I mentioned before that Andorra was a tax shelter for banks and I compared its size to Yosemite. My first impression was a “What If” question. What if corporations were allowed to build whatever they wanted in Yosemite valley?
It might look like this.
(From Wikipedia) Corporate development in the Principality of Andorra
Another view of Escalades-Engordany
Modern Andorra
We had an opportunity to travel to Ordino and see some of old city which was much nicer.
Church near old Ordino
Narrow street in old Ordino
Sundial
These old stairs were very interesting.
Church Stairs
Close up of the stonework
Church Door
A nook in the old city of Ordino
A coat of arms set into the railing
I thought old Ordino was very nice, but part of me wonders if Andorra has made a devil’s bargain with the banking industry. To be fair, it is a tiny country without many natural resources beyond tourism.
When I was in Spain, we hopped the Ave through Zaragoza to Lleida and then took a bus up into the Pyrennes.
Taking the Ave into Andorra
Pushing North, we entered the mountain country.
The Pyrenees
Into the Mountains
Mary took this stunning image of a tower in the mountains.
(Click for High Definition Image) Tower in the Pyrenees
Andorra is a small mountain country between France and Spain that makes most of its money as a tax haven for banks and corporations. It’s smaller in size than Yosemite National park in the United States and it looks like a cross between a corporate mega-city and ski lodge. While some of the old city was preserved, the valley floor was filled with large corporate architecture with no detectable concern for the landscape. With the collapse of the banking industry in October, I can’t help but wonder how Andorra is faring.
I’ll post some pictures of Andorra’s old city tomorrow.
I went to see the new Star Trek film last night and the thing that struck me was that all the reboots of recent franchises like Batman, James Bond, and Star Trek are grittier and more difficult for the characters.
American action movies developed this cliche where the hero would punch some trash-talking bad guy and then recite a canned pithy statement. It was tame and safe violence that reinforced the cowboy aesthetic that we were always right and violence was justified. We’ve lived through the Bush era now and Americans as a culture have begun to understand that the pithy cliches have consequences in the real world.
In the film Witness, we see this play out magnificently when Harrison Ford is accompanying an Amish community into the local town. When a redneck heckler starts bullying the Amish, Harrison Ford punches him. It’s classic cowboy cliche and we’re all prepared to lean back and feel good about it until the camera remains on the scene and we start to see the uncomfortable consequences of the violence.
In the first five minutes of the Star Trek film, we see an unwinnable conflict in which people die. I remember when Americans thought women shouldn’t be in combat, but here you see women not only fighting, but dying as well. It’s harsh, jarring, and more sincere.
It’s clear that these characters are paying a price for their actions. When Kirk fights in the bar it isn’t Smokey and the Bandit, it’s more like Fight Club and his face is so bloody and battered at the end, that you worry he’s going to lose teeth. Kirk’s life is hard and he’s struggling to cope. His battered face and the visible emotional struggle behind it are light years away from Shatner’s suave, father-knows-best character.
While I was in Spain, I presented a web seminar or “webinar” on embedded web development with the Rabbit family of embedded computers. It was the highest attended seminar in our company’s history and it has been posted on the web here:
The nice thing is that our stuff is very easy to work with and making an interactive web page to control or monitor hardware is pretty easy. I’ll probably be doing a sequel in early June which I like to call Web Dev 2 – Wrath of RabbitWeb.
In my work as an engineer, I troubleshoot customer hardware and software design all day. In that line of work, opinion and a whole list of other social niceties take a back seat to fact and the scientific method. The search for a failure’s root cause is the primary goal of an engineer like me and it doesn’t provide any room for opinion.
I want to start with two quotes that illustrate my point.
On the meaning of San Diego
Ron Burgundy: Discovered by the Germans in 1904, they named it San Diego, which of course in German means a whale’s vagina.
Veronica Corningstone:No, there’s no way that’s correct.
Ron Burgundy:I’m sorry, I was trying to impress you. I don’t know what it means. I’ll be honest, I don’t think anyone knows what it means anymore. Scholars maintain that the translation was lost hundreds of years ago.
Veronica Corningstone:Doesn’t it mean Saint Diego?
Ron Burgundy:No. No.
Veronica Corningstone:No, that’s – that’s what it means. Really.
Ron Burgundy:Agree to disagree.
~Anchorman
Math Impressions
“Instead of having ‘answers’ on a math test, they should just call them ‘impressions,’ and if you got a different ‘impression,’ so what, can’t we all be brothers?” ~SNL’s Jack Handey
What is Fact?
In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation; in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts. Factual accuracy is not forgiving or understanding of our feelings.
Consensus does not create fact
Repetition does not create fact
Compromise does not create fact
Emotional overtures do not create fact
Civility or the lack of it does not create fact
Let me create a hypothetical demonstration to illustrate the above points:
A 747 is flying over the Atlantic when the copilot runs to the bathroom at the back of the plane. While he is gone, the pilot has a heart attack and dies at the controls leaving the plane descending towards the ocean.
FACT: Without a pilot the plane will crash.
The failure of consensus – The copilot rushes back towards the cockpit when a passenger named Joe stands up and proclaims that God will save them. All the other passenger’s agree and block the copilot from getting to the cockpit.
The failure of repetition – The copilot asks the crowd to move so he can regain control of the plane. Joe repeats that God will save them and the rest of the passengers repeat it as well continuing to bar the copilot from the cockpit
The failure of compromise – The pilot asks the crowd to move again. Joe agrees to a compromise and lets him halfway through the cabin but not all the way to the cockpit.
The failure of emotional overtures – Seeking to make the copilot understand Joe picks up a baby and, with tears in his eyes, explain that God loves them all and couldn’t possibly let a bad thing like a plane crash happen.
The failure of civility – The copilot finally screams, “Get the Hell out of my way you stupid moron!! This plane is crashing!!” Joe and the other passengers are shocked at his outburst and Joe replies “I think your bad manners have proved my point.” and the other passengers all nod together right before they crash into the ocean.
While compromise, consensus, and civility are all wonderful things when dealing with other people, none of these makes any difference when attempting to establish factual accuracy. (If these things did make a difference with regards to facts, the clients I work with wouldn’t need me.)
Keep in mind that proposing a bogus theory isn’t bad science. In fact, it is great science provided that you objectively test and verify the result. Bad science is clinging to a bogus theory after the facts have shown it to be incorrect. Once we go there, it becomes a belief system and we get to file for tax exempt status as a church.
To bring this back into my everyday life, once you can identify the root cause you can proceed to a solution, but all the wishing and arguing in the world won’t solve the problem without addressing the facts.
