Skip to main content

Happy New Year

I've never been one to make New Year's resolutions. If I really want to change something about myself or my life, why what until January 1st to set goals for myself? It doesn't matter to me if it's January 1st, April 15th, July 4th, or December 26th... I just set goals and go for them!

Instead, I prefer to choose an over-reaching theme for the year. This suits me better because there's no success or failure benchmarks to meet; it's something I keep in mind to help guide me as I tackle the challenges and opportunities that come my way.

2006 was my "Year of Adventure."

2007 was my "Year of Change."

2008 was my "Year of Success."

What will 2009 be?

I've chosen to designate 2009 as a "Year of Balance" for myself. Like everyone, there's good things and bad things in my life; putting the balance back into my life again will empower me to better appreciate the good and deal with the bad more productively.

So, it was very fitting the other day when I saw this beautiful video featured on the Astronomy Picture of the Day website. The site's goal is to present images, videos and descriptions to inspire people to learn more about astronomy, though I found this particular video inspiring in a different way.

In the short 4-minutes or so that it took to watch the video, I found myself pondering the beauty of nature that surrounds us, and how sad it is that so many of us never appreciate it because we're too busy going about our daily lives. I then found myself thinking about what things in life are truly important, and what I should focus on as I live my life.

Each day I will work and be productive, I will play and relax, I will laugh, love, and enjoy the company of friends, and I will find new things in my life deserving of my appreciation.



Happy New Year; I wish you and all your loved ones the best in 2009.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Composing Music with PHP

I’m not an expert on probability theory, artificial intelligence, and machine learning. And even my Music 201 class from years ago has been long forgotten. But if you’ll indulge me for the next 10 minutes, I think you’ll find that even just a little knowledge can yield impressive results if creatively woven together. I’d like to share with you how to teach PHP to compose music. Here’s an example: You’re looking at a melody generated by PHP. It’s not the most memorable, but it’s not unpleasant either. And surprisingly, the code to generate such sequences is rather brief. So what’s going on? The script calculates a probability map of melodic intervals and applies a Markov process to generate a new sequence. In friendlier terms, musical data is analyzed by a script to learn which intervals make up pleasing melodies. It then creates a new composition by selecting pitches based on the possibilities it’s observed. . Standing on Shoulders Composition doesn’t happen in a vacuum. Bach wa
7 comments
Read more

Learning Prolog

I'm not quite sure exactly I was searching for, but somehow I serendipitously stumbled upon the site learnprolognow.org a few months ago. It's the home for an introductory Prolog programming course. Logic programming offers an interesting way to think about your problems; I've been doing so much procedural and object-oriented programming in the past decade that it really took effort to think at a higher level! I found the most interesting features to be definite clause grammars (DCG), and unification. Difference lists are very powerful and Prolog's DCG syntax makes it easy to work with them. Specifying a grammar such as: s(s(NP,VP)) --> np(NP,X,Y,subject), vp(VP,X,Y). np(np(DET,NBAR,PP),X,Y,_) --> det(DET,X), nbar(NBAR,X,Y), pp(PP). np(np(DET,NBAR),X,Y,_) --> det(DET,X), nbar(NBAR,X,Y). np(np(PRO),X,Y,Z) --> pro(PRO,X,Y,Z). vp(vp(V),X,Y) --> v(V,X,Y). vp(vp(V,NP),X,Y) --> v(V,X,Y), np(NP,_,_,object). nbar(nbar(JP),X,3) --> jp(JP,X). pp(pp(PREP,N
22 comments
Read more

What's Wrong with OOP

Proponents of Object Oriented Programming feel the paradigm yields code that is better organized, easier to understand and maintain, and reusable. They view procedural programming code as unwieldy spaghetti and embrace OO-centric design patterns as the "right way" to do things. They argue objects are easier to grasp because they model how we view the world. If the popularity of languages like Java and C# is any indication, they may be right. But after almost 20 years of OOP in the mainstream, there's still a large portion of programmers who resist it. If objects truly model the way people think of things in the real world, then why do people have a hard time understanding and working in OOP? I suspect the problem might be the focus on objects instead of actions. If I may quote from Steve Yegge's Execution in the Kingdom of Nouns : Verbs in Javaland are responsible for all the work, but as they are held in contempt by all, no Verb is ever permitted to wander about
9 comments
Read more