Disqus - Latest Comments for chrispalle

Re: Design Your Year

chrispalle — Thu, 13 Dec 2018 11:27:55 -0000

There is always a cost to dive-in deeper as an upgrade to a free version. Not just with MH, but with everything you find on the Internet - whether you realize it or not. Making an investment to make a positive change in your life will always pay dividends to you and your loved ones around you.

Re: TouchArcade Game of the Week: 'Ember'

chrispalle — Sat, 17 Sep 2016 10:19:22 -0000

Hey! Great write up. Quick note, N-Fusion is the creator. 505 is the distributor.

Re: Anthony Armendariz - Reinventing Me

chrispalle — Fri, 06 Jul 2012 19:15:08 -0000

Rock on, bro. Btw, next time you're in the office, I have wishlist I'd like you to hand over to Evernote folks. Lovely backend, i live out of that thing, but i cannot tell how many frustrations I have with the front-ends (all of them).

Anyway, not to steal your thunder ;-) I know this wasn't a easy decision, but I'm really glad for you, man. I'm sure you'll do awesome.

@Steven Ray, you're a good man.

All the best!

Re: http://ethnio.loc:3000/blog/announcing-the-independence-of-ethnio

chrispalle — Sat, 19 May 2012 22:51:56 -0000

Congrats, folks! We're just diving in (again) this past week and look forward to more.

Re: Fail.

chrispalle — Fri, 18 May 2012 20:29:43 -0000

Lemme get this straight. Computers get to be lazy too? Anyway, fudged numbers aren't anything new. {insert Wall Street joke here}

Re: What Makes Us Married?????

chrispalle — Thu, 19 Apr 2012 13:28:27 -0000

Interesting discussion. Gave it a few days to ponder and God gave me a couple scripture in devo time over the last couple days. One is post, the other is pre-Fall:
Gen 16: 3
Then Sarai, Abrams wife, took Hagar her maid, the Egyptian, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan.
http://bible.us/gen16.3.nkjv

Two references to "wife" as being with Abram. In fact, this reference says Hagar is Abram's "wife" simply by sleeping with her. (That was post-fall) There is another reference I read this week re: Adam and Eve as "husband and wife."
Gen 2: 24

24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.
http://bible.us/gen2.24-25....

That is *perfection.*

So, the question, "what makes us Married???" The Roneree's have both spoke to "Intentionality." There is some truth and wisdom in that. Truly, you need to have clear intentions in demonstrating love and respect for the marriage to work, but if that were it, then it would be pretty easy to declare anyone husband or wife.

As others have said, it comes to culture. In our culture, Marriage means you signed a cert or you lived with someone long enough, it's common-law which is then determined on a state-by-state basis. There really is no need for a ceremony. While, yes, it really is helpful to make that public declaration and to make a production out of it to stay focused on the commitment, it's not required.

Jesus speaks of divorce and marriage. What does He say?

(wrote that before Paul's post. Thanks, Paul!)

Paul makes a good point there (one man and one woman. period.), though, it doesn't answer the question: "What makes us Married??" Frankly, I think it's a semantics squabble. We want to keep it holy. And we don't want to see it perverted, but in our culture of moral relativism, it has been. Too late. Don't give up the fight, don't change the *true* meaning, know that a union by anyone or thing than one man and one woman is not Marriage – as God sees it. Unions by other-than-one-man-one-woman may be a "marriage" as man sees it, or as the culture sees it, but God will NEVER acknowledge anything other than what we see in Gen 2 as Marriage. And to be frank again, does anyone else's opinion really matter?

We have God on our side. Why must we worry about all this? Just love on those people who believe marriage can be redefined. God loves them, shouldn't we as well?

Re: Viral Invites Considered Harmful

chrispalle — Wed, 03 Aug 2011 14:52:22 -0000

I hear what you're saying, Joe. There are certainly some legitimate cases that necessitate the limited invite- and others that do not.

The thing is, it works. It's like Doom and Shareware. The freemium model is powerful as is scarcity whether fabricated or not. Especially if the offering looks cool and different.So, it's tempting to leverage it, even if it is unscrupulous. (i recognize the screengrab, btw, i signed up for that service 3 weeks ago, met the minimum 3-person requirement and --- crickets). To their defense, though, they're using a service call "Launchrock" which facilitates the tactics-in-question.

The jig is up, though. If we slow down and think about it... by multiplying the requests and presumably the qualified participants, where is the scarcity?

Thanks for vocalizing this.

Re: ProPublica’s newest news app uses education data to get more social

chrispalle — Sat, 02 Jul 2011 00:05:39 -0000

As someone who was in GnT as a youth and is now married to a SE teacher, I'm fairly certain your hypothesis would not validate. The best learning environments are tailor-made with objectives for life success. While it might be interesting to see a low-functioning student attempt to accomplish advanced tasks, a better improvement would be a rethinking of the requirements and administration of standardized tests.

Just my 2¢

Re: Why I Hope to Die Empty

chrispalle — Fri, 01 Jul 2011 09:02:20 -0000

Though a tad morbid on first glace, thank you for such a sobering and inspiring thought. Given what you've postulated, I'd hope to die empty, but in thinking about what that would require, I get a bit overwhelmed: That colleague I flaked out on, that Book Club to which I never fulfilled my obligation, the attorney I didn't pay... <sigh> I have some following up to do, just added these to my inbox.... in fact, perhaps I'll created a project - "Die Empty."

For those who think that Dying Empty would mean they stop dreaming, think of it this way: find ways to pour those dreams into others, share your passions and ideas, you're likely to inspire!

Re: The Hired Guns Poll: Is LinkedIn Killing Off the Resume?

chrispalle — Mon, 20 Jun 2011 08:46:40 -0000

I'm surprised to see there is a 50-50 split on this. I fully intend to make my LI profile (or something else better that may come along) my go-to place when folks ask for a résumé... It's duplicated effort to keep both updated. Why do we need yet another file to maintain- esp if the printer-friendly version can do the job of a separate doc?

Another reason why: it's social. An socially-connected profile is way more powerful than a standalone résumé. Anyone can say anything on .doc, but if it's connected, constituents are gonna hit the BS button if you're less-than-honest. Also, it can show with whom you're connected (an often overlooked strength for many), what you're currently doing (status updates), and some of that *true* personality that is so elusive during the interview process. Hiring managers are becoming increasingly reliant on googling their prospects. Socially-connected CVs eliminate, or at least, reduce these efforts.

Personally, it'd be great to have seen the résumé go the way of the dodo, yesterday.

Re: How to Organize Evernote for Maximum Efficiency

chrispalle — Sun, 12 Jun 2011 09:11:56 -0000

Thanks for sharing, Michael. I've become a huge evernote fan over the last year. I have a question about your methodology, though.
The list of notebooks and stacks: That seems really lengthy. Almost reminds me of my list of labels in gMail which I have a hard time managing. How do you keep up with everything?

Re: VizThink NYC: The Power of Visual Communication

chrispalle — Sat, 02 Apr 2011 19:40:16 -0000

Wow- visualizing the MLK speech seems like an awesome exercise!

Re: How to Sell an Idea to Your Boss

chrispalle — Mon, 30 Aug 2010 10:00:30 -0000

Great post! It's indeed a must to "let it be their idea." And though the post is intended to selling specific ideas, you're closing statement is more to-the-point: it's about selling the process.

I have one to add... or augment, if I may, #2- in case there is not yet buy-in for the design process as part of the organization's strategy. As a drum-beater for UX in the organizations I consult, I've found that many folks (from the executives to the executors) don't have a thorough understanding of the design-thinking process. Data is power- it is irrefutable. There are mountains of data that show prototyping and iterative design coupled with primary research allow us to interpret and propose better solutions to design problems. Get your leadership to see the value in that, and selling ideas (even the hair-brained ones intended to just shake things up) becomes so much easier.

Re: New “Everything” Skit on God Tube

chrispalle — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 08:07:56 -0000

Hey Evelyn- Thanks for bringing this back up. Hadn't seen it in awhile. It really is awesome.

Re: Ari J Greenberg - iPhone Coasters (via randomsarah)

chrispalle — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 17:01:46 -0000

Cultural icon? nah.... ;-)

Re: Google Chrome Announced

chrispalle — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 18:03:50 -0000

You bet. Glad it was helpful.

Re: Foundations and affirmations

chrispalle — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 09:46:36 -0000

Great points, Matt. It really is less about individuals and more about the collective.
I would also submit that we, as the NYC Tech Community, consider ourselves a part of an even larger collective, a global one. To a point made in an earlier post, we should be thinking about coming along side the momentum of existing communities. There is a worldwide collective of brilliant technologists out there and banding together, bridging cross-culturally, will generate awesome opportunities for everyone.

Re: Launchability Presents CoTweet at NYTM, Makes me Butt of Joke :-)

chrispalle — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 22:56:05 -0000

lol. oh yeah. so much better... :-)

Re: It’s Charles Darwin’s Birthday, Celebrate Academic Freedom Day

chrispalle — Sat, 29 Nov 2008 11:27:08 -0000

I said that Charles Darwin's book, the Descent of Man is the "backdrop" for eugenics. While Darwin himself, to your point, did not completely drive the eugenics movement, his sons and cousin, Galton did. And many other Eugenics proponents of the early 20th century used Darwinian philosophy from that book to promote and proselytize. In the eugenics programs, tens of thousands of people were innocently sterilized based on human judgement that they should not breed - this injustice is what I speak against.

Note, I carefully said, "Descent... provided a back-drop" making no mention that Darwin himself publicly supported eugenics. Please, research the facts about what was propagated out of his works, not necessarily Darwin himself.

From, New Oxford Review: http://www.newoxfordreview....

"Thirdly, Darwin prepared the way for eugenics. Indeed, his immediate family would soon be involved in that movement -- his sons George and Leonard became active in promoting it (Leonard serving as 'president of the Eugenics Education Society, the main eugenics group in Great Britain'), and his cousin Francis Galton became the founder of the 'eugenics crusade.' Evidently, Darwin was sympathetic to eugenics: West quotes him as vowing 'to cut off communication' with his disciple Mivart when the latter 'criticized an article by Darwin's son George that advocated eugenics.' "

You can also read, http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...

Goto the section "Social implications of Darwinism"

Re: Evolutionary Biology = Atheism?

chrispalle — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 23:33:33 -0000

Well, we're talking about both. I agree that they are two different things, but the notion is, if we follow the trail of evolution backwards, we eventually get to a point where we have to ask, "how did it begin?" and EBs cannot, with any degree of certainty, tell us how life began. It will always be hypothetical, but never arguable or unprovable. Scientifically speaking, EB believers can only speculate.

Common Descent in the proper sense? I do believe we were, you and I and everyone else, were _created_ for a purpose. I can only seek God's Will as to what that purpose is as that purpose is far greater than I can know. Did we all descend from one common ancestor? The Bible says we did, but I'm sure it's not the same "Common Descent" of which Darwinists speak.

I guess if you need to have the framework of theistic evolution in order to believe, then that's where you stand. I personally don't need to accept or challenge this belief. When you have "Christian movements" and "denominations" teaching the acceptance of theistic evolution, it's going to cause confusion, dissension, etc, but I would submit, that one should not intend to follow a denomination or movement, but rather Jesus Christ Himself. And hopefully it's detectable in my writings, but I believe Christians are hurting the ID movement by way of association.

Regardless of all that, my point is that the Theory of Evolution (note caps) when taken seriously will lead to a disbelief in God and a disbelief in God will lead to ungodly behavior. The behavior may fit social mores and be acceptable, but it will be ungodly.

Re: Atheist Support for Intelligent Design

chrispalle — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 13:48:24 -0000

I did respond a couple days ago. DOn't know why you weren't notified.

Re: Evolutionary Biology = Atheism?

chrispalle — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 23:16:59 -0000

Actually, Sam, I never said "evolution precludes the existence of God." The Theory of Evolution as basis for the origin of life requires the _presupposition_ that there is no God. It's not me who says it, though. This is what Richard Dawkins, Steven Jay Gould and other EB contemporaries say.

Would you say that Theistic Evolutionists believe God is at work in day-to-day dealings or is like the watchmaker; that is, "built and let it run"?

Re: Evolutionary Biology = Atheism?

chrispalle — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 23:02:23 -0000

The post itself was not intended to open discussions re: Biblical interpretations. Just my personal account that Evolutionary Biologists cannot also believe in god as creator. Evolutionary Biology as a field comes with the presupposition that all evolutionary processes are of natural cause.

I guess it's better stated that the reasons a believer cannot accept EB is Genesis 1-3, not just Gen. 1. That's the account that everything was perfect at one and it's all gone down hill from there due to our disobedience.

I'm saying a "true believer" (as opposed to your word, "real") believes God created, not that we came from nothing.

The entire account for Creation is handled in Gen. 1-2 and that account is *not* being re-told in Gen 2. It's being reinforced that He created the animals in Gen 2:19; it's not necessarily chronological.
http://www.answersingenesis...

It's a really awesome picture when you think about it.

Yeah, not sure where geocentric and flat-earth perspectives are about.

Re: Atheist Support for Intelligent Design

chrispalle — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 21:48:47 -0000

Hey Sam- This was not intended to continue from the last post, but rather push the discussion of ID and Evolution a little further. I encourage to finish listening. Intelligent Design != Creationism. UK visitors, please take note. :-)

Re: OmniGraffle Stencil: Social Media Interface Objects

chrispalle — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 23:46:15 -0000

Hey Tim, Yeah, man. Glad you like them. Please come back 'round or send me any links to sites you create with them.