Begin the Movement

Composers: Pop* II
Metamusicians: Paul Bodily, and Dan Ventura, CS Department, BYU, Provo, Utah

Description of the Work

Pop* (pronounced Pop-Star) II, which was featured in the 2017 MuMe concert, is an automated pop lead sheet composer. It uses a modular framework to generate verse-chorus structure, rhyme-scheme, lyrics, harmony, and melody. Pop* creates novel full-length pop songs in lead sheet format with no external input beyond an inspiring set of pop lead sheets. To concretely render compositions, we generate both printed sheet music and MP3 audio recordings. MP3 audio files feature computer-sung lyrics accompanied by synthesized piano and bass comping chords.

Technical Description

Pop* II uses a hierarchical Bayesian program learning model, meaning that the concept of a pop composition is factored into subconcept models such as structure, lyrics, harmony, melodic pitch, and melodic rhythm. These subconcepts are further factored until subconcepts represent simple enough ideas to be approximated using data-driven (conditional) probability distributions. Generation of novel compositions is achieved by combining subconcept values as they are probabilistically sampled from subconcept distributions.

Currently in its second iteration, the system uses probabilistic constrained Markov models to generate sequences for each musical viewpoint. In their traditional form, constrained Markov models allow structure to be imposed on sequential data using unary constraints at any of several sequence positions. We have expanded these models to allow for binary relational constraints which enables the system to impose meaningful patterns of repetition—including motifs, verse-chorus structures, and rhyme schemes—while still sampling composition-length sequences as a single Markov process. The relational constraints for these models are also automatically learned from data. This is done by inferring viewpoint-specific structural repeats from existing lead sheets using a self-alignment technique and then converting this structure into a set of relational constraints. 

The system incorporates added elements of autonomy, inspiration, self-awareness, and framing using semantic analysis and social networking to intelligently choose an inspiring set.

Begin the Movement

Begin the Movement is the first song to be composed by Pop* II and was created using structure learned from Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star; harmonic and melodic models from Over the Rainbow; and a lyric model from Imagine and Hey, Jude.

Audio recording
Lead sheet

Biography

Paul Bodily is a PhD candidate in the CS department at Brigham Young University (BYU). Under the advisement of Dr. Dan Ventura, his research focuses on machine learning in pop music with the intent of building data-driven generative systems.

Dr. Dan Ventura is a CS professor at BYU whose focus is on computational creativity systems generally. Students under his advisement have published systems in domains such as artistic image generation (DARCI), recipe generation (PIERRE), jazz lead sheet composition (CARL), and neology (Nehovah).

Knowing Him

With Ben leaving, it’s caused me to ponder a lot about what makes him such a good friend. Ultimately I concluded that what I appreciate the most about Ben is the Christlike example that he sets. The more I get to know him, the more I feel I get to know Him.

In fact it’s remarkable how much this has triggered a change in how I am approaching coming to know Jesus Christ. My whole life Christ has been “untouchable,” a perfect, yet remote figure. Like, say, Mitt Romney or maybe even President Hinckley. People that I know because of what I hear about them, what I read about them, what I see of them on TV. But Ben—I know Ben. I’ve worked with Ben, I’ve played with Ben, I’ve listened to Ben, I’ve asked Ben tough questions, I’ve seen Ben in tough situations, I’ve seen him in situations where it would be tempting to get frustrated, to say something negative, or to give up—and I’ve seen him do the right thing. And I’ve experienced a feeling each time I watch that, a feeling that that’s the way I want to be, that that’s the way we all need to be to be truly happy.

So at what point does the way I feel toward Christ change from being the way I see and feel toward Mitt Romney to being the way I see and feel toward Ben? Because Ben directly inspires me and Mitt Romney—well, somewhat less so. I love Ben. I want to follow his example, I feel the Spirit when I’m around him.

Now I’ve never had the opportunity to meet Jesus Christ. I really don’t know much about him personally. I don’t know what he’d say to a Costco hot dog. I don’t know what kinds of things would make him laugh. I don’t know how he feels about an Elder’s Quorum move. I don’t know how he prefers to get his exercise. I don’t know how he reacts when he’s happy. I don’t know how he reacts when someone says something awkward. Except of course beyond trying to find some scripture that seems to relate to those things. 

Yes, I may have learned a lot about Him, but I don’t really feel like I know him, with the lower-case ‘h’, if that makes sense, and knowing him, at least as far as might be mirrored by my experience having been friends with Ben, makes an enormous difference in how it inspires me to see a man, with foibles and who is “touched with the feeling of our infirmities,” “in all points tempted like as we are.” I need to see the ways that He is like me, both for His successes and for His struggles, to see that my potential is somehow related to His. To see that the greatness I see in Him comes in ways that I am able and inspired to follow. I guess, as Lehi puts it, to see the “opposition in all things,” because without that element, without that attribute, as Lehi continues, “righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad.” Picturing a Christ who “cannot be touched” or is even in some degree less touched is to picture a Christ who “[has] no joy, for [he knows] no misery; doing no good, for [he knows] no sin.”

Since coming to that realization, I’ve thought a lot more about Christ. I even catch myself thinking about him while watching random TV shows. I’ve tried to picture the “him” behind the “Him”. I’ve read the scriptures about Christ more carefully, picturing a man “touched” and “tempted” and “yet without sin”. I’ve found myself pondering who He really was. I’ve found richer meaning in simple phrases that I’ve read hundreds of times like, “then Jesus was led up of the Spirit, into the wilderness, to be with God,” and “this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.”

I’ve never understand exactly what it meant to know Christ. I’ve always known that I should want to know Him. But now I really want to know him. My friend, Ben, taught me more than I think he’ll ever know about the Savior, because he reflected something that directly emanated from the Savior, something that caught my eye and touched my heart. I realized that beyond the love for my friend, I had a love for the goodness, for the light, for the truth he bore. Recognizing that what I saw in my friend was but a reflection from somewhere or someone else made me realize that the source of all goodness is a real, tangible source. It made me realize that were I to come to know Christ as I have come to know my friend, those feelings of love, light, goodness, truth, and inspiration would be deeper than perhaps I ever thought imaginable. This is not just some man who changed the world. This is not just some person my Sunday school teachers tell me I should want to know better. He's not just a name in a book. He is a “treasure hid in a field; the which when a man hath found, he hideth, and *for joy* thereof goeth and selleth all that he hath, and buyeth that field.”

Pop* and Lyrist Debut

Description of the Work

Pop* (pronounced Pop-Star) is an automated pop lead sheet generator. It uses a modular framework to generate verse-chorus structure, rhyme-scheme, lyrics, harmony, and melody. The lyrical module, which we call Lyrist, functions as a stand-alone lyric generation system. Pop* and Lyrist work in concert to create novel full-length pop songs in lead sheet format on their own with no external input (beyond an inspiring set of pop music and lyrics). To concretely render compositions, we generate both printed sheet music and MP3 audio recordings. MP3 audio files feature computer-sung lyrics accompanied by synthesized piano and bass comping chords.

Technical Description

Pop* uses a hierarchical Bayesian program learning model, meaning that the concept of a pop composition is factored into subconcept models such as verse-chorus structure, rhyme-scheme, lyrics, harmony, and melody. These subconcepts are further factored until subconcepts represent simple enough ideas to be approximated using data-driven (conditional) probability distributions. Generation of novel compositions is achieved by combining subconcept values as they are probabilistically sampled from subconcept distributions. 

Lyrist represents a subconcept model of lyrics (conditioned on melody and intention). Pop* creates lyric templates by recombining lyrical phrases from existing songs. These templates serve as input to Lyrist which intelligently replaces words in the template to create new lyrics. Lyrist uses word embedding (i.e, a numeric vector which represents the semantic meaning of a word), vector operations, and constraint (e.g., rhyming and part-of-speech) filters to generate novel lyrics that evoke an intended theme and rhyme structure.

More complete descriptions of these systems will be found in the proceedings of ICCC 2017 and MUME 2017.

Best Song So Far (BSSF)

Here is a recording of our "Best Song So Far" with music generated by Pop* and lyrics created by Lyrist:

The sheetmusic can be found here.

Biography

Paul Bodily is a PhD candidate in the CS department at Brigham Young University (BYU). Under the advisement of Dr. Dan Ventura, his research focuses on machine learning in pop music with the intent of building data-driven generative systems.

Ben Bay is an undergraduate research assistant pursuing his B.S. in CS at BYU. Under the advisement of Dr. Dan Ventura and mentorship of Paul Bodily, his research focus is on systems that generate lyrics.

Dr. Dan Ventura is a CS professor at BYU whose focus is on computational creativity systems generally. Students under his advisement have published systems in domains such as artistic image generation (DARCI), recipe generation (PIERRE), jazz lead sheet composition (CARL), and neology (Nehovah).

'Tis a Gift

Larry Howell, a professor in Mechanical Engineering at BYU, recently spoke at a graduate student symposium on the topic of Faith & Scholarship. In light of his renown and success as an academic, I was struck by something he said (and I paraphrase): "At the final judgment, God will not be interested in how many degrees we earned or how many publications we had, but He will ask what we've done with our gifts."

"To every man is given a gift by the Spirit of God," we read in Doctrine and Covenants 46:11. It seems apparent that we each have different strengths and talents. Discovering our gifts requires more than simply identifying what we're gifted at (though it may be a good place to start); gifts require passion.

There are certainly some gifts that we might not be particularly passionate about, but which we should seek for, hence the admonition to "seek ye earnestly the best gifts" (Doctrine and Covenants 46:8). Some of these might include parenthood, charity, and faith. Some gifts are essential to developing the character of Christ.

But just as each of my children have unique gifts and talents, each of us, as literal children of heavenly parents, are blessed with unique gifts and talents, passions for different areas of human endeavor that would drive us not only to make the world in that sphere a better place, but also a predisposition towards seeking and receiving inspiration in those areas.

It's common, in my opinion, for people to go through life without ever discovering or magnifying the gifts they've been given. But those who do become a blessing to any and all with whom they come in contact.

I can readily picture God at the final judgment taking a very personal moment to show us what has been so unique about us, even since the premortal world and then asking us how we used those talents to bless others.

In picturing that moment, I suspect He will also ask us about one particularly important gift that we are to receive in mortality, which is the Gift of the Holy Ghost. A gift to guide and direct us to find other gifts. "How did you use that gift?" He will most assuredly ask. That's probably not a question I think about enough.

Primary Singing Time: Combo Lock Puzzle

Here's an idea to get Primary kids excited during Singing Time.

Materials needed:

• A chalkboard and chalk
• A combination lock (optional)
• A prize (e.g. bag of dum-dums)

In preparation for this singing time activity, draw something like the following on the chalkboard:The numbers around the edges are chosen at random between 1 and 100, but must include the numbers in the code for the combination lock.

In order to solve this puzzle the children will need to sing songs which will stepwise reveal the traversal of the puzzle and the solution to the combination lock. The first number in the combination, together with the first direction, is already given (down-right), and indicates the song that must be sung in order to progress. In this example, the children must sing "Praise to the Man" (to the chorister's satisfaction) in order to earn the next arrow. The chorister may choose to test how well the children know a particular song before they decide that the arrow is earned.

Once the song has been sung, the chorister gives the next arrow, which in our example is again down-right:The children must next sing "Search, Ponder, and Pray" in order to progress. And so on.

After every third or fourth song, the arrow should lead to the next number in the code for the combo lock. Thus, after 6 or 7 songs, they will have earned all three numbers to open the lock:When the arrow points to a number, the chorister may let a child choose the next song or may elect to simply give the next arrow gratis.

Though the combo lock and prize could technically be optional, the enthusiasm inherent in the activity depends on the presence of a reward. Even just a bag of dum-dums should be sufficient to make the activity a raging success. Alternatively, you could have a member of the primary presidency act as the "combo lock" and will only give the prize upon receiving the correct combination.

If you'd rather not have to draw everything up on the chalkboard the activity could be modified to be more like a scavenger hunt around the room with clues hidden bearing the name of the song and the numbers for the combination lock. Again, the chorister would simply give the directions of where to find the next clue. The challenge here would be keeping the clues with the numbers for the lock in order.

One nice thing about this activity is that to fill time you can make up the puzzle traversal on the fly (don't tell the kids!) to include more or less songs. You could even repeat a song in the traversal if you are working on a song for an upcoming sacrament program. If you have ideas for variations on this activity, please let me know! Have fun!

No More "Mr. Trusting User"

According to the 2006 Internet Crime Report from the FBI Internet Crime Complaint Center, auction fraud and non-delivery are the cause of nearly sixty-five percent of all internet crime complaints. No other category of complaint amounts to even five of the remaining thirty-five percent. What jumps out to me is that these two categories of internet fraud do not represent technological cunning and manipulation but merely a regrettably faulty reliance on a stranger’s discretion.

So often we picture the perpetrator as one who takes advantage of the anonymity of the internet or one who uses a superior understanding of computers and programming to achieve an immoral purpose. However, these statistics tell us that sixty-five percent of those “bad guys” aren’t hiding and aren’t particularly cunning; they’re just dishonest. And as relatively little has been done as far as regulatory efforts, these criminals are largely successful.

This reflects how difficult it is to adapt to the very new and different world of the internet. People are used to dealing with people face to face or at least in a way that leaves a physical path for crime fighters to follow. With the internet, we’ve been slow to recognize and utilize what paths exist (many times for political reasons) and thus many mischievous malefactors (who may be more cautious and less present in “offline” markets) are making their debut in a realm that has yet to learn how to properly raise or deal with a red flag.

Perhaps someday we will each have a universal account; an account with our global identity, all of our financial assets, all of our credit and credentials. Then the consequences of bad behavior online won’t be so easy to evade or ignore. But until that day, our motto must be, “be safe or be sorry”. We can’t assume anything but the worst about an online newcomer. Such an attitude may put a damper on business and commerce, but these negative effects will have been worth it if they causes us to recognize the need to focus our attention as much on securing the internet as on building it.

An Ounce of Prevention

My father raised us on the maxim, “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure”. Though few will disagree with this proverb, we’re smothering the greatest concerns of our day with cure and leaving the bottle of prevention untouched on the shelf. I’m talking about internet safety.

My greatest childhood memories were learning to do dangerous things in a safe way. When my dad taught me to mow the lawn, he made sure that I understood not to put my hands or feet down near the blades. When he taught me how to use the edger, I had to wear protective eye-wear. When he taught me how to drive a motorboat, I learned to prop up the engine before pulling the boat out. Our most entertaining family nights were when we pulled out the old plastic rope ladder and practiced our back-up fire plan of climbing out the second-story window.

Unfortunately, despite parents best hopes to protect their children, some of the greatest dangers, those of the internet, go largely unaddressed. We put the computer in an public place, we install filters, we check browser histories, but these things are all cures, not preventions. It would be like taking the time to program 9-1-1 into your speed dial for when your child chops his hand up in the lawn mower rather than taking the time to warn of the danger itself.

Don’t get me wrong, cures are important. But prevention is better. Learning about the internet and teaching children of its dangers is the most important practice we can employ to steer clear of online mishaps. Before reaching for the bottle of cure, let’s use a little more prevention.

Krispy Kreme and Anesthesiology

When I went a few weeks ago to Krispy Kreme to pick up a box of donuts, I was awestruck by the automatized equipment that they have to pump out hundreds of donuts without human supervision. Two people at the front desk were all it took to serve the long line of people waiting for their pastries.

In a pair of articles by Mike Adams at NewsTarget.com, the author raises this issue of “outsourcing to robots” and how it will affect the demand for unskilled labor. Adams points out that in many ways robots can do things better and with higher productivity. Surgical robots for example can do surgery with less scarring, less bleeding, and less pain. The question then arises: If technology can supplant everyone from the donut-man to the skilled-surgeon, will there be any work left for the human workforce?

A friend of mine who has been an anesthesiologist for many years says that as much we’d like to think that computers and robots can do everything better, the system isn’t fail-proof. The problem is that while a human would have the mind to never mistakenly give 100 cc’s of morphine when only 10 cc’s are required, a computer doesn’t have that reasoning power. The gravity of mistakes with technology still surpasses benefits of increased productivity.

Nevertheless one must wonder how much our society will evolve in favor of technology. There will always be those who spearhead the move to employ and promote technological innovation. But there will also always be those whose trust of technology extends little further than their FM radio. In my mind it is comforting to know that there is that balance in society. It will be difficult to make hasty and unwise revolutions to the world when those promoting change are required to account to those that fear it. This balance between the two mindsets may be what saves our society from over-reliance on error-prone technology and keeps the donut-man at work.

Me and the Flat World

Growing up our family was centered on two cherished ideals: Christianity and Apple computers. My father’s hobbyist fascination with emerging technologies exposed me to the reality that every day our lives are more dependent on computers, whether or not we choose to understand their inner workings. Seeing how much the world was ameliorated by the development of computer science, I was convinced that understanding those inner workings was essential to my life’s fulfillment. As a result, I traded in my ambitions for a degree in Medicine for a degree in Computer Science. I did this despite being much less adept with computers than with the biological sciences. I struggled to understand principles and terminology that seemed universally understood among my colleagues and often wondered if I could ever compete professionally in such a field.

What I came to realize as I read Thomas Friedman’s book, is that even though I had entered the realm of Computer Science relatively late (many CS students have been programming since their middle school years or earlier), I can have great hope for my potential in the Flat World for three reasons: first, the Flat World provides equal opportunity to newcomers and veterans alike; second, I have many unique skills that are valuable in the Flat World; and third, my chances at success in the Flat World are highly favored by my life’s circumstances.

In the Flat World the early bird still gets the worm, but so does the late bird. Friedman cites numerous examples of companies springing up in remote locations whose business was spawned by a sudden discovery of the devices of the Flat World. Though I’m not a small business, the principle is the same. As remote as I sometimes feel from the rest of the CS community, with Google and Wikipedia all the information in the world is a few keystrokes away. It’s free, it’s convenient, and once equipped with the knowledge, the ability to communicate with the Flat World is as available to me as to the business owner who has been at it since before I was born. As Friedman pointed out, whether a giant firm or a solo practitioner, “the technology and software are so empowering that it makes us all look the same.” Though relatively new to the Flat World, my potential is not limited by my lack of experience.

Besides affording equal access and opportunity, the Flat World rewards more than just computer expertise. Friedman cites Marc Tucker who said, “software engineers who are also musicians and artists will have an edge over those who are not.” When I first entered the CS program, I was alarmed to find how different I was from the other students. Many of them would have no problem spending days in front of a terminal in some basement on the BYU campus. They eat, sleep, and breath PCs. While I enjoy working with computers, I have a lot of other interests away from the monitors that are equally important to me. I teach italian, I arrange music, I sing in an a cappella group, and I make movies. To find that these hobbies are not a boon to my success, but rather make me a more viable candidate in the Flat World is a very pleasant surprise. I am thrilled at the prospect that I can “use the framework in one [field] to think afresh about the other.” My hopes for success are bolstered by the fact that there are skills that I have developed that are rewarded by the Flat World.

Aside from advantageous skills, my circumstances favor my prosperity in the Flat World. These circumstances are threefold: first, my american heritage; second, my religious background; and third, my involvement in the CS department at BYU. If you are going to be late in entering the Flat World, America is the place to do it. “The nucleus of creativity is here, not because people are smarter–it is the environment, the freedom of thought. The dream machine is still here.” I feel greatly blessed to be in this country. Another great benefit in the Flat World, where people want to collaborate with the best individuals they can find, is maintaining a reputation as a person of integrity and faith. Growing up in a strong LDS family has benefited me to be able to create a very reputable personal profile. Lastly my participation in the CS classes at BYU has exposed me to the Flat World and taught me how to succeed in it. The ethics class I’m taking now has been an eye-opener to what my possibilities are. It has not only proposed the issue of what is good and bad, but also the issue of what is good, better, and best. My preparation for and exposure to the Flat World has been highly benefited by my environment.

One must maintain a degree of reservation when subscribing to another’s idea, particularly an idea as radical as the world being flat, but nevertheless I am confident that what Thomas Friedman is saying in his book is true. I’ve seen first hand many of the developments that he discusses and though I previously felt unconnected and unequipped to participate in this global arena, his insights have made me realize that I have skills and advantages that could make me highly effective in the Flat World, even with my late debut. I’m excited to put my ideas to the test, to find ways to contribute, to be the next chapter in “collaborating so mankind can achieve its full potential.” I feel I can have great success in the Flat World.

Trust Public Creativity, Not Public Conscience

Orson Scott Card needs a wake up call. There is no such thing as a public conscience. In fact, just as I finished reading his proposition to educate people that it’s not okay to copy protected music as a solution to copyright infringement in the digital domain, I opened my email to find a letter from a fictitious “PayPal” trying to scam me out of my identity and credit card information. Don’t mistake my realism for pessimism; we’re simply not all good people.

If what George Scialabba says is true, the panacea to all of our copyright issues in the digital realm may come by taking somewhat the opposite approach. Speaking of the end-to-end “architecture of freedom”, Scialabba points out that the wide open network of the Internet has guaranteed progress but not profits. “Gratitude, the pleasure of discovery, the impulse to self-expression, and devotion to a common enterprise motivate creators quite as much as lucre.” So it was in the miraculous development of the Internet. Can we not expect that it will be so with the arts? The money-hungry recording studios are becoming more and more obsolete anyways as recording software becomes more professional and ubiquitous. Those who truly love what they do -- and love doing it even if they don’t grow rich from copyright laws -- they will keep recording.

Technology has opened doors that allow us to access ideas and information to an infinite degree. Will we close those doors of progress because of pride?

Current Events: All in One and One for All

Facebook’s ongoing success pervades the headlines: “Microsoft to Pay $240 Million for Stake in Facebook”, “Web companies looking to replicate Facebook's success”, and “New Mobile Social Networks” which interact with Facebook from your cell phone. Like other successful hardware and software of it's day, it has discovered the key to success: to accomplish all, in one.

For years there have been sites that allow you to create an account to upload pictures from a family reunion or sites that facilitate online chatting, blogging or file exchange. There have been sites for community calendars, for class forums, and for finding past acquaintances. But who wants to create an account on 50 different sites? Just as the iPhone brought together an MP3 player, a palm pilot with internet access, and a phone (to name a few of the device’s features), Facebook is finding ways to merge the essence of hundreds of websites into one. Whether software or hardware, consolidation is the future.

In the next few decades the vision will only expand. Instead of having a myriad of keys or a wallet with a driver’s license, money, coupons, IDs, credit cards, and whatever else, all of that information will be stored in a single, universally-accepted device; the newest iPhone. Everyone will have one. Built in to your device is your Facebook account or something similar which, as a minimum, serves for identification. For security it will be activated by fingerprint. Perhaps it will be built in to your finger (chapstick and swiss army knife included). Though the idea seems silly, the principle is a reality: society wants consolidation and from an economic standpoint, society usually gets what it wants.

Women in Computing: Nurture vs. Nature

It is no one’s place to say what a woman can and can’t do. What concerns me is that people like Senator Wyden push women to be in places that they may not want to be. I know that he has good intentions in providing equal opportunities for women in the field of hard sciences, but statistics are a dangerous way to measure success: people are not statistics. There is a growing trend to fight against conventionalism, to see men and women exactly the same, and to say (as I feel Senator Wyden is saying) that they should be the same. They are not the same. Thus we shouldn’t worry when statistics show that women aren’t doing everything that men are doing and vice versa. Should we be worried if we find that there aren’t as many stay-at-home dads as there are stay-at-home moms? No. It is generally in women’s nature to be more nurturing than men. Is it not possible that it is more in men’s nature than in women's to be drawn to the hard sciences?

In the same breath, I say that though different, men and women should have equal opportunity. Whether it be in upbringing or peer influence in adulthood, a woman should not be “trained” to arrive at a certain destination in life. Her free agency is as precious as that of anyone else. I agree with Senator Wyden’s insight that a female perspective adds beneficial diversity to any field. My point is that while we should be cautious of conventionalism as limiting opportunities for women, we should not overlook that convention is often created because it coincides with the general nature of the individuals concerned.

Current Events: A Standard of Living

The computer world is just now trying to figure out what the church understood 20 years ago. According to an article by Marcus Browne about office security threats, 85% of employers consider their own employees to be the greatest threat of network exposure to IT threats. The question has been asked for years: how much privacy do you give to your employees?

“Set up the computer in a place where the family regularly can see what is happening on the screen,” says the June 2001 issue of the New Era for LDS youth. Are employees not responsible to their employers the same way children are responsible to their parents? The question is debatable, but the church doesn’t make exceptions for adults using the computers and ultimately, the way I see it, whether it be my house or my business, “if you’re under my roof, you play by my rules. What you do under your roof is up to you.” Reserving the right to search anywhere at anytime for purposes of security is not only reasonable, but largely expected in today’s world.

It seems ironic that the church, which is ancient relative to the dawn of the technological age has adapted so quickly and so adeptly to the changes in society. It is a testimony to the fact that whether socially, academically, emotionally, or politically, you will rarely go wrong modeling your life after gospel standards.

The Cuckoo's Egg: Risky Business

There is a fine line between genius and insanity. One can hardly reach for the stars without being first considered a lunatic. In his book The Cuckoo’s Egg, Cliff Stoll faces this conundrum, but does so conscious of the risk of ruin. “The network community depended on me, without even knowing it,” he writes. “Nobody was telling me what to do, yet I had a choice: should I quietly let things drop? Or do I take arms against this sea of troubles?” We all get a chance to do something of consequence in our communities. Even something as small as an idea can lead to a revolutionary change in humanity. But equally possible is the chance of fruitless experiments, rejection, and embarrassment. Cliff Stoll’s account illustrates that conviction shields genius from insanity, that one can determine the significance of their own achievements, and that invaluable experience is gained in the journey itself.

Cliff knew that he was taking big risks by devoting so much of himself to the hacker. But despite those around him who saw his pursuit as a crazed obsession, Cliff was convinced that it was a serious matter that needed to be dealt with. “Something important was entirely up to me,” he writes. When faced with the door of opportunity and when wondering about the severity of the risks, one must consider the conviction that one has to the matter in question. Unfortunately the tendency is to immediately shy away from a challenge once risks have been identified; but when one is convinced that pursuing a challenge is the right course of action, then one is not only justified in persevering, but morally obligated to do so. Stoll was tempted to give up countless times in his investigation, but had he done so, our very nation may have been compromised. Thankfully Stoll realized that a lack of support from his coworkers and superiors did not translate to giving up on what he felt was important.

A more unique twist on the matter of genius versus insanity is how the individual can determine the significance of their own achievements. Often what we know of history is in reality an individual’s take on those events. Stoll’s narrative is no exception. The case in which he invested countless hours didn’t end with a monumental, earth-shattering court case, a cash prize, or even a raise. The recognition he received could be considered to have been minimal. But that’s not how he chose to see it. He wrote a New York Times Bestseller; he celebrated his own personal achievement at having saved the country and caught the hacker. As the author of the story, both figuratively and literally, Cliff wrote himself in as the genius, not the insane. The significance of one’s achievements need not be dependent on others’ opinions and in this light, our individual pursuits become ever more important to us.

This last observation is particularly true when one considers how much is gained simply in the journey itself, regardless of the outcome. The Cuckoo’s Egg shows clearly an evolution in Cliff’s character as he engaged in pursuing the hacker. He came to understand and appreciate computer networking as more than a conglomerate of wires and cables, but a web of mutual trust between members of a community. He came to recognize the value of ethical behavior and yet learned not to assume it. He realized that political boundaries aren’t as black and white as they had once seemed to him and that behind it all there were common interests. His story also shows how his emotions for his girlfriend were defined and refined through his experience chasing the hacker. For Cliff, as for anyone, undertaking a challenge despite great risk becomes a crucible experience, teaching and providing invaluable experience to shape who we are and how we see the world.

A quick glance at the front cover of the book brings us nearly to assume that Cliff’s story will end in success. Though there are moments when his genius is questioned, we hardly expect the author of a New York Times Bestseller to wind up in an insane asylum. But for each of us, as we walk the fine line between genius and insanity, our outcomes are unassured. We can’t let the fear of failure and the risk of ruin deter us from embracing challenge, particularly when we are convinced that what we are doing is right. As the historians of our own lives, we can largely determine the significance of our own outcomes. The pursuits that we undertake will bring with them knowledge and experience that summarize the very purpose of our lives. At the risk of insanity, let us pursue genius.

Technology and Family History Work: Robots Saving People

On the one hand, family history work is a personalized pursuit, aimed at helping us define who we are and at learning and helping our deceased ancestors one by one. On the other hand, technology is stereotypically robotic, impersonal, and generalized for the masses. Despite these colossally varied foci, nothing has been or will be as important to the propagation of genealogy work and its associated benefits for personal identity as technology. This is ironic when one considers that the great fear of many with regards to technology is that we are losing our identity to make way for the onslaught of machines and computer software. Is it possible that they are actually contributing to our identity? Family history is a testimony to the fact that technology can and should be used to beautify, enhance, and enrich the personal aspects of our lives. When considered in this light, technology is one of the greatest gifts that God has given for the happiness and well-being of His children. Elder Ballard has said, “much success will come as we become more expert and more able to harness the wonderful technology that our Heavenly Father has given man... Whereas Shakespeare in his time was limited generally to the Globe Theatre, we have a global theater that literally opens doors worldwide”.

Kites and Writing

“A kite can’t fly without a string,” as the proverb goes to illustrate that rules don’t tie us down, but keep us up. But how true is this adage?

My friend Matt would say it’s true. You should have seen his face when he whipped open the answer key to his math homework to confirm what he already felt confident was the right answer. After laboriously studying the rules of mathematics, he’d managed to master functional inequalities. He was feeling sky-high.

The students in my italian class say it’s true. I spent an hour in a study session helping them understand the rules for direct and indirect object pronouns. Walking away they said that they felt a lot better about the concepts and I could tell that their love for the language had grown. “It’s the little rules that make italian so beautiful,” I told them. It was a feeling that was mutually understood, like a spiritual surge of emotion.

My roommates would say it’s true. “If any of you guys put up bad pictures in our apartment, it wouldn’t last a second,” one said to the rest of us. He’s convinced that maintaining high moral standards is critical to keeping high spirits. The rest of us are quick to agree.

In school, in sports, in spiritual matters, in life - rules are what make us soar. Often we seem to want the easy way out, the cheap fling, the smooth sailing. But testimonies can readily be found that the most rewarding emotions are precisely that: rewarding. They come as a prize for hard work, for diligent application, for dedicated practice and in all cases, for observance of rules.

As we talk of the rules of writing, why should it be any different? It is no surprise that we “celebrate” writers such as Shakespeare, Frost, and Tolkien. There is something we appreciate in the clarity and inspiration achieved in good writing. There is a crispness, a beauty that makes us want to try harder and to be better. There is something desirable, attractive, and praiseworthy, something we want more of.

We come to stand in awe of the kite, quickly losing from sight and memory that it is the string that makes it fly.

Flight 143: An Allegory?

The tragedy of the Gimli Glider could have been prevented. And not just once or twice. There were many red flags, and I don’t refer to the ones that signaled the pilot to take-off. The first came when the ground crew initially discovered the faulty fuel gauge. The second when no one contested the mathematical conversion factor spouted off by the aircraft refueller. The third when an amber light flashed in the cockpit to signal a problem with the fuel pump.

Some may say, “those things happen all the time. How can you expect anyone to take such commonplace warnings seriously?” And while it is true that an isolated incidence of one such red flag may not merit careful inspection, the accumulation of flags causes the weight of the alarm to grow exponentially. For example, though it may be acceptable to question the gravity of a flashing light in the cockpit, if potentially-disastrous problems have been previously detected in relation to the instrument in question, then suddenly that flashing light should become of serious concern.

While I cannot contend that I or anyone would have been more prudent given the circumstances of the Gimli Glider incident, I do see a great lesson in the story. In life we have many built-in warnings that keep us aware of potential threats. We have our conscience, our friends, our family, and others. We learn quickly that we cannot heed every small “alarm” that is triggered by these safeguards; there are simply too many. But when a barrage of alerts come all warning of the same misfortune, wisdom begs a listening ear. Be it spiritual or social, academic or professional, physical or emotional, we have “built-in safeguards” to protect us. If we do not pay them heed, what end do they serve?

Current Events: The Programmers or the Programmed?

It would seem that in the technological age “all-at-once” isn’t sufficient. Go read the headlines. You thought Google had it all? Now there is a search engine that understands “plain English” instead of just keywords. And in case you’re still not getting “all news all the time”, know that the New York Times just stopped charging for online access to articles for as far back as 1851. But the greatest surprise is for you older folks.

I was mildly amused when my girlfriend, Sarah, told me her mom had set up a Facebook account to keep tabs on Sarah’s brothers. I didn’t think the older generation were up to date with online social networking. Apparently I was wrong. According to a recent article in the New York Times, “the number of Internet users who are older than 55 is roughly the same as those who are aged 18 to 34.” And they want to “Facebook”, too.

Though investors realize that this new audience is “harder to attract”, the older generation is proven to be “more durable and sticky over time.” Even if social networking sites aimed at baby boomers don’t turn out to be the greatest investment, it is nevertheless uncharted territory; the world of technology is yet to prove itself capable of leaving any rock unturned when it comes to entrepreneurship. And though it seems silly, such appears to be the case.

Already tens of millions of dollars are “going into the space” and yet doubt still exists as to whether the interest exists on the part of the “graying computer users” to justify such an investment. Don’t misinterpret my hesitation to grant my parent’s generation their share of “internet fun”; I would love to see them evermore socially connected. But it goes to show that technological exploration is ruthlessly filling every niche it can find, even before we can decide if we want it or need it. It hardly seems that we use judgement anymore to make these decisions; the programmers have become the programmed.

Technology and the Church: Which Came First?

Mankind has a notion that with time comes authority and respect. With time the influence of an event or person is given the opportunity to have its full effect. We are hesitant to give credit where credit may not be due, and as the proverb goes, “only time will tell.”

Perhaps for this reason, we hesitate to realize the full implications of the strength of the Church of Jesus Christ in our own time. We base our teachings on ancient scripture. We revere the pioneers and early Christians as optimal examples of true believers. We give upmost priority to genealogy work. Our very concept of self-worth derives from the events in the Garden of Eden and the Preexistence. And yet despite this focus on the past, the kingdom of God on earth is larger now and stronger now than it has ever been in the history of the world.

There are over 12 million members, most of whom are striving and succeeding despite great adversity to live the gospel. For the first time we spread over almost the entire globe. Until this dispensation, the gospel was limited to a single people, country, or, at most, hemisphere. Now it is in over one hundred languages and there is every intention to see that this trend continues.

How? Technology. The organization necessary, the centralized leadership, and the magnitude of resources required are only now realized by means of computers, global networks, and revolutionary software. Called to mind is a scene from the film The Other Side of Heaven, when a young successful missionary is chastised for neglecting to keep organized the records of his work, “The Lord’s is a house of order, Elder,” the Mission President reminds. Without order, the church does not grow. Period.

Without technology, an organization (the word itself implying order) of such vast size cannot be kept in order. It is beyond important. It is vital. That this Work and this technology have emerged simultaneously in the timeline of history is miraculous in more ways than are here able to be treated. It demands that each member of the church decides for himself or herself if the miracle is the growth in the Lord’s Plan because of technology or if it is the growth in technology because of the Lord’s plan.

The Digital Age: For All or One?

We talk of infinite languages, languages that are made up of an infinite number and combination of strings. In a world where information is so abundant and ever-growing, the temptation is to think that our goal and our success is in finding something new and undiscovered to add to that massive body of data. The more important objective, however, is not to find what is new to the world, but what is new to us. “We have thousands of times more available information than Thomas Jefferson or Abraham Lincoln. Yet which of us would think ourselves a thousand times more educated or more serviceable to our fellowmen than they? … Theirs was the wise and inspired use of a limited amount of information,” says Elder Dallin H. Oaks. Is our life’s purpose so great that the tools that we need to succeed are yet to be revealed to mankind?

In the Book of Mormon, the Lord refutes this rumor. In 2 Nephi 2: 27 it says, “Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh; and all things are given them which are expedient unto man.” Like Thomas Jefferson or Abraham Lincoln, our task is to take what has been given us and find within that collection of knowledge the bits and pieces that will help formulate a convincing thesis from the story of our lives.

In this same vein, the ultimate case scenario is the atonement. For me to change my ways and conform my life to the teachings of Christ is no original concept. It has been done thousands of times over. But in making his ways Gods ways, man has yet to understand that it is the worth of one soul that is great in the sight of God. Not all of the souls of our collective society, but of the individuals. That there are those who rise far above the rest in achievements and recognition, He cares not; that there are those who are not making it, who are surrounded by knowledge and truth and are yet kept from it because they know not where or how to find it - these are those for whom God worries. The power is there, the knowledge is there, it has been employed seemingly to exhaustion, but until the atonement finds fulfillment in the life of the individual, it has yet to serve its highest of purposes.

Such is the case with all of life, of knowledge, of wisdom. In the words of McLuhan, this is an age of “all-at-onceness”; but for each individual, finding the purpose, the meaning, and the focus - that still takes a lifetime.