Kephas

So, we decided that American Express might be a worthwhile card to have.  We weren’t really planning on using it that much, but hey that had some cool introductory offers as well as we thought it would be nice to have in case we ever needed anything with a high (or ‘No’) credit limit.  We understood that we would have to pay the balance off every month to be afforded this privilege of having no limit.

It isn’t long until we discover that they arbitrarily set a credit limit for you based on what you’ve spent thus far over the year and divide by the year.  So lets say I spent $1200 the first month, after that they would set our credit limit to (1200/12 = 100) $100/month.   So ‘No-limit’ doesn’t really mean that there is no limit.

So we call Amex to see what is going on, and ask why our card is being declined.   We noticed that they decided to begin our limit at a fairly low amount, so we asked what we could do to raise this, after all every other card with a limit had it set 4 to 5 times higher.  So they temporarily raised our limit up a little.

Since we had been dealing with the all the trouble of the card, we just quit using it for awhile altogether.  And lo and behold they factored this into their equation of no-limit-which-is-actually-a-limit doom.  And we had been lowered to $600/month.  I think my first card when all I had was a retail job was higher than that.

Called customer service again, and what was their answer??  “Prepay.”  What!?  Why would I prepay?  Why not just use a debit card then, cut out the middle man?  Well apparently they hadn’t given us a ‘credit’ card, but rather a ‘charge’ card.  Which I never thought there was any difference between….

Yay Amex, don’t take my money then.

I am quite excited as I have gotten a start date for my new job.   Which like all my posts shall remain nameless.  I think it will be quite fun, but a bit different also, I will get to learn some new things in the SW arena that I believe will benefit my marketability quite extensively.

Our little girl is growing and is now up to 10 lbs 11 oz!  She is getting big quick!  It has been nice, as lately she is sleeping more like 5-6 hours during the night, which helps both of us to feel less groggy.  That’s all for now, figured I hadn’t posted here in a while, so there.

-Kephas

God continues to provide for us and take care of us, of which we are continually greatful for.  I would also like to thank Your M.O.M (you know who you are)  for their help, as it will go along way and we are exceedingly grateful.

Thanks!

-Kephas

P.S.  Are little one is doing great, just went to the Doc and she is growing just like she should be.  Heh she has a big head, go figure.

I wanted to stay away from cliche phrases such as the ‘decay of society’, ‘moral depravity’, and ‘look what we’ve become.’ in this little post. However, I find myself wondering how things that used to be such issues for people are gradually fading. Is this because society is changing in such a state that some things that weren’t permissible now are? Or is there a declining morality that is perceived to be the new way things are done? Most likely there is a culmination of the two, but I believe that people are mixing both issues together and writing it off as societal evolution. For instance, rock music, didn’t have the best reputation among conservative circles when it first came out, but in more recent years it has become more accepted, in that there isn’t anything inherently wrong in the style of music itself. The other style of issues are moral ones, like getting drunk or having sex outside of marriage.

The problem lies in the fact that these types of issues are being equated to be the same. Since, we agree that ‘rock’ music isn’t necessarily evil and that it is has simply been a paradigm shift in our society, we are also subconsciously told that likewise are moral issues. Things which used to be wrong are now written off as the old way of looking at things.

I guess the main issue that I was planning on bringing up in this post hasn’t been brought up yet, so I shall bring it up now. Is there anything wrong with living with opposite-sex roommates? It seems that that was quite a big deal in years past, but has more recently gained acceptance even in some of the Christian community. Arguments that I commonly hear are: “I don’t even like the roommate in that way,” or “It just makes sense financially,” also “there are 2 boys and 2 girls living here, and we are all single, so we keep an eye on each other.” So the question begs to be asked, is there anything wrong with living with an opposite-sex roommate? Obviously if you were to start getting frisky with each other that would be a problem (although in today’s society that might be considered a ‘healthy’ sexual outlet). But, that aspect aside, is there anything wrong with it? Is it a moral issue or is it simply a change in societal etiquette?

I think issues like this one and similar ones are gradually blurring the lines between a societal changes and moral ones. Let me explicate a little here, in that when I say societal change I know that isn’t necessarily mutually exclusive of moral change, they often go hand-in-hand. However, the societal changes that I am referring to in this context are the ones where they are simply a matter of taste (like rock n’ roll).

Needless to say, in the other sense there have been a lot of moral issues that are “changing” with society. Homosexuality has gradually gained more and more acceptance as a normal way of life, whose acceptance has necessitated the loosening of the moral implications to coincide with change of the societal norm.

I just saw this, thought it was pretty funny.

I recently have been reading up on an interesting new technology. Now before I tell you what it is, I must say that I am skeptical, as it seems too good to be true. Apparently, people have built these ‘free-energy’ motors that have the capability of producing 5 times more energy than they consume.

Seeing as how this doesn’t agree with the 1st Law of thermodynamics, which has that energy can not be created nor destroyed only its form changed. Therefore let me restate, how I think that they might be referring to its energy producing capability. I believe that they meant that their generators can produce 5 times more electricity than the electricity they consume. Having said that, this argument seems at least a bit more viable as they aren’t trying to change the laws of physics.

So how does this new-fangled generator work? They really won’t say (which doesn’t help my skepticism), but they do say that it works off of the concept of using super powerful permanent magnets. Essentially they have a super efficient motor that is driving this new type of generator.

The motor works a little differently than the motors we typically think of today. Today we have magnets inside of motors, as well as big coils of wire that we can control the electro-magnetic field of, by changing the electricity we put through them. This new design incorporates manipulating the magnetic field of permanent magnets in such a way that electro-magnets aren’t needed.

They claim that this new generator would simply go in your home, be about the size of an A/C unit and once started could power itself as well as your household for about 100 years. There would probably be periodic maintenance that would be needed, but 100 years is quite a while for ‘free-energy.’

Where does the energy come from then? Thats a good question, I have heard some that they are using the energy stored in magnets to produce this electricity. But other than that, they don’t really say.

If indeed this technology is real, and if it has merit (which they haven’t proven to me at least), then it could prove to be quite an advancement.

The they whom I speak of are those in: This Video

could this be fake? sure, I just thought it was interesting.

Another interesting idea for getting ‘free-energy’ is by tapping the electromagnetic fields all around us. see This Site for an interesting read.

So, since we had been talking about leap year, and how it is calculated.  I decide to brush up on the algorithm since I couldn’t remember right then what it was.  So here it is if you are interested. (I stole this from wikipedia).

1. Is the current year evenly divisible by 400 (the remainder = 0)?
If  Yes, then it IS a leap year.
If  No,  then goto question 2.

2. Is the current year evenly divisible by 100 (the remainder = 0)?
If Yes, then it is NOT a leap year.
If No, then goto question 3.

3. Is the current year evenly divisible by 4 (the remainder = 0)?
If yes, then it IS a leap year.
If No, then it is NOT a leap year.

I was talking to some family the other day and we started to wonder why Easter was so early this year and how it was determined.  As it turns out, Easter is a little more complicated than one might think.  (I also stole this from wikipedia.)  But apparently Easter occurs on the first 14th Day of the moon that occurs on or after March 21st.  So the first sunday after the first full moon after mar. 21 is Easter. Does that make sense? Its kinda convoluted, so I’d understand if that doesn’t really make sense.  Let me try to explain it another way, find march 21.  Then find the first full moon on or after Mar 21st, call this DateB.  Then find the first Sunday on or after DateB, that Sunday is Easter.  Anyways, gotta go. Later.