Clever Title: Owen Allen's ramblings

There have been no details published about what happened during the meeting between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton last week. Luckily, I have my sources. Here's a detailed, minute-by-minute outline of what happened:

7:00 - Senator Feinstein leads Sens. Obama and Clinton to the living room and leaves. Sens. Obama and Clinton sit.

7:01 - Greetings and pleasantries.

7:02 - Senator Clinton announces that she would prefer to switch seats.

7:03 - After consideration, Senator Clinton decides that she preferred her older seat.

7:04 - Senator Obama raises subject of Tuesday's elections.

7:05 - Senator Clinton makes note of pleasant California weather, mentions her victory in California.

7:08 - Senator Obama makes note of popular vote, delegate totals.

7:10 - Senator Clinton notes her vote totals in Michigan and Florida. Upon mention of Florida, both Senators roundly curse former Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris.

7:12 - Senator Obama returns to subject of popular vote, delegate totals.

7:13 - Senator Clinton gets a glass of water.

7:14 - Senator Clinton raises idea of sharing presidency. Senator Obama asks for a sip of her water and is denied.

7:15 - Senator Obama praises Senator Clinton's record as a Senator.

7:16 - Senator Clinton suggests that she could do better in a more powerful position.

7:17 - Senator Obama returns to subject of popular vote, delegate totals.

7:18 - Senator Clinton notes her support among Hispanics, women, and hard-working white Americans.

7:20 - Senator Obama notes his support among young people, blacks, and lazy white Americans.

7:22 - Senator Clinton questions Senator Obama's dedication to assisting the poor.

7:24 - Senator Obama references his past community service and notes that Senator Clinton is far from poor herself.

7:25 - Senator Clinton notes that, while her personal funds are significant, her campaign funds are slim. Senator Clinton refers to Senator Obama as 'moneybags'.

7:27 - Senator Obama implies that, because of Senator Clinton's financial problems, she is becoming bitter, and will soon turn to guns and God.

7:28 - Senator Clinton says that the conversation is causing her blood pressure to increase, and implies that Senator Obama's health plan would leave her without coverage.

7:29 - Senator Obama states that Senator Clinton's arguments are giving him a headache, and that she could cease making them, thus saving taxpayers the burden of supplying him with ibuprofen.

7:30 - Fisticuffs ensue.

7:30 - In Arizona, Senator John McCain becomes strangely excited and does not know why.

7:39 - After breaking both chairs, their water glasses, and a nearby table in the scuffle, Senator Obama and Senator Clinton collapse to the floor. Senator Obama calls a truce, and Senator Clinton agrees.

7:40 - Senator Clinton begins to cry, saying that ever since she was young, it was her dream to become president, and bring our society one step closer to true equality.

7:42 - Senator Obama begins to cry as well, telling Senator Clinton that he has had the same dream for his entire life.

7:44 - Senator Clinton, after a pause, admits that Senator Obama does not really take plays from Karl Rove's playbook.

7:45 - Senators Clinton and Obama ridicule Karl Rove for his hair and his unfortunate nickname.

7:47 - Senator Obama sneers and does his best Dick Cheney impression, explaining that the damaged furniture is the cost of freedom. Senator Clinton is amused.

7:49 - Senator Clinton manages a near-perfect impression of President Bush, explaining the devastation in the sitting room as 'collatemal damage' and declaring 'Mission Accomplished.' Senator Obama cracks up.

7:51 - Senator Obama tells Senator Clinton that he'd appreciate her help in the upcoming campaign. He compliments her determination and tenacity.

7:53 - Senator Clinton acknowledges that she would prefer Senator Obama as President rather than Senator McCain.

7:55 - Senator Obama notes that being the most powerful person in New York isn't a bad thing.

7:56 - Senator Clinton declares that she will support Obama's campaign, and advises him to begin considering his vice-presidential choices. She winks emphatically.

7:57 - Senator Obama smiles and begins considering. He thanks Senator Clinton for her council.

7:58 - Senator Clinton asks if they have anything else to discuss, and if not, if they can adjourn.

7:59 - Senator Obama declares that 'when the chairs stand up, we can stand down.'

8:00 - Senator Feinstein opens the door, and Senator Obama and Senator Clinton exit, laughing. Senator Clinton declares, once again, that Obama can count on her support in the general election.

8:00 - In Arizona, Senator John McCain feels the icy pang of fear and does not know why.

When I was studying math in high school, I initially had a lot of resistance to the idea of imaginary numbers. It seemed clear to me that i, or the square root of negative one, was an impossibility. I knew the system, and it didn't fit.

I discovered in a later class that, in one way, I'd been right - in our math system, i is impossible. But our math system isn't complete enough to account for everything that's possible in the real world. In fact, it's been demonstrated that no math system can be both complete and coherent - that is, no system can explain everything and still make sense within itself.

I've been thinking about this recently as the presidential campaign gets into high gear, and we start hearing more and more from politicians and pundits. A lot of people with strong ideological systems, generally convinced that all other systems are flawed in some way.

Here's what occurred to me, though. If, even in something as simple and universal as math, no single system can explain everything, how could one ideological system possibly explain everything? If no single mathematical model for the universe's most basic functions can suffice, how could we hope to guide something as bewilderingly complex as human society using a single political model?

We all have our own models for human behavior, our own ideologies, our own expectations. And most of them work fairly well. But we are all wrong sometimes. None of our models are perfect, none of our ideologies account for everything. If we decide that our own beliefs are totally and completely correct, with no room for other possibilities, then all we're doing is giving ourselves a blind spot.

This isn't to say that we shouldn't believe in anything. Clearly, if we don't believe in anything, we can't be right either. It is just to say this: In the course of your life, you will never reach a perfect understanding of the world. You can either try to understand other perspectives, and get closer to a complete understanding, or you can decide that your current view is complete. And it isn't.

you do not talk about wikis.sun.com.

The second rule of wikis.sun.com is, you DO NOT TALK about wikis.sun.com.

The third rule is, once the site gets too many hits, the site is down.

The fourth rule is, no more than two admins to a site.

The fifth rule is, edit one site at a time.

And the sixth rule is, if you're new to Sun, you have to use the wiki.

I've recently picked up two relatively new roleplaying games - the Star Wars Saga Edition and Dark Heresy, the 40k RPG. They have markedly different approaches to almost every aspect of roleplaying, and I think they highlight pretty well the two broad directions that roleplaying can take.

The Star Wars RPG is designed around giving your character a huge number of advancement possibilities. It increases the number of attribute advancements that you get from one every four levels to two every four levels. It gives every character more hit points and abandons the old 'vitality points/wound points' system, which makes it less lethal to PCs. Almost everyone gets more feats than before, and class abilities are now 'talents', which provides more flexibility.

The downside to all of this balance and possibility is that it lends itself to a more artificial play style. Your character doesn't need to have weaknesses. They just have a class role, and if they play it well, they know they'll survive and get more shiny abilities. That's not necessarily bad - I wouldn't play WOW if I didn't like that play style some of the time - but it often seems to detract from roleplaying.

Dark Heresy, on the other hand, provides a fair amount of player choice, but also applies some factors that are beyond the players' control. Stats, for instance, are rolled in order, meaning that without some GM mitigation, your character won't be great at everything you'd like. There are random factors in character creation, such as your character's divination, that sometimes provide benefits but sometimes give drawbacks. As the game progresses, there are hazards such as corruption and insanity that can give a character mutations or psychological disorders. And the combat in general is more lethal, with the possibility of permanent harm or death.

The risk and the possible drawbacks sound bad, but they're also a benefit. You don't want your character to have weaknesses, but those weaknesses make them more real, which can mean better roleplaying. You don't want to risk losing your character or having them permanently harmed, but that risk makes your survival and success all the more meaningful.

In the end, I think that both systems are well-tailored to what they're aiming for. It's just interesting to me how, even between two sci-fi RPGs, the aims can be so varied.

Dana Steward saw two of the young owls outside a nearby window yesterday.

One of them didn't stick around for the whole day.

There are evidently four juveniles, which is about as big as Great Horned Owl families get. Here are three of them hanging out on a drainpipe.

The adults can also be seen nearby.

Deirdre Straughan has also been blogging about the owls, it seems. They are the talk of Broomfield this year.

The juvenile Great Horned Owls evidently decided that Tom Royersmith's office window would be an excellent spot for a nap. Luckily, Jeff Ferreira thought it was an excellent spot for a photo op.

They don't look at the camera much in these pictures. Jeff wisely kept the flash off so as not to wake them. They occasionally swiveled their heads around to look at us, but not much.

It's hard to work with predators watching your every move, but Tom manages somehow.

They're night people. But Great Horned Owls usually are.

This juvenile (image by Dena Steward) is near Broomfield building 5. The fact that he/she is willing to be photographed and seen up close is pretty amazing. The gray fluff is natal down, meaning that this bird is very young. Great Horned Owls lay their eggs earlier in the year than almost any other bird, which is why they have young even though there's still snow on the ground.

...

This picture (by Jeff Ferreira) is from a bit later, perhaps a week or so. Notice that the 'ear tufts' are just beginning to come in. Although it's moved to its own branch and begun to fly, this owl is still going to hang around with its parents for a while, probably until the fall.

...

This picture, also by Jeff Ferreira, shows the owl perched on a window. Although the juvenile is cute, you should not get close unless there's a window between you and it. Great Horned Owls aren't particularly aggressive, but they won't appreciate people getting too close, and the adults might not like people approaching their kids.

...

You can get a pretty good look at this owl's eyes in this picture. Owls cannot move their eyes, so they must rotate their entire heads to look at things. Their vision is superb, particularly at night, and their hearing is also very good. One of an owl's ears is higher up and at a slightly different angle than the other, which allows it to triangulate sound by moving its head.

...

As this image suggests, Owls are nocturnal, so it's also a good idea not to disturb them during the day. By all means, watch them, and enjoy having them nearby. But remember that they're wild animals, and we need to let them be wild. We need to be good neighbors.

A French employee just ended an email by saying that the opinion therein was just 'my2$'. My two dollars.

I knew the exchange rate was getting pretty bad, but damn.

"These controls can apply to an object as simple as a pencil, if you have reason to believe that it might be used for a situation that would threaten national security."

That's from the export control training, and it's no laughing matter.

Seriously, people. If you loan your pencil to a Sun employee from China, the terrorists win.

Neil Davis had a post in his blog yesterday regarding global warming, and I feel that I have to respond. Since comments were not permitted, I'll respond here.

Mr. Davis noted that there's a great deal of evidence that the Earth's magnetic field changes greatly over time, and that it sometimes reverses itself entirely. He also says that we're drawing close to a field reversal now, and that these field changes have an effect on our planet's climate. He provides a link to a NASA article about the Earth's magnetic field.

The problem is, the article says nothing about an impending reversal, and mentions no correlation between magnetic field changes and climate. In fact, the article says that reversals in the magnetic field are quite irregular. Let me quote the article: "[Magnetic field reversals] come at irregular intervals averaging about 300,000 years; the last one was 780,000 years ago. Are we overdue for another? No one knows."

I looked at several of the links from the source that he cited, as well. Here's a quote from another source linked to from the NASA site: "'Some reversals occurred within a few 10,000 years of each other,' says Los Alamos scientist Gary Glatzmaier, 'and there are other periods where no reversals occurred for tens of millions of years.'"

Through some poking around, I found some sources that mention a possible impending reversal, although their coverage is somewhat alarmist and contradicts some of NASA's facts. And there is still no mention of what effect a field reversal would have on climate, if any.

Mr. Davis, if you could provide some sources that better illustrate what you're saying, I'd appreciate it.

People like job security. We all like it, and we all try to gain and preserve it. This benefits all of us, right?

Well, yes and no. If our job is inviolate, obviously, we have less to worry about, and a better basis for our own future.

The problem is that everyone else wants to prove that their job is indispensable, too. And often enough we shaft each other in trying to prove that we need each other.

Take marketing. They sell our stuff and come up with our product names, and often they do a smashing job. Java comes to mind, as do Netbeans, SunSPOTs and Blackbox. But sometimes they change the name of a product in between releases for no apparent reason, or give some products five-word names. Why? Because if they have a system for naming products and we don't understand it, then we need them.

This is the reason why our country has so many laws that nobody could ever understand them all. You would think that many areas of the law could be quite simple, and the finer points could be left to the good judgment of, say, judges. This would be good for average citizens in most respects. But if the law of the land is an incomprehensible monstrosity that requires a decade of study to comprehend, then not only do you need lawyers, but you need to pay them a lot. Lawyers like things that way.

I'm not going to claim that I'm immune, or that my department is immune. I'm sure we do it too, and it's harder for me to see because I'm on the inside. But it's interesting that, when we all try to make things better for ourselves, we all make things worse for ourselves.

I'm about fifty minutes late in announcing this, but that's because I was at an office Pi Day party eating pie. I hope that you, too, are appreciating circles and acting irrational today.

In the spirit of the holiday, here's a song from last year's Pi Day celebrations. Nerdcore!

After many a delay, here are the building instructions for the Lego firefly, in html form!

It's a little bit wonky, I have to admit. If you're feeling energetic, you can download the Lego digital designer, and then get the digital version here (right-click and save as) and mess around with it.

A couple of caveats. One, you'll notice several bright red bricks in these versions. Those are there because the Lego digital designer didn't have all of the blocks that the real world had. It should be evident what the missing part is if you look at the pictures.

Also, it wouldn't let me clip the engine on or attach a couple of other pieces, even though they do fit. Again, if you look at the pictures, it should all make sense.

I haven't expanded on my last post in a while, as I had a training session for most of the week. (Sorry, a TOI. Everything has to have an acronym!)

So here are some more detailed pictures. I think the Lego site has a tool for generating building instructions, so that will come next. For now, here's a more detailed front picture:

Here's a shot of the back):

Here is the underside (Note - do not land your Firefly like this):

And here's me, holding it and looking pensive.

I've been inspired by Sun's commitment to open-sourcing, so I've decided to embark on an open-source project of my own. A while back, I built this Lego(tm) model of a particular Firefly-class transport:

I like a lot of things about it, but there are parts of the model that can be improved. So I'm going to post more detailed pictures and a complete set of building instructions, and if you'd like to offer suggestions on how to improve it, feel free. Because, really, if we can collaborate on a project like this, no power in the 'verse can stop us.