I've Moved!

I have moved my Blog to my personal website www.palmersworld.net I will no longer be posting to this blog, instead I will be posting to this one, www.palmersworld.net/blog.html
If you would like to go directly to my new RSS feed go to http://feeds.feedburner.com/palmersworld/WDsn

Thanks you for following me!

Jesus is Truth, or What is Truth?

What determines truth? What determines a liar from a truth teller? If there is a brown bench and someone strongly believes that it is blue, is it true, for that person, that it is blue. How do we know that murder is wrong? And if there are a few people who don't think murder is wrong, who are we (the people who believe murder is wrong) to impose our beliefs upon them?


This is what the world is coming to without Jesus. A world without truth. So what is truth? According to Princeton University, truth is "conformity to reality or actuality."
Know we know what truth is, truth is what is real. Someone who is insane has lost touch with reality, and does not know what truth is. So how do we determine what reality is? Truth comes from a Prime Reality, Prime Reality is the thing from which everything else comes. That is what determines truth. A world with no set standard of truth, where virtually anything can be true, would be a world of chaos, a world without Jesus.


God (Jesus) sets the standard of truth. God told us not to murder, not to steal. God set the standard, He determines reality. A world without Jesus, would be a world of confused, hurt, evil people. Evil only because they believe they are not.


Another reason Jesus is truth, is the Bible. The Bible is the most reliable historical document of all time, 100% true. In John 1:1 it says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Jesus (who is also God) is the word! Making him truthful because the Word of God is infallible and inherent.


For these reasons "Truth" is my favorite way to describe Jesus.

Universal Health Care

     The question has been posed, should the government implement a universal form of healthcare. No the government should not, for three reasons. Taxpayer dollars being spent, the degrading of the free market, and the necessity of  government run healthcare.

      The disputed Health Care reform will cost 1 trillion dollars (Woodward) in the first ten years. 1 trillion dollars is more than the New Deal implemented by FDR after the Great Depression. With the economy as it is right now, its no time to be adding to our national debt. Spending is what got us into this financial mess and it will not get us out of it. 

      Furthermore, the new Health Care bill eliminates competition within insurance companies and therefore destroys a portion of the free market, and gives it to the government. When we give a to the government to handle it takes business away from the private sector (in this case health insurance companies). The new Health Care plan is a monopoly. "The Week" puts it as hog tying 1/6 of the economy,"Congressmen’s town-hall meetings on the president’s health-care plan have caused a backlash of un-American fury. It comes from liberals, outraged that anyone could oppose President Obama’s intention to hog-tie one-sixth of the economy." (National Review) Hog tying 1/6 of the economy means government take over of that section, eliminating the free market over health care. Capitalism has made us one of the most prosperous countries in the world, this bill is one big step in the opposing direction. With taxpayer dollars going to a new universal Health Care plan, that covers everybody, that is one more step closer to socialism.

      For my third point, do we need government healthcare? Does the government need to step in, or is the free market doing just fine? We need some reform in health care, but not this. Not something that spreads the wealth, reduces free market. Most likely, the reason our health care is in bad shape is because of the government intervention that we all ready have. They should not. They are taking taxpayer dollars for something we do not need.

      If this bill was put under a Cost/Benefit Analysis, the results would be, to much money spent for something we do not need. That is why we should not let government handle Health Care. 

Global Warming

     The question has been asked, Should the United States take initiative to reduce man made global warming?  No, the United states should not try to reduce Global Warming for three reasons; spending of taxpayer dollars, increased government restriction, and the lack of evidence for Global Warming.

      Before anyone buys anything they evaluate the cost, or should.  So how much would it cost to fix Global Warming?  The Climate Change bill (a bill written to solve Global Warming) has a budget of $79 billion, (Boshni) this is a major dent in the economy, and one we cannot afford.  A weaker economy means that smaller businesses will go bankrupt, and it will discourage entrepreneurs to start their own businesses. This downplays the free market, which is a major disadvantage.

      The second reason the U.S. government should not try and reduce Global Warming is all the additional restrictions that will be imposed. To give you an idea of what the Climate Change bill restricts here is an excerpt from the book Protectionism Under a Green Label  "The Waxman-Markey Climate Change Bill was introduced by democrats Henry Waxman and Edward Markey. It would establish an aggressive cap-and-trade program, initiatives aimed at promoting renewable energy (25 percent renewable by 2025), energy efficiency, updating standards for transportation emissions, and reducing greenhouse gases emissions (GHG emissions)." (Boshni)More stringent CAFE standards (transportation emissions) would mean, lighter, more dangerous cars. More restrictions on GHG emissions would mean less gas production in America and causing us to rely on foriegn contries for oil.  More restrictions mean less freedom.

      With all the disadvantages I've mentioned we'd better make sure that Global Warming is a significant problem.  So, is Global Warming a real issue, or a normal phase in the weather?  Some say it is a real issue; "That forests cut down in the Amazon may reduce carbon sequestration, and hence speed up global climate change, is only one example of the environmental chain of causation. Forests also perform a variety of ecosystem services, such as improving air quality, enriching soil, providing renewable resources, regulating hydrology, and contributing to biodiversity." (Ethan Goffman) There is a consensus in the scientific community that Global Warming is a real phenomenon, but the data say different. In fact the average global temperature has only increased 1 degree since 1860. Maybe if the temperature has increased 1 degree every year, (Readinger) that might be a problem. However, 1 degree in 150 years, is not a significant problem.
      So we see this is not a significant problem to be dealt with. Why should we spend more money, regulate more, and take away freedom, for something that's not a problem?

Johnny & Faiths Crawfish Boil

Zeno

Around four hundred B.C. there was a Greek dude who liked to stump people with paradox's, all them trying to prove that motion didn't exist. As absurd as this sounds, some of his arguments are somewhat valid. There are two paradox's out of many that are most stumping.
The first one is the arrow story. The claim is that if you see an arrow at one instant in time it wont be moving. Therefor if in any instant in time the arrow isn't moving the arrow can't move in any instant of time, making motion impossible.
Another argument was the Dichotomy paradox. This says that it is impossible to cross a room, the reason being because; in order to got to the desired location you must move half way there, and once you move half way there, in order to keep progressing towards the desired location, you have to move half of that distance. This is seemingly in endless cycle, first halfway across the room, then 1/4 of the way there, 1/8, 1/16, 1/32, and so on, so that you move across an infinite number of distances, in a finite amount of time, this of course is impossible. But we can cross a room and prove this wrong, right? wrong. It's not proving that we can't walk across a room but that motion is impossible.
The solution to this is simply that Zeno is being illogical. His theory would only work if you stopped at every half way point in the room, and of course, thats not how we walk.

The Picture says it all

Apple iPad

January 7th, 2010, Apple releases iPad, some think its revolutionary, others think it's a load of crud.

Right off the bat people have found things to pick at the iPad, no webcam, no USB, too much of a border around the screen no widescreen, no multitask, and no Flash. No Flash means less versatility on the web and no web based YouTube. USB was a big thing to, the iPad comes with a USB adapter for photo's, but only photos. No webcam, no video chat. Too big of a border around the screen blocks too much content. And no HDMI output, which means no HDTV on a big screen from the iPad.

Flash was not included, for safety reasons against virus's. But the iPad has a special YouTube that doesn't require Flash. Most major websites that use Flash have an iPhone/iPad version of the site that works without Flash, making the web versatile and iPad friendly. The border around the screen is so that you can hold it without hitting any buttons on accident, and it's really not that big. The screen itself is big enough to make the border fade in the background.The iPad comes with a USB adapter for photos, but you can’t stick a jump drive in you iPad.

The iPad has just come out and Apple usually doesn't put "the norm" on all their products, like a webcam, they like to keep it simple. The iPad will have a webcam soon, probably in a year or so to catch up with other tablets. Multitasking isn't on the iPad as mentioned earlier, the iPad is not a computer, so you can't expect it to do what a computer does. Right now you’re probably thinking "what about Netbook's? can't they multitask and have webcams, do everything the iPad can and more?" Netbooks are slow, they run old PC software, and there just not good. Apple makes things better, this is for people who want to browse the web, E-mail, watch movie’s, play games, listen to music, read books and blogs, way more than a Netbook can do! Well yeah it can’t multitask, but it’s designed to compensate for that with a fast interface. The Netbook tries to be a computer that’s smaller and cheaper, but we’ve seen how that works out, slow. The widescreen complaint is uncalled for, you can use widescreen with the black bars while watching a movie or you can make it full screen by double tapping. And the screen has great graphics like the iPhone and iMac, great for watching movies. No HDMI output is pretty lame but it will probably come out with that later. The iPad is not a Netbook either, it’s better. The iPad is a device for people who mostly use their Smartphone’s. The iPad is a Smartphone on steroids. Now that Apple came out with a tablet, other’s decided to come out with a tablet as well. Coincidence? I think not. Apple is a leader, they have the best product’s, just more expensive. All the other tablet’s that will come out are supposed to have everything iPad doesn’t, multitasking, webcam, USB, etc. I would bet that these tablets will not run nearly as fast or efficient as the iPad. And obviously slow and steady, doesn’t win this race.

Peter's Law's

1. If anything can go wrong, Fix it! (To hell with Murphy!)

2. When given a choice -- Take both!

3. Multiple projects lead to multiple successes.

4. Start at the top and work your way up.

5. Do it by the book...but be the author!

6. When forced to compromise, ask for more.

7. If you can't beat them, join them, and then beat them.

8. If it's worth doing, it's got to be done right now.

9. If you can't win, change the rules.

10. If you can't change the rules, ignore them.

11.When faced without a challenge, make one.

12. "No" simply means begin again at the next highest level.

13. Don't walk when you can run.

14. Bureaucracy is a challenge to the be conquered with a righteous attitude, an intolerance for stupidity, and bulldozer when necessary.

15. When in doubt: THINK!

16. Patience is a virtue but persistence to the point of success is a blessing.

17. The squeaky wheel gets replaced.

18. The faster you move, the slower time passes, the longer you live.

"Viva-La-Vida" What Does it Mean?

There is a lot of controversy surrounding this song. Lots of people say that the person (or king) Coldplay is talking about is King Louis of France during the French Revolution. This is commonly accepted Because: one, it talks about a revolution, two, it talks about a guillotine. The guillotine was invented when King Louis was king. In the song it talks about things in Jerusalem ("Jerusalem Bells"). Some people may think it's Jesus because of this, Jesus didn't die for our sins via guillotine. People don't generally think that theres another form of execution, but near the end of the song he says "just a puppet on a lonely string". The lonely means one, imagine a puppet with one string, it looks like it's being hanged. So I don't think Viva-La-Vida is pointing to any particular person but just a story artistically and mystically written.

Three Ways to Eat Oreo's

One day I got hungry, that wasn't unusual, but today I found something sweet to eat, an Oreo sent from heaven. but before I ate, I contemplated how to eat it: to lick the white stuff and then eat the chocolate stuff after, to just eat it, or to place peanut butter on it and then eat it. I didn't choose the first reason which is mostly accepted by small children though not all. Perhaps I didn't choose this because of the imminent danger of the white stuff getting on my nose, thats really hard to get off if you don't have a long tongue. The second way, though both, chocolate and white stuff, are fairly proportioned it seemed the norm and boring. This method is commonly used by busy adults when they need to go somewhere. I chose peanut butter on the Oreo, it may sound gross but the chocolate and peanut butter are perfectly mixed with whatever that white stuff is. It makes my mouth water and my stomach hungry to think about how good Oreo's and peanut butter are.

-Palmer