Robert’s blog (1.0)

I finally tried learning some scheme. Mostly in the form of guile.

I've been interested in functional programming for a while. I'm interested in the claim that it could result in fewer bugs because functional programs can be provably correct. So far, however, I've only found one example of a functional program accompanied by a proof.

Based on that one example, it seems to me that functional programs and their proofs are just as subject to bugs as imperative programs.

At this point, I'm trying to decide whether the functional style obscures the flow or if I just need to continue to adjust my thinking.

My interest in scheme goes a bit further than it being functional, however. I've always been impressed by lisp, as list processing (for which lisp gets its name) is such a key concept in programming. I also admire languages that are simple to parse. (If you want to embed a scripting language in a program, this is a good feature to look for.) The idea of expressing XML as s-expressions appeals to me and suggests that lisp & scheme might be ideal for manipulating it.

I think there is real value in a realistic depiction of the passion of Christ on film. The point of the passion is that Jesus suffered brutality inflicted by humans. Film has the ability to communicate that brutality in a way the written word cannot. For me, I think Mel Gibson's film would have been more powerful if it had stayed focused on that purpose.

A recent study about the drop in teen pregnancy over the last decade was mentioned on The Jeff Ward Show the other day. See Teen pregnancy rates drop sharply.

I don't know that anyone will contend with the point that during that same decade we've seen an increase of sex in the media. We also saw a US President go through a high profile sex scandal.

Silence breeds misunderstanding. Discourse breeds understanding.

Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, told Sawyer in remarks broadcast along with Gibson's interview that he doesn't believe Gibson is anti-Semitic. But Foxman still has concerns about The Passion of the Christ.

"I do not believe it's an anti-Semitic movie," Foxman said. "I believe that this movie has the potential to fuel anti-Semitism, to reinforce it."

"This is his vision, his faith; he's a true believer, and I respect that," Foxman said. "But there are times that there are unintended consequences."

How Despairing Gibson Found 'The Passion'

I am not unsympathetic to Foxman's point. I have used a similar point in arguing that perhaps Revelation should not be in the Bible.

Some Christians have criticized the film for not depicting the wider story of Jesus' life and ministry. They fear that people may misunderstand its message if not put into context.

Is there a chance that the movie will be misunderstood? Of course, but silence breeds misunderstanding. We combat misunderstanding through discourse. This film is discourse, which has spawned lots of other discourse.

So let's continue to talk about how this movie could inspire anti-Semitism. Let's continue to talk about the context that needs to surround it. But let's put aside any calls to silence or alter it.

The dialogue in Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ is primarily in Aramaic with some Latin as well. It also had English subtitles.

For me, it is lots of fun to see a movie with Latin dialogue. I could understand much of it without the subtitles. (Which does, however, make me think that it was probably pretty amatuerish. Authentic Latin, even sermo vulgaris, is usually much more difficult for me to follow.)

I think I was able to pick out a few words of the Aramaic.

We are so separated from Jesus and the Apostles. By time. By culture. By language. One thing I do like about this film is that it let me see these people speaking the language they spoke. (Like the Latin, perhaps it isn't the same mode or pronunciation, but it is the same language.) It's nice to see Jesus actually called Yeshua instead of the Latinized form of a Greek version of the Aramaic name that we usually use.

After seeing the film, I still don't understand why Aramaic and Latin were choosen. Aramaic suggests the film is seeking to be factually authentic, but--since you'd be more likely to hear Greek than Latin spoken in that place at that time--Latin spoken in the modern ecclesiastical pronunciation suggests otherwise. I can make sense of the mixture of the authentic with the symbolic as regards the crosses. Not for the languages.

The language certainly proved a distraction for me. I was spending a lot of time listening to the language instead of the message.

I saw Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ Friday.

The film takes more license than I expected. Based on some of the reports of what Gibson said, I expected it not to stray very far from scripture and tradition. Not that it ever contradicts scription or tradition. There is just some stuff that, to my knowledge, isn't firmly grounded in scripture or tradition. This isn't really a criticism, though. Just an observation that it goes farther than I expected it to.

I am happy that it wasn't as gory as I expected. It is better for reviews to set my expectations too high than to be surprised in this area.

Did I like it? I'm ambivalent. I didn't not like it, but neither am I greatly impressed. There was one scene in particular that connected with me.

I've come to a decision that while I enjoy playing D&D3e, it isn't my favorite system to referee. (That's an entirely different entry I might write.)

There is one thing in particular that I like about 3e over all other editions of (A)D&D. 3e has fewer arbitrary restrictions. Instead, it gives you consequences for suboptimal choices.

Some people criticize 3e because any character can acquire and use nearly any ability. They claim that this completely destroys the archetypes.

In reality, 3e merely replaces a restriction with the cost of a choice. Sure, you're Fighter can sink all his skill points into Hide, but he's still not going to be as good at it as almost any Rogue of equal level. Your Wizard can multiclass into Fighter, but at the cost of being a level behind a straight Wizard in spell casting ability. Yes, you can break out of the archetypes, but you pay for the privilege to do so.

Back in my OAD&D days, we did much the same thing. A strict interpretation of the rules said Magic-Users could not wield Long Swords at all. We allowed them to, but they could not be proficient with them. Some OAD&D players replaced demihuman level limits with an XP penalty to exceed the former limits.

Now, 3e consequences are not exact analogues of OAD&D restrictions. I might not fully agree with all the 3e consequences or the OAD&D restrictions. I do feel, however, that consequences are generally better than restrictions.

First, let me say that I'm no proponent of e-voting. I will not dispute that there are a lot of problems in this area. There are a lot of issues that need to be considered, and it seems some people involved are either ignorant of them or intentionally ignoring them. We must procede with caution.

Alexander said that in places where machines provide no paper trail, voters just have to trust the vendors and counties to follow the law and procedures.

The message about e-voting machines went up because, Michaan said, "I consider this to be the greatest threat to our democracy of anything we have ever faced in this country. There is so much possibility of fraud that there has to be a voting system that is verifiable with paper trails. Absent that we're totally at the mercy of whoever controls this equipment."

Wired News: E-Voting Activists: Vote Absentee

Paper trails can be forged or destroyed. With the voting systems used throughout history, voters have just had to trust the vendors, people, and counties to follow the law and procedures. We have always been at the mercy of the people who gather, count, and report the results and the equipment they use.

One of my favorite pastimes of late has been reading stories of the original Gygax/Kuntz Greyhawk campaign or Arneson's Blackmoor campaign. Nothing makes me want to roll up a D&D (any edition) character and get to playing more.

Now, I love D&D, but I like other RPGs as well. So, I went looking for similar stories about early GURPS campaigns. Surely Evil Stevie, Loyd Blankenship, David Ladyman, or somebody involved with the development of GURPS ran an equally interesting campaign. I searched magazine and newsgroup and mailing list archives, but...nothing. Were there no such tales to inspire the GURPS player? I even posted a question about it to the Pyramid newsgroups, but didn't get a single comment.

There are some statements in the Krommnotes to indicate that at least Dr. Kromm--the current GURPS line editor--actually runs GURPS games, but no stories.

That's just sad.

I recently read The Gods of Pegana, the first book of Lord Dunsany (dən sāˈ nē)* published.

The author describes the prominent members of a fictional pantheon, and then tells us a few stories of the people who venerate them. It's all told in a biblical style, as if you're reading some newly uncovered scripture of an ancient people. Except that this scripture is much more complete, consistant, straight forward, and consistantly enjoyable to read.

My dilemma now is what Dunsany story to read next.

*If you're browser has decent support for the Unicode character set, this should show you how to pronounce "Dunsany". Otherwise, you should be up in arms, since my free browser running on my free operating system can handle it. And when I say "free", I mean "free as in freedom".