See, I haven't done a truly nerdy/academic posting in a while, so I figure it's time, especially since my mother has taken up Sudoku (has anyone not at this point?).
Speaking of whom, her same bizarre self (who insisted I teach her how to play Texas Hold 'em over the holidays...I have this terrible image of her exclaiming "Read 'em and weep boys! Woo hooo! Kiss the pretty ladies...oh yeah..." *shudder*) introduced me to "Deal or No Deal," a deceptively simple little game show.
Be afraid: it's a game show on CNBC.
Anyway, the game is simple: you, as a contestant, are presented with 26 suitcases guarded by beautiful models (too thin for me, but that's another rant). Not really guarded, mind you...you don't get attacked by a frothing but beautiful woman if you get too close...that would be cool if unsanitary...rather, guarded in the Vanna White sense of standing near for no apparent reason. Each suitcase contains a dollar amount, generally between one cent and one million dollars, and these amounts are all listed on a board. The amounts are at standard, currency-like denominations. Unfortunately, the cash itself isn't in the case, which is something I think they should do...at the moment it's just sparkly signs like on that plebian game show The Price is Right. Pshaw. We cannot be bothered to consort with the peasants. You! Fetch me the Wall Street Journal! You! And you! Fight to the death!
Where was I? Oh yeah. So you pick a suitcase but don't open it. That's your suitecase, and you get the amount of money listed in it unless during the course of the game you do something to fuck it up. Now the game begins. You start by picking 6 cases to open. The pretty ladies do so, and 6 values get removed from the board. Then the "banker" calls and offers you some amount of money based on what's left on the board. If you take it, you get the cash you were offered, and the game stops. Otherwise, you keep going, open another 5 cases, and repeat.
This cycle continues, with the number of cases you have to open in the intervening period decreasing each time until you are only opening one at a time, until you stop the game by taking the deal or until you reject the deal offered to you with two values left on the board, in which case you open your case and get whatever value is in there.
What value gets offered by the banker, you may ask? Well, they don't tell you. In game terms, it's the value the banker is willing to pay to stop you from going forward and potentially extracting more money out of him. More mathematically, it seems to be some percentage of the average amount left on the board (I'm thinking about 60% of the average of what's on the board). Probably the formula is a little more complicated than that, but it's a good estimate.
So I spent waaay waaay too much time last night, while I couldn't sleep, trying to figure out what the ideal strategy for this game is. I quickly realized there is a problem.
In game theoretic terms, the optimal strategy is to never accept the deal and to always take what's in your case. Here's why: at any given stage of the game, the expected value of what's in your case is going to be the average of the values left on the board, yet we just said you will be offered some percentage of the average of what's left on the board, ergo, you should always reject the deal. Ergo, if you always reject the deal, you'll eventually open your briefcase.
Here's the rub though: the expected value, especially of a game like this, tells you only in aggregate what the payoff of a game will be. That is, if a million people play the game, the average payoff of all of them will be the expected value of the game. Great! Except for one thing. You're not a million people. You're one person, and you get one chance to play the game. For you, an offer of $200k might be worth more than a 1/3 chance of $1 million and a 2/3 chance of $0.
So, I haven't quite figured out how to reconcile that. I haven't figured out how to reason about the ideal strategy for a single instance of a game. I have a feeling there will be scads of information about this in the options trading literature and I'll have a "duh" moment when I find it, but for now I'm left scratching my head. I could also ask the lab's game theorist, but I think he'll tell me I'm stupid. That seems to happen a lot.
Incidentally, my pseudo-strategy is to reject the deal so long as it's likely (i.e., >50% probability) that you can make the average value of the board go up in some subsequent round. Specifically, if it's likely that there will be a tile greater than or equal to $100k on the board when you're done choosing, keep going. Try it yourself.
Interesting experiment for the procrastinating: play some relatively large number of games (greater than 26...like 30 or 50...or more!) always declining the deal. Keep track of your aggregate score. Then do the same thing with my strategy (or your own) and see how you do. My guess would be that your average is going to be higher in the playing-to-the-end strategy, but other metrics like your minimum payout, standard deviation of your scores, number of payouts less than, say, $50k, etc. will likely be better with my strategy.
I should probably go to bed now, huh?
Wednesday, December 28, 2005
Tuesday, December 27, 2005
Monday, December 26, 2005
"You'll be damned to burn in eternal hellfire if you watch it, but otherwise a good movie..."
"'We're not going to go out and protest it because it would probably play into the marketing plans of the producers,' he said. 'They'd say, the Christian right is opposed to this movie, so you really, really, really want to see it.'"
Fuck...they're learning. It's scary when otherwise delusional fringe groups have brief moments of insight into the real world.
Fuck...they're learning. It's scary when otherwise delusional fringe groups have brief moments of insight into the real world.
Saturday, December 24, 2005
Thursday, December 22, 2005
Two rants for the price of one!
So, I haven't yet commented on the NYC transit strike yet. This was not simply due to laziness (though certainly that delicious sin played a role)...I wanted to read a bit about what was going on before I passed judgment (I do that sometimes...I don't know why since no one else seems to). It certainly looked from the casual observer's perspective that the union leaders were just being douchebags. And to some degree they were.
But allow me to take a short but important detour: In the process of trying to read up on this issue, I found it surprisingly and infuriatingly difficult to find any fucking information about the points of contention in the strike. I had to go to the TWU home page to get an explanation of what they were pissed about, and I have yet to find a concise description of the MTA's position. The news organizations have been fucking useless on this issue, even the New York Times.
Have all reporters become such pussies that they're afraid to report _anything_ substantial related to a controversial issue? Is the safer "human interest" bullshit stories all you nadless writers have left? Get some fucking balls and don't waste my goddamn time by writing an article about the woman who had never seen the ground above the subway in Manhattan before and FUCKING TELL ME WHAT'S GOING ON! I am more pissed about this than I am about anything related to the strike. Were you people jerking off all the way through journalism school? Is "who," "what," "when," "how," and most-bloody-importantly "_WHY_" such difficult concepts to master? Do you fuckwits honestly think it's reporting when you tell me how someone feels about walking through the cold? Here, I'll help you: it sucks and it makes your nipples chafe! There! Are you happy? Stop fondling the coin purse of the Everyman and do some fucking reporting, you fucking coddled and overpaid assholes! Jesus.
I hope you choke on your goddamn espressos, douchebags.
Ah hem. Moving on...
Okay...my take on the strike: partially justified, but stupid nonetheless. I sympathize with the union...I really do. They're being dicked over the same way most of the middle class is being dicked over, and in particular they're being dicked over by dishonest and irresponsible Republican leaders. Basically, here's what happened:
Long, long ago, in a governor's mansion far, far away, a happy little Republican named George Pataki had the brilliant realization that people like you better when you give them stuff, and in particular rich people like you when you give them stuff, and they tend to give you stuff in return. "Awesome!" little Pataki thought to himself. "I can make everybody happy!" So he frittered away a massive amount of money...some tax cuts here, some salary increases and pension contribution reductions there, and pretty soon he was deep in Republican Red (I just thought of that...see, Republican states are "red," and so is a "deep, gaping accounting deficit," and Republicans these days are retarded and have the fiscal responsibility of a teenage valley girl, so, see, "Republican Red"...haha...I'm a genius! Go forth. Use it).
However, to his great surprise, Mr. Pataki suddenly found himself with a pension funding crunch several years later. "Hmm..." he thought to himself, "well, we can't actually take money from the people who have it because they are the ones who are going to elect me when I seek higher office...if only there were a group I don't like anyway that can't really do anything about it if I screw them over..."
...and thus you end up in the nice little pissing-match-I-mean-contract-negotiation we find ourselves in. The strike is basically a "fuck you too." The "fuck you" that inspired the "fuck you too" was first and foremost trying to take the budget shortfall out of union workers' pockets, and secondly drastically increasing pension contributions in the MTA's offer for no apparent reason other than to piss the union off. Knowing a "fuck you" when he saw it, Toussaint invoked the one reciprocal "fuck you" he had at his disposal: a transit strike.
So was it justified? Well, sort of. The union, as I said, had gotten major pension contribution rollbacks several years earlier. And they don't really have a right to complain about the retirement age being bumped up from 55 since, really, who the fuck else gets a retirement age that low? And they're paid pretty well.
At the same time, they were being asked to pony up for something that wasn't their fault, and what they were asking for was essentially pocket change compared to other shit (like tax cuts) the government had happily paid for, not to mention the fact that the MTA was running a nice little surplus. That would piss me off too. How would you like it if some wealthy douchebag came in and tried to take money from you because a) it would play well to his political base, and b) because he and other wealthy douchebags had fucked up the budget in the first place. I'd be goddamn livid.
However, it's fairly obvious at this point that striking was absolutely the wrong move. It's now cost the union several million in fines and driven public opinion sharply...and I mean SHARPLY...against it. They've pissed everybody off and gotten nothing for their trouble. It seems all that money would have been much better spent on a public relations campaign. Granted, even that might not have worked since modern America seems to believe that mismanagement is a desirable trait in a public official so long as he won't let gay people get married and that an economy doesn't work unless those without a college education get ass-raped as much as humanly possible. Because hell...if an Indian guy living on dirt under a thatched roof can live off $1.25 a day, so can our workers! If they don't like it, they should...umm...start an entrepreneurial venture marketing...their dirt...in their free time after their 12 hour shift...and make money so they're not poor...because see they must have chosen to be poor...or something. Yeah. Go Jesus! Support our troops.
Anyway...seems to be the death throes of a fading union movement. Robber baron 20's, here we come! Child labor laws are for pussies! Etc. But yeah...I'd be pissed if I lived in New York too. I mean, your life sucks...why should those fuckers get to make your life suck _more_ just because their life sucks too? You should at least get to make their life suck somehow...seems only fair...
But allow me to take a short but important detour: In the process of trying to read up on this issue, I found it surprisingly and infuriatingly difficult to find any fucking information about the points of contention in the strike. I had to go to the TWU home page to get an explanation of what they were pissed about, and I have yet to find a concise description of the MTA's position. The news organizations have been fucking useless on this issue, even the New York Times.
Have all reporters become such pussies that they're afraid to report _anything_ substantial related to a controversial issue? Is the safer "human interest" bullshit stories all you nadless writers have left? Get some fucking balls and don't waste my goddamn time by writing an article about the woman who had never seen the ground above the subway in Manhattan before and FUCKING TELL ME WHAT'S GOING ON! I am more pissed about this than I am about anything related to the strike. Were you people jerking off all the way through journalism school? Is "who," "what," "when," "how," and most-bloody-importantly "_WHY_" such difficult concepts to master? Do you fuckwits honestly think it's reporting when you tell me how someone feels about walking through the cold? Here, I'll help you: it sucks and it makes your nipples chafe! There! Are you happy? Stop fondling the coin purse of the Everyman and do some fucking reporting, you fucking coddled and overpaid assholes! Jesus.
I hope you choke on your goddamn espressos, douchebags.
Ah hem. Moving on...
Okay...my take on the strike: partially justified, but stupid nonetheless. I sympathize with the union...I really do. They're being dicked over the same way most of the middle class is being dicked over, and in particular they're being dicked over by dishonest and irresponsible Republican leaders. Basically, here's what happened:
Long, long ago, in a governor's mansion far, far away, a happy little Republican named George Pataki had the brilliant realization that people like you better when you give them stuff, and in particular rich people like you when you give them stuff, and they tend to give you stuff in return. "Awesome!" little Pataki thought to himself. "I can make everybody happy!" So he frittered away a massive amount of money...some tax cuts here, some salary increases and pension contribution reductions there, and pretty soon he was deep in Republican Red (I just thought of that...see, Republican states are "red," and so is a "deep, gaping accounting deficit," and Republicans these days are retarded and have the fiscal responsibility of a teenage valley girl, so, see, "Republican Red"...haha...I'm a genius! Go forth. Use it).
However, to his great surprise, Mr. Pataki suddenly found himself with a pension funding crunch several years later. "Hmm..." he thought to himself, "well, we can't actually take money from the people who have it because they are the ones who are going to elect me when I seek higher office...if only there were a group I don't like anyway that can't really do anything about it if I screw them over..."
...and thus you end up in the nice little pissing-match-I-mean-contract-negotiation we find ourselves in. The strike is basically a "fuck you too." The "fuck you" that inspired the "fuck you too" was first and foremost trying to take the budget shortfall out of union workers' pockets, and secondly drastically increasing pension contributions in the MTA's offer for no apparent reason other than to piss the union off. Knowing a "fuck you" when he saw it, Toussaint invoked the one reciprocal "fuck you" he had at his disposal: a transit strike.
So was it justified? Well, sort of. The union, as I said, had gotten major pension contribution rollbacks several years earlier. And they don't really have a right to complain about the retirement age being bumped up from 55 since, really, who the fuck else gets a retirement age that low? And they're paid pretty well.
At the same time, they were being asked to pony up for something that wasn't their fault, and what they were asking for was essentially pocket change compared to other shit (like tax cuts) the government had happily paid for, not to mention the fact that the MTA was running a nice little surplus. That would piss me off too. How would you like it if some wealthy douchebag came in and tried to take money from you because a) it would play well to his political base, and b) because he and other wealthy douchebags had fucked up the budget in the first place. I'd be goddamn livid.
However, it's fairly obvious at this point that striking was absolutely the wrong move. It's now cost the union several million in fines and driven public opinion sharply...and I mean SHARPLY...against it. They've pissed everybody off and gotten nothing for their trouble. It seems all that money would have been much better spent on a public relations campaign. Granted, even that might not have worked since modern America seems to believe that mismanagement is a desirable trait in a public official so long as he won't let gay people get married and that an economy doesn't work unless those without a college education get ass-raped as much as humanly possible. Because hell...if an Indian guy living on dirt under a thatched roof can live off $1.25 a day, so can our workers! If they don't like it, they should...umm...start an entrepreneurial venture marketing...their dirt...in their free time after their 12 hour shift...and make money so they're not poor...because see they must have chosen to be poor...or something. Yeah. Go Jesus! Support our troops.
Anyway...seems to be the death throes of a fading union movement. Robber baron 20's, here we come! Child labor laws are for pussies! Etc. But yeah...I'd be pissed if I lived in New York too. I mean, your life sucks...why should those fuckers get to make your life suck _more_ just because their life sucks too? You should at least get to make their life suck somehow...seems only fair...
Tuesday, December 20, 2005
I do love me some beating up boy scouts
This is the most simple yet satisfying game I've played in a while.
Today's douchebag of liberty
...is Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska!
"'Nothing is more germane and essential to national defense than energy,' Stevens said. 'Extreme environmentalists think it (ANWR) is their playground.'
"Stevens warned if ANWR is dropped from the defense bill, he would seek to delete other items attached to it such as funding for Hurricane Katrina reconstruction, the bird flu pandemic and a program that helps poor families pay heating bills."
...and in further interviews, Stevens propped a puppy up in front of the camera, held a .37 magnum held to its head, cocked it, and was heard to say, "I'll do it...I swear to god, I'll do it..."
(Wow...that guy really is a douchebag!)
"'Nothing is more germane and essential to national defense than energy,' Stevens said. 'Extreme environmentalists think it (ANWR) is their playground.'
"Stevens warned if ANWR is dropped from the defense bill, he would seek to delete other items attached to it such as funding for Hurricane Katrina reconstruction, the bird flu pandemic and a program that helps poor families pay heating bills."
...and in further interviews, Stevens propped a puppy up in front of the camera, held a .37 magnum held to its head, cocked it, and was heard to say, "I'll do it...I swear to god, I'll do it..."
(Wow...that guy really is a douchebag!)
Richard Stallman is an idiot
I swear, every time I read an interview with Richard Stallman, I get more pissed at him.
Both the acronym "GNU" and the labelling of his "4 freedoms" from "0 to 3" are so telling of the way he looks at the world. Both are computer science jokes: "GNU" because it is a recursive definition (GNU = GNU is Not UNIX...what does the G stand for? GNU. What does GNU stand for? GNU is Not Unix...etc. Yes, this is funny if you do computer programming. Or rather, it was the very first time someone thought of it 20 years ago. Today it's obnoxious and annoying), and the "4 freedoms" because they are numbered the way programmers would number things, namely as indices into arrays (...and arrays used to be pointers into memory, and the indices were offsets to the base of the array, so to get to the first element, you had to use offset 0, hence computer scientists count starting at 0...see? Haha. So funny. I know.)
Anyway, point being, Stallman is a hopeless nerd that finds it impossible to view the world from the point of view of a normal person. So Richie, grow the fuck up. No one has ever "subjugated" anyone using a computer program, okay? Made their lives annoying? Sure. But let's not get hyperbolic here. Talk to someone who was in a japanese internment camp about subjugation. Then explain to them how their experience is like having to use a proprietary operating system. With any luck, you'll be punched in the face. Maybe it will knock some sense into you.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: there are actual benefits to not being able to tinker with a computer you own. The Xbox is a fantastic example of this principle. The Xbox creators went to a fantastic amount of trouble to make it difficult (if not downright impossible...that remains to be seen) to hack the xbox, going even so far as to design special, encrypted hardware. Why? To protect the IP rights and revenue streams of big evil video game developers, sure, but also to prevent cheating, pure and simple. The future of video games is online, and a small number of people hell-bent on cheating can absolutely ruin an online game. Ask Evercrack whores.
See, bits aren't just bits any more. The higher-level structure imposed on those bits is increasingly important. A video game structures bits into a game with arbitrary rules that are important to the game. Being able to futz with the lower-level bit structures is equivalent to breaking the rules of the game, and hence it is cheating. Thus, to maintain the integrity of the game, it's important that end-users not be able to fuck with their machines. And if you ask players, I think they'd be perfectly willing to give up the ability to fuck with their software if it meant guaranteeing a level playing field in an online game.
So Stallman...seriously...shut up. I'm tired of hearing you. There are benefits of open source that I think need to be better integrated into proprietary systems, certainly. But so long as you're waddling around spewing ideological nonsense, we're not going to get anywhere. At least as long as people listen to you.
Both the acronym "GNU" and the labelling of his "4 freedoms" from "0 to 3" are so telling of the way he looks at the world. Both are computer science jokes: "GNU" because it is a recursive definition (GNU = GNU is Not UNIX...what does the G stand for? GNU. What does GNU stand for? GNU is Not Unix...etc. Yes, this is funny if you do computer programming. Or rather, it was the very first time someone thought of it 20 years ago. Today it's obnoxious and annoying), and the "4 freedoms" because they are numbered the way programmers would number things, namely as indices into arrays (...and arrays used to be pointers into memory, and the indices were offsets to the base of the array, so to get to the first element, you had to use offset 0, hence computer scientists count starting at 0...see? Haha. So funny. I know.)
Anyway, point being, Stallman is a hopeless nerd that finds it impossible to view the world from the point of view of a normal person. So Richie, grow the fuck up. No one has ever "subjugated" anyone using a computer program, okay? Made their lives annoying? Sure. But let's not get hyperbolic here. Talk to someone who was in a japanese internment camp about subjugation. Then explain to them how their experience is like having to use a proprietary operating system. With any luck, you'll be punched in the face. Maybe it will knock some sense into you.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: there are actual benefits to not being able to tinker with a computer you own. The Xbox is a fantastic example of this principle. The Xbox creators went to a fantastic amount of trouble to make it difficult (if not downright impossible...that remains to be seen) to hack the xbox, going even so far as to design special, encrypted hardware. Why? To protect the IP rights and revenue streams of big evil video game developers, sure, but also to prevent cheating, pure and simple. The future of video games is online, and a small number of people hell-bent on cheating can absolutely ruin an online game. Ask Evercrack whores.
See, bits aren't just bits any more. The higher-level structure imposed on those bits is increasingly important. A video game structures bits into a game with arbitrary rules that are important to the game. Being able to futz with the lower-level bit structures is equivalent to breaking the rules of the game, and hence it is cheating. Thus, to maintain the integrity of the game, it's important that end-users not be able to fuck with their machines. And if you ask players, I think they'd be perfectly willing to give up the ability to fuck with their software if it meant guaranteeing a level playing field in an online game.
So Stallman...seriously...shut up. I'm tired of hearing you. There are benefits of open source that I think need to be better integrated into proprietary systems, certainly. But so long as you're waddling around spewing ideological nonsense, we're not going to get anywhere. At least as long as people listen to you.
Monday, December 19, 2005
On Hoochie-mamas
I started watching VH1's documentary on hip-hop video girls, and I quickly had to turn it off.
I have limited sympathy for these girls. They were framing the issue with the same kind of grave narration and tragedy music that would more befit a subject that generates that "I think I'm going to be ill" feeling deservedly, like child pornography (don't worry...that's not a link to child porn...it's just a link to a disturbing New York Times article, I promise), but I'm sorry...as a controversy it's a non-starter.
The supposed issue is that the girls in hip-hop videos are leered at, asked to perform sexual favors for the stars and their entourages, are generally degraded, etc. Normally this might be a problem, but here's the thing: why exactly am I supposed to feel sorry for you if you're actively seeking out a job that by its very nature treats you like nothing more than a sexual object, and you find, to your inexplicable astonishment, that you are treated like a sexual object in the context of that job? Seriously...grow the fuck up. The industry itself is exploitative. If you don't want to be exploited, go do something else. It's really that simple. I swear. There are some girls who are total groupies and are willing to sell their bodies in order to have the opportunity to bask in the periphery of stars' limelights. Fine. But I don't want to hear them bitch about it. You got what you paid for. Deal.
As for the "desperate mothers who are just trying to pay the bills," it's essentially a completely a disingenuous argument. Okay, so she's a poor single mom who can't make ends meet. She's desperate. Desperate people do desperate things. Where does hip-hop and its objectifying culture figure into this? If you took away the option to be a hip-hop girl, she'd do something else desperate. Would you feel better if she turned to prostitution? Stripping? Insurance fraud? What's an acceptable level of desperation? What would you feel okay about her doing given that she's currently unable to pay her bills and support her child? The solution is to have adequately funded welfare programs that make sure she doesn't need to do this desperate shit. Anything short of that is a dishonest plea for sympathy on the part of the documentarian.
Anyway...just pissed me off, and I need something to do for the half hour it takes for Ambien to kick in. There are so many genuine scandals out there at the moment...why focus on this ridiculous one? (I know...ratings...sigh)
I have limited sympathy for these girls. They were framing the issue with the same kind of grave narration and tragedy music that would more befit a subject that generates that "I think I'm going to be ill" feeling deservedly, like child pornography (don't worry...that's not a link to child porn...it's just a link to a disturbing New York Times article, I promise), but I'm sorry...as a controversy it's a non-starter.
The supposed issue is that the girls in hip-hop videos are leered at, asked to perform sexual favors for the stars and their entourages, are generally degraded, etc. Normally this might be a problem, but here's the thing: why exactly am I supposed to feel sorry for you if you're actively seeking out a job that by its very nature treats you like nothing more than a sexual object, and you find, to your inexplicable astonishment, that you are treated like a sexual object in the context of that job? Seriously...grow the fuck up. The industry itself is exploitative. If you don't want to be exploited, go do something else. It's really that simple. I swear. There are some girls who are total groupies and are willing to sell their bodies in order to have the opportunity to bask in the periphery of stars' limelights. Fine. But I don't want to hear them bitch about it. You got what you paid for. Deal.
As for the "desperate mothers who are just trying to pay the bills," it's essentially a completely a disingenuous argument. Okay, so she's a poor single mom who can't make ends meet. She's desperate. Desperate people do desperate things. Where does hip-hop and its objectifying culture figure into this? If you took away the option to be a hip-hop girl, she'd do something else desperate. Would you feel better if she turned to prostitution? Stripping? Insurance fraud? What's an acceptable level of desperation? What would you feel okay about her doing given that she's currently unable to pay her bills and support her child? The solution is to have adequately funded welfare programs that make sure she doesn't need to do this desperate shit. Anything short of that is a dishonest plea for sympathy on the part of the documentarian.
Anyway...just pissed me off, and I need something to do for the half hour it takes for Ambien to kick in. There are so many genuine scandals out there at the moment...why focus on this ridiculous one? (I know...ratings...sigh)
Shocking!
Rich people are stingy?! Surely not...next you'll be suggesting that capitalism can't cure all the world's ills...
Sunday, December 18, 2005
Friday, December 16, 2005
Penny Arcade on Wikipedia
It seems Penny Arcade shares my dislike of Wikipedia.
If you click on the news post, Tycho has a rant strikingly similar to one you, dear reader, have probably read in this here blog.
If you click on the news post, Tycho has a rant strikingly similar to one you, dear reader, have probably read in this here blog.
Thursday, December 15, 2005
Fun with Ebay!
So, I have resorted to Ebay to try to get my hands on an Xbox 360 before this weekend when "friends" will be emerging from the shadows to converge on my humble abode. Let's just say it hasn't gone according to plan.
The first snafu was when I bid on an item, was outbid, gave up, bid on another item, and suddenly got a notification that a bid had been rescinded and I had won the original item. Great. So now I have duplicate exposure.
As if that weren't bad enough, the item I suddenly found myself to have won turned out to be sold by a very stupid con man. Now, I knew the listing was sketchy...it was written in all caps with lots of misspellings, and it listed the shipping price as "$300," which I was optimistically hoping was a typo. But since the guy was local, I figured the worst that could happen would be that I piss off a scammer and he leaves bad feedback for me. No biggie.
So of course that's what ends up happening. Long story short, Captain Lobotomy repeatedly threatens me over email that he will report me as a "non-buyer" if I don't pony up the money within 24 hours. To which I reply, "How can I be a non-buyer when I've repeatedly offered to pay you? Just tell me where and when to meet you (or whomever) so I can give you the money and you can give me my xbox."
Basically, at this point, I've told him to give me my xbox or fuck off, and oh-by-the-way if you continue to threaten me, I'll report your ass to Ebay's abuse department, and you can have fun explaining the $300 shipping charge. And don't contact me again. Dick. I'm really hoping he doesn't bother to go through with filing a complaint, but since all the evidence up to this point suggests he's a fucktard, he probably will. Oh well. Just means I'll have to exchange some emails with Ebay. I'm really not terribly intimidated by going toe-to-toe with a guy who can't figure out the caps lock.
The really funny thing is that this has gotten me thinking about ways I could fuck with him. My first thought was that, if I weren't so lazy, he clearly has the net-savvy of a hamster, and he would easily succumb to a phishing attack. All I'd have to do would be to craft an email that looked like a notification from paypal that I had paid him. Then I could set up a rudimentary PayPal clone site somewhere, get him to log into it, and grab his password. It took me a while to figure out what I could do with that (besides the obvious transfer money out of his bank account), and I decided true poetic justice would be to buy another really expensive xbox off of ebay and pay for it with his account. It is so fucking tempting. Yeah, sure, it's "illegal," but still...very tempting.
Beyond that, the simpler forms of usual harassment are to sign him up for gay porn newsletters. Depending on how much of a dick he continues to be, he may well be getting some unexpected hot man-on-man action in his email. A whole lot of it, if possible.
Mmm...sweet, sweaty, homoerotic justice...
The first snafu was when I bid on an item, was outbid, gave up, bid on another item, and suddenly got a notification that a bid had been rescinded and I had won the original item. Great. So now I have duplicate exposure.
As if that weren't bad enough, the item I suddenly found myself to have won turned out to be sold by a very stupid con man. Now, I knew the listing was sketchy...it was written in all caps with lots of misspellings, and it listed the shipping price as "$300," which I was optimistically hoping was a typo. But since the guy was local, I figured the worst that could happen would be that I piss off a scammer and he leaves bad feedback for me. No biggie.
So of course that's what ends up happening. Long story short, Captain Lobotomy repeatedly threatens me over email that he will report me as a "non-buyer" if I don't pony up the money within 24 hours. To which I reply, "How can I be a non-buyer when I've repeatedly offered to pay you? Just tell me where and when to meet you (or whomever) so I can give you the money and you can give me my xbox."
Basically, at this point, I've told him to give me my xbox or fuck off, and oh-by-the-way if you continue to threaten me, I'll report your ass to Ebay's abuse department, and you can have fun explaining the $300 shipping charge. And don't contact me again. Dick. I'm really hoping he doesn't bother to go through with filing a complaint, but since all the evidence up to this point suggests he's a fucktard, he probably will. Oh well. Just means I'll have to exchange some emails with Ebay. I'm really not terribly intimidated by going toe-to-toe with a guy who can't figure out the caps lock.
The really funny thing is that this has gotten me thinking about ways I could fuck with him. My first thought was that, if I weren't so lazy, he clearly has the net-savvy of a hamster, and he would easily succumb to a phishing attack. All I'd have to do would be to craft an email that looked like a notification from paypal that I had paid him. Then I could set up a rudimentary PayPal clone site somewhere, get him to log into it, and grab his password. It took me a while to figure out what I could do with that (besides the obvious transfer money out of his bank account), and I decided true poetic justice would be to buy another really expensive xbox off of ebay and pay for it with his account. It is so fucking tempting. Yeah, sure, it's "illegal," but still...very tempting.
Beyond that, the simpler forms of usual harassment are to sign him up for gay porn newsletters. Depending on how much of a dick he continues to be, he may well be getting some unexpected hot man-on-man action in his email. A whole lot of it, if possible.
Mmm...sweet, sweaty, homoerotic justice...
Tuesday, December 13, 2005
Triumph of American engineering
Can someone please explain to me why they could get this shit right 30 years ago but not now?
*amused*
I'm immensely amused that being "Pro-American" anywhere else in the world is like being Pro-French here.
Monday, December 12, 2005
Republicans are lame
It's just downright sleazy to not give Democratic senators access to Iraq intelligence and war information they're cleared to know, especially after claiming that they "had the same intelligence as the President did" when they voted to give the President the power to go to war.
And did I mention the Texas redistricting is going to be heard by the Supreme Court now? Nevermind that DeLay is still under indictment. As is Cheney's former chief of staff. And then there's this little looming ridiculousness. Hey guys: do a quick search for "Abe Fortas" if you want precedent for judicial filibusters. And while we're at it, stop giving us this shit about "up or down" votes. I'm fucking sick of it. It's not a principle the Republicans have ever stuck to, especially when they were out of power themselves. The Senate operates on obscure procedural details, and all kinds of stupid procedural hurdles are regularly invoked to prevent decent bills from ever being voted on. So seriously...just shut the fuck up, ok?
Republicans really are douchebags, you know that?
And did I mention the Texas redistricting is going to be heard by the Supreme Court now? Nevermind that DeLay is still under indictment. As is Cheney's former chief of staff. And then there's this little looming ridiculousness. Hey guys: do a quick search for "Abe Fortas" if you want precedent for judicial filibusters. And while we're at it, stop giving us this shit about "up or down" votes. I'm fucking sick of it. It's not a principle the Republicans have ever stuck to, especially when they were out of power themselves. The Senate operates on obscure procedural details, and all kinds of stupid procedural hurdles are regularly invoked to prevent decent bills from ever being voted on. So seriously...just shut the fuck up, ok?
Republicans really are douchebags, you know that?
Saturday, December 10, 2005
R.I.P. Richard Pryor
One of the great trinity of comedy (the others being Lenny Bruce and George Carlin) has fallen. We'll miss you, Richard. Jokes about monkey sex and setting yourself on fire just won't be the same...
Friday, December 09, 2005
Yes, yes, he's a governor now
Words cannot possibly begin to describe how disturbing this video of Arnold in Rio is.
Wednesday, December 07, 2005
Silly Coulter
I stopped taking anything Coulter says seriously a long time ago. I really do think she's just saying things she knows are ridiculous to get attention.
I do love, "I love to engage in repartee with people who are stupider than I am," though. Oh, Anne...silly, silly Anne...
I do love, "I love to engage in repartee with people who are stupider than I am," though. Oh, Anne...silly, silly Anne...
D'oh!!!
Transcript of someone reading this article on the 100 Dumbest Moments in Business:
"D'oh!!! Sigh...well, I'm sure the next one won't be...
D'oh!!! Okay, the next one can't possibly be...
D'OH!! Oh for fuck's sake...how could they...why would you...Gaaahh!"
"D'oh!!! Sigh...well, I'm sure the next one won't be...
D'oh!!! Okay, the next one can't possibly be...
D'OH!! Oh for fuck's sake...how could they...why would you...Gaaahh!"
Friday, December 02, 2005
Home state pride!
Woo hoo! Go North Carolina!
(*sigh*)
Honestly, I don't particularly care. Personally, I'm against the death penalty, mostly because it's pointless. It's demonstrably not a deterrent, both statistically and logically. I mean, if you're fucked up enough to kill your wife and father-in-law in front of two of your children, do you honestly think you're actually going to say to yourself on the front porch, "You know, I'd really like to fuck up my wife and father-in-law in front of two of my children. I'd be okay with spending the rest of my life in prison, but you know, I'd really prefer not to be killed quickly by the state. Fuck it...nevermind. Stupid death penalty..."?
So clearly it's just bloodlust. People feel better if the stupid fuck is killed. Which, though fun, don't really have a place in law. Law is about maintaining order, deterring crime, and arguably rehabilitating criminals. And it's not like killing the guy is going to make the victims' families feel any better. Doesn't exactly bring back the victims, now does it? Doesn't even help them cope psychologically. Just kind of pisses us off that the guy killed people and we'd like to fuck with him. And that really isn't a good basis for a law, now is it?
That said, the number of executions that actually take place is so small, and the likely fraction of erroneous convictions within that small population is so small, that it seems kind of silly to get worked up about the issue from a public policy standpoint. It just doesn't have much of an impact on the crime rate or society in general one way or another. So while I think the idea in general is stupid, I don't really worry about it very much. Many more people die in the world every day for much stupider and more pointless reasons.
(*sigh*)
Honestly, I don't particularly care. Personally, I'm against the death penalty, mostly because it's pointless. It's demonstrably not a deterrent, both statistically and logically. I mean, if you're fucked up enough to kill your wife and father-in-law in front of two of your children, do you honestly think you're actually going to say to yourself on the front porch, "You know, I'd really like to fuck up my wife and father-in-law in front of two of my children. I'd be okay with spending the rest of my life in prison, but you know, I'd really prefer not to be killed quickly by the state. Fuck it...nevermind. Stupid death penalty..."?
So clearly it's just bloodlust. People feel better if the stupid fuck is killed. Which, though fun, don't really have a place in law. Law is about maintaining order, deterring crime, and arguably rehabilitating criminals. And it's not like killing the guy is going to make the victims' families feel any better. Doesn't exactly bring back the victims, now does it? Doesn't even help them cope psychologically. Just kind of pisses us off that the guy killed people and we'd like to fuck with him. And that really isn't a good basis for a law, now is it?
That said, the number of executions that actually take place is so small, and the likely fraction of erroneous convictions within that small population is so small, that it seems kind of silly to get worked up about the issue from a public policy standpoint. It just doesn't have much of an impact on the crime rate or society in general one way or another. So while I think the idea in general is stupid, I don't really worry about it very much. Many more people die in the world every day for much stupider and more pointless reasons.
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
On artists
Or: Obnoxious Horseshit
Okay, so admittedly when I first saw the Rent-a-Negro website long, long ago, I thought it was funny. And it is. Or rather, it would be if it were just a goof that someone thought up while drunk and joking around.
Alas, I suffered the misfortune of listening to Ms. Damali Ayo on NPR tonight, and having heard the background to the web site, I now find her and all her work obnoxious. Far from being an amusing prank, this woman actually makes a living and takes seriously this pretentious shit.
My objection is not really particular to her. She is part of a larger class of people who are basically parasites to society in a far more egregious way than the poor or the people on welfare. These people are commonly know as "artists."
Note that my problem is not with art but with _artists_. Art can be interesting, thought-provoking, beautiful, and stunning. Artists, unfortunately, are self-involved, pretentious, condescending, self-important pricks who overestimate their value to the world.
Case in point: Ms. Damali. She went on and on about how people view race, and how she was challenging people's perceptions by doing assinine shit like pandhandling for slavery reparations, and how people "really should think about race more." She made the point, which she seemed to think was profound, that when you see a white person walk by, it's "a person," and when you see a black person go by, they're "a black person."
You know what? Fuck her. And fuck artists who think like that. They seem to be under the delusion that because they're artists, they somehow have a deeper understanding of the world and see it from a different perspective. And they don't. If they have a different perspective, it's because they've spent too much time admiring the depth they perceive in their own thoughts and getting other people like them to do the same. And that's not insight. That's fucking egotism and intellectual masturbation.
It reminds me of a conversation I had a while ago (yes, with the same person who wants more time to watch tv). We were discussing the fact that there's a class of academics who are under the mistaken impression that anybody gives a shit about what they're doing besides other people doing the same thing, and moreover that what they're doing matters. In general, it doesn't. From my perspective, at least the social scientists who are doing empirical studies are actually learning something objective about the world and about people, but even their research has little to no bearing on how anybody views the world or governs. Even that tiny useful sliver, however, evades the "conceptual artists" (like Ayo) and social theorists and the like who actually get paid to come up with arbitrary ephemeral horseshit that has no bearing on the real world nor any effect beyond their incestuous little academic community, and, as if that weren't bad enough, have the fucking balls to talk about their work like they found the cure for cancer.
Stop it. Please. You're all fucking pompous douchebags.
Now, as I said, I don't necessarily have a problem with art (though the next artist to draw a black square off-center on a white canvas, call it art, and claim it "challenges traditional notions of visual art and forces the viewer to confront themselves in their role as audience, thus inviting an entirely new dialectic between the painting and the viewer" should be strung up by his testicles (or whatever relevent sensitive bits he, she, or it may have) and then quartered. That's not art. It's a fucking rectangle.) But artists need to understand that all they do, at best, is entertain their audience. That's it. End of story. No greater social purpose or contribution, no expanding of human knowledge, and no forcing of dialog. You draw a pretty picture, I pay you, and then you go the fuck away. That's how this works. If you want to actually make a difference in the world, go do something useful. Go to law school and do civil rights litigation. Get involved with a non-profit advocacy group. Go do miscellaneous community service to feed someone or build them a fucking house. But I swear to god, one more pretentious conceptual art piece that you talk about like the second coming of Christ and I will smear you in meat sauce, throw you in a pit with Rush Limbaugh, G. Gordon Liddy, and Ann Coulter, and enjoy the fucking carnage.
So Ms. Ayo, with all due respect, shut up and go do something useful. If you give such a shit about race, go actually do something about the issue and stop taking up valuable air time.
(oh, and for anyone who might be retarded enough to try to make the "yeah, but, see, she got you talking about it, so she is making a difference!" point, just stop right there, Scooter. My roommate has gone on _at length_ on numerous occasions about how proud she was of a dump she took. Just because she talked about it doesn't mean it's a goddamn epiphany.)
Okay, so admittedly when I first saw the Rent-a-Negro website long, long ago, I thought it was funny. And it is. Or rather, it would be if it were just a goof that someone thought up while drunk and joking around.
Alas, I suffered the misfortune of listening to Ms. Damali Ayo on NPR tonight, and having heard the background to the web site, I now find her and all her work obnoxious. Far from being an amusing prank, this woman actually makes a living and takes seriously this pretentious shit.
My objection is not really particular to her. She is part of a larger class of people who are basically parasites to society in a far more egregious way than the poor or the people on welfare. These people are commonly know as "artists."
Note that my problem is not with art but with _artists_. Art can be interesting, thought-provoking, beautiful, and stunning. Artists, unfortunately, are self-involved, pretentious, condescending, self-important pricks who overestimate their value to the world.
Case in point: Ms. Damali. She went on and on about how people view race, and how she was challenging people's perceptions by doing assinine shit like pandhandling for slavery reparations, and how people "really should think about race more." She made the point, which she seemed to think was profound, that when you see a white person walk by, it's "a person," and when you see a black person go by, they're "a black person."
You know what? Fuck her. And fuck artists who think like that. They seem to be under the delusion that because they're artists, they somehow have a deeper understanding of the world and see it from a different perspective. And they don't. If they have a different perspective, it's because they've spent too much time admiring the depth they perceive in their own thoughts and getting other people like them to do the same. And that's not insight. That's fucking egotism and intellectual masturbation.
It reminds me of a conversation I had a while ago (yes, with the same person who wants more time to watch tv). We were discussing the fact that there's a class of academics who are under the mistaken impression that anybody gives a shit about what they're doing besides other people doing the same thing, and moreover that what they're doing matters. In general, it doesn't. From my perspective, at least the social scientists who are doing empirical studies are actually learning something objective about the world and about people, but even their research has little to no bearing on how anybody views the world or governs. Even that tiny useful sliver, however, evades the "conceptual artists" (like Ayo) and social theorists and the like who actually get paid to come up with arbitrary ephemeral horseshit that has no bearing on the real world nor any effect beyond their incestuous little academic community, and, as if that weren't bad enough, have the fucking balls to talk about their work like they found the cure for cancer.
Stop it. Please. You're all fucking pompous douchebags.
Now, as I said, I don't necessarily have a problem with art (though the next artist to draw a black square off-center on a white canvas, call it art, and claim it "challenges traditional notions of visual art and forces the viewer to confront themselves in their role as audience, thus inviting an entirely new dialectic between the painting and the viewer" should be strung up by his testicles (or whatever relevent sensitive bits he, she, or it may have) and then quartered. That's not art. It's a fucking rectangle.) But artists need to understand that all they do, at best, is entertain their audience. That's it. End of story. No greater social purpose or contribution, no expanding of human knowledge, and no forcing of dialog. You draw a pretty picture, I pay you, and then you go the fuck away. That's how this works. If you want to actually make a difference in the world, go do something useful. Go to law school and do civil rights litigation. Get involved with a non-profit advocacy group. Go do miscellaneous community service to feed someone or build them a fucking house. But I swear to god, one more pretentious conceptual art piece that you talk about like the second coming of Christ and I will smear you in meat sauce, throw you in a pit with Rush Limbaugh, G. Gordon Liddy, and Ann Coulter, and enjoy the fucking carnage.
So Ms. Ayo, with all due respect, shut up and go do something useful. If you give such a shit about race, go actually do something about the issue and stop taking up valuable air time.
(oh, and for anyone who might be retarded enough to try to make the "yeah, but, see, she got you talking about it, so she is making a difference!" point, just stop right there, Scooter. My roommate has gone on _at length_ on numerous occasions about how proud she was of a dump she took. Just because she talked about it doesn't mean it's a goddamn epiphany.)
Sunday, November 27, 2005
Xbox 360 crash cause?
Seems the cause of the Xbox crashes is power supplies overheating.
You'd think they'd have caught something this stupid in testing, but apparently not...
You'd think they'd have caught something this stupid in testing, but apparently not...
Saturday, November 26, 2005
Friday, November 25, 2005
Rap battle
I'd love to be able to freestyle but I'm...what's the word?...white. Really, really white.
Wednesday, November 23, 2005
360s already crashing?!
Sigh.
Looks like a hardware error, honestly. I wonder if there is a bad batch of xboxen floating around somewhere.
Looks like a hardware error, honestly. I wonder if there is a bad batch of xboxen floating around somewhere.
Tuesday, November 22, 2005
Monday, November 21, 2005
Thursday, November 17, 2005
On libertarianism
Ok, I've been suckered into a rant on libertarianism. Mostly because I got suckered into posting a response on Slashdot to a paranoid, rambling, libertarian idiot babbling about how campaign finance rules were an egregious affront to freedom of speech (don't start with me Okwui).
At the risk of drawing my former roommate's ire, libertarians piss me off. Now, don't get me wrong...I totally respect libertarians who do, in fact, grasp what they're actually saying: that they want a return to jungle law because they think they can claw their way over most of the rest of humanity to hoard as many resources as possible and rule their defeated foes with an iron fist. I'm okay with that. I respect it, because it's honest. Much more infuriating than self-interest is self-interest cloaked in a veil of magnanimity.
But these warbling retards who think everyone would be better off if all government did was provide an army to fight off invaders and enforce contracts piss me off. The first problem is that there was never, ever a time in which everyone got to start off on equal footing. Resources have never been equally distributed or equally available. Ever. So it's effectively like dropping 20 people on an island, giving all the food, water, and supplies to one person, providing them with an armed guard to make sure any "contracts" they drew up were adhered to, and saying, "Okay, go make a civilization!" Unequal bargaining position anyone?
But ignore that for a minute. Pretend everyone's on equal footing. You're still going to end up with a crappy outcome, because some small percentage is going to be smart/crafty/clever/conniving enough to negotiate/strongarm/coerce everyone else into putting them in a position of power over people and resources. It just naturally happens that way if for no other reason than people are dumb and often won't notice it happened until it's too late. And once you're at a competitive disadvantage, you're pretty much screwed. See above.
So what you end up with is a few barons controlling everything, a few more priviledged underlings who maintain those barons' power in exchange for a share in some of it, and on down the pyramid to the wide base of people who are serfs and basically screwed. Now, I don't call that an ideal society, do you? That's really not much of an improvement over medieval despots. In fact, it's pretty much identical.
Now, that said, I'm no socialist (no, honestly, I'm really not...I used to think I was until I thought about it and realized it was a terrible idea). I don't think you should have a single, centralized arbiter of all resource allocation. Why? Because a) people generally hate it and want the opportunity to compete with and screw each other over, and b) because you can't design a system that is impossible to corrupt (or, to put it another way, someone has to administer that centralized allocator, and that person is likely to be a sleazy, unscrupulous fuck. See Bush, George W.)
So I think competitive markets do have their place. But you do need a regulatory infrastructure to temper those markets to social aims and to make create the environment in which they will optimize results. For example, it would be stupid to have different companies own major highways because you can't exactly build an alternate to interstate 95, now can you? Only one road fits in any given place. You can, however, have different companies use those roads to deliver stuff, because they can both deliver using the same roads. (Incidentally, Congress doesn't seem to get this concept because they think it's ok to have one company own every wire that goes into your house. Then again, these were the same retards who thought it was a good idea to get into the whole Terry Shiavo thing and rename frech fries "freedom fries.")
Anyway, it just pisses me off. Markets are useful things, but they have their limits. They have no conception of social justice, and libertarians don't seem to get that. They seem to think if we had no government the world would be in idyllic la-la land where everybody could do everything they always wanted and everyone would get along.
Maybe they're just fucking hippies and they don't even know it.
At the risk of drawing my former roommate's ire, libertarians piss me off. Now, don't get me wrong...I totally respect libertarians who do, in fact, grasp what they're actually saying: that they want a return to jungle law because they think they can claw their way over most of the rest of humanity to hoard as many resources as possible and rule their defeated foes with an iron fist. I'm okay with that. I respect it, because it's honest. Much more infuriating than self-interest is self-interest cloaked in a veil of magnanimity.
But these warbling retards who think everyone would be better off if all government did was provide an army to fight off invaders and enforce contracts piss me off. The first problem is that there was never, ever a time in which everyone got to start off on equal footing. Resources have never been equally distributed or equally available. Ever. So it's effectively like dropping 20 people on an island, giving all the food, water, and supplies to one person, providing them with an armed guard to make sure any "contracts" they drew up were adhered to, and saying, "Okay, go make a civilization!" Unequal bargaining position anyone?
But ignore that for a minute. Pretend everyone's on equal footing. You're still going to end up with a crappy outcome, because some small percentage is going to be smart/crafty/clever/conniving enough to negotiate/strongarm/coerce everyone else into putting them in a position of power over people and resources. It just naturally happens that way if for no other reason than people are dumb and often won't notice it happened until it's too late. And once you're at a competitive disadvantage, you're pretty much screwed. See above.
So what you end up with is a few barons controlling everything, a few more priviledged underlings who maintain those barons' power in exchange for a share in some of it, and on down the pyramid to the wide base of people who are serfs and basically screwed. Now, I don't call that an ideal society, do you? That's really not much of an improvement over medieval despots. In fact, it's pretty much identical.
Now, that said, I'm no socialist (no, honestly, I'm really not...I used to think I was until I thought about it and realized it was a terrible idea). I don't think you should have a single, centralized arbiter of all resource allocation. Why? Because a) people generally hate it and want the opportunity to compete with and screw each other over, and b) because you can't design a system that is impossible to corrupt (or, to put it another way, someone has to administer that centralized allocator, and that person is likely to be a sleazy, unscrupulous fuck. See Bush, George W.)
So I think competitive markets do have their place. But you do need a regulatory infrastructure to temper those markets to social aims and to make create the environment in which they will optimize results. For example, it would be stupid to have different companies own major highways because you can't exactly build an alternate to interstate 95, now can you? Only one road fits in any given place. You can, however, have different companies use those roads to deliver stuff, because they can both deliver using the same roads. (Incidentally, Congress doesn't seem to get this concept because they think it's ok to have one company own every wire that goes into your house. Then again, these were the same retards who thought it was a good idea to get into the whole Terry Shiavo thing and rename frech fries "freedom fries.")
Anyway, it just pisses me off. Markets are useful things, but they have their limits. They have no conception of social justice, and libertarians don't seem to get that. They seem to think if we had no government the world would be in idyllic la-la land where everybody could do everything they always wanted and everyone would get along.
Maybe they're just fucking hippies and they don't even know it.
An inevitable question
So, having watched the South Park episode on Scientology (after having watched the episode on Mormonism a while ago), the question inevitably arises:
Do Mormons _also_ think Scientologists are batshit insane? Do Scientologists think that Mormons are batshit insane? If so, how the fuck do they justify it?
"Garden of Eden in Missouri?! That's just stupid. Clearly an evil alien overlord dumped other aliens in a volcano in Hawaii, and their souls now live in us. Retards."
Do Mormons _also_ think Scientologists are batshit insane? Do Scientologists think that Mormons are batshit insane? If so, how the fuck do they justify it?
"Garden of Eden in Missouri?! That's just stupid. Clearly an evil alien overlord dumped other aliens in a volcano in Hawaii, and their souls now live in us. Retards."
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
The internet boogyman
Of course you were going to get a rant on this paranoid rambling.
Actually, it's not so much paranoid as naive. Paranoid implies perceiving a threat that isn't there. That's not true in this case...the threat posed by the "carriers" (or the "pipe-owners" if you prefer) is real. People like SBC, Comcast, etc. would love to control far more than they do. Sure. Fine. We knew this.
But remember...they're not the only ones with money, and in this world, money talks. And guess what? The number of players out there who have a vested interest in keeping the underlying infrastructure of the internet relatively neutral far outweighs the number of players that have delusions of controlling it, and they have a hell of a lot more money. Hell, Microsoft alone could just sneeze and SBC and Comcast would spontaneously combust.
No, I'm not worried even slightly. Too many companies depend on the existing structure of the internet for it to change particularly drastically. It is _the_ communication medium of the modern world, and the behemoths of Wall Street will roar mightily if anybody dares threaten that.
Relax. Breathe. It will be ok.
The more focused question of one-way media is the interesting one. Sure, the RIAA and MPAA are utterly abusing their position as gatekeepers of media in a totally unjustifiable way. Proposed DRM schemes are far, far too draconian, and people are and should be pissed off about it. I don't, however, think DRM is necessarily a priori a bad thing, however. Just like every other control technology, it's a matter of how it's used.
The problem with people like Doc is that I have yet to see them propose an economically viable alternative artistic promotion mechanism. If one exists, I'd love to see it. Certainly the above-mentioned acronyms are overbloated, greedy entities, but there is nonetheless a certain basic cost for creating and distributing art, be it music, movies, or anything else, and that would be true even if they didn't exist. Sure, the internet drastically reduced the distribution cost, but that doesn't mean it's free to create art. Artists have to make a living somehow, and most modern movies require a non-trivial budget. Where is that money going to come from?
The NEA? Maybe. Theoretically, you could centralize all artistic funding. Personally, liberal though I am, I don't think that's a good idea. There is some benefit to having market forces act on the creation of entertainment. I think Battlestar: Galactica is a fantastic show, but it's fucking expensive to create. Do you think it ever would have gotten enough money to be as good as it is out of a government grant? Without any tangible results like a vaccine or a weapon? Just "something pretty?" No, I don't think so.
So, you have to be able to generate a revenue stream somehow. So how do you do it in the Information Age? I don't have a good answer if you don't let me use DRM. An "unencumbered" internet has the property that as soon as a piece of media, a movie for example, is digitized into a transferable format, potentially every possible audience member can watch it without giving a dime to its creator/distributor. Sure, the distributor can charge for the initial release, but once it's out, it's fucking _out_. Do you charge the first person to download the movie $10 million? Are _you_ going to foot that?
How do you make money if your revenue isn't directly tied to viewership? Without DRM, letting one person view something is equivalent to letting everyone view it. Do you somehow charge everyone who _might_ view it to create it? That's essentially the centralized (or *shudder* socialist) model since your audience is everyone. Hell, it's uber-socialist since your audience is potentially everyone in the world.
The only answer I've ever heard anyone come up with is advertising. That's why television is free (ok, relatively). The advertisers pay to have shows distributed as widely as possible because they piggyback advertisements on top of the entertainment, and the more people view the entertainment (and hence advertising), the more business they get. Okay, fine. But in a world where everything's just bits, some douchebag hacker is going to find a way to redistribute the entertainment without the annoying advertisements or at least create a viewer that will filter it out. So you're back to square one.
So please...tell me how you're supposed to support artistic creation in this magical new technological world. I would love to know. If you can convince me there's a way to do it without DRM, I will happily walk alongside your army, bazooka in hand, to the MPAA and RIAA headquarters and get rid of the parasitic fucktards once and for all. But intellectual property was created for a reason, and that was to promote the production of art and ideas. Just because that law mechanism has been hijacked by unscrupulous players doesn't mean the idea was flawed or is any less relevent in the Information Age. Quit yer bitchin'.
Actually, it's not so much paranoid as naive. Paranoid implies perceiving a threat that isn't there. That's not true in this case...the threat posed by the "carriers" (or the "pipe-owners" if you prefer) is real. People like SBC, Comcast, etc. would love to control far more than they do. Sure. Fine. We knew this.
But remember...they're not the only ones with money, and in this world, money talks. And guess what? The number of players out there who have a vested interest in keeping the underlying infrastructure of the internet relatively neutral far outweighs the number of players that have delusions of controlling it, and they have a hell of a lot more money. Hell, Microsoft alone could just sneeze and SBC and Comcast would spontaneously combust.
No, I'm not worried even slightly. Too many companies depend on the existing structure of the internet for it to change particularly drastically. It is _the_ communication medium of the modern world, and the behemoths of Wall Street will roar mightily if anybody dares threaten that.
Relax. Breathe. It will be ok.
The more focused question of one-way media is the interesting one. Sure, the RIAA and MPAA are utterly abusing their position as gatekeepers of media in a totally unjustifiable way. Proposed DRM schemes are far, far too draconian, and people are and should be pissed off about it. I don't, however, think DRM is necessarily a priori a bad thing, however. Just like every other control technology, it's a matter of how it's used.
The problem with people like Doc is that I have yet to see them propose an economically viable alternative artistic promotion mechanism. If one exists, I'd love to see it. Certainly the above-mentioned acronyms are overbloated, greedy entities, but there is nonetheless a certain basic cost for creating and distributing art, be it music, movies, or anything else, and that would be true even if they didn't exist. Sure, the internet drastically reduced the distribution cost, but that doesn't mean it's free to create art. Artists have to make a living somehow, and most modern movies require a non-trivial budget. Where is that money going to come from?
The NEA? Maybe. Theoretically, you could centralize all artistic funding. Personally, liberal though I am, I don't think that's a good idea. There is some benefit to having market forces act on the creation of entertainment. I think Battlestar: Galactica is a fantastic show, but it's fucking expensive to create. Do you think it ever would have gotten enough money to be as good as it is out of a government grant? Without any tangible results like a vaccine or a weapon? Just "something pretty?" No, I don't think so.
So, you have to be able to generate a revenue stream somehow. So how do you do it in the Information Age? I don't have a good answer if you don't let me use DRM. An "unencumbered" internet has the property that as soon as a piece of media, a movie for example, is digitized into a transferable format, potentially every possible audience member can watch it without giving a dime to its creator/distributor. Sure, the distributor can charge for the initial release, but once it's out, it's fucking _out_. Do you charge the first person to download the movie $10 million? Are _you_ going to foot that?
How do you make money if your revenue isn't directly tied to viewership? Without DRM, letting one person view something is equivalent to letting everyone view it. Do you somehow charge everyone who _might_ view it to create it? That's essentially the centralized (or *shudder* socialist) model since your audience is everyone. Hell, it's uber-socialist since your audience is potentially everyone in the world.
The only answer I've ever heard anyone come up with is advertising. That's why television is free (ok, relatively). The advertisers pay to have shows distributed as widely as possible because they piggyback advertisements on top of the entertainment, and the more people view the entertainment (and hence advertising), the more business they get. Okay, fine. But in a world where everything's just bits, some douchebag hacker is going to find a way to redistribute the entertainment without the annoying advertisements or at least create a viewer that will filter it out. So you're back to square one.
So please...tell me how you're supposed to support artistic creation in this magical new technological world. I would love to know. If you can convince me there's a way to do it without DRM, I will happily walk alongside your army, bazooka in hand, to the MPAA and RIAA headquarters and get rid of the parasitic fucktards once and for all. But intellectual property was created for a reason, and that was to promote the production of art and ideas. Just because that law mechanism has been hijacked by unscrupulous players doesn't mean the idea was flawed or is any less relevent in the Information Age. Quit yer bitchin'.
It's the little things that make life so amusing
Found a new "relationship status" option in Friendster: "it's complicated."
I love it.
I love it.
Cheney can bite me
Re: your most recent public moralizing:
Dear Mr. Cheney-
YOUR CHIEF OF STAFF WAS INDICTED FOR PERJURY AND OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.
You gave up the moral high ground a long, long, looooong time ago.
(Somewhere around the time you were CEO of Halliburton, created offshore subsidiaries in order to do business deals with blacklisted countries, and were recorded on camera praising Arthur Anderson's "creative" accounting practices.)
In fact, you are sitting in the moral equivalent of the bottom of the grand canyon shouting _up_ to used car salesmen.
Fuck you,
Nick
Dear Mr. Cheney-
YOUR CHIEF OF STAFF WAS INDICTED FOR PERJURY AND OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.
You gave up the moral high ground a long, long, looooong time ago.
(Somewhere around the time you were CEO of Halliburton, created offshore subsidiaries in order to do business deals with blacklisted countries, and were recorded on camera praising Arthur Anderson's "creative" accounting practices.)
In fact, you are sitting in the moral equivalent of the bottom of the grand canyon shouting _up_ to used car salesmen.
Fuck you,
Nick
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
Monday, November 14, 2005
On achievement
I had what was, in some ways, a very troubling conversation with a friend last night.
I can always rely on him to provide me with a unique view of the world. Bizarre, warped, and twisted to suit his particular biases, yes, but unique nonetheless. It got me thinking about people's ideal state.
My friend maintained that he would be happy if he had enough money not to worry about it (e.g., enough to comfortably pay rent, car, insurance, etc.) and could spend his days watching Aqua Team Hunger Force and smoking pot. Personally, I spend a lot more time in bed than most people, and yet I want to spend more. I have been saying for quite some time that only good things happen to me in bed. The bad shit only happens when I leave bed.
Case in point: today was a good day. Why? Largely because I spent most of it sleeping. I got up once or twice for things like food and bathroom, but by and large my time was spent sleeping. And it was wonderful.
Now, I know that sleeping a lot is a sign of depression, but in my case, it's really not that. I'm quite happy with my life. I just love being asleep. Being in a soft bed, under the covers, with no responsibilities to anyone other than curling up and falling asleep is the best thing in the world. In some ways, it's more fulfilling than either sex or masturbation. Certainly more wholesome. I mean, who can get mad at you for having a sleep addiction? Sure, I guess it falls under the auspices of the sin of sloth, but the Christian Right doesn't seem to give much of a shit about sloth these days. Really more lust that gets their panties in a twist.
Anyway, here's the thing: sex is work. With sex, you have to worry about the other person. It's really more of a cooperative activity than an indulgence. Sure it's fun, but it's nonetheless work, and it's not really relaxing. Even masturbation, which you can do on your own terms, on your own schedule, and worry about no one but yourself, feels somehow hollow because you are alone. After all, most of us don't fantasize about masturbation, do we? We fantasize about sex. So masturbation feels like a poor proxy for actual sex, and I've already discussed the inherent problems with sex itself...it never lives up to the ideals you have of it in your head.
Sleep has no such complications. It is pure, wholesome, good for you, and poses very little risk of disease. And it feels fantastic.
It really makes me wonder...why bother doing all this other shit we do? Was that comment in Office Space really much deeper than we ever imagined?
Lawrence: Well you don't need a million dollars to do nothing, man. Just take a look at my cousin, he's broke, don't do shit.
The problem with achievement is that it never stops. You never achieve something and then say, "ok, I got that thing I was after. I'm done now." All that work for...more work.
I dunno...I can never figure out whether Americans are overworked or lazy fucks. Compared to the Europeans (and Australians, for that matter), we take tragically few vacations and work way too many hours. They think we're crazy, and they're probably right. We have way more stress-related illnesses, among other things. On the other hand, we're fucking lazy compared to, for example, the Chinese. The Chinese still understand what it's like to be a third-world country where you have to work just to survive. They have no notions of having the universe owe them rest and leisure time. They work their flat little asses off at whatever they're doing because some deep, dark part of their brain tells them that if they don't, they will be discarded as worthless and starve. From that perspective, maybe we're just all spoiled. I don't know.
I do think, however, that a collective social goal should be to maximize leisure time. GDP is a fucking retarded measure of quality of life for the average person. So even is salary. Lawyers make a fuck-ton of money, but they're usually unhappy. Why? They work too goddamn much. What's the point of earning all that money if you have no life in which to spend it? Sure, you can retire early, but it seems similarly pointless to take advantage of your massive hoard when you're too old and frail to enjoy it. Having a 20-something trophy wife when you're in your 50's is great and all, but what's the point if you have to pop a viagra in order to bang her because your dick broke 10 years ago?
Anyway. I digress. I think I'm going to go to sleep now. All this rambling has tired me out and has wasted precious time I could have spent sleeping.
I can always rely on him to provide me with a unique view of the world. Bizarre, warped, and twisted to suit his particular biases, yes, but unique nonetheless. It got me thinking about people's ideal state.
My friend maintained that he would be happy if he had enough money not to worry about it (e.g., enough to comfortably pay rent, car, insurance, etc.) and could spend his days watching Aqua Team Hunger Force and smoking pot. Personally, I spend a lot more time in bed than most people, and yet I want to spend more. I have been saying for quite some time that only good things happen to me in bed. The bad shit only happens when I leave bed.
Case in point: today was a good day. Why? Largely because I spent most of it sleeping. I got up once or twice for things like food and bathroom, but by and large my time was spent sleeping. And it was wonderful.
Now, I know that sleeping a lot is a sign of depression, but in my case, it's really not that. I'm quite happy with my life. I just love being asleep. Being in a soft bed, under the covers, with no responsibilities to anyone other than curling up and falling asleep is the best thing in the world. In some ways, it's more fulfilling than either sex or masturbation. Certainly more wholesome. I mean, who can get mad at you for having a sleep addiction? Sure, I guess it falls under the auspices of the sin of sloth, but the Christian Right doesn't seem to give much of a shit about sloth these days. Really more lust that gets their panties in a twist.
Anyway, here's the thing: sex is work. With sex, you have to worry about the other person. It's really more of a cooperative activity than an indulgence. Sure it's fun, but it's nonetheless work, and it's not really relaxing. Even masturbation, which you can do on your own terms, on your own schedule, and worry about no one but yourself, feels somehow hollow because you are alone. After all, most of us don't fantasize about masturbation, do we? We fantasize about sex. So masturbation feels like a poor proxy for actual sex, and I've already discussed the inherent problems with sex itself...it never lives up to the ideals you have of it in your head.
Sleep has no such complications. It is pure, wholesome, good for you, and poses very little risk of disease. And it feels fantastic.
It really makes me wonder...why bother doing all this other shit we do? Was that comment in Office Space really much deeper than we ever imagined?
Lawrence: Well you don't need a million dollars to do nothing, man. Just take a look at my cousin, he's broke, don't do shit.
The problem with achievement is that it never stops. You never achieve something and then say, "ok, I got that thing I was after. I'm done now." All that work for...more work.
I dunno...I can never figure out whether Americans are overworked or lazy fucks. Compared to the Europeans (and Australians, for that matter), we take tragically few vacations and work way too many hours. They think we're crazy, and they're probably right. We have way more stress-related illnesses, among other things. On the other hand, we're fucking lazy compared to, for example, the Chinese. The Chinese still understand what it's like to be a third-world country where you have to work just to survive. They have no notions of having the universe owe them rest and leisure time. They work their flat little asses off at whatever they're doing because some deep, dark part of their brain tells them that if they don't, they will be discarded as worthless and starve. From that perspective, maybe we're just all spoiled. I don't know.
I do think, however, that a collective social goal should be to maximize leisure time. GDP is a fucking retarded measure of quality of life for the average person. So even is salary. Lawyers make a fuck-ton of money, but they're usually unhappy. Why? They work too goddamn much. What's the point of earning all that money if you have no life in which to spend it? Sure, you can retire early, but it seems similarly pointless to take advantage of your massive hoard when you're too old and frail to enjoy it. Having a 20-something trophy wife when you're in your 50's is great and all, but what's the point if you have to pop a viagra in order to bang her because your dick broke 10 years ago?
Anyway. I digress. I think I'm going to go to sleep now. All this rambling has tired me out and has wasted precious time I could have spent sleeping.
Colorful simile of the day
I had this weird spray-candy my roommate gave to me, and it turned my tongue this really weird, deep blue.
It occurred to me that I looked like I had gone down on a blueberry.
Yes, that's just the way my brain works.
In related news, my two new favorite words are "jewy" and "enwanged." Please find a way to work them into any future casual conversations you may have.
It occurred to me that I looked like I had gone down on a blueberry.
Yes, that's just the way my brain works.
In related news, my two new favorite words are "jewy" and "enwanged." Please find a way to work them into any future casual conversations you may have.
Friday, November 11, 2005
Worst...myspace...hair...ever!
I think the First Annual MySpace Stupid Haircut Awards speak for themselves.
Inevitable
I knew this was bound to happen...
This is why Microsoft Research has to be very, very careful to clear any numbers they report on Windows with the Windows team. Because Linux morons jump all over stupid statistics like this.
It's not really an apples-to-apples comparison because Windows does all kinds of shit that Linux and FreeBSD don't on process startup, and they've also optimized thread creation over process creation. And if you have no idea what I'm talking about, count yourself lucky.
This is why Microsoft Research has to be very, very careful to clear any numbers they report on Windows with the Windows team. Because Linux morons jump all over stupid statistics like this.
It's not really an apples-to-apples comparison because Windows does all kinds of shit that Linux and FreeBSD don't on process startup, and they've also optimized thread creation over process creation. And if you have no idea what I'm talking about, count yourself lucky.
Hello kettle
He really has the balls to accuse _other_ people of rewriting history? Mr. Weapons of Mass Destruction/Iraq Has Links to Al Queda? Are you shitting me?
This administration has the most remarkable ability to piss me off...
This administration has the most remarkable ability to piss me off...
Thursday, November 10, 2005
Crazy hippies
Rolling stone article on the ineffectiveness of the anti-war movement.
I find this deeply frustrating. These are exactly the people who have turned "liberal" into a bad word. I don't consider them liberal. I consider them crazy, disorganized, undirected, and addicted to protesting for protest's sake. I consider them idiots who do a disservice to the anti-war movement. They mostly just like yelling and feeling self-righteous and superior. Kinda like the religious right.
It reminds me of Matt Macinnis' editorial at the end of his college tenure about how most of the Living Wage crew were 'tards that caused him to re-evaluate some of his political views. They're just going to turn people who might have been sympathetic against the cause because they don't want to ally themselves with crazy morons.
I find this deeply frustrating. These are exactly the people who have turned "liberal" into a bad word. I don't consider them liberal. I consider them crazy, disorganized, undirected, and addicted to protesting for protest's sake. I consider them idiots who do a disservice to the anti-war movement. They mostly just like yelling and feeling self-righteous and superior. Kinda like the religious right.
It reminds me of Matt Macinnis' editorial at the end of his college tenure about how most of the Living Wage crew were 'tards that caused him to re-evaluate some of his political views. They're just going to turn people who might have been sympathetic against the cause because they don't want to ally themselves with crazy morons.
Tuesday, November 08, 2005
Reality show addict
Show of choice: California election results.
The parental notification prop is dangerously close to passing. Please god, don't let Californians be that stupid...
The parental notification prop is dangerously close to passing. Please god, don't let Californians be that stupid...
I voted!
And I have a sticker to prove it.
As per previous post, voted down everything but 79 and 80. I found a Republican voting guide in my booth and threw it out (immensely satisfying experience), but not before noting that I went against every recommendation they made. And that, children, is how you know you cast the right vote...
As per previous post, voted down everything but 79 and 80. I found a Republican voting guide in my booth and threw it out (immensely satisfying experience), but not before noting that I went against every recommendation they made. And that, children, is how you know you cast the right vote...
Monday, November 07, 2005
Another step in Google taking over the universe
I've been waiting for someone to put their mapping program in mobile form. Goodbye printing out directions!
Thursday, November 03, 2005
Sweet poetic justice
Really, is there anything more poetic than using Sony's anti-piracy rootkit to circumvent World of Warcraft's Warden?
(Probably yes, lots of things, but it's still amusing)
(Probably yes, lots of things, but it's still amusing)
Wednesday, November 02, 2005
Wikipedia
I'm increasingly annoyed with the hype surrounding wikipedia. I am immediately suspicious of any technology people claim will "revolutionize" something, because it usually doesn't. In this respect, wikipedia doesn't disappoint.
First, a wee bit of background. Wikipedia is a democratic encyclopedia. Rather than have annoying "experts" editing the entries, any redneck schmuck can add or edit entries anywhere in the database.
For the most part, it actually works pretty well. Enough people look at the articles to prevent them from being tinfoil hat-crazy most of the time, and no one political group generally can run roughshod over another in any given article.
So what's it good for? Gist. It's great for getting the gist of any given topic. Want to know who the fuck czar Nicholas II was? Check out wikipedia. Want to know what the fuck a kumquat is and why anybody in their right mind would name a fruit that? Flip to wikipedia. It's a great resource for getting a general understanding of something you know jack shit about. In this respect, it is especially good at being a source of information for truly obscure topics. It's a fun exercise to try to find a topic wikipedia _doesn't_ have an entry for.
Which brings me to what's wrong with wikipedia. Or, perhaps more accurately, what people think wikipedia is good for and it isn't. It isn't, never will be, and never should be an authoritative source on anything. Nothing! You hear me? The academic advancement of knowledge depends on being able to rely on the prior work and sources of knowledge it's based on as being objectively correct, verified, and thoroughly scrunized by experts. Wikipedia gives you no such guarantee, and due to its structure, it never can. Wikipedia is a repository for conventional wisdom, but unfortunately conventional wisdom is sometimes wrong, even dangerously wrong.
There's a reason the world has experts, people. It's because they know stuff other people don't. If I don't have a guarantee an article was written by an expert and verified by other experts, it's worthless to me as a basis for other academic work, and the point at which wikipedia adopts that structure is the point at which it becomes just another encyclopedia and loses anything that might have been remarkable about it.
I'm fucking tired of hearing about how the great wikipedia is empowering the everyday joe to overturn the monoliths like Encyclopedia Brittanica. Shut up. All of you. Seriously. Just because something is new and different doesn't automatically mean it's better. Wikipedia can do certain things that traditional encyclopedias can't, but serving as an authoritative source of verified knowledge is not one of them. Get over yourselves.
That said, wikis are a great idea for tech companies to document the development of their products. Everyone in the company is definitionally an expert on the technology they're working on, so you can rely on their contributions to the wiki. Moreover, software is such a dynamic entity anyway that a knowledge repository that can evolve at the same pace as the software development is a godsend.
So go ahead...use wikipedia. But use it intelligently. Use it to figure out where else you should look for more detailed and more accurate information. Just don't, for the love of christ, cite it in a paper. You might as well just stamp the word "retard" on your forehead and be done with it.
(reading over this entry, it kinda sucks, isn't terribly coherent, and isn't terribly funny, but I'm sick and too lazy to rewrite it. Deal.)
First, a wee bit of background. Wikipedia is a democratic encyclopedia. Rather than have annoying "experts" editing the entries, any redneck schmuck can add or edit entries anywhere in the database.
For the most part, it actually works pretty well. Enough people look at the articles to prevent them from being tinfoil hat-crazy most of the time, and no one political group generally can run roughshod over another in any given article.
So what's it good for? Gist. It's great for getting the gist of any given topic. Want to know who the fuck czar Nicholas II was? Check out wikipedia. Want to know what the fuck a kumquat is and why anybody in their right mind would name a fruit that? Flip to wikipedia. It's a great resource for getting a general understanding of something you know jack shit about. In this respect, it is especially good at being a source of information for truly obscure topics. It's a fun exercise to try to find a topic wikipedia _doesn't_ have an entry for.
Which brings me to what's wrong with wikipedia. Or, perhaps more accurately, what people think wikipedia is good for and it isn't. It isn't, never will be, and never should be an authoritative source on anything. Nothing! You hear me? The academic advancement of knowledge depends on being able to rely on the prior work and sources of knowledge it's based on as being objectively correct, verified, and thoroughly scrunized by experts. Wikipedia gives you no such guarantee, and due to its structure, it never can. Wikipedia is a repository for conventional wisdom, but unfortunately conventional wisdom is sometimes wrong, even dangerously wrong.
There's a reason the world has experts, people. It's because they know stuff other people don't. If I don't have a guarantee an article was written by an expert and verified by other experts, it's worthless to me as a basis for other academic work, and the point at which wikipedia adopts that structure is the point at which it becomes just another encyclopedia and loses anything that might have been remarkable about it.
I'm fucking tired of hearing about how the great wikipedia is empowering the everyday joe to overturn the monoliths like Encyclopedia Brittanica. Shut up. All of you. Seriously. Just because something is new and different doesn't automatically mean it's better. Wikipedia can do certain things that traditional encyclopedias can't, but serving as an authoritative source of verified knowledge is not one of them. Get over yourselves.
That said, wikis are a great idea for tech companies to document the development of their products. Everyone in the company is definitionally an expert on the technology they're working on, so you can rely on their contributions to the wiki. Moreover, software is such a dynamic entity anyway that a knowledge repository that can evolve at the same pace as the software development is a godsend.
So go ahead...use wikipedia. But use it intelligently. Use it to figure out where else you should look for more detailed and more accurate information. Just don't, for the love of christ, cite it in a paper. You might as well just stamp the word "retard" on your forehead and be done with it.
(reading over this entry, it kinda sucks, isn't terribly coherent, and isn't terribly funny, but I'm sick and too lazy to rewrite it. Deal.)
Tuesday, November 01, 2005
Monday, October 31, 2005
On feminism
I've been meaning to write an entry on feminism for a while now. There seems to be a lot of discussion about it lately, and I'm not 100% sure why.
Maybe it's because people are realizing that we've entered a a new age. Call it the death of ideology. Pre-feminist America (epitomized by the 50's) was an age of conformist ideology. There were rigid definitions of what constituted masculinity and femininity, and those norms were vehemently enforced even when they contradicted human nature. Dad went to work to support his 2.3 children. He worked his 40 hours a week, and he achieved in proportion to how much he worked. Mom stayed home, raised the kids, maintained the household, and catered to the sexual needs of her husband. Sex was a duty, not a pleasure.
Then came the 60's, and along with them feminism. Suddenly, we wanted equality. In all things. It was the ultimate democratic ideal. Parity in race, parity in economic status, parity in gender...The Man got us down, and if only He got out of the way, we would reach our nirvanic ideal civilization composed of those identifiable only by their one imporant distinguishing characteristic: they were people.
The problem was, we have since discovered, that it was an artificial ideal. People do not default to a difference-agnostic, non-hierarchical societal structure. We had this implicit assumption that there was some external force, some authority, weather it be the government, organized religion, entrenched racism, or what-have-you, that was standing between us and enlightenment. And in many cases there was some entity that looked like that...the George Wallaces of the world. But I think we made the mistake of assuming they were the fundamental obstacle between us and our 60's ideal when in fact they were simply reflections of a prior age that hadn't yet caught up with the shift in public consciousness. They were less active evils than simply inertial remnants of a dying age.
Now we're being forced to come to grips with the fact that the fight against injustice really isn't an external fight at all. There is no "they" that are actively perpetuating a lot of the shit we rail against. Sure, we have the neocons and the evangelicals, but even they are simply a product of their environment. Both are a movement born of the encroachment of urban existence on small-town mentality, and the struggle to salvage identity is what has given rise to the evangelical movement. But, I digress. Point being, people are, at core, utterly irrational animals that quite naturally fall into many of the patterns we always assumed were foisted upon us. We naturally follow alpha males no matter how batshit insane they objectively are. Women are attracted to assholes. Men are very superficial, visual creatures who will evaluate a woman based on her looks. It's turning out that these aren't so much artificial cultural artifacts as ingrained biological programming. And we're finding that fucking depressing, as well we should.
It is on that basis that I've always had trouble with feminism. I always agreed with the observations but disagreed with the conclusions. Sure, society is dominated by male-centric forms of social and organizational interaction, women are seen as sexual objects more often than not, etc. etc. etc. All of that is unquestionably true. But any alternative would involve an active, conscious effort on the part of both men and women to fight their natural tendencies to organize a society that way. And the larger the group of people you're talking about, the less likely that is. To paraphrase a line from Men In Black: a person is reasonable; people are primitive, scared, hysterical, and irrational.
Fighting human nature is a fundamentally losing proposition. There's a strong tendency for societies to correct against mechanisms that fight human nature. Look at how much effort communist China has to put into maintaining their societal structure, for instance. They have to spend huge amounts of energy and wealth into controlling information and putting artifical incentives in place to bribe people to stay put in the current power structure. And it's still falling apart.
No, until we find a way to coax it out of our DNA, men are going to pursue money and power, and women are going to pursue the men who have money and power. And I mean that in the most abstract sense..."power" is a very malleable concept in the modern day. Some women go for guys who control vast corporate empires or are very typical competitive alpha males. But "power" in a guy can simply be confidence, direction, self-esteem, assertiveness, etc. Any quality that might suggest he's capable of supporting her. After all, a guy with poor self-esteem, who is self-effacing, and who admits his limitations is an utter turn-off, yet those same qualities are nowhere near the kiss of death in a woman. It's an utterly instinctive power dynamic for a guy to be the caretaker and the girl to be cared for, and it's one that will inevitably play itself out on a larger scale in society. Why is anyone surprised that there are proportionally fewer women in positions of power? Fewer women are going to have competitive enough personalities to seek out those positions, and of those that do, of course they are a priori going to have a hard time being seen as leaders because of their gender. Again, I reiterate: it's not because of some artificial conspiracy on the part of the Old Boys Network so much as it is very basic human nature.
Don't like it? Fine...but realize in order to change it, you're going to have to fight our most basic drives.
Maybe it's because people are realizing that we've entered a a new age. Call it the death of ideology. Pre-feminist America (epitomized by the 50's) was an age of conformist ideology. There were rigid definitions of what constituted masculinity and femininity, and those norms were vehemently enforced even when they contradicted human nature. Dad went to work to support his 2.3 children. He worked his 40 hours a week, and he achieved in proportion to how much he worked. Mom stayed home, raised the kids, maintained the household, and catered to the sexual needs of her husband. Sex was a duty, not a pleasure.
Then came the 60's, and along with them feminism. Suddenly, we wanted equality. In all things. It was the ultimate democratic ideal. Parity in race, parity in economic status, parity in gender...The Man got us down, and if only He got out of the way, we would reach our nirvanic ideal civilization composed of those identifiable only by their one imporant distinguishing characteristic: they were people.
The problem was, we have since discovered, that it was an artificial ideal. People do not default to a difference-agnostic, non-hierarchical societal structure. We had this implicit assumption that there was some external force, some authority, weather it be the government, organized religion, entrenched racism, or what-have-you, that was standing between us and enlightenment. And in many cases there was some entity that looked like that...the George Wallaces of the world. But I think we made the mistake of assuming they were the fundamental obstacle between us and our 60's ideal when in fact they were simply reflections of a prior age that hadn't yet caught up with the shift in public consciousness. They were less active evils than simply inertial remnants of a dying age.
Now we're being forced to come to grips with the fact that the fight against injustice really isn't an external fight at all. There is no "they" that are actively perpetuating a lot of the shit we rail against. Sure, we have the neocons and the evangelicals, but even they are simply a product of their environment. Both are a movement born of the encroachment of urban existence on small-town mentality, and the struggle to salvage identity is what has given rise to the evangelical movement. But, I digress. Point being, people are, at core, utterly irrational animals that quite naturally fall into many of the patterns we always assumed were foisted upon us. We naturally follow alpha males no matter how batshit insane they objectively are. Women are attracted to assholes. Men are very superficial, visual creatures who will evaluate a woman based on her looks. It's turning out that these aren't so much artificial cultural artifacts as ingrained biological programming. And we're finding that fucking depressing, as well we should.
It is on that basis that I've always had trouble with feminism. I always agreed with the observations but disagreed with the conclusions. Sure, society is dominated by male-centric forms of social and organizational interaction, women are seen as sexual objects more often than not, etc. etc. etc. All of that is unquestionably true. But any alternative would involve an active, conscious effort on the part of both men and women to fight their natural tendencies to organize a society that way. And the larger the group of people you're talking about, the less likely that is. To paraphrase a line from Men In Black: a person is reasonable; people are primitive, scared, hysterical, and irrational.
Fighting human nature is a fundamentally losing proposition. There's a strong tendency for societies to correct against mechanisms that fight human nature. Look at how much effort communist China has to put into maintaining their societal structure, for instance. They have to spend huge amounts of energy and wealth into controlling information and putting artifical incentives in place to bribe people to stay put in the current power structure. And it's still falling apart.
No, until we find a way to coax it out of our DNA, men are going to pursue money and power, and women are going to pursue the men who have money and power. And I mean that in the most abstract sense..."power" is a very malleable concept in the modern day. Some women go for guys who control vast corporate empires or are very typical competitive alpha males. But "power" in a guy can simply be confidence, direction, self-esteem, assertiveness, etc. Any quality that might suggest he's capable of supporting her. After all, a guy with poor self-esteem, who is self-effacing, and who admits his limitations is an utter turn-off, yet those same qualities are nowhere near the kiss of death in a woman. It's an utterly instinctive power dynamic for a guy to be the caretaker and the girl to be cared for, and it's one that will inevitably play itself out on a larger scale in society. Why is anyone surprised that there are proportionally fewer women in positions of power? Fewer women are going to have competitive enough personalities to seek out those positions, and of those that do, of course they are a priori going to have a hard time being seen as leaders because of their gender. Again, I reiterate: it's not because of some artificial conspiracy on the part of the Old Boys Network so much as it is very basic human nature.
Don't like it? Fine...but realize in order to change it, you're going to have to fight our most basic drives.
Fun with photoshop for Halloween
What happens when you mix horror pop culture with classic paintings and photoshop? Only bad things.
I really like the David with the alien on his face. :)
I really like the David with the alien on his face. :)
Tuesday, October 25, 2005
The last straw always comes at the weirdest moments
Ok, anyone not still convinced Bush is an utter tool, please, read on.
My favorite quote:
"'I'm surprised the president deems it wise to spend taxpayer money for his lawyer to write letters to The Onion,' Scott Dikkers, editor in chief, wrote to Mr. Dixton. He suggested the money be used instead for tax breaks for satirists."
Also, in case you weren't convinced that the Bush administration has zero trouble with cognitive dissonance:
How...wha? How does that work? "HAHahahaha...whoo....hehe...that's some funny shit. Ok, now, seriously, go sue them, Jenkins." Is that the same sense in which Stalin had a sense of humor? "Your satire of me...it is very amusing. Now you die."
My favorite quote:
"'I'm surprised the president deems it wise to spend taxpayer money for his lawyer to write letters to The Onion,' Scott Dikkers, editor in chief, wrote to Mr. Dixton. He suggested the money be used instead for tax breaks for satirists."
Also, in case you weren't convinced that the Bush administration has zero trouble with cognitive dissonance:
"O.K. But just between us, Mr. Duffy, how did they find out about it?"
'Despite the seriousness of the Bush White House, more than one Bush staffer reads The Onion and enjoys it thoroughly,' he said. 'We do have a sense of humor, believe it or not.'"
How...wha? How does that work? "HAHahahaha...whoo....hehe...that's some funny shit. Ok, now, seriously, go sue them, Jenkins." Is that the same sense in which Stalin had a sense of humor? "Your satire of me...it is very amusing. Now you die."
Monday, October 24, 2005
My latest way to amuse myself
Reading Amazon.com reviews of the Bible (at the suggestion of Something Positive)
Some choice reviews:
File under "fairy tales", October 2, 2005
This is an interesting wee book, but it could have used a car chase to liven it up a bit, perhaps a few more sex scenes and all the best "religion" books have at least some aliens.
I thought the whole "He's Dead!!!" , "No He's not!!" ending was a bit weak and the "Deus ex machina" thing really had been done before...
The main character "Jesub" has a few good (almost god like) one liners, but Harry Potter would kick his skinny ass.
Looking forward to the follow up!
An Exceptional Work On The Nature of Human Delusions and Violent Psycopathy, October 10, 2005
This book is the product of a severely diseased mind. Every human perversion and psychosis is analyzed in depth. From all shades of prejudice, to sadism and incest, the worst of the human condition is proudly on display, married to a forceful ignorance which concludes that
1. All homosexuals should be executed
2. Blacks are merely slightly evolved monkeys
3. Women are responsible for all human sin and weakness
4. The world is a 6000 year old floating disk around which sea monsters patrol. (Various copies of this book omit this statement, as it was proven wrong in the late 15th Century. Unfortunately for the faithful, this book is the inspired word of their invisble friend who lives in the sky, whom they call "God". This God is incapable of speaking anything but the truth. Thus to omit or change any statement from the original bible is to move against God, and imply that he is capable of being wrong, which throws the whole text out the window.)
5. A man named Moses was given a tablet listing ten commandments, which govern human morality. Sadly, God is plagarizing the ancient Egyptians and their Book of the Dead here, which had essentially the same list, and was created much earlier than this Judeo-Christian work. A decidedly low blow by God there, as the ancient Egyptians never had the Book of the Dead copyrighted, and cannot sue him.
Please do the right thing and burn any copies of this book which you encounter, to inhibit the spread of this idealogical cancer. And if you ever encounter someone who actually believes the depravities and impossibilities listed in this text, please beat them about the head with a large, blunt instrument repeatedly until they come to their senses. Think of it as your Christian duty.
A good price, October 19, 2005
The price was right. The imitation leather looks like imitation leather. A good book.
Overrated, October 21, 2005
People have gone through alot worse than what Jesus Christ has gone through. For example this morning I was out of milk and could not have a bowl of cereal. Turns out I forgot that I had to use the rest of the milk last night for my dinner. Which was cereal. All I eat is cereal. So it was a really big deal when I found that I was out of milk. Some people are crucified and others have to skip breakfast. The point is everybody has a really bad life. Jesus was the son of God. So what? You should meet my father. I'm sure he has put me through alot worse. He always makes me listen to Baby Boomer music and made me play sports like basketball and baseball when I was a little kid.
Some choice reviews:
File under "fairy tales", October 2, 2005| Reviewer: | James A. Cairney (Brighton, England) - See all my reviews |
I thought the whole "He's Dead!!!" , "No He's not!!" ending was a bit weak and the "Deus ex machina" thing really had been done before...
The main character "Jesub" has a few good (almost god like) one liners, but Harry Potter would kick his skinny ass.
Looking forward to the follow up!
An Exceptional Work On The Nature of Human Delusions and Violent Psycopathy, October 10, 2005| Reviewer: | Ruthless (New York) - See all my reviews |
1. All homosexuals should be executed
2. Blacks are merely slightly evolved monkeys
3. Women are responsible for all human sin and weakness
4. The world is a 6000 year old floating disk around which sea monsters patrol. (Various copies of this book omit this statement, as it was proven wrong in the late 15th Century. Unfortunately for the faithful, this book is the inspired word of their invisble friend who lives in the sky, whom they call "God". This God is incapable of speaking anything but the truth. Thus to omit or change any statement from the original bible is to move against God, and imply that he is capable of being wrong, which throws the whole text out the window.)
5. A man named Moses was given a tablet listing ten commandments, which govern human morality. Sadly, God is plagarizing the ancient Egyptians and their Book of the Dead here, which had essentially the same list, and was created much earlier than this Judeo-Christian work. A decidedly low blow by God there, as the ancient Egyptians never had the Book of the Dead copyrighted, and cannot sue him.
Please do the right thing and burn any copies of this book which you encounter, to inhibit the spread of this idealogical cancer. And if you ever encounter someone who actually believes the depravities and impossibilities listed in this text, please beat them about the head with a large, blunt instrument repeatedly until they come to their senses. Think of it as your Christian duty.
A good price, October 19, 2005| Reviewer: | Michelle Goodrich (west sacrmento, ca United States) - See all my reviews |
Overrated, October 21, 2005| Reviewer: | Aids Vs. Cancer - See all my reviews |
Sunday, October 23, 2005
Conservative pundits are batshit insane
Case in point.
You know, a politically savvy associate once suggested to me that people like Coulter really do know that they sound like crazy, feces-tossing controversy monkeys. I increasingly am inclined to believe this, particularly in the case of Coulter. Tucker Carlson may just be that stupid. I mean, the man wears a bowtie. Granted, its the visual equivalent of a catch phrase, but it's still a fucking bowtie.
I think Coulter just makes her living off saying stuff that pisses people off. I mean, take a minute to review her prior statements. Canada is lucky we allow them to exist. We should invade the middle east and convert them to Christianity. Liberals eat puppies. (Ok, I made up the last one, but it was disturbingly plausible, wasn't it?). No, I think she knows damn well that she sounds batshit insane. She just enjoys making lots of money off all the people who are dumb enough to take her seriously.
You know, a politically savvy associate once suggested to me that people like Coulter really do know that they sound like crazy, feces-tossing controversy monkeys. I increasingly am inclined to believe this, particularly in the case of Coulter. Tucker Carlson may just be that stupid. I mean, the man wears a bowtie. Granted, its the visual equivalent of a catch phrase, but it's still a fucking bowtie.
I think Coulter just makes her living off saying stuff that pisses people off. I mean, take a minute to review her prior statements. Canada is lucky we allow them to exist. We should invade the middle east and convert them to Christianity. Liberals eat puppies. (Ok, I made up the last one, but it was disturbingly plausible, wasn't it?). No, I think she knows damn well that she sounds batshit insane. She just enjoys making lots of money off all the people who are dumb enough to take her seriously.
Saturday, October 22, 2005
Wednesday, October 12, 2005
BuyBlue proposition analysis
Interesting analysis of who is backing each of the propositions in the California special election.
If nothing else, a quick look at the backers of prop 78 and prop 79 should tell you which you should be voting for.
If nothing else, a quick look at the backers of prop 78 and prop 79 should tell you which you should be voting for.
Tuesday, October 11, 2005
Unicef bombs smurfs
You heard me.
You know, it's funny...just this morning I was thinking, "Why hasn't anyone bombed the smurfs lately?"
God bless you UNICEF.
You know, it's funny...just this morning I was thinking, "Why hasn't anyone bombed the smurfs lately?"
God bless you UNICEF.
Balls!
You know, sometimes I wonder what it's like to see the world through the eyes of an evil, corrupt fuck. I'm thinking, ok, you're a world-class sleazebag, everyone knows it, and now there's court admissable evidence that your behavior is actually illegal. Basically, you're caught red handed. Sure, put up a token fight. Proclaim your innocence. Whatever.
But DeLay had the audacity to turn around and subpoena the prosecutor. The god. damn. prosecutor.
Wow. I did _not_ see that one coming. Kudos, DeLay! Truly, your douchebaggery knows no bounds.
But DeLay had the audacity to turn around and subpoena the prosecutor. The god. damn. prosecutor.
Wow. I did _not_ see that one coming. Kudos, DeLay! Truly, your douchebaggery knows no bounds.
Sunday, October 09, 2005
Special Election propositions
(Update: link to all the propositions: http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/elections_j.htm#2005Special)
All right, you fuckers, let's do this (be sure to vote November 8th). Incidentally, let me take a moment to remind everyone that letting every nitwit vote on every complicated social and budgetary issue was, is, and always will be a terrible idea. There was a reason the Framers decided not to create a system where every inbred redneck got to come and vote on intellectual property statutes. Anyway, onward:
73 (Waiting Period and Parental Notification Before Termination of Minor's Pregnancy): No.
A no-brainer. You are retarded if you vote for this, and that's all there is to it. Put a waiting period on the treatment of that cancer you have while you consider the moral implications of killing a defenseless tumor, and then we'll talk.
74 (Public School Teachers. Waiting Period for Permanent Status. Dismissal.): No.
You're honestly trying to "get tough" on public school teachers when there's already a major shortage of these underpaid, underappreciated state workers? I'm sure some of them do suck...so what? Until you can figure out a more effective way to improve the public school system, take 'em where you can get 'em. It's not like ivy-leaguers are pounding down the doors to get these jobs.
75 (Public Employee Union Dues. Restrictions on Political Contributions. Employee Consent Requirement.): No.
Partisan attempt to gut a Democratic power base. Demand that corporations get consent from their employees to give money to particular political parties, then we'll talk.
76 (State Spending and School Funding Limits): No.
Why are Californians retarded? I'm serious. They have this idiotic penchant for hard-wiring the state constitution with very specific spending limits, and it's utterly ridiculous. If you don't like government, fine. Let's live in an anarchist state where I can finally go ahead and shoot you for being an idiot and be done with it. Short of that, let the normal political process do its work and reach a compromise omnibus budget that can reflect all the budgetary tradeoffs, and stop trying to impose childish, draconian, and arbitrary rules on them. If you don't like the result, vote the fuckers out of office like a normal democracy.
77 (Redistricting): No.
I'm torn on this one. Gerry-mandering is a pet peeve of mine, but nonetheless I don't think this is the way to solve the problem. I don't think you're helping anything by giving preference to the biases of a panel of aging, prune-like judges with questionable remaining mental faculties over the biases of the legislature. Theoretically, Scalia has a life-appointment and therefore should have no personal a priori stake in the outcome of any given decision he makes, but he nonetheless seems to persist in being a right-wing douchebag who happily hands the Republican party most of the opinions they want. Just because their job isn't on the line doesn't mean people can't still be opinionated wackos.
Personally, I think you should let a computer draw the districting lines randomly, and, moreover, let it redraw them every few years. That's the only way to make line drawing truly unbiased.
78 (Prescription Drug Discounts): No.
I am thoroughly unimpressed when any piece of legislation contains the term "voluntary." This is vaporware legislation so that drug companies can pretend they're actually being good citizens and not gouging people.
79 (Prescription Drug Discounts. State-Negotiated Rebates.): Yes.
Collective bargaining for the state's old and poor. Novel idea. Might just work. Also, any time you invoke mythical, paranoid ramblings about the giant conspiracy on the part of lawyers to create laws that will incite lawsuits to argue against something, that's a really good way to get me to vote for it.
80 (Electric Service Providers Regulation): Yes.
How'd that whole energy deregulation thing work out? Right...that's what I thought.
All right, you fuckers, let's do this (be sure to vote November 8th). Incidentally, let me take a moment to remind everyone that letting every nitwit vote on every complicated social and budgetary issue was, is, and always will be a terrible idea. There was a reason the Framers decided not to create a system where every inbred redneck got to come and vote on intellectual property statutes. Anyway, onward:
73 (Waiting Period and Parental Notification Before Termination of Minor's Pregnancy): No.
A no-brainer. You are retarded if you vote for this, and that's all there is to it. Put a waiting period on the treatment of that cancer you have while you consider the moral implications of killing a defenseless tumor, and then we'll talk.
74 (Public School Teachers. Waiting Period for Permanent Status. Dismissal.): No.
You're honestly trying to "get tough" on public school teachers when there's already a major shortage of these underpaid, underappreciated state workers? I'm sure some of them do suck...so what? Until you can figure out a more effective way to improve the public school system, take 'em where you can get 'em. It's not like ivy-leaguers are pounding down the doors to get these jobs.
75 (Public Employee Union Dues. Restrictions on Political Contributions. Employee Consent Requirement.): No.
Partisan attempt to gut a Democratic power base. Demand that corporations get consent from their employees to give money to particular political parties, then we'll talk.
76 (State Spending and School Funding Limits): No.
Why are Californians retarded? I'm serious. They have this idiotic penchant for hard-wiring the state constitution with very specific spending limits, and it's utterly ridiculous. If you don't like government, fine. Let's live in an anarchist state where I can finally go ahead and shoot you for being an idiot and be done with it. Short of that, let the normal political process do its work and reach a compromise omnibus budget that can reflect all the budgetary tradeoffs, and stop trying to impose childish, draconian, and arbitrary rules on them. If you don't like the result, vote the fuckers out of office like a normal democracy.
77 (Redistricting): No.
I'm torn on this one. Gerry-mandering is a pet peeve of mine, but nonetheless I don't think this is the way to solve the problem. I don't think you're helping anything by giving preference to the biases of a panel of aging, prune-like judges with questionable remaining mental faculties over the biases of the legislature. Theoretically, Scalia has a life-appointment and therefore should have no personal a priori stake in the outcome of any given decision he makes, but he nonetheless seems to persist in being a right-wing douchebag who happily hands the Republican party most of the opinions they want. Just because their job isn't on the line doesn't mean people can't still be opinionated wackos.
Personally, I think you should let a computer draw the districting lines randomly, and, moreover, let it redraw them every few years. That's the only way to make line drawing truly unbiased.
78 (Prescription Drug Discounts): No.
I am thoroughly unimpressed when any piece of legislation contains the term "voluntary." This is vaporware legislation so that drug companies can pretend they're actually being good citizens and not gouging people.
79 (Prescription Drug Discounts. State-Negotiated Rebates.): Yes.
Collective bargaining for the state's old and poor. Novel idea. Might just work. Also, any time you invoke mythical, paranoid ramblings about the giant conspiracy on the part of lawyers to create laws that will incite lawsuits to argue against something, that's a really good way to get me to vote for it.
80 (Electric Service Providers Regulation): Yes.
How'd that whole energy deregulation thing work out? Right...that's what I thought.
Friday, October 07, 2005
Thursday, October 06, 2005
Providing stuff for free doesn't make you money?!
Shocking!
Seriously though...being able to look at the source of something you're trying to build off of or inter-operate with is a Good Thing(tm). On the other hand, giving something you worked very hard on to your competition for free is a Bad Thing(tm). And unfortunately, in the current world, you can't really separate those two.
Personally, I think it should be perfectly legal to look at anyone's code and even mandatory that such code be released by companies, but it should be illegal to actually build it. Look but don't touch! Just like boobies. In fact, let's call it the Boob-Respecting Archetype (BRA) model.
(I am a genius, incidentally.)
Seriously though...being able to look at the source of something you're trying to build off of or inter-operate with is a Good Thing(tm). On the other hand, giving something you worked very hard on to your competition for free is a Bad Thing(tm). And unfortunately, in the current world, you can't really separate those two.
Personally, I think it should be perfectly legal to look at anyone's code and even mandatory that such code be released by companies, but it should be illegal to actually build it. Look but don't touch! Just like boobies. In fact, let's call it the Boob-Respecting Archetype (BRA) model.
(I am a genius, incidentally.)
Tuesday, October 04, 2005
Do they read this stuff before they print it?
"He rejected charges that he picked a White House crony when many other candidates were available. He said he has known her a long time and believes she shares his conservative philosophy and will do so for decades to come on the high court if confirmed by the U.S. Senate."
Okay, do you want to run _your_ definition of "crony" by me then?
Okay, do you want to run _your_ definition of "crony" by me then?
See? I told you so.
Children don't make people happy, and neither does money.
"Public surveys measure what makes us happy. Marriage does, pets do, but children don't seem to (despite what we think). Youth and old age are the happiest times. Money does not add much to happiness; in Britain, incomes have trebled since 1950, but happiness has not increased at all. The happiness of lottery winners returns to former levels within a year. People disabled in an accident are likely to become almost as happy again. For happiness levels are probably genetic: identical twins are usually equally bubbly or grumpy."
You hear that people?! Children don't induce happiness! Your genes are telling you to reproduce because of their own selfish fucking desires! They don't give a shit about you except insofar as you help them propagate!
I've been saying this for years. Don't blow your money on annoying and ungrateful children. Spend it on yourself. Enjoy your life. Tell your genes to kiss your evolutionarily designed ass.
"Public surveys measure what makes us happy. Marriage does, pets do, but children don't seem to (despite what we think). Youth and old age are the happiest times. Money does not add much to happiness; in Britain, incomes have trebled since 1950, but happiness has not increased at all. The happiness of lottery winners returns to former levels within a year. People disabled in an accident are likely to become almost as happy again. For happiness levels are probably genetic: identical twins are usually equally bubbly or grumpy."
You hear that people?! Children don't induce happiness! Your genes are telling you to reproduce because of their own selfish fucking desires! They don't give a shit about you except insofar as you help them propagate!
I've been saying this for years. Don't blow your money on annoying and ungrateful children. Spend it on yourself. Enjoy your life. Tell your genes to kiss your evolutionarily designed ass.
Monday, October 03, 2005
...and the browser wars begin again!
You thought the browser wars were over? Apparently not.
Of course, I exaggerate. IE won. No one is going to displace it any time soon. But it's still amusing to see Netscape installed by default by a major PC vendor.
I actually had not heard that Netscape had been revived. I was even more intrigued to learn that the (ostensible) reason HP made the move was because Netscape 8 can use either the Firefox or the IE rendering engine. So even if you use Netscape, you may still be using IE. How entertaining.
(anybody played with it? I'm deeply suspicious of anything AOL creates, but I gotta admit the ability to render pages either as IE or as Firefox is alluring...)
Of course, I exaggerate. IE won. No one is going to displace it any time soon. But it's still amusing to see Netscape installed by default by a major PC vendor.
I actually had not heard that Netscape had been revived. I was even more intrigued to learn that the (ostensible) reason HP made the move was because Netscape 8 can use either the Firefox or the IE rendering engine. So even if you use Netscape, you may still be using IE. How entertaining.
(anybody played with it? I'm deeply suspicious of anything AOL creates, but I gotta admit the ability to render pages either as IE or as Firefox is alluring...)
Another reason to distrust Linux
...and remember, Linux has the final say about any submissions against the Linux kernel. And he thinks specs are a bad idea? Wow...no wonder the quality of Linux is so crappy. The problem with specs is not that they're inherently bad...it's that people aren't forced to write complete ones and aren't forced to maintain them. A complete, high-level spec is a very, very good thing. It's trying to piece together incomprehensible pieces of code that leads to components that don't bloody work together.
For fuck's sake...if software designers don't start going through much more rigorous, formal processes, software is always going to be a buggy piece of shit.
For fuck's sake...if software designers don't start going through much more rigorous, formal processes, software is always going to be a buggy piece of shit.
Friday, September 30, 2005
Thursday, September 29, 2005
More on Google Print
Couldn't help but point out Tim O'Reilly's op-ed in the New York Times on Google Print.
He's missing the point, intentionally or not. This is not about whether Google Print is good or bad for authors...I have no doubt it is, on par, a good thing (though not as good as he implies...I'll get to that in a minute). The intellectual property laws don't care whether your infringing use is good for the right holder or not. They don't say, "Don't copy stuff! Unless you think it would be good for the author, in which case, hey, go ahead!" You have the god-given right to mismanage your own protected works to your heart's content, and that's exactly what the Author's Guild is doing. Yay for them.
The issue here is control over the material. Google essentially went behind the copyrighters' backs, and that's why they're pissed off. This is a lawsuit about deterrence, not damages. It's a similar issue to audio/video filesharing. It doesn't matter whether P2P networks increase record sales or not. Much as it may be a racket and suck in general, the RIAA owns the copyrights, and they, not you, get to determine what's good marketing and what's not.
I mentioned Google Print not being as good as it seems for authors. This is my general complaint about hype over internet technologies, be it blogs, online shopping, or what-have-you. Some ADHD mental midget inevitably jumps up and exclaims how Technology X is going to change everything for every X you can think of. Now it's Google Print. All those obscure books will become popular suddenly! Lilly Jerkmeoff's book on humane kitten catapulting for rural Iowans will suddenly get the attention it deserves! Yay!
Dude. There are a fixed number of avenues through which people find stuff. The fact that some of them are now web sites doesn't change that. Why do you think everybody's so damn excited about Google? It's because people are lazy and only search for stuff in Google. I don't care if your kitten catapulting literature is available on the web somewhere. If it doesn't come up in the first few links on Google, it might as well not exist.
He's missing the point, intentionally or not. This is not about whether Google Print is good or bad for authors...I have no doubt it is, on par, a good thing (though not as good as he implies...I'll get to that in a minute). The intellectual property laws don't care whether your infringing use is good for the right holder or not. They don't say, "Don't copy stuff! Unless you think it would be good for the author, in which case, hey, go ahead!" You have the god-given right to mismanage your own protected works to your heart's content, and that's exactly what the Author's Guild is doing. Yay for them.
The issue here is control over the material. Google essentially went behind the copyrighters' backs, and that's why they're pissed off. This is a lawsuit about deterrence, not damages. It's a similar issue to audio/video filesharing. It doesn't matter whether P2P networks increase record sales or not. Much as it may be a racket and suck in general, the RIAA owns the copyrights, and they, not you, get to determine what's good marketing and what's not.
I mentioned Google Print not being as good as it seems for authors. This is my general complaint about hype over internet technologies, be it blogs, online shopping, or what-have-you. Some ADHD mental midget inevitably jumps up and exclaims how Technology X is going to change everything for every X you can think of. Now it's Google Print. All those obscure books will become popular suddenly! Lilly Jerkmeoff's book on humane kitten catapulting for rural Iowans will suddenly get the attention it deserves! Yay!
Dude. There are a fixed number of avenues through which people find stuff. The fact that some of them are now web sites doesn't change that. Why do you think everybody's so damn excited about Google? It's because people are lazy and only search for stuff in Google. I don't care if your kitten catapulting literature is available on the web somewhere. If it doesn't come up in the first few links on Google, it might as well not exist.
Wednesday, September 28, 2005
Wheeeeeee!!!
Mmm...Scott Tennerman's tears...mmmmm...
It's gonna be a good day, Tater.
(kudos if you caught both those references)
It's gonna be a good day, Tater.
(kudos if you caught both those references)
Tuesday, September 27, 2005
Whatever you do, don't take responsibility
God, Brown, you really are a douchebag. Most people would look at the situation and say, "My god...why was a man whose only qualification was that he was a horse judge running FEMA?" But you...you had the balls to suggest that the disaster response failure in Louisiana was because the governor was a Democrat.
Wow.
Other douchebags can only look up to you and proclaim, with utmost admiration, that, wow, that guy is a fucking _douchebag_...
Wow.
Other douchebags can only look up to you and proclaim, with utmost admiration, that, wow, that guy is a fucking _douchebag_...
Monday, September 26, 2005
Does their evil know no bounds?
Hmm...if only there were a way to blame high gas prices on environmental protections, and if only there were a prominent political figure we could count on to make such an assinine argument right after two catastrophic hurricanes...
Hot girls...but why?
First things first: I nominate the saluting chick in the Israeli military section as the hottest picture of women in the military, though admittedly she's a bit jail bait-y. But also, of course, the Croatian hottie. Rowr.
Okay, that said, I've poked around a bit, and I still don't understand this. First of all, it's nominally a discussion board about the Iranian military. Okay. But is it serious? Who created it? Why did they misspell defense? Why is there a thread about hot chicks in the military? Not that you need a reason, necessarily, but still...
Okay, that said, I've poked around a bit, and I still don't understand this. First of all, it's nominally a discussion board about the Iranian military. Okay. But is it serious? Who created it? Why did they misspell defense? Why is there a thread about hot chicks in the military? Not that you need a reason, necessarily, but still...
I _do_ have unsightly snakes!
Penny Arcade continues to show their genius.
According to the news post, this here comic was born of similar ancestry.
According to the news post, this here comic was born of similar ancestry.
Sunday, September 25, 2005
Stupid joke
Stupid joke my roommate told me:
A man walks in carrying a sheep. He says, "So, here's the pig I've been fucking."
"That's not a pig! It's a sheep!" his wife says.
"I wasn't talking to you," the man replies.
Just thought I'd share that.
A man walks in carrying a sheep. He says, "So, here's the pig I've been fucking."
"That's not a pig! It's a sheep!" his wife says.
"I wasn't talking to you," the man replies.
Just thought I'd share that.
Run that by me again?
On this list of things I worry about when swimming in the ocean, I have to say that armed dolphins never made it that high up on the list...
Saturday, September 24, 2005
A moment for nerdery
Couldn't help but comment on the top 50 sci-fi shows of all time. Yes, I went through all of them.
Clearly the list was put together haphazardly. Among other things, Sliders appears twice. I hope the higher spot was meant to go to DS9, which didn't even appear on the list. DS9, at least the latter seasons (four and five) is definitely top ten, well ahead of Voyager which consistently sucked and was a profound disappointment. Personally, I would have put Voyager much farther down the list. DS9, on the other hand, had very good writing (again, at least at the end), and some of those shows were watchable even to those who aren't sci-fi inclined.
I'm glad to see Babylon 5 given an appropriate nod. Other than the new Battlestar Galactica, which is amazing and will be very difficult to top, it's the best sci-fi show I've ever seen. I was very sorry it ended, and I keep waiting for them to make a decent movie based on it. There keep being rumors, but they never quite pan out. They made a movie out of Firefly (Serenity)...why can't they make a Babylon 5 movie?
(Okwui will be glad to note that Quantum Leap was given an appropriate nod as well)
Clearly the list was put together haphazardly. Among other things, Sliders appears twice. I hope the higher spot was meant to go to DS9, which didn't even appear on the list. DS9, at least the latter seasons (four and five) is definitely top ten, well ahead of Voyager which consistently sucked and was a profound disappointment. Personally, I would have put Voyager much farther down the list. DS9, on the other hand, had very good writing (again, at least at the end), and some of those shows were watchable even to those who aren't sci-fi inclined.
I'm glad to see Babylon 5 given an appropriate nod. Other than the new Battlestar Galactica, which is amazing and will be very difficult to top, it's the best sci-fi show I've ever seen. I was very sorry it ended, and I keep waiting for them to make a decent movie based on it. There keep being rumors, but they never quite pan out. They made a movie out of Firefly (Serenity)...why can't they make a Babylon 5 movie?
(Okwui will be glad to note that Quantum Leap was given an appropriate nod as well)
Friday, September 23, 2005
Clearly I'm procrastinating
The graph [below] represents your place in Intuition 2-Space.
As you can see, you scored above average on emotional intuition and above average on scientific intuition. (Weirdly, your emotional and scientific intuitions are equally strong.)
Take the stupid test yourself.
As you can see, you scored above average on emotional intuition and above average on scientific intuition. (Weirdly, your emotional and scientific intuitions are equally strong.)
Take the stupid test yourself.
An important quandry
Jewmanji has raised the important question of what an appropriate term for hating white people is.
My two best suggestions so far are "mis-honkey" and "misachromy." Suggestions welcome.
My two best suggestions so far are "mis-honkey" and "misachromy." Suggestions welcome.
Just the two of us
I just got to play with an XBox 360.
*wistful sigh*
For a moment, we were together. It was just us. There was an instant connection. I pushed some buttons, and the big blue brute on the screen tossed an adversary in the air so that when the foe fell, he was impaled on the spines of said brute's back, and then he proceeded to pick another adversary up and use him to beat yet a third senseless. I was instantly in love.
Me rikey. Me rikey rots.
*wistful sigh*
For a moment, we were together. It was just us. There was an instant connection. I pushed some buttons, and the big blue brute on the screen tossed an adversary in the air so that when the foe fell, he was impaled on the spines of said brute's back, and then he proceeded to pick another adversary up and use him to beat yet a third senseless. I was instantly in love.
Me rikey. Me rikey rots.
Thursday, September 22, 2005
Wednesday, September 21, 2005
Go get the ball!
Look, you dumb fuckers, I guarantee you the next terrorist attack will not be on a plane. Stop obsessing about it. It would be like robbing the same bank twice.
If these idiots had been in charge after Pearl Harbor, we would have spent our entire war budget on widening harbor openings.
If these idiots had been in charge after Pearl Harbor, we would have spent our entire war budget on widening harbor openings.
Irrational airlines
I once tried to get Okwui to explain to me why it is that people like GE continue to give loans to clearly failing airlines. I never quite got a satisfactory response, and the article I linked to does nothing more to enlighten me. Both mumble something about having lucrative engine-making contracts from those airlines, but that just amounts to lending yourself money as far as I can see. What's the rationale? Do they get all of the money the lent out back in contract work, and they reason that there's at least a small chance they'll actually make a return on the investment, so they theoretically come out ahead? Is it that they want to be able to continue to lease out their aircraft so that they can put the potentially indefinite lease payments on their balance sheet and make it look like their income is higher than it actually is? I really don't fucking get it. It's all a shell game, and it seems like someone should be noticing.
Rational markets my ass. The airline industry should be allowed to collapse in on itself, just like people like the RIAA should be allowed to drown in the shift to the internet as a distribution mechanism. The article seems to suggest the consumers benefit through low prices, but somebody has to be paying for it. Isn't it those same consumers who are paying for things like the United and imminent Delta pension bailout to the tune of several billion dollars? If you're going to subsidize air travel, fine, but let's call it that instead of dumping money into dead airlines.
Rational markets my ass. The airline industry should be allowed to collapse in on itself, just like people like the RIAA should be allowed to drown in the shift to the internet as a distribution mechanism. The article seems to suggest the consumers benefit through low prices, but somebody has to be paying for it. Isn't it those same consumers who are paying for things like the United and imminent Delta pension bailout to the tune of several billion dollars? If you're going to subsidize air travel, fine, but let's call it that instead of dumping money into dead airlines.
Google Print lawsuit
The more I read, the more I find the Google Print controversy interesting (Authors' Guild statement; Google statement).
I've been going back and forth on this issue. I don't think either side's argument is a priori tantamount, which just highlights how woefully inadequate our system of intellectual property is to cope with the information age.
As you no doubt know, copyright is a legal protection granted the author of a work to determine who is allowed to make copies of that work. Note that this is different from having control over any given copy of a particular work. Playboy has no right to tell you that you can't nuzzle the centerfold picture affectionately and whisper how the two of you will run away together if you purchased that copy of the magazine. You will, however, end up having a bunch of angry Bunnies show up at your door with baseball bats if you attempt to make a copy of said picture, particularly if you attempt to sell that copy. Or Hugh Heffner will kick your ass with his walker. Point being, something bad will happen.
Now, that said, certain kinds of copying are allowed regardless of how big of a dick the copyright holder wants to be about it. Reproducing excerpts of a text document, for example, is allowed. This is an example of "fair use," and you see it all over the place: news casts, book reviews, etc.
The crux of this dispute, then, is whether Google Print is covered by fair use. Google will tell you that all you can ever read are excerpts, and these are protected by fair use. I suspect the argument the Authors' Guild will be making, however, is that in order to construct the index Google uses to generate the excerpts, they had to make what amount to illegal digital copies of library books.
Conduct the following thought experiment though: Imagine a man named Google, a social outcast with OCD, goes to a bunch of libraries and individually checks out all the books one at a time. Using each book he has checked out, he constructs a massive index of their contents. By the time he's done, after roughly 80 bazillion years, you have the equivalent of Google Print without any illegal copies having been made.
You see the problem though. That scenario was utterly impossible before the information age. There was simply too much information to process "manually." Computers can easily process that much information, however. The problem is that you have to codify the books so that the computers can process them. Do you count that codification as a violation of copyright? Does just having the bytes-equivalent form of a book in a computer's memory a priori count as a copy? What if, in the process of processing the books, you had to copy those bytes to 1000 different machines (not as implausible as it sounds)? Have you violated copyright 1000 times?
The lesson here, as if you haven't heard me say it before, is that IP law needs an overhaul. Trying to retrofit archaic notions of what constitutes an invention or a copy is utterly hopeless. Without an entirely new system that acknowledges a world where "copies" are irrelevent (having been supplanted by an extremely volatile system of links between pieces of information) and where "inventions" are highly ephemeral creatures that can be easily both created and destroyed, we're going to have a myriad of court cases asking judges to try to cram complex modern situations into an archaic framework that is fundamentally incompatible with them.
Of course, in a system where you can buy such legislation, any kind of overhaul would end up being geared towards the profit margins of large IP holders and not anywhere near a socially beneficial ideal.
But hey, I can still bitch about it.
I've been going back and forth on this issue. I don't think either side's argument is a priori tantamount, which just highlights how woefully inadequate our system of intellectual property is to cope with the information age.
As you no doubt know, copyright is a legal protection granted the author of a work to determine who is allowed to make copies of that work. Note that this is different from having control over any given copy of a particular work. Playboy has no right to tell you that you can't nuzzle the centerfold picture affectionately and whisper how the two of you will run away together if you purchased that copy of the magazine. You will, however, end up having a bunch of angry Bunnies show up at your door with baseball bats if you attempt to make a copy of said picture, particularly if you attempt to sell that copy. Or Hugh Heffner will kick your ass with his walker. Point being, something bad will happen.
Now, that said, certain kinds of copying are allowed regardless of how big of a dick the copyright holder wants to be about it. Reproducing excerpts of a text document, for example, is allowed. This is an example of "fair use," and you see it all over the place: news casts, book reviews, etc.
The crux of this dispute, then, is whether Google Print is covered by fair use. Google will tell you that all you can ever read are excerpts, and these are protected by fair use. I suspect the argument the Authors' Guild will be making, however, is that in order to construct the index Google uses to generate the excerpts, they had to make what amount to illegal digital copies of library books.
Conduct the following thought experiment though: Imagine a man named Google, a social outcast with OCD, goes to a bunch of libraries and individually checks out all the books one at a time. Using each book he has checked out, he constructs a massive index of their contents. By the time he's done, after roughly 80 bazillion years, you have the equivalent of Google Print without any illegal copies having been made.
You see the problem though. That scenario was utterly impossible before the information age. There was simply too much information to process "manually." Computers can easily process that much information, however. The problem is that you have to codify the books so that the computers can process them. Do you count that codification as a violation of copyright? Does just having the bytes-equivalent form of a book in a computer's memory a priori count as a copy? What if, in the process of processing the books, you had to copy those bytes to 1000 different machines (not as implausible as it sounds)? Have you violated copyright 1000 times?
The lesson here, as if you haven't heard me say it before, is that IP law needs an overhaul. Trying to retrofit archaic notions of what constitutes an invention or a copy is utterly hopeless. Without an entirely new system that acknowledges a world where "copies" are irrelevent (having been supplanted by an extremely volatile system of links between pieces of information) and where "inventions" are highly ephemeral creatures that can be easily both created and destroyed, we're going to have a myriad of court cases asking judges to try to cram complex modern situations into an archaic framework that is fundamentally incompatible with them.
Of course, in a system where you can buy such legislation, any kind of overhaul would end up being geared towards the profit margins of large IP holders and not anywhere near a socially beneficial ideal.
But hey, I can still bitch about it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)