The other day I was reviewing some of the tutorials I’ve written over the past few years and found something disturbing. For some reason I decided to copy the introduction paragraph into Google to see what appears. I expected to see my site and maybe some tutorial link listing sites, but I found something more…

I followed the link to some tech forum and found my tutorial posted there in its entirety, without any mention of the source. I was a little shocked by the blatant plagiarism of content, so I registered and posted my displeasure in a reply. Curiosity then had me searching my other tutorials to see what else may have been ripped off.

I found that this same site had copied several other tutorials without giving credit. So I replied to each one with an increasingly harsh tone. In that process I also found some other sites that had done the same thing, but I didn’t feel like going through the trouble of pursuing each one.

After a little bit, I received a message from the site owner (who was the poster of most of the offending posts):

“Hi

[redacted] is a 100% non-profit (non-advertising) organisation formed to help the engineering community. Hosting for the site and every other expense is covered within our team. We do not earn monet form the site in any mean.

However, I apologise for the misbehaviour. We might have missed the copyright status of your articles. Forgive us for that. Link to your site is added at the end of every page that was copied.

I would like to welcome you to work with [redacted] to share knowledge beyond borders, limits, etc….

Best Regards,

[redacted]“

That last part is funny. The rest is just bullshit. It doesn’t matter if you make money, you don’t just copy someone’s work without attribution or permission. I thought this was just common knowledge or at least common decency, but I guess I was wrong…

Sharing knowledge is great, and there’s nothing getting in the way of doing that without committing plagiarism. I think the standard excepted method is to post a short excerpt along with a link to the source. Remember those tutorial listing sites I mentioned? That’s exactly what they do.

Anyway, I write tutorials primarily to share knowledge. I also do it to gain exposure, which of course requires that people know that I was the one who wrote it. The positive side of this is that someone found value in my writing, so I must be doing something right. I just think that people should respect the author when they find something useful.

Filed under: Commentary by StevoTVR
4 Comments »

Here in California, one of the popular topics is immigration and protecting our borders. People are always talking about how to deal with illegal immigration. However, I find the concept of national borders flawed.

When land is originally purchased or granted, it makes sense because it comes from the government. What doesn’t have a solid explanation is how the government can claim ownership of the land in the first place. I guess it basically comes down to calling dibs on an area.

The only thing allowing us to safely claim our territory is the ability to enforce the claim with force from the military. On a moral standpoint, one can choose not to recognize the borders that separate nations. Obviously, the real world is a different story.

In an ideal world, any person should be allowed to move to any part of the planet as they wish, restricted only by what is physically possible. It shouldn’t matter where they happened to be born. But in reality, we are all restricted by some invisible hypothetical lines dividing the earth.

It’s also interesting to note that many other species of animals have the same tendency to claim territory and protect it with force.

On Immigration

I find it silly that we go to such great lengths to control who can cross the border. We put up these massive walls and devote a lot of resources to patrolling those walls (mostly talking about the US/Mexico border; I don’t know much about the Canadian border). I think it sends a really negative message to put up walls to keep people out.

I understand the need to control the flow of people into the country, but it should be for the right reason. The only reason I support is the protection of the citizens from criminals and terrorists. Since this is far from an ideal world and people want to do bad things, protecting the borders is a necessary evil.

An example of a reason I don’t support is that the immigrants will “take our jobs.” I just think this comes from an unfounded sense of entitlement. And I obviously strongly disagree with any racially motivated reasons.

Filed under: Commentary by StevoTVR
No Comments »

Why? People ask this simple question every day, but they can never get the real answer. You can follow the chain of causality until you reach a dead end, where pure randomness takes effect. At this point, there is no reason. This is also where the Universe is open to interpretation.

So what are the possible interpretations of randomness? I can see two main sides to this question. One could argue that it is the work of a divine force (God), and is the vehicle with which it interacts with the physical world. Others would counter that there is no evidence of this, and that randomness is just what it is (arbitrary). I argue that either of these arguments is valid, since the truth is unknown and unknowable.

This is something people need to understand when it comes to arguments between science and religion. For example, it is because of the above statements that evolution and creationism are not mutually exclusive. It is pretty obvious that every animal didn’t just appear out of nowhere as they are today, and that evolution does in fact occur.

The question that remains is whether the initial series of random events that created the first organism was under the control of some form of intelligence. This is something science is unable to answer.

So what is your interpretation?

Filed under: Commentary by StevoTVR
No Comments »

I’ve never really paid too much attention to politics. I’ve always found it boring and irrelevant to my life. It seems to always come down to arguing about who is right and who is wrong on questions that have no right answer. Since there is no right answer, people tend to pick a side arbitrarily and stick with it. This essentially forms two teams in a big glorified game, the outcome of which is capable of affecting the lives of everyone in the country and sometimes more.

It’s not really a bad thing in and of itself, since voters want two choices. So having two main groups to pay attention to makes it more likely that voters can make an informed decision. So the way the process works for electing government officials seems to work alright.

The problem lies in the way laws are created. It seems that the people in congress are disconnected with reality, so all they have is the game. Their goal is to keep their team in the lead by any means necessary. This is usually a good thing because it means they’re making the decisions that they think most people want, which is their job as a representative of the public.

It’s when the game has nothing to do with what is good for the public, that the game is a bad thing. Like when they add in some extra, unrelated crap to a bill just to sneak it into law.

Anyway, the real point I’m trying to make is that politics are a little silly.

Filed under: Commentary by StevoTVR
No Comments »

Sometimes I stop to think about the universe as we know it. What is it and what does it mean? The reality is that no one can possibly claim to know the answer. We can only see what we see, and even then we may not know what we are seeing. Basically, we will never know the truth but we can ponder the possibilities.

The first thing I want to know is how much space does the universe contain? Either it is unlimited or there is a limit (duh). It’s easy to believe that it is unlimited, since it is hard to imagine a limit to space. What would be beyond the end? How can there be nothing? Or maybe the limit is there but constantly changing, so there is virtually no limit.

A recurring thought that I have is that the universe is just part of one layer of infinite layers of realities. Maybe the universe we live in is just a tiny particle of a much larger universe, which is in turn a particle of a larger universe, and so on. If this is the case, then every particle of every atom in this universe is itself an entire universe. In short this is an infinite recursion.

Think about that. Every one of those billion trillion gazillion atoms in your body might contain a bunch of universes. But don’t think too hard about this or your head might explode…

Filed under: Commentary by StevoTVR
2 Comments »

Why is it that whenever there is a computer in a show or movie, it has to make all kinds of beeping sounds? It seems to be most common in science fiction and action where things are supposed to be “high tech.” So why does high tech have to mean annoying?

It’s not just the sounds that come from the high tech devices, there’s usually a variety of blinking lights and flashy interface to go with it. The strange thing is that none of these things seem to make the device more efficient to use, and actually seem to make them less useful.

The worst example of this trend is the show CSI: Miami, which is a science-based police drama (but it usually ends up with lab technicians engaging in shootouts). They use computers with ridiculously flashy interfaces and transparent screens. For example:

How do they work with those screens all day? Why would you make a screen transparent? Don’t you usually want to see what’s on the screen and not what’s behind it? Weird.

Filed under: Commentary by StevoTVR
3 Comments »

Delicious!

As of January 1st, the use of trans fats by restaurants will be banned in California. That’s right, restaurants are being forced to change their long established ingredients. Most have already made the move to alternative oils, so the only real difference is that it’s official now.

Trans fats are a byproduct of hydrogenation, which is a process used to make oils thicker. Trans fats are unhealthy because they raise LDL (bad) cholesterol and lowering HDL (good) cholesterol. They are also believed to have all kinds of other harmful effects.

I think it’s kind of silly, however, to make a law banning trans fats outright. No one goes to fast food restaurants for their health benefits, but many go because the food tastes good. Most people are well aware of the unhealthiness of good food. It should be left to the restaurants to give the customers what they want. Some can decide to advertise their trans fat-free products for customers that are interested.

I, for one, enjoy a good unhealthy meal every once in a while. I generally eat healthy foods, but I still enjoy the option of eating tastier foods. I’m not sure how much difference the trans fat alternatives make in flavor, but if it makes it worse I don’t want it. I just hope they never ban salt…

Maybe it’s time for people to learn to deep fry their own food and hopefully not set their house or skin on fire…

Filed under: Commentary by StevoTVR
2 Comments »

If you read my post titled Evil Whale Masterminds you know my opinion on “global warming.” Well here’s a video that I think sums up the whole thing pretty well.

John Coleman is a meteorologist, founder of the Weather Channel, and a global warming skeptic. Here’s what he has to say:

Filed under: Commentary by StevoTVR
4 Comments »

So I saw some news story about medical marijuana or something and it got me thinking. I was curious to see exactly what negative effects are caused by marijuana and compare that to other, legal drugs. What I found is that it really is relatively harmless, and about as potent as caffeine (except caffeine can kill you).

I searched the internet for information from credible sources. I found many sources that I don’t consider reliable, but I think I found some solid information on the subject. If you disagree with something or have better information, please comment with sources.

Negative Effects

First let’s look at the negative effects of different drugs…

Cannabis (Marijuana)

• Short-term memory loss
• Distorted perception
• Loss of coordination
• Increased heart rate and lower blood pressure
• Psychological effects like paranoia

There are additional dangers to the lungs that go with smoking, but that can be avoided by ingesting or alternative means.

Alcohol

• Short-term memory loss
• Loss of coordination
• Increased aggression leading to violence
• Liver, heart, pancreas diseases
• Respiratory failure leading to death

Tylenol

• Liver failure (possible death)

Just thought I’d throw that in…

Positive Effects

Cannabis is used to treat nausea, increase appetite, treat glaucoma, and to relieve pain. There are potentially many more uses for medical cannabis.

There seems to be no recorded deaths caused directly by marijuana alone, unlike everything else I listed.

As an analgesic (painkiller), cannabis is much safer than any prescribed medications. It has an extremely low toxicity and it is not addictive. It is very easy to overdose or become dependent on prescription painkillers.

Conclusion

After all this research, my original opinion has been reinforced. It makes no sense to me why marijuana is illegal while alcohol is not. Alcohol is way more toxic and causes more impairment, not to mention the increased violent behavior. Marijuana is relatively harmless compared to many legal substances.

I don’t think people should use it recreationally, but I could say the same about alcohol, tobacco, and many other legal things. However, I believe that legalizing it would be beneficial overall. It would drastically reduce crime surrounding it, it could be taxed, it could be regulated and made safer, and it would save all the tax dollars spent prosecuting offenders.

Where was I going with this? Whatever, I want nachos…

Sources (some of them)

• Medical cannabis (Wikipedia)
• The Health Effects of Marijuana (About.com)
• Alcohol vs. Marijuana (SAFERchoice.org)
• Ethanol (Wikipedia)
• Paracetamol toxicity (Wikipedia)

Filed under: Commentary by StevoTVR
2 Comments »

You know that expression you use when some kid puts something in his mouth, “You don’t know where that’s been?” Well it might have worked on kids because they’re stupid, but it really is a weak argument if you think about it. How many people can actually identify the origin of much of the food they eat?

Maybe the argument isn’t weak at all, but simply irrelevant in modern society. I know you can’t really compare object laying around to packaged food in a grocery store freezer. The object might be from a parallel universe for all you know, and the last thing you want to do is swallow a transdimensional object. The food actually has to follow regulations and list the ingredients.

Unless you grow your own food in an area you control, you just have to trust that the multiple companies behind the production of your food supply is responsible and follows the rules. Even then mistakes are made sometimes, but at least it’s safe to say that you probably won’t die after eating that next sandwich.

Anyway, maybe this is something to think about over your next meal… or not.

Filed under: Commentary by StevoTVR
No Comments »