Information is Power: Google and Wikipedia protest anti-piracy bills

I don't follow politics real close but yesterday as I looked up something on Wikipedia, I noticed that they had a message saying they would be blacking out the site for a full day in protest to some anit-piracy bills proposed by the US. It was well covered in the news last night as well and now I see that Google is speaking up (along with others). What strikes me more then anything is how powerful these organizations. He who holds the information definitely holds the power.

Let me be upfront in that I signed the petition Google has posted and fully agree that government should not be censoring the internet. That being said, what I find most fascinating in all of this is the impact and reach that these sites have on our lives. It will be interesting to see how many people sign the petition but my guess is that it turns into an unprecedented number that the Senate will have to take quite seriously. Really Google, Facebook, Twitter, Craigslist, Wikipedia and other have so much information that is relied upon by so many that at in a matter of hours they seem to have seemingly made a huge statement. Imagine the impact if they took more drastic measures. It's almost scary to think of.

Of course we could go back to looking things up in the hard bound encyclopedia, using the newspaper classifieds, and communicating with our friends via phone or snail-mail but who wants to do that. I'm guessing not even the politicians behind these highly scrutinized bills would be in favor of that. Fortunately our 1st amendment rights on the internet will likely stay in tact thanks to Power of Information possessed by these large websites. Let's just hope that as we continue to become more dependent on them, that Google's original "Don't be evil" motto is not forgotten.

Catholic Mass English Translation Changes: The good the bad and the ugly

Recently the English translation used for the Catholic Mass got a make over. Many of the prayers we Catholics pray together now sound a little different then they have for my entire lifetime. Needless to say this is going to take some getting used to. It's also caused plenty of discussion as to why these changes were made and if they are indeed for the better. After talking about it with my wife and giving it some thought here's the humble opinion of one Catholic dad on the new text we use at each Mass.

The Good:
I think the best thing is that the changes make me think a bit more about what I'm saying. Repeating the same phrases the same way for approximately 30 years has made the words come out almost as easily as breathing and it's easy to not really ponder their meaning. Prayer of course should be a conversation. So changing phrases like "And also with you," to "And with your spirit," has helped me focus on the what I'm saying a bit more which is definitely a good thing.

Also it's been widely said that the new translation of the original Latin text to English is more literal. I don't know Latin so I have to take the experts word for that but being more accurate sounds like a good thing overall. Many of the prayers that are modeled after Bible passages, now match the text we are used to hearing better. I definitely like that. Instead of "Lord, I am not worthy to receive you," we now say "Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof" just as centenarian declared to Jesus in Matthew's Gospel. Also, I noticed while watching the Peanuts Christmas special that the prayer we refer to as the Gloria in the Catholic Mass, more closely matches what Linus says as he tells Charlie Brown what Christmas is all about. I remember wondering why the two were so close yet different when I was a kid and now my kids don't have to go through the same confusion :-) Ok that's not a huge deal but it something.

The Bad:
A few of the words might be more accurate but I really don't know what they mean and I doubt the majority of Catholics in the US do either. The most glaring example of this is in the Creed where we now say "consubstantial with the Father." Previously this phrase was "one in being with the Father."

Also, I would argue that just like a good song isn't too specific in it's lyrics in a way that it can speak to wider range of emotions and circumstances, some of the previous and less literal translations were more poetic and thought provoking. As I heard one explanation of the two translations say, they both approached the original text in a different manor.

The Ulgy...well that might be a bit harsh I guess:
So much of the richness of our Catholic Faith lies in the traditions that we follow. In a way it seems almost criminal to change things that have become such a part of our lives. Obviously it's good that I wasn't around for the Vatican II changes as that had to be a huge adjustment for Catholics as they went from having very little part in the Mass and it being all in Latin to partaking more in the prayers as everything was said in English. Overall however, I'm quite certain that the Holy Spirit guided that change just as He has this one. Once we stop stumbling through these responses they will likely add a lot of richness back into the text we pray.

In the end, all of the speculation and discussion certainly seems to be much adu about nothing. It just isn't that big of a deal that were using slightly different words to in the end say basically the same thing. At least it has people talking about the words we pray though and thinking a bit more about their meaning. And for the team being we all get to chuckle a bit as we learn the new words.

Fascination with Sherlock Holmes

I’ve always been fascinated with Sherlock Holmes. In fact I believe a collection of Sherlock Holmes stories (can’t remember the exact name) is one of the only books I’ve ever read from start to finish. Sadly that probably says more about me then the book but the point remains that there is something quite fascinating about a person who is so observant and intelligent that he can see things that others can’t and accurately predict future events with this information. Of course my wife and I had to go see the new movie, “Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows” now that it is in theaters and we just as impressed with this film as we were with the previous Sherlock Holmes film. Apparently we aren’t the only ones as I’ve heard quite a bit of buzz about the movie. Rather than rehash the plot I’d like to take a few lines of text to ask what makes this film and really this fictional character so interesting to people.

I could save my conclusion to this question for the end but what’s the fun in that. In our modern day world we are a very immediate people. Google, Wikipedia and Youtube can tell us information about almost anything we can imagine. It’s truly the information age. I would argue that part of the Sherlock Holmes allure is that he is like a walking encyclopedia in an age where information was not so readily available. Being able to think and solve problems without a computer is kind of becoming a lost art. There is something attractive about that aspect. Could we survive in a Google-free world?

The other aspect that I enjoy however is how Holmes knowledge comes at the price of his ability to enjoy life. He analyzes everything to point where life seems to be a mere game or exercise that he is going through the motions for. While Dr. Watson respects Holmes’s intellectual gifts, it could easily be said that Watson has found a way to enjoy life more and thus possesses something that Holmes cannot grasp. Together they make for quite the dynamic duo that is as entertaining if not more than the overall plot.

Dumbphone or Smartphone?

After a recent family Christmas party, my wife asked me and a surprising question: "Do you think we should get iPhones?" What surprised me is that she is rarely the sort of person to care much about technology but it was apparent that seeing other family members with all the latest iPads, iPhones and Droids got her wondering if getting one of these devises would make her life easier. "What does an iPhone do?" she inquired.

Basically an iPhone or any Smartphone's big feature is that you have web access from the palm of your hand. This can be quite handy at times for sure but as we discussed some of the features we both came to the conclusion that there isn't any big reason for us to go out and upgrade our current dumbphones. Here's a breakdown of some features that we talked about and why they would be nice but not needed:

• 24/7 web access.
  Pros: never without the internet
  Cons: have high-speed internet at the office and home and would typically prefer a laptop and keyboard over using the internet on a phone.
• Easily look up addresses and phone numbers while traveling
  Pros: Makes this task easy
  Cons: Current phones can quickly look things up by texting a name or category along with a zip code or city/state to GOOGLE. And it's free.
• Built in camera
  Pros: never without a camera (still or video)
  Cons: Camera quality and response time is still not as good as the small Canon camera and Sony camcorder that we currently use. So we wouldn't really be replacing these.
• Built in GPS
  Pros: Never lost and maps are always current.
  Cons: Already have a standalone GPS that suites our needs without a subscription fee.
• Built in Music Player
  Pros: would be nice to always have my iPod with me. And my wife would enjoy this feature as she doesn't have a music player currently.
  Cons: Already own my iPod and have it set up with all my music.
• Facebook access
  Pros: what's not to like there. My wife would especially love this.
  Cons: Already get notifications and can post to facebook via tex message for free.

Plus it's nice not worrying about the kids breaking our current phones or someone stealing them. If we went out and got iPhones we probably would need to be a little more careful with them. Also people always talk about the battery life not being great. Add all that up and we still can't justify giving our cell phone company more money for these added features. I'm sure we'll eventually make the jump but we are definitely slow adapters and for now just can't see that one feature we can't live without. Am I missing something?

Jason Marquis: No ace but fills a need

Let's face it. Everyone would love for the Twins to have found an ace up there sleeve that they could have played next year in their starting rotation, but was never realistically going to happen and it might be for the best. I don't know much about Jason Marquis except for the few articles I've been reading on him since he signed with the Twins, but he obviously is not a flashy pitcher who will rack up the Ks and strike fear into opposing teams. Once you get past that however, I think Twins fans need to take a look at the positive things Jason does bring to the 2012 Twins' team.

• He's been seen as an innings machine in the past. With Carl Pavano being the only Twins starter to throw over 200 innings last year, it was an obvious need to find someone who is likely to reach that accomplishment. The best thing about this is it keeps the bullpen fresher so in a way the Twins just upgraded their bullpen by finding a way to have them throw less innings.
• The bullpen is also upgraded due to the fact that Brian Duensing will be moved from their from the starting rotation. He likely will be an improvement over a lot of the pitchers who were their last season.
• Marquis is also a guy that sounds like a good character guy. Of course this is overstated often about players and we have no way to know how true it is, but he sounds to be a student of the game (very important for pitching) and one who gives 100% playing through pain at times and not making excuses. Last years team lacked leadership some have hinted and you want people like this in any business or team. I'm fairly comfortable saying that Jason will be good in the clubhouse and especially for the younger pitchers.
• The price is right. I don't like the Twins self imposed salary crap more then anyone else but given the financial constraints they were working in, they didn't have cash to spend on a huge strikeout starting pitcher. 3 million for one year won't break the bank and let's be honest. A lot of things have to break right for the Twins to be in contention this year. It's not the time to tie up a lot of money in a long term deal for a pitcher. That would likely handicap them moving forward.

Pitching is always a tricky thing to predict. Unless you have Johan Santana or Mariano Rivera it's hard to know what you are going to get. Francisco Liriano is still the Twins best shot at a true ace and while I highly doubt that will happen, he was actually a pretty decent pitcher in 2010. Who knows how things will shake out this year but I'm actually more confident in Jason Marquis at this point so that itself is a good thing. Let's cut the guy a little slack. This could tern out to be another unspectacular but useful signing.