Or, The elusive *ffect fu.

That is in fact written correctly.

So, how many of you have issues with this. I have a friend who is easily a genius (literally, as per IQ), and he had it wrong. I had it down once. The professor for an english class I took at university made it a point to teach it. If I remember correctly, we had random quizzes on it. I don’t even remember how he taught it to us, but I still had it figured out. That is until the genius told me I had it wrong. My first instinct is to default to his knowledge, and overall, this is the ideal choice. In fact, I’m pretty sure this is the first time I’ve been right about something he was wrong about. Lucky for me, I decided to look it up.

Evidently my grasp on it was somewhat tenuous. I found myself reading over it for quite a while. Really, I think I was slightly more confused after reading the definitions for a while. However, having gotten things figured out, I will share my wealth of knowledge so that you too may one day master the *ffect fu.

Effect and affect are both used as nouns and verbs, and in other forms as adjectives.

The Dictionary.com definitions are as follows:

Effect is primarily used as a noun. Put simply, an effect is a result or consequence. The word is used in that basic manner as well as in related contexts. The power to produce results, or the ability to influence or force is the a use of effect in the context of the potential or ability to cause an effect - “The documentary had an effect on environmental policies.” Further, there is being in the state of actually causing an effect, the state of being operative; operation or execution; accomplishment - “The law was put into effect.” A purpose or intention; meaning or sense - “to that effect” - is the use of effect to reiterate an idea or concept. “For effect” is an example of usage to make an impression; “The dramatic entrance was for effect.” Effect has many different uses which likely contributes to the confusion.

Effect as a verb is to bring about, make happen, or produce as an effect, “as an” being key. If you are effecting something, you are causing a result or consequence. “His new knowledge effected the change in his investment habits.” “Her leadership skills will effect a rise in employee productivity.” The object of the verb itself is the effect. In these two examples, the “change” and “rise” are the effects.

Now, as opposed to usage as a noun in terms of the potential to cause an effect, usage as a verb is the action of causing an effect.

Affect is primarily used as a verb; to act on, produce an effect or change in. “The cold water affected his manhood.” The second definition is essentially the same thing but in reference to the human aspect; impress on the mind, move the feelings of - “The love story didn’t affect him much.” The pain, disease, etc. definition is easy to get; we are affected by diseases, etc.

Affect as a noun is used primarily in psychology. It refers to emotions or emotional responses. Positive affect, negative affect, lack of affect. In this context you can replace “affect” with “emotion” and it still makes technical sense.

A usage note under affect on Dictionary.com provides a second definition for affect the verb: to assume, to pretend. “The thief was affecting innocence.” This note also provides a basic explanation regarding the differences between effect and affect.

Both effect and affect have adjective forms as well: effective and affective.

The Dictionary.com definitions:

Grasping the difference between the usage of these two words is rather simple, as the definition of affective is relatively different and quite succinct. Enough that they don’t really require further explanation.

As much as it won’t always be correct, when in doubt, use effect as a noun and affect as a verb. That basic rule work well enough to get you by. Otherwise, read carefully and use wisely.

Then you too, grasshopper, may become the Master of the *ffect fu.

Hey everyone!

The Summer Sessions. The dates are as follows:

Session I: 19-21 May 2006.
Session II: 16-18 June 2006.
Session III: 14-16 July 2006.
Session IV: 11-13 August 2006.

I apologise for this post being a bit late on the uptake for the first session, but most of you who could make it are already aware of the plans.

And here they are!

Some of you may remember the weekend hack session held last summer. It was a total blast and we got quite a bit done. This year, we’re going to change things up a bit. Since we’ll be getting together over the course of four months, we can get into some major projects, as we’ll be back together every four weeks. The big change, however, is the learning opportunity we’re going to create.

I want to hear feedback from all of you. Those of you that have something to offer, let me know what you’d like to teach. Those of you who are interested in learning anything in particular, let me know. We’ll get ideas and interests and break off into smaller groups during the sessions. Again, taking advantage of being back together every four weeks, we can work on smaller projects as a learning experience over the course of the summer. Speaking for myself (and maybe others!), it will provide an opportunity to contribute where there might not otherwise have been one.

There isn’t any set plan, except to keep it flexible. I know some of you won’t be able to make it to all of them, which is another reason I need the feedback from all of you. Since there are specific things that some of you have already expressed interest in, I want to make sure that, if possible, you make it for the same session as whoever has that information to offer.

Remember, this whole concept is still a work in progress, and will be for the entire summer. Please give me feedback! I know all you can give me for now is what you know and what you want to know. We’ll all have a better idea as to how we want to work things after Session I.

UbuntuDetroit.org underwent some major maintenance and currently has no content to speak of. My plan is to get to that during the first session. Further updates will be posted there once I get everything settled in.

I was pointed to the idea of a Code Camp. Our Summer Sessions inadvertently follow the Code Camp Manifesto (http://blogs.msdn.com/trobbins/archive/2004/12/12/280181.aspx). Once I get the information posted into UbuntuDetroit.org, I am going to post our dates on the scheduled Code Camp Wiki page: http://www.bostondotnet.org/codecamp/default.aspx/CodeCamp/CodeCampSchedule.html

———————————–
The Code Camp Manifesto:

1. By and For the Developer Community

Code Camps are about the developer community at large. They are meant to be a place for developers to come and learn from their peers. Topics are always based on community interest and never determined by anyone other than the community.

2. Always Free

Code Camps are always free for attendees.

3. Community Developed Material

The success of the Code Camps is that they are based on community content. All content that is delivered is original. All presentation content must be provided completely (including code) without any restriction. If you have content you don’t want to share or provide to attendees then the Code Camp is not the place for you.

4. No Fluff - only Code

Code Camps are about showing the code. Refer to rule #1 if you have any questions on this.

5. Community Ownership

The most important element of the Code Camp is always the developer community. All are welcome to attend and speak and do so without expectation of payment or any other compensation other than their participation in the community.

6. Never occur during work hours

We need to understand that many times people can’t leave work for a day or two to attend training or even seminars. The beauty of the Code Camp is that they always occur on weekends.

———————————–

With that, I’m looking forward to seeing all of you who are coming this weekend for Session I. For the rest of you, you’ll be missed, but I hope you can make it for the rest of the sessions (or to one at least!). Please feel free to send me an email with any questions or if you would like to attend: kattni@gmail.com

See you soon!

My friend Matt instant-messaged me a link this morning. It was to a site called Battleground God. The tagline is, “Can your beliefs about religion make it across our intellectual battleground?” It’s a series of questions who’s scores are not related to a right or wrong answer, they’re determined based on whether or not it’s consistent with your previous answers. Are you consistent in your beliefs. There’s three possiblities for “scores” on each question. One, you answer consistently and continue. Two, you take a direct hit. This means you’ve answered in a way that is in direct contradiction with a previous answer. Three, you bite a bullet. This means you’ve answered in a way that most would find “strange, incredible or unpalatable.” This, as they state, is based on their opinion of what is considered normal, and leaves more room for disagreement than the direct hit does, because your view on normal might differ from theirs. In that fact, some of the questions and answers can seem hypocritical, since, for example, they talk about following inner conviction. If your answer is in line with your inner conviction and you stated that you follow such things, then regardless of what society thinks, you’re consistent. Which is what the point of the whole thing was in the first place. But it’s all based on perception, and it’s written from the writer’s perception, and therefore falls into their rules. Either way, clickety click, I entered the battlefield.

Battleground Analysis

Congratulations!

You have been awarded the TPM medal of honour! This is our highest award for outstanding service on the intellectual battleground.

The fact that you progressed through this activity neither being hit nor biting a bullet suggests that your beliefs about God are internally consistent and very well thought out.

A direct hit would have occurred had you answered in a way that implied a logical contradiction. You would have bitten bullets had you responded in ways that required that you held views that most people would have found strange, incredible or unpalatable. However, you avoided both these fates - and in doing so qualify for our highest award. A fine achievement!

How did you do compared to other people?

- 160722 people have completed this activity to date.
- You suffered zero direct hits and bit zero bullets.
- This compares with the average player of this activity to date who takes 1.39 hits and bites 1.11 bullets.
- 7.29% of the people who have completed this activity, like you, emerged unscathed with the TPM Medal of Honour.
- 46.07% of the people who have completed this activity took very little damage and were awarded the TPM Medal of Distinction.

There we have it. I’m very consistent. Honestly, I think it’s more that I’m very open, very aware of the concept of perception, and very smart. Here’s why.

Question 1:
Does God exist?

Don’t know.

Question 2:
If God does not exist then there is no basis for morality.

False.

Morality is a personal choice. The dictionary definition of morality is “the quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.” What defines “good conduct.” It’s all in the eye of the beholder. Either way, the entire planet does not believe in God and there is still a standard for such “morality” and consequences for behaving otherwise. If your reason for being moral is that God says you should be and will reward you for being so, more power to you. This does not imply, however, in any way, that without God, no basis for such things exists.

Question 3:
Any being which it is right to call God must be free to do anything.

False.

In my humble opinion, anyway. I have many ideas on what God might be, if there is a God, and not all of them fall into that category. Regardless of anything else, I refuse to limit what God is or would be. Saying God must be free to do anything might not seem like a limitation, but it places the constraint of a label on a creature, that I would assume, probably has no constraint at all.

Question 4:
Any being which it is right to call God must want there to be as little suffering in the world as possible.

False.

Who am I to say what God “must want.”

Question 5:
Any being which it is right to call God must have the power to do anything.

False.

Not all of my ideas fall into the omnipotence category either. This, as well, falls into my refusal to limit.

Question 6:
Evolutionary theory may be false in some matters of detail, but is essentially true.

True.

So science says. I’m inclined to believe so.

Question 7:
It is justifiable to base one’s beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner conviction, regardless of the external evidence, or lack of it, for the truth or falsity of these convictions.

False.

This begins the many references to “justifiable.” Justifiable according to what. To justify something is to be able to demonstrate that it is correct or right. This slips into a perception of what exactly constitutes demonstration of such. It’s not often that verbalising one’s inner conviction works in such a manner. So, do people base beliefs on inner convictions regardless of evidence? All the time. Is it justifiable? Not really. But many things are not.

Question 8:
Any being that it is right to call God must know everything that there is to know.

False.

Refusal to limit.

Question 9:
Torturing innocent people is morally wrong.

True.

This again comes to what defines morality. In my opinion, it’s wrong.

Question 10:
If, despite years of trying, no strong evidence or argument has been represented to show that there is a Loch Ness monster, it is rational to believe that such a monster does not exist.

True.

Do people believe, yes. Is it rational, no.

Question 11:
People who die of horrible, painful disease need to die in such a way for some higher purpose.

False.

I just don’t think so.

Question 12:
If God exists she could make it so that everything now considered sinful becomes morally acceptable and everything that is now considered morally good becomes sinful.

False.

Besides my previous limitation refusal, the commonly spoken of God supposedly granted free will. To change something like that would be to change the minds and thoughts of people, since what is considered morally right and wrong was determined by generation after generation of humanity. I just don’t see that happening.

Question 13:
It is foolish to believe in God without certain, irrevocable proof that God exists.

False.

It’s not foolish. People do it all the time. More power to them.

Question 14:
As long as there are no compelling arguments or evidence that show God does not exist, atheism is a matter of faith, not rationality.

False.

There are also no compelling arguments to prove that God _does_ exist, and therefore it’s perfectly rational to be an atheist. By that theory, though, believing in God is rational as well. It all comes back to a perception of what’s considered the basis for “rationality.” Atheists will say that the lack of evidence is the basis for rationality, and the believe with the lack there of is the act of faith. Theists believe God exists, so the basis for their perception stems from that. It’s all relative.

Question 15:
The serial rapist Peter Sutcliffe had a firm, inner conviction that God wanted him to rape and murder prostitutes. He was, therefore, justified in believing that he was carrying out God’s will in undertaking these actions.

False.

Again, what exactly defines “justifiable.” Obviously, he was convicted and received a stiff sentence. So the judge and jury certainly didn’t think it was justified.

Question 16:
If God exists she would have the freedom and power to create square circles and make 1 + 1 = 72.

False.

Limitations.

Question 17:
It is justifiable to believe in God based on a firm, inner conviction even if there is no external evidence that God exists.

False.

People do. To them, it’s not about justification.