So I had mentioned in my previous post that I was back on linux. My reason for LEAVING linux was actually quite sudden: it stopped working.
Ha! When I say it like that it sounds like linux has a problem but it did not, I did. In an effort to always improve performance with my motherboard/CPU combination, I upgraded my BIOS to the most recent rev. As soon as I did that linux started crashing on boot.
Now, I realized it was my BIOS update that caused the issue, and I tried to figure out what to do with it, including backing out to an older version of the BIOS... but then I would be losing performance enhancements that were specifically made for the CPU I am running.
So instead of losing that I went to Windows. Heh, unfortunately for me, around the same time I became very disappointed in the frequency the bad capacitor in my monitor caused it to start flashing on and off. So... I bought a new monitor.
Thing is, this new monitor looked HORRIBLE with Windows 10 font rendering. The only thing that would fix it was to install an obscure program written in China (with much of the text not translated) that enabled Mac OS X-like font rendering on Windows. But even that did not apply across all applications.
Sooooooo... I worked HARDER to figure out why linux would not boot and found a flag I could set in my BIOS that enabled linux to continue past that crash-point during boot. And here I am back on Solus, which is really the best distro of linux out there. :) Yeah I am biased I guess. And oh... my fonts render beautifully, thank you very much.
PS - When I was troubleshooting the font rendering I first went to Samsung, they told me it was Windows problem. I went to Windows and opened a case, they told me it was Samsung's problem... so yeah...
Thursday, June 21, 2018
Back to Linux and a book review...
My journey has once again led back to linux. I just cannot seem to escape it. And that is fine. Back on Solus and feeling calm about it.
Now onto my semi-review of an interesting book.
First, if you have read any of my blog (and let's face it, very few people have) you know I am a "conservative Christian" type of person, for the most part. I have very strong feelings about some things, and not so strong feelings about others. For example I am strongly opposed to the very idea of abortion. I am also a software engineer, a father, a husband and love anything sci-fi and steam punk.
I may also seem to have an aversion toward science based on some of my other posts, but that is not the case at all. I have an aversion to what I consider to be BAD science. Science is somewhat in my blood as both of my parents were biologists, I am drawn to archeology, paleontology, linguistics, etc. So it was no shock when my son bought me a new book for Father's day!
My son knows my love for all things ancient, including ancient life. I have been CRAZY about ancient life since before I was in kindergarten. With that thought in mind he bought me a book written by paleontologist Steve Brusatte entitled "The Rise and Fall of the Dinosaurs; A New History of a Lost World."
I was thrilled and set right out to read it! Unfortunately my thrill ebbed and waned rather quickly as I read. Don't get me wrong, I think the book is good, and it deserves to be read, especially if you are fan boy of paleontology like myself, but I have problems with it. One of the problems I have is that while the book seems to claim it is novel and a slight rewrite of what we previously understood about early dinosaur development (at least in the early chapters) it really did not tell me anything I did not already know. Furthermore, the author took some pot-shots at other paleontologists that were not only unnecessary, but not 100% accurate.
Disclaimer, when I was a kid, Ostrom was "the" paleontologist... so that gives you an idea of my age. Bakker was his young upstart who took something more than hinted at by Ostrom and ran with it. I have no particular fondness of all the ideas Bakker has written about, but I do appreciate his enthusiasm (just as I appreciate Brusatte's obvious and unbridled enthusiasm) for his field. That being said, at one point Brusatte makes the claim (somewhere around page 70-78 in the hard cover of his book) that Bakker "preached" about dinosaurs like they were the destined inheritors of the Earth when they appeared in the Triassic. He went on to say he "felt uneasy" with Bakker's statements and ideas and was not surprised that he came off so "preachy" because he was also a part-time minister of some Christian faith.
He then went on to claim that Brusatte and his colleagues would go on to perform analysis that showed that dinosaurs were not dominant in the Triassic at all... but that IS NOT NEW. WE ALREADY KNEW THAT decades ago. It reminds me of the new Computer Scientists of this age taking hold of something Software Engineers did in the 70's or 80's, putting a name to it, and claiming it as their own idea; selling books, trademarking words, etc. Kind of makes me feel a little queasy.
I have read Bakker's works, I have read works he collaborated on and advised on. NEVER did Bakker intimate that dinosaurs of the Triassic were the obvious world conquerors to be. What Bakker DID espouse was that dinosaurs must have had some inherent advantage over the other reptiles of the Triassic that allowed them to survive and thrive when disaster struck in the late Triassic. That, by the way is CLASSIC Darwinism (which I do not necessarily hold to). Makes sense yes? Dinosaurs must have survived because during their Triassic development, they evolved some advantage.
For Brusatte to say that Bakker was "preachy" about dinosaurs being a God-send to the animal kingdom (my words) is over the top. Bakker was passionate about dinosaurs and had many theories of WHY they had advantages over other land reptiles, amphibians and mammals of the Triassic that included growth rates, air sacs, warm-bloodedness, etc. One thing I do not remember Bakker ever doing was putting down the work of other paleontologists because he was "uneasy" with their ideas. No, if he thought they were wrong he simply set out to prove it and provide data that would support his claims. Nor did he ever claim HIS ideas were out-of-the-blue new! He clearly stated his work was not only based on Ostrom, but also on some of the old-time paleontologists who had the common sense to see that if an animal LOOKS active and dynamic, it probably was.
Anyway, I should stop here. I have more to read and I plan on finishing the book over tomorrow, after we go see Jurassic World...
Now onto my semi-review of an interesting book.
First, if you have read any of my blog (and let's face it, very few people have) you know I am a "conservative Christian" type of person, for the most part. I have very strong feelings about some things, and not so strong feelings about others. For example I am strongly opposed to the very idea of abortion. I am also a software engineer, a father, a husband and love anything sci-fi and steam punk.
I may also seem to have an aversion toward science based on some of my other posts, but that is not the case at all. I have an aversion to what I consider to be BAD science. Science is somewhat in my blood as both of my parents were biologists, I am drawn to archeology, paleontology, linguistics, etc. So it was no shock when my son bought me a new book for Father's day!
My son knows my love for all things ancient, including ancient life. I have been CRAZY about ancient life since before I was in kindergarten. With that thought in mind he bought me a book written by paleontologist Steve Brusatte entitled "The Rise and Fall of the Dinosaurs; A New History of a Lost World."
I was thrilled and set right out to read it! Unfortunately my thrill ebbed and waned rather quickly as I read. Don't get me wrong, I think the book is good, and it deserves to be read, especially if you are fan boy of paleontology like myself, but I have problems with it. One of the problems I have is that while the book seems to claim it is novel and a slight rewrite of what we previously understood about early dinosaur development (at least in the early chapters) it really did not tell me anything I did not already know. Furthermore, the author took some pot-shots at other paleontologists that were not only unnecessary, but not 100% accurate.
Disclaimer, when I was a kid, Ostrom was "the" paleontologist... so that gives you an idea of my age. Bakker was his young upstart who took something more than hinted at by Ostrom and ran with it. I have no particular fondness of all the ideas Bakker has written about, but I do appreciate his enthusiasm (just as I appreciate Brusatte's obvious and unbridled enthusiasm) for his field. That being said, at one point Brusatte makes the claim (somewhere around page 70-78 in the hard cover of his book) that Bakker "preached" about dinosaurs like they were the destined inheritors of the Earth when they appeared in the Triassic. He went on to say he "felt uneasy" with Bakker's statements and ideas and was not surprised that he came off so "preachy" because he was also a part-time minister of some Christian faith.
He then went on to claim that Brusatte and his colleagues would go on to perform analysis that showed that dinosaurs were not dominant in the Triassic at all... but that IS NOT NEW. WE ALREADY KNEW THAT decades ago. It reminds me of the new Computer Scientists of this age taking hold of something Software Engineers did in the 70's or 80's, putting a name to it, and claiming it as their own idea; selling books, trademarking words, etc. Kind of makes me feel a little queasy.
I have read Bakker's works, I have read works he collaborated on and advised on. NEVER did Bakker intimate that dinosaurs of the Triassic were the obvious world conquerors to be. What Bakker DID espouse was that dinosaurs must have had some inherent advantage over the other reptiles of the Triassic that allowed them to survive and thrive when disaster struck in the late Triassic. That, by the way is CLASSIC Darwinism (which I do not necessarily hold to). Makes sense yes? Dinosaurs must have survived because during their Triassic development, they evolved some advantage.
For Brusatte to say that Bakker was "preachy" about dinosaurs being a God-send to the animal kingdom (my words) is over the top. Bakker was passionate about dinosaurs and had many theories of WHY they had advantages over other land reptiles, amphibians and mammals of the Triassic that included growth rates, air sacs, warm-bloodedness, etc. One thing I do not remember Bakker ever doing was putting down the work of other paleontologists because he was "uneasy" with their ideas. No, if he thought they were wrong he simply set out to prove it and provide data that would support his claims. Nor did he ever claim HIS ideas were out-of-the-blue new! He clearly stated his work was not only based on Ostrom, but also on some of the old-time paleontologists who had the common sense to see that if an animal LOOKS active and dynamic, it probably was.
Anyway, I should stop here. I have more to read and I plan on finishing the book over tomorrow, after we go see Jurassic World...
Saturday, June 9, 2018
Rover and life on Mars
OK. The pop media is at it again.
"Scientists find evidence for life on Mars!!"
No. No they did not. They found EVIDENCE for some of the COMPOUNDS that are used by living things. BIG difference. And, theoretically, wherever you find the right ingredients you could find those compounds.
I am not a proponent that there is life anywhere else out there, despite the vastness of space. I am not saying it is not possible, but I do not think it is probable. If someone can show me that life exists out there, then I will say "Wow! That's awesome!" But if you understand how unlikely it is for US to even be here (really, we shouldn't be) you would understand that this is pretty much a fantasy.
Someone might argue with me saying "well you believe in God and you can't see Him!" We have much better evidence of a creator than we do of life in the universe. I am not going into that here though. Check out some of the work done by the scientists at "Reasons to Believe".
http://www.reasons.org/home
"Scientists find evidence for life on Mars!!"
No. No they did not. They found EVIDENCE for some of the COMPOUNDS that are used by living things. BIG difference. And, theoretically, wherever you find the right ingredients you could find those compounds.
I am not a proponent that there is life anywhere else out there, despite the vastness of space. I am not saying it is not possible, but I do not think it is probable. If someone can show me that life exists out there, then I will say "Wow! That's awesome!" But if you understand how unlikely it is for US to even be here (really, we shouldn't be) you would understand that this is pretty much a fantasy.
Someone might argue with me saying "well you believe in God and you can't see Him!" We have much better evidence of a creator than we do of life in the universe. I am not going into that here though. Check out some of the work done by the scientists at "Reasons to Believe".
http://www.reasons.org/home
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)