So one of the things I’m currently doing at work is looking at our implementation of BlackBerry and Windows Mobile 5 PEDs. To this end, I’ve been given a BlackBerry for ‘testing’ purposes. I’d just like to make it known that it is the most spectacular piece of crap I’ve ever had the misfortune of having to use. For starters, it has this completely un-usable QWERTY-style keyboard that’s laid out a bit like a standard mobile phone keyboard (ie. multiple letters per key). It’s also probably the only PED ever made to not use a stylus, and only smartphone ever invented ever to not use an up-down-left-right arrowkey/joystick configuration. Instead it’s got this clickwheel thing on the unit’s left side. There’s a button next to the clickwheel, and everyone’s logical assumption (once they actually find the wheel, which takes time) is that this is then the ‘select’ button. Wrong! The select button isn’t that button, nor is it the big round button sitting on the front keypad, nor is it the green ‘call’ phone button, nor is it the ‘enter’ key. Nay, selecting is achieved by pressing in the clickwheel. Yes, this is just as ungainly as it sounds. Yes it means that, after scrolling all over the screen (since you can only ‘move’ on one plane at a time, as opposed to an arrowkey configuration which allows for movement in two planes), you click your button only to then accidentally scroll the wheel simultaneously and end up selecting something completely different. Not to mention that the position of the clickwheel means you need to completely shift your hand in between scrolling and typing (since they are so far away and you need your thumb for both). Coupled with an ugly, ungainly OS and the weirdest hardware routing configuration ever invented (all BlackBerry emails get routed through RIM’s Canadian servers, even if you’re running your own private BlackBerry Enterprise Server; I know, I didn’t believe it at first either), and I won’t be lining up in a hurry to jump on the BlackBerry bandwagon any time soon.
Those of you who are regular lurkers will remember that not so long ago I was all kinds of excited about the dining and coffee-table I bought at the start of October. Anyway, after eight weeks of waiting, the bloody stuff finally arrived… all in flatpacks. No worries; my folks are pretty handy with a screwdriver and the spent the better half of the day while I was at work assembling all the parts. Well, most of the parts. I got a call in the afternoon informing me that the insert of glass from the dining table didn’t fit into its hole, and that a new piece of glass was being delivered. By the time I got home that afternoon it turned out that not only didn’t the glass fit, but that some genius had shipped out six chairs and only four sets of front legs. Wonderful.
Another two weeks of waiting resulted, and when I finally went down to pick up my glass and chair legs, I found that not only were there no chair legs, but that the glass we’d been sent in no way, shape or form resembled the hole it was supposed to go in. It was some totally random panel of glass. Turns out that the whole dining setting had been discontinued somewhere between ordering it and last week, and so there was no way at all to get new parts for it.
It would’ve been nice if someone had told us that weeks ago, but yanno.
Anyway, the store offered to take the table back in exchange for credit but I point blank refused (not unreasonably) to deal with them again. They’ve been holding the money for the table since October, and it’s almost January and I still don’t have a functional table. After much arguing, they eventually agreed to a refund on the table, but only after they come to pick it up; which could be any time between Thursday and the new year. And considering that every date they’ve thus far promised has blown out by at least 50%, I’m not holding my breath. Bloody brilliant.
Anyway, the upshot of all this is that I went and ordered a new, more posh, Tasmanian Oak dining table. That doesn’t come in a flatpack.
Fingers crossed.
I finished reading The God Delusion the other week. Dawkins, for those not down with eminent modern atheists, is not only the guy who invented the notion of a meme (and fuck me I’ve been pronouncing it wrong all these years; it is supposed to sound like ‘gene’) but also the man whose arguments were apparently the cause of Douglas Adams’ famous atheism. It was a good book; I’d highly recommend it to both theists and non-theists alike. Dawkins’ writing style is witty and readable, and while I don’t agree with all of his arguments, it’s always refreshing to listen to an articulate presentation of anti-theist arguments, especially in the current environment. For those of you who don’t object to a bit of long Q&A, there’s an interesting video of Dawkins answering questions about his book posed by an American audience. There are a number of ‘plants’ from a nearby theist college who try and ‘trip’ him up with various questions; all of which Dawkins rips apart effortlessly (and all of which was contained in his book; I suspect after, what, half a century there are few pro-theist arguments out there Dawkins hasn’t heard, certainly nothing that smarmy little Christian college kids can apparently come up with).
The God Delusion thankfully only dedicates a small section to the traditional anti-Christian attack ground — the hypocritical, violent and contradictory teachings of the Bible — and it’s solely framed as an argument against the notion that the Bible is somehow the ‘source’ of human morality, and that therefore atheists are by definition immoral people. Dawkins argues, quite convincingly, that nowadays no-one in the West (and few people elsewhere) have a moral code that strictly follows biblical teachings. He also goes on to present evidence to argue that, while Christianity is a fairly recent and geographically limited invention, human morality has been going on for a hell of a lot longer and is basically uniform amongst all humans (he also points out that one of the few things that can fundamentally skew the ‘natural’ human moral sense is religion).
I admit now that I’m not an atheist (I’m one of those pantheists who ‘believes in belief’), but I am fundamentally opposed to any theistic teaching that presents Magical Thinking as a worthwhile solution to life’s problems. I don’t care if you’re a Christian praying that God will let you pass a test, or a Lokean throwing Tang into your fire in the hope that Loki will give your socks back; I honestly believe both actions have the dangerous tendency to absolve personal responsibility for anything, instead ascribing any failing down to the will of some Magical Sky/Fire Faerie. I distrust anything that doesn’t focus on personal responsibility for one’s own actions. The classic example of this, of course (if you’re feeling really antagonistic), is to ask any theist who believes in Divine Morality whether the sole reason they do good is to avoid pissing off the Sky Faerie. Are they honestly saying that, if God wasn’t watching (ie. there was no threat of Hell-style retribution for immoral acts) that they would perform ‘evil’ deeds? Because that’s essentially the logical extrapolation.
Asides from his musings on the origins of morality, Dawkins also has an interesting point about the strange kind of respect appointed to religious beliefs. Even if we don’t believe them ourselves, everyone has this odd tendency to accord respect for religion and for the (let’s face it; often quite reprehensible) practices that result from it. He sums it up with this beautiful quote:
We must respect the other fellow’s religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.
I have to admit that argument was the most profound to me, mostly because — unlike the rest of the book — it was something that had simply never occurred to me before. Why do we trip all over ourselves trying to be ‘respectful’ to other people’s religious beliefs? Sure, I’m respectful of the fact that you have a right to believe what you want, but why then does that necessarily mean I have to respect your beliefs themselves? Really, I think this is the most challenging and controversial part of Dawkins’ book, because it doesn’t challenge religion (which, let’s face it, is old hat) but rather ‘liberal’/left wing attitudes to other religions.
Good book; y’all should read it.
Finally, on a lighter note, I saw an ad for Pox Nora in Dragon magazine the other day and decided to give it a play. It’s kind of like an online version of Magic/Warhammer/WarCraft. Worth at least a cursory glance, but not sure if I’d actually pay to get a proper ‘deck’.
Comment?
This post has been mirrored from void-star.net. You may comment there using your LiveJournal/Dreamwidth/OpenID URL instead of an email address. Randoms and lurkers are more than welcome.
