Axel F...insanity test...annoying frog...I got nuthin'.
Update: There's a BBC story, and there's an album. I shit you not.
Thursday, January 26, 2006
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
Debate is pointless
Not surprising, but here's the evidence: people ignore evidence.
I've always regarded debate as ultimately pointless except insofar as it's good practice at debating.
I've always regarded debate as ultimately pointless except insofar as it's good practice at debating.
Google censoring results
How's that whole "Don't be evil" motto working out for you guys?
From a technical and business perspective, Google has been doing some amazing shit. But from a corporate culture perspective, it's a goddamn scary cult sometimes. One of these years Google is going to slam into middle age at approximately a bazillion miles an hour, and they won't have any fucking idea how to cope with it.
"Shit...we're a big, stagnant, amoral corporation. We've become Microsoft. Fuck."
From a technical and business perspective, Google has been doing some amazing shit. But from a corporate culture perspective, it's a goddamn scary cult sometimes. One of these years Google is going to slam into middle age at approximately a bazillion miles an hour, and they won't have any fucking idea how to cope with it.
"Shit...we're a big, stagnant, amoral corporation. We've become Microsoft. Fuck."
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
Friday, January 20, 2006
Wednesday, January 18, 2006
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
"You've got..."
"...herpes!"
It's a good idea, but man...can you imagine getting an e-card from them? There are so many delicious possibilities for doing that tastelessly.
"Ever wondered what it would be like for it to burn when you pee?"
"Hypothetically, how would you feel about oozing sores on your genitals?"
"Clap on!..."
"After a night of freaky sex, I hope you're well rested/But just as a thought, you might want to get tested..."
"We want to give you oral...antibiotics!"
"Herpes: the gift that keeps on giving..."
"You've got three letters. The first is H, and the last one is V. Is the middle one P or I? Find out!..."
"Ever heard that song 'Tainted Love'?..."
Etc...
It's a good idea, but man...can you imagine getting an e-card from them? There are so many delicious possibilities for doing that tastelessly.
"Ever wondered what it would be like for it to burn when you pee?"
"Hypothetically, how would you feel about oozing sores on your genitals?"
"Clap on!..."
"After a night of freaky sex, I hope you're well rested/But just as a thought, you might want to get tested..."
"We want to give you oral...antibiotics!"
"Herpes: the gift that keeps on giving..."
"You've got three letters. The first is H, and the last one is V. Is the middle one P or I? Find out!..."
"Ever heard that song 'Tainted Love'?..."
Etc...
Web 3.0
I was amused by this quippy rant against Web 2.0 culture. If you don't know what Web 2.0 is, count yourself lucky, and try not to learn until the hype passes.
Fuck Scalia
Forget anything I may have said about any judicial principles I was under the delusion Scalia was loyal to. Is there any more basic test of state's rights and limited government than assisted suicide?
Ah yes
Welcome to the Internet of the future. So much for our current democratic panacea. Say hello to the market forces that have thus-far been supressed in the name of incubating a new market.
Remember your economics, boys and girls: in the long run, you never get something for nothing.
Remember your economics, boys and girls: in the long run, you never get something for nothing.
Monday, January 16, 2006
God is pissed
Hey, maybe He's pissed off because every idiot pundit and political figure you can think of seems to have the audacity to think they have any fucking clue what He's thinking. You ever think of that?
Friday, January 13, 2006
The absurdity of ad absurdum
Do I even need to tell you how absurd this rant on DRM versus Security is? No. But I'm going to anyway. Or at least, I want to address the "issues" Mr. Yodaiken raises as I think it's an interesting intellectual exercise.
- This issue is the "analog hole" issue. Except it's not. You always lose some amount of fidelity when you convert to or from analog and digital. But plugging the audio out from your computer back into the audio in and recording a piece of DRM'd music still sounds decent, and that scares the RIAA and the MPAA. They'd prefer it if everything but the speakers dealt in digital, because then everything could be mandated to carry DRM protections. But that's a damn far cry from having a security camera shut off when it recognizes a copy-protected image. That's quite simply a ridiculous extreme that wouldn't serve as a means to perpetrate mass-infringement, and therefore wouldn't have such idiotic protections on it, and it's paranoid to think anyone would ever propose such a thing.
- This is a minor software problem. One answer is simply that in a world of media appliances, the frequency with which you will be replacing individual hardware components will be very low. When's the last time you replaced a video card in your Tivo?
- You always have to determine where the DRM boundary is, and where it will be placed will be dictated by common sense. You don't care about DRM on a blood test machine...you care about DRM on a patient's medical records. Will any idiot set up a system where a DRM-sensitive database refuses to accept non-DRM'd blood data? No. That's retarded. You'll have a system where the blood data will be inserted into a patient's medical records, _then_ protected with digital rights.
- This is an age-old legal issue that really has nothing to do with DRM. These are the same sorts of issues that arise when you have legal wrangling over a paper copy of something, or in fact any object that cannot be easily duplicated. All DRM does is turn something that is easily copied or transferred into something that is not.
- What?? Is using a media player in a manufacturing system a big concern for people?
- This is another stupid objection. You don't install random pieces of software on systems that have hard real-time demands. You don't do that now, let alone in a DRM world. What hospital allows people to install file-sharing software on heart monitors, for fuck's sake?! If a system that had hard real-time demands needed DRM for some reason, it would be built in from the get go and designed not to interfere with the scheduling.
- Seriously, what world is this guy living in? Software for home entertainment or offices is vastly different from software that controls planes and ICUs, and the latter has vastly more stringent demands on creation and maintenance actions. You don't have some jerkoff installing "something cool" he found on the web on an ICU computer.
- I refuse to address this point as it's a) too much like previous points, and b) too stupid.
- Viruses are pieces of software that subvert the intended functions of the piece of software they are infecting, therefore the effects of a virus are inherently unstable and unpredictable. What does this have to do with DRM?
- Remote verification of license integrity is a separate issue from DRM (or, in other words, nothing says that a DRM scheme involves outside checks). Ergo, again, this has nothing to do with DRM.
- Hooks to be used by viruses is more an issue of OS security than it is DRM.
Thursday, January 12, 2006
Dangers of marriage
Yeah...pretty well articulates my fears relating to marriage...add in the slave to kids and mortgage thing, and that's about right...
Maryland health care bill
Liberal though I am, I'm not sure making WalMart pay at least 8% of their payroll is necessarily a good idea. It's the supply-side that needs to be addressed, not necessarily the demand-side. Making WalMart pay more may just cause their insurers to charge more, in which case you're simply shifting money from WalMart to an HMO without improving anyone's benefits.
If you're going to interfere with a market, make sure the ultimate effect you will have is the one you want.
If you're going to interfere with a market, make sure the ultimate effect you will have is the one you want.
Confirmation hearing annoyance
I just have to mention that I've been listening to a bunch of the Alito hearings, and every time I do I get more annoyed. Not necessarily because Alito is a conservative fucktard (which he is), but because he doesn't answer a single goddamn question. I know this is not something that is particular to Alito and that every modern nominee does his best to dodge questions, but it's still infuriating. It's like confirmation hearings have become an idiotic game of cat and mouse where the opposition party attempts to ask hard questions and the nominee does his damndest to avoid answering all of them at all costs. Alito wouldn't even answer basic yes or no questions like "Do you think that term limits or age caps should be imposed on federal judges?" There are three fucking answers to that question: yes, no, or I'm not sure. "There are many different views on that" is not a fucking answer!
Tuesday, January 10, 2006
Mouse sadism
"Kazuya Ikematsu and his colleagues anesthetized and then killed two small groups of mice, by either strangulation with a string, or by decapitation."
These guys really need a less morbid hobby.
These guys really need a less morbid hobby.
Monday, January 09, 2006
The United Freemasons
Ever flown United and wondered what those "Global Services" people they talk about in announcements are? Wonder no more. Instead, consider being creeped out.
Fiscal responsibility
Seriously, if you're a conservative, I don't want to hear any shit from you about government spending before you give me an appropriately incensed condemnation of the Iraq war as being both stupid and costly. We could pay for all the government pork that both sides despise, let alone those "expensive" controversial social programs there's disagreement about, several times over with the amount of money that's been frittered away on this war.
What's wrong with this picture?
Well, it's an article about Enron, and a picture of Enron, and yet something seems amiss...
On judicial activism
Having seen this headline on Alito, I felt the need to comment. And by felt the need to comment, I mean that I don't want to work and this seems a reasonable way to procrastinate.
Complaints about judicial activism are stupid, plain and simple. "Judicial activism" is merely Republican code for "not agreeing with us." Moreover, it's a dangerous fallacy to profess a belief in a single, totally objective interpretation of law. It just doesn't exist, and to convince people that it does is to convince them that one particular viewpoint is an indisputable truth, which, much as the conservative Congressional majority would like us to believe, it isn't.
Judges are not administrators, and they were never meant to be. That is, it is not the case that the law is entirely prescriptive, and judges are there merely to unquestioningly administer those prescriptions. Reality, and consequently law, are simply too complex for that to be the case. It is unavoidable that a judge must attempt to discern intent behind a set of laws and rule accordingly. The difference between rule of law and prejudicial magistrates is that a judge is supposed to base his or her judgments on an academic interpretation of law and precedent rather than his or her own personal opinions about either the specific case or the issue at hand. It is unavoidable, however, that a judge's opinions about particular judicial principles shape his or her judgments, and that is has it should be. Though Scalia is generally a sleaze, and he should never be forgiven for his prejudice in the Bush v. Gore case, it is to his credit that he dissented to the majority opinion that upheld the federal government's priority in regulation of marijuana use in California. I'm sure, being the conservative douchebag he is, he hates the idea of legalized marijuana, but he felt compelled to rule in favor of it based on his belief in limited government and states' rights. That's how judges are supposed to operate.
It is frustrating, then, to see all this rhetoric about "judicial activism" surrounding Alito. It's quite simply the wrong fucking debate. The issue is not whether Alito will dispassionately administer the law "as it is written." The Supreme Court by its very nature addresses issues where the law is murky, and decisions will necessarily be based upon larger issues and concerns. Therefore, what people _should_ be looking at is what Alito's views on the Constitution are, and what larger principles he adheres to when making decisions. And the evidence is compelling that he believes in an extremely limited governmental power to regulate, well, anything, as well as an interpretation of fundamental Constitutional principles that is so narrow as not to be applicable to modern issues (a la abortion) the way Scalia and Thomas do. And it is on that fact, not his supposed "activism," that he should be filibustered as an extremist.
(As an aside, this op-ed by George Will, who is often a right-wing douchebag, was surprisingly cogent. Probably that's because the one area I tend to agree with Conservatives [that is, true, academically honest Conservatives] is on the value of meritocracy over democracy...people are basically dumb and quite often leaving decision-making up to them is a terrible idea)
Complaints about judicial activism are stupid, plain and simple. "Judicial activism" is merely Republican code for "not agreeing with us." Moreover, it's a dangerous fallacy to profess a belief in a single, totally objective interpretation of law. It just doesn't exist, and to convince people that it does is to convince them that one particular viewpoint is an indisputable truth, which, much as the conservative Congressional majority would like us to believe, it isn't.
Judges are not administrators, and they were never meant to be. That is, it is not the case that the law is entirely prescriptive, and judges are there merely to unquestioningly administer those prescriptions. Reality, and consequently law, are simply too complex for that to be the case. It is unavoidable that a judge must attempt to discern intent behind a set of laws and rule accordingly. The difference between rule of law and prejudicial magistrates is that a judge is supposed to base his or her judgments on an academic interpretation of law and precedent rather than his or her own personal opinions about either the specific case or the issue at hand. It is unavoidable, however, that a judge's opinions about particular judicial principles shape his or her judgments, and that is has it should be. Though Scalia is generally a sleaze, and he should never be forgiven for his prejudice in the Bush v. Gore case, it is to his credit that he dissented to the majority opinion that upheld the federal government's priority in regulation of marijuana use in California. I'm sure, being the conservative douchebag he is, he hates the idea of legalized marijuana, but he felt compelled to rule in favor of it based on his belief in limited government and states' rights. That's how judges are supposed to operate.
It is frustrating, then, to see all this rhetoric about "judicial activism" surrounding Alito. It's quite simply the wrong fucking debate. The issue is not whether Alito will dispassionately administer the law "as it is written." The Supreme Court by its very nature addresses issues where the law is murky, and decisions will necessarily be based upon larger issues and concerns. Therefore, what people _should_ be looking at is what Alito's views on the Constitution are, and what larger principles he adheres to when making decisions. And the evidence is compelling that he believes in an extremely limited governmental power to regulate, well, anything, as well as an interpretation of fundamental Constitutional principles that is so narrow as not to be applicable to modern issues (a la abortion) the way Scalia and Thomas do. And it is on that fact, not his supposed "activism," that he should be filibustered as an extremist.
(As an aside, this op-ed by George Will, who is often a right-wing douchebag, was surprisingly cogent. Probably that's because the one area I tend to agree with Conservatives [that is, true, academically honest Conservatives] is on the value of meritocracy over democracy...people are basically dumb and quite often leaving decision-making up to them is a terrible idea)
Friday, January 06, 2006
Thursday, January 05, 2006
Return of Futurama
It seems Futurama will be following in Family Guy's footsteps.
This suggests to me that the initial failure of both Futurama and Family Guy rest not on those shows' respective creators and writers but squarely on the shoulders of the idiots in charge of scheduling at Fox. Fucking 'tards.
This suggests to me that the initial failure of both Futurama and Family Guy rest not on those shows' respective creators and writers but squarely on the shoulders of the idiots in charge of scheduling at Fox. Fucking 'tards.
Urges
Believe it or not, you're probably better off as a consumer going with Microsoft's Urge music service over iTunes. Heresy, I know, but let me explain...
Apple makes virtually no money on iTunes. In fact, virtually nobody makes money on music services because consumers generally aren't willing to pay that much for individual songs, and what they will pay is pretty much exactly what the RIAA is willing to sell the licenses for. The reason, then, that Apple even bothers with iTunes is one reason and one reason only: to sell iPods. And guess what? If iTunes exists solely to support iPod sales, do you think Apple will ever open up their DRM-protected audio format to other music players? Nope!
In contrast, Microsoft's Urge will undoubtedly be supported by Windows Mobile and Windows media licenses, which means that Microsoft has an incentive to have as many different devices be able to access the service as possible. So, in fact, you'll (probably) have more options with Urge than you will with iTunes. Fancy that.
But yes, I know...Microsoft is evil, Apple only does things that are pure and true, blah blah blah. Do you people have any idea the premiums Apple gets on their hardware? It's ridiculous, and it's totally unjustifiable by anything but zealotry.
Apple makes virtually no money on iTunes. In fact, virtually nobody makes money on music services because consumers generally aren't willing to pay that much for individual songs, and what they will pay is pretty much exactly what the RIAA is willing to sell the licenses for. The reason, then, that Apple even bothers with iTunes is one reason and one reason only: to sell iPods. And guess what? If iTunes exists solely to support iPod sales, do you think Apple will ever open up their DRM-protected audio format to other music players? Nope!
In contrast, Microsoft's Urge will undoubtedly be supported by Windows Mobile and Windows media licenses, which means that Microsoft has an incentive to have as many different devices be able to access the service as possible. So, in fact, you'll (probably) have more options with Urge than you will with iTunes. Fancy that.
But yes, I know...Microsoft is evil, Apple only does things that are pure and true, blah blah blah. Do you people have any idea the premiums Apple gets on their hardware? It's ridiculous, and it's totally unjustifiable by anything but zealotry.
Wednesday, January 04, 2006
A goddamn waste of money
I saw this story on people in Missouri (who no doubt have nothing better to do) finding the largest known prime number, and I couldn't help but think about what an utter waste of time, money, and resources it was.
I am, of course, as big a nerd as they come, but calculating large prime numbers seems stupid and pointless to me. I don't think we really gain anything from it. It doesn't advance crypto research or anything like that, and it's not really much of an engineering feat to do it. It just takes a really long time.
I did a quick back of the hand calculation with a researcher here, and we estimated that, given about 10 cents per kilowatt per hour, the 700 compute years it took to calculate the prime would cost somewhere between $100k to $300k.
That's a fuck of a lot of money to pay for a prime number.
I am, of course, as big a nerd as they come, but calculating large prime numbers seems stupid and pointless to me. I don't think we really gain anything from it. It doesn't advance crypto research or anything like that, and it's not really much of an engineering feat to do it. It just takes a really long time.
I did a quick back of the hand calculation with a researcher here, and we estimated that, given about 10 cents per kilowatt per hour, the 700 compute years it took to calculate the prime would cost somewhere between $100k to $300k.
That's a fuck of a lot of money to pay for a prime number.
Cool! Or hot. Or rather, both.
Seems plausible to me...wonder if it has any future.
I am increasingly of the opinion that the world really doesn't have an energy crisis and never truly will. There's a fucking huge (and I mean fucking _HUGE_) perpetual thermonuclear explosion going on not 8 light-minutes from our goofy little blue orb that's generating more energy than we could ever hope to consume. The problem is converting it to something usable in an efficient and cheap way.
The amount of power potentially available from solar, wind, and geothermal sources is copious and renewable. There's enough power out there to power your car, your house, your pda, your xbox, your blender, your fridge, your a/c, your microwave, and even your cat for fuck's sake...that's not the issue. The issue is that all our equipment is geared towards the combustion of fossil fuels, and that's very difficult (and costly) to change. Now, if we didn't have assholes like Ted Stevens in Congress who want to drill in ANWR for their own personal amusement and profit (they saute baby seals in petrochemicals...I've seen it!), we might actually embark on a prudent plan for developing such technologies and switching over to them. But, instead, because Americans are lazy and their politicians are corrupt, we're going to bury our heads in the sand and keep using oil until there isn't a drop left and then panic. Oh, we'll have plenty of energy, but we won't be able to use it. Like having a potato gun but no potatoes. Or Barbies. Or anything else one launches with a potato gun. Kittens. Whatever.
I am increasingly of the opinion that the world really doesn't have an energy crisis and never truly will. There's a fucking huge (and I mean fucking _HUGE_) perpetual thermonuclear explosion going on not 8 light-minutes from our goofy little blue orb that's generating more energy than we could ever hope to consume. The problem is converting it to something usable in an efficient and cheap way.
The amount of power potentially available from solar, wind, and geothermal sources is copious and renewable. There's enough power out there to power your car, your house, your pda, your xbox, your blender, your fridge, your a/c, your microwave, and even your cat for fuck's sake...that's not the issue. The issue is that all our equipment is geared towards the combustion of fossil fuels, and that's very difficult (and costly) to change. Now, if we didn't have assholes like Ted Stevens in Congress who want to drill in ANWR for their own personal amusement and profit (they saute baby seals in petrochemicals...I've seen it!), we might actually embark on a prudent plan for developing such technologies and switching over to them. But, instead, because Americans are lazy and their politicians are corrupt, we're going to bury our heads in the sand and keep using oil until there isn't a drop left and then panic. Oh, we'll have plenty of energy, but we won't be able to use it. Like having a potato gun but no potatoes. Or Barbies. Or anything else one launches with a potato gun. Kittens. Whatever.
Dear god...sensible legislation!
From Wisconsin, no less!
Though I have business issues with the open source movement, this kind of legislation is just plain common sense. Computer scientists have been screaming since the whole electronic voting debacle that you have to have a paper trail for something as important as voting, and for transparency reason the "blueprints" for the voting software need to be viewable by the public. I mean, fucking "duh."
On a related topic, I realized the other day that there's kind of an inherent tension between patents and open source. As I've said before, I think freely available source code for commercial software is generally, with a few exceptions, a good thing. It allows for external evaluation and better compatibility between programs. I part company with open source, however, when it comes to the "free software" movement because, well, it's stupid, or at the very least counter-productive. But I've rambled about that topic before.
In my ideal world, you shouldn't need to hide your code in order to protect your inventions or business model. Things like copyright should prohibit you from using a piece of commercial software willy-nilly without paying for it because, all things being equal, the law should prohibit actions you could potentially take rather than fundamentally strip your ability to take those actions in the first place. It's the difference between having speed limits and putting a speed regulator in your car that prevents you from going more the 65 mph. One is a sensible world, the other downright Orwellian (no really...it's definitionally Orwellian...read "1984").
The problem is that such a world depends on protections of intellectual property, or in other words, the degree to which allowing anyone and everyone to look at your code does not jeapordize your incentive to develop a piece of software is directly correlated with the strength of intellectual property law, i.e., patents. But we've already said that the state of patent law in this country is ridiculous. Well, fuck. I guess you can't win.
Anyway, I stand by my assertion that IP law needs to be drastically more intelligent. Copyright is actually generally okay (except for its duration, which is unjustifiably long...80 years? Really? How much protection does Mickey need?), and is a good way to prevent outright theft of code. Patents are trickier...at the very least, the bar needs to be much higher ("one-click" is something that Sling Blade "french fried potaters" guy could have thought up while watching tv...that is _not_ a significant invention), and idiotic protections of things like business practices need to go. That was a pandora's box that never should have been opened.
But, of course, we have a government that goes to the highest bidder, so until Microsoft and the other tech giants decide to really put their muscle behind reforming patent law, it ain't changing any time soon.
Though I have business issues with the open source movement, this kind of legislation is just plain common sense. Computer scientists have been screaming since the whole electronic voting debacle that you have to have a paper trail for something as important as voting, and for transparency reason the "blueprints" for the voting software need to be viewable by the public. I mean, fucking "duh."
On a related topic, I realized the other day that there's kind of an inherent tension between patents and open source. As I've said before, I think freely available source code for commercial software is generally, with a few exceptions, a good thing. It allows for external evaluation and better compatibility between programs. I part company with open source, however, when it comes to the "free software" movement because, well, it's stupid, or at the very least counter-productive. But I've rambled about that topic before.
In my ideal world, you shouldn't need to hide your code in order to protect your inventions or business model. Things like copyright should prohibit you from using a piece of commercial software willy-nilly without paying for it because, all things being equal, the law should prohibit actions you could potentially take rather than fundamentally strip your ability to take those actions in the first place. It's the difference between having speed limits and putting a speed regulator in your car that prevents you from going more the 65 mph. One is a sensible world, the other downright Orwellian (no really...it's definitionally Orwellian...read "1984").
The problem is that such a world depends on protections of intellectual property, or in other words, the degree to which allowing anyone and everyone to look at your code does not jeapordize your incentive to develop a piece of software is directly correlated with the strength of intellectual property law, i.e., patents. But we've already said that the state of patent law in this country is ridiculous. Well, fuck. I guess you can't win.
Anyway, I stand by my assertion that IP law needs to be drastically more intelligent. Copyright is actually generally okay (except for its duration, which is unjustifiably long...80 years? Really? How much protection does Mickey need?), and is a good way to prevent outright theft of code. Patents are trickier...at the very least, the bar needs to be much higher ("one-click" is something that Sling Blade "french fried potaters" guy could have thought up while watching tv...that is _not_ a significant invention), and idiotic protections of things like business practices need to go. That was a pandora's box that never should have been opened.
But, of course, we have a government that goes to the highest bidder, so until Microsoft and the other tech giants decide to really put their muscle behind reforming patent law, it ain't changing any time soon.
Tuesday, January 03, 2006
A quick addendum to the argument for universal health care
It occurred to me...utterly randomly...after a recent debate on if and how Walmart's decision to change their job descriptions in order to deter the elderly from seeking employment with the company (since it cost the company more in benefits to hire such people) amounted to discrimination, that implementing universal healthcare would essentially sidestep the issue.
The reason that Walmart wanted to deter the elderly from applying was largely health care costs. The problem, regardless of how moral you regard such a move, is that Walmart has to shoulder some of the cost of the elderly's health care. If the cost were on the state instead, there's no incremental cost to Walmart, and they have no more incentive to discriminate in the first place. Granted, there are other similar costs of having the elderly employed (more sick days, etc.), but I think it would help.
See? Problem solved. I'm a genius.
The reason that Walmart wanted to deter the elderly from applying was largely health care costs. The problem, regardless of how moral you regard such a move, is that Walmart has to shoulder some of the cost of the elderly's health care. If the cost were on the state instead, there's no incremental cost to Walmart, and they have no more incentive to discriminate in the first place. Granted, there are other similar costs of having the elderly employed (more sick days, etc.), but I think it would help.
See? Problem solved. I'm a genius.
A serious moral question
Why is it okay to shoot whales to put them out of their misery but not okay to give old, very sick people a painless way to die? Why is human suffering less important than whales'?
BusinessWeek op-ed on the broken state of US patent law
BusinessWeek has a slightly more evidence-backed argument against the current state of patent law in the US than I have herein made.
Wednesday, December 28, 2005
On expected values and game strategies
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?
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?
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)