High Performance Computing and Communication Act

    Here we go...the last blog post of the year! 

  \o/   \o/  \o/  \o/  \o/  \o/

   | |     | |   | |    | |    | |   | |

  /  \    /  \ /  \   /  \  /  \  /  \  

    As we (I?) count down the days to the end of this year, we were kindly asked (and threatened with the possibility of being exempted from possible exemption for the final) by our teacher to provide our feedback regarding the soon-ending academic year. Now, it is only appropriate that we (I?) get this done with as soon as possible so, hang on to the reading!

    My growth as a student, pertaining to APLAC, I believe, is notable. This is especially so in respect to my writing. I've never actually hated writing. I never hated writing; the way walruses never hated singing; the way dragons never hated their breath. Truth is, my enthusiasm far outweighed my talent and the resulting prose was, well, to use an understatement, substandard. Such was the state of my writing prior to entering E122 during fourth period in late August of 2013. The rest of the story has been documented, evaluated and indexed in HISD's computerized treasure troves of grades. ;)

   The skills of rhetorical analysis, fallacy-free argumentation, source-credibility analysis etc that I have acquired in this class have been instrumental in enabling me view everything around me from a different perspective. 

    Talking about the essays: I had a good time dismantling the rhetorical analysis prompt - or, I thought I did. (God! It better be!). Come July, though, I'm not excited to see the number next to the argumentation essay. That, I think, is because of the lack of practice on that section - which was wholly my mistake due to the total disregard I showed. Anyway, one must not jump to conclusions, right?

    Books: THE THINGS THEY CARRIED!!!! Ooops! Did I say that out loud? Well, it is not an overstatement. I think it was the best book we (I?) read this year. Naturally, I am not a fun of chronologically disarrayed pieces of literature. It always appeared to me it was one of those markers of "fake originality"; like an author who'd refuse to punctuate or capitalize his work for "originality's" sake or like a sham artist that draws two squiggly lines on a white backdrop and tells you it's "crude, abstract, modern" art. Tim O'Brien, however, threw the ball the other side - that's all I can say.

    On the other end of the spectrum, there was Truman Capote's In Cold Blood - which, true to its name, was written in cold blood. I found myself intrigued by the two murderers instead of the broad thematic message the author was trying to pass. Trying to understand the driving motive behind Perry and Dick kept me from finding the book's relativity to today. Perhaps, that was Capote's intention all along - who knows?

    Then, there is Al Gore! Bizarre, isn't it? Seriously, the never ending sarcasm and humor in the class played a big part in keeping me focused on the topics at hand. Hermione told Ron he had the "emotional range of a teaspoon": I have the "attention span" of said cutlery. So, I couldn't help but chuckle when Mr. Thomas said - sarcastically, of course - "...Al Gore gave us this wonderful thing called the Internet...". The class' response to that statement showed that it had passed as an esoteric reference - much to my disappointment. Although it is known that Mr. Gore did not invent the internet - and that he never claimed to have done so, there is something catchy about that statement, which has evolved to something of a punchline. However humorous, though, we must not undermine his notable contributions and give credit where it's due. Hence the title of this blog post.

So long!

    

(To Escape The Wall of Shame)

Hey, there! Welcome to the 5th (or 4th) post!

This time we are discussing the "things (people) carry", be them physical, mental or extra-dimensional. Although that is the topic, the sole objective of this post is to escape "The Wall of Shame" at E122. So, here we go with the things I carry...

I am not sure I have a physical thing that I attach much value to, or that I carry around with me all the time. I have this small red box that you'll - most of the time - find in one of my pockets. However, Gen. Keith finds more use in it than I do. GPS co-ordinates, "telephony metadata", cellular signals and all. Additionally, I carry my self (the physical one; the body) with me all the time. The logic is that if people claim their bodies carry the burdens and weight of their phantom dimensions, then hey, why not the other way around for me? Therefore, the physical thing I carry around is my body. Now, ladies, hold your horses. It is clothed and heavily protected - at all times. ;)

Dreams. I had a terrible one just last night. No, it wasn't about my name being indelible from The Wall of Shame. It was about something else. Anyways, let's talk dreams in the topic's context. 

          

         Q: "What is the dream you keep locked away and hidden - you know the one that drives you?"

    

         A:  I'd so much like to share it with you! But...but...like you said, it's locked, you know. And I can't seem to find the key anywhere! Darn it! :)   

Even more tragic could be the possibility of opening the safe after looking for the key for forever, and finding it empty. Zero! Zilch! Nada! So, a logical solution seems to be to wait for something to crystallize inside first. Luckily for us (or me), we (or I) have the power to influence what forms inside by the things that go on in the close vicinity.

There have been lots of faces in and out of my years. Most were just that - faces; others were lighthouses; a few were painting brushes; and five are (notice not "were") the girders and framework of my life. Irony is, the latter group's members don't have faces! They are more like virtual beings; albeit with more influence in my life than all other real people combined. Truth is, though, Galt, Roark, d'Anconia, Rearden and Taggart each lived more complete lives in their book-length existence than all other real people that I know - combined. If these five morphed into one real person, trust me, earth would have been a better place to live in. 

That said, however, it is not like I don't have real people I look up to. My parents, especially my mother, play significant roles in my life. I am closer to my mother in that we discuss about most things even though we are so different. Her frank and honest, yet smart approach to life has been exemplary to me. 

When I think of myself (I just did, for this post's sake), limiting my thoughts to adjectives - and three of them at that - becomes hard. Why think of oneself when there is a pre-defined limit to how far one can think? Isn't thinking supposed to be boundless? Anyways, getting back to the question, I think of myself in more than adjectives, with full meaning and context instead of "spare-part" adjectives. For that reason, and because my thinking was limited to three I-don't-know-whats, here are three statements I can say about myself. I hate contradictions. I hate incompetence. I admire endeavor and achievement.  

Lastly, regarding memories and experiences: There isn't much in those premises. Maybe, to a limited extent, the fact that I have been educated in more than five schools in three different countries. That, I believe, is a rare experience. Not in so much as shaping or molding me, but helping me realize the value of existence, a freak car-accident at four and a lengthy time of illnesses a few years later did a good job. However, with age, I am sure to encounter more life-defining incidents. Those incidents, I hope, will be included in all my authorized and unauthorized biographies. So, my authorized biographer, wherever you are, sharpen your writing skills, take many AP classes, get into a good liberal-arts college and constantly Google my name. As for you, unauthorized biographers - I have reasonable belief that there are many of you, you cannot imagine the lawsuits that will follow your books' publications and send them to the top of Time's Bestseller List.  

See you next time!

ሄሎ፡ መን ክብል፧ ᎐᎐᎐ማማ ጸብሒ ትሰርሕ ኣላ᎐᎐᎐

 እቲ ቀደም ግዜ፡ ዘመነ እኒእኒ ሕምባሻ`ከሎ እምኒ፡ ኣብ ሓንቲ ዓዲ ሓደ ንጉስ ነበረ። እዛ ዓዲ`ዚኣ፡ ኣዚያ ሃብታምን ዕድልትን ነበረት፤ መቸም ህዝባ ብሓጎስን ተድላን ይነባበር፡ እንስሳታታ ብሰላምን ምርድዳእን ይብልዑን ይበላልዑን፡ ዝናማታ ብግዚኦም ይምላለሱን ነበሩ። ብኩለንትናኣ ባህ ተብል ዓዲ ነበረት። እንታይ`ሞ፡ ዘራጊት ዘላተን ከብቲ`ዶ ጽሩይ ማይ ይሰትያ፧ 

Alrighty, what's the above you say? How about we start by greeting each other? (Three pecks on alternating chicks - starting from right - while shaking hands simultaneously.) Then, we sit down while repeatedly asking about each other's well-being. ("How's family?", "The young ones, are they OK?", "How's family?", "How's..."). And before I ask you whether you want it or not, I'll make you a cup of spiced tea, or even better, we will drink 4-5 rounds of strong coffee on tiny cups that have no handles!

How your coffee will be served...

Greetings! And welcome to this week's post. The topic? Something to do with identity and "third choice" and honoring parents and heritage. So, I'll be trying to answer the prompt as you hang on to the reading.

Now, to the first part of the prompt - regarding children honoring their heritage while leaving the things they don't approve of - I'd hate to repeat what others have elaborated on here. The general consensus seems to be - yes, I read some of what the others wrote - that each person has to tailor his/her own identity. Subtract the things you don't like or that are unrepresentative of you as an individual; add those that are the opposite. There is no way around. The basic idea here is that it is your responsibility, if not duty, that you live your life to the fullest - seeking the things that make you happy as a person - following your virtues. Seems like an easy thing? Not so much. Not understanding that is the major reason behind people's identity crises.

That said, the second part of the prompt, which is more specific to the person, takes me back to the opening of this post. That is my language - called Tigrinya - written in the beginning of this post. It's not particularly hard for me since I didn't leave my home country, Eritrea, until my pre-teen years. I grew up reading, writing and speaking it and I will continue to do that. It is one of those things you cannot just lose. Its complex form makes it even more interesting to hang-on to. And no, Google Translate won't help you here. :)
           

A typical Eritrean/Ethiopian mother

Having been brought up in a culture that is little known by others, I constantly have to answer questions like, "Where are you from?" here in the US and other places that I have been to. Sometimes my witty side shows up and I give ridiculous answers for my own amusement, as I see the inquirers' faces change from 'inquisitive' to 'I-am-sure-you-are-not-from-that-place-but-I'll-just-give-you-this-nod-of-the-head'. Most times, however, when I answer correctly, the face I get is complicated. It goes something like: Whoa-dude-!-I-have-no-idea-what-you-just-said-and-I-probably-never-will-but-I'm-going-to-keep-asking-you-again-and-again-until-you-yourself-start-doubting-whether-you-are-saying-your-own-county's-name-the-right-way-and-then-finally-after-about-the-fourth-time-that-you'll-have-said-it-you'll-give-me-an-introductory-Geography-lesson-to-help-me-visualize-your-country's-location. Well, enough said.

So, to sum it all up: race, ethnicity, nationality, culture, religion etc are like paint. They are a finish to how you look to others but have no say whatsoever to who you are; at least not to me. As attributes, it is a good practice to select and keep those pieces of your custom, religion etc that will be constructive in the long run. This is especially so here in the United States. Originality does not mean keeping it to the way your ancestors did it; rather, it is customizing a template that's present to help you.

Psss... 

The title translates "Hello, who is it? ... Mom is in the kitchen cooking...". 

The first paragraph translates:
Once upon a time, when bread was like the rocks (a traditional expression symbolizing "good days long past"), there was a king in a certain kingdom. It was a gifted place full of resources; its people living in harmony and peace; its animals hunting and being hunted in peace (?) and a generally beautiful place to live. Alas, a herd with an agitator never drinks clear water.... 

Welcome to TSADAL:FPTP-101!

Hi, and welcome to the first meeting of The Sinister And Dark American Literature: From Poe To Poe-101 course. 

A key figure in American "hauntedness" is Allan Poe; a writer distinguished for his twisted techniques of bringing fictional horror stories to the nightmares - literally - of his devoted fans. So, what makes Poe's stories, like The Fall of the House of Usher, appear in High-Definition in people's dreams?

Personification - This device has been employed to dramatize realities and realize dramas since the inception of logical literature. Poe, in The Fall of the House of Usher TFotHoU, makes emphasized use of personification. Inanimate beings such as the house are given breath and act equally in the story alongside their human counterparts.

Explicit detailing - The habit of laying out all adjectives one could think of to describe a "day" contributes to the readers' possession of a vivid recreation of that particular "day". A mathematical model that is supplied with as much variables as the simulation requires gives better results: A subject described in detail has higher chances of rooting its being in its visualizers' minds. It is this fact that other writers should take note of, as did Allan Poe.

Deliberate ambiguity - In TFotHoU, and his other stories, Poe ensures that certain matter-of-fact actualities are not plainly said by the narrator. This acts like a double ended sword; for one, it means that some of those situations will be left open to the interpretation of the readers - and in that sense the ability of the mind to reach its own "pinnacle of twisted mentality" being released - and secondly, make a literary work timeless. It is safe to assume that we all agree on Poe's achievement of the latter.

thefollowing.wikia.com

Diction, let's say that again, Diction - Wrong choice of words, even in the most obviously unintentional scenarios, has been noted to have caused disaster. Conversely, correct choice of vocabulary can soften the hardest of hearts and persuade the stubbornest of minds. Allan Poe's clear mastery of this knowledge is admirable at the least, seeing that he can, at will, create any sort of environment, mood or character in his prose.

Gothic Mysticism - This particular characteristic of TFotHoU sets it apart from many other American pieces of the same genre. The description of the setting - especially the house -, the manner of interaction between the narrator and Usher - that Victorian twist where each one of them is aware of the other's aura but neither admit it for "gentlemanliness'" sake - and the particular weather unfolding during the climax of the story all the more make the piece more British than American. That, added to the general mystic coloring of doom-and-gloom lend The Fall of the House of Usher distinctive attributes  that another writer would want to borrow.

End of lecture!

"If You Like Your Insurance, You Can Keep It. Period."

Greetings!

In what ways has the USA's obsession with finding faults in leaders hurt our nation?  Identify a leader in US History who has been wrongfully (or too severely) vilified and theorize as to what might have been had that particular person been able to perform their duties without unreasonable scrutiny.  Feel free to use both current and historic examples, but they must be from the USA.

The above is the prompt that this week's blog post is an answer to. There is a reason I reproduced it here. Hopefully, the reason becomes obvious as one reaches towards the end of the reading. Happy reading! 

As the wise people say, let's dismantle the prompt to bits so that we (I) can answer it better.

The first part is actually a question! That should make it easy to answer straightforward, right? Not! How can one possibly think that the "USA's obsession with finding faults in leaders" has hurt the country? Is obsession the proper word for the need to scrutinize individuals that will hold significant power over the lives of the populace? Therefore, to answer the question, there are no ways whatsoever in which the US has been hurt in its "obsession" - though need is the correct term - to "find faults" - though scrutinize is the correct term - with its leaders. To the contrary, it is this very characteristic that has kept this nation at the position that it is for this long.

When people decide that certain individuals should, not forced but by their own choice, take care of affairs that are impossible to be done collectively, they gain an automatic right to scrutinize to the level necessary to their well being and to the assurance that those individuals are holding true to the desired ideals. And for that matter there has never been a leader in US history who has been wrongfully vilified by the people.



  That standing, through the expanse of American history, there have been several presidents who have faced it rough, not from the people - as the implicit interpretation of the word - but rather from competitors, political opponents and those that just feel contempt at first sight without reason.( Several newspapers fall in the latter category). It is surprising in a way that those that have been called unrepeatable names are usually the more competent of their counterparts. The list follows:

• A New York newspaper referred to Abraham Lincoln as "the baboon on the other side of the avenue" and went ahead to suggest that he be bought and "displayed as a zoological curiosity." The attacks on Lincoln's character, looks and policies were - to quote the prompt - "wrongfully vilifying".
• The National Gazette and Aurora, two newspapers, represented George Washington as "treacherous, arrogant and crooked". They were unhappy with his policies. In fact, the vilification became so intense that he contemplated retiring after the first-term. He was re-elected, however, and gave the shortest inaugural speech in American history with two main points; gratitude for re-election and "if you don't like me, you can impeach me...".
• Despite his popularity among Americans, FDR was the target of insensitive remarks and editorials throughout his tenure at the White House. In fact, Marquis Child, a columnist in 1938, reported, "No phenomenon of the times is more disturbing than the persistent hatred of President Roosevelt which finds a more and more poisonous expression among a considerable section of the American people...No slander is too vile, no canard too preposterous, to find voice among those who regard the President as their mortal enemy." He was also called a communist and a thief; his flagship New Deal programs called "Red Deal".

All leaders, not only presidents, come with their controversies; be it drugs, extramarital affairs, policies etc. If a person, especially here in the US, decides to become a leader and actually does become a leader, it would do them good to have a thick skin. Leaders will be scrutinized, most times to the good of the nation, and sometimes painted a wrong color, to the disruption of order and wasting of time. A good leader should, therefore, be able to distinguish the expected scrutiny, questioning, inquiry and general pull and push of the public from the negative vile of personal enemies, political opponents and the like.

  

ICE... ICEMAN WHO?

Throughout literature, we find characters that are "grey" in nature; whose motives in their book-bound lives are so controversial that the readers are plunged in confusion and often times guilt for having read about them. American literature, and more recently TV, is especially marked with such characters. 

Greetings everyone! Welcome to the first part of several blog posts for APLAC. Today's post is about the above "grey" characters - actually called anti-heroes by the teacher. To help put things in perspective, we'll be discussing Ichabod Crane, from Washington Irving's The Legend of Sleepy Hollow, in comparison to Max Ray Butler aka Iceman - a real-life person as described in Kevin Poulsen's  Kingpin: How One Hacker Took Over The Billion-Dollar Cybercrime Underground.

Comparing a famous character and a little-time cyber criminal known only to the tech world would seem improbable but the two actually do have a lot in common. (In other words, I have less than two hours to finish this post so don't think hard while reading it.)

Ichabod Crane has two shadows in the book. One that strictly enforces the proverbial "spare the rod and spoil the child", teaches psalmody and actively participates in the village's errands and another that was devoid of any motive save for cunningly earned riches and personal gratification. Similarly, Iceman - Max Butler's online handle - at several points in time worked as a white-hat security consultant and programmer by day and an enthusiastic black-hat hacker (I'd prefer the term 'cracker'.) by night.

While discussing white-hats and black-hats, hackers and crackers would seem besides the point, to someone familiar with the cyber-security world, it is obvious that one person cannot belong to two groups simultaneously. It would mean destroying your own home at night and rebuilding it by daylight.

Iceman - wired.com

Another attribute that Crane and Butler seem to share is that of ill-fortune with women. It is no surprise that thousands of man-hours in form of physical and mental work trying to understand women have amounted to....well, nothing. That aside, those two individuals had considerable difficulty in this matter.

For Ichabod, it is not immediately clear what seems to be the problem because Irving ensures to tell us that he had a sizable following among the town's housewives in light of his teaching profession. Further reading, however, shows clearly that Crane wasn't successful with getting the woman he wanted because of malformed priorities. He valued her father's possessions more dearly than her. For all we know, he could have made uncalled-for gestures during the party that led to his disappointment and, ultimately, his disappearance.

For Butler, however, the trouble is that the social world did not function like a computer would. With just a few lines of code and logic, he could crawl the Internet to get what he wanted - be it unreleased episodes of his favorite games or credit card numbers with their full information. Therefore, he lost his high school girlfriend and later on in his adult life, his wife. 

Max Butler could initiate a Distributed Denial of Service attack on any website at whim. He could play around in the Pentagon's Intranet or siphon-off credit card information from a machine inside a fast-food restaurant. But he could also find it his duty to fix gaping bugs in hundreds of thousands of computers.He made the Army's machines invulnerable to protocol breaches and secured countless others that could have been turned to bots had they been left open. He voluntarily gave out findings from his night-long adventures and eased the work of white-hats by being a black-hat. This is one of the traits that Iceman shares with Ichabod; the plenty good among the plenty bad.

Ichabod - cornel1801.com

Ichabod formed and instructed the village choir, held his students accountable to what he believed was the best method for disciplining them and engaged in the work of the townspeople. Whatever his delusions about money and riches, he had some of what is called "good". 

And that is the crux of the matter! ARE THESE PEOPLE GOOD OR EVIL OR NON OF THOSE?