Please Use Titles Instead Of Headlines For The Articles On Your Website

Headlines have horrible grammar and try to be cutesy instead of informative. I understand the origins; but, for articles published on the Internet, the reasons are less valid.

You have much less control over how much space headlines take up. Most of the websites that I regularly visit have many headlines that—in my browser—flow onto a second line but don't use more than half of it. Use that space to fix the grammar, to make the subject clearer. Use "and" (or even "&") instead of those damn commas which make it harder for me to figure out if the subject is 2 related things or if there are 2 possibly unrelated subjects.

You already have my attention. I'm visiting your website, aren't I? What's with the wording of your headlines? Are you trying to confuse me? "Hey, a microprocessor news article! Nope, it is about a console game." OK, most of your headlines don't mislead me that much, but many are the equivalent of a subject without a verb. I want to know more about the article—and you could have done that—but you decided that cutesy and confusing will appeal to me more than intelligent and informative. Don't you know your audience?

While we're talking about articles published on the Internet instead of in print media, I would also like to ask you to stop trying to fit everything into paragraphs. You don't have that space limitation anymore. Some things are so much easier to understand when they are conveyed via a list. Remember that you already understand the information that you are trying to pass on and I am trying to understand what you wrote without having to read it too many times.

Thank you for taking the time to read my rant.

Making Cell Phone Use During Driving Illegal Is Not The Solution

Living in an area with a lot of traffic allows me to see just how much people use their cell phones while driving, and I'm here to tell you that making it illegal is not going to solve the problem.

First off, this is America. We are not going to have the police shoot people on sight. While that would be an effective deterrent, it is not going to happen here. We will probably end up with laws that are closer to drunk driving, speed limit, and/or seat belt laws. You know as well as I how effective those laws are. Since laws can't force people to stop doing what they want to do we need an alternative.

One alternative is to change things so that cell phones cannot be used while driving. Perhaps cell phone jammers in cars. Perhaps cell phones that talk to the car that they are in to find out when the car is in motion. They seem like simple ideas, but there are issues such as the costs of developing the technologies and of materials & labor. Also, what about when the driver is trying to call 911? It is not simple but does deserve consideration.

Another idea is to do something to remove the desire to use cell phones while driving. Showing teenagers graphics images of dead drivers with cell phones in their hands is going to be about as effective as showing graphic images of dead, drunk drivers. I don't think we can remove the desire to use cell phones; people just don't see them as a danger.

My last alternative is to stop thinking of cell phone use during driving as a problem. I know that it is a controversial idea. Cell phones are a relatively new addition to the world we live in. Dangers associated with their use are getting a lot of attention both from scientific researchers and the press. There are arguments in both directions; here are a few:

• Cell phones are relatively new. Perhaps we haven't had enough time to fully assimilate them into our daily lives. Perhaps technology advances will make them much less obtrusive. However, we are not there right now. There is no guarantee that we will get there.
• Using 2006 data for the US, there were over 1,000,000 deaths due to heart disease and cancer while there were less than 50,000 deaths (of drivers, passengers, pedestrians, etc.) dues to motor vehicle traffic crashes—that includes all causes of the accidents, not just cell phone use. Upon what should the government spend its time and your tax money? However, those statistics focused solely on deaths. What about injury and property damage? What about the fears and concerns of the general populace (e.g., US citizens are more worried about terrorism than lightning even though lightning is a bigger killer)? We must look are the big picture.

I don't have the answer. But, I do know that we should verify the effectiveness of the solution(s) we pick and not just assume that they will work because they seem like good idea(s).

Microsoft Bling

It is Bing, not Bling.

The Music Industry Needs to Embrace the Single

What is it about progress that causes people to reject it? When we need to take a shit, do we still dig a hole, crap in it, then fill it up with dirt? No, we use toilets now. When we need to travel long distances, do we still walk or ride horses? No, we use cars and planes now. So, why is it that so many people in the music industry — including some bands — fear your ability to buy one track instead of a whole CD (via online stores like iTunes)?

Before the ubiquity of the Internet, the CD made good business sense. Would you have rather driven to a record store and bought a CD with a single song for $5 or with a dozen songs for $10? [I made up those dollar amounts for simplicity.] Even if there were only 3 songs on that album that you really liked, you would have bought the $10 CD.

Times have changed and the people who buy $1 songs on the Internet know it. Who wants to pay $10-20 for 3 good songs and a bunch of fluff? It can be pretty obvious when a band came up with just a few good songs but their contract with the record label made them fill up the rest of the CD with something, anything at all. It no longer has to be that way. Bands can now record and release one song at a time, tapping their creative juices as it comes instead of trying to squeeze a gallon of OJ from a single orange.

A major key to business success is correctly anticipating what customers will want in the future. It is not hard at all to see that people do want and will continue to want singles. The music industry needs to accept that.

Intelligent Design is a War Against Sceince

There is a war against science in America today and Intelligent Design is leading the way.

Both religion and science give you things to believe in. You can choose which facts you want to believe. However, you should understand a major difference between religion and science:

• Religion's facts cannot be reproduced. For example, how could you recreate the events in the Bible? You can't. You have to believe what you are told simply because the people telling you to believe are believers themselves.
  
• Science's facts can be reproduced. While new science frequently builds upon earlier science, you could recreate every single scientific fact all by yourself. (Well, you'd also need a long life with a lot of free time.)
  

While I don't have a problem with science and religion coexisting (as you can see in a previous blog post), what I cannot stand is religion masquerading as science. Intelligent Design has been making headlines over the last several years because it is religion masquerading as science.

Examining religions is OK; teaching children in public schools to believe a religion as fact is against America's separation of church and state. Since that separation makes it hard for radical creationists to enforce their religion upon your children, they've relabeled creationism as "Intelligent Design" and are calling it a scientific theory. It is not.

If someone has religious beliefs that you do not agree with, would you rather have that person knock on your front door trying to spread their word or would you rather have their beliefs be taught to your children as facts in your kids' school?

How Can a Product be New and Improved?

If

• a new product is a product that did not exist before

and

• an improved product is a product is better than it was before

then

• how can a product be both new and improved?

You Can Believe in Both Evolution and Creationism

Pretend for a moment that you are God. You've decided to create the universe, the Earth, and all of the people on it. You also decided that people should be able to make their world into a better place:

• sturdy shelter
  
• antibiotics and vaccines
  
• indoor plumbing
• I Love Lucy
• etc.

To accomplish this, you decided to create a world which obeys a set of rules:

• gravity (e.g., what goes up must come down)
  
• evolution (e.g., survival of the fittest)
  
• math (e.g., 2 + 3 = 5)
• etc.

And you decided that the rules should not change:

• Water will not suddenly become poisonous.
  
• Chickens will not start exploding when you cook them.
• The Earth won't escape the Sun's gravity and float off into cold, dark space.
• Etc.
  

And you decided to give people the intelligence to understand those rules. However, you're not doing the work for them; they have to discover and learn how to use those rules on their own.

The problem at this point is, if you create a universe without a history, it is going to be so much harder for people to discover the rules that you so carefully created:

• How are they going to learn that rivers will smooth the edges of rocks if the rocks you put in the rivers you created are the same as the rocks on the banks?
• How will they know that each tree grows a new ring each and every year if all of the trees you create have no rings?
• After some observation, they will learn that a layer of sediment is left every time a floodplain floods. But, what is going to tell them whether a newly discovered plain is safe to life on or not if you don't put layers of sediment on the floodplains that you create?
  
• How are they going to figure out that evolution, that awesome process you created, affects – and will always continue to affect – all life on Earth so profoundly if you do not put fossils in the ground when you create the Earth?

People need to be confident that the set of rules that the universe obeys are reliable so that they can make their world into a better place. You could send your word; but, you already know that not everyone is going to believe. Since you love all people (including the disbelievers), you decided to create a universe with a history that can be found in the plants and animals, in the ground and air and water, and in the stars of deepest space.

I am (Mostly) Agnostic

It is always useful to know the background of your sources of information. When you read my blog, you using me as a source of info (whether you realize it or not). Therefore, I want you to know about my religious beliefs so that you can better judge me and my words.

Monotheism

I was raised Catholic but it didn't stick. I had to go to my Dad's church every Sunday until my parents divorced when I was 10, then I had to go only on the Sundays that I was at my Dad's. My Mom didn't make me go to church. My Mom is... I keep forgetting... Methodist or Presbyterian. (Sorry, Mom, you know I've never been able to remember.)

Church was boring, repetitive. I looked forward to the donuts more than anything. Actually, I did look forward to Midnight Mass on Christmas Eve for a while after the regular Sunday services became boring. As I got older, I looked forward to turning 18 so that I would not be "forced" to go to service every Sunday. I was 17 when I finally got to stop.

To this day there is still a tiny bit of a belief in God in me. It is a non-rational belief. In a perfect world, I would be able to completely rid myself of it. However, I cannot deny the influence that religion had on me as a child.

Atheism

As I got older, the pendulum swung to the other end of the spectrum. I saw absolutely no proof in the existence of God; so, I believed that He did not exist. The beauty of a flower, the "miracle" of childbirth, etc. did not convince me that there must be a god. The whole world – from the smallest particle to the largest galaxy – made sense to me without the need for God.

Just as with a belief in God, I still carry tiny bit of this atheistic belief in me. I would also like to completely rid myself of this non-rational belief.

Agnosticism

Gradually, I realized that I was mislabeled. I came to understand that it is impossible to prove the existence of God, that one must have faith instead. (I know that things like childbirth are proof for some people; but, I'm using "prove" in the scientific/logical sense.) The possibility of God was once again opened to me.

Currently

So, today, I have absolutely no need for God, any god. However, He might still exist. Or He might exist only for people who have faith but not for people who don't. Or maybe God doesn't exist but Mother Nature does. I could go on and on listing possibilities. The point is that I am no longer shutoff to various possibilities.

Also today, I like to believe that there is something that continues after death. Some of you might call it a "soul" or a "spirit"; however, I don't know what to call it because I don't know what it is. I "like to believe" instead of simply "believe" because I have no proof; it just makes me feel better. If I am wrong, I'll never know because I won't be around anymore.

(FYI: I have not capitalized "God" and "He" in this blog post not because He might exist but to show respect for my fellow humans that do believe.)