Out Standing in my Field

Capitalism and Ostriches

2009-07-27T19:35:00.000-07:00

So, by happenstance, I've found myself watching three different pieces of media on television, and all have subtly and not so subtly pointed me in the same direction: The human being is a selfish, greedy, willfully ignorant being, American capitalists especially so. First was "Torchwood: Children of the Earth". This was a wonderful bit of television over from England that featured a gay(non flaming) couple, murder-suicide, and the valiant bold faced demonstration that the government is full of selfish shitheads who think with their wallets and to who poor people are entirely expendable "units", that could be dropped, forgotten, sold, killed, or given up, if only to save the rich and powerful of the world.
The next two were viewed at about the same time tonight, at about the same time. First was "The Yes Men will save the world", a documentary about two guys that go around to various corporate conventions posing as spokespeople for various large companies such as Dow, Exxon, and Haliburton. They went on BBC in 2004 and claimed responsibility for the Bophal disaster in India that killed 5 times more people than 9/11, then went on as Exxon reps who made "vivoleum" candles, purportedly out of human flesh, then as Haliburton reps making a rich person only survival bubble. The bad part is that only the candle bit fell flat, and they were kicked out. The other two bits were accepted wonderfully.
Finally, it was the "No Reservations" show about the Rust Belt, aka Detroit, Baltimore, and Buffalo, three cities that were utterly ruined by the free market and NAFTA. That, and the greed of unions. Unions, that were once the bastion of safety and security against the profiteering corporation. But unions, just like the corporations they have railed against, have gotten greedy and have morphed into a greedy money hungry entity that doesn't look out for the little guy at all, but rather those at the top of the chain, and forwards thoughts like pensions still being a reality in 21st century American society. This in turn demands $85/hour assembly salaries, while the non-union guys down in Tennessee are working for Toyota at $25/hour. Its not the individual's fault, many union workers that I know enjoy the fruits of their unions' labors, but they end up being sucked into the greed and hunger for more that is American society today.

All in all, it made me disgusted to be part of the society that I'm part of, so willingly and utterly hooked into the drug that is the greenback. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to watch some commercials brought to me by the satellite company, and delivered to me on my wide screen TV and try not to think of the state of the environment, the unstoppable parasite lobbyists and their senator and representative hosts, the billion poor people in India, the typical American who doesn't give a shit unless its happening to them, and finally, to try not to blow my friggin brains out.

Please stop calling babies miracles.

2009-03-23T08:50:00.000-07:00

From Wikipedia:

A miracle is a sensibly perceptible interruption of the laws of nature, such that can only be explained by divine intervention, and is sometimes associated with a miracle-worker. Many folktales, religious texts, and people claim various events they refer to as "miraculous". People in different cultures have substantially different definitions of the word "miracle." Even within a specific religion there is often more than one of the term. Sometimes the term "miracle" may refer to the action of a supernatural being that is not a god. Thus, the term "divine intervention," by contrast, would refer specifically to the direct involvement of a deity.

In casual usage, "miracle" may also refer to any statistically unlikely but beneficial event, (such as the survival of a natural disaster) or even which regarded as "wonderful" regardless of its likelihood, such as birth. Other miracles might be: survival of a fatal illness, escaping a life threatening situation or 'beating the odds.'

Compare that with the fact that there are 129 MILLION human births every year. How could something that happens 4 times a second be a miracle? Its biology, and mundane biology at that. So go take your special little snowflake and fuck off, entitled parents.

Food and Fear

2009-03-01T16:40:00.000-08:00

I'm sitting here watching Anthony Bourdain's "No Reservations", and he's in Manhattan, dining at all the old, great pillars of fooddom. Old delis with their black crusted pastrami that isn't stringy, dry and fatty, but soft, tender, and moist. Italian eateries with grandmas who cook, serve, and clean, just like they have for 50 odd years. Chinese places with hidden menus that can only be ordered in Cantonese, and the list goes on. In the program, there are many many references to the places like TGI Fridays, Olive Garden, Outback, and the other places that are tangential, sterilized versions of these old standbys.

This made me think: How did these tangential versions come about? And how did they get to where they are today? I think that the original thought to bringing these estsablishments to life was to pay homage to the originals, and to bring the inner city neighborhoods out to the suburbs. But somewhere between that and now, the corporate Disneyheads got hold of it and decided to castrate it. Gone were the huge chops, home made sauce, or the other little touches that were deemed too scary, or too expensive, or not mainstream enough.

The question remains, was it the fault of the proprieters of these establishments, the corporate bean counters, or was it the fault of the dining public, allowing mediocrity to pervade their gastronomical lives? When the most exciting thing on the menu is an overcooked, oversalted chicken fajita, and that's only exciting because it sizzles? When the tiramisu is often served frozen? When the steak is so heavily seasoned, you can barely taste the meat? And people go to these places, by the hundreds. Every night I go by Chilis, Outback, The 99, and a few other restsaurants that are packed each and every night with people eating mediocre food and drinking mediocre beer.(another post entirely)

I think that it comes down to confort. People enjoy comfort. They enjoy getting the same thing every time, knowing that the ny strip steak will be exactly the same as the ny strip steak they had last time, and the time before that, and the time they were in Altoona. And the place in Altoona has the same interior, with the same waitstaff, and the same outfits and smiles and fun birthday songs for that wonderful little cherub at table 4. When you change things, or ask people to change, or even worse, force them to change, they hate it. I understand this, I hate change in certain parts of my life, like my work situation. So I can understand the fear, but I can't understand why people would take this attitude to food. Food is wonderful, and good food is a work of art, an expression of love from someone who wants to pass on a message. That message might be their own invention, or their grandmother's recipe, or simply the traditions of their homeland. Let them share. Let them show you their heart. Take an adventure, and you will be rewarded. Explore, and you wil be brought to wonderful gastronomical places, and you will come away with knowledge and happiness.

Animal Rescue: Rosie's story

2009-02-18T08:02:00.000-08:00

Darren, one of the readers of this blog, and an excellent writer, posted the following statement in his blog:

Spoiling your pet is like creating an umbrella of compassion in a harsh and random world.

Better words could not be said. I'm not sure if Darren rescued his pets, but I believe he did. Even if he didn't, spoiling pets is a wonderful thing, made even more wonderful for rescues. I've had 3 beagles in my adult life, and they have all been spoiled rotten. Mostly because they had a hard life, and deserve it. I will be posting their stories one at a time. I was originally going to put them all together but this post came out longer than I had expected.

Rosie: Rosie was my second beagle, and the first of my adult life. My wife and I had been thinking about getting a dog, after I took her to the Beagle Rescue Education and Welfare(BREW) Beaglefest, back in 2003. She had been reticent about getting a beagle, in fear that they would be too much trouble. But after a few months of looking at Rosie's bio up on the BREW site, we decided that we would give her a happy home. Rosie was a very special girl, and had had a terribly hard life. When we got her, she was 9 or 10, and we knew that she wasn't going to be around for another decade, but we wanted to give her a retirement that she could enjoy. She had been on the adoption site for 6 months, and no one was giving her a chance because she had medical conditions that cost upwards of $200/month to treat. My wife is an incredibly compassionate person, and said "This is the dog for us." She was quiet, she was a couch potato, she wanted to be an only dog, and she loved people. Perfect. We went through the adoption process, and became the new forever home for Rosie Buttons. We added the Buttons, because it fit, and because we didn't want to change her given name from the adoption.

Rosie was pretty healthy, overall, when we got her, except she needed to pee every couple of hours, and was thirsty all the time. Later, we discovered this was Cushing's Disease, but at the time, there was some controversy about what it was, and we kept her on the medicine she had been on in foster care. She was an aloof dog, but LOVED her people. She wouldn't sit in your lap, but she would sit by your side, and was distraught whenever we would go out for long periods of time.

The life that Rosie had before getting into the adoption group was a horrible one, by any standards. She was kept in the bathroom most of the day, and her owners didn't understand her need to go out a lot, so when she had accidents, they would beat her. To her dying day, she was afraid of anything like a broom, or a chair, or anything with a stick-like protrusion. It broke my heart whenever I would mop the floor and she'd go running for the bedroom with her tail between her legs. Still does, just thinking about it. But even with the bad life, and illness, and old age, she was a very good dog, who loved exploring on walks, trying to find road snacks and obsessing over a year-old dead squirrel embedded in a chain link fence in our neighborhood. When it snowed, she would run around with her mouth open, and to the ground, gobbling up as much snow as she could before we made her go inside, shivering like a leaf. She was loved by everyone, especially the pug/Jack Russel next door, Zeus.

Rosie got sick in 2005, and we weren't sure why. She got very frail, very quickly, and it wasn't until we had taken her several times to Angell Memorial Hospital before we discovered that she definitely had Cushings Disease, and that it would take quite a bit to even get it into remission. What Cushing's disease does is to make the adrenal gland go haywire, making it produce adrenaline nonstop. This makes the kidneys kick in more, and all the organs in the body work harder. Its like running in terror ALL THE TIME. Rosie panted a lot, was hot in the middle of the winter, and was starting to look run down. Meanwhile, we had a wedding to plan and take part in, and Rosie was getting worse.

We made the decision to take Rosie with us on our honeymoon, to a local B&B, Restful Paws, out in Brookfield, MA. Its more than a dog-friendly B&B, its a dog-welcoming one that caters to dogs and people who love and pamper their dogs. After several weeks of a very hectic, lonely life, when we had very little time for her, Rosie deserved to take it easy with us. She loved it at Restful Paws. She was pampered, she was able to stay with people all day, and she got the best treats and treatment she had had in a long time. It was a good thing we did that too, because shortly after that, she started to go downhill quickly.

In November 2005, Rosie got precipitously worse. We had been treating her Cushings, and things hadn't improved much, but we hadn't expected them to. One morning, however, she couldn't raise her head above horizontal. This concerned us, so we took her in to Angell, and had some tests done. As it turns out, the Cushings was masking another problem, a slipped disc in her neck. The adrenaline was covering up the pain and trauma, and getting her help in one respect ended up adding to her pain. So, we cut back on her medicine for the Cushings for that reason, and because we realized that she did not have long left. We hoped a few months, but it ended up only being a few weeks. After more of a quick decline, and a daily signs of less energy, we took her in again, and found out that she had a tumor not only on her adrenal gland, but on her kidney as well. Neither were operable. We took her home, in shock, knowing that she had very little time left, but after a night of Rosie looking paniced, panting and laying on her side, in obvious pain, we took her back the next morning to be put to sleep. It was one of the hardest things I've ever done. It was December 4th, 2005. It snowed that day, which was one of Rosie's favorite things in the world. We thought it was a fitting sign.

More Film Noir

2009-01-31T20:30:00.000-08:00

The picture on the right(I hope, the pics have been acting strange for me lately) is Orson Welles, during his years when he was impersonating a walrus, Charlton Heston, and two schmoes. Its from Touch of Evil, and shows a perfect film noir shot, as very few could do. Orson was one of those people. Take a closer look, and you'lls see a few things. Orson is disheveled, unshaven, and corpulent. Chuck Heston is upright, stoic, clean, and crisp. You realize that Welles is the bad guy, and that Hestson is the good guy, but look even closer now. The light from the "window"(a classic noir shot) hits the 4 people on their upper half, adding focus to their faces.

Heston's face is in the light with a dark background, putting it in sharp contrast. He's looking straight forward, and is in the position of strength, with his fists clenched, ready for action. Welles's face is half in shadow, with the dirty, off white wall behind him matching the sweaty pallor of his big mug. His hands are in his pockets, which tells us that he's hiding something. The other two are instantly seen as having no importance, even though the short mexican man(its okay to call him that, he's really mexican in the movie) is the one talking. The real battle is between Heston and Welles, and the audience instantly knows it.

Now, this is just one shot from the movie, one instant in time, and even though our minds don't out and out tell us what is going on, we recognize things, and are told things by the director with shadow, light, focus, and framing. Thats what makes a director great, and that's what is a staple of good Film Noir.

This scene is a relatively minor one, and not one of the three that pop into my head when I think about Touch of Evil. The first is a 3 1/2 minute long continuous shot that opens the film. It sets the tone and the tension of the movie immediately, as you watch a car go across the US/Mexico border after having watched a man put a bomb in its trunk.

The second is powerful for another reason, and follows another Film Noir tradition of things happening without explicitly being shown. Vivian Leigh(again) is in a hotel room, and a gang of bikers sis in the room next door, making a racket. She gets worried, tries to call the front desk, but he doesn't want to have anything to do with it. The scene crescendos in lockstep with the ever louder music, as the bikers come in to the room, trap Vivian, close in on her, and drug her. They don't tell you or show you what happens, but the next you see Vivian, she's in a different hotel, waking up. Was she raped? Unlike lesser movies, its not the focus, so its never mentioned.

The third scene is one of pure rage, that Heston pulls off well. He beats the ever loving hell out of the biker gang, one by one, in the process picking up a man with one hand, carrying him a few feet, and then driving him down a bar and into the wall. Again, its a hint that something else happened with those bikers.

Thats it for now, I suppose.

Psycho is not a film noir.

2009-01-23T06:22:00.000-08:00

Psycho is not film noir. Psycho is a thriller, or a psychological suspense film, but it is not a film noir, for many reasons.

1)Subject - the subject is psychological in nature, and is about a crazy murderer. This is not normal fare for a noir. There's a direct relationship between the killer and the victim, which is also rare in noirs. Noirs usually deal with a shady person, or gang, and deals with crime, usually. Murders may happen, but they're not the sole reason for the "evil" character.

2)Cinematography - This may be where people get the idea that psycho is a noir. Many of the shots in psycho borrow from the film noir genre, using light and dark, intersecting shadows, off-center subjects, odd angles, etc. But that was also just Hitchcock's style, you can find that in many of his films.

3)The Antihero - Usually in noir, but not always, there is an anti-hero, or a reluctant hero. A dirty, possibly corrupt person who will do whatever it takes to do "the right thing". Bogey was excellent at playing these parts, and Sam Spade is the quintessential anti-hero. There's no such person in Psycho, Sam Loomis certainly isn't one, and everyone else is a victim. Also, in most film-noirs, there are no squeaky clean characters, or if they are, they are offed pretty quickly, or are seen as a point of derision and scorn.(Laszlo in Casablanca pops into my head)

4)Focus - the focus in Psycho is on the murderer, and the murdering, and keeping the suspense high. In a noir, there may be suspense, but it is rarely the main focus of the film. When Sam Spade is looking down the barrel of Kasper Gutman's gun, there's tension there, but not the same tension as when Vivian Leigh is about to get stabbed in the shower.

The Hitchcock film that I would have a hard time choosing between film noir and suspense is "Rear Window". There's no hero, the filming is right, the focus is almost right, but the subject is still the murder, and the tension of the final scenes.

Pink Floyd review

2008-12-22T08:43:00.000-08:00

This is for Darren, and i guess anyone else who is interested. I'm about as big of a Pink Floyd fan as one can be, I've got all their albums and some bootleg stuff of middling quality. I'll go down the list of their albums and tell you what I think:

Piper at the Gates of Dawn(PatGoD): Piper is a silly, fun album, good for when you're high as a kite, or just feeling goofy and need a light album to make you laugh, sing, and feel happy. If I had to label it, I'd call it stoner pop, and its definitely indicative of a band who did a LOT of drugs. Standout songs are "Astronomy Domine"(instrumental featuring excellent drums) and "See Emily Play". Heavily influenced by Syd Barrett.

Saucerful of Secrets(SoS): Saucer is the transition album between Syd Barrett's Pink Floyd and Roger Waters' Pink Floyd. Still has some silliness from Syd in it, with songs like Corporal Clegg, but has some more heavy songs on it from Roger. Good album, but not great. I only listen to it once in a while.

Songs from the movie More(More): Not one of my favorites. Never saw the movie, and really only has one good song on it, "Cymbaline". I listen to this maybe once a year, say Oh yeah, thats why i don't listen to that", and move on.

Umma Gumma(UG): Another one that is, in my mind, more of an acid trip put on vinyl than an album. Its 2 discs, one studio, one live. the live puts up a version of Astronomy Domine that is good, as is "Careful with that Axe Eugene". The studio album is good, but not great. And they spend 20 minutes acoustically rambling with "SEVERAL SPECIES OF SMALL FURRY ANIMALS GATHERED TOGETHER IN A CAVE AND GROOVING WITH A PICT". Thats an odd song, with an odd title. Just aural chaos, meant to be listened to while stoned/tripping/both.

Atom Heart Mother(AHM): Solid album, albeit a short one. Its bookended by two tracks that are mostly instrumental, and slightly orchestral, "Atom Heart Mother", and "Alan's Psychedelic Breakfast". Both are enjoyable, with only small sections that are dischordant and hard to listen to. And it has one of my favorite songs, "If". Darren, I think you'd really like this album, especially for background music.

Relics(Relics): Basically a collection of previous songs. Good, but no better than previous albums, the songs are no better arranged. I have this one for the collection, but almost never listen to it.

Meddle(Meddle): This is a good album, and features a pig's ear on the front! An easygoing album for the most part, with excellent standout songs "Fearless" and "San Tropez". The title track is mostly instrumental, and gets a little noodly and semi-pointless, but all in all, worth a listen to.

Obscured by Clouds(OBC): This is hands down my favorite Pink Floyd album. Absolutely great stuff from start to finish. Well layed out, with great instrumentals, great imagery, and stunning lyrics. My favorite lyric on the album comes from the triumphant "Free Four": "You are the angel of death, and I am the dead man's son". Darren, I think you'd love this album, and I suggest that anyone who is even a passing PF fan do themselves the service of having a listen.

Dark Side of the Moon(DSotM): What else can I say about this album that hasn't been said before? Its my second favorite album, and is just superb. The only reason I wouldn't rate this ahead of OBC is that Waters' depressing outlook is starting to creep in here.

Wish You Were Here(WYWH): Excellent album, even if it does feature a song that is most played by college douchebags with guitars trying to get laid, the title track. Solid from start to finish, but I would put it on a lower tier than OBC and DSotM. Definitely a Roger Waters album.

Animals(Animals): Good album, with very listenable songs. It tries to be a throw back to Atom Heart Mother and Meddle, I think, but still has Roger Waters writing those depressing lyrics. Still, they work, and the music itself is very good. Stand out songs: Pigs on the Wing, and Dogs.

The Wall(Wall): In my opinion, the most overrated Floyd album out there. I loved this album when I was an angsty teenager, and I suppose it still works on that level, but still, there are some songs on there, like One of My Turns and Waiting for the Worms that would be home in any emo band today. That said, there are still excellent songs on this album, like Comfortably Numb and Run Like Hell.

A Collection of Dance Songs(ACODS): Possibly the worst album of all, this takes from various earlier albums, and puts together songs disjointedly, though many say that this album is a tribute to Syd Barrett.

Final Cut(FC): What a bitter album, full of vitriol, depression, anger, and general hate. This is the album that broke up the band. Waters was going off the heavy end, and the rest of the band just couldn't take his lyrics and heavy-handed direction any more. Rick Wright even refused to play on the album. I very rarely listen to this album. Darren, unless you want to end up in a funk, stay away from this one.

A Momentary Lapse of Reason(AMLoR): The new Floyd was lighter, and the songs were good, but there was definitely something missing without Waters, some of the depth and breadth of their songs was gone. Still, has some standout songs, such as Learning to Fly, Dogs of War, and On the Turning Away.

Delicate Sound of Thunder(DSOT): Another "Best of" album, this time live, and all done without Waters. Some of the old songs lose their oomph, like Another Brick In the Wall and Comfortably Numb. Not a bad album, but just a rehash.

The Division Bell(TDB): I would consider this a good album that is more than the sum of its parts. Most of the songs are mediocre, but come together in a pattern that is pleasing to the ears. Most of the songs have to do with communication, and many say that the songs were directed towards Waters, but Gilmour denies this, saying it was more with him and his wife. Some of the songs were written by his wife, and it shows, they tend to be the more shallow songs on the album. Lots of piano work on this one. Standout songs include: Keep Talking, Lost for Words, and Marooned.

Pulse: Another complilation/live album. Okay stuff, though Gilmour shows he's getting old when he can't hit those notes he was once able, nor does he have the singing range or talent that Waters had.

Overall ranking of albums:(in order of my tastes)
Obscured by Clouds
Dark Side of the Moon
Atom Heart Mother
Wish You Were Here
Piper at the Gates of Dawn
Meddle
Animals
The Wall
Saucerfull of Secrets
Momentary Lapse of Reason
Division Bell
Pulse
Delicate Sound of Thunder
Umma Gumma
More
The Final Cut
Relics
A Collection of Dance Songs

DRM

2008-06-25T14:02:00.001-07:00

If you haven't heard, there is a LOT of hullabaloo about DRM, or Digital Rights Management out there. Its all about how PC game publishers are trying to stop pirates from stealing their game. The fans are up in arms, boycotting the PC ports of excellent games such as BioShock, Mass Effect, and Penny Arcade: Rain-soaked Precipice of Darkness, some of the most outstanding games of the last 2 years. Their gripes:
-It takes too long to activate
-I want to be able to install it on more than 3 PCs
-I don't want to put in a key more than once
-I don't want the game checking in to the server to see if its legal for me to play
-I want to be able to play the game in 10 years, and any activation/check-in servers will be dead by then.
-None of this stops pirates, really.
-All this DRM stuff breaks the game sometimes

I think they're all a bunch of whiners. Activation definitely stops pirates. It doesn't stop all of them, but it stops some of them. Yes, there will always be cracks and hacks, but a Steam/Stardock/check in with papa type of system is simply the best. The people that complain about this are either a)secret pirates, b)like to play ridiculously old games, or c)whiny knobs. If you're a), shut up, because if you are really a pirate, you'll be able to get the game eventually. If you're c), shut up because no one likes a whiny knob. If you're b), here's my suggestion to you and to the game publishers, I hope you like it, but you probably won't.

Keep the DRM system with server check in in tact, but add a few things. First, add the ability to play the game 5 times without a check-in, or up to a week, or something. This should ease the "What if my internet service is out?" Well, then you wouldn't be able to bitch and moan ceaselessly about everything. But yes, you wouldn't be able to play your game either. The solution above solves this. The next gripe, that you can't play old games, is also easy to solve. Put in a check to the Naval Observatory Time Server. If the date is X years(say 5) after the release date of the game, then don't do a server check. Hooray, the game's now free for whoever wants it, but you, as a publisher, if you're still in existence, probably don't care too much at this point. If you aren't in existence, then the users can still play the game. Surely, users can see the benefit of this, and must realize that game companies have to protect their investment, or PC gaming will truly become extinct.

Personally, I don't care. I'm mostly a console gamer, and I could give a crap about activation on PC games. I'll do whatever it takes to get the game running. Whats a few extra key strokes or a few extra seconds checking in with the server?

Pearl

2008-05-13T19:50:00.000-07:00

For some reason, I've been wanting to listen to a lot of Janis Joplin lately. I had cassette tapes of her stuff, but lost them in one of my many moves, and unfortunately never got her CDs. That may have to be rectified soon.

Joplin would never make it in today's music world. Fortunately for her, in the mid to late 60s, there was a turn towards blues music, and the rock that was influenced by it. Jimi Hendrix was singing Red House, Voodoo Child, and Mannish Boy. John Mayall was singing Crawling Up the Hill, a Hard Road, Blues City, and the heart wrenching "Death of JB Lenoir".

Joplin grew up knowing the blues, listening to the blues, and living the blues. So that is what she sang in her distinct voice. The whiskey soaked gravelly tunes poured out of her, and carried her heart and soul out with them. A perfect example of this is "Summertime". She did play with Hendrix, but I haven't heard any of that stuff. I can only imagine the pure energy that was on that stage.

But anyway, back to the original point, that she wouldn't make it in today's music. She wasn't a typical beauty, and her voice, while powerful, strong, and unique, was anything but smooth, which is really sought even with rock and power singing groups today. She'd be limited to small time stuff, and possibly a punk band or something like that. Would the lack of notoriety be worth having her talent live on past the age of 27? I guess we'll never know. If she was alive today, she'd only be 65, but heroin took her away from us in 1970.

Do yourself a favor, go download Summertime, and listen to some real music.

Bruins and BS

2008-04-22T06:03:00.000-07:00

Below is an email I sent to Bill Simmons of ESPN. I'm sure many others have written him similar emails, but his new article puts it well:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/080421

And here's my email:

I consider myself a huge Bruins fan, and have been for almost 30 years. I've seen the highs, and the lows. I've watched one of the best players of our time crumble as his knee turned to bone. I've seen an outstanding goalie get rushed out of town because he was the team rep for the union, and had the audacity to suggest that the owner of one of the most popular teams in hockey pay his players more because they and the fans deserved to have a happy team. I've seen a team draft two incredible young players in one round, giving me hope for the future. I've seen a team smartly prepare themselves for the lockout by shedding big contracts, only to pick up losers and old washed up stars. I've seen the death of an arena that was an icon, I've seen one of the highest scoring stars of the game get traded for the equivalent of trading 3 nickels for a quarter. I've seen a team put all their hopes and captaincy on a Czech defenseman that really looks like he doesn't want to be there every single night.

Most of all, though, I've seen a team deteriorate over the years from an exciting, hopeful, popular team, to a team that has become nothing but a holding area for players to try to get better contracts. The Bruins are the airport lobby of the NHL, players hate going there, but go there when they want to get somewhere better. No one is enthused to be there, and the fans are sensing it now. They can't get behind guys like Bergeron, Kessel, and Lucic(my pick for the next Cam Neely) because they know that in a few years, those guys will be gone, and the Bruins will have nothing to show for it.

I understand why the Bruins are dead to you, and I can commiserate with you about how Jacobs just sees the dollar signs and doesn't have an ounce of passion for the team. But I still love them. I'll be a Bruins fan to my grave. The point of this email, however, is to ask you for advice. Like a guy who's in a bad marriage, but believes in his vows, I'm going to see this through, out of sheer stubbornness, no matter how miserable I get. Any suggestions on how to make my life as a fan more tolerable? Should I try to take it not so seriously, like I tried to do after the Thornton trade?(the "taking up fishing" approach) Or should I put my hopes in the young guys I mentioned above, simply enjoying watching them grow as players, even though I know they'll move on?(the "I'm doing this for the kids" approach) Or, should I still claim to be a Bruins fan, but take an interest in another team like the Capitals(the "cheating with the secretary" approach)?

Cuss

2008-04-10T08:33:00.000-07:00

I think the word cuss is funny. And I think that anyone who uses it is 93.2% likely to be highly religious, and/or from the midwest or south. This is what the cuss_o_meter has to say about me. As the Dude would say, "The fuck you talkin' about?"

Created by OnePlusYou

That number's way too fucking low. Shit. And yes, I managed to find a shot of the exact moment when he says that line. And yes, I know that picture is from that line from memory.

Cleaning Time

2008-02-26T13:36:00.001-08:00

for my sqrt(-1) users, I'm cleaning out some old drafts that I either can't remember what i was going to do with, or just got bored with.

Its either that, or rant about the Bruins again..

edit: Oh, interesting, it puts them on the date that I started them on. I don't think I want that.

Alternative History

2008-01-20T11:40:00.000-08:00

Here's an interesting alternative history idea: On the golden anniversary of the golden gate bridge, the span flexed and flattened under the weight of 1,000,000 people, and if there was any weaknewss in the bridge, it would have cracked, crumbled, and thousands would have plunged to thier death. Also, the bay area would have been effected greatly, causing traffic from Marin county to San Fran cut down to a near halt, and so on and so forth. Maybe no tech boom in the area, though, thigns tended to recover pretty well after the San Fran earthquake, when there were some 3,000 deaths. But this would be a good 15% of the area's population. Yipes.

One Movie

2008-01-03T12:20:00.000-08:00

This was a blog post title that I honestly have no idea where it came from. I put in blog titles and quick reminders to myself to talk about later, but I have no clue. Maybe it was about "Johnny Get your Gun" which was used for the video "One" by Metallica. Doubt it. Maybe it was about one movie that I liked. Oh wait, I think I remember now. It was "If you could recommend one movie to someone that has never seen a movie before, what would you suggest?" I think I came up with Big Lebowski, maybe Touch of Evil. I don't remember, but it was a difficult choice.

Video Game Nostalgia 1 - Astrosmash

2007-12-10T13:32:00.000-08:00

This is the first in hopefully a bunch of blog updates about old(and not so old) video game memories that I have gained over my 28 years of video gaming. They will remember the good times and the bad, the hot and the cold, the 8 bit to the hi def, and beyond.

First up on the list is Astrosmash, an Intellivision(I'll get into Intellivision's superiority over Atari 2600 in another post) game that was originally called Avalanche but was changed to take advantage of the space game surge. It was one of the more popular games for the Intellivision, and for good reason. It was addictive, easy to learn, and had a perfect difficulty curve. You basically moved your cannon back and forth along the ground, getting points for each rock that you destroyed. 10 points for big rocks, 20 points for small rocks. For each rock you missed, you got deducted the same amount. Sound simple? Sure. But as you scored more, the pace would quicken, the background beat would quicken,(a simple thump...thump...thump) and the background would change colors. Every time the background changed colors, a new feature would be introduced, up to 100,000. Some of the additions were UFOs that would shoot down cluster-bullets, those were easy for a bunch of points, and my hated nemesis, heatseeking missiles. The heat seekers would follow you around once they hit the ground, and you'd have to use your hyperspace to get out of the way, and even that was a gamble, as it might put you in the path of a rock, or worse. The ultimate enemy for this game, though, were the spinners. If the spinners hit the ground, you were dead. No ifs, ands, or buts. You were dead. Sometimes there'd be 3 spinners on the screens in the higher levels. The good news was that every 1000 points, you'd get an extra life, and when the multiplier was up on 6x or greater, they came quickly. Unfortunately, they would go quickly, and Astrosmash penalized you points for dieing, too, so you'd have to re-accumulate those points, AND an additional 1000 points to keep getting new guys.

I remember getting somewhere in the upper 190,000s on this game, but my brother, being my older brother, needed to beat that, and I still remember his high score of 380,000 or so. I was amazed, for the screen was whipping by, and he was playing very smoothly, carving out a hole for his little cannon in the middle of the screen, making sure that no spinners got by, or when they were unreachable, he made sure he didn't get killed by a rock trying to race over to get them. That was always my downfall, trying to get the spinners, getting killed by a rock, then getting killed by the spinner that I was trying to get over to. 2 deaths instead of 1.

Apparently, there was a contest for this back in the day, and some kid won $25,000 in early 80s money for getting 825,000 points in an hour. That's impressive.

BUY MY SHIT!

2007-11-27T12:29:00.000-08:00

For some reason, I'm very disillusioned about the whole Christmas season now. I know there's the whole spiel about Christmas starting before Halloween, and how the season seems to be getting longer and longer. What I'm sick about is the commercialism and consumerism involved. I saw the Macy's Day Parade, and was revolted by the consumerism involved. There's nothing interesting about this pageant any more. Not sure there ever was, but this year, I was just overwhelmed with the crap that was going on. They had a Pikachu float in front of a Juicy Coture billboard, with an NBC ad in the corner for another show. Then they cut to commercial. When will our society come to the saturation point with advertisement. With the advent of DVRs, commercials have to be spectacular for people to remember them and hell, to even watch them. I know I've stopped fast forwarding if I see a commercial that looks especially interesting. Unfortunately, its also the reason for all those in-show ads at the bottom of the screen.

Anyway, back to the season. It seems that people get more inspired by black Friday(and now Cyber Monday?) than by Christmas itself, and often just go on BF to get something for themselves. Rarely do I hear "I am getting up at 4 AM to get my wife this awesome gift!" I guess its a sign of the selfishness that's occurring these days. I don't know why I needed to post this, its not like there aren't 10,000 other blog posts about the holiday seasons. I guess I was just shocked about how blatantly consumerist the Macy's parade is. That said, I want to see the look of joy on my wife's face when I get her the things she's been wanting this season.

I'll end this post on a light note. The thing I'm most fond of at the holidays: The food. I love to cook and bake, and I get a chance to try out new stuff this time of year.

Who I back in 2008

2007-10-23T13:04:00.000-07:00

As a rule, I hate career politicians, and tend to vote for people who want to be representatives of their people, and who will hopefully represent my desires and wishes and stand the same way as I do on certain issues. Now, all of this doesn't matter, really, because politicians are swayed by lobbyists and big corporations, and that's who most politicians care most about, other than themselves. Until GWB came along, I would have said that it doesn't matter what beliefs the president has, it matters what companies back him and can push his buttons. Since Dub, I've seen where the country can go in the hands of a truly paranoid, colossally idiotic, self centered, deranged, maladjusted dingbat.

For 2008, we've got quite the crappy crop of candidates for the big two. Here's what I've got against each of the candidates:

Republican:

Rudy Giuliani - Way too stuck on 9/11. Way too focused on NYC. I don't think he'd have a national viewpoint. Also very much a "what can get me the most votes" kind of guy, while hiding his true intentions. In short, I just don't trust him. But he's the closest the Republicans get to getting my vote, which is not very close at all.
John McCain - Wants to send more troops to Iraq. Like that's going to help. I used to like him, but he's too much of a warmonger.
Ron Paul - Immigration issues are what sinks him for me. He's big into the US being "independent" from the rest of the world. In a world economy, when you're as big of a consumer as the US, you HAVE to be part of the world economy, or you're sunk. Also anti-abortion big time.
Mitt Romney - Anti-woman, Anti-gay, Anti-immigrant, and is a bishop in the LDS church. Basically, he'd make being poor illegal. And his wife can't drive worth shit.
Sam Brownbeck - Anti-abortion, anti-gay, and is for a constitutional amendment to ban same sex unions. What's the matter Sam, is Jim the construction worker giving you tightpants syndrome?
Mike Huckabee - Anti-abortion, anti-gay, pro-war.
Duncan Hunter -Pro-war, anti-abortion, to the point of constitutional amemdments. Same goes for gay rights, or lack thereof.
Tom Tancredo - Pro-war, anti-abortion, anti-immigrant, big time. Actually wants to build that stupid fucking fence.
Fred Thompson - Pro-war, anti-abortion, anti-gay.

Democrats:

Barack Obama - Probably as close as I'll get to liking someone in the big 2. He's not for same-sex marriage, and I'm not behind his immigration 100%, and I don't like the fact that he still thinks Social Security works as it stands today, but overall, he's not too bad.
Hillary Clinton - Ultimate snake in the grass politician. Will absolutely say whatever gets her the most votes. Could give a crap about people, or their views, and is in it for the fame and money. The type of person that when asked "What do you believe in?", says "Well, what do you believe in?" Slimeball extraordinaire. And that has nothing to do with her being a woman.
Joe Biden - I like his proposal for splitting up Iraq and not forcing three groups to co-exist. Not so sure about his Social Security stances. Seems to be pandering to the babyboomers.
Chris Dodd - I honestly don't know enough about him to say what I don't like about him. He seems to be saying the right things, at least.
John Edwards - Religious nut.
Mike Gravel - Still thinks we can do something in Iraq other than getting the F out of there. Is big on "Agressive Diplomacy". Whatever that is, it doesn't sound good to me.
Dennis Kucinich - Thinks Social Security is not in crisis. Um. Right.
Bill Richardson - Again, I like most of what he says, and I don't know what about him I don't like, but I know I heard something at some point.

So there you have it. According to Vote Match I most closely match with Hillary, but that's just counting the majors, and is still only 50%. Here's my VoteMatch score:

Your Score

You scored the following on the PoliticsMatch questions:

Personal Score

88%

Economic Score

11%

Where You Fit In

Where your Personal score meets your Economic score on the grid below is your political philosophy. Based on the above score, you are a Hard-Core Liberal .

Bruins start/predictions

2007-10-10T07:24:00.001-07:00

So I got to see the Bruins for the first time in 2007, eschewing the Red Sox game on TV for watching opening night against the Stars. The first period looked good, they looked a lot more focused and controlled than last year. It wasn't until the second period that discipline broke down, and they really reminded me of last year. Manny Fernandez looked capable as another good goalie, and might be a true #1, but I'd say he's only a step or two better than Tim Thomas. Will the Bruins be better this year? I'd say yes, and I think the announcers would agree with me. They seemed to have the "They'll be better, but not good" vibe, which I could see, and there was some talk about getting to the playoffs, but both they and I were skeptical about that prospect. The biggest change that I liked was the addition of Mike Milbury to the crew of analysts. He was a great player, and coach, and knows what it takes to get the Bs to the playoffs. He's been there, he's seen the great players, and he's not afraid to say what he thinks about this current team.

Anyway, back to the Bs team. They lost that Dallas game 4-1, and then went out to Phoenix, and beat up on the Coyotes 3-1, like they should have. Now, the Stars and the Coyotes are vastly different teams, and Dallas played like a team that had 107 points last year, and the Coyotes played like a team that had 67 points. The Bruins? They played like they had 76 points last year, unfortunately. So, even though the season is young, I think that they're going to be better than last year, but not by much. I'm saying right now its going to be about a 500 season, with 40 wins, 34 losses, and 8 OT losses. That gives them 88 points, and probably out of the playoffs again, but still, an improvement.

Can this team get better? Sure. If they spend the money, invest in a young team, and let them grow together, with the crucial addition of veteran guys that want to teach, and want to take this team to the next level. That's what happened in the late 80s, and that's what should happen again. Most importantly, they need a good D. Zdeno Chara is a good defenseman, but I don't see him being a captain, even though he has that C on his chest, and I don't see him leading this team deep into the playoffs.

Brain dredgings

2007-10-10T06:19:00.000-07:00

I hate it when I have dreams that I can't explain, but I hate it more when my brain dredges up something that I not only can't explain, but that I've never even heard of before. Last night, I had the following dream. It doesn't make sense, but then when do dreams ever make sense?

I was in a garage of some sort, or factory or something like that. I distinctly remember a thick industrial oily smell, that iron and petroleum tang that hangs in the back of your nose and throat. The place was cold, but not unbearably so. I was a mechanic, I think, and by the costuming, it was in the late 40s, early 50s, if I had to guess. Not sure where I was, but I know that my co-worker, Frank, was British.
The dream opened as we were sitting down to lunch, which I can't remember what it was, other than I had a hot drink with it, coffee I think. We talked about the daily current events, of which I can not remember any, and ate happily. After we finished eating, Frank went over to a shelf, and got out a board game. It was called Conflict, and played a little like Stratego. We played a game, and then we went back to work, but only for a little while, when we noticed it had started to snow. Frank commented that his wife was going to be cross with him if he was late, and that we better get finished with the work we were doing, so we could both go home a little early. We were working on a truck, Frank was working on the engine, and I was busy rebuilding the transmission. I distinctly remember my hands cramping up because of the cold, and asking Frank to put more coal in the stove.
Well, a few hours went by, and a few inches of snow accumulated on the ground. By the time we were ready to go, it was getting dark, and the snow was coming down fiercely. Frank and I agreed that we were stuck there for the night, and that it would be easier to just stay than to traverse the roads that might not get plowed at all that night.
After calling our wives, we played more Conflict(apparently, we loved this game and had a great rivalry) and we had fun just hanging out for the rest of the evening. There were cots in the closet of the break room, I guess for those times when you have a long job and have to stay overnight, or bad weather like we were experiencing. In the middle of the night, I was awakened by a huge crash, and when we went to look, a tree had fallen in the storm, a maple I believe, and crashed through the corrugated iron roof and on to the truck that we had been repairing that day. Frank and I looked at it with old flashlights, and decided that there wasn't much we could do about it just then, and that we should try to get more sleep until morning.
Morning came, and Frank and I went out to assess the damage. The snow had stopped falling, and it was that blindingly bright, crisp kind of morning that can only come after a snow storm. The roof had absorbed most of the impact of the tree falling, and the truck seemed more or less okay, other than the container part of it being caved in a bit. Still, we thought we could hammer that out a lot easier than we could fix the cab, if the tree had gone through that. The roof was another matter. We didn't own the place, but we were our own bosses, so I guess that means we rented out the facility.
Frank called the owner of the building, Tom, and told him about the damage, and then proceeded to look very troubled. After getting off the phone with Tom, Frank turned to me and told me that Tom said it was our problem, that acts of god weren't covered in our rental agreement, and that we'd have to fix it ourselves. We agreed that not much could be done that day except for getting rid of the tree, and Frank decided he'd go home and get his chainsaw while I tried to pick up as many of the branches as I could. As I started trudging around the snow, the dream faded and I woke up.

Now, that dream seems pretty normal, but that's just it. It's perfectly normal, and congruous, and made sense internally to itself and to me. The oddest part about it was the clarity, and the things that I just can't explain away, like the following:

I don't drink coffee, but I LOVED it in the dream. This is not a big deal, I know a lot of coffee drinkers, and I like the smell of it, and I had a cup of tea last night.
I have never seen a transmission taken apart, but I clearly saw the transmission, and knew how to take it apart and clean it and put it back together again in the dream. I can't describe it now, other than there being lots of oily gears and pins and what not.
The fact that a snow storm came upon us without us really knowing about it was odd because I normally know what the weather is going to be like, and if it was today, we'd know about a big storm like this for days in advance. However, in the 1950s, there was little weather forecasting, and certainly not the computerized models that we see today. Looking around on the web, the late 1950s is really when weather forecasting started to take off with the help of computers. Still, in a small town, they would know that snow could be coming, but might not know how powerful a storm might be.
The snow plowing in the 50s wasn't that great either, especially in small towns, so my not being surprised by being stranded was notably accurate for the time period.
The biggest thing that struck me this morning was the game of Conflict. It stands out as the most vivid part of the dream, and I distinctly remember the box that I have pictured above, and remembered playing the game on a board that looked almost identical to the one for that game, and I very much remember there being skunks on the dice, which is also accurate. Now the weird part: I've never seen or heard of that game before. It was a game that was produced by Parker Brothers from 1940 to 1972, and again fits the time frame of the dream. When I woke up this morning, I asked my wife if Conflict was the British name for Stratego, because Frank was British and we were playing Conflict. Granted, the game itself doesn't play much like Stratego, but maybe that's the analogy that my brain came up with to explain it.

What does this all mean? Probably nothing. But it was just another in a long line of dreams/deja vu/whatever that seem to haunt me for days afterward.

Halo 3 mis-use

2007-10-01T14:21:00.000-07:00

And I'm not talking about cheating, griefing, or team killing, or whatever. I'm talking about the mongoloids out there who waste a great game like Halo 3 and only play slayer, or if they're feeling adventurous and social, team slayer. Okay, you mouth breathing jock monkeys, its not 1994. There are other modes in the multiplayer than "kill everything that moves". Its not even clever "kill everything that moves", like rockets only, or only vehicles and pistols, or only sticky grenades. Its "I memorized this map, know where everyone spawns, and where all the weapons are. I will slaughter you to make myself feel better, with no other point kill everything that moves". Assbaskets. With the Forge, an unlimited number of variants can exist on the framework of several very solid modes, such as the standard Capture the Flag, Oddball, a great game of Tag, where the goal is to be "it" for the longest time possible, infection, where you try to spread a plague, Juggernaut and VIP, which are modes based on trying to kill one person, King of the Hill and Territories, where you control an area by having the most people in it, and even good old Assault, which is capture the flag, but one team is on offense, and the other is defense.

Oh, and don't bitch about a mode being "too confusing". How confusing is it to capture a damn area, and keep others from doing the same? Expand your friggin horizons. And please, please please, how about a little strategy when you do lower yourself to gaming on a team with a specific goal? People who answer "What's the plan?" with "Uh, capture the flag, since we're playing capture the flag." should be slapped.

Bruins 2007-2008 first post

2007-10-01T13:07:00.000-07:00

I hate to admit it, but I'm a little bit excited by the Bruins this year. They've got the magic bear back on their jerseys, I think they got rid of the mustard bear head jerseys, they've got a goalie that doesn't look like the Dutch Paint Boy, and I think Phil Kessel and Patrice Bergeron will light things up this year, though I think they should move one of them to a wing, and let them play on the same line to start some chemistry. I know, they're going to suck, and apparently there are VERY few hockey fans in central Mass, and the Celtics and Patriots will relegate them to nearly no coverage, but I'm still a fan. Have you seen the new jerseys for the various teams? I'm liking that the Crapitals changed back to their old unis, and I like the Minnesota home jersey with the ring, but I'm not liking the Thrashers blue uniform, that's gonna give me a headache.

One more note about hockey: "Joe Thornton posted 114 points for the Sharks last season." That hurts. Especially when you calculate that the 3 nickles the Bruins got for their quarter were Marco Sturm, with 44 points and a -24 +/-, Brad Stuart 17 pts, -22 and Wayne Primeau, 15 pts, -15 +/-. That adds up to 76 points, and an average +/- of -21.(Thornton had a +24) Even if you added the guys the B's traded Sturm and Stuart for, Andrew Ference(15 pts) and Chuck Kobasew(19 pts) they STILL only add up to 110 points of production. What gets me is that the GM is claiming to pick up the two guys from Calgary to help out with "production and stability from young guys". Ference is older than Thornton, and like I said, neither of the new guys have produced much. So in the long run, I think that the B's are looking at having traded a quarter for 3 nickels, and then traded 2 of those nickels for 3 pennies each, leaving the "storied franchise" with 11 cents and a bucket of tears.

Wow, I just took a survey over at ESPN that let you rate things about the team like "Has loyalty to the players", "Has inexpensive parking", and "Franchise pays well to keep players". I gave the Bruins 1 out of 10 for most of the questions, especially the "Consistently wins more games than they lose" http://vp-nri.com/take?i=111318&h=0jIb3FiGAM9Mv-7q6JZ-VA

Final Bruins Blog

2007-06-14T10:41:00.000-07:00

I don't know if its a good thing or a bad thing that I was pretty close about the Bruins' final point tally. They finished up 35-41-6, for a total of 76 points. Very close to my final asessment in March of 36-40-6, and not too far from my 32-38-12, 78 point attempt earlier in the season. What will they do in the off season? Not too much, I'm afraid. This team is a long way from any kind of playoff run. They're not missing a sniper or a great defenseman or even a goalie. They're missing all of those. They've got Murray, who got 28 goals last year, and Marc Savard, who's got the best chance at being a true talent in the league, he had 96 points last year on a very strong line, and thats great too. Problem is, Murray is 35, and Savard is 30. Zdeno Charra had an extremely disappointing year, if you ask me, with a whopping -21 +/-, and though he had good points on defense, and was certainly an upgrade to Hal Gil, he's still not a superstar, if you ask me. Not alone. But there are very few defensemen who truly are. The Bruins need to break down, toss out all the old guys for draft picks better than their 8th this year, and some true young talent, and aim for a cohesive unit, and keep that cohesive unit by actually paying those players to stay together. Bergeron and Kessel are a huge help, and they'd be a great nucleus for a team to build around. Here's what I suggest:
1) Trade for a really good goalie prospect, or better yet, a true #1 goalie. This will give the opportunity for Hannu to look, learn, and hopefully settle down. Because Hannu is minor league talent right now, and no better. 3-9 with a 4.23 GAA is horrible, even for a second stringer. But he's young, and even though he looks like the Dutch Boy paint kid, he's got some talent in that body, even if he's psycho, even for a goalie. But you can't expect him to come in, and become a 1st stringer. And Tim-may isn't a 1st stringer either.
2) Trade Murray and Savard for good young defensive talent. They're getting old/are old, and Savard had a career year this year. Trade him before he comes back to earth.
3) Open up the pocketbook. I don't need to reiterate why this is so important.
4) Get some local talent. Get guys that were big names in BU/BC/UNH, and you'll see more interest from the fans. Pay them to stay, and voila, you've got a good nucleus for a good team.
5) Get a goon. Preferably a smallish goon. This city likes its small scrappy players. If the guy can score, even better, but getting someone who can fight that will be outsized will bring back some of that Jay Miller feel to the building.
6) Know that there will be some rebuilding years. Make that clear to the players and the fans, but bring in young talent that shows prospect, and you'll see the tickets sell and the fans be excited, a la the Celtics the last 2 years. Bergeron and Kessel are still young, and if you start honestly rebuilding now, they'll be invaluable in 3-5 years.

Well, this might be the last Bruins post until October or so, when I can once again curse the Icecapades.

I don't exist.

2007-03-08T13:11:00.000-08:00

I found this way too funny.

HowManyOfMe.com

There are:
0
people with my name
in the U.S.A.

How many have your name?

Brainwashing

2007-03-06T13:53:00.000-08:00

I was browsing the interweb today, and I was shown the grand folly of the web site http://www.conservapedia.com by a friend(thanks Joe!). This is a wikipedia written by homeschoolers and their ilk, and its highly disturbing. Its disturbing to me because it does precisely what a reference guide should NOT do, it puts forth an agenda, and is, and I quote:

...an online resource and meeting place where we favor Christianity and America. Conservapedia has easy-to-use indexes to facilitate review of topics. You will much prefer using Conservapedia compared to Wikipedia if you want concise answers free of "political correctness".

Well, isn't that just ducky. Instead of being a neutral document, lets put out a Christian reference to make sure that the brainwashed masses remain so. Some gems from the conservapedia include claims of live dinosaurs, which ironically is criticized for not being creationist enough for some, and this doozy:

The existence of unicorns is controversial. Secular opinion is that they are mythical. However, they are referred to in the Bible nine times,^[1] which provides an unimpeachable de facto argument for their once having been in existence.

Wow. Just, wow. The existence of unicorns is neither here nor there, but the idea of the bible being complete fact is just ludicrous to me. You know how someone mentions astronomical speeds or distances, and it just blows your mind? For example, that the brightest star in the sky is over 50,000,000,000,000 miles away but you can still see it? Your mind just shuts off, and just can't comprehend that kind of number. I feel that way about the infallibility of the bible, except in reverse. I can't comprehend how anyone can possibly believe that, and still have the right number of chromosomes.

Its not just the animal world that's getting abused like a buffet at a Ramadan sunset. The physical world is getting the left hook of God, too. The conservapediacs suggest that because the moon is moving away from the earth,(this is a fact, they can measure it with a laser) that is proof that gravity does not exist. What. The. Fuck. The moon weighs 7x10^32 kilos, if gravity didn't exist, it would certainly move away from the earth at a much higher rate than 3 cm a year. In fact, the difference seen by the apollo lunar laser ranging experiment(a very cool experiment name, by the way) puts the upper limit of change in Newton's gravitational constant at 1 in 100,000,000,000. Saying that the distance to the moon changing proves that gravity does not exist is like saying water is explosive because it contains hydrogen and oxygen. No, its not that simple, its even more idiotic. Its like saying someone I only know over the internet doesn't exist because I've never met them. No, thats not it either. See what I mean about not being able to fathom the horrible logic used?

For shits and giggles, I checked out their entry on Sir Isaac Newton, who I know was a VERY devout Christian, and studied nature and his surroundings to learn more about God. They put forth his bio pretty well, but they have to add this little tidbit to it as well:

The majority opinion holds that Newton was a unitarian (one God) and an Arian (Jesus was divine but did not exist eternally and was created by God at some point before coming to Earth)Both are commonly regarded by conservative Christians as the foulest of heresies, and Newton's adoption of them illustrates the folly of adopting personal religious beliefs rather than submitting to lawful authority.

Sigh. What does this possibly add? What does this whole farce of a reference document add? Nothing, really. All it does is provide a way for homeschoolers and conservative christians to further brainwash their kids. "Oh no, kids, don't go use the Wikipedia, use the Conservapedia!" Compare the Conservapedia entry on Sir Isaac Newton, and the Wikipedia entry on the same man. One is 4 paragraphs long, the other is more along the lines of 40. Its simply more informative. I'm not against homeschooling, per se, I think that given the right parents and right kids, it can be a great thing. However, when its used to brainwash the kids into the same backward, close-minded thinking that their parents suffer from, its a tragedy. And it's a disservice to the kids, because they're going to grow up, get a job, and tell Jim from accounting that he's going to hell because he believes that gravity exists. What good does that do anyone? I guess it continues the word of God, or at least their version, which, if you listen to them, is the correct version.

Should I leave a comment telling them that Isaac was most likely gay? Nah, it'd make their heads explode.

Bruins Blog 3

2007-02-09T11:22:00.000-08:00

I moved my sumo stuff to another blog for easier reading, and for my own sanity. So now it looks like I haven't posted in 2 months.

What to say about the Bruins? They put together a good streak after my last B's blog, and managed to make it to the #7 spot or so, and were a good 5-6 games over .500. I was hoping it could last, but the wheels have fallen off of the bus now. They've dropped something like 8 of their last 10, and 6 in a row at one point. They're being forgotten by the fans, by the media, by ESPN, and by nearly everyone. No one picked them to do anything in the beginning of the season, but for a major team in a major market, you don't hear boo about them, other than the occasional score, even in Boston. They've been relegated to the "show a score but no highlights" team on ESPN, and the fans are starting to not show up for games. With a record of 24-25-4, and 52 points, they're 10 points out of the playoffs, and only above Florida(51) and the lowly Phlyers(34) in their conference, 25th overall. My prediction of 32-38-12 and 76 points doesn't seem out of the realm of possibility, certainly.

Personnel-wise, there's some talk about moving some of the bigger-name players to get some youngsters and possibly help the team rebuild for next and future years. Brad Stuart, Marco Sturm, and even Glen Murray(I almost said Wesley) are up on the blocks, and have rumors flying about them. I'd normally be all for trades, but with this team, I don't even know if it matters. They need a new goaltender with some modicum of talent to back up Thomas, who's just too old to be going 44 out of 53 games, and Hannu's just not ready for prime time, 3-7 in 15 games, so its more like 3-12, with a 4.5 GAA. Ug-Leee. The other problem I have with trading for youngsters is that the team won't pay for good players over a long period of time. Its happened so many times I can't count. I guarantee that you'll see some Stuart, Sturm, and/or Murray get traded for some has-been who comes to Boston and has a good season or two, and makes a run for the money.

I'll be a Bruins fan until I die, but their current crap has to stop, and soon. (I've been saying that for the last 15 years)

Latest prediction: 36-40-6, for 78 points, slightly better than last prediction. Still out of the points, but 24th overall, 12th in their division.

Bite me!

2006-12-18T14:39:00.000-08:00

Lately, I've been bitten by the creation bug. Its a horrible time of the year to get such a bug, as I'm incredibly busy, and I've vowed not to shirk on my holiday responsibilities like I did last year. I have managed to create some PHP pages for a friend's online game, and that's helped, but I really want to do something more than that, like write a novel, or create a D&D campaign, or some other intellect-bending undertaking.

Part of this I blame on Gunch, who asked what kind of MMO we would make if we could. I proceeded to spit out a description of a game that's been building in my head for some time.

I'd make a good space MMORPG, or attempt to make one. Something on an epic scale, with various starting planets for each race. After starting on your home planet, you go on planet-based quests to get the equipment, notoriety, and respect needed to get on a vessel, captained by another PC. The vessels would be based off of templates, but could be altered and designed in such a way that they would be unique for each vessel. Then there would be vessel based quests as well, and skill-based "stations" on the ship, like navigator, weapons tech, communications, etc. Each of these stations would have tasks that needed to be done while on mission. What quests would there be, might you ask? Well, there would be "bad guy" alien ships to fight, space stations to loot, other PC ships to attack and loot, and of course planet based missions. The ship-to-ship fights can be shoot-to-destroy, or shoot-to-loot, where your ship would try to disable the other ship so you could board it. Once a ship is boarded, hand-to-hand fighting ensues on the ship, with the uniqueness of each ship playing out in the floor plan. The planetary missions could range from the simple recon missions for a reward from your government to full on raids with dozens of ships fighting off the planetary defenses to invade and eventually take over the cities and perhaps the whole world. The planetary defenses would probably be NPC based, with PC defender ships pitching in if they're in the neighborhood. Of course there'd be faster than light speed travel, but through wormholes or space highways, like in the Freelancer game. If battling for turf isn't your fare, there's always discovery missions to find new planets. Of course, there wouldn't be FTL highways to the new stars, but there'd be an in-game mechanism to make it not so boring going through space to the new locations.
Crafting would have its form in planetary play, with the ability to craft weapons, engines, shields, or whatever for ships, as well as chemistry and physics based skills to find new technologies and alloys to give your race, or even just your team, more of an edge. Death wouldn't have a penalty, or if it did, a small penalty, but if you died on a ship, and that ship was destroyed, the ship doesn't respawn, its gone. You've got to find a new ride, or if you're the owner, you've got to raise the funds for a new one. Think about it, a whole galaxy in flux, with planets changing hands and space stations getting built, then destroyed, etc.

Oh, I'd love to be able to make this game, and really get people in to it, but I know that its beyond my scope, currently. My other aim is to make a good Harry Potter style duelling game, and I've got all sorts of ideas for that, but I don't want to reveal them at this point. I've come up with all sorts of ideas lately for some pretty cool things, including an XBox Live Arcade Sumo game, an XBLA curling game,(I think this would be REALLY popular, in some kind of weird culty way) and other weird off the wall things.

But, real life comes in to play, as it always does, and can take us away from our creativity and "free time". I'm really hoping to hear tomorrow about a possible new job, and the holidays are crazily upon us, and that's taking a toll, and I of course still have lots to do at my current job, and there are games for the 360 and Wii that I haven't played nearly enough of, and 2 seasons of Dr. Who to watch, on and on. Its all quite a mess.

In short, I've got a bug, and thank goodness its not the Norwalk Virus. Once was enough for me. Stay tuned for updates, maybe I'll have something to show in a few weeks. Or not.

Don't Call it a Comeback(Bruins Blog 2)

2006-12-06T13:46:00.000-08:00

I've been here for years...Huh? What? LL Cool J references? At this time of night? No, its just another Bruins blog. Wow, its been a month since updating this silly thing. But if you blog and there's no-one there to read it, does it matter? Did you know that I learned how to clap with one hand, just so I could answer that philosophical question, a la bart simpson? Its darn useful. Anyway...
After starting off horrifically, the Bruins are starting to make a comeback. Well, I hate to call it a comeback, as they've just reached mediocrity, and are still of little quality. The offense, as I predicted, is starting to gel,(or is it jel? I think its gel, and that the use of jel was inspired by the demon dessert, jell-o) and actually putting up the goals. But there's still the problem of not being able to stop the other team from scoring, especially in the third period, or when they have a large lead. Give these B's a 3 goal lead, and they fall asleep. I know its happened at least 3 times this year, against Toronto, Carolina, and the Habitants of Royal Mountain most recently. And having seen two of those games, I'm here to say that it definitely wasn't the goalie's fault. The defense was just letting the opposing team take shot after shot, like some crazed sideburned samurai.
So yes, they're looking better, and are over .500, with a 13-10-2 record. Hey ESPN, would it kill you to put up a graph a la what you do for MLB? I know that hockey is now 6th on your list, below NASCAR and "Autos", and barely above college basketball, which is just beginning, but show a little love, will you?
Ugh, I just looked at the NHL Power chart on ESPN, and I think I threw up in my mouth a little. The top teams are: Buffalo,(and their horrid new logo) the Anaheim Ducks, the San Jose Sharks, the Nashville Predators, the Atlanta Thrashers, the Carolina Hurricanes, and the Dallas Stars. Are you kidding me? If people want to know why hockey is failing, maybe they should look to expansion and the movement away from the traditional cities. I know that Hartford, Winnipeg and Quebec aren't exactly huge markets, but I certainly would rather have a team there than in Kansas City or Oklahoma City, or Salt Lake City. Cut the team in half, and you'll see some amazing hockey, and people will start coming back to the game. Or alternatively, do what the English Premier League does, and cut the league in half, with an NHL Premier and an NHL Standard league. The worst team in the premier league goes to the standard league, and the team that wins the standard league cup moves up to the big time. I've made this same argument for baseball, and I think it shows that I like it. Yeah, it would kill me to see the Bruins be in the standard league, but thems the breaks.
Back to the Bruins. Savard is looking very good, and he's fast as lightning. He reminds me a bit of Brian Rolston from a few years ago, except without the defensive capabilities. Marc is one of the reasons they're getting burned on turnovers and defense, he's always got an eye up-ice for that elusive breakaway. Phil Kessel is trying his hardest, but isn't coming out the way I had hoped, but he's trying, and he's young. Of course, I said that about Kyle MacLaren. I think Phil may end his season in Providence, but I could be wrong. I hope I'm wrong. Patrice Bergeron is blazing fast, and has eagle eyes. He's got 25 points, but would have 30 if you add his pipe-ringers. I haven't seen this kind of accuracy on the Bs since Ray was here.
Speaking of the defense, no one's standing out, and I do like Zdeno Chara, but I don't think he's captain material. Why not make Glen Murray captain? Because 1)He doesn't want it, and 2)if they continue to stink, he'll be out of town before the year's end. The D is overall a young group, and they're showing it, chasing around speedy players like a cheerleader after a jock. Players like Martin St. Louis make them look stupid, as do skilled players like Rod Brin'd'Amour.
I guess I was wrong when I said that Hannu was going to be the go to guy this year, he folded like a paranoid poker player, and got sent down to the minors for it. Who's the #2 in Boston right now? No one. Timmy T is between the pipes, and is 11-6 for his efforts, which is not a bad total, until you look at his goals against, which is a manwich-sized 3.10, though his save percentage is a little better, at 90.4%. For those stattos out there, that puts our man Tim at 33rd out of 41 in GAA, but a better 23rd in percentage. He's looked better of late, but still not great.

My new prediction is a sight better than last one, but not by much. New prediction:
32-38-12, for a total of 76 points, and a 12th place finish in the East, 25ht overall. Smack dab in the middle of half-crappy land, where you don't get a great pick, but you don't get into the playoffs.

Of Songs and People

2006-10-30T14:49:00.000-08:00

There are certain songs out there that remind me of certain people. I was just listening to the music on my IRiver, and I caught one that always reminds me of my wife, and I'm not sure why. The song is Chez Seychelles, by Michael Doucet and Beausoleil. Its old-timey, and its a fiddle song, and I heard it at our wedding, but its something more than that. Its sweet, and simple, and homey, and happy. In my mind, I can picture us in early 19th century costumes waltzing to this song, and being very very happy. Some days when I hear this song, I even get choked up.

There are other songs that I associate with her, such as "Summertime", as sung by Ella Fitzgerald. I associate this song with her because early on in our courtship, I was at her apartment, and heard a tune coming from the living room, and there she was, quietly hand sewing something, and singing Summertime. She's got a lovely voice, I wish she used it more often. On that day, she looked up and saw me looking around the corner at her, and she was very embarrassed. Little things like that remind me how special she is, and I suppose Chez Seychelles does that as well, but I can't pin down why it does, it doesn't have the same kind of direct link that Summertime does.

I associate Cold Beverages by G Love and Special Sauce to my old roommate and good friend Matt, he introduced me to the Philadelphonic sounds, and many a hot summer day were spent in the blue Subaru going to and fro, listening to G Love or A Tribe Called Quest.

Unfortunately, I can't think of any others right now, but I know there are others. Another interesting phenomenon I suffer from is music-induced memories. It might not sound very interesting, but when I hear certain songs, I think to times or places that I heard them in. "Well, duh," you say, "That happens to everyone." But its not the typical "Oh, I was at so and so's house when I heard that" business. It happens the most when I hear songs that I was listening to while reading on the T. I remember the book, I remember the scene, I remember the weather, and I get a distinct remembrance of my feelings at the time, even those not associated with the book or with the song. I've told some people about this, and they attest that they've had the same thing happen to them, and we generally attribute it to a subliminal-type trigger, that our brains and senses remember more when more of them are in use, or when concentrating on something like reading a book.

I'm reminded of a story from Richard Feynman,(noted physicist and one of my heroes) who, while in college, did a study with his friends. Loosely put, he noticed that his friends thought and processed thought differently than he did. This may seem obvious, but its still an interesting study if you ask me. He asked his friends to silently count out what they thought was a minute while doing different things, including reading a book, talking, typing, walking up and down stairs, playing an instrument, etc. He found that while he was able to read a book and count at the same time, his friends had a hard time doing the same, while on the other hand, they were able to talk and count at the same time, but Richard had a very difficult time doing so. He posited that it came down to how a person counts. Some people said they count by seeing the numbers in their head, to others it was a kind of beat in their head, and others spoke the numbers to themselves. Try it yourself some time. Count to 60 doing different activities, and see which takes the longest and is the most difficult to you. I find it easy to count while listening to something else, but I have a very hard time counting while reading or writing something I've never read before. If I type something off of a page, I don't have any problems, though.

Once again, I've ended somewhere completely different than where I started off, or even where I intended to go, but life's all about the journey and not the destination, eh?

I think Feynman would tend to agree with me.

Blog Zero?

2006-10-30T13:48:00.000-08:00

I found myself in an interesting state of mind today. I found out that one of my favorite blogs to visit is authored by a very Christian person. He goes to Christian rock concerts, his kids go to bible school, he does a lot of Christian web sites, and so on. Now, I grew up Catholic, and I generally believe that what a person believes is their own business. At the same time, I hate preachy types. If you're Catholic, Christian, Jewish, Mormon, Pagan, Buddhist, Atheist or whatever, I don't want to be converted. The more you try to force me to be something, the more I'm going to resist.

Back to the blog. The author isn't a preachy type, at least in his blog, and I find this to be good, and refreshing for someone who seems to be such a staunch Christian. The difficult part is that I saw one of his web pages that he did for a pro-life group, which bothered me.

I'm not sure why I'm put aback by the revelation that someone is very religious, especially very Christian. For pete's sake, my mother was almost a nun! Maybe its because it often is followed by a certain kind of inability to be accepting of others and people with other views.(something that my mother has no problem with, she loves everyone, including the psycho, evil, heartless girlfriends I've had in the past(until they broke up with me(which was somtimes my fault) and broke my heart(i just added that last bit to mess with more parenthesis))) And with staunch Christianity often comes a militant rejection of the possibility of gay rights and pro-choice rights. I think that's why I dig the Unitarians so much, they are welcoming of everyone, as long as they're kind and welcoming of others themselves. Its a friendly, warm atmosphere, and even anti-social me enjoyed their coffee socials. Sure, I was still a little uncomfortable, but I was more at ease than normal.

I know plenty of pagans, and I'm happy that most of them are accepting of others, and their views, because I've also met pagans that are as hard-core as any Christian, and as anti-Christian as any Christian is anti-pagan. Tolerance is the key to me, and I think that should be the message at the core of every religion. Some are more geared towards this idea, such as Buddhism, others aren't. Islam, ironically, is geared towards tolerance and equality, at least in the teachings of Mohammed. Like any religion, his teachings have been skewed to match the views of the ruling group, and now many people think of Islam as the most intolerant religion around.

And don't get the wrong idea that I dislike people being religious. I think I've made that clear here, but in case I haven't, I have no problem with people celebrating their faith, as long as they've consciously looked at what their religion is putting forth, and believe in it, or believe in enough of it to follow. I took a good look at Catholicism, and I decided that I couldn't call myself part of a church that held the views that the Catholic church does. Do I still uphold some Catholic ideas? Sure, but in no way would I call myself Catholic. There's a pagan I know that is afraid that whenever she practices her religion, I'll be offended or I'll rebuke her for believing in something bigger than herself. I have to keep telling her that I'm not that way, that she can believe what she wants, and she can practice the way that she wants, as long as she truly understands why she believes what she does, even if that reason is "it makes me happy and more at peace".

Back to the blog, again, and my reactions to finding out that the author is big time Christian. I guess that I just have to push through the disappointment that I feel in finding out some of his views, and accept that he is the way he is, like I ask everyone else to do. After all, he's not advocating on his blog for anti-abortion anti-gay marriage laws, so what should it matter to me? On the other hand, he probably supports and votes for politicians that are in favor of such laws. Its a fine, fuzzy line. Either way, until he starts putting it into his blog, I doubt that I'll let it affect me that much, I'll just note it, and add it to the things I know about him, and realize that those views may affect other views that are seemingly unrelated.

I hate the circus and the Ice Capades(Bruins Blog 1)

2006-10-16T14:48:00.000-07:00

And not for the reason most would. No, I hate Barnum & Bailey's and Disney on Ice/Ice Capades not for their treatment of animals, not for the clowns, not for the horrible dance numbers, nor the thousands of plague-infested rug rats infesting the events,(all valid reasons) but for their schedule. Their schedule puts one or the other in Boston for the beginning two weeks of October. Why should this matter? It puts my beloved Bruins on the road for two weeks at the beginning of the season, that's why.

For pretty much as long as I can remember, the B's have started off on the road. This has several bad effects on the team, which I will go into briefly. First off, the team's on the road for an extended time, which is demoralizing, tiring, and can really wear a team down. Secondly, its at the beginning of the season, which means that team chemistry often takes a hit because there's no time to rest, no time to congeal, and no practices at home to help make the team better as a team. This year's Bruins have suffered from this quite a bit, having no sense of cohesion at all, and have started off with a 1-3-1 record.(fine, 1-3-0-1, its still 3 points in 5 games) Thirdly, or maybe Secondly part two, the beginning of the season means that the other teams are having their home openers, which apart from the playoffs, are often the most anticipated games of the season, faces fresh and new, hopes high, and thoughts awash with Lord Stanley's Cup. For the Bruins and their fans, it consistently means being the bad guy for 2 weeks, the black hatters, often with a greatly reduced chance simply because they're on the road on an opening night. Fourthly, it hurts the Bruins because by the time they HAVE come home, its mid-October, and the hockey newbies just don't care aboot the season anymore. Add to that a more losses than wins, and the mood is more somber than it should be when they're finally home.

The Bruins are not going to be good this year. Some are picking them to make the playoffs in the 5-8 slot, which last year meant 92-101 points. I doubt they'll make it at all. Its early, but the chemistry isn't there yet, and they're mainly a young team with a few exceptions, including Glen Murray, PJ Axelsson, and Tim Thomas. I like Phil Kessel, I like the addition of Zdeno Chara, I love Patrice Bergeron, and I can't say that they have any slackers like they did last year in the likes of Alexei Zhamnov. They're just young or inexperienced, and have to take some time to get together as a team. Do I think Hannu has the goods to be a number 1 goalie? Sure, he's young, only 22, and has good fundamentals. As sad as it is to say, I'm in favor of ditching this year. Trade Glen Murray to a cup-worthy team for some young guns and maybe a young defenseman or some room under the cap, not that I'm expecting such genius from Harry's Gang.

I'm pretty disgusted with the managerial moves since the end of the lockout, but its nothing new compared to the last 20 years. They poised the team to have a lot of contracts end the year before the lockout, in anticipation, and that worked wonderfully, giving them the lowest salary cap going into the lockout, poising them to snap up some real talent that other teams simply couldn't afford any more. Instead, they got washed up and tired old hags that were selfish and had no team dynamic. This lead to a listless Glen Murray and a early-season crumble that lead to the unexplainable trade of Joe Thornton. I'm not going to get into it deeply in this post, but I was okay with the thoughts of trading Jumbo Joe, he tended to hang onto the puck too much in the corners, waiting for Murray to get open in front of the net. He just didn't seem to fit in Boston, and as much as I loved him, I was willing to see him move on, provided the B's got back something decent in return, like a Ilya Kovalchuck or Danny Heatley. Nope. They get three nickels for a quarter, Marco Sturm, Brad Stuart, and Wayne friggin Primeau. Next, they trade away Samsonov, and end up in the cellar.

My predictions for the team is 25-45-6-6, for a final point total of 62 dismal points, and 2nd worst in the standings, the lowest being godawful Phoenix. They're in a tough division, they look like crap, and they can't gel.

Chaos theory, and why its full of crap.

2006-10-09T14:38:00.000-07:00

This post is to continue on the mention I made earlier about humanity's propensity towards self-centeredness with regards to chaos theory, as it relates to the physical world.(self-centrism sounds much cooler, but its not a real word) Chaos theory was first brought to the general public by Michael Chrichton and Jurassic Park, where that freakishly tall knob, Jeff Goldblum, explains chaos theory by dripping water down the back of whatshername's hand, stating that the path can not be predicted because of subtle movements in her hand, her pulse, etc. For you more technical types, here's the definition of chaos theory from wikipedia:

For a dynamical system to be classified as chaotic, most scientists will agree that it must have the following properties:

it must be sensitive to initial conditions,
it must be topologically mixing, and
its periodic orbits must be dense.

Sensitivity to initial conditions means that each point in such a system is arbitrarily closely approximated by other points with significantly different future trajectories. Thus, an arbitrarily small perturbation of the current trajectory may lead to significantly different future behavior.

Sensitivity to initial conditions is popularly known as the "butterfly effect", suggesting that the flapping of a butterfly's wings over Tokyo might create tiny changes in the atmosphere, which could over time cause a tornado to occur over Texas. The flapping wing represents a small change in the initial condition of the system, which causes a chain of events leading to large-scale phenomena. Had the butterfly not flapped its wings, the trajectory of the system might have been vastly different.

Sensitivity to initial conditions is often confused with chaos in popular accounts. It can also be a subtle property, since it depends on a choice of metric, or the notion of distance in the phase space of the system. For example, consider the simple dynamical system produced by repeatedly doubling an initial value (defined by the mapping on the real line from x to 2x). This system has sensitive dependence on initial conditions everywhere, since any pair of nearby points will eventually become widely separated. However, it has extremely simple behavior, as all points except 0 tend to infinity. If instead we use the bounded metric on the line obtained by adding the point at infinity and viewing the result as a circle, the system no longer is sensitive to initial conditions. For this reason, in defining chaos, attention is normally restricted to systems with bounded metrics, or closed, bounded invariant subsets of unbounded systems.

Even for bounded systems, sensitivity to initial conditions is not identical with chaos. For example, consider the two-dimension torus described by a pair of angles (x,y), each ranging between zero and 2π. Define a mapping that takes any point (x,y) to (2x, y + a), where a is any number such that a/2π is irrational. Because of the doubling in the first coordinate, the mapping exhibits sensitive dependence on initial conditions. However, because of the irrational rotation in the second coordinate, there are no periodic orbits, and hence the mapping is not chaotic according to the definition above.

Topologically mixing means that the system will evolve over time so that any given region or open set of its phase space will eventually overlap with any other given region. Here, "mixing" is really meant to correspond to the standard intuition: the mixing of colored dyes or fluids is an example of a chaotic system.

I don't even care about the second two points, because, much like many mathematical theories, the first point of chaos theory falls apart when applied to real life, specifically nature. There are patterns everywhere in nature, and yes, they may seem chaotic to us, but they usually have some sort of symmetry and balance and an underlying system. Here are some examples, using some of the famous "butterfly effect" examples:

A butterfly flaps its wings in Tokyo and a tornado happens in Texas, eventually. Why? Because the butterfly changing the miniscule amount of air around it causes the weather patterns to change, therefore creating a massively energetic meteorological phenomenon half a world away. Bull. Crap. That butterfly's wing flap injects a tiny amount of force and energy on to the surrounding environment. This energy is diffused, dampened, and scattered into relative nothingness within a few seconds by my friend and yours, entropy. The butterfly flapping its wings doesn't matter because compared to the massive amounts of energy coming in from other sources, namely the sun and moon and earth's core, the energy expelled by Mr. butterfly is nothing. Negligible. Irrelevant. In the big scheme of things, it changes nothing.

Perhaps a more concrete example is dropping a pebble in a pond, another popular chaos theory "lets bring it to the masses" example. Again, this is in nature, and again, it doesn't hold up. Dropping a pebble in a pond causes ripples. This is true. The ripples extend out radially. Also true. But if you stood on the other side of the pond, you could not detect that a pebble has been dropped way across the pond, now could you? No. Once again, its is because the energy diffuses, takes other forms, bounces off of a bank and is absorbed as impact, and so on and so forth. In fact, I'm looking out at sailboats and motorboats that are leaving wakes, sizeable wakes, in the harbor, and those waves are not even making an impact on the water close to me. Yes, the water close to me is exhibiting signs of disturbance, but much more from the big tankers and wind than any 20 foot sailboat cruising along. Is it detectable? Maybe, but that 20 ft sailboat, for the sake of predictions, can easily be ignored. Which brings me to my next point, size comparisons and total sample.

The previous two examples were both examples of a very small effect on a very large system. The small effect can usually be ignored in a large system. That brings us to the example used in Jurassic Park. That system was one drop, falling down a hand that may be what, 4 or 5 inches(10 cm) long, max? The changes in environment on the hand, namely veins pulsing, hand twitching, are miniscule to us, but not to the environment they are considered in. To the whole environment(the hand) they are what, 1:1000? (assuming a 1/10 mm twitch or pulse) And to the actual moving object, the drop of water, we're talking 1:5, maybe 1:10. If you dropped a 1 foot wide rock in a 1000 foot wide pond, you'll be able to detect it across the pond. Or, in the butterfly case, you'd need a Mothra the size of Virginia to make a difference. An average hurricane delivers 10^14, or 100000000000000 Watts of energy per day, or 200 times the total energy production capability of mankind. To say this can be changed by something as small as a butterfly flapping its wings half a world away is ludicrous.

This all brings me to what I think is the real failing of the butterfly effect, which is man's general self centeredness. Man tends to like to think he makes a difference in his surrounding world, and in a sense, this is true. Man can have an effect on his neighborhood, his town, possibly his state, and maybe even his country. Powerful people can affect the world of man. However, even the most powerful person in the world can not truly affect the Earth, let alone the solar system or galaxy. Even if every nuclear bomb was set off simultaneously, the earth, while devastated, would recover eventually, given enough time. Would it change? Yes, but in the grand astronomical scheme of things, nothing would change. Earth would continue to be a mostly water covered planet 93 million miles from its parent star. And it would still be able to sustain life. Meager at first, but eventually the earth would return to human-habitable status.

The butterfly effect supports this theory of "even the littlest change can have an effect". In reality, the littlest change often means nothing, and gets swallowed up and forgotten by the larger, more important changes.

How's that for a cheery outlook?

A quick one while he's away

2006-09-29T14:40:00.000-07:00

Yes, this is a quick entry, but I also am using this entry as a beginning of my declaration of love for The Who. "A quick one while he's away" is a song ostensibly about a girl who's man goes away, and finds solace in the arms of Ivor the Engine Driver after friends suggest the very thing. Her man returns, finds out she's been unfaithful, but then forgives her. Its a 10 minute long song comprised of 4 smaller, 2:30 second songs. If you haven't heard it, I suggest you find it and give a listen. Pete Townshend is on record saying that the song is about child abuse, but since all 4 members collaborated on the song, I'm not so sure that the rest of the band would agree.

I'd also like to mention, at least start to mention, because I could go on about this for pages at a clip, is how The Who are far more influential to rock and roll than The Beatles. The Beatles really weren't rock and roll, they were pop artists. They started off very poppy, and then got eclectic, but had a time shaking that pop outlook and sound. There's plenty of songs in their later days, after their "rebirth" of Sgt. Peppers, that remained popular and attractive to the general populace. The Who certainly had their share of popular songs, but they also had songs like the one I mentioned above, as well as another rock operetta, "Rael" that were innovative and completely ahead of their time. In 1966, when The Who were releasing songs like "A Quick One..", "Happy Jack", and "Cobwebs and Strange"(a blog post in itself), the Beatles were releasing songs like "Paperback Writer", "Good Day Sunshine", and "Taxman". I've heard critics extol their Revolver album like it was the second coming of Jesus or a really good dump after a hard night's drinking, they go on and on about how refreshing and revolutionary it was. Bull. Some compare the drum playing in "Tomorrow Never Knows" to "Cobwebs and Strange". When they do, I immediately discount their opinion.

The Beatles weren't the best band of their time, they were simply the biggest pop stars. They didn't have the most talent, they didn't have the best song writers, they didn't have the best musicians, and they sure as hell didn't have good stage presence. They would stand there like they were on display at Madame Tussaud's, and play their little instruments and sing their little songs like the good little organ grinder monkeys that they were. No, at that time, 1966(just for reference), there were The Who and The Rolling Stones, and soon after came Jimi Hendrix, Led Zeppelin, and Pink Floyd. But focusing on what the Who were doing in 1966, they were rocking the hell out, destroying stages, and being real god damned rock stars. At the same time, they were collaborating on songs like "A Quick one while he's away", expanding their repertoire and range.

Getting back to the beginning subject(hah!) of this post, go have a listen to the song. If you like Tommy, you'll love it.

Mental Stability

2006-09-27T07:37:00.000-07:00

What makes someone "mentally stable"? First off, before anyone thinks that I'm pulling a Tom Cruise, I fully believe that such a thing as mental illness exists, and that there are chemical imbalances that can manifest in a person's mental state and well being, as well as environmental influences that can affect a person's outlook, behaviour and many other aspects of their life. No, I'm not questioning that, I'm questioning the other side of the scale, mental stability. What constitutes being sane? I think it was put very well in 12 Monkeys:

JEFFREY: You know what "crazy" is? "crazy" is "majority rules". Take germs for example.

COLE: Germs?!

JEFFREY: In the 18th century there was no such thing! Nobody'd ever imagined such a thing -- no sane person anyway. Along comes this doctor...Semmelweiss, I think. He tries to convince people... other doctors mostly...that there are these teeny tiny invisible "bad things" called germs that get into your body and make you...sick! He's trying to get doctors to wash their hands. What is this guy...crazy? Teeny tiny invisible whaddayou call 'em?..."germs"!

The same case can be made for a number of scientific beliefs, including a heliocentric solar system, the nature of atoms and atomic makeup, etc. Many of the people who first espoused these beliefs were considered, at the least, eccentric, and at the most, crazy and/or heretical.

Now, I'm not saying that everyone who's mentally ill is just misunderstood. I'm saying that it can happen to anyone at anytime, and it doesn't preclude that person from having valid views or opinions, necessarily. I read a blog written by a well-spoken, intelligent, funny guy who just happens to have crippling anxiety and depression. Does that make his thoughts or ideas any less valid? I don't think so.

I was writing this blog when the news came across the wire that Terell Owens supposedly tried to commit suicide by eating several(35) pain pills that he was taking for his current injury. Its completely out of character, and odd, given his previous self-aggrandization(is that a word?) and arrogance, as well as his worry-free lifestyle of fast cars, women, and all the gold he can carry. I was crass when I heard the news, saying "I wonder if he washed the pills down with Cristal?" It just goes to show you that it could happen to anyone, though, and no matter how perfect a life a person seems to have, they may have that voice inside of them that says they're not good enough to live, or that life is too difficult, or not worth continuing.

Now T.O.s publicist and friends(one of whom is noted coke-head Michael Irvin) are claiming that there's no way that he could have attempted suicide, and that the police must be wrong. The police are now starting to retract their statement, which, if you ask me, is only happening under threats of libel, slander, defamation of character, and other nasty sounding legal terms that would lead to the department and possibly the city getting sued.

Night Lights

2006-09-12T12:15:00.000-07:00

I'm a geography nut, of a sort. Global geography enthralls me, and wow, did that sound horribly mundane. "Hi, my name is cow, and I like geography and watching paint dry." Ig. Anywah, I do like geography, and my slightly more interesting...interest is astronomy. I'm sure that you've seen the "night sky" picture shown below, and closer to life size at http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0208/earthlights02_dmsp_big.jpg.

Some interesting things that I notice, combining my love of geography and astronomy:
1)Look at the Nile. A ribbon of light in the otherwise dark expanse of Africa. None of the other great rivers of the world are so outlined, even the Mighty Mississippi. Also, I am surprised to see as many lights in the middle of the Sahara, relatively speaking.
2)Compare India to a big chunk of Iran and Afghanistan. Huge difference. I'm sure some of that has to do with geography, but how much of it has to do with politics and wealth?
3)The Trans-Siberian railroad sticks out like a sore thumb in the wastelands of upper Russia.
4)Even from space, the grid-like nature of middle America is easily seen.
5)Compare Cuba to Puerto Rico and even Jamaica. For having 4 times the population, Cuba's pretty dark.
6)This is the most telling part of the map/picture that I can point out. Look at Korea. Specifically the difference between North and South Korea. The border is such a distinct feature, it looks like South Korea is an island.

Another thing I'd like to point out about this picture is the staggering amount of people who, when after 9/11 happened, believed that a section of this picture(North America) was a single picture, taken from space, of people lighting candles in memory of those lost in the hijacking/bombings. This displays an ignorance about weather,(no clouds?) time,(it was supposedly taken at 10:30 PM EST, yet there's no terminator off the west coast) geography(why were Mexico and Canada, and especially Cuba lighting candles?),the amount of light cast by a single candle,(even millions of them wouldn't produce nearly as much light as is shown in those pictures) and an overall sense of self-centerdness that Americans, and humans as a more general group, have. A single human is so infintessimal on the scale of the Earth, let alone the Solar System or our galaxy, that its laughable. So with that happy note, I'll bid you adieu until next time, when I might regale you with my theory debunking the "butterfly effect". Yes, I may be mad-scientist-crazy.

(Sorry for any spelling errors, I can't get Blogspot's spell-checker to work. *pokepokepoke*)

White Rabbit

2006-09-12T11:00:00.000-07:00

Much like the White Rabbit from Alice in Wonderland, I am obsessed with time. Its a driving force in my life, I'm constantly thinking about what time it is, and I'm constantly in fear of being late when I need to be somewhere, even if its a self-imposed deadline. I always have two sources of time available to me, usually a watch and a clock of some sort, be it computer, analog, phone, or other. I'm constantly calculating how long it will take me to get somewhere, or how much faster I could get if I went this way, or how long I spent doing this, or that, or how much time is needed to go this way or that, etc.

This obsession with time is even more interesting when you take into account my wife. Her concept of time is nearly the opposite, time is a very fluid thing to her, both time of day and periods of time. 5 minutes to her is "just a short amount of time", and thats how she'll measure it in her head, "just a short amount of time". Realistically, this may be anywhere between 5 minutes and an hour. It may sound like I'm bashing her for this, or that I think this is a problem. I admit, it can be frustrating to a time slave such as myself, but that is more of my shortcoming than hers. I admire her ability to not care about time, and to be able to see it as a more flexible thing, because it releases one's servitude to the clock and allows her, in turn, to be more flexible in her daily life.

I'm not sure if I want to "fix" this time obsession, because a) it would be very difficult to change, b) it would make things interesting when it came to getting places on time, and c) I'm no so sure I want to change it. Temper it, perhaps, but not discard it completely. I need to be more flexible when it comes to measuring my time, and thats going to take some work.

"Inchworm, inchworm, measuring the marigolds, could it be you stop and see, how beautiful they are"

Are Prisoners People Too?

2006-09-01T13:08:00.000-07:00

Many of my friends and internet acquaintances know me as a fairly strong advocate for human rights and more specifically, civil rights and liberties. I'm pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-women's rights, pro-black rights, etc. I was outraged when our government decided that it would be good for the general public to "sacrifice individual rights for the good of the country". Fuck that. I don't want the government listening to my phone conversations, even if they're meaningless and banal.

However, I feel differently once a person commits certain acts and goes to jail, and I find myself at odds with myself about this quite often. Prisoners and criminals are people, and they have feelings and what not, but do they deserve the same rights as non-criminals? Who am I to say that a person who's committed a crime should not be able to vote? But I don't think they should be able to. Then I ask myself why, and I really can't give an answer other than "They're in jail, and they should get punished for doing what they did." Does that make any sense? In my little world, it does. Maybe the answer lies in the middle. Non-violent offenders can vote, but violent offenders can't. I guess that makes me happier. Still, there's a danger in that, because with the self-serving politicians being what they are, they might promise lessened sentences to obtain votes from a prison population that could influence a local or even a national vote. But, on the other hand, shouldn't they have a right to influence how the government controls their lives? Maybe, maybe not. I really don't know.

And it doesn't stop when they get out of jail. What rights do ex-cons have, in comparison to their fellow citizens? How long must their pasts haunt them? How much does the system self-perpetuate by making it nearly impossible for ex-cons to go straight? Its a difficult question. I know I don't want a child predator to be able to wander around schoolyards looking for his next victim, or a serveral-time drunk driver back on the road with no restrictions. But what about that guy that has reformed and wants to go legit? He made one mistake, beat up a convenience store clerk, stole some money, got caught and did his time. Should he be relegated to the dregs of society, forced to work minimum wage jobs for the rest of his life because of one stupid night? I don't think so.

I could go on like this in circles for hours, and I have in the past, both with myself and with others of differing or similar views. Its one of those questions that if you have a quick answer for it, I don't think you're really thinking about the problem.

8 Hours of Knots

2006-08-29T13:36:00.000-07:00

Sorry, ApocalypseCow , for sending so many "whats my password" emails to your email account. I'm a semi-retard sometimes, and it can often take me several attempts to realize that I am in fact making the mistake, and not whatever I'm working on. So instead of realizing that I should be logging in as BrewCow, I logged in as ApocalypseCow, a name I've been using on the net for more than 10 years. I'd like to think I was the original Internet Apocalypse Cow, but I'm probably wrong.

My stubbornness knows no bounds, and when I get latched on to a problem, I will work on it until a workaround is figured out or the problem is solved. Some say thats a good thing, but others, including myself, see it as a curse of sorts. I often give up actually thinking about how to better solve a problem, and just resort to brute force. Oh yes, I'm a terribly lazy man, and as I always say, "Laziness is the father of innovation". However, I can sometimes be lazy about my laziness, and end up back in brute force land.

All that being said, sometimes tenacity can be a good thing. I once spent over 8 hours unknotting a skein of yarn for my wife. About 3 or 4 hours in, she told me to stop, that it was just one skein, and it wasn't worth it. I wasn't having any of it though. It was going to get untangled, dammit, I was not going to let it beat me. Think about that. I spent 1/3 of a day untieing knots. How bloody rediculous.

I'm sure that ties in with my work ethic, I'll beat my brain against a problem until its bloody and raw, and I have a hard time backing away. I've mentioned this in job interviews, as both a strength and a weakness, and interviewers, if they've got a lick of sense, see this honesty, and appreciate it. At least I damn well hope they appreciate it, because underlying the stubbornness is a willingness to get the job done.

I think I've always been this stubborn, and the idea of anything being possible, given enough time, has been around for a while. In "The Phantom Tollbooth", Milo and Tock are given the task of moving a pile of sand one grain at a time with tweezers. I believe this was done to illustrate the concept of infinity, but at the time, I remember myself saying "Well yes, that would take a lot of time, but certainly not an infinite amount of time."

The geeky part of me will probably now go into a mathematecal equation to figure out exactly how much time it would take them to move a 10 ft high conical pile of sand.

But I'll let you have that fun yourself.

Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Isrealite?

2006-08-25T14:10:00.000-07:00

I heard an interesting report this morning on NPR from the middle east. It basically stated that Iran is getting uppity because of the wars that the US has waged in Iraq and Afghanistan. The US, in taking out two of Iran's major rivals, has allowed Iran to take up the political space, reinforcing their power in the middle east. The fact that Iran is a theocratic republic ruled by Islamofascists is just gravy on their pilaf at this point, adding fuel to their growing geopolitical power in the region, and thusly fuelling their nuclear program.

The US comes along, with the UN, and says "No nukes for you!"
and big GWB wants to of course "bomb the shit out of em". No, he didn't say that in public, but I'm willing to drop odds 4-1 that he did say it in private . Iran knows they can't retaliate directly against the US, so they do the next best thing, they pick on the US's little cousin/nephew/life partner/whatever, Israel, knowing that the US is so concerned with the Israeli plight that getting Hezbollah to toss a few bombs might take the US back a few steps.

Now, none of this is news, or it shouldn't be, if you're paying more attention to the world at large than to which Hollywood psychopath is pregnant. What I'm here to complain about is the fact that the US cares SO much about Israel, and is willing to go to war, if not several of them, to protect its little buddy. Take a look, people. Israel is FAR from defenseless. Its army is just as powerful as any in the middle east, if not moreso, and it has a powerful nuclear force, more powerful than Pakistan, India, and even the UK.

So, why continue protecting them? Take a look from an outside point of view at the middle east mess, and hopefully you'll see that there are MANY countries involved in the conflict, and its most definitely not an "everyone vs. Israel" conflict. Hell, even if it was, why does the US have to get involved? Israel's a big boy now, they can fight for themselves, and they can win or lose their wars on their own. Let the whole mess go down, and stop giving the islamofascists reasons to hate the US. Or at least give them one less excuse to hate us.

Before I get any comments that I'm anti-semitic, I'm not. I'm treating Israel like it SHOULD be treated, as a country, not a religion. Just because our leader wants us to believe that every country should be identified by their religion doesn't make it so. Israel is, last time I checked, a democracy, and while it has very strong roots to Judaism, maybe they'd be a bit better served by telling Shlomo to ease off the gas on the fanatacism bus. Or better yet, stop looking to the US to get your back when you go wading into the donnybrook of a bar fight that is the middle east right now.

BlogCow

2006-08-22T10:23:00.000-07:00

Well, here I am, in the blogosphere. I feel a bit dirty. But, every once in a while, I need to get some random thoughts about stuff. I'm not going to apologize for my views, nor am I going to shove myself into a label such as "liberal" "democrat" "wacko" or anything else. So, come on in, enjoy your stay.