Very small group at youth group last night. (Is two a group?) But it was still good. I just did a very informal Q&A thing. Not much other than that.

I got a bit of a break from the routine today. My Pastor came by the hospital and picked me up for a presentation by Baptist Bible College and Seminary out at Lake Ann Camp. They fed us well, and the presentation was good. The best part was the admission that (1) the traditional way of doing things no longer works, and (2) we are not really sure what does, but we are trying to find out. That sort of honesty is surprisingly rare in many Christian organizations. In any case, I got out of the cube farm and out in the nice weather for a bit.

From the web today:

13 Things that do not make sense. One issue I have with this article (and others like it) is how they report that some phenomenon "violates the laws of physics." Sorry, folks; reality cannot violate reality. What may be violated is our understanding of certain physical mechanisms. Our model of a particular law of physics may not hold up well under new or more accurate data. Our measurement of a phenomenon may not be accurate. But a physical event cannot violate the laws of physics. My second gripe is how everything is being presented as "overturning the world of physics/chemistry/biology." Einstein did not refute Newton; he refined Newton as the result of new, more accurate data. Steven Hawking is not refuting Einstein; he is refining the model Einstein left us (which was acknowledged by Einstein as incomplete). Science is tentative: Model X best explains what we know now. That model may be tweaked, revised, or rebuilt based on new data. But no scientist speaks of his discovery "overturning" or "refuting" anything. Only non-scientists, like the anti-evolution crowd, are that arrogant.

And the politics surrounding Terri Schiavo continue. I expected this. The best part comes from the mouth of Senator Mel Martinez (R-Fla.):

I never did an investigation, as such. I just took it for granted that we wouldn't be that stupid. It was never my intention to in any way politicize this issue.

Yea. Right. Please excuse my cynicism, senator.

The focus of this article is creating a $100 laptop for children, but I think that misses a big part of the picture. Sure, every school-aged child owning a laptop would be revolutionary, but I think this could profoundly change how computing is viewed by society. Computers are already becoming ubiquitous; knock the price down to 100 bucks and they will be everywhere. When I was growing up, the typical household had a TV. Today, it is not unusual for every person in the household to have their own TV. I see the same thing happening with computers. Ten years ago, everyone talked about getting a computer in every household. Get the price down to $100, and it will be a computer for every person.

And I need to pack it in and go pick up Nestina from soccer practice.