In this week's column for PCMag.com, John Dvorak opines on the Google\China controversy. Finally, a sound argument and a clear voice of reason is heard.
Column from PC Magazine: Google vs. China vs. Evil
P.S. - When spell checking this, I discovered that Blogger spell checker thinks "Google" is misspelled. Maybe somebody in the Spelling Dept. should look at their check and see who pays them.
P.S.S. - When spell checking the P.S., Blogger spell checker thinks "Blogger" is misspelled. Isn't that funny?
Sarcasm, irony, thoughts, complaints, ideas, philosophies, happenings, creations, rants and raves with a very little chance of anything being new, unique, or interesting.
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
Saturday, January 28, 2006
Hunter Hills A/V Equipment
Last week I wrote that we had moved into our new worship center at church. I promised to write an entry about the equipment we purchased.
More photos: (click picture for larger image)

The Sound Booth.

The Sound Boards

The Sound Boards 2

Close-up of the Sound Boards

All the Receivers

Overview of Worship Center from the Sound Booth

The Left Side of the Worship Center

The Center of the Worship Center

The Right Side of the Worship Center

The Ladder up to the Sound Booth
Qty | Equipment | Description | Notes |
---|---|---|---|
2 | Yamaha 01V96 V2 | Mixer 24 CH. Digital | ![]() |
4 | Yamaha S115V | Main Speaker/Horn Unit | ![]() |
4 | Yamaha SM12V | Monitors, Stage and Praise Team | ![]() |
3 | QSC RMX 1850HD | 1200 Watt Power Amp | One of the power the main speakers. Another one powers the monitors. The third is not used at this time. All three of these are rack-mounted. |
10 | SHURE PGX24 SM58 w\reciever | Wireless handheld microphones | We already had 1 wireless, handheld microphone. So, now, with 11, we use 8 each week for the praise team, 1 goes to the communion speaker, 1 goes to the person leading the prayer of thanksgiving and the last one goes to the Shepherd of the week for the Shepherd's prayer. |
6 | SHURE PGX14/93 WL93 w\reciever | Wireless lavalier microphones | These are ready to be used for plays and other productions. |
2 | Pro Co SMA2404FBQ-150 | 24 CH Snake, 150' | One of the snakes runs from the front row (front of the stage) to the sound booth. The other one is installed underneath the stage. These are set to be used for large productions when we need to break out the corded microphones or use the floor microphones. |
1 | InFocus Projector | ||
1 | Rear Projection Screen | Screen - High Contrast 150" Diameter | |
2 | Plasma Screens | ||
2 | Aten UTP Video Extender 500 ft | VGA Extender over CAT5 | |
1 | DELL PC w/LCD Screen | ||
1 | Stage LCD Monitor | 19" LCD for recessed mounting | |
1 | Remote Extender | Used to access projector controls. | |
1 | DVD/VCR Combo |
More photos: (click picture for larger image)

The Sound Booth.

The Sound Boards

The Sound Boards 2
Close-up of the Sound Boards

All the Receivers

Overview of Worship Center from the Sound Booth

The Left Side of the Worship Center

The Center of the Worship Center

The Right Side of the Worship Center

The Ladder up to the Sound Booth
Thursday, January 26, 2006
Thomas Sowell: Political Corruption
Thomas Sowell is currently writing a series on the "real political corruption" that takes place in American politics. He has some startling ideas:
In the first editorial he articulates that it is the pursuit for re-election (which costs big money) which leads politicians to compromise thier values for campaign financing from special interest groups. His solution, therefore, is not "term limits" (he has a problem with the "s" on limits), but a limit of one term per elected office with a mandatory waiting time before being able to seek election to another office.
His second editorial continues his proposed sweeping reforms by suggesting that we pay congressman so much money, they don't need money from outside people while in office or after thier term (this keeps people from granting political favors in return for a job after thier time is up). He thinks $10 million/year should do it.
Finally, he writes that congressional staffers (and infers that beuaracrats) should be paid "salaries that can compete with what seasoned and top-level professionals receive in the private sector." Basically, he says that unless a person has worked in the real world and succeeded in the free market, they have no business making governmental policies.
I don't know if any other articles on this subject will be forthcoming. But if they do, I will link to them. These ideas are bold, but well-reasoned.
In the first editorial he articulates that it is the pursuit for re-election (which costs big money) which leads politicians to compromise thier values for campaign financing from special interest groups. His solution, therefore, is not "term limits" (he has a problem with the "s" on limits), but a limit of one term per elected office with a mandatory waiting time before being able to seek election to another office.
His second editorial continues his proposed sweeping reforms by suggesting that we pay congressman so much money, they don't need money from outside people while in office or after thier term (this keeps people from granting political favors in return for a job after thier time is up). He thinks $10 million/year should do it.
Finally, he writes that congressional staffers (and infers that beuaracrats) should be paid "salaries that can compete with what seasoned and top-level professionals receive in the private sector." Basically, he says that unless a person has worked in the real world and succeeded in the free market, they have no business making governmental policies.
I don't know if any other articles on this subject will be forthcoming. But if they do, I will link to them. These ideas are bold, but well-reasoned.
Monday, January 23, 2006
Which Race of Middle Earth do you belong?
How could a Tolkien fan not take this quiz? I am...

Numenorean
To which race of Middle Earth do you belong?
brought to you by Quizilla

Numenorean
To which race of Middle Earth do you belong?
brought to you by Quizilla
Matrix Personality Quiz...
I enjoy "The Matrix" series very much. So I was quite pleased when Andy told me that my brother had a link to a Matrix Personality Quiz. I took it the first chance I got. (Of course it says something about my brother that I know of at least 3 of my friends that read my brother's blog more faithfully than they read mine...he is a better writer and posts more faithfully...so I shouldn't be surprised).
I was shocked by my results...maybe not...

You are Agent Smith, from "The Matrix."
No one would ever want to run into you in a
dark alley. Cold as steel, tough as a rock,
things are your way or the highway.
What Matrix Persona Are You?
brought to you by Quizilla
I was shocked by my results...maybe not...

You are Agent Smith, from "The Matrix."
No one would ever want to run into you in a
dark alley. Cold as steel, tough as a rock,
things are your way or the highway.
What Matrix Persona Are You?
brought to you by Quizilla
Wednesday, January 18, 2006
Interesting Reads
"Myth: Schools Need More Money" by John Stossel
James Carville says Hillary may not necessarily run for President in 2008.
According to Walter Williams, money is not the biggest problem in American politics.
Laura Bush's comment that she would love to see Condi Rice run for President would have been cleared in advance by President Bush, according to Dick Morris.
James Carville says Hillary may not necessarily run for President in 2008.
According to Walter Williams, money is not the biggest problem in American politics.
Laura Bush's comment that she would love to see Condi Rice run for President would have been cleared in advance by President Bush, according to Dick Morris.
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
First Digitally Recorded Sermon at Hunter Hills
Here is the first digitally recorded sermon from the new Sound System at Hunter Hills.
Sermon: "What does God Want For My Life?" - Don Campbell (01/15/2006), 35 MB
This was recorded with the following equipment:
Don uses a CountryMan E6 microphone attached to a SHURE transmitter body pack. The reciever is plugged into a Yamaha 01V96 V2 mixer. We came out of the 2TR OUT DIGITAL outputs via a 'two-RCA males to 1/4" male' cable into the computer's microphone input jack. We used a piece of software called Audacity, a free, open source software application for recording and editing sounds.
I am still working on the complete specs (with pictures) of our new setup. I will post that shortly...but until then, let me know what you think of this recording.
Sermon: "What does God Want For My Life?" - Don Campbell (01/15/2006), 35 MB
This was recorded with the following equipment:
Don uses a CountryMan E6 microphone attached to a SHURE transmitter body pack. The reciever is plugged into a Yamaha 01V96 V2 mixer. We came out of the 2TR OUT DIGITAL outputs via a 'two-RCA males to 1/4" male' cable into the computer's microphone input jack. We used a piece of software called Audacity, a free, open source software application for recording and editing sounds.
I am still working on the complete specs (with pictures) of our new setup. I will post that shortly...but until then, let me know what you think of this recording.
Friday, January 13, 2006
A User's Manual Does Exisit
I love owner's manuals. They are so chocked full of details and one can really learn how to use the product. As a programmer I cringe whenever I see someone misues my system or do something the long hard way (and then complain it should be easier, but they didn't read the manual...). Imagine my surprise when I ran across this sent or books on Amazon today:

"The Baby Owner's Manual: Operating Instructions, Trouble-Shooting Tips, and Advice on First-Year Maintenance" (Louis, M.D. Borgenicht, Joe Borgenicht)
Yes! It is a baby-care book written in the style of a technical user manual. One doesn't put diapers on the baby, one installs them. I think this would be a very amusing baby shower gift for geeky parents-to-be. To top it all off, there's also a matching spiral-bound maintenance log and a calendar.
I know what Andy and Brandy are getting on Sunday!!! (j/k)


Yes! It is a baby-care book written in the style of a technical user manual. One doesn't put diapers on the baby, one installs them. I think this would be a very amusing baby shower gift for geeky parents-to-be. To top it all off, there's also a matching spiral-bound maintenance log and a calendar.
I know what Andy and Brandy are getting on Sunday!!! (j/k)
Thursday, January 12, 2006
Make Poverty History
Many blogs have a cute little "corner banner" in the top-right corner of the screen encouraging people to "Make Poverty History" and linking them to the appropriate website. While I am sure these people are very sensitive and caring individuals, I have to wonder if they have really given any thought to the organization they are promoting. Do they really want to get behind this effort with these people?
If we are going to talk about persons living in poverty, we have to define who is poor and who is not. However, defining poverty is arbitrary to some degree because opinions clash on whether poverty should be defined in absolute terms (i.e., the inability to meet very basic needs) or in relative terms (i.e., distance from the community norm). In fact, upon closer examination, virtually all measures of low income are relative (except the most extreme), and they differ mainly in their underlying assumptions about how wide a gap should exist between "the poor" and fellow citizens within the same society. So, are these people promoting a goal of ensuring that everyone has the resources to meet very basic needs (a very noble goal, but unachievable) or do these people want a world where everyone has the same amount of stuff (an ignoble goal, and very much unachievable)?
The makers of the "Make Poverty History" website show which one of these is their goal on their "What we Want" tab where they say "The gap between the world's rich and poor has never been wider." These people are not measuring poverty in absolute terms, but in relative. The they believe that everyone should have the same amount of stuff. In other words, people who work harder and produce more should be forced to give the fruits of their labor to those who don't work as hard.
I believe we have seen that this kind of socialism is evil. Time and time again history show that when socialist regimes force their ideology on people, the enforcers become rich and everyone else becomes poorer. The producers move away or give up working so hard since there is no reward for it and thus, everyone sinks to the lowest common denominator. Where is the nobility in this kind of system? Where is the justice? Where is the fairness? The gap increases as there is no middle class and the powerful act in their own self interest to maintain their wealth and their power and this is what makes this goal unachievable.
So, all you people with "Make Poverty History" banners need to really sit down and consider if you want to support an evil and unattainable goal.
UPDATE
My brother properly has chastised me for this entry on his blog. This was a hastily written response intended to be directed mainly at the socialistic efforts of the particular website, "Make Poverty History," not those people who make personal decisions to sacrifice for the sake of others. While poverty will never be eradicated (making it an unattainable goal), that is not a good enough reason to ignore the problem. Poverty can be eradicated on an individual basis one person at a time and that is to be held in high honor. However, that change will not come just by giving money to the person. It takes personal interaction to teach and train someone how to not be poor. However, I am going off on a tangent. The people with "cute little banners" are supporting a socialistic organization who seeks to use the power of government to coerce others to achieve a goal that is best left up to individuals. I still think they need to really reconsider posting those banners. You can agree the goal of the organization but not the methods. By posting the "cute little banner" though, you are saying you agree with both the goals and the methods of this particular organization.
If we are going to talk about persons living in poverty, we have to define who is poor and who is not. However, defining poverty is arbitrary to some degree because opinions clash on whether poverty should be defined in absolute terms (i.e., the inability to meet very basic needs) or in relative terms (i.e., distance from the community norm). In fact, upon closer examination, virtually all measures of low income are relative (except the most extreme), and they differ mainly in their underlying assumptions about how wide a gap should exist between "the poor" and fellow citizens within the same society. So, are these people promoting a goal of ensuring that everyone has the resources to meet very basic needs (a very noble goal, but unachievable) or do these people want a world where everyone has the same amount of stuff (an ignoble goal, and very much unachievable)?
The makers of the "Make Poverty History" website show which one of these is their goal on their "What we Want" tab where they say "The gap between the world's rich and poor has never been wider." These people are not measuring poverty in absolute terms, but in relative. The they believe that everyone should have the same amount of stuff. In other words, people who work harder and produce more should be forced to give the fruits of their labor to those who don't work as hard.
I believe we have seen that this kind of socialism is evil. Time and time again history show that when socialist regimes force their ideology on people, the enforcers become rich and everyone else becomes poorer. The producers move away or give up working so hard since there is no reward for it and thus, everyone sinks to the lowest common denominator. Where is the nobility in this kind of system? Where is the justice? Where is the fairness? The gap increases as there is no middle class and the powerful act in their own self interest to maintain their wealth and their power and this is what makes this goal unachievable.
So, all you people with "Make Poverty History" banners need to really sit down and consider if you want to support an evil and unattainable goal.
UPDATE
My brother properly has chastised me for this entry on his blog. This was a hastily written response intended to be directed mainly at the socialistic efforts of the particular website, "Make Poverty History," not those people who make personal decisions to sacrifice for the sake of others. While poverty will never be eradicated (making it an unattainable goal), that is not a good enough reason to ignore the problem. Poverty can be eradicated on an individual basis one person at a time and that is to be held in high honor. However, that change will not come just by giving money to the person. It takes personal interaction to teach and train someone how to not be poor. However, I am going off on a tangent. The people with "cute little banners" are supporting a socialistic organization who seeks to use the power of government to coerce others to achieve a goal that is best left up to individuals. I still think they need to really reconsider posting those banners. You can agree the goal of the organization but not the methods. By posting the "cute little banner" though, you are saying you agree with both the goals and the methods of this particular organization.
Tuesday, January 10, 2006
Which "Friends" Character are you?
![]() | You scored as Monica. The neat freak who would do anything for her friends. You're Monica, not always that popular but everyone loves you now.
Which Friend are you? created with QuizFarm.com |
Monday, January 09, 2006
Development of Concept of Ownership
It amazes me how early children develop the concept of ownership. Mihaela (22 months) is grasping the concept right now. She understands the difference between "Mommy's Car" and "Daddy's car." She assigns ownership to everything. She knows what things belong to her and what things belong to her brother (although, interestingly enough, things that are her brother's that she really likes, she assigns ownership to herself).
This, in my opinion, lends a lot of credence to an ownership society being the natural state of the world. The way children behave usually shows us how God intended for the world to work because they behave openly and honestly, without deception or thinking through things.
This, in my opinion, lends a lot of credence to an ownership society being the natural state of the world. The way children behave usually shows us how God intended for the world to work because they behave openly and honestly, without deception or thinking through things.
Sunday, January 08, 2006
First Day in New Worship Center
Today was our first service in our new Worship Center at Hunter Hills. I've been busy this past week hooking up cables and testing the sound and video equipment. Everything went really well and I got lots of compliments on the sound. However, I did very little. I gave an idea of what I wanted to another guy and he did all the design and all the wire pulls. I just hooked up the system and operated the system. The Praise Team liked it because they could actually hear themselves out of the monitor and not the person singing behind them. The congergation loved it because they could actually hear the congregation singing and not just the Praise Team. Nobody complained (at least to me) about it being too loud. Nor did anyone say they couldn't hear.
I've got a few more things to figure out (i.e., how to digitally record the service, cascade our two mixers, pan the monitors, etc...). I took some pictures of everything and plan on posting our design and equipment and all the fun stuff we did...
I've got a few more things to figure out (i.e., how to digitally record the service, cascade our two mixers, pan the monitors, etc...). I took some pictures of everything and plan on posting our design and equipment and all the fun stuff we did...
Saturday, January 07, 2006
Sneaky Sister
As Mihaela, Noah and I were playing this morning (Saturdays are mommy's morning off where I let her sleep in and I get up and take care of the kids), Noah was playing with a toy. When Mihaela saw it, she wanted it and took it away from him. I immediately took it away from her, gave it back to Noah, and instructed Mihaela that she had to share and Noah was playing with it first and she had to wait until he was done playing with it, blah-blah-blah.
Mihaela then went and got another toy out of Noah's toy box, brought it over to Noah and offered it to him. When he grabbed for the new toy he had to put the toy Mihaela wanted down. She quickly gave up the new toy and grabbed the one she wanted now that Noah wasn't playing with it.
Who would've guessed that a 22 month old could develop a plan that consists of redirecting her brother's attention to another toy and then execute it so brillantly. As a father I was both amazed at her ingenitity and resourcefulness and saddened by her selfishness.
Mihaela then went and got another toy out of Noah's toy box, brought it over to Noah and offered it to him. When he grabbed for the new toy he had to put the toy Mihaela wanted down. She quickly gave up the new toy and grabbed the one she wanted now that Noah wasn't playing with it.
Who would've guessed that a 22 month old could develop a plan that consists of redirecting her brother's attention to another toy and then execute it so brillantly. As a father I was both amazed at her ingenitity and resourcefulness and saddened by her selfishness.
Differences in Children
Noah and Mihaela are so very different from each other. Noah (at 7 months) already gets into more stuff than Mihaela (22 months) ever did. This morning I left Noah and Mihaela in the living room while I went to refill my coffee cup. While I was gone (less than 30 seconds) Noah had climbed up on the shelf underneath the end table. He was trying to get to the puzzles that were under there. It was so funny looking. Contrast that with Mihaela who, until very recently, wouldn't even get into her toy box. If something wasn't out on the floor, she would not even try to play with it. We "child-proofed" the cabinents more for the concern of the social worker than because Mihaela needed to be blocked from getting things out. Now, however, I am thinking we may need to start "child-proofing" even more stuff to keep Noah out of them.
There are many other differences as well. Mihaela was never really interested in playing with others, preferring to be alone. Noah, on the other hand, wants to be right in the middle of the action. If someone is playing with something or someone he is not, he immediately becomes interested in what everyone else is doing and seeks to join in.
There are many other differences as well. Mihaela was never really interested in playing with others, preferring to be alone. Noah, on the other hand, wants to be right in the middle of the action. If someone is playing with something or someone he is not, he immediately becomes interested in what everyone else is doing and seeks to join in.
Wednesday, January 04, 2006
Whose Ark is it anyway?
We have a toy that was purchased for Mihaela that we leave in Noah's room. It is a plastic Ark with animals and is a great toy. As Mihaela was playing with the Ark while I was getting Noah dressed for bed, I started thinking:
Does Mihaela understand that when I call it "Noah's Ark" that I am referring to the faithful man that built it and not her brother? Why do we call it "Noah's Ark" instead of "God's Ark?" After all, it was God who designed it, not Noah. He just followed the directions. We name buildings after the architecht, not the contractor. Of course, if we did call in "God's Ark," would we confuse it with the "Ark of the Covenant," which was also "God's Ark?"
"Noah's Ark" was just a box. The "Ark of Covenant" was just a box. I wonder how the two relate. If I weren't so lazy I would go pull up the dimensions and descriptions of each and compare and contrast them. There just might be an interesting sermon or illustration there. Perhaps some other time, when I have time, I will investigate.
Does Mihaela understand that when I call it "Noah's Ark" that I am referring to the faithful man that built it and not her brother? Why do we call it "Noah's Ark" instead of "God's Ark?" After all, it was God who designed it, not Noah. He just followed the directions. We name buildings after the architecht, not the contractor. Of course, if we did call in "God's Ark," would we confuse it with the "Ark of the Covenant," which was also "God's Ark?"
"Noah's Ark" was just a box. The "Ark of Covenant" was just a box. I wonder how the two relate. If I weren't so lazy I would go pull up the dimensions and descriptions of each and compare and contrast them. There just might be an interesting sermon or illustration there. Perhaps some other time, when I have time, I will investigate.
Tuesday, January 03, 2006
Garbage Producers
As I took the trash out to the curb this evening for pickup in the morning, I gazed down the street to see that, as usual, I was the last one to take my trash out and, as usual, our trash bin is so full that the lid won't shut and I have to place trash bags by the trash bin. I realized that our family comsistently produces more trash than anyone else on the street.
I guess it shouldn't really be surprising since most of the people on our street are retired couples, single widows, or single professionals. We have a couple of young couples (no kids) and only one other house has kids. Those kids are about 5 and 8, so don't produce the amount of trash that babies do.
I guess it shouldn't really be surprising since most of the people on our street are retired couples, single widows, or single professionals. We have a couple of young couples (no kids) and only one other house has kids. Those kids are about 5 and 8, so don't produce the amount of trash that babies do.
Monday, January 02, 2006
Instantly Transformed
Here are random thoughts on a passage of scripture (2 Corinthians 5:17) that will probably turn into a communion thought some day. I'm not sure why, but I feel compelled to post them just as they are. Usually, I would clean up my random thoughts and glue them together into a coherent thought...but, here you go: the raw, unrefined thoughts of Randy...read at your own risk.
We are new creation...
God Creates - instantly exists (the creation of the world), not a process
We build, manufacture, craft (a process) - but we do not create things out of nothing; except ideas. Ideas, though, are instantly created.
Sanctified vs. Being Sanctified... Is there a contradiction?
God works inside out. Think about it like this.
God is microwave in that he changes you on the inside instantly, then the inside works to change the outside.
We are made up of three parts: Soul, mind, body. The Soul (which is the essence of who we are and the only part of us that is eternal) is instantly transformed (sanctified). It then exerts its influence to bring the other two parts into harmony with it (being sanctified).
All things
The Christian is not simply given a ticket to heaven
Not just a new set of religious rituals
Rather, every area of his life is targeted for renewal as the result of his participation in the new life
Like food is ingested and becomes part of our body, so as we partake the body, the life, of Christ, drink his blood, his life-force, so his life and his life force becomes part of our new life.
Religion, therefore, is not a separate sphere of our life, but a divine principle by which the entire man is to pervaded, refined and made complete. The relationship with Christ takes hold of the Christian in his undivided totality...in the very center of his being. It carries light into thinking. It relays holiness into his will. It transports heaven into his heart.
So, we come together to this sacred consecration of that new birth...the glorious liberation of the Child of God over his whole inward and outward life.
No form of existence can withstand the renovating power of God's Spirit. There is no rational element that may not be sanctified; no sphere of natural life that may not be glorified.
We are new creation...
God Creates - instantly exists (the creation of the world), not a process
We build, manufacture, craft (a process) - but we do not create things out of nothing; except ideas. Ideas, though, are instantly created.
Sanctified vs. Being Sanctified... Is there a contradiction?
God works inside out. Think about it like this.
- Heat a stick of butter in a pan. The surface of the butter melts, bring the next layer of butter to touch the pan until it melts. The transformation of solid to liquid is outside working in.
- Heat a stick of butter up in the microwave. The center melts and the outside caves in on itself. The transformation of solid to liquid is inside working out.
God is microwave in that he changes you on the inside instantly, then the inside works to change the outside.
We are made up of three parts: Soul, mind, body. The Soul (which is the essence of who we are and the only part of us that is eternal) is instantly transformed (sanctified). It then exerts its influence to bring the other two parts into harmony with it (being sanctified).
All things
The Christian is not simply given a ticket to heaven
Not just a new set of religious rituals
Rather, every area of his life is targeted for renewal as the result of his participation in the new life
Like food is ingested and becomes part of our body, so as we partake the body, the life, of Christ, drink his blood, his life-force, so his life and his life force becomes part of our new life.
Religion, therefore, is not a separate sphere of our life, but a divine principle by which the entire man is to pervaded, refined and made complete. The relationship with Christ takes hold of the Christian in his undivided totality...in the very center of his being. It carries light into thinking. It relays holiness into his will. It transports heaven into his heart.
So, we come together to this sacred consecration of that new birth...the glorious liberation of the Child of God over his whole inward and outward life.
No form of existence can withstand the renovating power of God's Spirit. There is no rational element that may not be sanctified; no sphere of natural life that may not be glorified.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)