I'm pretty sure this shouldn't be happening:
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Monday, October 29, 2007
If There Were a God... (10/29/07)
An "If There Were a God" that needs no explanation. Or more accurately, there is no explanation on earth that can justify it.
Sunday, October 28, 2007
The "prematurely rich" ain't sasified...
I don't really find this at all surprising. The eMillionaires quite often aren't in it for the money, per se, at least in the sense that they aren't after money just to engage in conspicuous consumption. Money is just a way to keep score. The fact that you can use it to buy jets, mansions, etc. is somewhat irrelevant. They do it because the business itself is interesting.
Now, of course, you can ask: okay, but would they still be interested if there _weren't_ a huge amount of money at stake? No, probably not. The money is part of it. But what I think makes this interesting to these guys are the dynamics the money makes, not the payoff. In other words, because consumers and potential clients value money so much, they choose (relatively) carefully what they want to buy with it, and it's the challenge of getting the money out of those consumers and clients that appeals to these guys much more than the fact that you get that money and the ability to spend it in the end (if your business is successful).
Point being, we always assume money is the prime motivator of people. Or, at least, it is a universal currency that allows you to get the (presumed material) things you want. I think that's an oversimplification. People want things out of their lifestyle that you can't really buy, or at least it doesn't really make sense to think of in monetary terms. Does it really make sense to think of "buying" your way into working into a startup that excites and challenges you? Not really...not in the traditional sense. Therefore, I don't think it makes sense to talk about maximizing people's income as a proxy for maximizing their happiness. (and it makes even less sense to talk about a stock market index as a proxy for the well-being of a country, but that's beyond my scope for the moment)
So here's the question: can you make an economic model out of that? Interestingly, it's not even "money + leisure," although I think leisure time is another important factor that should be considered when measuring a society's well-being. It's much more a question of, to use an overloaded term, freedom. To what degree to people have the freedom to pursue the things that make them happy? To what degree can they pursue their happiness, you might say...
Now, of course, you can ask: okay, but would they still be interested if there _weren't_ a huge amount of money at stake? No, probably not. The money is part of it. But what I think makes this interesting to these guys are the dynamics the money makes, not the payoff. In other words, because consumers and potential clients value money so much, they choose (relatively) carefully what they want to buy with it, and it's the challenge of getting the money out of those consumers and clients that appeals to these guys much more than the fact that you get that money and the ability to spend it in the end (if your business is successful).
Point being, we always assume money is the prime motivator of people. Or, at least, it is a universal currency that allows you to get the (presumed material) things you want. I think that's an oversimplification. People want things out of their lifestyle that you can't really buy, or at least it doesn't really make sense to think of in monetary terms. Does it really make sense to think of "buying" your way into working into a startup that excites and challenges you? Not really...not in the traditional sense. Therefore, I don't think it makes sense to talk about maximizing people's income as a proxy for maximizing their happiness. (and it makes even less sense to talk about a stock market index as a proxy for the well-being of a country, but that's beyond my scope for the moment)
So here's the question: can you make an economic model out of that? Interestingly, it's not even "money + leisure," although I think leisure time is another important factor that should be considered when measuring a society's well-being. It's much more a question of, to use an overloaded term, freedom. To what degree to people have the freedom to pursue the things that make them happy? To what degree can they pursue their happiness, you might say...
Saturday, October 27, 2007
Cheney and Obama related?!
No, apparently this isn't a joke. Go back far enough, and Obama and Cheney are related.
Isn't this a sign of the apocalypse?
Isn't this a sign of the apocalypse?
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Girl eye chart
This has to be the most frustrating eye chart ever. If you're a heterosexual guy, at least...
Monday, October 22, 2007
Menacing plastic garbage island
Were you aware there's an island made completely out of garbage that's twice the size of Texas floating around the Pacific? This is a problem. Literally, a big problem. It's not like there's "some" garbage floating around out there. TWO TEXASES. Think about how much shit you don't like comes from or exists in Texas. Now double that. And imagine it getting an order of magnitude bigger every year.
You may now begin screaming.
You may now begin screaming.
Why gay marriage is wrong and evil
The most concise listing of the arguments against gay marriage I've ever seen. Well, I'm convinced!
Friday, October 19, 2007
Chris Matthews on Kasparov
A great quote by Chris Matthews right after Bill Maher interviews Gary Kasparov:
"Do you ever get the feeling that the Russians are playing chess, and we're playing checkers?"
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Polizia's Gumball run
Wow. Just...wow. "Batshit insane" doesn't even begin to cover this attempt to drive cross-country in 30 hours.
Boy with the Incredible Brain
I hope I haven't linked to this before, but a very cool BBC(?) documentary on a savant with the ability to "see" numbers and perform incredible feats of math and memory.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Lessig on corruption
A presentation by Lawrence Lessig on "corruption," which the observant among you may remember is the topic Lessig abandoned copyright reform for. Very, very much worth watching (although it will, of course, depress you).
Lessig is a very smart man. What I'm not sure I get is why it took him this long to realize that the influence of money on politics was always going to render copyright reform (and, indeed, most types of reform) basically moot? Isn't that fairly obvious to anyone that pays attention to these issues? Is it simply that you can't spend your life thinking about, studying, and putting your faith into the law if you're as cynical as I am?
I think that last point may be it. I've always thought that the idea of the "rule of law" was a comforting illusion. Lessig has, I think, touched on the _real_ lynch pin of our democratic institutions at the end of his talk, which is the concept of "norms." The rule of law itself is irrelevant; ironically, it's the belief in the rule of law that drives our society.
What's the difference? Well, think about it...in a world where everyone really is self-interested, our institutions fall apart, rule of law be damned. You need only look at what Bush has done to government to see that. The "impartiality" of governmental structures like the EPA, the FDA, hell even the federal attorneys, turned instantly to dust when infected with political figures. Point being, there weren't any objective procedures, rules, or regulations that protected those institutions. Hell, Bush has proved even the Constitution itself is malleable. Can't torture prisoners? Call them enemy combatants. Annoyed by habeas corpus? Move them outside the country. It's all fluid. The law can't save you. All those institutions work (i.e., maintain independence) solely..._solely_...because there are enough people who think that they (the institutions) _should_ work that the institutions do. The _instant_ that's no longer the case, or when political operatives infiltrate those institutions, they collapse.
How to you dedicate your life to something that is, at core, wishful thinking? Or, slightly less dramatically (and more confusingly), how do you dedicate your life to what amounts to a fundamentally _subjective_ political opinion when the crux of that political opinion is that it regards itself as being an _objective_ fact?!
If I'm being unclear, consider this: think of the society most plagued by institutionalized corruption, and try to figure out what differentiates them from us. Think about China, for instance, where bribery is a cost of doing business in government. The point I'm trying to make is that the answer is: very little. We'd like to believe we have a set of impartial institutions, rules, and regulations that support us, allowing us to float serenely above their plagued little fray. But we don't. Those rules could be changed or circumvented at the drop of the hat. The only difference is that, as yet, we don't tolerate that level of corruption. We have a collective, social belief that government officials should not be bribed. Period. End of story. We're acclimated to an environment where it doesn't happen. Grow up in a world where corruption is a part of life, and government will be corrupt. Doesn't matter what's on the books. That's what will happen.
Anyway, I digressed. I just wonder to what degree law is self-perpetuating. Almost like a cult is. What isn't important is the result of arguing about how laws should and should not be structured. It's utterly irrelevant who has the most well-reasoned, logical argument about the penal code. It's simply the underlying belief that law is important that makes it important. My point, I guess, is that it's a wikiality. Nothing grander or more substantial than that. The belief simply propagates itself.
(Maybe that's the strange loop that underpins all of civilization.)
I guess that just annoys me because science quintessentially _isn't_ wikiality. There is a ground truth in there. When you do a physics experiment, either you emitted a photon or you didn't. There's no arguing about it. It didn't emit a photon just because enough people decide that it should. It did. Or it didn't. (or it's in some weird quantum state, but let's not get into that). The only part us idiot members of humanity can play is observing which one it was and telling each other about it. The laws of physics don't collapse if we decide we don't like them, and yet, that's _exactly_ how the law works.
Lessig is a very smart man. What I'm not sure I get is why it took him this long to realize that the influence of money on politics was always going to render copyright reform (and, indeed, most types of reform) basically moot? Isn't that fairly obvious to anyone that pays attention to these issues? Is it simply that you can't spend your life thinking about, studying, and putting your faith into the law if you're as cynical as I am?
I think that last point may be it. I've always thought that the idea of the "rule of law" was a comforting illusion. Lessig has, I think, touched on the _real_ lynch pin of our democratic institutions at the end of his talk, which is the concept of "norms." The rule of law itself is irrelevant; ironically, it's the belief in the rule of law that drives our society.
What's the difference? Well, think about it...in a world where everyone really is self-interested, our institutions fall apart, rule of law be damned. You need only look at what Bush has done to government to see that. The "impartiality" of governmental structures like the EPA, the FDA, hell even the federal attorneys, turned instantly to dust when infected with political figures. Point being, there weren't any objective procedures, rules, or regulations that protected those institutions. Hell, Bush has proved even the Constitution itself is malleable. Can't torture prisoners? Call them enemy combatants. Annoyed by habeas corpus? Move them outside the country. It's all fluid. The law can't save you. All those institutions work (i.e., maintain independence) solely..._solely_...because there are enough people who think that they (the institutions) _should_ work that the institutions do. The _instant_ that's no longer the case, or when political operatives infiltrate those institutions, they collapse.
How to you dedicate your life to something that is, at core, wishful thinking? Or, slightly less dramatically (and more confusingly), how do you dedicate your life to what amounts to a fundamentally _subjective_ political opinion when the crux of that political opinion is that it regards itself as being an _objective_ fact?!
If I'm being unclear, consider this: think of the society most plagued by institutionalized corruption, and try to figure out what differentiates them from us. Think about China, for instance, where bribery is a cost of doing business in government. The point I'm trying to make is that the answer is: very little. We'd like to believe we have a set of impartial institutions, rules, and regulations that support us, allowing us to float serenely above their plagued little fray. But we don't. Those rules could be changed or circumvented at the drop of the hat. The only difference is that, as yet, we don't tolerate that level of corruption. We have a collective, social belief that government officials should not be bribed. Period. End of story. We're acclimated to an environment where it doesn't happen. Grow up in a world where corruption is a part of life, and government will be corrupt. Doesn't matter what's on the books. That's what will happen.
Anyway, I digressed. I just wonder to what degree law is self-perpetuating. Almost like a cult is. What isn't important is the result of arguing about how laws should and should not be structured. It's utterly irrelevant who has the most well-reasoned, logical argument about the penal code. It's simply the underlying belief that law is important that makes it important. My point, I guess, is that it's a wikiality. Nothing grander or more substantial than that. The belief simply propagates itself.
(Maybe that's the strange loop that underpins all of civilization.)
I guess that just annoys me because science quintessentially _isn't_ wikiality. There is a ground truth in there. When you do a physics experiment, either you emitted a photon or you didn't. There's no arguing about it. It didn't emit a photon just because enough people decide that it should. It did. Or it didn't. (or it's in some weird quantum state, but let's not get into that). The only part us idiot members of humanity can play is observing which one it was and telling each other about it. The laws of physics don't collapse if we decide we don't like them, and yet, that's _exactly_ how the law works.
Saturday, October 13, 2007
The life and death of Jesse James
An absolutely crazy but fascinating story of the kinds of deception you can perpetrate using modern telecommunications technology.
Concept cars for 2057
This is so utterly nerdy, but these concept cars are awesome. And, I think, far more creative than anything that's been in any of the sci fi movies lately.
Lawyer representing embryos in California
Oh for fuck's sake...what is wrong with people in this country?
Friday, October 12, 2007
Props to Lynne Cheney
Yes, she's evil and married to the devil, but props to ol' Lynne for having a sense of humor. She brought Jon a little Darth Vader doll, and she said one of the things that Cheney does at home is bite the head off a live chicken.
Go Lynne!
On the other hand, he does claim that she isn't her husband and shouldn't be challenged...BUT, let's remember she is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. It ain't like she's not a political figure here, folks.
Go Lynne!
On the other hand, he does claim that she isn't her husband and shouldn't be challenged...BUT, let's remember she is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. It ain't like she's not a political figure here, folks.
Gore's Nobel
I'm sure you've heard about Gore's Nobel Peace Prize by now (note that he shares it with the UN climate panel). I feel a little weird about it, to be honest.
It's not that Gore isn't a good guy who has done great stuff. I just think the precedent is a little odd. I was reading...somewhere, and I'm too lazy to try to dig up the reference...about some of the political dynamics of the economics Nobel work. The Nobel in economics tends to be given to someone for work they did 15 to 20 years ago, the reason being that it's only with that much historical perspective can you tell if the work was accurate and if it had an effect.
I feel like the same standard should apply here. It may well be that Al Gore's efforts have catalyzed global action on climate change, but I don't think we have the perspective yet to be able to assert that. Maybe he will have turned out to be the one to lead the sea change in policy opinion and priority that ultimately leads to the aversion of a climate crisis. But what if we've already fucked ourselves? What if anything we do now is too late and has essentially no effect? What if the momentum of the past few years fizzles and amounts to nothing? Has he really done the most to promote global peace in those contexts?
And, frankly, what has he done other than utilize his celebrity to highlight the issue and educate? Not that that isn't useful, but is it really the stuff of a Nobel award? Will this be forever known as the Apple Keynote presentation that won a Nobel Peace Prize?
It's not that Gore isn't a good guy who has done great stuff. I just think the precedent is a little odd. I was reading...somewhere, and I'm too lazy to try to dig up the reference...about some of the political dynamics of the economics Nobel work. The Nobel in economics tends to be given to someone for work they did 15 to 20 years ago, the reason being that it's only with that much historical perspective can you tell if the work was accurate and if it had an effect.
I feel like the same standard should apply here. It may well be that Al Gore's efforts have catalyzed global action on climate change, but I don't think we have the perspective yet to be able to assert that. Maybe he will have turned out to be the one to lead the sea change in policy opinion and priority that ultimately leads to the aversion of a climate crisis. But what if we've already fucked ourselves? What if anything we do now is too late and has essentially no effect? What if the momentum of the past few years fizzles and amounts to nothing? Has he really done the most to promote global peace in those contexts?
And, frankly, what has he done other than utilize his celebrity to highlight the issue and educate? Not that that isn't useful, but is it really the stuff of a Nobel award? Will this be forever known as the Apple Keynote presentation that won a Nobel Peace Prize?
Thursday, October 11, 2007
My hero
This guy is my hero. If my dream were to personify a character that Dave Chapelle would dream up, or, like, a walking MadTV sketch, I would _totally_ want to be this guy.
(also, nice boxers, asshole.)
(also, nice boxers, asshole.)
Tips for improving wireless reception from Microsoft
Something useful from Microsoft? Surely you jest!
(though it might actually be useful, hence the post)
(though it might actually be useful, hence the post)
Goddamn rapist ducks redux
The man makes very compelling points on those goddamn lowlife rapist ducks:
"Someone needs to do something! Think about all the innocent children feeding ducks in the park right now. They're feeding rapists! Have you heard of a character called Donald Duck? RAPIST! Daisy Duck? GETTING IT EVERY NIGHT!"
Your depressing post of the day
Well, so much for any hope that call girls didn't have a history of sexual abuse...
*sigh*.
Let us not forget that people are, at core, animals. Plain and simple.
*sigh*.
Let us not forget that people are, at core, animals. Plain and simple.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
WetRiffs (nsfw)
I'm really kind of disturbed that not only did this happen, but very shortly after that, this happened.
Also, from the pics:
Also, from the pics:
- Brenda's nipples could kill someone!
- If you go to Demele's webcomic site and read the FAQ, she's _17_. I feel...dirty. Having seen this pic yesterday of what I can only assume is a _very_ young Jodie Foster doesn't help things much.
SITE intelligence leak: a non-obvious question
Okay, yes, the Bush administration is inept and hypocritical with regard to terrorism surveillance, yada yada yada. At this point, if you haven't figured this out, you're retarded and/or not paying attention.
Here's what I want to know, though: why the fuck is a private company (SITE) engaging in its own foreign surveillance ops? Shouldn't this, you know, _not happen_? Be illegal? Something? The CIA is scary enough...do we really need private companies doing the same shit with no visible accountability?
Here's what I want to know, though: why the fuck is a private company (SITE) engaging in its own foreign surveillance ops? Shouldn't this, you know, _not happen_? Be illegal? Something? The CIA is scary enough...do we really need private companies doing the same shit with no visible accountability?
Fucking ostriches
Goddamn uppity flightless birds...always trying to humiliate you when you're on a date...
Monday, October 08, 2007
I'm really glad I'm not an insect
*whimper*
On the other hand, it could be worse...you could be a female African Bat Bug:
On the other hand, it could be worse...you could be a female African Bat Bug:
"Instead of copulating via the female’s sex organs, he will stab her abdomen to release sperm directly into her bloodstream."
Sunday, October 07, 2007
Severed corpus collosum
A crazy video of what happens to someone who has had their corpus collosum (a part of the brain that connects the two hemispheres) severed. The right brain can see the word "saw" in the left visual field, cause the left hand to draw a picture of a saw, and yet if you ask the guy why he drew a saw, he'll have no idea.
Really makes you wonder about our perception of consciousness...
Really makes you wonder about our perception of consciousness...
Saturday, October 06, 2007
Arse Elektronika (nsfw)
*twitch*...
"The latest adult industry "'pr0nnovations" will be on display in San Francisco this weekend at Arse Elektronika, a three-day expo featuring sex machines, brainy talks and weird performances (including the Electric Orifice Orchestra, in which "extravagantly dressed performers use live biofeedback from muscular interior walls of their bodies to create a multimedia interactive show")."
Giraffe fight!
Good lord...have you ever seen two giraffes fight? Did you know they fight by whipping their heads at each other? Don't they get whiplash?
Thursday, October 04, 2007
If There Were a God... (10/4/07)
If there were a God, he would not allow pictures of dragons having sex with cars to exist anywhere. Ever. (nsfw)
Wednesday, October 03, 2007
Depressing Iraq link of the day
I think it's fairly clear that the major problem these women had was the feeling that the Democrats back home were not supporting them.
Monday, October 01, 2007
Million dollar audiophile challenge
Ha! I love it. James Randi, who gets his jollies by proving paranormal claims to be bullshit, is now offering $1 million for scientific proof that $7250 audio cables actually sound better than the (already overpriced) Monster cables that you can get for $50 at Radio Shack.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)