Faithful as a loon

I was talking with a friend recently and she asked me where I plan to be in a year. The question wasn't of physical location, but how I envision my life in a year. When I told her, she asked how I plan to accomplish my ambitious goals. For each goal, I said that I would continue to work towards it.

It's hardly as if I set goals and then sit around hoping that they'll happen. I've been working for these goals for years.

But my friend pushed me further. Citing a common phrase, she said that persisting in the same behaviors and expecting different results is insanity. I don't quite agree, so I guess it's time for me to confront conventional wisdom.

Actually, I agree that we should change if we want different results. The problem is when we take this generally wise statement and try to make it a maxim.

In a year, I imagine that I'll be dating someone seriously. This isn't a prediction of the future; relationships can start and end rather quickly and on February 28th of 2014, anything could happen. The same, of course, is true of February 27th. But I do expect to be progressing towards my most important goal: having a happy, stable family of my own.

How will I accomplish this? By continuing to date. This sounds like much of the same, but allow me to explain further. I will keep putting forth the effort to date. I will keep asking hard questions so I can change the faulty assumptions that I make about myself, others, and about dating. I will keep putting my best efforts into improving myself and improving the way that I go about dating.

But if these are things I've been doing for some time and I haven't seen much in the way of results, aren't I doing the same thing and expecting different results? Doesn't that make me insane?

Maybe. My possible insanity is something we can't discount.

But if a sane person tries to accomplish things by changing, doesn't that mean that a person can't remain sane indefinitely? By continuing to change, I expect to continue to see different results. I'm doing the same thing, so I should see the same results – either that or I'm nuts.

I could try changing how I change, but the same problem happens. I can go down this rabbit hole as far as I like and I'll keep on hitting the same wall.

More fundamentally, the world is a stupefyingly complex system, full of intelligent, autonomous, sentient agents (we usually just call them people). When my expectations involve other people – and virtually every worthwhile expectation does – I must remember that other people can choose what they will and won't do. In many cases, I am morally or ethically obligated to continue in the same course of action. In other cases, it just makes sense to keep doing the same thing. Meanwhile, I will continue to hope that other people will choose to do as I would like them to do.

And there is another agent in this system. He usually remains unseen, but is deeply involved in the circumstances of our lives. God gives me my life as I experience it for my benefit, partially to try my faith. For faith to be tried, I must choose what I believe is right and then experience consequences that do not match my hopes. And then I need to keep choosing what I believe is right, knowing that God will grant me all of the blessings that I need to be happy. They won't necessarily be as I imagine them and they probably won't come exactly when I plan for them, but they will come.

I'm not insane. It's just that I believe.

Peteys are like onions

I've been trying to learn how to play the guitar and the piano recently. Not having a piano, it's fairly hard for me to practice. But I have a friend who does and when I visit his house, I try to take a minute to practice. I've taken to playing one of my all-time favorites: And So It Goes by Billy Joel.

Although I've liked this song for some time, it has assumed a special meaning to me. First, a bit of background.

It's no secret that people's first impressions of me vary. In fact, they vary so much that I could probably write an entire blog post (or a series of them) on the subject. Since many people first see me in large group situations, it's pretty common for people to think of me as loud and energetic – sometimes, even disruptive. I think that my openness comes across quickly, as well. These impressions are all correct: I'm unafraid of large groups and frequently take charge when no one else has done so. Sometimes, I'm the one who organizes a game of freeze tag simply because freeze tag is awesome. I don't mind broaching subjects that make lots of people uncomfortable. And I write fairly personal things on this public blog.

Unfortunately, many of my acquaintances seem to think that they've got me pegged with their first impression. As is the case with every person who has ever lived, there's more to me than meets the eye.

I'm not terribly concerned with the people who assume things about my character because of their first impressions of me. In fact, several people have thought ill of me when they first met me, only to form wonderful friendships with me later.

What concerns me is that, because I'm comfortable in groups and because I'm so open, that people make subtler assumptions about me. One that is especially worrisome to me is that sometimes people assume that I express everything that I think and feel. I say so much that I don't really blame people for thinking as they do about me. But the thoughts and feelings that matter most to me are the ones that I express most selectively.

One facet most people don't see is the pain that I feel. I don't usually share my struggles, especially in public settings. I frequently wish I could talk about them but don't always know who will listen; my problems tend to be so different from the problems of others that my friends have trouble relating. I've even opened up just to be told (in an annoyed tone) that my problems are desirable and that I should stop whining.

I'm perhaps most guarded about romantic affection. I'm open about my admiration for people and form friendships easily. This is not the case with romantic love. I'm very cautious about expressing romantic affection. I think that, several times, my failure to express my feelings have been interpreted as the absence of attachment. I've been aware of this for some time, but I'm still trying to figure out how and when to best express it. I'm making this up as I go.

And so we come to Billy Joel's music. It might seem like what's visible at the outset is all that's in my heart, but this is far from true. There is a sanctuary in there. It is safe and strong because there are no doors or windows. I am learning to tear a hole in the wall to let people in. It hurts every time, but my deepest desire is to share this room and to have that trust reciprocated. Singing this beautiful song is simultaneously an expression of my hidden pain and of my desire to open up more fully. It is also a reminder that opening up is up to me.

But you, my friends, can help me. You can ask me tough questions. Please dig deep. You can care about my thoughts and you can share yours – even if they disagree with mine. Please be patient with me. Please don't let my silence make you leave.

Five easy steps that prevent most computer problems

Lots of people come to me for computer support. I'm happy to help; it gives me a chance to visit with people I care about and to do something really valuable to help them.

I'm fascinated by how similar their requests are. It's not that I end up doing the same thing to fix every problem but that the same few things could be done to prevent these problems in the first place.

At the risk of denying myself one of my pleasures, I'm posting a list of simple things that everyone can do (and should do) that will remove the majority of their computer headaches – at least, the type of headaches that sends them to a friend for help.

1. Back up your files

It doesn't matter what kind of hard drive you have. It's not a question of whether or not your hard drive will fail. It's a question of when.

It goes without saying that keeping only one copy of your information on some sort of portable drive is a bad idea. People lose or break them all the time.

The solution is to keep copies of your information. One copy is always insufficient. Having even one backup copy of your data makes it virtually impossible for you to lose it, as it's extraordinarily unlikely that all of your copies will fail simultaneously.

It's a pain to back things up manually. Windows 7 has a feature called Backup and Restore. Mac OS X has Time Machine. They use a separate hard drive or other media to keep copies of all of your files.

If you don't want another hard drive, there are lots of online storage solutions. Try Google Drive, Dropbox, Skydrive (by Microsoft), iCloud (by Apple), or Mega. Space Monkey hasn't launched yet but is an innovative variant on cloud storage. How much you can store (and what you can store) varies a little from solution to solution. In every case, they're managing encryption for you (although Mega is trying to put you in better control of your data). This means that if they mess something up, your data could become public. They're usually pretty good, but I recommend against storing sensitive data on them without encrypting them first.

There are several advantages of storing in the cloud. They take care of the hard drives and redundancy for you. In many cases, it's even free (for a small amount of storage, which is plenty for your text documents and often for pictures or music). It's available to you whenever you have internet access. It's painless to transfer from one computer to another. And most of them automatically detect when you change something and upload it automatically, making it effortless to keep a current backup at all times.

One last note about backups: you have to keep them. This sounds obvious, but countless people have thrown away the disks that store their data or the software that came with their computers because they never use them. You probably won't use all of them, but you certainly will want some of them.

2. Back up your software

Files are easy to back up and to transfer between computers. Software isn't. However, it is fairly easy to back up installation media and software keys.

Software that comes with your computer may not come with a disk. When you get a new computer, you should make recovery disks before you do anything. Don't connect to the internet. Don't open files. Most systems will prompt you to make backups and most people ignore this warning.

In case that wasn't emphatic enough, the first thing you should do when you get a computer is back up the software that came with it.

If you buy software on a disk, it's probably a good idea to keep the disk around and it might be a good idea to copy it and store it elsewhere. Backing up software is specifically allowed by your statutory rights; there's no need to worry about copyright.

If you buy and download software (by far more common these days), don't just run the file you downloaded. Before you run it, make sure to save it somewhere. In fact, you should probably just burn it to a CD or a DVD immediately.

If you buy software through a marketplace (such as the Apple App Store or Google Play) and you don't get an installation file, good luck. Your best bet is to hope that that marketplace never goes out of business. It may be possible to find and back up installation media but that could violate the marketplace's terms of service.

If you get free software, it's often counterproductive to store it anywhere. There will be a new version by the time you need it again. If it's free, I recommend just downloading it again when you need it.

In any event, make sure that you keep any software keys with your software. If you burn a disk, add your key to that disk. If the key is a file, add the file to the disk. If it's text, add a text file with the key in it. You may also want to write the key onto the disk itself. Sometimes there are keys that ship with your computer or that are on a sticker under a laptop or on a desktop. Write them down somewhere else, especially if you put your laptop on your lap, as the writing can wear off over time.

3. Install updates automatically

Modern Windows and Mac OS X install new updates automatically. Don't change this behavior unless you really, really, really know what you're doing. Yes, there are occasional problems with patches. But Patch Tuesday is always followed by Exploit Wednesday. Just don't go there. Install updates as they come out.

There is other software that needs to be updated, too. Your browser needs to be updated. Your productivity software needs to be updated. Countless other things need to be updated. Most of them will tell you about updates periodically.

Take the time and install the updates.

It really doesn't take that long. You don't have to take care of them as soon as you see them, but you'll probably be taking a break or switch tasks within an hour of seeing an update. Update then. If you don't remember, write yourself a reminder. This is a habit you're going to have to cultivate.

4. Use strong passwords

It's hard to think of a strong password. It's harder to remember a strong password. And it's hardest to remember countless different strong passwords. My recommendation is that you don't.

It's not that you shouldn't have strong passwords. It's that you shouldn't bother trying to remember them. I use KeePass to store a database of passwords. It automatically encrypts the database and requires me to enter one master password to open it.

KeePass features a password generator that makes strong password generation a cinch. I won't get into the mathematics of what makes a password strong, but I recommend that you use such a password generator and there is solid mathematical reasoning behind that recommendation.

I haven't found a way to make KeePass 2 work well in Mac OS. For that matter, the user experience of KeePassX (a version of KeePass for UNIX systems, including Mac OS X) is worse on a Mac. But it works.

One of my favorite features of KeePass is that not only do I not have to remember my passwords, I don't have to type them. I haven't ever seen half of them. On Windows systems and in Linux, there's an auto-type feature that types my username and password directly into my browser or whatever I'm using to log in. In all of them, it's easy to copy my username or password to the clipboard so I can paste it elsewhere. And it automatically cleans out my clipboard so my passwords aren't available to other programs.

I sync my passwords database using the cloud (see the section on backing up data) to my various computers and even to my phone. I'm not concerned about the security of it because I have a strong passphrase that is required to open it. And that means I always have access to all of my accounts, everywhere.

Did I mention that I don't know my own passwords? That every one of my accounts has a different password? And that the time I'd expect it to take to crack any one of my passwords far exceeds the time we expect the universe to exist? In short, I'm not too worried that anyone is going to steal my digital life.

5. Be careful where you click

Malware is pretty amazing these days. Just clicking on a link could infect your computer or steal your account from you.

It's not that links are bad. They're like email attachments or downloads: be careful. Use bookmarks to get to the websites you use often and never use a link from an email to get to them, even if it looks authentic. It's just as easy to use a bookmark and, assuming that you made the bookmark correctly in the first place, it's much less risky.

Links in social media are really the same risk as links in emails and on web pages. Regardless of how you get them, always be skeptical of uncharacteristic communications from people you know – and more skeptical of communications from people you don't know.

Always keep a virus scanner up to date and running (yes, even if you use a Mac). For Windows users, I recommend Microsoft Security Essentials, which is free to users of Windows XP an later. It does its job and stays out of the way otherwise.

Another common source of malware is smartphone software. By running an app on your smartphone, you're potentially giving some unknown author access to everything on your phone. Favor software actually written by the entities you're interacting with; for example, Twitter's official app instead of a third-party application. This isn't an absolute rule, but caution is in order. On Android devices, inspect the permissions that an application requires and consider if they seem reasonable – this won't protect against everything, but it will help.

Most of these things take a small investment of time at the outset and very little time to maintain. In fact, I think I save time typing passwords. And it pays off: my laptop died last week, as laptops are wont to do. I can still get to the files using nerd-fu but I don't think I have to; there's nothing on that computer that I've needed yet that isn't backed up elsewhere.

There are, of course, more things that can be done. Maybe I'll write another blog post someday about what you can do if you want to tinker a little more.

On what might have been

How many times have you wished that one little thing could change in the past? If that hadn't happened, the effects in the present would be countless and powerfully different. If I'd only chosen to turn right instead of turning left, I would have seen my friend and been able to give him a ride. If she hadn't waited 15 minutes before leaving home, she wouldn't have been crossing the street when that drunk driver came along. We could go on endlessly.

Of course, we don't really know what would have happened. We have gotten pretty good at guessing, but we don't ever know for sure. The scientific method usually involves repeated experiments – and certainly involves allowing others to repeat our experiments. The hope is that if we observe enough things carefully enough, we'll understand cause and effect.

The way that a scientist tries to understand cause and effect is by isolating a single difference. An experiment involves doing two things exactly the same way except for that one crucial difference and observing the results. If changing that one thing consistently gives a changed outcome, we assume that there is (and that we have observed) a causal relationship.

We've become so accustomed to experimentation and so casual as we set up our experiments that we've come to make frequent errors in the way that we see the world. Some of these errors lead us to dangerous conclusions.

Our habit of breaking things down into experiments has trained us to think only of one factor in an outcome at a time. Isolating the different factors is wise, but we must eventually remember the ones we've left to the side. This is especially important because we don't always think of all of the factors when we set up our experiments. The fact of the matter is that many light things fall more slowly than rocks do, although their weight is not the only factor in that measured outcome.

Our legal system has a similar approach to things that can have a similar effect on our thinking: since there are many things that contribute to any one event happening, our law concerns itself principally with a proximate cause. Without this legal doctrine, we'd have no way of assigning any sort of blame to anyone or anything and our laws would be completely pointless. But if we're not careful, this too can train us to think that every outcome has a single cause.

We do well to identify the other causes of the events in life, whether we hope to repeat them or avoid them. We can do so by asking questions like, "what else contributed to this?" and, "what else might I have done in this regard?" When we identify something that we might have done that seems likely to lead to a desired outcome, we can consider if we want to try acting in that way in the future.

It's also a good idea to recognize that, because so many factors contribute to every single event, we rarely have a suitable justification to blame anyone else for anything. Even if the outcome could not have been the same had they acted differently (this is rarely the case), it's usually impossible to prove that another persons actions alone would guarantee that outcome. This is usually impossible to prove because it isn't true.

Similarly, it seems that in most cases where a person tries to influence another's decisions, it's because the other person's actions would contribute to some desired outcome. There's nothing wrong with this, but we'd be a lot less tempted to manipulate each other if we spent more time thinking about what we can do ourselves to contribute to those same outcomes.

On a related note, we usually form opinions too soon about whether or not we want something to happen. I've looked back on several then-happy experiences and wished they'd been different and I've been immensely grateful for many of my unpleasant experiences. In fact, we'd probably all be better off if we made more of our decisions based on our principles instead of what we imagine and hope will be the outcome.

So stop fretting about what would have happened as if you know and figure out how to make the best of the situation you're in instead.

The new way of multiplying that's exactly the same as the old way

There's an article that's been kicking around the intertubes for the last couple of days. You'll find it here (as far as I can tell, this is the original version).

The gist is that there's an easy way to teach multiplication – that the Japanese have figured something out that we haven't in America. I presume that people are sharing because they wish they'd been taught that way in school.

To multiply 12 x 23, we draw these lines:

Now we count the intersections of the lines in each corner:

Here, we can add the two numbers in the middle column and put the numbers together to get 276, which is the correct result for 12 x 23.

But if we restructure the lines slightly:

And remove the lines:

We have exactly the same multiplication with the exact same calculations as we would have done had we simply done as taught in school.

Now to my objections.

The "proof" given that this gives the same result is only a demonstration that the result worked for a particular example. To prove that a method is correct, it's necessary to show that it will always work. If our students could actually demonstrate why these two methods always produce the same results, we'd be going somewhere.

I fail to see how this is any simpler. It actually takes longer to do. I suppose some students might object to the typical American method because it seems so arbitrary and they don't see why it would work, but the same applies just as easily to this visual method.

Try using bigger digits (not my own thought; I found this one online).

Most importantly, though, all of this misses the bigger point. It's not just about being able to perform computation. We have calculators for that. It's about understanding what a computation is, what it means, and how it works. This could be a useful teaching tool but could also be a crutch that prevents another generation of students from understanding one of the most fundamental operations in mathematics.

So why is this any different or better? Maybe I've missed something?

The man in the mirror

I am of the opinion that government-run welfare is inefficient, curtails financial freedom, encourages laziness, and sometimes has the effect of exacerbating the differences between socioeconomic classes. By allowing themselves to be taxed instead of giving themselves, people lose the opportunity to actually serve others (which is extremely beneficial to both parties). They also rely on underpaid government employees to make decisions about how to use resources instead of using the intelligence and good judgment of billions of people around the world to make those decisions independently and wisely.

But, at least for the moment, we're much better off with government welfare. There are far too many people with far too little and if we cut the government programs, they'll starve and go without other necessities. Yes, there are many people who cynically take advantage of the system. But there are many people who depend on welfare for good and sufficient reasons.

I have similar feelings about gun control. The Second Amendment doesn't exist so we can hunt. It exists to guarantee that the country's military power rests with the people and not with a central government. The more restrictions we have on gun control, the further we are from that ideal. I'd like to get rid of guns entirely, but committing absolutely to nonviolence in any form ensures that those who don't have the same scruples are guaranteed to win as long as they're willing to start a fight.

The fact that the military has access to weapons that citizens may not own scares me. On the other hand, I don't believe that we have the moral maturity as a culture to use such weapons wisely. We're too unwilling to hold ourselves and each other accountable for the use of our weapons. More subtly, we're too unwilling to hold ourselves accountable for our angry words and for our unrealistic expectations. We're unwilling to do inconvenient things to ensure our own safety and unwilling to pay for outsourced security. And we're unwilling to come up with a viable solution for the mental health problems that exist in our country.

For the time being making some kinds of guns inaccessible is a reasonable compromise. But it isn't good enough. We need access to guns, but we need to change ourselves first.

All of this reminds me of a piece that Seth Meyers did on Saturday Night Live. His joke about the Facebook Like button hits close to home. Apparently, many of us believe that we can support candidates who promise to change the country for us. But they can't. We are the country. If the country is going to change, we have to do it. Each one of us. We can't wait for our elected officials to do it for us because that's simply not something that people can do. We need to give until government welfare becomes redundant. We need to elevate the way that we interact with each other so that violence, with or without guns, becomes unacceptable. We need to make wise, intelligent decisions on our own. We need to become so good that our government doesn't matter.

Stand still

I have a confession to make, which may compromise my nerd cred. I don't particularly care for Legos and I never really have. I could cite several reasons that I never cared for them, but I'm going to focus on the one that's applicable to this article. I'm about setting and achieving goals, but Legos aren't about building according to the instructions. They're a creative exercise and that has never really appealed to me. So even as a kid, I was fairly incapable of just playing for the sake of play.

My name is Petey and I get stuff done.

In years past, the things I hoped to accomplish were simple tasks. I could think of a goal, plan to do it, and do it before losing interest. My attention span has grown a bit, but the length of time it takes to accomplish something worthwhile has grown much more.

What's more, many of the things I hope for now are at least partially out of my control. I can save up to buy a house, but I can't control when a house that I actually want to buy will be on the market. I can go on dates but my actions won't necessarily instill interest in me (although they could certainly dispel that interest). I can drive carefully but can't do much about the other drivers who don't. The list goes on and on.

Working towards goals that are outside of my control is nothing new to me; to some extent or another, the success of our endeavors always depends on circumstance. So I've contented myself with working as hard as I can to do what I can do to encourage circumstance to cooperate with me and simultaneously trusting God to provide whatever is necessary. I also choose to trust that when I don't get something I've tried to achieve that I'll be better off without it.

Usually, I can do both of these things at once. In fact, I've become dependent on my ability to work towards goals. Most of the divine intervention that I've seen as I've tried to achieve things has been subtle direction towards things I can try to get where I'm trying to go.

But I've had a very frustrating week. I was talking about it with a friend and realized that, for at least one of my goals, there may be nothing I can do at the moment. This is only a small step up from giving up, which is completely out of the question.

Please forgive me if I seem melodramatic. I'm currently trying to cope with the fact that my primary method of dealing with the world isn't effective.

Fortunately, the way ahead is clear. I just need more faith. The best summary I know is in the Doctrine and Covenants, which I accept as scripture: "let us cheerfully do all things that lie in our power; and then may we stand still, with the utmost assurance, to see the salvation of God, and for his arm to be revealed" (D&C 123:17).

For me, the current application seems clear. I have done, for the time being, all that I can do to achieve some of my goals. In these facets of my life, it is now time for me to stand still. Standing still doesn't mean that stop trying entirely; I still need to give God every chance to bless me that I can. But it does mean that I stop beating myself up about it. And it absolutely means that I need to trust Him. In the past, trusting Him has always meant that I did what I could and believed that He would bless me. But now, I need to trust Him without some of that effort. And with that effort, I must also sacrifice the illusion of control. I have to square with the fact that it is not my efforts or abilities or determination that will provide the outcomes I seek but that, to the extent that I get what I want, it is due to His goodness.

This is going to be a big transition.