MGG - 5.28 - HWYD - Infected

Oh, my brothers and only friends:

Once upon a time I worked for a company that made a security product.  Or service.  It installed in such a way that boot sector infector viruses could definitely be a problem.  In order to test for compatibility, the marketing people were sent out into the world, with instructions to install this piece of software on all the different laptops (relatively new at this point, and the primary market for this product or service) anyone would allow them to.  Because of the potential problems with viruses, they were given a specific antivirus product to test the laptops before installing the software.  I was, at the time, the primary reviewer of antivirus software.  They had been using a common, but not terribly accurate antivirus product: I mandated a superior product.

At one point, they installed the software on a particular laptop, and it didn't work.  The report the marketing guys gave us seemed to indicate the presence of a virus, so I gave them an updated version of the mandated antivirus, and asked them to try again.  They reported that they were still getting the same problem.  So, we asked them to borrow the laptop in question, and bring it in for testing, so that we could figure out what this particular laptop had, or did, that made it a problem candidate.  There was much negotiation, but, finally, they brought the laptop in question in to us.

Of course, the first thing we did was to test it for viruses.  Bells and whistles and flashing lights!  It was infected.  And, when we cleaned off the infection, the software installed just fine.

So, we called in the marketing guys.  Why didn't you test for viruses?

"Oh, we *did* test for viruses!"

You couldn't have.  As soon as we tested, we found a virus.

"Well, we didn't use *your* antivirus.  We used the old antivirus."

Why did you do that?

"Well, when we test with the antivirus you gave us, it finds viruses!"

Some people's kids ...

Previous: https://fibrecookery.blogspot.com/2024/06/mgg-527-hwyd-80times86.html

Introduction and ToC: https://fibrecookery.blogspot.com/2023/10/mgg-introduction.html

Next: https://fibrecookery.blogspot.com/2024/07/mgg-529-hwyd-ndas.html

Isaiah 24:16

We hear songs of praise for God from every place on earth.  They praise the God who does what is right.  But I say, I am finished, I am dying, I have had enough, there is no hope for me; I am pining and wasting away.  What I see is terrible!  Evil still prevails, evil people are deceiving their friends, hurting and betraying people more and more; treachery is everywhere!

Training

 

We can do this (paying $8 per) for two months, or the city could fund the Sunshine Club, for all 750 members, for free--for two years ...

Sermon 31 - I believe because I am a physicist, part 3

Sermon 31 - I believe because I am a physicist, part 3

1 John 1:5-7

This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all.  If we claim to have fellowship with him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live out the truth.  But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin.

I have just sat through another sermon on Christian hope.  It was a slurry of Christian cliches and various scripture texts.  There wasn't any evidence of any kind of argument in it, beyond a mishmash of proof-texting.  I don't even think even the minister really believed what he was saying, or felt that he was making any kind of an argument.  As he got towards the end of his sermon, he wasn't even sure he *was* at the end of his sermon.  It was about the right time, but he didn't know whether he had any more slides, and he said so.  Out loud.  Now he happened to be correct.  The next slide that he clicked on was the closing hymn.  But obviously he didn't really know where his sermon was going, because his sermon wasn't particularly going anywhere.

Okay, you want hope?  I'll give you hope.

Here's my thesis:

Evil is not real.

Yeah, yeah.  I can just hear you now.  "He's never going to be able to prove that."

Oh, yes, I bloody well can.  I'm a physicist, baby!

I am a physicist.  Being a physicist informs my worldview, and, particularly, understanding of God.  Physics is, in reality, the study of--reality.  We study what is and what isn't.  We study things that are, but may be difficult to perceive, like forces.  So, studying physics is studying everything that's real.  God created everything that's real.  So we study everything God made.  And how he made it.  And how it works.

Physicists have a different perspective on the world.  Like I say, we deal with reality.  We deal with things that are real, but which you can't see.  We deal with things that you can see, but aren't real.  Physicists have a saying which I once told Gloria.  She loved it.  And she decided that, when I died, she was going to use this in structuring my eulogy.

The saying is:

If it's     there, and you can   see it, it's real.

If it's     there, and you can't see it, it's transparent.

If it's not there, and you can   see it, it's virtual.

If it's not there, and you can't see it, it's *gone*.

(She told me that she had this eulogy all prepared.  When she died, I knew that she had prepared material for both of our services.  I went looking for them.  I eventually found hers.  [In surprisingly informal shape.]  But I never did find mine.  I assume she was going to end by talking about me being not there, and you couldn't see me, and I was gone, but I have no idea what she was going to do with the other three parts.)

So we deal with reality when you deal with the difference between what you can see, and what is actually there.  And so some of the things that we, as physicists, say tend to be a bit strange to people who haven't studied physics.

For example, physicists will agree with me when I say that light is real.  Light is there.  Light has to do with force, and transfer of energy, and a variety of things.  But dark is *not* real.

Now you say, of course dark is real.  We can see it.

Ah, but of course you *can't* see it.  That's the definition of dark.  It's too dark to see.  The thing is, dark isn't real.  There isn't any "dark."  You can't shine "dark" on anything.  You can't add dark to a lamp to make it less bright.  Dark is simply the absence of light.

Light is real.  Light is measurable.  Light has characteristics.  Dark is simply what we call the absence of light.

Actually that isn't quite correct.  Because dark isn't real, you can never have absolute darkness.  There is always *some* light, even if it is very faint or in a non-visible part of the spectrum.  What we call dark; what we call pitch dark; what we call dark without a trace of sunshine, without any indication of light at all, isn't actually, completely, 100%, dark.  There is always *some* light.

Let me turn it around and give you another example of the same idea when I say that heat is real.  We can measure heat.  We know what heat does.  There is no such thing as cold.  Or, rather, cold is not real.  Cold is simply the absence of heat, in the same way that dark is simply the absence of light.  People are starting to explore what happens when things get really, really cold.  And, of course, you can't inject cold into things, because cold isn't real.  It isn't a "thing."  All you can do is try as hard as you can to take heat away from something, and to prevent it from getting any more heat. 

We know that there is, in fact, an absolute zero temperature.  A temperature of absolute zero.  If I remember correctly (and I probably don't), it's -273.16 degrees Celsius.  That is absolute zero.  Where there is absolutely no heat.  The thing is, we can get close to it.  But we've never been able to get absolutely there.  It's really quite interesting, as people have been trying to work on low temperatures, and the properties of materials at very low temperatures.  One of the areas that people have been exploring is to do with quantum computers.  There are a variety of ways to try and make quantum computers, but one of the ways is to cool things down to very close to absolute zero.  The D-Wave company, based in Burnaby, makes one of these versions of quantum computers that works at very low temperatures.  We talk about interstellar space being very cold, and that it's very dark, and there is an absence of heat, and so it's close to absolute zero.  Well, as a matter of fact, it's *not* very close to absolute zero.  The temperature that we live at is about one hundred times hotter than the temperature of interstellar space.  But when the D-Wave computer is operating, it's actually operating at a temperature that is a thousand times colder than interstellar space.  And it's *still* not at absolute zero.  It turns out to be really, really hard to get something really, really cold.  There is always some source of heat, even if that "heat" is very much colder than a temperature that we are comfortable with.

I know that when I say that cold isn't real, that those of you who remember the cold snaps we've had over the last couple of years here in Port Alberni will say, "Oh, yes!  Cold is real!" and those who have lived on the prairies will say, "Oh, no, you don't understand cold!  We've been in cold!  Cold is really real!"

Yes, the *effects* of a lack of heat are real.  But cold isn't real.  Cold isn't a thing.  Like I say, you can't inject cold into a system like the D-Wave computer and make it cold enough to operate.  All you can do is to try very, very hard to take heat away, to let the computer radiate away what heat it does have, and protect it from getting any more heat, so that it's heat reduces to smaller and smaller and lower and lower levels.

Okay, something else we need to put in here.  We can make light as bright as we want it.  We can make light brighter and brighter and brighter.  There is a point at which there is no light, although it's harder to get to that point than we realise.  We can make things hotter and hotter and hotter.  We can make things as hot as we want, or as hot as we can.  There is a point at which there is no heat, a point of absolute zero.  It's really difficult to get there, but we know where that point is.  We just can't ever do it.  We can have perfect light.  We can have perfect heat.  We can't have perfect darkness.  We can't have perfect cold.  We just can't ever get there.  It's not achievable.  It's inherently impossible.  And, the thing is, at the other end, there *is* no maximum brightness, or maximum heat.  We can keep on going.  As far as we can.

So, light is real.  And dark is not.  And heat is real.  And cold is not.

So, you say, what does this tell us about God?

Well, rather a lot.  I'm pretty sure that, in the same way, good is real, and evil is not.

In the same way that light is real, and dark is simply the absence of light, so also evil is not real.

Now, you say, there is evil in the world.

Yes, I'm not saying that there isn't evil, in the same way that I'm not saying that the effects of cold and dark aren't real.  Yes, they are real.  The effects, that is.  But dark and cold aren't real because they're not "things."  We can't measure them.  We can only measure, indirectly, a lack of heat or a lack of light.  So, in this same way, we can say that evil is simply a lack of good.  Sin is a lack of good, a lack of doing what God wants us to do.  But it's not *real.*  

We don't know how to measure good. 

I mean we are fallen, sinful creatures.  We're not *really* sure what good even *is*.  But we *do* know that we can't be perfectly good.  We can try.  We *should* try.  And we can always do *better*.  But we can't be perfectly good.  Not yet.

But, the thing is, there cannot be pure, perfect evil, either.  Partly because it's not real.  It's not a thing: it's simply the absence of good.  That should give us hope.  Good is real, evil is not.

I do not know what will happen when God "unmakes" our existing world and remakes it and us.  The new, perfect world.  I don't know how that's going to translate.  But I do strongly suspect that what is real will survive, and what is not real will not.  So good, and any good that we do, will survive.  What we do on God's behalf will survive.  What we do that is evil, that is sinful, that is flawed, that is not, in fact, real, will not survive.  That's strikes me as a pretty good definition of Heaven.  Heaven will be perfect.  And therefore Heaven will be real.  In a sense, Heaven already *is* real.  The kingdom of God is at hand.  Because whatever we are doing with, and for, God, on God's behalf, as directed by God; whatever God wants us to do; is real.  And is already real.  And will survive when unreality is swept away

You cannot add dark to something to make it darker.  You cannot add cold to something to make it colder.  All that you can do is insulate something from heat or light.

You *can* add heat to something.  You can shine light on something.  You can't add dark to anything.  You can't "shine" dark.  So, when we insulate something, we make sure that, as far as possible, no more heat or light gets in.  But there always is a little bit of light in there.  When we call something dark; when we say that it's pitch dark; when we call something cold; when we say that it is absolutely freezing cold; (and remember that freezing refers to water, and water, when it freezes, is more than 270 degrees celsius or four hundred degrees Fahrenheit hotter than absolute zero), but when we say something is pitch dark, all we are really saying is the light is at such a low level that we can't detect it.  It's saying something about us.  Not something about the object that we are saying is dark.  When we say that something is absolutely cold, absolutely freezing cold, again what we are saying is that our ability to measure the heat in this object is too limited.  There is still some residual heat in it.  It's just that it's below the threshold that we are able to measure.  It doesn't mean that it is absolutely zero.  Absolute zero, as I have said, doesn't exist.  So, in the same way, when we say that something is absolutely evil, we're not certain of that.  I frequently tell people, never challenge "worse."  Things can always get worse.  In a sense, in saying this, I am saying that there is always a little bit of good, even in what seems to be a really evil situation.

So evil is not real.  And therefore evil is, inherently, bound to fail.  Because you can never get to absolute evil.  This must be rather frustrating for the Devil.  If he's supposed to be evil, and God is absolutely good, then the Devil should be able to get to absolute evil.  Well, I don't know whether you can or you can't.  Not for sure.  I do not know all of the rules of reality.  But it would seem that the Devil is very likely in that situation where he cannot be absolutely purely evil.  And, as I say, that must be frustrating.

So, in the battle between good and evil, not only does good have the advantage in being able to go so much further, so much higher, never to have a top end to good, in the same way that there is a never a top end to light or heat, evil is always going to be limited.  There is a bottom end.  Which evil can strive for, but can never get there.  Evil can never get there.

So we've got two very promising indications, from what we know of physics and reality, which indicate that good is always going to win.  Good always has the upper hand.  Good can never be defeated because good is real, and evil, well, it's just not.  You can't inject any evil into any situation to make it *more* evil.  You can only try, whatever way you want to try, to prevent good from getting in.  And always remember, good can be as big as it wants.  So, no matter how hard you try to prevent good, if you're trying to go in that direction, you are always going to be faced with the probability that you are on the losing side. 

Come to the light side.  We have reality.

see also Sermon 20 - Science vs Faith

https://fibrecookery.blogspot.com/2024/01/sermon-20-science-vs-faith.html

also Sermon 30 - How do you know that?  science part 2

https://fibrecookery.blogspot.com/2024/06/sermon-30-how-do-you-know-that.html

https://fibrecookery.blogspot.com/2023/09/sermons.html

Joshua 24:15

Chose whom you will serve.

But, as for me and my house,

we will serve the Lord.

(Just when you think it's safe to produce social satire postings ...)

Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce inspired a Kansas City Chiefs-themed Hallmark Christmas movie.

https://www.kcur.org/arts-life/2024-06-25/taylor-swift-travis-kelce-kansas-city-chiefs-hallmark-christmas-movie

Firefighter charity bot call

I got a phone call today.  I'm pretty sure it was from a bot.  The voice said that "he" was calling on behalf of firefighters, and their support of charitable groups.  (The specific charity was left unstated, but it could be a kind of blanket request to fill coffers.)  It's possible that the firefighters' charity that supports charities uses a company that uses bots, but it was pretty definitely a bot.

It was pretty impressive.  It was also quite interesting to note the very formal speech patterns, but it sounded quite realistic.  After I challenged him on the basis that I thought "he" was a bot, "he" assured me that he was a real person and not a bot.  But the formality in the speech patterns continued.  He didn't laugh at being called a bot.  He didn't get annoyed.  The tenor and affect of his speech remained unchanged throughout the call.  At one point I noted that I already worked with firefighters (through ESS and Community Policing), and did a fair amount of work for them.  There was no response to that except, "Well, we're happy we can count on your support."  Which is the same kind of terminology that "he" was using in regard to asking for donations.

I'm saying "he," but I'm still assuming that this was a bot.  It was a male voice.  However, I'm pretty sure that the clincher was that, at one point, I said that I would have to hang up the phone because I had to pick up the keys for the Community Policing van.  Regardless of how scripted a normal person was, if this person was a real firefighter I very strongly suspect that, at that point, he would have gone off script because of the connection in terms of tasks.  There was no reaction at all.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure "he" was a bot.

Exodus 3:14

I am that I am.

Say to those of my people,

"I am" has sent me.

The day you deserve

I passed a car with a bumper sticker that read, "I Hope You Have the Day You Deserve!"

What a *cruel* thing to wish on *anybody*!

MGG - 5.27 - HWYD - 80[times]86

I have mentioned that I have written books.  Since it was Gloria who supported, encouraged, and assisted me enough that I actually did write the books, I'll go into more detail in the chapter on Gloria.

But I suppose that I can tell one particular story here.  Or maybe two.

As noted, when people ask me about how to write books, I tell them that, once you have actually written the book, that is the easy part done.  That is possibly overstating the case, but certainly it is the part after you have actually written and finished the text, that is the most annoying.

The publishers will have various requirements of you.  These requirements may not be expressed early on in the process.  It may only be after you have written a book or two, or three, that you start to realize that this is a necessary part of the process, and that you should do it while you are writing the book.

The first annoying thing is the style sheet.  This is simply a collection of words, generally specific to the topic that you are writing about, which are used relatively infrequently.  Because of this, there may be variations in how people address these particular words, or possibly phrases.  Sometimes you will have two or three words which you just group together, and write as a phrase.  Sometimes you will capitalize the initial letters of this phrase, if it is important enough.  Sometimes you will hyphenate between the words, rather than using spaces.  In any event, you have to decide how you are going to deal with these words or phrases, and then be consistent about it.  Generally speaking, the first time you use one of these unusual terms, you write it into a file or document as a style sheet.  As you use more, you add more of these items to the style sheet.  As you reuse these terms, you refer to the style sheet, and ensure that you are using the terms consistently, spelling them the same way, and doing the same things in terms of hyphenation.  When I wrote my first book, the word "email" had not yet been standardized.  Some people just wrote "email," and some people wrote it "e-mail."  I had, by this time, actually reviewed rather a large number of technical dictionaries and glossaries.  So, in trying to figure out how I was going to write email, I looked up the word email in all of those dictionaries.  I found an exactly even split: six of the dictionaries used "email," and six of the dictionaries used "e-mail."  (I, even at that time, preferred email, and that seems to have become standardized for normal use.)

Then there is copy editting.  Copy editors are usually those who have taken relatively useless college degrees, such as English literature, or history.  Their actual ability to edit copy varies tremendously.  Oh, and, of course, when dealing with publishers, you are usually dealing with American publishers.  Particularly when you are dealing with technical subjects.  (American publishers are not inherently better than any others: they just have more money.  This gives them outsized influence in the industry, quite beyond their actual capabilities.)  So you get assigned an American copy editor.  I don't particularly mind Webster's dictionary, although I prefer the Oxford English dictionary.  However, I have, probably by the time I wrote my second book, come to loath and despise the Chicago Manual of Style.  I hate it.  I use the Oxford English Dictionary.  I have written that into my contracts with technical publishers: it's going to be in English English, not American English; and it's going to follow the OED, not Chicago.

Of course, none of the American publishers have a copy of the Oxford English Dictionary, and, in any case, their copy editors have no idea what it is or says.  And, even if they do know the differences, as I say, their ability to edit copy varies enormously.

Gloria was always my copy editor, and, when the American copy editors would send back edits, Gloria would edit their edits, making corrections, oftentimes to errors in my text which they had never even caught, and then I would fight, on Gloria's behalf, with the American publisher and copy editor.

There are multiple rounds of copy editing, depending on the publisher.  And then we move into a new field of editing, known as galley proofing.  This is when the typesetters set the text, which has already been copy edited, and introduce a whole new world of errors, that neither you nor the copy editors ever considered.

When I wrote my first book, it dealt with, at certain points, the very basic issues of machine language.  This is programming with the op codes themselves, not even using any assembler language.  Therefore, I was making reference to the various classes, and families, of central processing units, or CPUs.  One of those, popular at the time that I was writing the book, was the Intel 80x86.  This was simply a shorthand reference to the fact that Intel produced an 8086, an 80186 (yes, there was one: it just didn't have much of a market), an 80286, an 80386, and promised but hovering on the horizon at the time I was writing, an 80486.  When we got back the first set of galley proofs ...

Well, I should tell the story of editing, and its relation to accounting and auditing.  Nobody in security likes auditors.  Nobody in finance likes auditors.  In finance they say that auditors are the ones who come through after the battle and bayonet the wounded.  But, in reality, the auditors are actually your dearest friends . I explain this by asking people who has written books.  Not many have.  I ask who has written articles.  More have, but still not a majority.  I ask who has written memos.  *Everyone* has written memos.  It is unfortunate that memos usually go out in rough draft, because I'm trying to make the point that you cannot edit your own copy.  You know what you meant to say, and, when you go to edit it, you read into it what you intended to say, and you do not notice your errors.  This is why you need auditors, both in finance, and in security.  You need someone to catch your mistakes.  Someone who isn't you.

When I got the first set of galley proofs, it was the first third of the book.  It was 140 pages long.  I went through it for eight solid hours.  I sweat blood over it.  And I found twenty errors.  Then I gave it to Gloria.

Gloria found four mistakes on the first page.

For one thing, Gloria is far superior to any copy editor I have ever known, and far and away superior to me at this process.  Gloria's second advantage was that she's not me.  She found my mistakes, because she didn't write it.

Anyways, one of the mistakes, which the typesetters had introduced in this round of the editing process, was taking the 80x86, and reprinting it as 80[multiplication sign]86.  Even the publisher got a good laugh out of that.

Previous: https://fibrecookery.blogspot.com/2024/06/mgg-526-hwyd-kevins-on-tonight-write-up.html

Introduction and ToC: https://fibrecookery.blogspot.com/2023/10/mgg-introduction.html

Next: https://fibrecookery.blogspot.com/2024/06/mgg-528-hwyd-infected.html

Trials of a church sound tech

Okay, when the members of the "praise" team say "we need more," which combination of these 250 dials do you twiddle, and by how much?

Nehemiah 5:19

Remember to be kind to me, my God, for all I have done for these people.

Sermon 30 - How do you know that?

Sermon 30 - How do you know that?

Recently a friend and I were at a Science World display and event.  One of the activities made available involved toys, which you have possibly seen, involving flexible tubes that kids can swing around.  The tubes will make a whirring sound as you whirl them around.  She was quite taken with these tubes and the kids playing with them.  I noted that, if you swung the tubes fast enough, the sound that was produced would suddenly jump from a specific pitch, to a pitch an octave higher.  She was intrigued by this idea and, when the current set of kids seemed to be done playing with the tubes, she went and grabbed one and whirled it for all that she was worth.  Which was considerable: she not only made the sound jump one octave, but thereupon whirled it fast enough that it jumped a *second* octave.  She was delighted, and exclaimed, "You were right!"

My response was possibly a little bit odd, even from my perspective.  I said, "Of course I'm right!"  And I said it in a tone that hinted at a bit of pique.

Why should this annoy me? 

Gloria, fairly often, said something similar.  When I would express a certain fact, she, particularly if she recognized the truth of what I said, would say in a tone of surprise, "How did you know that?"  I must admit that I frequently found this question annoying.  In the first place, I was always surprised at the question.  It never occurs to me to question how somebody knows something.  I am used to the fact that other people know things that I don't.  I am not surprised that they know something that I don't.  I don't find it in any way strange, and it wouldn't occur to me to wonder how it was that they learned this fact or principle.  When Gloria's question *particularly* annoyed me, on occasion my response tended to be, "How do you not?"  How is it that you *don't* know this?  Often I respond that way because what I know that Gloria found so strange that I knew, I had known for so long that I simply considered it part of what everyone knew.  Part of the facts of life.  Part of what everyone knows.  Or should know.

And, of course, it's not just Gloria who is sometimes surprised by things that I know, and the fact that I know them.  And very often what people are surprised about, and what surprises me that they don't know, is about science.  I have always enjoyed science.  I would say that I love science!  Part of the reason that I love science is because science is so consistent.  When something is a scientific fact, the answer is the same every time: it's like mathematics.  There are an awful lot of things that people try to educate us about, which are not consistent in the same way.  If you are asked questions about art, or English literature, or sometimes even history, the answer is not the same every time.  The answer is very often subjective, and seemingly arbitrary.  (At least the answer according to this particular instructor, who may have a different opinion from some other, previous, instructor.)  So I always loved science, because science was consistent.  Science was the same, every time.  Science was faithful.

And this is one of the reasons that I find our society's insistence that there is some opposition between science and religion so odd.  God created our universe.  God created our universe with certain principles in mind.  We are told in the Bible that God created man in His own image, but there is also an implication that God created *all* of creation in, somehow, His own image.  God created certain classes of things, and looked at them, and said that they were good.  God approved of how they were made, and their nature.  And, I assume, that approval; that following of an image; applies to the rules under which the universe operates.  God didn't have to follow any rules.  God didn't have any rules imposed on him: God created the rules.  God could have created a different universe following different principles.  So the fact that science works; the fact that science is useful to us; the fact that science tells us things that we can trust about the universe; must tell us something about God.  The fact that God created the universe in such a way that science can tell us things about the universe tells us something about God.

Why am I annoyed about this question about "how do you know that?"  Well, I suppose that partly this is trust in God's faithfulness.  Science is dependable.  Science is predictable.  The answer is always going to be the same.  (At least if it's a fairly simple question.  Ask a complex question, and you have to expect a complex answer.)  The answer is a fact.  Science is built on facts.  We can be wrong.  But that's because we are human.  It isn't the fault of science.  It's a limitation on us.  Not a limitation on the universe.  Again, science tells us something about God.  God is faithful.  God is dependable.  God is, in some senses, predictable.  God's faithfulness is predictable.  God's love and mercy is predictable.  We can depend on it.  We can rely on it.  We can predict that this is what will happen, and the way it will happen.  What happens is because of God's faithfulness, love, and mercy.  So, when someone is surprised that some scientific fact is known, and will happen, when we see that it *does* happen, it shouldn't be surprising.  If you are surprised, you are, in a sense, saying that you are surprised that God is faithful.

Science tells us something about God.  And God tells us something about science.  God is telling us that his universe, the universe that he created, is like us, to a certain extent.  It is created in His image.  Because God is faithful and dependable, He built a universe that is dependable and predictable.  This is why science works: not because science is *greater* than God, but because God created a universe where science works.  Where we can predict; where we can depend on it; where we can rely on it.  To object to science betrays a lack of faith in God.

How did I know that this would happen?  Because God is faithful.  Because God created a universe which, like Him, is faithful and dependable and reliable, and, because of that, is predictable.  So, in a sense, if you had paid attention in science class, you would have learned something about God.

You would also have learned something about us.  That part of science is realising that it is our flawed attempt to understand God's world, to understand God's nature as expressed in the world, that when something *doesn't* work out the way we think it's supposed to work out; when something that we predict *doesn't* happen, it is not the fault of science.  It is *our* fault, for making a mistake in figuring out how God's world works.  And when we make a mistake, and something doesn't work, that is our opportunity to correct what we know (or *think* we know) about the world.  Because if it doesn't work, that means that we made a mistake in our original thought about how the world works.

(You didn't expect me to get through a sermon without mentioning grief, did you?  I've already mentioned Gloria.  There is a very interesting book, called "The Grieving Brain."  It talks about the fact that we construct a mental model, or map, of the world around us.  When we are in a relationship with someone, our mental model of the world has that person in it.  How that person will react if we do something.  How, if something happens to us, we can expect that person to help us.  Or not.  When that person dies, our mental model still has that person in it.  Part of our pain, and confusion, in grief, is the disconnect between the new reality, and our old mental model.  To us, it seems as if the world is no longer faithful, because it has changed.  Part of grief work is the *unlearning* of this old model of the world, and the creation of a *new* model that does not have our person in it.  In a sense, we have made a mistake, and have to correct it.)

Now God does not restrict himself to the way the world works.  God is greater than his creation.  God allows himself to do miracles.  But God does miracles for a specific purpose and for a specific reason.  God has his reasons, and his reasons are good, and his reasons are to our benefit.  It does not invalidate the fact that science is, for the most part, reliable and dependable and predictable.  Because most of the time that is the way God's universe works.  God has allowed us to determine this, and to see that the universe is reliable and predictable and dependable.  This teaches us that the God who created the universe is reliable and dependable and faithful.

I must admit that part of my pique over "How did you know that?" is simply that I have spent my life doing this kind of observation of God's universe.  I learned these things.  I remember these things.  And people who do *not* look around themselves, and do not pay attention to the universe, and do not see the wonders of God's creation, do not put any work into understanding the wonders of God's creation, well, it's annoying that they don't.  And then our surprise that God's universe is reliable, and dependable, and predictable, well, it's annoying.

But that's maybe just me, personally.

cf Sermon 20 - Science vs Faith

https://fibrecookery.blogspot.com/2024/01/sermon-20-science-vs-faith.html

cf Sermon 31 - I believe because I am a physicist, part 3

https://fibrecookery.blogspot.com/2024/06/sermon-31-i-believe-because-i-am.html

Sermons: https://fibrecookery.blogspot.com/2023/09/sermons.html

Psalm 136:1 ff

Give thanks to the Lord,

for he is good.  His love lasts

forever.  (Repeat.)

SYN/ACK

I have spoken of SYN/ACK.  I had two examples this morning: at one church, one of the leadership team asked, as I entered the church, "so how's it going," and then immediately, without waiting for the answer, turned back to his conversation and completely ignored me.

So I went to another church.  I was having a grief burst, and sitting there quiet weeping, when the minister of this church came up to me, said "good to see you, welcome back," and then walked on.

Okay, I get it.  Sunday, particularly Sunday morning, is your busy time.  But, if so, and you really don't care, it's best not to try to pretend.

Psalm 22:1

My God, My God, why

hast Thou forsaken me?  Why

so far from helping ...

MGG - 5.26 - HWYD - "Kevin’s on tonight." "Write up the instructions."

As previously noted, at one point the various information technology jobs and contracts dried up.  So I worked for a while as a security guard.  It was about as boring as it sounds like.  But there were a few weirdnesses that stick in my mind.  Early on in my career as a security guard, we were contracted by an ethnic group, holding a dance for their community.

They told us to send over "a couple of big white guys."  I'm not quite sure how I fit into that category, but I was one of the people assigned to the dance.  When we got to the dance, the organizers asked us to frisk everybody.  I explained that this was not something that we could force anyone to put up with, and that, in any case, since the two of us were both male, we would not be frisking any of the female patrons.  I explained that we would ask whether we could frisk the people as they were entering, but that if anyone refused, there was nothing that we could do about it.

So, that was what we did.  We were close to the entrance, and, as the patrons came in, we would inform the male patrons that we had been requested to frisk them as they came in.  I was rather surprised that no one, in fact, objected.  I developed a quick, and probably not terribly effective, process of running my hands up inside the person's jacket, feeling, with my palms, for any hard lumps on their body, and with the back of my hand for any particularly heavy lumps that were in the jacket.   At one point, doing this, I felt that there was a long thin object in a jacket pocket, about the size of a large knife.  I backed up about three feet, and asked the person what was in his jacket pocket.  He was obviously surprised by this, and then checked.  What he eventually pulled out was the battery for a cell phone.  This was in the days of the banana phone, of which I have previously spoken, and their battery packs were long, and flat, and narrow.

As this particular ethnic group, in our city, had a large representation in the drug trade, a couple of police officers showed up at one point.  They amused themselves by pointing out to us that this person had just come out of jail for murder, that person had just come out of jail for grievous bodily harm, oh and that one over there was the leader of the largest drug gang in Vancouver.  What, the guy that I just frisked, I asked?

Security guards vary in capability, and their reasons for performing the work.  Generally speaking, while they have to be able to pass the certification exams, few of them are major intellectuals.  Occasionally we had some who were rather unsuited to the job, primarily because they thought of themselves as junior policemen.  We had one such who was occasionally reported to us as having thrown his weight around on public transit as he came to work.  Even by the rather easy standards of security guard work, he was not particularly bright.

One evening, I was on the afternoon shift, and was made aware that there was a problem with a piece of equipment on site.  They had not been able to get a repair person in, and, this being a Friday, the piece of equipment would not be repaired until the following Monday.  The equipment was not absolutely crucial to the company's operations, but they didn't want it to be unavailable, if they could help it.  So a couple of the techs on site showed me the process for checking the equipment, and, if it wasn't functioning, restarting it.  It wasn't a terribly onerous process, but it did require about five different steps, which had to be performed in the proper sequence.  The plant manager asked if I thought I could handle it.  I said yes, it shouldn't be a problem, but I would appreciate if they would write up the instructions for my colleagues who would be coming on over the weekend.  The techs, who would be responsible for writing up the instructions, objected.  "It's not that difficult," they said.  I said it would be a good idea to have the instructions in writing.  They appealed to the plant manager: it's not that difficult.  I turned to the plant manager.  "Kevin's on this weekend," I told him.  He thought about that for about five seconds and turned to the techs.  "Write up the instructions," he said.

Previous: https://fibrecookery.blogspot.com/2024/06/mgg-525-hwyd-my-folks-and-my-books.html

Introduction and ToC: https://fibrecookery.blogspot.com/2023/10/mgg-introduction.html

Next: https://fibrecookery.blogspot.com/2024/06/mgg-527-hwyd-80times86.html

The parable of the Good Samari... sorry, the Good *Homeless* Person

So I got my coffee, and cross the street at the crosswalk, and there's these three guys hanging out at The Dugout, which is long closed, but that population often hangs out there because nobody else is there.  As I walk by, one of them says, "How are you?"  I usually respond to the street population because nobody else does, and at least if they say something to you, you can respond, and let them know that they are not "non-persons."  They exist, and are worthy of a response.

So, as usual, I said terrible.  He didn't just laugh.  He didn't let it go.  He didn't pass it off.  He said, "Why terrible?" and I said, "I'm a grieving widower, and a depressive, and I've just been told that I have degenerative disc disease."  He left his friends, and he came over, and he he said "Oh," and he he asked about antidepressants, and I told him that they've taken me off the antidepressants because they don't work.

And he didn't let it go.  He followed me down the street.  I mean, you know, he was giving me more time than I was giving him.  I was just passing, and had somewhere to be (although it wasn't like being late would be a serious problem), and kept on walking, and he left his friends and followed me.  He said, "Can I give you a hug or a handshake or something?"

(I have fifty years of experience assessing this type of population, starting with taking care of burned out alcoholics in the hospital.  I know that this guy, as young as he is, has been on alcohol and/or drugs for long enough that his neural circuitry has suffered serious and considerable damage.  There are certain speech patterns that are definitive.  He's lost a lot of capabilities that he will never get back.  But, apparently, not the capacity for compassion.)

Can you really *not* respond to something like that?  So I stopped, and I went back to him, and got a hug, fairly tentative on his part.  And I *didn't* check my wallet immediately after we hugged (and I still do have it).  And he he went back to his friends, and as he was going he called back, "I love you, big dog!" even though he towered over me by at least head and shoulders (he may have been referring to girth, rather than height).  And he he didn't ask me for anything.  He gave me a hug.  He didn't give me anything but his time, but he didn't *have* anything else but his concern.

I have been to all twenty-one churches in town.  Each of the twenty-one churches in town have plenty of people who would, first of all, not have even talked to him, and secondly feel that  it was his own fault, he started to drink, he started to do drugs, whatever.  They wouldn't wonder what had started him on that path.  And in *none* of all twenty-one churches in town, has anyone, on first acquaintance, given me that much time and concern.  So there's a sermon in there somewhere.  There really is.

Psalm 140:12

Oh Lord, I know that you defend the homeless and see that the poor are given justice.

It was sad when the great ship went down

I was running the slides for a Sunday service and somebody started singing this song about it was sad when the great ship went down.  I knew that I was familiar with that song, but it took me a while to realise what it was, and where probably I had heard it.

It is a very simple song about, well, really about Noah's Ark.  It's sung at camps, and it's sung in Sunday School.  It is, basically because of its simplicity, a children's song.  It may have come from a spiritual or "Gospel" origin.  (It has some indications of that kind of provenance.)

Anyway, it started me thinking about the song, and the irony (or contradiction) inherent in the lyrics.  It tells, on some level of accuracy, the story of Noah's Ark.  The Lord told Noah to build an ark, and then it rained, and then everyone on the earth perished, except for Noah and his family and the animals that he had put into the ark.

So then we come to the chorus.  "Oh, it was sad (so sad),/Oh it was sad (so sad)/It was sad when the great ship went down (to the bottom of the sea)/Husbands, and wives,/little children lost their lives/Oh, it was sad when the great ship went down, down, down."

Now, of course, in the story of Noah's Ark, husbands and wives and little children *did* lose their lives.  But it wasn't when the ship went down.  The ship (well, the *ark*, if you insist) survived, and everybody *on* it survived.  It was the people who *didn't* get on the ship who all died.

Oh well.  As my church history professor told us (since we started every lecture with a hymn, generally representing the historical period that we would be talking about), we tend to sing more heresy than orthodoxy in any case.

Job 5:10

God sends showers on earth and waters the fields.

Horizon

 

Father's Day

It's Father's Day.  I'm in church.  All of the churches are making a big deal out of Father's Day.

I'm watching the babies and young children.  I love babies.  All babies.  My great-grandchildren, and anyone else's babies.  So I'm enjoying the babies.  And noting the mothers taking care of the babies and young children.  And suddenly realizing: where are all the fathers?  If I had babies, would I even let their mother have them on Father's Day?

OK, yeah, there are some fathers.  The baby and mother who started this train of thought are eventually joined by the father.  I see one father hugging/holding his daughter, and the sweetness of it is a *small* measure of joy to my damaged soul.  But these are somewhat anomalous, and I'm still wondering: where are all the fathers?

Job 36:26

Yes, God is very great!  We cannot know him completely.  Nobody can count the number of his years!

Lonely

 

More broadly, lacking social connection can increase the risk for premature death as much as smoking up to 15 cigarettes a day.

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/article/2024/jun/16/the-loneliness-trap-it-is-as-bad-as-smoking-15-cigarettes-a-day-so-will-it-shorten-my-lifespan

MGG - 5.25 - HWYD - My folks and my books

I might as well note some other family stories that relate to this time.  I considered both offers, from both publishers, and decided on one.  Having signed the contract that they sent and popped it back in the mail, I was very excited that I was going to be a published author.  I called my parents.  My father answered the phone.  In my excitement, I don't even think that I said "Hello."  I just blurted out, "I sold my book!"

There was a long pause.  Then my father, in a questioning tone, said, "You wrote a book?"

"Yes," I said.

"What's it called?"

Actually, since the choice of title is up to the publishers, when you are an unknown author, I didn't actually know what the title would be.  The publishers finally decided that they wanted to call it "Robert Slade's Guide to Computer Viruses."  I was not happy with this.  Having done a lot of book reviews, I felt that authors who put their own names into the book's title tended to be rather egotistical, and didn't necessarily have much of value to say in their books.  I expressed this reservation to the publisher.  The publisher, or, at least, the representative I was dealing with at the time, stated that the only reason they had agreed to publish the book was because of my name, and the fact that I had published so much material on the Internet.  So the book reviews, and the material related to my research, which I had simply been publishing for free on the Internet, actually was the reason that I managed to get a book contract.

My father's reaction was rather hurtful.  The fact was that I had been working on the computer virus research, and the lessons from it, and therefore the contents of the book, for at least five years.  I had made no secret of it.  Therefore, the fact that my parents had no inkling that I was writing a book was kind of a slap in the face.

In a sense, I got my own back at one point.  My parents, never really understanding either the book or the research, didn't understand the significance of the book.  They may have thought it was cute, and even possibly marginally impressive that I actually got it published as a book, but beyond that they had no interest at all.  Until a friend of theirs, who was an academic, and therefore familiar with academic publishers, was quite impressed by the publisher of my book.  Apparently, it had never occurred to my parents that I might produce something of value.

On a subsequent one of their vacationary trips they took a long a copy of my book as a curiosity, that one of their offspring had produced.  At this particular location, they had been there a number of times, and knew a number of the staff who came on a periodic basis.  One of the people who showed up was the person who did technical support for this outfit, and they showed him my book.  He said, "Rob Slade?  I know Rob Slade.  I know this book.  I didn't know he was *related* to you."  My parents didn't know that another of my friends had had the book accepted as a standard text for college level security courses in that country.

Whenever one of my books was published, Gloria held a "book launch" party for the family, and I would give out my "writers copies" of the book to the family.  Gloria's family always got into the spirit of the thing.  My family always seemed quite bemused by the proceedings.

Previous: https://fibrecookery.blogspot.com/2024/06/mgg-524-hwyd-guarding-and-writing.html

Introduction and ToC: https://fibrecookery.blogspot.com/2023/10/mgg-introduction.html

Next: https://fibrecookery.blogspot.com/2024/06/mgg-526-hwyd-kevins-on-tonight-write-up.html

Mail as reminder

I tend to keep my email messages as a reminder.  A reminder of things that I may want to refer to later, or a reminder of things that I want to get done.  Maybe not exactly a to-do list, but things that I should think about doing, or taking on as projects.  Sometimes I keep stuff in email that I am working on, but haven't completed.  And, of course, very often when it is completed, I don't necessarily go back and delete the reminder.

So, of course, occasionally I have to go back and make sure that I have deleted stuff that I have dealt with, and clean out my email.  I've actually got two backups in this regard: the email account which I currently use the most, and which is web-based (which is not my preference, but a couple of moves, and required changes of ISP, meant that I had to change the way that I do my email).  I leave a fair amount of stuff in there.  I should probably take more care about cleaning that out, because the web-based account means that other systems tied to this account (like the online drive, which I use for transferring the video files for the CISSP seminar) can get pretty close to the quota sometimes.  But that's because of the video files, and the email files, even with at least three years worth of email in it, still gets nowhere near the quota.

But I have also set up a secondary backup for email, which uses my original and preferred email user agent, and is, therefore, sitting on my home computer.  I also back this up regularly, so I've got backups of backups.  (But, as I always say in business continuity planning, redundant backup is never redundant when you need it.)

Anyway, I was going through this, older, backup file email system, trying to make sure that I was cleaning up things, and, actually, starting at about the time that I moved to Port Alberni.  It was interesting to see stuff that I still *do* want to keep, for no particular reason, and also getting rid of things which referred to projects which I had completed, and didn't even remember that I had completed.  I did find a couple of references that could be useful for a current project, and I'll be dealing with them later.  I've sent myself an email to remind myself to do that.

But I also found something, from about three months after I got here, that I probably need to work on.  So I'll be working on that.  And, like I say, the redundant back up here, which most people would think completely ridiculous, is not redundant if you need it.

Job 27:5

I will not agree that you are right.  Until my dying day, I won’t give up my integrity.

Proof positive that *nobody* who was complaining about the lack of communication at the general meeting yesterday reads the newsletter

We had our (bi-monthly, and *that* was the issue) general meeting of the Sunshine Club.  The big deal for that meeting was the resolution to amend the by-laws.  The by-laws currently state that we have to have five general meetings per year.  It's hard to get enough people out for a quorum, so most of those meetings have pretty mcuh nothing of significance in them.  So we wanted to reduce the number.  To three.  The wording of the by-law says that we *can* have as many meetings as we want, but we have to have a minimum.

Oh, boy.  First off, nobody was objecting.  We've talked about the change for the last three general meetings.  We've posted notices about it in the newsletter.  And, when we first moved it, it seemed nobody was *going* to object.

And then somebody got up and said it was hard to communicate with the Board.  And, all of a sudden, a while bunch of people thought that was suddenly a big deal, and that we *couldn't* cut down the number of meetings, because it was so hard to communicate with the Board.  (I mean, nobody talks to us *anyway*.)  We pointed out that we have the newsletter.  We have the office.  Anybody concerned about anything can send us email, or drop by the office and leave us a note about their concerns.  We have the Facebook group.  (Which has been joined by only sixty out of seven hundred and thirty members.)  And then, suddenly, they wanted to join the Facebook group, and how *exactly* did they find the group.  I, off the top of my head, could not remember the precise wording of the group name, and I *know* that Facebook is not terribly helpful or useful in that regard.

In the end, the by-law change did pass, and it wasn't even a near-run thing.

But I went home and looked up the newsletter for something.  And, lo and behold, there was my description of the fact that the club had a Facebook page.  Complete with specific details not only of what it was called, but the actual URL you needed.

You know, if you want communication, sometimes you have to learn to read ...

Nehemiah 13:14

Remember me for this, my God, and do not blot out what I have so faithfully done for the house of my God and its responsibilities.

MGG - 5.24 - HWYD - Guarding and writing

I'm not sure whether this should go in the chapter on work stories, or in the chapter about Gloria.  It involves both.

A few years after we got married, I ran out of information technology jobs.  Well, not completely.  I did get a few contracts over the intervening years, but my main, and most regular, source of income was as a security guard

This actually worked out fairly well, in the end.  For a number of reasons.  I, because I worked as a security guard know an awful lot more about physical security than most of my colleagues in information security.  In fact, when I went to get my CISSP certification, I had to use the experience in physical security as the reference for work experience, which was, at that time, less complex than it is now.  (Although the complexity, now, does make it possible to tweak your description of your work to fit just about any domain in the new security domains, and so it may be that it's easier to get your work experience, nowadays.)

But, working as a security guard also meant that I had a lot of time, during the shifts, when I was just sitting around.  There were, of course, rounds to make, at set times, and various things to check.  But security guarding is, primarily, just being there, to observe, and (possibly primarily), to be observed as a security presence.  (Actually, a number of the shifts that I had over the years that I worked as a security guard, and particularly when I was assigned to a bank, tended to be just being there, and being seen.)

But, as I say, much of the time it was just being on site, doing the rounds, and having a fair amount of time in between rounds.  I was still doing the book reviews.  I was also writing up my research into computer viruses, and posting this, piecemeal, on the Internet.  I, at one point, expressed, to Gloria, my frustration about having all of this time to read, but not having access to a computer to write out my reviews, and my research results.  Gloria offered to type it up.  If I wrote it out long hand, she would type it in to the computer.  Then I could edit it, and send it out.

I was initially quite hesitant to take her up on her offer.  Now, Gloria can type extremely fast, and my scribblings, even with my terrible handwriting, wouldn't take her awfully long to transcribe.  But, at this point, I didn't see an awful lot of purpose in what I was doing.  It was more of a hobby than anything else, and although I had vague ideas of publication, at some point, it really didn't seem to me important enough to take up Gloria's time.  However, she said that it wouldn't be much of an imposition, and she was quite willing to do it to help me, so eventually I accepted her offer.

Gloria had had interesting experiences with typing up other people's dictation.  Some people, like her father, really had a problem with Gloria correcting *anything*, including spelling and grammatical mistakes, which were clearly erroneous.  Some of the bosses that she had worked for had been more open to her corrections and amendments.  So, initially, Gloria was very hesitant to make any corrections to my material.  And, of course, I, used to the fact that if anybody pointed out in errors with my text, that I was the one who had to rewrite it, in order to correct it, was not, initially, the most receptive person to correction.  But I had already realized that with a computer, and a word processor, the grunt work of making corrections on text was much reduced, and so I was already, when dealing with computerized text, much more amenable to making corrections.

So, extremely tentatively, Gloria started making suggestions for corrections.  I have repeated my joke about my advice to those who want to write books, to the effect that, when you find a good copy editor, you marry her.  As noted, this is really more of a comment on the availability, and value, of copy editors, and the skill, or lack thereof, that most of them have.  I very quickly found out that, if Gloria challenged me on anything about grammar or spelling, she was probably right.  And, as I say, when I married Gloria I had no idea that I wanted to write books, or was going to write books.  So the comment about marrying your copy editor, really does not apply to Gloria and myself.

But, as Gloria made suggestions and edits, and realized that I did not fly off the handle like her father had, and I was not absolutely married to my sacred and holy text, she started making more extensive editorial comments.  Eventually, I did manage to get a laptop computer, a Compaq Aero.  (I got it second hand, and it was even cheaper because it had a Spanish keyboard, and a Spanish language version of DOS and Windows.  We referred to it as "Jorge.")  Even after I was able to take a computer with me to my shifts, and type up my own reviews, and my own material in regards to computer virus research, I still submitted the text to Gloria for editing.  Not just in terms of copy editting, but because Gloria was able to edit at all seven level levels of editing function and management, up to and including developmental editing.  Gloria improved my writing.  Not simply because of the edits that she made to the text, but that, as I reviewed her edits, and suggestions about my writing styles, that I realized some of the mistakes that I made consistently, and took steps to correct those errors.  It made my writing better.  This material, that I am producing now, the memoirs, the sermons, the blog postings, and other content, are simply not as good as my writing was when Gloria was around to review it.

So, Gloria's assistance, initially just with typing the material in, encouraged me to produce more materials, which could be posted on to the Internet.  In addition, it provided me with a body of material, which became the bulk of my first book.  Having produced enough for a first chapter, I submitted that chapter to a number of publishers, because of all of my contacts, because of all of the book reviewing that I had been doing.  And, two of the publishers expressed interest in publishing the book.

Previous: https://fibrecookery.blogspot.com/2024/06/mgg-523-hwyd-youre-much-taller-on.html

Introduction and ToC: https://fibrecookery.blogspot.com/2023/10/mgg-introduction.html

Next: https://fibrecookery.blogspot.com/2024/06/mgg-525-hwyd-my-folks-and-my-books.html

Terrible

Her: How are you?

Me: Terrible.

Her: Just the way you like it!

In what possible universe do you translate "terrible" as "just the way you like it"?  I am a grieving widower, and a depressive, and I'm *surrounded* by people who can, when I say I'm terrible, say "just the way you like it!"

I wish I were dead ...

I think I have mentioned that someone opined that the reason that I am here in Port Alberni, undergoing all this grief, and being open, and honest, and vulnerable, about it, is to encourage the congregants of the churches of Port Alberni to be more open, and honest, and vulnerable.    If so, I am signally failing in fulfilling God's purpose in having me here.

Psalm 51:17

My sacrifice, O God, is a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart you will not despise.

MGG - 5.23 - HWYD - You’re much taller on VaxNotes.

Once upon a time I was involved with an organization that had members all across Canada, and, indeed, around the world.  I was working with one individual, who knew far more about the internals of communications for the systems that we were using, on a project involved with getting the organization access to the Internet.  He knew the internals; I knew how the Internet worked.  (Yes, my child, there was networking before the Internet.)  The organization did hold regular meetings, but for two years we worked together, but never, as it happened, attended the same meetings.  So we had never met face to face.  Finally, we did attend the same meeting.  Because of the fact that so many of us worked, and lived, in various places, the name tags that we had for these meetings were very large, with our names very prominently displayed in large type.  As I was entering one room a person was coming out.  He looked at my name tag, and then looked at me, and then looked at my name tag, and then looked at me, and then looked at my name tag, and finally said, "You know, you're much *taller* on Notes ..."

Previous: https://fibrecookery.blogspot.com/2024/06/mgg-522-hwyd-and-everyone-walked-out.html

Introduction and ToC: https://fibrecookery.blogspot.com/2023/10/mgg-introduction.html

Next: https://fibrecookery.blogspot.com/2024/06/mgg-524-hwyd-guarding-and-writing.html

Sore 2

Wednesday, I did a lot of walking, even though I didn't really realize it at the time.  Google Fit, when I happen to look at it, alerted me to the fact that I had walked a long way, and therefore had gotten a lot of exercise.  I was quite stiff and sore at the end of the day.  Thursday I did an awful lot of work.  I was, by the end of the day, even sorer.  I even drove to the Community Policing meeting, because I was so sore.  However, when I looked at Google Fit, it didn't count swinging a pulaski, or bending down to get the lowest possible joint to cut off broom (and then bending down *again* to pick up broom), as exercise.  It just counted steps.  So, Thursday, although I suspect I did an awful lot more work, Google Fit didn't see fit to give me any credit for much of that exercise.

Job 35:6,7

If you do something that is wrong, it does not hurt God.  Even if you do many wrong things, it does nothing to him.  If you are righteous, that does nothing to help God.  He does not receive anything that he needs from you.

MGG - 5.22 - HWYD - and everyone walked out …

These two stories are related.  And, as I realized as I was thinking about them, occurred within two months of each other.

I was working with a group presenting a conference.  I was part of the organization of the conference, and had not been slated to speak.  However, at the last minute, one of the speakers, on the last day of the conference, and in the second last speaking time slot, had to drop out.  Therefore, at the last minute, I was parachuted into a speaking slot at the conference.

The room where I was due to speak was not, actually, in the main venue for the conference.  It was in one of the alternate venues, which we had had to book in order to get a sufficient number of rooms for the number of tracks that we had in the conference.  I was in a room that was rather bare, as it was primarily a ballroom, but did have possibly the largest seating capacity outside of the halls for the keynote addresses.

When I showed up, I was gratified to note that there were a number of people attending my presentation.  As I started to speak, and other people were able to get to the venue from the main conference building, that number increased.  And increased.  Eventually, every chair in this rather large room was filled.  And then people stand started standing around the walls and at the back of the room.  Ultimately I was speaking to over 700 people.  When I came to the end of my time slot, having finished the presentation, and started doing questions and answers, I noted that the time had expired, and that another speaker was due to speak in the next time slot in that room.  The moderator for the room called out, from the back, that the next speaker had not yet shown up, so I should continue.  I did.  Eventually the moderator called out that the next speaker had arrived, and so I thanked everyone, and left.  Most of the audience left when I did.  I felt rather bad for the next speaker, for whom it must have been a bit disheartening that she was speaking to a much smaller crowd.

I have had similar experiences speaking at conferences over the years.  I know that there are people who teach more effectively than I do, and I know that there are speakers who are much more entertaining than I am.  But I'm no slouch.  I am a teacher.  I am a presenter.  As a presenter I know a number of interesting topics, and, even when the topics are technically complex, I have been able to find ways to present them to a wide variety of audiences, and still hold the interest of the audience.

This was about four years after we got married.  And, it was about at that time that Gloria's parents had their 50th wedding anniversary.  Gloria had planned for over two years for this event, and did an absolutely terrific job arranging the anniversary party.  One of the things that she did, as part of the presentation for the anniversary party, was to sing the song that her parents considered "their" song, in the way couples do.  Gloria introduced the song, of course, and what it was, and what meaning it had.  Her presentation was absolutely perfect.  It didn't go on too long, and covered just enough to explain the significance of this song and why it was included.  She also perfectly captured her mother's character while explaining the situation with an anecdote from her youth.  Her timing, her choice of words, her choice of anecdote: all were perfect.  It was a perfect introduction.

Gloria was a better storyteller, and a better presenter, then I ever was, or ever will be.  This is not easy for me to admit.  I am the teacher.  I am the published author.  I am the person who presents at international conferences.  I'm no slouch.  I can hold an audience.  I can hold a wide variety of audiences.  But I'm not as good as Gloria.  And, since Gloria died, it has also become apparent that I am not as good a writer without Gloria's editing and support.

Previous: https://fibrecookery.blogspot.com/2024/06/mgg-521-hwyd-decus-symposium.html

Introduction and ToC: https://fibrecookery.blogspot.com/2023/10/mgg-introduction.html

Next: https://fibrecookery.blogspot.com/2024/06/mgg-523-hwyd-youre-much-taller-on.html

The second best view in Port Alberni

Psalm 8:9

Oh Lord, our Lord, how majestic is thy name in all the earth!

The best is the enemy of the good

When we go out Broombusting, a lot of people tend to have suggestions like, "You should make a neater pile!"  Or, "The pile should be further from the road!"  When people know that I do speed watch with Community Policing, they tend to suggest where we *should* be speedwatching, rather than where we are.  Talking about the trail maintenance crew, I get a lot of people saying that we should be doing major earth-moving projects, rather than just killing sword fern.

To which my response tends to be, "Good idea!  Why don't you get in here and show us how it's done?"

I have always felt that Chesterton's famous quote about if a job is worth doing, it is worth doing badly, had a lot of value in it.  (Although I *do* tend to think that the Christian church has taken it *entirely* too much to heart, and is possibly even using it as an instruction.)

However, in my old age I am gaining an entirely new appreciation for the concept.  In Voltaire's Dictionnaire Philosophique, he wrote, "Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien."  The best is the enemy of the good, or, less literally, the perfect is the enemy of the good.

Or, in slightly different wording, never let what you *can't* do prevent you from doing what you *can* do.

(I had thought that I would have posted, someplace, a thought that I have had about volunteering, but I can't seem to find it.  When I am in such grief, depression, loneliness, and pain, it seems weird that I spend [waste?] my time helping others.  But it relates to this idea of never let what you *can't* do prevent you from doing what you *can* do.  I can't do anything about the fact that none of the churches of Port Alberni seem to have any concept of pastoral care.  I can't do anything about the fact that nobody in Port Alberni cares whether I live or die.  But I *can* reduce the sum total suffering on earth by keeping people from killing each other [Community Policing], getting people what they need in a disaster [ESS], comforting the bereaved [hospice society], having trails to walk on [trail maintenance], avoid the consequences of invasive species [Broombusters], provide programs for the churches [JFF], provide outreach opportunities for the churches [security seminars and public arts walks], keep the old folks off the streets [Sunshine Club], and build the future leaders of my [ex?] profession [CISSP socmed seminar].)

Proverbs 12:25

Worry makes the heart heavy.  But a kind word cheers it up.

Just keep doing it ...

https://www.instagram.com/reel/C76ahNTie74/

https://fibrecookery.blogspot.com/2022/06/getting-on-with-it.html

The most pedestrian-unfriendly city in the entire world - paving

We have a strata property.  There is a lovely sidewalk on the east side of the property, and a lovely sidewalk on the north side of the property.  The south and west side of our property abut lands owned by different developers.

However, where the east and north sides of our property meet (at the intersection of two streets), for the past year and a half (which is ever since the construction was completed) (well, and even really before that), there is just a bunch of loose gravel.  This loose gravel actually extends a fair way out into the streets.  And it's been that way ever since the construction was completed and we moved in.

As the only pedestrian in town, every morning I have a choice: do I walk down the middle of the street, or do I walk down the lovely sidewalk, and then have to pick my way over the loose gravel when I get to the intersection?  Most of the time I pick walking down the middle of the street.  It seems to be safer.

Well, a couple of days ago the city works people showed up!  I was terribly excited!  At last they were going to finish the corner of the sidewalk!  I was interested to see how well they would do with putting in a wheelchair ramp at the corner!

And then they left.  Having done, as far as I could tell, absolutely nothing.  And then I noticed that the outer reaches of one corner of the loose gravel had been filled.  Sort of.  They put an asphalt patch, abutting the asphalt on the road, but simply filling with asphalt a pothole that had been there for quite some time.  It seemed a pretty pointless exercise.

Oh ho!  But not so fast!  Today, they were back!  And they built the corner sidewalk!

Out of asphalt.

(While dictating this, Gboard decided that I had said "assholes."  I hadn't, but it was an oddly appropriate error.)

So, we have two lovely concrete sidewalks, joined with a bunch of asphalt.

Oh, but not so fast!  They don't have two sidewalks joined with asphalt!  The two sidewalks *aren't*, in fact, joined!

(Let's see some wheelchair-bound person use *that*!)

Like I keep saying, Port Alberni is the most pedestrian-unfriendly city in the entire world ...

MGG - 5.21 - HWYD - DECUS Symposium

I suppose I need to explain DECUS.

The Digital Equipment Computer Users Society was the user group for those with PDP 8, PDP 10, PDP 11, and Vax, computers.  These were all mini-computers: the transition between the mainframes of IBM and it's ilk, and the microcomputers of Apple and the IBM PC.  Before the advent of the microcomputer, and, in many cases, well into the period when microcomputers were starting to make an impact, mini-computers still held sway in small and medium size businesses.

As usual, it was doing technical support for an enterprise that got me in contact with DECUS.  It was first in a government department, which had a Vax mini-computer, but also a Rainbow, DEC's entry into the PC/microcomputer market, that got me connected.  Someone in that office, prior to my arrival, had joined DECUS, and was getting the newsletters, for both the Vancouver Local Users Group (or VANLUG), and the Rainforest Review, which was a local user group for Rainbow users.

(I was writing some early material on viruses at the time, and there was a fax number for the editor of The Rainforest Review.  I faxed him one of the articles that I was writing.  This surprised him greatly when it showed up on his desk because it was the first unsolicited, undemanded, and unhounded article that he had ever received.  And so it was a it was a big deal.  That was my introduction to Vern, and Vern and I have remained friends do this very day.)

I started submitting articles, and, shortly thereafter, with a switch to the company where I was managing the technical support department, got more closely involved, since this company's product was a terminal emulator software, specializing in the VT100 terminal which was the preferred terminal for Vax users.

As I say, I became more involved with the organization, and, shortly, was on the Leadership Committee for DECUS Canada.  In this regard, the DECUS Canada office asked me to start up some SIGs, or Special Interest Groups, to add to the LUGs, or local user groups, which were common across the country.  I undertook the task, but then found that there was absolutely no documentation about how to start a SIG, or, indeed, what a SIG was.

In some frustration, communicating by mailing lists with the rest of the Leadership Committee, I asked well, if I wanted to start, say, a security SIG, how would I do that?

I didn't get the answer I was looking for.  What I did get was a whole bunch of people on the Leadership Committee jumping up and saying, "Oh!  I'd join that!"

DECUS, both in the United States, and in Canada, put on an annual conference, called just Symposium.  The next Symposium was coming up shortly, and, as a member of the Leadership Committee, I was invited to come along.  I decided to try and form a security SIG at the next Symposium, in Calgary, and see what happened.  (This was also the first symposium that I attended, and the one where I got a pretty full house for my presentation, and the person after me didn't.)

We did advertise, and had a meeting, starting up the security SIG.  Predictably, everyone wanted me to be the president of the security SIG.  I refused, but, knowing something of the needs of a new group, I was willing to be the newsletter editor.  So, I took on that position, and started asking people what they wanted to see in terms of contents for the newsletter.

Everybody, universally, had the same answer.  They wanted a bibliography.  An annotated bibliography that would tell them what books were worth reading on what subjects.

So I started asking people if they knew of a bibliography.  Most didn't.  One did, and sent it to me.  It was pathetic.  It was simply a list of books.  No annotations about the topic, or whether they were any good or not.  But it did list the publishers.

So, hying to my local public library (one of my favorite places in all the world, you will recall), I found a guide to publishers, including contact information, such as mailing addresses, and fax numbers.  I then wrote up a boilerplate request for review copies of books, into which I had dropped lists of books, and sent all of this to the DECUS Canada office.  I asked them to get the begging letters typed up on letterhead, and send them to the publishers.  Hey presto, review copies started to arrive.  I started to review them.

More review copies started to arrive.  Many more books than I could review in each edition of the newsletter, even though I started to publish about half a dozen reviews.  In each edition of the newsletter.

So, I started publishing the reviews in relevant mailing lists and Usenet News groups, on the Internet.  I started posting the reviews on a website.  I started posting the reviews on any website that would allow me to.  And I kept reviewing as many review copies as I could.  And I kept, as I got notification of more security books, sending begging letters to the DECUS Canada office, with the request that they forward them to the publishers.

I published dozens of reviews in the security SIG newsletter.  But I published hundreds, and eventually thousands, on the Internet.

This was not quite ten years before I sat the CISSP exam.  By the time I did sit the exam, I had reviewed the majority of the books upon which the exam was based.  (When the questions for the exam go through the process, they have to have at least two references in the source security literature validating the answer that is the correct answer.)  That was one thing.  The other thing was that when the time came to write my own book, I knew publishers to contact that I knew would be interested in technical topics and had published in this field.  So that experience of creating the SIG, although it seems very minor, influenced a lot of what I did in my professional life, even though a direct correlation really wasn't there.  It's very similar to my experience with reviewing the antiviral software.  I never made any money out of that, directly, but in a secondary, roundabout way, I did.  Later we'll get to the patent trolls and all that legal stuff, and that work was all based on the fact that I had reviewed all of the software, and had retained copies of the software that I could provide as evidence.

Previous: https://fibrecookery.blogspot.com/2024/06/mgg-520-hwyd-we-like-it-that-way.html

Introduction and ToC: https://fibrecookery.blogspot.com/2023/10/mgg-introduction.html

Next: https://fibrecookery.blogspot.com/2024/06/mgg-522-hwyd-and-everyone-walked-out.html