Posts
Last week, the CEO of the corporation I work for announced they are going to make cuts (including closing entire facilities) in order to lower costs and focus more resources on fewer game titles. The following day, the Orlando studio president met with all of us. He told us that while no specific decisions had been made yet, there would likely be cuts here even though our is (by far) the most profitable facility in the global corporation. More will be revealed after the new year.
"Ha ha ha!" I can hear the Universe belly-laughing at me. "Silly boy, there is no such thing as security. There is only paying attention to what is happening in the moment, following your heart, and doing your best." Well, to be fair to me, I lived through the dot-com crash so I chose the way I chose as a gesture toward "learning from the past." As if. As if the past were ever a reliable gauge for the future. (c.f. Real Estate marketing in 2006, "Historically, housing prices have always gone up.") I'm not saying I should have gone with a Silicon Valley startup instead or even that I'm expecting to be laid off. But my imagination that a large corporation would automatically be a safer bet in troubled times has not borne out to be true. As far as I know, the companies I turned down have not announced cutbacks.
An NFL football coach once called a "trick" play that fell apart badly - so badly in fact that the opposing team was able to steal the ball and run the other way for a score. After the game, the press asked the coach how he felt about that play. "You know," he answered, "It's one of those things where if it works, you feel like a genius and if it doesn't work, you feel like... well, let's just say I don't feel like a genius right now."
Sunday, December 14, 2008
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Florida Bound
I have decided to accept the employment offer of a large computer game corporation. I will be starting at their office in Orlando, Florida on Monday.
I had a couple of other offers available in Silicon Valley, both of them start-up gaming companies without a released product or current revenue. Although I definitely see myself returning to Silicon Valley, now is not the time. I am certain the recession that has just begun in the US will last a good two to three years. My judgement is that this is neither the time to work for startups nor the time to move to a high cost-of-living region. One of my friends responded to this reasoning by exclaiming, "Who would have ever thought you would choose stability over opportunity?" This is a pretty good question. Let me say in response that I feel there is a time for every type of strategy. You won't find me choosing stability over opportunity in the future, when the NASDAQ and S&P500 indexes cross back above their 200-day moving average lines. But for now, it feels like the right thing to do.
A recruiter friend of mine who set up some of the interviews in California asked me, "If plans don't work in Silicon Valley, there are always other software companies to work for. But if your plans don't work in Orlando, who else can you work for down there?" Another good point. Cost-of-living trumps again. I'd rather sweat out a period between jobs in a city where you can share an apartment for $500 per month than in an area where that would run $750 per month. (again, given the current economic climate)
But the bottom line is, I'm not planning for contingencies if this job doesn't work out. I'm focusing on the idea that it will work out spectacularly. It will be the best job I've ever had and I'll be the best me in it I've ever been. There's a subtle difference in how to think about these things - it's OK to weigh the good against the bad while in the cloud of uncertainty, considering competing possibilities. Once you have crystalized your intelligence upon a course of action and made a commitment, however, I've learned it's best to focus your attention on the best outcome you intend to experience.
What you focus on expands. It grows to form the foreground of your experience.
So wish me luck!
I had a couple of other offers available in Silicon Valley, both of them start-up gaming companies without a released product or current revenue. Although I definitely see myself returning to Silicon Valley, now is not the time. I am certain the recession that has just begun in the US will last a good two to three years. My judgement is that this is neither the time to work for startups nor the time to move to a high cost-of-living region. One of my friends responded to this reasoning by exclaiming, "Who would have ever thought you would choose stability over opportunity?" This is a pretty good question. Let me say in response that I feel there is a time for every type of strategy. You won't find me choosing stability over opportunity in the future, when the NASDAQ and S&P500 indexes cross back above their 200-day moving average lines. But for now, it feels like the right thing to do.
A recruiter friend of mine who set up some of the interviews in California asked me, "If plans don't work in Silicon Valley, there are always other software companies to work for. But if your plans don't work in Orlando, who else can you work for down there?" Another good point. Cost-of-living trumps again. I'd rather sweat out a period between jobs in a city where you can share an apartment for $500 per month than in an area where that would run $750 per month. (again, given the current economic climate)
But the bottom line is, I'm not planning for contingencies if this job doesn't work out. I'm focusing on the idea that it will work out spectacularly. It will be the best job I've ever had and I'll be the best me in it I've ever been. There's a subtle difference in how to think about these things - it's OK to weigh the good against the bad while in the cloud of uncertainty, considering competing possibilities. Once you have crystalized your intelligence upon a course of action and made a commitment, however, I've learned it's best to focus your attention on the best outcome you intend to experience.
What you focus on expands. It grows to form the foreground of your experience.
So wish me luck!
Saturday, November 1, 2008
The Bigger Big Picture
One of the things I love about the age of the Internet is that we are no longer beholden to a single version of any given story. One who pays attention to this dynamic over a period of time comes to the conclusion that there is no one truth, no really objective voice out there. Unless you want to be content being spoon-fed by your favorite information provider, curiosity and intellectual rigor are required in order to come to reasonable, satisfying conclusions.
Take the current so-called economic "crisis". I have heard Barak Obama and other Democrats say that Republicans' penchant for deregulation has been the root cause of the irresponsible lending and opaque securitizing that led to our present difficulties. Interestingly enough, Republicans tried repeatedly in the last 15 years to increase regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, only to be blocked at every turn by Democrats. Why would Democrats block stricter regulation of these government sponsored enterprises? They blocked regulation because they felt they had fought hard to ensure fairer mortgage lending to Americans through the various incarnations of the Community Reinvestment Act. Tightening Freddie and Fanny's capitalization requirements would have required stricter lending policies which were seen at the time to be a euphemism for denying credit access to under-served portions of the population.
Why were Democrats concerned that stricter lending policies would put fair house ownership opportunity in danger? Because stricter lending laws _had_ been used for this purpose in the past. The Community Reinvestment Act was sponsored in 1977 to counteract the practice of something called "redlining". Until then, many lending institutions would literally draw lines around low-income communities on municipal maps in red pen and automatically deny mortgage applications from these areas. This lazy, crude strategy for financial risk management meant that lower income whites were able to get loans that middle or upper income blacks and latinos could not obtain. Which tends to piss you off if you happen to be in the latter category.
Obviously, we could continue further back in history to see more examples of this kind of back and forth, but these two snippets are enough for the point I'd like to make: In both of these cases (lenders unfairly redlining and politicians being unwilling to effectively regulate) we have a group of people who were paralyzed from doing what was clearly reasonable due to an irrational fear that any movement in the "opposite" direction would cause some kind of cascading domino effect to an undesired outcome. What is ironic is that, in both examples, it was not the perceived enemy, but their own misguided obstinance that produced an outcome they were hoping to avoid.
Bankers have no one to blame for disruptive community organizations like ACORN but themselves. Indeed, they produced them. And Congressional Democrats could do well to take to heart the words of one of their own, Rep. Arthur Davis of Alabama, who recently said, "Like a lot of my Democratic colleagues I was too slow to appreciate the recklessness of Fannie and Freddie. I defended their efforts to encourage affordable homeownership when in retrospect I should have heeded the concerns raised by their regulator in 2004. Frankly, I wish my Democratic colleagues would admit when it comes to Fannie and Freddie, we were wrong."
What I am interested in is that we as a nation (and as a species) make progress toward noticing this tendency to irrational obstinancy and interrupt the pattern. It is not sufficient in any particular circumstance to say, "This is the situation I find myself in, I guess I'll just perpetuate it." It takes guts and a determination to transcend the mental paths of least resistance so that we can create the kind of world we'd all rather have. But nothing less that this makes anything worthwile of us.
Take the current so-called economic "crisis". I have heard Barak Obama and other Democrats say that Republicans' penchant for deregulation has been the root cause of the irresponsible lending and opaque securitizing that led to our present difficulties. Interestingly enough, Republicans tried repeatedly in the last 15 years to increase regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, only to be blocked at every turn by Democrats. Why would Democrats block stricter regulation of these government sponsored enterprises? They blocked regulation because they felt they had fought hard to ensure fairer mortgage lending to Americans through the various incarnations of the Community Reinvestment Act. Tightening Freddie and Fanny's capitalization requirements would have required stricter lending policies which were seen at the time to be a euphemism for denying credit access to under-served portions of the population.
Why were Democrats concerned that stricter lending policies would put fair house ownership opportunity in danger? Because stricter lending laws _had_ been used for this purpose in the past. The Community Reinvestment Act was sponsored in 1977 to counteract the practice of something called "redlining". Until then, many lending institutions would literally draw lines around low-income communities on municipal maps in red pen and automatically deny mortgage applications from these areas. This lazy, crude strategy for financial risk management meant that lower income whites were able to get loans that middle or upper income blacks and latinos could not obtain. Which tends to piss you off if you happen to be in the latter category.
Obviously, we could continue further back in history to see more examples of this kind of back and forth, but these two snippets are enough for the point I'd like to make: In both of these cases (lenders unfairly redlining and politicians being unwilling to effectively regulate) we have a group of people who were paralyzed from doing what was clearly reasonable due to an irrational fear that any movement in the "opposite" direction would cause some kind of cascading domino effect to an undesired outcome. What is ironic is that, in both examples, it was not the perceived enemy, but their own misguided obstinance that produced an outcome they were hoping to avoid.
Bankers have no one to blame for disruptive community organizations like ACORN but themselves. Indeed, they produced them. And Congressional Democrats could do well to take to heart the words of one of their own, Rep. Arthur Davis of Alabama, who recently said, "Like a lot of my Democratic colleagues I was too slow to appreciate the recklessness of Fannie and Freddie. I defended their efforts to encourage affordable homeownership when in retrospect I should have heeded the concerns raised by their regulator in 2004. Frankly, I wish my Democratic colleagues would admit when it comes to Fannie and Freddie, we were wrong."
What I am interested in is that we as a nation (and as a species) make progress toward noticing this tendency to irrational obstinancy and interrupt the pattern. It is not sufficient in any particular circumstance to say, "This is the situation I find myself in, I guess I'll just perpetuate it." It takes guts and a determination to transcend the mental paths of least resistance so that we can create the kind of world we'd all rather have. But nothing less that this makes anything worthwile of us.
Friday, October 17, 2008
Back Into The Fray
Earlier this week, I concluded the self-evaluation begun during my wilderness getaway. After taking everything into account, I decided to pursue returning to full-time work as a software engineer. I love the work and it pays well. There is still surprisingly strong demand in the market for my skills and it never hurts to make hay while the sun shines. (as my farmer relations used to say)
My other major option, raising capital and starting a small business, is still an important goal for me. A good portion of my getaway was invested in creating a specific business plan, including estimating startup costs, on-going cashflow, expansion plans, etc for the venture I had in mind. This was a valuable exercise and the plan I created may, one day, be the plan I pursue.
During my previous years of employment, I did a good job saving money in retirement plans and I feel like that part of my financial picture is in good shape. So beginning with my next job, I intend to divert my savings into a taxable investment account that will be dedicated toward helping to fund future business ventures and investment real estate purchases. I hear it works best to have a good chunk of your own money on the line when you present an opportunity to invest to others.
This decision (returning to employment) will likely mean another geographic relocation for me. If that turns out to be true, it will also likely mark the end of a short but incredible romance. Yet I feel the magnetic pull of my capacity for greatness in this world, and it is not a force that my spirit is inclined to resist. When you're in on the secret that love is not scarce, it is abundant - well, it doesn't make things easy, but it does make them possible.
My other major option, raising capital and starting a small business, is still an important goal for me. A good portion of my getaway was invested in creating a specific business plan, including estimating startup costs, on-going cashflow, expansion plans, etc for the venture I had in mind. This was a valuable exercise and the plan I created may, one day, be the plan I pursue.
During my previous years of employment, I did a good job saving money in retirement plans and I feel like that part of my financial picture is in good shape. So beginning with my next job, I intend to divert my savings into a taxable investment account that will be dedicated toward helping to fund future business ventures and investment real estate purchases. I hear it works best to have a good chunk of your own money on the line when you present an opportunity to invest to others.
This decision (returning to employment) will likely mean another geographic relocation for me. If that turns out to be true, it will also likely mark the end of a short but incredible romance. Yet I feel the magnetic pull of my capacity for greatness in this world, and it is not a force that my spirit is inclined to resist. When you're in on the secret that love is not scarce, it is abundant - well, it doesn't make things easy, but it does make them possible.
Friday, October 10, 2008
A Different Lesson in Stock Market Humility
From an emotional point of view, I shouldn't have looked, I really shouldn't have.
But I did.
In the three day period since I sold DUG, it rocketed from the 42% gain I locked in, to a 95% gain from my original buy point. And it's still not showing signs of weakness.
Dad's voice in my mind is asking, "What did you learn?" and I've come up with an answer. If I had held on to the stock into the last half hour of the trading day (instead of selling it mid-afternoon) I would have been able to see a clearer picture of its behavior for the day. In DUG's case, this would have shown me that there was no clear sell signal and it is likely I wouldn't have sold.
Jesse Livermore, a famous (or infamous, to some) stock investor at the beginning of the 1900s used to say, "People fear when they should hope, and hope when they should fear." I used to think this was a kind of indictment on those other traders who are somehow weak. But now I see that he was just making an honest observation about how we all act sometimes.
T. Harv Eker writes about each person having a financial thermostat that is defined by his or her upper and lower financial comfort zones. If the person's financial situation goes below or above that range, he or she tends to subconsciously "correct" it so that the comfort zone is maintained. Evidently, my upper comfort zone for stock trading profits is somewhere around 42%. Well worth noticing.
But I did.
In the three day period since I sold DUG, it rocketed from the 42% gain I locked in, to a 95% gain from my original buy point. And it's still not showing signs of weakness.
Dad's voice in my mind is asking, "What did you learn?" and I've come up with an answer. If I had held on to the stock into the last half hour of the trading day (instead of selling it mid-afternoon) I would have been able to see a clearer picture of its behavior for the day. In DUG's case, this would have shown me that there was no clear sell signal and it is likely I wouldn't have sold.
Jesse Livermore, a famous (or infamous, to some) stock investor at the beginning of the 1900s used to say, "People fear when they should hope, and hope when they should fear." I used to think this was a kind of indictment on those other traders who are somehow weak. But now I see that he was just making an honest observation about how we all act sometimes.
T. Harv Eker writes about each person having a financial thermostat that is defined by his or her upper and lower financial comfort zones. If the person's financial situation goes below or above that range, he or she tends to subconsciously "correct" it so that the comfort zone is maintained. Evidently, my upper comfort zone for stock trading profits is somewhere around 42%. Well worth noticing.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
The McCain Nausea Reflex - Guilt By Association?
With the 2008 election coming up, I'm asking myself, "Who will best lead the USA as president in the next four years?" From where I sit, it's not as cut-and-dried a decision as one might think.
I am a believer in limited central government - as you might have guessed from this previous post. One of the reasons why I am so disappointed with the current US administration is that "W" won me over during his campaign in 2000 with his talk of "learning the lessons of Vietnam" and "reaching across the aisle". I had no idea the neo-conservative branch of the Republican party would render him into little more than a goofy-talking sock puppet mascot for their agenda of global economic and military supremacy. Yeah, this from a guy who bought the Iraq WMD argument and voted for "W" again in 2004.
Of the two major candidates, John McCain embodies my political and philosophic views more accurately. (of all cadidates, that would be Ron Paul) Yet, I am just as susceptible to a reaction of disgust for what we have all been through in the past eight years (let alone the shocking meltdown of the US financial system in recent weeks) as anyone else. In 1993, the Democratic leadership of the House of Representatives was implicated in a sordid fraud scheme that involved the House post office. That straw was enough to break the camel's back and give the House of Representatives a Republican majority for the first time in 40 years. 1980 gave us Reagan Democrats and I suspect 2008 will have its share of Obama Republicans.
And yet, I wonder, is all this reactionary decision-making serving us well? Taking a step back from the whole scene, it is highly unlikely that a John McCain presidency would look anything like "W"'s regime. He's not one of the Washington good ol' boys with a hundred butts to kiss, he wouldn't have a rabid war hawk with ties to the defense industry as a VP, and there isn't a snowball's chance in hell he (or any other Republican president for the next decade) will get a rubber-stamping legislature. Put simply, just because he voted the party line 90% of the time doesn't make him a "W" clone. It makes him a Republican. George H. Bush's presidency didn't look anything like Reagan's did before him.
A Democrat president with a Democrat-majority congress could lead to the kind of "We've got a mandate" mentality that leads to cures far worse than the diseases they intend to cure.
Well, I'll tip my hand. All I want for Christmas is some old-fashioned gridlock in Washington for the next four to eight years. Like the kind we had under Clinton, where congress would squash the president's agenda and then the president would veto congress's bills. As far as I'm concerned, that was a key contributor to the prosperity we experienced from 1995 to 2000. And if this somehow manages to suffocate the global military hegemony we've got going on (long after its purpose, winning the Cold War, died out) as well as atrophy the federal bureaucracy by oh, say one third to one half, that would be nice too. OK, now I'm really dreaming, but hey - why not?
See, my problem is, I'm just old enough to remember the reactions to oil, war, and power which swept Jimmy Carter into the presidency. Such a great smile. Such a thoughtful, gracious person. Such a disaster for the country, policy-wise. Whoops, that looks like guilt by association as well. Maybe I'll just stick to my guns and write in "Ron Paul" on my ballot.
Not Too Shabby
Recently, I blogged about holding on to a security during the US economic bailout crisis. I can now reveal that I was holding shares of DUG, the ultrashort ETF for US oil industry stocks. I sold my shares yesterday and locked in a 42% gain.
I was confident enough in the weakening demand for oil (due to turbulence in the general economy) that I did not check up on my position while I was out of town last week on my retreat. Yet I knew the market might rally once the wall street bailout went through. It turns out that the turmoil in the European credit markets bought my ETF a little more upside Monday and Tuesday.
Stocks headed lower yesterday as well. But when the Fed announced a rate cut coordinated with rate cuts in Europe, the S&P 500 seemed to rally and at 2:30 PM, DUG was trading near the bottom of its intraday range on higher trading volume. In other words, it looked like more people who held DUG were starting to doubt its value than the ones who felt it would go higher. With all the uncertainty in the economy, I decided to pull the trigger and lock in my gain.
Maddeningly, the general markets turned bearish from 3:30 to 4:00 PM and DUG ended up right in the middle of its trading range today - not a clear "sell" signal after all. Nevertheless, I feel good about following the instincts I've developed as a result of studying the market over the past 10 years. That goes for holding it last week as well as selling it yesterday.
I was confident enough in the weakening demand for oil (due to turbulence in the general economy) that I did not check up on my position while I was out of town last week on my retreat. Yet I knew the market might rally once the wall street bailout went through. It turns out that the turmoil in the European credit markets bought my ETF a little more upside Monday and Tuesday.
Stocks headed lower yesterday as well. But when the Fed announced a rate cut coordinated with rate cuts in Europe, the S&P 500 seemed to rally and at 2:30 PM, DUG was trading near the bottom of its intraday range on higher trading volume. In other words, it looked like more people who held DUG were starting to doubt its value than the ones who felt it would go higher. With all the uncertainty in the economy, I decided to pull the trigger and lock in my gain.
Maddeningly, the general markets turned bearish from 3:30 to 4:00 PM and DUG ended up right in the middle of its trading range today - not a clear "sell" signal after all. Nevertheless, I feel good about following the instincts I've developed as a result of studying the market over the past 10 years. That goes for holding it last week as well as selling it yesterday.
Friday, September 26, 2008
Journey Within: Wilderness Getaway 2008
Five years ago, I went on a week-long trip to Hawaii and took the journals I had written with me. (five years' worth) I spent my days reading my life like a book, noticing tendencies about myself, and distilling the insights into a foundation for intentional growth that propelled me in in a very positive direction. 18 months after that trip, it was hard to recognize me as the same guy in the areas of self-worth, ambition, and tolerance. For example, I no longer approached dating out of fear of loneliness or a position of need. My deeply felt position had become, "I am loveable, and I generously share my loveableness with others." The results in my life were dramatic, from income to relationships to my sense of purpose and beyond.
I now have five more years of journals in my library. I decided at the beginning of this week to get away for eight days, starting Sunday Sept. 28, and repeat this process. This time I'm renting a remote cabin in the mountains of West Virginia. No Internet, no cell phone reception. Just what doctor ordered.
Back in 1992, I heard Jim Rohn talk about journaling. He said, "Too many people try to just get through the day. I've got something better for you to go for: learn to get from the day. Capture the insights and ideas. Don't trust your memory." I can be a bit slow on the uptake (as can we all) so I didn't formally start keeping a journal until 1998. In fact, my first journal entry went something like this: "I probably won't keep this up, but here's what happened today..." I've since learned not to dismiss a day of small beginnings in my life. Starting journaling earlier would definitely be one of those things I would counsel my younger self to.
My dearly beloved friends and family think this trip is about my next career step, and to be fair, that's how I've presented it to them. But quite beyond that, I foresee it as a launch pad for areas of personal growth I can't even imagine as I write this. Wiping the white board clean and starting fresh with a clean set of markers.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Playing Chicken With Wall Street During the Crisis
I've been a stock investor for 10 years and I personally trade the stocks that make up my IRA.
A couple weeks ago, I closed out a position in a technology stock after making a respectable gain. Stocks in a different industry sector began to show some signs of weakness, so I used the money that was freed up from selling the tech stock to bet against that industry using what is known as an ultrashort exchange-traded fund (ETF). This is like a mutual fund that goes up if the stocks it is following go down. The beauty of these shorting ETFs is that it is possible to trade shares of them in an IRA, whereas regular shorting is not allowed in an IRA.
(No, it wasn't the financial industry I bet against, or you'd be reading now about how surprised I was that the SEC prohibitited short selling of financial company stocks last week)
My position in this ultrashort ETF has fluctuated from being up 20% just before the economic crisis was announced last Thursday to being down 10% today when congressional leaders anounced that there is basic agreement on the framework for an investment banking bailout. I've asked myself a few times why I didn't just exit the stock market when the crisis was announced. After all, there is an old saying on Wall Street: "Bulls make money and bears make money, but pigs get slaughtered."
And yet, there is a reason why I've maintained my position in the shorting ETF. Even though it has declined a good bit from where it was last week, it has done so on drastically lower daily trading volume than average. So, far fewer people now think it's a bad idea to bet against this particular industry than those who thought it was a good idea when I got in. This has intrigued me, and convinced me that the actual destiny of my investment will not become clear until the daily trading volume returns to normal.
When I look at the basics - the fact that this industry's stocks peaked in price last month, that the recent strength of the dollar caused further erosion, etc - it seems to me that the fundamental reasons for investing the way I did are all still there. So I'm not blinking yet. Wall Street has certainly humbled me in the past. But I feel that now is a good time to "keep your head when all around you are losing theirs..." ask Kipling mused.
Saturday, September 20, 2008
The Cure Is Worse Than The Disease
Velcome to Soviet United States of America!
In order for protekting our citizens and their interests, we have establish strong centralized institutions with broad authority over various aspects of their lives. Our latest plan is one of best ever. You vill like.
Effidently, bad, evil, greedy corporations tricked millions of Americans into signink legal contract documents known in the venacular as "mortgages". Ve know this must have been bad idea since etymology of vord "mortgage" transliterates into "death note". No von would ever sign death note, yes? Vell, anyway, by usink of flashy, hypnotizing marketing campaigns, these nasty corporations lured our dear dependents, I mean, citizens, into takink on of financial obligations linked to value of their homes. It is fundamental right for all Americans that home value should go up, up, up, and never hit snag. Somehow, however, snag did occur. We're not too sure who caused snag, perhaps CIA can look into this. It gets compicated and I von't bore you now vith details about how Wall Street firms ended up owning bundles and bundles of these death notes. But anyway, Wall Street firms have been sufferink also from snag.
Normally, businesses are allowed to make bets with their capital, flourishing when bets vin and dissapearink when bets lose. Ve dislike this chaotic arrangement yet citizens showed up in town squares with firebrands and pitchforks when we tried to interfere previously. This time, however, talkink heads on televised finance programs have convinced the people that certain of our Wall Street companies must not to be allowed for dissapearink. So here is plan. We, the caretakers of the American citizens, shall create federal entity. Led by vice diktator Paulson, it vill have authority for absorbink these bundles of mortgages from Wall Street firms. No pesky courts or lawsuits vill be allowed to interfere with vice diktator's dispensing of the death notes. So now, instead of the company dissapearink, only debt from company's bad bets will dissapear. It is thing of beauty, no?
Some organizers of previous pitchfork protests are voicink concern about plan. These are same guys who got upset when we started listenink in on phone calls without warrants, created authority to arrest citizens and not let them tell their spouses or lawyers what the charges were, and used army for toppling of foreign government. Yet it seems that crises mute the voices of dissent. I vonder what crisis will open the door for next big plan. Who knows? But for sure we will be ready for respondink to it with smart ideas for new centralized caretakink.
Do svidaniya comrades, and God bless the USA!
In order for protekting our citizens and their interests, we have establish strong centralized institutions with broad authority over various aspects of their lives. Our latest plan is one of best ever. You vill like.
Effidently, bad, evil, greedy corporations tricked millions of Americans into signink legal contract documents known in the venacular as "mortgages". Ve know this must have been bad idea since etymology of vord "mortgage" transliterates into "death note". No von would ever sign death note, yes? Vell, anyway, by usink of flashy, hypnotizing marketing campaigns, these nasty corporations lured our dear dependents, I mean, citizens, into takink on of financial obligations linked to value of their homes. It is fundamental right for all Americans that home value should go up, up, up, and never hit snag. Somehow, however, snag did occur. We're not too sure who caused snag, perhaps CIA can look into this. It gets compicated and I von't bore you now vith details about how Wall Street firms ended up owning bundles and bundles of these death notes. But anyway, Wall Street firms have been sufferink also from snag.
Normally, businesses are allowed to make bets with their capital, flourishing when bets vin and dissapearink when bets lose. Ve dislike this chaotic arrangement yet citizens showed up in town squares with firebrands and pitchforks when we tried to interfere previously. This time, however, talkink heads on televised finance programs have convinced the people that certain of our Wall Street companies must not to be allowed for dissapearink. So here is plan. We, the caretakers of the American citizens, shall create federal entity. Led by vice diktator Paulson, it vill have authority for absorbink these bundles of mortgages from Wall Street firms. No pesky courts or lawsuits vill be allowed to interfere with vice diktator's dispensing of the death notes. So now, instead of the company dissapearink, only debt from company's bad bets will dissapear. It is thing of beauty, no?
Some organizers of previous pitchfork protests are voicink concern about plan. These are same guys who got upset when we started listenink in on phone calls without warrants, created authority to arrest citizens and not let them tell their spouses or lawyers what the charges were, and used army for toppling of foreign government. Yet it seems that crises mute the voices of dissent. I vonder what crisis will open the door for next big plan. Who knows? But for sure we will be ready for respondink to it with smart ideas for new centralized caretakink.
Do svidaniya comrades, and God bless the USA!
Friday, September 12, 2008
A Test Of The Emergency Disappointment System II
Yesterday marked the abrupt end of my professional relationship with the computer game company I joined in mid-May. (and relocated across the country for) I won't pretend that my emotions are not upset, there is presently a sense of sadness and disappointment that the collaboration didn't work out.
Mozart is said to have composed entire symphonies in his head before furiously scribbling them down. Another anecdote has Michelangelo saying he "saw the angel in the marble and then carved to set him free". This is how I write software - I grok a given system as a whole over a period of time and then expend myself in a fit of creative coding that sometimes spans 24-hour periods. I like me this way - it is my own personal garden patch of genius. (we all have one somewhere, neglected or not)
I kind of wish I had done a better job communicating my style to my handlers at the company. I must have seemed a bit insubordinate when they asked to see incremental progress occurring every day in the codebase and all they got back was (in effect), "Just wait, you'll see what I can do!" In the end, the system I was working on was proven and I got buy-in for the next steps, but someone somewhere had already decided to drop the hammer. The termination was handled by the company's legal counsel, "without cause"; nobody I worked for directly attended the exit interview or gave any feedback. It was certainly well within their rights to handle the matter this way - like virtually all Americans my employment arrangement was "at will", meaning I could have left them at any time for no given reason as well.
I say "kind of wish", yet I don't really wish. Like Bono of U2, "I still haven't found what I'm looking for." I'm looking for a situation where the Mozarts and Michelangelos of code can brood and spew their masterworks together with the only criteria being whether it is beautiful and it works when it all comes together. Perhaps that stand will push me into Open Source or to starting my own technology ventures. (something my friends must be bored of hearing me perpetually threaten to do)
I am satisfied that both I and my former employer each did his best. The company is made up of a very sharp group of people and I would not want to be in their market space when they launch their product.
Yes, I used the word "disappointed" in the first paragraph and that is what is real today. Yet it is not "I" who am disappointed. Though the emotions are upset, though they calm and tempest and calm again, the self is not the emotions. The self is the one who observes and honors them and then whispers, "This, too, shall pass."
Mozart is said to have composed entire symphonies in his head before furiously scribbling them down. Another anecdote has Michelangelo saying he "saw the angel in the marble and then carved to set him free". This is how I write software - I grok a given system as a whole over a period of time and then expend myself in a fit of creative coding that sometimes spans 24-hour periods. I like me this way - it is my own personal garden patch of genius. (we all have one somewhere, neglected or not)
I kind of wish I had done a better job communicating my style to my handlers at the company. I must have seemed a bit insubordinate when they asked to see incremental progress occurring every day in the codebase and all they got back was (in effect), "Just wait, you'll see what I can do!" In the end, the system I was working on was proven and I got buy-in for the next steps, but someone somewhere had already decided to drop the hammer. The termination was handled by the company's legal counsel, "without cause"; nobody I worked for directly attended the exit interview or gave any feedback. It was certainly well within their rights to handle the matter this way - like virtually all Americans my employment arrangement was "at will", meaning I could have left them at any time for no given reason as well.
I say "kind of wish", yet I don't really wish. Like Bono of U2, "I still haven't found what I'm looking for." I'm looking for a situation where the Mozarts and Michelangelos of code can brood and spew their masterworks together with the only criteria being whether it is beautiful and it works when it all comes together. Perhaps that stand will push me into Open Source or to starting my own technology ventures. (something my friends must be bored of hearing me perpetually threaten to do)
I am satisfied that both I and my former employer each did his best. The company is made up of a very sharp group of people and I would not want to be in their market space when they launch their product.
Yes, I used the word "disappointed" in the first paragraph and that is what is real today. Yet it is not "I" who am disappointed. Though the emotions are upset, though they calm and tempest and calm again, the self is not the emotions. The self is the one who observes and honors them and then whispers, "This, too, shall pass."
Saturday, August 16, 2008
Why Adults Don't Get Star Wars Movies
In 1977 I was nine years old. The country was "going to hell in a handbasket" (according to my grandparents) with stagflation, the specter of nuclear holocaust, ERA, communism knocking on the door of Latin America, and gasoline approaching $1.00 per gallon. My father occasionally taught a weekend seminar at a hotel in my home city and there was a movie theater next door to the hotel. While he led the seminar I would either hang out at the hotel pool with other kids or go watch movies.
At nine, I wasn't too conscious of mass marketing. To be honest, I don't believe I had heard much about the release of the original Star Wars movie before I wandered over to the theater that Saturday. I most likely chose to see it at the time because it was the next film available on the viewing schedule. I sat down and after the previews and then the 20th Century Fox logo, I thought it odd that the movie soundtrack hadn't come on when the text appeared on the screen:
A Long Time Ago In A Galaxy Far Far Away...
I considered, briefly, whether to go out and tell someone that the sound wasn't working, when suddenly
**** BLAST ****
From the instant that John William's score assaulted my ears until the credits rolled 121 minutes later, I was rapturously transported to a world of magic, destiny, adventure, and danger. A world where an insignificant boy from the boondocks of his social order was inexplicably selected by fate to save all that was good and right and beautiful from the terrifying forces of evil. I watched that movie three times straight that day and twice again the next day. From that point on, I wanted to BE Luke Skywalker. I swore to my parents and to anyone else who would listen that I could hear the voice of Obi-Wan Kenobi assuring me that the force would be with me always. Luckily for me, this was before the days that mentioning something like that could get a kid prescribed on Prozac or Ritalin.
More than anything, experiencing Star Wars at that time in my life bought me just a few more precious weeks or months of pure, unadulterated childhood from the ever encroaching onslaught of pressure to grow up and be serious - to become yet another one of the lunatics running the asylum of civilized Western life. I would find other children younger than me and play an unnamed game with them that I guess would be called "Clash of the Superheroes" if we had bothered to name it. I'd always let them go first. "Who do you want to be?" I'd ask. "Batman!" or "Superman!" They'd answer. Then it was my turn. "Who are you going to be?" They'd ask. There was always only one answer. "Luke Skywalker." After looking at me like I was the strangest kid they'd ever met, we would begin. I would ALWAYS win. Batman has a hard time throwing a Batarang at you when his arm has been chopped off. And it's difficult for Superman to fly when he's been separated from his legs.
One of the more infuriating conversations of my life happened a few months later with some young adults. They started talking about the movies. Of course I brought up Star Wars. "What a dumb movie!" One of them exclaimed. I was outraged and demanded an explanation. "My college physics professor tore that movie apart. You wouldn't be able to see laser gun blasts as short cylindrical colored bullets of light. And if something exploded in outer space, there would be no flames since it is a vacuum without any oxygen." I tried in vain to argue, but I had nothing to counter their smug scientific facts with. I was heartbroken. It was almost as if someone had tied up Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy right in front of me and then had shot them there at point blank range. But along with this painful disappointment I had a sense that they had somehow completely missed the point. I couldn't put my finger on what it was, but I felt it very, very strongly.
Time passed and the rest of the original Star Wars movies came and went. 22 years after Episode IV was released, I flew to Austin, Texas to interview with an up-and-coming dot com company called Trilogy. I asked the HR lady about the company's name. "Oh, the founders are big Star Wars fans," she replied. "In fact, the company is going to rent out a movie theater for a special premier of the the new Star Wars prequel that's coming out soon!" Talk about the power of first impressions - I instantly knew this would be a company I'd like to work for. It didn't work out that way for various reasons, however, and Trilogy later became a casualty of the dot com meltdown. When I went to Episode I, though, I became that nine-year old boy once again. I loved everything about it, especially the way young "Ani" was able to destroy the droid control ship by using his instincts to pilot a space fighter for the first time.
Boy was I ever the odd-man out in discussions about the new movie. It seems that Jar-Jar Binks was nearly universally reviled among amateur and professional movie critics. "You can't even understand him!" "Why did he walk in that funny way?" "He didn't even use the English language correctly!" And that same old feeling rose up within me, the one I had felt when the college kids had shot down the original film with the laws of science. Only this time I was far more articulate.
"You're missing the point." I would offer.
"What do you mean? How can you say that to me?" Was the typical response. So I would explain, "Lucas created Jar-Jar's character as a culturally diverse person for a reason. He's showing that people groups with apparently very little in common need to find a way to discover common ground when their mutual interests are threatened. The Naboo and the Gungans were cultures that would not have allied together under normal circumstances." It didn't always endear me to others when I'd point out that the mainstream discomfort at Jar-Jar's dialect and mannerisms could be due to our own Western Caucasian racial hang-ups.
Wait. Stop. Now I had missed the point.
See, I wanted to have a chance to be that kid again and come back with an equally smug and scientific-sounding riposte to the ones who had put down the film I loved in 1977. But in my zeal to do well, I neglected to notice that I had become just like the ones who I felt had wronged me. I was reacting from a position of defensiveness, which (I now understand) typically creates an unintentional feedback loop. By putting out defensiveness, I received defensiveness. These conversations did not usually result in harmony and understanding.
Adults don't get Star Wars movies. They never have. If you were around when the original series came out, think back for a moment. What did your Uncles and older cousins, siblings, and family friends say about them? Nothing encouraging to a child, I'll bet. Even Freddie Mercury sang (in Bicycle Race) "Jaws was never my scene and I don't like Star Wars." It's interesting to be an adult now who was a child back then. Interesting because we don't notice that we are now "them", the ones who put down the original Star Wars movies back in the day. We are no longer nine years old, we are the smug, scientific, socially stratified muckety mucks who want to seem like clever people that can poke holes in other peoples' stories.
The animated feature, "Star Wars: The Clone Wars" was released this weekend. I went and saw it last night. So many kids in the theater. And then the text flashed on the screen. Then the blast. Then the fantasy and adventure, action and thrills. You may read a number of reviews panning the film. It was only rated 27% on rottentomatoes when a co-worker checked there the opening day. Don't you believe it. It's become fashionable to put down George Lucas and claim he has ruined the franchise. But I saw in the faces of the little ones who were filing out of the theater afterward what they must have seen in my face. Wonder, giddiness, and at least one extra day of recovered childhood.
At nine, I wasn't too conscious of mass marketing. To be honest, I don't believe I had heard much about the release of the original Star Wars movie before I wandered over to the theater that Saturday. I most likely chose to see it at the time because it was the next film available on the viewing schedule. I sat down and after the previews and then the 20th Century Fox logo, I thought it odd that the movie soundtrack hadn't come on when the text appeared on the screen:
A Long Time Ago In A Galaxy Far Far Away...
I considered, briefly, whether to go out and tell someone that the sound wasn't working, when suddenly
**** BLAST ****
From the instant that John William's score assaulted my ears until the credits rolled 121 minutes later, I was rapturously transported to a world of magic, destiny, adventure, and danger. A world where an insignificant boy from the boondocks of his social order was inexplicably selected by fate to save all that was good and right and beautiful from the terrifying forces of evil. I watched that movie three times straight that day and twice again the next day. From that point on, I wanted to BE Luke Skywalker. I swore to my parents and to anyone else who would listen that I could hear the voice of Obi-Wan Kenobi assuring me that the force would be with me always. Luckily for me, this was before the days that mentioning something like that could get a kid prescribed on Prozac or Ritalin.
More than anything, experiencing Star Wars at that time in my life bought me just a few more precious weeks or months of pure, unadulterated childhood from the ever encroaching onslaught of pressure to grow up and be serious - to become yet another one of the lunatics running the asylum of civilized Western life. I would find other children younger than me and play an unnamed game with them that I guess would be called "Clash of the Superheroes" if we had bothered to name it. I'd always let them go first. "Who do you want to be?" I'd ask. "Batman!" or "Superman!" They'd answer. Then it was my turn. "Who are you going to be?" They'd ask. There was always only one answer. "Luke Skywalker." After looking at me like I was the strangest kid they'd ever met, we would begin. I would ALWAYS win. Batman has a hard time throwing a Batarang at you when his arm has been chopped off. And it's difficult for Superman to fly when he's been separated from his legs.
One of the more infuriating conversations of my life happened a few months later with some young adults. They started talking about the movies. Of course I brought up Star Wars. "What a dumb movie!" One of them exclaimed. I was outraged and demanded an explanation. "My college physics professor tore that movie apart. You wouldn't be able to see laser gun blasts as short cylindrical colored bullets of light. And if something exploded in outer space, there would be no flames since it is a vacuum without any oxygen." I tried in vain to argue, but I had nothing to counter their smug scientific facts with. I was heartbroken. It was almost as if someone had tied up Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy right in front of me and then had shot them there at point blank range. But along with this painful disappointment I had a sense that they had somehow completely missed the point. I couldn't put my finger on what it was, but I felt it very, very strongly.
Time passed and the rest of the original Star Wars movies came and went. 22 years after Episode IV was released, I flew to Austin, Texas to interview with an up-and-coming dot com company called Trilogy. I asked the HR lady about the company's name. "Oh, the founders are big Star Wars fans," she replied. "In fact, the company is going to rent out a movie theater for a special premier of the the new Star Wars prequel that's coming out soon!" Talk about the power of first impressions - I instantly knew this would be a company I'd like to work for. It didn't work out that way for various reasons, however, and Trilogy later became a casualty of the dot com meltdown. When I went to Episode I, though, I became that nine-year old boy once again. I loved everything about it, especially the way young "Ani" was able to destroy the droid control ship by using his instincts to pilot a space fighter for the first time.
Boy was I ever the odd-man out in discussions about the new movie. It seems that Jar-Jar Binks was nearly universally reviled among amateur and professional movie critics. "You can't even understand him!" "Why did he walk in that funny way?" "He didn't even use the English language correctly!" And that same old feeling rose up within me, the one I had felt when the college kids had shot down the original film with the laws of science. Only this time I was far more articulate.
"You're missing the point." I would offer.
"What do you mean? How can you say that to me?" Was the typical response. So I would explain, "Lucas created Jar-Jar's character as a culturally diverse person for a reason. He's showing that people groups with apparently very little in common need to find a way to discover common ground when their mutual interests are threatened. The Naboo and the Gungans were cultures that would not have allied together under normal circumstances." It didn't always endear me to others when I'd point out that the mainstream discomfort at Jar-Jar's dialect and mannerisms could be due to our own Western Caucasian racial hang-ups.
Wait. Stop. Now I had missed the point.
See, I wanted to have a chance to be that kid again and come back with an equally smug and scientific-sounding riposte to the ones who had put down the film I loved in 1977. But in my zeal to do well, I neglected to notice that I had become just like the ones who I felt had wronged me. I was reacting from a position of defensiveness, which (I now understand) typically creates an unintentional feedback loop. By putting out defensiveness, I received defensiveness. These conversations did not usually result in harmony and understanding.
Adults don't get Star Wars movies. They never have. If you were around when the original series came out, think back for a moment. What did your Uncles and older cousins, siblings, and family friends say about them? Nothing encouraging to a child, I'll bet. Even Freddie Mercury sang (in Bicycle Race) "Jaws was never my scene and I don't like Star Wars." It's interesting to be an adult now who was a child back then. Interesting because we don't notice that we are now "them", the ones who put down the original Star Wars movies back in the day. We are no longer nine years old, we are the smug, scientific, socially stratified muckety mucks who want to seem like clever people that can poke holes in other peoples' stories.
The animated feature, "Star Wars: The Clone Wars" was released this weekend. I went and saw it last night. So many kids in the theater. And then the text flashed on the screen. Then the blast. Then the fantasy and adventure, action and thrills. You may read a number of reviews panning the film. It was only rated 27% on rottentomatoes when a co-worker checked there the opening day. Don't you believe it. It's become fashionable to put down George Lucas and claim he has ruined the franchise. But I saw in the faces of the little ones who were filing out of the theater afterward what they must have seen in my face. Wonder, giddiness, and at least one extra day of recovered childhood.
Friday, August 15, 2008
You've Never Seen Anything Happen
Some event happens before you in a lighted environment.
Light bounces off of the entities involved in the event and some of it meets with your eyes. It travels through your cornea, then the aqueous humor, the lens, and the vitreous humor. When it strikes your retina, cells convert the light into electrical energy and route these impulses to the optic nerve. After traveling the distance of the optic nerve, the electrical signals are processed by a special region of the brain into the sensation of seeing. Finally, other parts of the brain generate a storm of electro-chemical activity to recognize and classify the elements of vision that has been generated. Since all of this happens without your awareness, the conscious part of your mind is free to busy itself with rationalizing the classifications and their significance to you.
All of this happens at a rate of speed that is consistent among human beings. This rate of speed roughly corresponds to the 24 - 30 frames per second that film and video technology uses to fool the mind into thinking it is seeing things move on a movie screen or television. (instead of noticing the actual still images which make up each video frame) If activity happens at a speed faster than 30 times per second, all you notice is a blur - such as the beating of a hummingbird's wings or the spinning of the spokes on car wheel rims.
Think of all the processes visual information goes through in order to produce the experience of sight.
What a wonderous mechanism! And all you ever do (in your conscious state) is concentrate on the reasonings and interpretations provided by the frontal lobe. The rest of it "just works" (most of the time). Now, all of this processing takes time and there is undoubtedly information lost at all of the junctures of the system. There is no doubt that you see something.
But you've never seen anything happen.
Light bounces off of the entities involved in the event and some of it meets with your eyes. It travels through your cornea, then the aqueous humor, the lens, and the vitreous humor. When it strikes your retina, cells convert the light into electrical energy and route these impulses to the optic nerve. After traveling the distance of the optic nerve, the electrical signals are processed by a special region of the brain into the sensation of seeing. Finally, other parts of the brain generate a storm of electro-chemical activity to recognize and classify the elements of vision that has been generated. Since all of this happens without your awareness, the conscious part of your mind is free to busy itself with rationalizing the classifications and their significance to you.
All of this happens at a rate of speed that is consistent among human beings. This rate of speed roughly corresponds to the 24 - 30 frames per second that film and video technology uses to fool the mind into thinking it is seeing things move on a movie screen or television. (instead of noticing the actual still images which make up each video frame) If activity happens at a speed faster than 30 times per second, all you notice is a blur - such as the beating of a hummingbird's wings or the spinning of the spokes on car wheel rims.
Think of all the processes visual information goes through in order to produce the experience of sight.
- Manipulation: The eye lens focuses the light, flipping it upside down in the process
- Conversion: the light photons are chemically converted to electricity
- Transmission: the electric impulses are routed to the optic nerve which carries them to the brain
- Synthesis: the occipital lobe of the brain processes the impulses at a coherent rate, producing the sensation of vision
- Filtering: the temporal lobe of the brain pre-screens the data to point out elements linked with our emotions (such as a spider if we are afraid of spiders)
- Analysis: the frontal lobe of the brain associates visual elements with memories and produces reasonings about their significance
What a wonderous mechanism! And all you ever do (in your conscious state) is concentrate on the reasonings and interpretations provided by the frontal lobe. The rest of it "just works" (most of the time). Now, all of this processing takes time and there is undoubtedly information lost at all of the junctures of the system. There is no doubt that you see something.
But you've never seen anything happen.
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Project: Quad-CPU Server (Intro)
I've built my own computers for years, now, and I once set up a client/server lab in my home to research and practice distributed computing. But that was back in the dotcom bubble days and I'm feeling the urge to play with technologies on the bleeding edge again.
The convergence of multi-CPU motherboards, multicore CPUs, and the ability to access gobs of RAM memory (thanks to 64-bit technology) means that it is possible to cram an incredible amount of distributed processing power into a single PC case. (albeit a very large one) Companies are interested in this because it means they can consolidate many separate servers into far fewer physical boxes by using virtualization software. This software lets you boot up several instances of Operating Systems on a single computer. (these instances still seem like separate computers to the outside world but doing it this way saves money by using less space, hardware, power, cooling, etc.)
However, I have bigger fish to fry than playing with virtualization. I'm interested in working on the kinds of problems that only a small army of CPUs can solve by working together. To make this work, I need to create two software systems: the first one divides up the work, sends it out to the army of CPUs, and then receives and collates the answers from them. The the second system is the code that actually runs on the army of CPUs to solve the broken-down problem. Basically I'm talking about creating a small-scale supercomputer. If virtualization means treating one computer as if it were many computers, my research will involve treating many computers as if they were one.
My platform of choice will be the AMD Opteron 8000 series of quad-core server CPUs. This is the only mature "commodity" processor series with an integrated memory controller supporting four (or even eight) CPUs in a single case. Intel's Xeon 7300 platform supports 4 CPUs, but it seems like a bit of a hack to me since it goes through contortions to compensate up for its external memory controller, plus it is much more costly. Intel's new "Core i7" CPUs will have integrated memory controllers, but they won't be available for quad-CPU solutions before some time in 2009.
A reasonable question to ask is, "Why not just buy four (or more) regular PCs that each have a single multicore processor and network them together?" Indeed, it would be far cheaper to do it this way due to the price premium of the processors and motherboards that support quad-CPU configurations. But AMD uses a chip-to-chip interconnect called Hyper Transport that allows messages between processors on a single motherboard to happen at far higher speeds and lower latencies than Ethernet can handle. Also, each multicore CPU on the motherboard has it's own local bank of RAM memory. Accessing that local RAM is much quicker than being sloppy and borrowing some from a neighbor CPU's bank of RAM. (this is referred to as NUMA or non-uniform memory access) So, part of the research I intend to do will involve writing software that is aware of these things and able to organize the rest of the code to make the best use them.
Another good question would be, "Why go to the trouble of building such a complicated computer when you can buy one that just works from an established vendor who offers service and support?" Beyond all of the reasonable-sounding answers I could rationalize for this one, it boils down to the fact that I just like to scrape up my knuckles playing with hardware from time to time. Plus, I just know I'd open up and muck around with a pre-built server anyway, instantly voiding the warranty and ensuring myself a place in phone-system purgatory if I ever hypothetically called for support.
One great feature of these quad-CPU Opteron motherboards is that you can use them with one, two, or four CPUs. Nice! Instead of having bite the bullet and pay for all four processors at once, (as well as four banks of RAM) I'll be able to initially buy just one processor and start using the computer during the time that I'm still upgrading it on the installment plan.
So, lucky you! You get to follow along as I progress along the path of building my quad-CPU server. My plan for purchasing the components is to buy the foundational items first that tend to have stable prices (like the case, the power supply, hard drives) and then add the items later that tend to go down in price over time (the CPUs, the RAM).
The convergence of multi-CPU motherboards, multicore CPUs, and the ability to access gobs of RAM memory (thanks to 64-bit technology) means that it is possible to cram an incredible amount of distributed processing power into a single PC case. (albeit a very large one) Companies are interested in this because it means they can consolidate many separate servers into far fewer physical boxes by using virtualization software. This software lets you boot up several instances of Operating Systems on a single computer. (these instances still seem like separate computers to the outside world but doing it this way saves money by using less space, hardware, power, cooling, etc.)
However, I have bigger fish to fry than playing with virtualization. I'm interested in working on the kinds of problems that only a small army of CPUs can solve by working together. To make this work, I need to create two software systems: the first one divides up the work, sends it out to the army of CPUs, and then receives and collates the answers from them. The the second system is the code that actually runs on the army of CPUs to solve the broken-down problem. Basically I'm talking about creating a small-scale supercomputer. If virtualization means treating one computer as if it were many computers, my research will involve treating many computers as if they were one.
My platform of choice will be the AMD Opteron 8000 series of quad-core server CPUs. This is the only mature "commodity" processor series with an integrated memory controller supporting four (or even eight) CPUs in a single case. Intel's Xeon 7300 platform supports 4 CPUs, but it seems like a bit of a hack to me since it goes through contortions to compensate up for its external memory controller, plus it is much more costly. Intel's new "Core i7" CPUs will have integrated memory controllers, but they won't be available for quad-CPU solutions before some time in 2009.
A reasonable question to ask is, "Why not just buy four (or more) regular PCs that each have a single multicore processor and network them together?" Indeed, it would be far cheaper to do it this way due to the price premium of the processors and motherboards that support quad-CPU configurations. But AMD uses a chip-to-chip interconnect called Hyper Transport that allows messages between processors on a single motherboard to happen at far higher speeds and lower latencies than Ethernet can handle. Also, each multicore CPU on the motherboard has it's own local bank of RAM memory. Accessing that local RAM is much quicker than being sloppy and borrowing some from a neighbor CPU's bank of RAM. (this is referred to as NUMA or non-uniform memory access) So, part of the research I intend to do will involve writing software that is aware of these things and able to organize the rest of the code to make the best use them.
Another good question would be, "Why go to the trouble of building such a complicated computer when you can buy one that just works from an established vendor who offers service and support?" Beyond all of the reasonable-sounding answers I could rationalize for this one, it boils down to the fact that I just like to scrape up my knuckles playing with hardware from time to time. Plus, I just know I'd open up and muck around with a pre-built server anyway, instantly voiding the warranty and ensuring myself a place in phone-system purgatory if I ever hypothetically called for support.
One great feature of these quad-CPU Opteron motherboards is that you can use them with one, two, or four CPUs. Nice! Instead of having bite the bullet and pay for all four processors at once, (as well as four banks of RAM) I'll be able to initially buy just one processor and start using the computer during the time that I'm still upgrading it on the installment plan.
So, lucky you! You get to follow along as I progress along the path of building my quad-CPU server. My plan for purchasing the components is to buy the foundational items first that tend to have stable prices (like the case, the power supply, hard drives) and then add the items later that tend to go down in price over time (the CPUs, the RAM).
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
The Questionable Value Of Loyalty
Loyalty. Even the sound of the word carries a certain gravitas. Loyalty is comfortably ensconced in a league with other golden virtues such as honor, dignity, and integrity. It is used as a final line of demarcation in character judgments. We've all heard variations on the line, "If there's one thing I will not tolerate, it is disloyalty." Loyalty seems to be the bedrock beneath society's most cherished arrangements: family, friendship, and patriotism.
I say this is all a bunch of nonsense.
Suppose you were going to try to do something really big and you needed the help of many other people to pull it off. You've got (basically) two powers of persuasion at your disposal to secure their cooperation: coercion or inspiration. For example, during the space race of the 50s and 60s, John F. Kennedy declared the goal of sending a man to the moon. America was inspired by this vision of scientific progress and made it happen with scant to none evidence of coercion. On the other hand, Kennedy's meddling in Vietnam (out of loyalty to a European ally) precipitated the military draft under President Johnson. Evidently, inspiration was not enough to secure the participation of enough of our citizens for that venture.
Loyalty is a form of moral coercion. It is a tool used by bullies to hoodwink those they perceive to be weak. Think back to your childhood days on the playground or in the neighborhood. Some older kid wants you to do something you know you don't want to do. And what does he or she say to you? "Aw, come on, you're not going to chicken out on me now are you?" So you do this thing that will get you grounded for two weeks because you're afraid of being thought of as a deficient friend. At least you were loyal and not a coward! But what do your parents say to you in these situations? "If he asked you to jump off a cliff, would you?" This is exactly the crux of the matter of loyalty being hogwash.
It is a healthy sign for an adult of the human species to be independent, ambitious, and self-reliant. Indeed, an important part of adolescence and young adulthood is experiencing peer pressure and learning to break free of its grasp. It is not that easy to consciously sever the cords of belonging that lay claim to our individuality. But sever them we must if we are to grow up. We open ourselves up to charges of being disloyal or of feeling superior to others. Yet, where do these charges originate? Why would anyone ever accuse another person of disloyalty?
The root cause is fear. Fear of scarcity. Scarcity of love, of friendship, of a sense of societal safety, of whatever it is that one wishes to have. If I feel that you, and you alone, have the thing I need, I will do whatever is in my power to persuade you to give it to me. (including coerce you) I have to - you've got what I need! If I feel that I can obtain what I want from any number of people, I'm more willing to let the law of averages play out by spreading my persuasive energy among more prospects. Upon discovering that everything I truly need - love, joy, peace, fulfillment - is available within myself, I am finally set free from the illusion that I ever have to coerce anybody for anything. Now I get to propose my intentions and discover, to my delight, that some people are inspired by what I have in mind. You've experienced both coercion and inspiration in your lifetime. To which of these do you respond better?
Do we really need coercive ties to bind us together? Is the cost of such arrangements worth the purported benefits? What would we call loyalty if it were based purely on heart-felt preference instead of duty or obligation?
This is probably enough to chew on for one blog column. It's worth considering the implications of so-called loyalty on religion, socio-economic class, politics, management/labor relations, marriage... oh dear, I've discovered yet another lack of scarcity!
I say this is all a bunch of nonsense.
Suppose you were going to try to do something really big and you needed the help of many other people to pull it off. You've got (basically) two powers of persuasion at your disposal to secure their cooperation: coercion or inspiration. For example, during the space race of the 50s and 60s, John F. Kennedy declared the goal of sending a man to the moon. America was inspired by this vision of scientific progress and made it happen with scant to none evidence of coercion. On the other hand, Kennedy's meddling in Vietnam (out of loyalty to a European ally) precipitated the military draft under President Johnson. Evidently, inspiration was not enough to secure the participation of enough of our citizens for that venture.
Loyalty is a form of moral coercion. It is a tool used by bullies to hoodwink those they perceive to be weak. Think back to your childhood days on the playground or in the neighborhood. Some older kid wants you to do something you know you don't want to do. And what does he or she say to you? "Aw, come on, you're not going to chicken out on me now are you?" So you do this thing that will get you grounded for two weeks because you're afraid of being thought of as a deficient friend. At least you were loyal and not a coward! But what do your parents say to you in these situations? "If he asked you to jump off a cliff, would you?" This is exactly the crux of the matter of loyalty being hogwash.
It is a healthy sign for an adult of the human species to be independent, ambitious, and self-reliant. Indeed, an important part of adolescence and young adulthood is experiencing peer pressure and learning to break free of its grasp. It is not that easy to consciously sever the cords of belonging that lay claim to our individuality. But sever them we must if we are to grow up. We open ourselves up to charges of being disloyal or of feeling superior to others. Yet, where do these charges originate? Why would anyone ever accuse another person of disloyalty?
The root cause is fear. Fear of scarcity. Scarcity of love, of friendship, of a sense of societal safety, of whatever it is that one wishes to have. If I feel that you, and you alone, have the thing I need, I will do whatever is in my power to persuade you to give it to me. (including coerce you) I have to - you've got what I need! If I feel that I can obtain what I want from any number of people, I'm more willing to let the law of averages play out by spreading my persuasive energy among more prospects. Upon discovering that everything I truly need - love, joy, peace, fulfillment - is available within myself, I am finally set free from the illusion that I ever have to coerce anybody for anything. Now I get to propose my intentions and discover, to my delight, that some people are inspired by what I have in mind. You've experienced both coercion and inspiration in your lifetime. To which of these do you respond better?
Do we really need coercive ties to bind us together? Is the cost of such arrangements worth the purported benefits? What would we call loyalty if it were based purely on heart-felt preference instead of duty or obligation?
This is probably enough to chew on for one blog column. It's worth considering the implications of so-called loyalty on religion, socio-economic class, politics, management/labor relations, marriage... oh dear, I've discovered yet another lack of scarcity!
Friday, August 1, 2008
A Test Of The Emergency Disappointment System
This morning I checked on my stock holdings only to discover that Biogen (BIIB) had dropped 25% from yesterday's closing price. Evidently their Multiple Sclerosis drug Tysabri has been found to possibly cause a deadly side effect. There was only one thing to do: sell my position and sell it quickly. Within one minute I had opened a browser window, logged in to my online trading account, and executed the sell order. When the trade cleared, I had lost 26% overall of the money I had spent on this stock.
A few years ago, I would have reacted to a development like this with anger, blame, and lowered self-confidence. I might have felt paralyzed, leading to hesitation about what to do. Yet today, I didn't feel any of these things. On the contrary I was serenely aware that the capacity for stocks to dramatically rise or fall in price is exactly the dynamic that attracts me to trading. It's merely the other side of the same coin that netted me a 25% gain in a short period of time from the market's recent downtrend. (using ultrashort exchange traded funds for real estate and technology)
It certainly helps that I didn't have all my investment eggs in this basket. By the way, I'm not a big believer is diversification as it is commonly practiced. (or "de-worse-ification" as some pundits put it) That can lead to a scattering of focus, especially for the individual investor who has other things to do with his time than keep an eye on the market all day long. I follow William O'Neil's system (outlined in his classic book,How To Make Money In Stocks) which suggests buying a few of the very best growth stocks when the market in general is moving up. (using his rules, it was a judgment call as to whether the stock market had turned around to start heading upward again in the past week - which is when I purchased Biogen)
What happened in my stock account today was only a test. As is everything that ever happens in life. I don't expect to win them all anymore. In fact, it's the building of a foundation of increasingly more enlightened responses to these kinds of events that really matters to me now.
A few years ago, I would have reacted to a development like this with anger, blame, and lowered self-confidence. I might have felt paralyzed, leading to hesitation about what to do. Yet today, I didn't feel any of these things. On the contrary I was serenely aware that the capacity for stocks to dramatically rise or fall in price is exactly the dynamic that attracts me to trading. It's merely the other side of the same coin that netted me a 25% gain in a short period of time from the market's recent downtrend. (using ultrashort exchange traded funds for real estate and technology)
It certainly helps that I didn't have all my investment eggs in this basket. By the way, I'm not a big believer is diversification as it is commonly practiced. (or "de-worse-ification" as some pundits put it) That can lead to a scattering of focus, especially for the individual investor who has other things to do with his time than keep an eye on the market all day long. I follow William O'Neil's system (outlined in his classic book,How To Make Money In Stocks) which suggests buying a few of the very best growth stocks when the market in general is moving up. (using his rules, it was a judgment call as to whether the stock market had turned around to start heading upward again in the past week - which is when I purchased Biogen)
What happened in my stock account today was only a test. As is everything that ever happens in life. I don't expect to win them all anymore. In fact, it's the building of a foundation of increasingly more enlightened responses to these kinds of events that really matters to me now.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
You Are Always Doing Your Best
Consider the propositon that you always do your best. As in, "all the time" always. You never do not do your best.
Notice the arguments that are coming up in your mind about this. You are thinking of times when you feel you could have done better. Or perhaps when you counted on someone else and you feel that they let you down. You're doing a great job of doing your best to prove this idea wrong!
I believe the truth is we don't know how to do any differently than our best. For example, even if you consciously decide to hold back from doing something as well as you believe you could do it, you are now doing your best to hold back. In this case, the focus has shifted from the doing of the activity to the regulation of your energy and talent. But you still do your best. If you have a deadline to meet but you feel like procrastinating, your mind will come up with all kinds of creative solutions to help you with your replacement goal of avoiding the work that needs to get done. You see, to look at the results of the work at the deadline is to miss the real issue, that you decided to focus your time and energy on something else.
If all this were true, what practical application would it have? Well, I can think of two that seem promising: first, it is futile to beat yourself up over so-called failures or mistakes. "I should have said ..." "I should have done ..." Nonsense. If you had thought of it, you would have said it or done it. Or else, you avoided remembering to say or do it for very good reasons that are possibly only known to your unconscious mind at present. Or even, you had reached a limit physically, mentally, or emotionally and decided to proceed anyway. But you did your best.
Second, understanding this concept gives you the opportunity to learn things you would never imagine about yourself when you tune out, mail it in, let it slide, etc. Where is it that you are, mentally, when you are not doing what you said you would do? Were you generating mental chatter? Dreaming of an aspect of life as you wish it were? Mulling over a grudge or a percieved injustice? You know, we get so good at hiding from others the fact that we do these things that we begin believing we don't do them ourselves. Nietzsche put it well, "'I did it,' says the memory. 'I could not have done it,' says the pride. Eventually, memory gives in." But these things are clues, valuable clues, to help each of us embrace afresh his or her unique brand of humanity.
After a few months of trying out this way of thinking I felt the muse agitating within and wrote this poem, "There Are No Mistakes"
There's no such thing as a mistake
Mistakes are an illusion
We always do the best we can
In spite of our confusion
Progress on the path of life
Slows when you care 'bout image
If there's no book on what you love
Just scribble down a new page!
Notice the arguments that are coming up in your mind about this. You are thinking of times when you feel you could have done better. Or perhaps when you counted on someone else and you feel that they let you down. You're doing a great job of doing your best to prove this idea wrong!
I believe the truth is we don't know how to do any differently than our best. For example, even if you consciously decide to hold back from doing something as well as you believe you could do it, you are now doing your best to hold back. In this case, the focus has shifted from the doing of the activity to the regulation of your energy and talent. But you still do your best. If you have a deadline to meet but you feel like procrastinating, your mind will come up with all kinds of creative solutions to help you with your replacement goal of avoiding the work that needs to get done. You see, to look at the results of the work at the deadline is to miss the real issue, that you decided to focus your time and energy on something else.
If all this were true, what practical application would it have? Well, I can think of two that seem promising: first, it is futile to beat yourself up over so-called failures or mistakes. "I should have said ..." "I should have done ..." Nonsense. If you had thought of it, you would have said it or done it. Or else, you avoided remembering to say or do it for very good reasons that are possibly only known to your unconscious mind at present. Or even, you had reached a limit physically, mentally, or emotionally and decided to proceed anyway. But you did your best.
Second, understanding this concept gives you the opportunity to learn things you would never imagine about yourself when you tune out, mail it in, let it slide, etc. Where is it that you are, mentally, when you are not doing what you said you would do? Were you generating mental chatter? Dreaming of an aspect of life as you wish it were? Mulling over a grudge or a percieved injustice? You know, we get so good at hiding from others the fact that we do these things that we begin believing we don't do them ourselves. Nietzsche put it well, "'I did it,' says the memory. 'I could not have done it,' says the pride. Eventually, memory gives in." But these things are clues, valuable clues, to help each of us embrace afresh his or her unique brand of humanity.
After a few months of trying out this way of thinking I felt the muse agitating within and wrote this poem, "There Are No Mistakes"
There's no such thing as a mistake
Mistakes are an illusion
We always do the best we can
In spite of our confusion
Progress on the path of life
Slows when you care 'bout image
If there's no book on what you love
Just scribble down a new page!
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Seeds of an Economic Turnaround?
At this time, the American economy is in a downturn with a good bit of the popular press devoted to subjects such as the sub prime mortgage crisis, the low value of the dollar, unemployment, and the credit crunch. Yet, among the stories on reuters.com today:
* Hedge funds sell oil as ratio to gold narrows
* Gasoline prices retreat, could fall more: survey
And so the seeds of the next epoch of the American economy start cracking open beneath the soil.
It would be easy to miss this information. Most of the economic reports and opinions floating about (at any given time) are lagging indicators. They are based on the good or bad news of the last few months or even years. So it turns out that there's a reason why it always seems "darkest before the dawn". When a situation begins to change, we tend not to notice it because we are busy mentally processing the old bad news. The same holds true for good news too, which is why we also say, "Pride goes before a fall."
By the way, I'm not predicting a turnaround. The stories I mentioned above are merely seeds beneath the soil. They could be wiped out by unforeseen events even before they have a chance to sprout. I'm simply pointing out that since nothing ever stands still, it's useful to pay particular attention to what is presently happening if you wish to develop independent opinions about current events. And possibly even profit from them.
* Hedge funds sell oil as ratio to gold narrows
* Gasoline prices retreat, could fall more: survey
And so the seeds of the next epoch of the American economy start cracking open beneath the soil.
It would be easy to miss this information. Most of the economic reports and opinions floating about (at any given time) are lagging indicators. They are based on the good or bad news of the last few months or even years. So it turns out that there's a reason why it always seems "darkest before the dawn". When a situation begins to change, we tend not to notice it because we are busy mentally processing the old bad news. The same holds true for good news too, which is why we also say, "Pride goes before a fall."
By the way, I'm not predicting a turnaround. The stories I mentioned above are merely seeds beneath the soil. They could be wiped out by unforeseen events even before they have a chance to sprout. I'm simply pointing out that since nothing ever stands still, it's useful to pay particular attention to what is presently happening if you wish to develop independent opinions about current events. And possibly even profit from them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)