situation?” She was blunt: “Your wife would be dead.” Hooray doctors!!

Still, that modern list reveals some problems, too. Depending on your leanings, different things will appear to be a problem to different people. Some think Australia has gone astray and are cheering the US Supreme Court’s recent decision. Some think a committed, hard-working parent would give their own child an education far, far better than any public school could provide. Some think the outsourcing of our food supply has led to less healthy food, obesity, and more inhumane treatment of animals. Some feel that the outsourcing of general consumer goods has lead to more industrial waste, toxic landfills, and higher carbon emissions. Even Pixar’s new movie Wall-E cautions its viewers about outsourcing reality and going on “automatic mode” for general societal functions. When you concentrate your necessary functions at one point (educators, police, industrial farmers, gasoline) it creates one big point of failure. Any engineer knows that’s a bad idea.

My question, then, is obvious. The older way of doing things isn’t always the best. The newer way of doing things also isn’t always the best. So what is? At what point are the freedoms given by modern technology and professionals in every field simply not worth the ignorance those freedoms leave in their wake? I don’t buy the argument that the answer to that question is completely different for each person. It seems logical to me that we, as a society, need to pick a few things that are the most important building blocks of our society, and be very careful to teach those things to all our kids as they grow. Not that we would enforce this as law somehow, but that it would be a general cultural understanding that every person should know how to do X, Y, and Z before they’re an adult. Don’t even bother arguing that’s currently in place. It isn’t.

I’d like to hear your opinions on this topic. I’m still mulling it over. We need rules to define what is important for every person to know and what isn’t. And we need to know whether it is possible to push forward as a society if we’re spending all our time re-learning what the last generation had only just perfected before they died.

Update (6/28/08 8:36pm): Steph recommended that I clarify a couple things. When I said it was a bad idea to “concentrate your necessary functions at one point”, I was talking about the dangers of putting some centralized authority in charge of a basic function like the ones in my list. For example, saying that only the police may have guns means that any criminal who has one can go wild as long as the police aren’t around. If the police can somehow be stopped or significantly delayed, which is much more likely than stopping all citizens, the criminal goes unchecked. If citizens have guns, and thus the power is decentralized, this scenario is much less likely.

Likewise, if we were ever at a point as a society where one mega-corporation produced all our food and no one else farmed, and that corporation were to change the food (presumably accidentally) in such a way that it harmed the population, who could do anything about it? It would be very difficult. Redundant farmers with separated processes and crops keep these kinds of dangers isolated and limited in scope, and keep the power of food decentralized.

Steph also argued that “every person should know how to do X, Y, and Z before they’re an adult” is currently in place although I said it wasn’t. She believes X, Y, and Z are reading, writing, and arithmetic. My point is really that the X, Y, and Z should be a larger number of things on my list. Those three things only fit under the “education” bullet in the list. It seems I’m recommending that our schools broaden their mandatory curriculum into areas like farming and other basic survival skills. I’m as surprised to hear that coming out of my mouth as anyone could be.