I was listening to a Talk of the Nation broadcast on city slogans, and I had to share a few of the best (proposed):
"Missouri Loves Company."
"Chicago: Where Voters Never Die."
"Oakland: It's Nicer Than You Think."
"New Jersey: You Got a Problem With That?"
"Oregon: You Know It's Summertime When the Rain Gets Warmer."
"Flagstaff: Come On Vacation, Leave On Probation."
"Naples (NY): A Drinking Town With a Fishing Problem."
Thursday, June 01, 2006
Wednesday, May 31, 2006
Tuesday, May 30, 2006
Stupid ubiquitous name
I deeply resent the fact that this is the first link that comes up when you search for "Nicholas Murphy" on Google...
Monday, May 29, 2006
Sigh
Why is it I know the guy is a hopeless nerd purely from his pronunciation of the word, "BUT-ton"?
If only they put as much effort into getting dates...
If only they put as much effort into getting dates...
Sunday, May 28, 2006
Cane Toad video
A cute little computer-animated comedy about cane toads (big video download). I think my favorite part is mouthing the word, "Fuck!..."
Saturday, May 27, 2006
The mindless privatization mantra
I didn't need the New York Times to tell me that Mitch Daniels was a Republican. The idiocy of the content of the op-ed on privatizing Indiana roads was enough to tell me that.
I find this kind of thing infuriating. Roads are a quintessentially public good that make no sense to privatize. None. Get that through your government-phobic heads, you idiots. If Daniels had taken even the most basic economics class, he would know that.
The fact that this is a stupid idea is so obvious that I find it difficult figuring out where to start explaining why. It's like trying to explain to someone why they shouldn't jab a serrated knife into someone's kidney.
First of all, it's a goddamn toll road. It's not that complicated to operate. The fact that Indiana can't make it work speaks more about the idiots in the Indiana legislature and red-state politics than it does about the fucking toll road. The biggest impediment to fiscal solvency is less government inefficiency and more an electorate that has been insulated against feeling the costs of public services, and a Republican party that fosters that ignorance in the name of "smaller government."
I guarantee you that if anyone had even bothered suggesting an initial investment in electronic toll passes or increasing toll charges to keep pace with inflation, the goddamn red state Republicans would have jumped on them as "tax increasers" and demanded they move aside for the "belt-tightening that the beaurocrats are too afraid to do."
So what happens instead? The state pays a foreign firm to do the rate increases for them, and they have to pay the profit margins of the company on _top_ of that. Moreover, toll regulation is no longer responsive to the electorate given the binding legal contract, so the private firm can do whatever the hell they want. And all they have to do to get out of the inflation cap on toll increases is convince a politician to remove the cap in the name of "reducing regulation and red tape." And Indiana no longer has the option of converting the road from a toll road back to a normal road when they figure out that tolling is a bad idea, and they come up with a better funding model.
And don't even get me started on the idea that selling public property to foreign firms is a solution to the trade deficit. That's like selling your house to your bookie and claiming that it solves your gambling problem.
Welcome to the modus operandi of the modern conservative.
I find this kind of thing infuriating. Roads are a quintessentially public good that make no sense to privatize. None. Get that through your government-phobic heads, you idiots. If Daniels had taken even the most basic economics class, he would know that.
The fact that this is a stupid idea is so obvious that I find it difficult figuring out where to start explaining why. It's like trying to explain to someone why they shouldn't jab a serrated knife into someone's kidney.
First of all, it's a goddamn toll road. It's not that complicated to operate. The fact that Indiana can't make it work speaks more about the idiots in the Indiana legislature and red-state politics than it does about the fucking toll road. The biggest impediment to fiscal solvency is less government inefficiency and more an electorate that has been insulated against feeling the costs of public services, and a Republican party that fosters that ignorance in the name of "smaller government."
I guarantee you that if anyone had even bothered suggesting an initial investment in electronic toll passes or increasing toll charges to keep pace with inflation, the goddamn red state Republicans would have jumped on them as "tax increasers" and demanded they move aside for the "belt-tightening that the beaurocrats are too afraid to do."
So what happens instead? The state pays a foreign firm to do the rate increases for them, and they have to pay the profit margins of the company on _top_ of that. Moreover, toll regulation is no longer responsive to the electorate given the binding legal contract, so the private firm can do whatever the hell they want. And all they have to do to get out of the inflation cap on toll increases is convince a politician to remove the cap in the name of "reducing regulation and red tape." And Indiana no longer has the option of converting the road from a toll road back to a normal road when they figure out that tolling is a bad idea, and they come up with a better funding model.
And don't even get me started on the idea that selling public property to foreign firms is a solution to the trade deficit. That's like selling your house to your bookie and claiming that it solves your gambling problem.
Welcome to the modus operandi of the modern conservative.
Friday, May 26, 2006
The 25 Worst Tech Products of All Time
PCWorld's list of "The 25 Worst Tech Products of All Time" had to be shared.
- America Online (1989-2006)
- RealNetworks RealPlayer (1999)
- Syncronys SoftRAM (1995)
- Microsoft Windows Millennium (2000)
- Sony BMG Music CDs (2005)
- Disney The Lion King CD-ROM (1994)
- Microsoft Bob (1995)
- Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 (2001)
- Pressplay and Musicnet (2002)
- dBASE IV (1988)
- Priceline Groceries and Gas (2000)
- PointCast (1996)
- IBM PCjr. (1984)
- Gateway 2000 10th Anniversary PC (1995)
- Iomega Zip Drive (1998)
- Comet Cursor (1997)
- Apple Macintosh Portable (1989)
- IBM Deskstar 75GXP (2000)
- OQO Model 1 (2004)
- CueCat (2000)
- Eyetop Wearable DVD Player (2004)
- Apple Pippin @World (1996)
- Free PCs (1999)
- DigiScents iSmell (2001)
- Sharp RD3D Notebook (2004)
Thursday, May 25, 2006
A mammary-based theory of gender relations
Boobs: ingeniously designed glandular dispenser of nutritious and immune-bolstering infant formula, or insidious device of male enslavement and genital inflation?! Tonight, we investigate!
All of human history and endeavor, it seems, revolves centrally around the boob. As far back as the Renaissance, the entire art world, it seemed, was boob-obsessed. Sure...art historians will tell you that the Renaissance marked a departure from an obsession with the imagery of the divine and other-worldly to a more human-centric iconography, quintessentially represented by the study of the human form in art and sculpture. But we all know, I think, that the great Renaissance masters just wanted themselves some titties.
Oh yes, my friends...they were men, and as such, they were titty fiends. They may have explained it away as a high-minded artistic exploration, but after the long Dark Ages, we finally slipped out from under the thumb of the Church (who, incidentally, controlled the populace primarily by controlling social mores that dictated the rules of marrige and tata-access), and the artists wanted them some sweater-meat. After all, what better way to get nubile young women to pose for you than to tell them you need them for an enduring work of art? Not only that, you have a perfect excuse to turn away the fuglies!
Yes, my friends, our story starts in the Renaissance, but there it does not end. Why do you think Chris Columbus set out on a perilous voyage on rickety ships into the unknown (ships, I might add, that ostensibly had few if any chicks)? That "economic incentive to find alternate routes to the spice islands" argument is horse shit. I think we all know Mr. Columbus had gotten his hands on a National Geographic, and he wanted himself some Indian bazooms. Forehead-dot Indians or teepee Indians, it didn't so much matter...just so long as he found himself some unshirted knockers. And it was his discovery (possibly with the help of Norse explorers, who liked to carve women with big-ass wooden chesticles on the front of their boats, let's remember) that ultimately led to the creation of our great, sex-obsessed modern culture. And we have simple, eternal hoo-has to thank for it. I hope you're properly grateful.
Industrial Revolution? Guys wanted machines to do their work for them so they could spend more time at the titty bar. World War I? Archduke Ferdinand told a friend he was thinking of mandating breast reductions. World War II? A poorly crafted World War I armistice left Germans malnourished and German love melons dangerously small. (The Jewish thing? Jewish jubblies are notoriously resilient, even in the face of minimal caloric intake. Like the jews themselves, jewish butter bags hoard their fat. (ed. Yes, I'm going to hell)) It all comes back to those delicious prisoners of the playtex penitentiary.
So what is it, then, that makes us so obsessed with what are simply modified sweat glands? Why is it about decolletage that leaves us drooling...well, boobs? I don't know. It's wired very deep, whatever it is. All I know is I like me some gazongas, and judging by the existence of Vegas and the internet, I ain't alone.
All of human history and endeavor, it seems, revolves centrally around the boob. As far back as the Renaissance, the entire art world, it seemed, was boob-obsessed. Sure...art historians will tell you that the Renaissance marked a departure from an obsession with the imagery of the divine and other-worldly to a more human-centric iconography, quintessentially represented by the study of the human form in art and sculpture. But we all know, I think, that the great Renaissance masters just wanted themselves some titties.
Oh yes, my friends...they were men, and as such, they were titty fiends. They may have explained it away as a high-minded artistic exploration, but after the long Dark Ages, we finally slipped out from under the thumb of the Church (who, incidentally, controlled the populace primarily by controlling social mores that dictated the rules of marrige and tata-access), and the artists wanted them some sweater-meat. After all, what better way to get nubile young women to pose for you than to tell them you need them for an enduring work of art? Not only that, you have a perfect excuse to turn away the fuglies!
Yes, my friends, our story starts in the Renaissance, but there it does not end. Why do you think Chris Columbus set out on a perilous voyage on rickety ships into the unknown (ships, I might add, that ostensibly had few if any chicks)? That "economic incentive to find alternate routes to the spice islands" argument is horse shit. I think we all know Mr. Columbus had gotten his hands on a National Geographic, and he wanted himself some Indian bazooms. Forehead-dot Indians or teepee Indians, it didn't so much matter...just so long as he found himself some unshirted knockers. And it was his discovery (possibly with the help of Norse explorers, who liked to carve women with big-ass wooden chesticles on the front of their boats, let's remember) that ultimately led to the creation of our great, sex-obsessed modern culture. And we have simple, eternal hoo-has to thank for it. I hope you're properly grateful.
Industrial Revolution? Guys wanted machines to do their work for them so they could spend more time at the titty bar. World War I? Archduke Ferdinand told a friend he was thinking of mandating breast reductions. World War II? A poorly crafted World War I armistice left Germans malnourished and German love melons dangerously small. (The Jewish thing? Jewish jubblies are notoriously resilient, even in the face of minimal caloric intake. Like the jews themselves, jewish butter bags hoard their fat. (ed. Yes, I'm going to hell)) It all comes back to those delicious prisoners of the playtex penitentiary.
So what is it, then, that makes us so obsessed with what are simply modified sweat glands? Why is it about decolletage that leaves us drooling...well, boobs? I don't know. It's wired very deep, whatever it is. All I know is I like me some gazongas, and judging by the existence of Vegas and the internet, I ain't alone.
Deluge!
Wow...I've gotten a fuckload of hits over the past two days. Where did y'all come from?
Update: Apparently this blog comes up high in the list of results for a Google search of "Franzibald," resulting from my quoting of a Penny Arcade news post. Alas, you will find no answers here on the origins of his douchebaggery. Have a look around while you're here, though. :)
Update: Apparently this blog comes up high in the list of results for a Google search of "Franzibald," resulting from my quoting of a Penny Arcade news post. Alas, you will find no answers here on the origins of his douchebaggery. Have a look around while you're here, though. :)
...that said...
...there is such a thing as overstepping bounds.
It's one thing to talk about company business in your blog. It's another to talk about your own personal life and to have an institution you belong to hold you accountable for it. That's bullshit.
It's one thing to talk about company business in your blog. It's another to talk about your own personal life and to have an institution you belong to hold you accountable for it. That's bullshit.
On blogging
I take severe issue with the tone of this piece by the NYT on blogging at work.
Look, boys and girls. You don't have an a priori right to blog, and it's painfully naive and infuriatingly arrogant of you to believe you do. Companies and organizations have PR people for a reason, and that reason is that public perception has a huge, huge effect on business, not to mention any legal liabilities you might incur. Airing a company's dirty laundry, while perhaps entertaining and cathartic for you and even good for potential consumers, is ostensibly _not_ in the company's interest. So why the fuck do you expect them to go along with it happily? No one is so valuable to a company so as to overshadow its legal and public relations efforts. _No one_. And while you might try to argue that, well, transparency in a company's operations is beneficial to society so, therefore, we should protect "dish" bloggers socially, legally, etc., all that will happen is that companies will much more carefully screen who they hire so as to make sure they get positive bloggers.
And guess what? That means suddenly everyone is evaluated in terms of their PR ability, because suddenly every employee is potentially a press contact. Trust me...you don't want that. You will suddenly find yourself _very_ carefully scrutinized. That would be a corporate world that curtailed privacy and personal freedom in a way you can't even imagine.
Point being, you would be doing more damage than good. So shut up, you arrogant, self-centered pricks. The next person who says something like, "It's like, 'This is who I am. Consequences are what they are. I'll go work for someone who doesn't have a problem with it.' " gets tarred, feathered, and set on fire. And then submerged in lemon juice. Then set on fire again, just because.
Which brings me to another thing, one that I don't remember whether I have mentioned before: it peeves me how bloody narcissistic and back-stabbing most blogging is. For me, it's quintessentially assholic to say something about somebody else in a blog that you wouldn't say to their face. In fact, it's even worse than talking about them behind their back because, instead of your comments being limited to a select few people, they are being broadcast across the entire internet for anyone and everyone to see. It's shitty. Moreover, a lot of blogging really is just journalling. And if you want to journal, keep a journal. There's no reason for it to be public. What kind of self-centered asshole thinks that the world wants to read about your feelings about your wardrobe? Or your breakfast?
What about this blog? Well, I hold out the hope that it is, in fact, amusing and entertaining and not at the expense of others or by means simply of gossip. Y'all seem to keep reading it. But probably that's more due to boredom than the quality of the posts here. :)
Oh, and as for the people who were surprised when their employers got upset with their blogging about internal company matters, well, frankly, how retarded are you? What kind of oblivious fucktard doesn't consider that? After all, it's no different than telling all of your friends a secret somebody shared with you in confidence.
"Oh, you didn't want me to tell everyone at work that it burns when you pee?? Well, shit, why didn't you tell me that?"
Look, boys and girls. You don't have an a priori right to blog, and it's painfully naive and infuriatingly arrogant of you to believe you do. Companies and organizations have PR people for a reason, and that reason is that public perception has a huge, huge effect on business, not to mention any legal liabilities you might incur. Airing a company's dirty laundry, while perhaps entertaining and cathartic for you and even good for potential consumers, is ostensibly _not_ in the company's interest. So why the fuck do you expect them to go along with it happily? No one is so valuable to a company so as to overshadow its legal and public relations efforts. _No one_. And while you might try to argue that, well, transparency in a company's operations is beneficial to society so, therefore, we should protect "dish" bloggers socially, legally, etc., all that will happen is that companies will much more carefully screen who they hire so as to make sure they get positive bloggers.
And guess what? That means suddenly everyone is evaluated in terms of their PR ability, because suddenly every employee is potentially a press contact. Trust me...you don't want that. You will suddenly find yourself _very_ carefully scrutinized. That would be a corporate world that curtailed privacy and personal freedom in a way you can't even imagine.
Point being, you would be doing more damage than good. So shut up, you arrogant, self-centered pricks. The next person who says something like, "It's like, 'This is who I am. Consequences are what they are. I'll go work for someone who doesn't have a problem with it.' " gets tarred, feathered, and set on fire. And then submerged in lemon juice. Then set on fire again, just because.
Which brings me to another thing, one that I don't remember whether I have mentioned before: it peeves me how bloody narcissistic and back-stabbing most blogging is. For me, it's quintessentially assholic to say something about somebody else in a blog that you wouldn't say to their face. In fact, it's even worse than talking about them behind their back because, instead of your comments being limited to a select few people, they are being broadcast across the entire internet for anyone and everyone to see. It's shitty. Moreover, a lot of blogging really is just journalling. And if you want to journal, keep a journal. There's no reason for it to be public. What kind of self-centered asshole thinks that the world wants to read about your feelings about your wardrobe? Or your breakfast?
What about this blog? Well, I hold out the hope that it is, in fact, amusing and entertaining and not at the expense of others or by means simply of gossip. Y'all seem to keep reading it. But probably that's more due to boredom than the quality of the posts here. :)
Oh, and as for the people who were surprised when their employers got upset with their blogging about internal company matters, well, frankly, how retarded are you? What kind of oblivious fucktard doesn't consider that? After all, it's no different than telling all of your friends a secret somebody shared with you in confidence.
"Oh, you didn't want me to tell everyone at work that it burns when you pee?? Well, shit, why didn't you tell me that?"
DVR in your living room: fine. DVR just outside your living room: gross violation of copyright?
The entertainment industry's suit against Cablevision is ridiculous. I can only hope that it gets properly thrown out.
The particular method of implementing a DVR shouldn't be relevent to copyright law. So long as the effect of the service is no different from having a DVR in your living room, there should be no legal difference.
The real issue, as the article points out, is that entertainment companies hate DVRs because they steal advertising revenue, and they want to be able to intercede in its further adoption.
Fuckers. Although, at the moment, people who don't have DVRs are essentially subsidizing those who do (because they actually have to watch the advertising that funds the content, whereas I don't). So maybe I should be cheering on the entertainment industry. Except not...they're just stalling for a way to milk new revenue out of DVR technology.
Confused yet? :)
The particular method of implementing a DVR shouldn't be relevent to copyright law. So long as the effect of the service is no different from having a DVR in your living room, there should be no legal difference.
The real issue, as the article points out, is that entertainment companies hate DVRs because they steal advertising revenue, and they want to be able to intercede in its further adoption.
Fuckers. Although, at the moment, people who don't have DVRs are essentially subsidizing those who do (because they actually have to watch the advertising that funds the content, whereas I don't). So maybe I should be cheering on the entertainment industry. Except not...they're just stalling for a way to milk new revenue out of DVR technology.
Confused yet? :)
Wednesday, May 24, 2006
Cascading failures
Nice. How many House Majority Leaders are we going to go through before we find one that can't be implicated for something?
Sigh.
Sigh.
Monday, May 22, 2006
A shame
The fact that TicketMaster seems to now be engaged in institutional scalping is a damn shame. Going to very few concerts or sporting events myself, I don't care that much, but such events are quintessentially "for the plebs," and to give up on trying to make even the best seats affordable to the average joe is a damn shame.
You never know though...maybe this will teach people that sometimes an economically efficient outcome isn't a "morally" efficient outcome. :)
I suspect TicketMaster will face a bit of a backlash on this. Then again, the fanatics who try to get such tickets may just be crazy enough to happily spend their entire savings outbidding each other.
You never know though...maybe this will teach people that sometimes an economically efficient outcome isn't a "morally" efficient outcome. :)
I suspect TicketMaster will face a bit of a backlash on this. Then again, the fanatics who try to get such tickets may just be crazy enough to happily spend their entire savings outbidding each other.
Homer in space
For the record, the Homer in space Simpsons episodes is one of the finest ones ever made. (It just reran.) How come I can't get no tang up in here?!
Quiet, you!...
Quiet, you!...
A riddle
What do you get when you cross a pig, a taser gun, and a whole bunch of cocaine? Give up? A press release!
Friday, May 19, 2006
TopSpots
Marie always gets me to do these weird internet survey thingies (they'll make you give them your name and stuff...just put in a bullshit name and click next wherever possible):
My Top Spots:
My Top Spots:
- Providence, RI
- Eugene, OR
- Baltimore, MD
- Corvallis, OR
- New Haven, CT
- Boston, MA
- Portland, OR
- Danbury, CT
- Charleston, WV
- Salem, OR
- Cape Cod, MA
- Frederick, MD
- Medford, OR
- Hartford, CT
- Cambridge, MA
- Worcester, MA
- Stamford-Norwalk, CT
- Gaithersburg, MA
- Bend, OR
- Washington, DC
- Fayetteville, AK
- Champaign-Urbana, IL
- Albuquerque, NM
- Madison, WI
The finest metaphor ever penned
I had to sit in awe for a few moments:
"L. H. Franzibald - the retarded doppleganger responsible for these perversions - could no more compete with me than could my pale shadow mount and subsequently impregnate a galloping giraffe. It is analogies like this for which I am well known." -- Tycho Brahe, Penny Arcade
That's...that's beautiful.
"L. H. Franzibald - the retarded doppleganger responsible for these perversions - could no more compete with me than could my pale shadow mount and subsequently impregnate a galloping giraffe. It is analogies like this for which I am well known." -- Tycho Brahe, Penny Arcade
That's...that's beautiful.
Musical self-loathing
I am ashamed of and angry at myself for liking the following:
Nickelback - Last One Standing
The _multiple_ songs I like by Kelly Clarkson
I will add to the list as I think of things.
Ironically, still not ashamed of liking Enya. Go figure.
Nickelback - Last One Standing
The _multiple_ songs I like by Kelly Clarkson
I will add to the list as I think of things.
Ironically, still not ashamed of liking Enya. Go figure.
Thursday, May 18, 2006
Wednesday, May 17, 2006
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
Wrong kind of interview
This is immensely entertaining...does it count as a good or bad interview, do you think?
Monday, May 15, 2006
Seriously, are you surprised?
Wait, the Bush Administration is conducting illicit domestic surveillance to monitor...journalists? But I thought they said they were only interested in al-Qaeda! They _promised_!
Microkernels vs. monolithic kernels
Warning: computer nerdy post. I keep thinking I should start a technical blog so that I don't have to subject you people to computer science rants that not only do you not care about, but that don't even make any sense. Sigh. Meantime...
It blows me away that the discussion of monolithic versus microkernels is still going on. I learned about these heated arguments in college, and in today's world, microkernel is the hands-down winner.
Look. It boils down to isolation. Isolation is a good thing. No piece of software is written correctly. It _will_ do something stupid, so you want to isolate it as much as possible. To put it perhaps more accurately, you should be relying on something stronger than the cleverness and carefulness of the programmer to prevent different pieces of code from stepping on each other, because if modern software history has taught us anything, it's that even the most veteran programmers will screw this up.
Now, I don't care how you achieve that isolation. Address spaces are the standard way to achieve this. But they aren't the only way. Software checking and verifiers that will look at a piece of code and say, "Yes, ok, I _promise_ this code won't do anything unreasonably stupid. It will play nice with its friends." Personally, I think this is the way to go. There's no reason you can't have something that acts like a microkernel but lives all in the same address space, thereby avoiding the performance penalties.
Regardless, if Linus is really arguing that shared data structures are important, he's an idiot. Okay, okay, not an idiot...just mired in outdated ways of thinking about software. I think, as Tanenbaum suggests, Linus is still thinking about performance as the ultimate goal of software when reliability is most often far more important in today's world. But anyway, regarding shared data structures, it should be a fundamental design principle to avoid doing that wherever possible, because that's exactly the means by which one errant player can take down a whole system.
As an aside, to make sure I cover the major computer science religious wars all in one post, this is why I believe message-passing is superior to shared memory models. Yes, they are functionally equivalent since you can model one with the other, but message-passing encourages a more isolated design.
So there. Hmmph.
It blows me away that the discussion of monolithic versus microkernels is still going on. I learned about these heated arguments in college, and in today's world, microkernel is the hands-down winner.
Look. It boils down to isolation. Isolation is a good thing. No piece of software is written correctly. It _will_ do something stupid, so you want to isolate it as much as possible. To put it perhaps more accurately, you should be relying on something stronger than the cleverness and carefulness of the programmer to prevent different pieces of code from stepping on each other, because if modern software history has taught us anything, it's that even the most veteran programmers will screw this up.
Now, I don't care how you achieve that isolation. Address spaces are the standard way to achieve this. But they aren't the only way. Software checking and verifiers that will look at a piece of code and say, "Yes, ok, I _promise_ this code won't do anything unreasonably stupid. It will play nice with its friends." Personally, I think this is the way to go. There's no reason you can't have something that acts like a microkernel but lives all in the same address space, thereby avoiding the performance penalties.
Regardless, if Linus is really arguing that shared data structures are important, he's an idiot. Okay, okay, not an idiot...just mired in outdated ways of thinking about software. I think, as Tanenbaum suggests, Linus is still thinking about performance as the ultimate goal of software when reliability is most often far more important in today's world. But anyway, regarding shared data structures, it should be a fundamental design principle to avoid doing that wherever possible, because that's exactly the means by which one errant player can take down a whole system.
As an aside, to make sure I cover the major computer science religious wars all in one post, this is why I believe message-passing is superior to shared memory models. Yes, they are functionally equivalent since you can model one with the other, but message-passing encourages a more isolated design.
So there. Hmmph.
The ultimate eBay auction
You know, I'm used to hearing stupid ideas come out of the American Enterprise Institute (and the crazy fuckers who reside therein), but mostly those stupid ideas are in the realm of traditional conservative whining (welfare, etc.). This little op-ed, however, _truly_ came out of left (right?) field.
Look, I understand that being the nutball conservative with a giant, inexplicable chip on your shoulder that you are, the thought of being able to legally regard the poor as a giant organ reserve that can be tapped in an emergency for a nominal fee (because, really, why do poor people need to be able to feed their children _and_ have a redundant kidney? It's just wasteful...) is damn near orgasmic. But there's a much simpler solution to this problem.
Organ donation should be opt-out, not opt-in. Currently, because religious leaders would have a fit otherwise, you specifically have to designate yourself as an organ donor. This is stupid. You should have to designate yourself as _not_ an organ donor. Otherwise, we assume that you, being dead, won't have any further use for your organs. I argue that this is a reasonable assumptiong because, let me remind you, you're DEAD. All things being equal, any unease you may have about the use of your organs is basically irrelevent at that point, because (say it with me now) YOU'RE FUCKING DEAD.
Basically, unless you come in and sign a form that says, "Yes, I am a selfish, superstitious fuck who wants his perfectly usable organs that could save someone's life to be buried under six feet of dirt because I believe that a magic, invisible man in the sky wants it that way," all your bits are up for grabs when you kick the bucket.
Really. That's all you need to do. You don't have to force poor people to sell their organs. You just have to change the default on a form in the DMV, and it would have a much, _much_ higher yield.
So, in conclusion, Ms. Satel, you're an idiot. BTW, are you aware that every single person listed on the AEI people page looks like a pasty, arrogant, white person just from their pictures?! I don't even have to read any of their shit. I can just _see_ it...
(Aside: what kind of douchebag has a link under her list of "articles" to what amounts to a Hillary-bashing session? Oh, right...the same kind of douchbag who would voluntarily marry Dick Cheney. *shudder*
At least maintain some semblance of decorum, for fuck's sake. It sounds like the blog post of a jilted middle-school girl more than it does something that actually deserves attention at a think tank, albeit a biased one. I swear...there are a lot of conservative women I don't like, but very few are quite the uniquely stupid bitch that Lynne Cheney is.)
Look, I understand that being the nutball conservative with a giant, inexplicable chip on your shoulder that you are, the thought of being able to legally regard the poor as a giant organ reserve that can be tapped in an emergency for a nominal fee (because, really, why do poor people need to be able to feed their children _and_ have a redundant kidney? It's just wasteful...) is damn near orgasmic. But there's a much simpler solution to this problem.
Organ donation should be opt-out, not opt-in. Currently, because religious leaders would have a fit otherwise, you specifically have to designate yourself as an organ donor. This is stupid. You should have to designate yourself as _not_ an organ donor. Otherwise, we assume that you, being dead, won't have any further use for your organs. I argue that this is a reasonable assumptiong because, let me remind you, you're DEAD. All things being equal, any unease you may have about the use of your organs is basically irrelevent at that point, because (say it with me now) YOU'RE FUCKING DEAD.
Basically, unless you come in and sign a form that says, "Yes, I am a selfish, superstitious fuck who wants his perfectly usable organs that could save someone's life to be buried under six feet of dirt because I believe that a magic, invisible man in the sky wants it that way," all your bits are up for grabs when you kick the bucket.
Really. That's all you need to do. You don't have to force poor people to sell their organs. You just have to change the default on a form in the DMV, and it would have a much, _much_ higher yield.
So, in conclusion, Ms. Satel, you're an idiot. BTW, are you aware that every single person listed on the AEI people page looks like a pasty, arrogant, white person just from their pictures?! I don't even have to read any of their shit. I can just _see_ it...
(Aside: what kind of douchebag has a link under her list of "articles" to what amounts to a Hillary-bashing session? Oh, right...the same kind of douchbag who would voluntarily marry Dick Cheney. *shudder*
At least maintain some semblance of decorum, for fuck's sake. It sounds like the blog post of a jilted middle-school girl more than it does something that actually deserves attention at a think tank, albeit a biased one. I swear...there are a lot of conservative women I don't like, but very few are quite the uniquely stupid bitch that Lynne Cheney is.)
Saturday, May 13, 2006
WikiThePresident
Dagnavit. They stole my idea. I had even registered civicmemory.org.
I think it should be a more general site for all political figures.
I think it should be a more general site for all political figures.
Friday, May 12, 2006
Bizarre foreign phrases
One wonders why these phrases in particular were selected as being important.
I have the best t-shirt ever
Side (tastefully): Microsoft
Front:
Front:
First rule of computer club:
You DO NOT talk about computer club!
You DO NOT talk about computer club!
Pragmatic evolution
Who cares if it's "true." It works. And we're fucked without it.
(_More_ evidence I come from the good Carolina...Chapel Hill rep-uh-zent!!! :-D)
(_More_ evidence I come from the good Carolina...Chapel Hill rep-uh-zent!!! :-D)
Thursday, May 11, 2006
The mythical efficient worker
I can't help but point out and comment on Randy Pausch's Time Management slide deck.
I've met Randy. I met him when I went to CMU, and he's a really great, affable guy. Moreover, he gets that computers are useless if they don't actually help people, and as such, computer science is fundamentally a human endeavor. He's also actively involved in making computer science a better place for women and trying to understand why it seems to be such a deterrent for half of the human race. These are all laudable qualities.
At the same time, as evidenced by his time management deck, Randy is guilty of "type-A syndrome." All of his suggestions for leading a hyper-regimented, ultra-efficient life seem reasonable on the surface, and all of us at some point or another have kicked ourselves for not having our shit together more, but nonetheless, he's missing something.
The something he's missing is that different people have different personalities and different skills. Maybe having a meticulously clean desk and a journal of his time efficiency works for him, but for many people (myself included, to some degree), nothing could be more torturous. Part of the joy in life is living in unplanned spontaneity, and to so rigorously regiment it like that is, for lack of a better term, soul-destroying.
I have no doubt that Randy is incredibly efficient. But at what cost? For him, apparently very little. He's happy, and perhaps more importantly, he wouldn't be happy if he weren't like that. But for many people, that would be to live a life that isn't them. Sure, they might be able to carry on the charade, and even to achieve great material or reputational success, but they'd find themselves empty and unhappy. They'll wake up in their mid-forties, discover they've dedicated their entire life to achievement, and suddenly decide they need a red porsche. This is the mid-life crisis.
Sure, Randy says that you have to schedule vacation and down time, and you have to be damn sure not to work on your down time. This is at least better than executive culture where you work until you either die or have enough money to retire at 35. But still...you can't really schedule enjoyment like that, at least not effectively. Think about it...does it really work to say, "I'm going to have fun from August 12th through August 28th. Then I will have achieved 2 weeks worth of refreshment, which will lead to a 20-40% increase of efficiency over the following three months, exponentially decaying." It sounds stupid, and it is.
The part of it I particularly don't like is the indulgence in the uniquely American mindset that you should "do what you love." It's a nice idea, and if you can pull it off, great. But we're the only nation on earth, really, that equates work with life to that degree. The reason you should do what you love is because we expect ourselves to spend our lives working. But think about it...isn't that concept terrifying?
Look at history. In the dawn of time, people spent most of their lives struggling to survive. They had to work in order just to live. But advancements in agricultural technology allowed people to settle, and moreover it allowed division of labor such that each family did not have to spend all of its time foraging for its own food. Suddenly, farming could be left to the farmers, which left other people to spend their time on *gasp* other things. Now, granted, other people would somehow have to support themselves, and maybe now they spent their time on metal smelting, but still...
Eventually, improvements in efficiency allowed by technological advancements allowed for free time, and it was only once people had this free time that art, literature, philosophy, government, etc. took off. Free time built civilization!
Your forefathers worked hard to save and provide for their descendents precisely so that their children would have an easier life than they did. Isn't is sadly ironic, then, that we choose to use that freedom to work just as hard in pursuit of, well, basically nothing? I find it downright discouraging that we're not even working for any particular reason anymore than a blind faith in work as a self-fulfilling ethic.
But, I digress. The point I was aiming for was that not everyone can do what they love. In fact, most people _can't_ do what they love. It's only a priviledged few that can, and therefore as a general piece of advice, "Do what you love" is absolutely terrible.
I would rephrase it. I would say, "Do what will allow you to do as much of what you love as possible." Okay, granted, not as pithy, and probably doesn't fit on a t-shirt, but I think it's more accurate. For most people, work is _work_. It's not the thing they want to optimize. It's the thing they use to allow them to do the other things they want to do: play with their children, lie on a beach, paint, write, travel, whatever. Hell, even watch tv.
Which brings me to another point. I _hate_ the "kill your tv" mantra. _Hate it_. I'm itching to get into an argument with those people. I like tv. TV is a joy of my life. Moreover, it's not even that much of an empty indulgence. Some shows are compelling pieces of art. Battlestar: Galactica is a _damn_ good show. I'll put it up against many of the better movies and a whole bunch of the shit books they made me read in school. Similarly, I love watching Nova and National Geographic and such, and I learn from them. And sure, Daily Show is fucking hillarious, but it's actually getting people to engage in politics and current events in a way that they never have before. So the people who say, "Kill your television!" because it is a stupefying anesthetic are arrogant, ignorant bastards who need a strong shot of "shut the hell up."
Anyway...another digressive rant. I should wrap up the original thrust of this post, which was the cult of hyper-efficiency. I don't buy it. I'm not saying you should just do whatever the hell you want and not have any goals or plan on how to achieve them. But life is a balance between planning and working towards an end, and living in the moment and being spontaneous. It's a balance that's different for different people, because everybody's different. For those that seem to enjoy their lives hyper-regimented, it is supremely arrogant and detrimental to try to get everyone else to live the same way, just as it is arrogant and detrimental for evangelicals to try to make everyone else find religion just because they think it works for them.
Granted, I'm not a tenured professor at CMU. So why should you listen to me over him? Because, even though I haven't (yet) achieved fame and fortune, I'm happy. I like the pace of my life. I'm not going to be the next Bill Gates. I probably won't change the world or become fabulously wealthy. But I'm okay with that, because the process of trying to be or achieve those things would make me miserable, and I'd have to waste a good chunk of my life on them. It's not worth it. And I think too many people beat themselves up for not being those kinds of people. So what I'm saying is: don't worry about it. Find your balance. Let Bill Gates be Bill Gates. He's like that because that's his nature. He wasn't a lazy stoner who woke up one day, read "The 7 Habits of Highly Successful People," and suddenly became a zillionaire. He was an aggressive, competitive, driven bastard, and he was born like that. You aren't him, and you don't want to be him anyway.
BTW, to that end: fuck Bloomberg for firing that guy who was playing Solitaire. Fuck you, you arrogant, rich prick. The guy's life is probably shitty enough given that he's a city employee. He's allowed the occasional game of solitaire. You fired him without knowing whether or not he was otherwise doing good work, making his deadlines, etc. You don't own his life. The contract didn't say he had to be working every minute of every day on his office drone responsibilities. Would it have been better if he had sat with a Word document open for two hours, not making any progress on it whatsoever because he was burned out, instead of taking a short break to play Solitaire? Would you have even known? No, you wouldn't have, you arrogant fuck, because you judged the guy and fucked up his life based on seeing what he was doing for one minute out of one day. If you were in his job, your sense of entitlement would have probably kept you from performing _any_ of your responsibilities. So: _Fuck_. _You_.
Ah hem. Okay, that's out of my system. So yeah...don't follow Randy's advice. At least not to the letter. Sure, being more organized is a good thing. Make lists. Lists are good. Identify what you want to get done, then get it done. These are reasonable things. But don't let it get out of hand. Every so often, throw your plans out the window. Waste an afternoon watching tv. You only have one life, and your parents and ancestors went to a lot of trouble so you could enjoy it. So don't fuck it up.
I've met Randy. I met him when I went to CMU, and he's a really great, affable guy. Moreover, he gets that computers are useless if they don't actually help people, and as such, computer science is fundamentally a human endeavor. He's also actively involved in making computer science a better place for women and trying to understand why it seems to be such a deterrent for half of the human race. These are all laudable qualities.
At the same time, as evidenced by his time management deck, Randy is guilty of "type-A syndrome." All of his suggestions for leading a hyper-regimented, ultra-efficient life seem reasonable on the surface, and all of us at some point or another have kicked ourselves for not having our shit together more, but nonetheless, he's missing something.
The something he's missing is that different people have different personalities and different skills. Maybe having a meticulously clean desk and a journal of his time efficiency works for him, but for many people (myself included, to some degree), nothing could be more torturous. Part of the joy in life is living in unplanned spontaneity, and to so rigorously regiment it like that is, for lack of a better term, soul-destroying.
I have no doubt that Randy is incredibly efficient. But at what cost? For him, apparently very little. He's happy, and perhaps more importantly, he wouldn't be happy if he weren't like that. But for many people, that would be to live a life that isn't them. Sure, they might be able to carry on the charade, and even to achieve great material or reputational success, but they'd find themselves empty and unhappy. They'll wake up in their mid-forties, discover they've dedicated their entire life to achievement, and suddenly decide they need a red porsche. This is the mid-life crisis.
Sure, Randy says that you have to schedule vacation and down time, and you have to be damn sure not to work on your down time. This is at least better than executive culture where you work until you either die or have enough money to retire at 35. But still...you can't really schedule enjoyment like that, at least not effectively. Think about it...does it really work to say, "I'm going to have fun from August 12th through August 28th. Then I will have achieved 2 weeks worth of refreshment, which will lead to a 20-40% increase of efficiency over the following three months, exponentially decaying." It sounds stupid, and it is.
The part of it I particularly don't like is the indulgence in the uniquely American mindset that you should "do what you love." It's a nice idea, and if you can pull it off, great. But we're the only nation on earth, really, that equates work with life to that degree. The reason you should do what you love is because we expect ourselves to spend our lives working. But think about it...isn't that concept terrifying?
Look at history. In the dawn of time, people spent most of their lives struggling to survive. They had to work in order just to live. But advancements in agricultural technology allowed people to settle, and moreover it allowed division of labor such that each family did not have to spend all of its time foraging for its own food. Suddenly, farming could be left to the farmers, which left other people to spend their time on *gasp* other things. Now, granted, other people would somehow have to support themselves, and maybe now they spent their time on metal smelting, but still...
Eventually, improvements in efficiency allowed by technological advancements allowed for free time, and it was only once people had this free time that art, literature, philosophy, government, etc. took off. Free time built civilization!
Your forefathers worked hard to save and provide for their descendents precisely so that their children would have an easier life than they did. Isn't is sadly ironic, then, that we choose to use that freedom to work just as hard in pursuit of, well, basically nothing? I find it downright discouraging that we're not even working for any particular reason anymore than a blind faith in work as a self-fulfilling ethic.
But, I digress. The point I was aiming for was that not everyone can do what they love. In fact, most people _can't_ do what they love. It's only a priviledged few that can, and therefore as a general piece of advice, "Do what you love" is absolutely terrible.
I would rephrase it. I would say, "Do what will allow you to do as much of what you love as possible." Okay, granted, not as pithy, and probably doesn't fit on a t-shirt, but I think it's more accurate. For most people, work is _work_. It's not the thing they want to optimize. It's the thing they use to allow them to do the other things they want to do: play with their children, lie on a beach, paint, write, travel, whatever. Hell, even watch tv.
Which brings me to another point. I _hate_ the "kill your tv" mantra. _Hate it_. I'm itching to get into an argument with those people. I like tv. TV is a joy of my life. Moreover, it's not even that much of an empty indulgence. Some shows are compelling pieces of art. Battlestar: Galactica is a _damn_ good show. I'll put it up against many of the better movies and a whole bunch of the shit books they made me read in school. Similarly, I love watching Nova and National Geographic and such, and I learn from them. And sure, Daily Show is fucking hillarious, but it's actually getting people to engage in politics and current events in a way that they never have before. So the people who say, "Kill your television!" because it is a stupefying anesthetic are arrogant, ignorant bastards who need a strong shot of "shut the hell up."
Anyway...another digressive rant. I should wrap up the original thrust of this post, which was the cult of hyper-efficiency. I don't buy it. I'm not saying you should just do whatever the hell you want and not have any goals or plan on how to achieve them. But life is a balance between planning and working towards an end, and living in the moment and being spontaneous. It's a balance that's different for different people, because everybody's different. For those that seem to enjoy their lives hyper-regimented, it is supremely arrogant and detrimental to try to get everyone else to live the same way, just as it is arrogant and detrimental for evangelicals to try to make everyone else find religion just because they think it works for them.
Granted, I'm not a tenured professor at CMU. So why should you listen to me over him? Because, even though I haven't (yet) achieved fame and fortune, I'm happy. I like the pace of my life. I'm not going to be the next Bill Gates. I probably won't change the world or become fabulously wealthy. But I'm okay with that, because the process of trying to be or achieve those things would make me miserable, and I'd have to waste a good chunk of my life on them. It's not worth it. And I think too many people beat themselves up for not being those kinds of people. So what I'm saying is: don't worry about it. Find your balance. Let Bill Gates be Bill Gates. He's like that because that's his nature. He wasn't a lazy stoner who woke up one day, read "The 7 Habits of Highly Successful People," and suddenly became a zillionaire. He was an aggressive, competitive, driven bastard, and he was born like that. You aren't him, and you don't want to be him anyway.
BTW, to that end: fuck Bloomberg for firing that guy who was playing Solitaire. Fuck you, you arrogant, rich prick. The guy's life is probably shitty enough given that he's a city employee. He's allowed the occasional game of solitaire. You fired him without knowing whether or not he was otherwise doing good work, making his deadlines, etc. You don't own his life. The contract didn't say he had to be working every minute of every day on his office drone responsibilities. Would it have been better if he had sat with a Word document open for two hours, not making any progress on it whatsoever because he was burned out, instead of taking a short break to play Solitaire? Would you have even known? No, you wouldn't have, you arrogant fuck, because you judged the guy and fucked up his life based on seeing what he was doing for one minute out of one day. If you were in his job, your sense of entitlement would have probably kept you from performing _any_ of your responsibilities. So: _Fuck_. _You_.
Ah hem. Okay, that's out of my system. So yeah...don't follow Randy's advice. At least not to the letter. Sure, being more organized is a good thing. Make lists. Lists are good. Identify what you want to get done, then get it done. These are reasonable things. But don't let it get out of hand. Every so often, throw your plans out the window. Waste an afternoon watching tv. You only have one life, and your parents and ancestors went to a lot of trouble so you could enjoy it. So don't fuck it up.
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
TrailerTrashTastic...Two!
Oh, Jenna Jameson...you've had more people inside you than the Smithsonian, but you're still sexy!
Tuesday, May 09, 2006
Monday, May 08, 2006
Sunday, May 07, 2006
Juxtaposition
Did Jerry Falwell just write an op-ed for the New York Times? Really? Isn't this a sign of the apocalypse?
Your life and your "university" (...which it isn't...you can't have a biology department that doesn't buy the basic tenets of evolution, and an unquestioning and blind faith in the "literal" truth of the Bible is antithetical to the all-questioning nature of academia) have a political agenda, and it's entirely reasonable to view McCain's speech there as a political act. It's a trip into, as Jon Stewart said, "Crazy base-world."
Your life and your "university" (...which it isn't...you can't have a biology department that doesn't buy the basic tenets of evolution, and an unquestioning and blind faith in the "literal" truth of the Bible is antithetical to the all-questioning nature of academia) have a political agenda, and it's entirely reasonable to view McCain's speech there as a political act. It's a trip into, as Jon Stewart said, "Crazy base-world."
Friday, May 05, 2006
Speech meme
Your Linguistic Profile: |
55% General American English |
30% Yankee |
15% Dixie |
0% Midwestern |
0% Upper Midwestern |
Thursday, May 04, 2006
Thanks Jerry!
"The sites use a variety of emotionally charged content, from images of real U.S. soldiers being hit by snipers in Iraq to video-recordings of American televangelists including Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell making disparaging remarks about Islam."
Hey, thanks guys! You're helping to recruit the next generation of al-Qaeda. Well done! Way to help the country!
Fucking religious nutjobs...
Hey, thanks guys! You're helping to recruit the next generation of al-Qaeda. Well done! Way to help the country!
Fucking religious nutjobs...
Tuesday, May 02, 2006
Monday, May 01, 2006
Your daily racist complaint
I swear to god, if I see another clueless Asian woman in a luxury convertible who did nothing to deserve it other than performing the unenviable task of sleeping with a tech nerd and WHO CAN'T DRIVE FOR SHIT, I swear I'm going to...going to...do something bad. And get angry. Possibly throttle a slow-moving and unattractive animal. I'll do it. I fucking swear.
In other news, I had to share the following Penny Arcade blog post. The following may be my two favorite paragraphs _ever_:
As a mental exercise: I really like caramel, but if I had to bathe in fucking caramel and eat it for every meal and fucking wear caramel for clothes, and then go to a building made out of caramel and work with sentient hunks of caramel I may find my taste for caramel diminished.
I don't doubt that Master Chief will carry himself in a valiant manner. I heard that he fights a polar bear in this one, and though slow to anger ursus maritimus - the White Devil - can prove a canny opponent. But Halo is no longer a game, or even a franchise - Halo is Microsoft's beachhead in an increasingly savage conflict. Bungie is ordnance. And what is ordnance if you do not expend it?
In other news, I had to share the following Penny Arcade blog post. The following may be my two favorite paragraphs _ever_:
As a mental exercise: I really like caramel, but if I had to bathe in fucking caramel and eat it for every meal and fucking wear caramel for clothes, and then go to a building made out of caramel and work with sentient hunks of caramel I may find my taste for caramel diminished.
I don't doubt that Master Chief will carry himself in a valiant manner. I heard that he fights a polar bear in this one, and though slow to anger ursus maritimus - the White Devil - can prove a canny opponent. But Halo is no longer a game, or even a franchise - Halo is Microsoft's beachhead in an increasingly savage conflict. Bungie is ordnance. And what is ordnance if you do not expend it?
Sunday, April 30, 2006
Amateur lightsabre battle
I gotta say, for being amateurs, and amateur kids at that, it's pretty damn impressive. Well choreographed and everything.
No.
Look. I'm all in favor of having a restaurant where female waitresses willingly turn themselves into sexual objects for my gratification. Hell, I might even stay in a hotel dedicated to that purpose in Vegas.
But if you're going to build a Hooters in an exotic location, the _last_ place you should build one is in China. Is this just wishful thinking on the part of Chinese businessmen? Like, if you put skimpy clothing on Asian women, they'll magically get, well, hooters?
But if you're going to build a Hooters in an exotic location, the _last_ place you should build one is in China. Is this just wishful thinking on the part of Chinese businessmen? Like, if you put skimpy clothing on Asian women, they'll magically get, well, hooters?
A quote that had to be shared
No opera plot can be sensible, for people do not sing when they are feeling sensible.
- WH Auden
That pretty much sums up my distaste for both opera and musicals. I think West Side Story is the most quintessentially dumb musical in this regard. How can you have a story about rival gangs that involves dancing and ballads? Lost teeth, cigarette burns, gang rape, and being bound in a gasoline-soaked tire and set on fire, yes. Dancing? No. Not so much. Very few Tupac songs about how crappy a rival gang's choreography was in South Central...
- WH Auden
That pretty much sums up my distaste for both opera and musicals. I think West Side Story is the most quintessentially dumb musical in this regard. How can you have a story about rival gangs that involves dancing and ballads? Lost teeth, cigarette burns, gang rape, and being bound in a gasoline-soaked tire and set on fire, yes. Dancing? No. Not so much. Very few Tupac songs about how crappy a rival gang's choreography was in South Central...
A fickle god
John Kenneth Galbraith apparently just bit it. My uncle actually lives right next to him, so probably the neighborhood is a zoo at the moment.
Why is it that God seems to be striking down the good and meanwhile letting evil thrive?
Why is it that God seems to be striking down the good and meanwhile letting evil thrive?
Saturday, April 29, 2006
I am a photographic genius!
Okay, not really. But I did have a few nice pics on my camera. Others here.
San Diego
I-280 in the Bay Area
I-280 in the Bay Area
Friday, April 28, 2006
When your family's long history of making bone-headed financial decisions comes back to haunt you
After this little gem, I think I just lost about $5000 between stock and options. Fucking Microsoft. Fucking Wall Street.
I had meant to exercise my options earlier, but of course I didn't get around to it. I thought to myself, "Well, what's the big deal? Microsoft stock doesn't really move much anyway..."
My family has a long history of making stupid financial decisions, so in some sense I'm doomed. My grandmother lost an original cell from Snow White (which is probably worth tens of thousands of dollars at this point), and my family also sold all its Eastman stock just before the merger that caused it to become Eastman-Kodak.
I had meant to exercise my options earlier, but of course I didn't get around to it. I thought to myself, "Well, what's the big deal? Microsoft stock doesn't really move much anyway..."
My family has a long history of making stupid financial decisions, so in some sense I'm doomed. My grandmother lost an original cell from Snow White (which is probably worth tens of thousands of dollars at this point), and my family also sold all its Eastman stock just before the merger that caused it to become Eastman-Kodak.
Wednesday, April 26, 2006
Why is this so hard?
Guys, look...I know each of you has your infrastructure all set up to use your respective next-gen DVD format, but come on...there has to be a sum of money or deal you can broker to get one of you to use the other's format. Your idiotic and stubborn greed is going to force the rest of the world to suffer a format war, and you'll be harming your own profit margin while most consumers wait for the winner to emerge before commiting to an entirely new format. This is a classic lose-lose when it could easily be turned into a win-win if you could get your heads out of your asses.
Dicks.
Dicks.
Tuesday, April 25, 2006
Yet another reason I come from the good Carolina
The southern, lesser one wants to ban sex toys.
Don't these people have better things to do? Is feeding the poor really less urgent that eliminating vibrators? Really?
Don't these people have better things to do? Is feeding the poor really less urgent that eliminating vibrators? Really?
When you download music, the terrorists win
Are you shitting me? Is this the mantra now? Anything somebody doesn't like can be construed as funding terrorists?
Somehow I don't think Al-Qaeda is getting rich off of bootleg Kelly Clarkson CDs.
Somehow I don't think Al-Qaeda is getting rich off of bootleg Kelly Clarkson CDs.
Monday, April 24, 2006
Oh, right, I forgot...
Republicans are still douchebags.
Republican operating procedure:
If you don't like the idea, insist on endless studies to "get the facts."
If you do like the idea, immediately close off all debate on the topic and label those who oppose you obstructionist.
Republican operating procedure:
If you don't like the idea, insist on endless studies to "get the facts."
If you do like the idea, immediately close off all debate on the topic and label those who oppose you obstructionist.
Saturday, April 22, 2006
A quick musical critique
The Red Hot Chili Peppers are fantastic musicians and terrible poets/lyricists. I love a bunch of their music, but their lyrics always make me cringe. Because they're trite and retarded. The lyrics, I mean. I don't know about the guys. One of them _is_ named Flea though.
That is all.
That is all.
Friday, April 21, 2006
Linus is an asshole
The Linux Linus, not the Charlie Brown one.
This is what I hate about some kinds of engineers and developers. They turn arguments about programming personal, and they think that just because they think they know better than everyone else gives them license to behave like an asshole. It doesn't. Civility and respect for one's peers doesn't evaporate because you can do math well.
People like to talk about how democratic Linux and Open Source is, but in fact it's really more like a monarchy or dictatorship with an arguably benevolent dictator. Ultimately, a very few number of people have control about which patches get into the Linux kernel and which ones don't. At best that is a representative democracy with no checks and balances. But I don't know that Linus actually ever faces elections over his control of the kernel.
This is what I hate about some kinds of engineers and developers. They turn arguments about programming personal, and they think that just because they think they know better than everyone else gives them license to behave like an asshole. It doesn't. Civility and respect for one's peers doesn't evaporate because you can do math well.
People like to talk about how democratic Linux and Open Source is, but in fact it's really more like a monarchy or dictatorship with an arguably benevolent dictator. Ultimately, a very few number of people have control about which patches get into the Linux kernel and which ones don't. At best that is a representative democracy with no checks and balances. But I don't know that Linus actually ever faces elections over his control of the kernel.
Stupid United
Why must there be inflation in frequent flyer miles required for award tickets? It's not like San Francisco is moving farther away from New York every year, for fuck's sake...
A phrase you don't expect to read
Did they really just say the animals were "radioactive...but otherwise healthy"?
No...no no no...see, glowing and radioactive is not a minor physiological quirk. One cannot be "healthy" and "radioactive" at the same time. If you glow in the dark and emit a low humming sound when standing perfectly still, I think it's safe to say you are very, very far from healthy.
No...no no no...see, glowing and radioactive is not a minor physiological quirk. One cannot be "healthy" and "radioactive" at the same time. If you glow in the dark and emit a low humming sound when standing perfectly still, I think it's safe to say you are very, very far from healthy.
Thursday, April 20, 2006
No sympathy
Fer fuck's sake...do I even need to say it?! Frankly, I think he should be able to use the fact that the two women let him in as a defense.
"Look, your honor...I, looking like the creepy old man I am, went around door-to-door asking women if they wanted free breast exams. They voluntarily let me in. They thought to themselves, 'You know, I _have_ needed a breast exam for a while, and I don't find it at all odd that an overweight old man is wandering around neighborhoods offering to fondle women's breasts. Come in, good sir!' I think it's only fair that I get to touch boob if I have to deal with the fact that there are people that stupid still alive in the modern world."
My impulse to protect people from being taken advantage of has limits, boys and girls. At some point, for the good of the gene pool, natural selection should be allowed to take its course.
"Look, your honor...I, looking like the creepy old man I am, went around door-to-door asking women if they wanted free breast exams. They voluntarily let me in. They thought to themselves, 'You know, I _have_ needed a breast exam for a while, and I don't find it at all odd that an overweight old man is wandering around neighborhoods offering to fondle women's breasts. Come in, good sir!' I think it's only fair that I get to touch boob if I have to deal with the fact that there are people that stupid still alive in the modern world."
My impulse to protect people from being taken advantage of has limits, boys and girls. At some point, for the good of the gene pool, natural selection should be allowed to take its course.
Go away
You had your chance Mr. Kerry. You, and the rest of the Democrats, blew it. And now you're a loser in the collective consciousness. Do us all a favor and don't fuck up two consecutive elections. Please?
Your daily idiotic patent
Microsoft's guilty of patent infringement. The patent? Using a product key.
Are you shitting me? The patent system has gotten ridiculous...
Are you shitting me? The patent system has gotten ridiculous...
Are you fucking shitting me?
Yes. That's it. Everything would be fine if we just reinstituted the draft. You fucking retard.
1) Iran's crazy nuclear talk is all just posturing for the sake of domestic public opinion. Nothing galvanizes a country behind a leader, no matter how crazy or inept he is, more than a credible external threat. Just ask Mr. Bush. The _worst_ thing you can do at this point is to provoke them.
2) You actually wrote this in something that you knew was going to be published in the New York Times: "President Bush has the perfect credentials overseas to execute this move, and little political capital at home to lose at this stage. Polls confirm that a wide majority of people in many countries view him and the United States as the major threat to global peace. Why let them down on this count? Go with the flow."
I...did you?...wow. Have you ever been so dumbfounded by a confrontation with stupid that you're left speechless?
3) You called Reagan a master of strategy. Just like Bush is a master of oratory? The man was a fucking retard. He had alzheimers, and he was a dick. If you're looking to him for foreign policy, that tells me you're an idiot with a dangerous failure to grasp the differences between the Cold War and the Middle East.
Please go back to jacking off to Rambo movies and stop cluttering the Times opinion section. Idiocy like yours just isn't as fun when it's so overt.
1) Iran's crazy nuclear talk is all just posturing for the sake of domestic public opinion. Nothing galvanizes a country behind a leader, no matter how crazy or inept he is, more than a credible external threat. Just ask Mr. Bush. The _worst_ thing you can do at this point is to provoke them.
2) You actually wrote this in something that you knew was going to be published in the New York Times: "President Bush has the perfect credentials overseas to execute this move, and little political capital at home to lose at this stage. Polls confirm that a wide majority of people in many countries view him and the United States as the major threat to global peace. Why let them down on this count? Go with the flow."
I...did you?...wow. Have you ever been so dumbfounded by a confrontation with stupid that you're left speechless?
3) You called Reagan a master of strategy. Just like Bush is a master of oratory? The man was a fucking retard. He had alzheimers, and he was a dick. If you're looking to him for foreign policy, that tells me you're an idiot with a dangerous failure to grasp the differences between the Cold War and the Middle East.
Please go back to jacking off to Rambo movies and stop cluttering the Times opinion section. Idiocy like yours just isn't as fun when it's so overt.
Stupid lack of foresight
This pisses me off. Wanna know why? Because I didn't think of it. September 12th (well, ok, maybe more like September 29th, or something like that), I should have put a whole lotta money in mining companies, but especially people like tire producers. This was entirely predictable. And I could have made money off of it.
Damnit.
Damnit.
Wow...go Windows!
Suck it, Apple.
Gabe from Penny Arcade reported getting 15-20 frames per second running World of Warcraft on his MacBook using OS X and then 30-40 frames per second on the same hardware using XP. Damn. Apparently software does matter.
Windows may not be able to do anything else right, but damnit, it still beats the shit out of Apple when it comes to games.
Gabe from Penny Arcade reported getting 15-20 frames per second running World of Warcraft on his MacBook using OS X and then 30-40 frames per second on the same hardware using XP. Damn. Apparently software does matter.
Windows may not be able to do anything else right, but damnit, it still beats the shit out of Apple when it comes to games.
Wednesday, April 19, 2006
Why Free Software is bad
I think this is a great case for why I like the idea of Open Source and I generally detest the idea of Free Software for being a naive view of the world.
As Stallman points out, there are four basic freedoms involved in Free Software (and, incidentally, I think the comment that, "Real programmers count from zero..." is very telling. The point of a computer, dear Richard, is to interact with people. Most people aren't programmers, nor should they be. _People_ count from 1. Idiot...):
As Stallman points out, there are four basic freedoms involved in Free Software (and, incidentally, I think the comment that, "Real programmers count from zero..." is very telling. The point of a computer, dear Richard, is to interact with people. Most people aren't programmers, nor should they be. _People_ count from 1. Idiot...):
- Zero is the freedom to run the program as you wish
- One is the freedom to study and change the software
- Two is the freedom to redistribute copies as you wish
- Three is the freedom to distribute modifed versions as you wish.
As far as I'm concerned, One is the only important principle there. The danger to the software industry is having software that's a black box. It's extremely important for interoperability and safe layering of software to know the exact behavior of the software you're interacting with. Indeed, this mismatch between two interacting pieces of software is the cause of most bugs, security holes, reliability problems, etc. Moreover, it's the way software vendors lock you into their products. Therefore, it's important to be able to study code both for research purposes as well as for competitive marketplace purposes.
Typically, the counter-argument to Freedom One is that, well, if people can see your source code, they can just copy it and use it without compensating you, and there's no incentive to create software any more. With regard to literal copying, that can be taken care of with copyright. With regard to copying the idea, well, any significantly complex idea is difficult to copy correctly. The value of any piece of software is generally not the fundamental idea behind it, but instead the robustness of the particular implementation of that idea with respect to performance, reliability, managability, etc. By and large, you don't get a benefit with regard to the latter simply by looking at someone's code. So I think that objection is bullshit.
As for the other freedoms, I have ranted about how ridiculous they are as ipso facto virtues. They aren't. They're derivative virtues that are essentially principles attempting a particular implementation of a wider goal where that wider goal is...actually, I'm not even sure what the wider goal is. The mentality of the Free Software movement seems to parallel a wider Libertarian philosophy that total freedom to do anything is a virtue in and of itself, which is both naive and stupid. Personally, I would say that the goal is to make computer systems that make people's lives easier and better. That's not the same thing as saying anybody should be able to do anything with their computer and/or their software.
Want an example in which the two are different? I'll give you my three favorites:
- Heterogeneity is the bane of managability, and computer managability is the single greatest headache of most consumers. In simpler, more concrete terms, computers infuriate most people because they are expected to be able to know what to buy, how to configure it, and how to fix it if it goes wrong. One of the best lessons we can learn from Windows is that if you give people enough rope to hang themselves, they will find a myriad of creative ways to do so. Want to install this ActiveX control? What about this program? How about executing this attachment? Think it's safe to go to this phishing web site? How about this driver...think it will destabilize your system? Etc. Most people neither want nor need all the flexibility of such a system, and would be downright grateful not to have to make those decisions.
- Data has more semantic meaning and importance than simple bytes. If your medical records are digitized, you want some guarantee about what the computer systems that manipulate those records can and cannot do. It is not necessarily in your or society's interest to have someone be able to load arbitrary software on a server storing medical records, because then all bets are off.
- Sometimes you want to be assured that a computer system not under your control faithfully performed some action. Think, for example, of a car odometer. When you buy a used car, you rely on the accuracy of the odometer to tell you how much that car has been driven. If someone came in and told you, "I should have the freeom to put whatever software I want in that odometer control!", you would probably get rather pissed off, don't you think?
Anyway...I think Stallman is an idiot (can you tell?), but Lessig I tend to have more respect for. I would like to hear his arguments against DRM as I suspect they are far more pragmatic than Stallman's.
(Keep in mind, incidentally, that because I think DRM is a good thing in principle doesn't mean I think it should be handed to industry carte blanche. We're being fucked by people like the RIAA, and I think DRM is our collective bargaining chip to get such people to stop being such monopolistic pricks. I.e., "We'll give you DRM, but you have to open up to increased competition. Mmm'k? Good boy. Have a biscuit.")
Working at Microsoft
A pretty good summary of working at Microsoft. I particularly agree with his comments on managers, both in the sense that there are too many of them and they get in the way, and in the sense that there's very little review or consideration of people skills in hiring managers. Most companies have the reverse problem: managers have nothing _but_ people skills (if even that), and they have no concept of the actual work being done. Microsoft (and now Google, incidentally) have the reverse problem: engineers tend to be the ones promoted to managerial positions, and consequently they have a very good grasp of the products and the technical issues, but they have _no_ idea how to deal with group dynamics or the fact that their reports are, you know, people.
Probably my other biggest gripe with being an employee at Microsoft is that there's no incentive in the review and compensation structure for group achievement. Everything's way too individual-focused, and consequently employees are basically pitted against each other in various ways. It's stupid.
But, overall, Microsoft really is a great place to work. I swear. Every group is different, and a lot of groups don't have these problems.
Probably my other biggest gripe with being an employee at Microsoft is that there's no incentive in the review and compensation structure for group achievement. Everything's way too individual-focused, and consequently employees are basically pitted against each other in various ways. It's stupid.
But, overall, Microsoft really is a great place to work. I swear. Every group is different, and a lot of groups don't have these problems.
Tuesday, April 18, 2006
30 second bunny theatre
I think my two favorites are Reservoir Dogs and Jaws. SmileYouSonOfA...!
No, no, I think Jaws is my favorite hands-down if for no other reason than the shark has bunny ears.
No, no, I think Jaws is my favorite hands-down if for no other reason than the shark has bunny ears.
Monday, April 17, 2006
Dear sir
To whomever wrote the following on my NSF fellowship application review:
"The only reason candidate wants to pursue graduate study is because other colleagues have PhDs. Although proposed research is exciting and would benefit software systems, particularly Microsoft..."
I would like to offer a deep, heartfelt "Fuck. You." Did you even read my application, or did you just look at the fact I worked at Microsoft, have flashbacks to Windows 98 crashing in the middle of writing one of your technically shallow and uninsightful papers, and immediately conclude you didn't like me?
Not only do I have a very good idea of why I'm going back to grad school, but I guarantee I have a hell of a lot better idea than 90% of the people you gave awards to, most of whom are going to grad school because they can't figure out what the fuck else they will do when they graduate, and who will inevitably vanish into directionless oblivion soon after their grad school careers. I could quite happily stay in this job, but for some reason (one which is apparently beyond your comprehension), I voluntarily decided to take a drastic pay cut and up-end my life. Now, maybe you, my dear douche, are retarded enough and so incapable of independent thought that you would actually move to a different state and live off of $25k a year just because your friends did, but some of us actually, like, think through things. Try it sometime.
So, to reiterate, fuck you, fuck you, and, in closing, fuck you. If you didn't like me, or you thought the money would be better spent on someone with fewer financial means, fine, but you didn't have to be a dick about it.
Fuck you,
Nick
"The only reason candidate wants to pursue graduate study is because other colleagues have PhDs. Although proposed research is exciting and would benefit software systems, particularly Microsoft..."
I would like to offer a deep, heartfelt "Fuck. You." Did you even read my application, or did you just look at the fact I worked at Microsoft, have flashbacks to Windows 98 crashing in the middle of writing one of your technically shallow and uninsightful papers, and immediately conclude you didn't like me?
Not only do I have a very good idea of why I'm going back to grad school, but I guarantee I have a hell of a lot better idea than 90% of the people you gave awards to, most of whom are going to grad school because they can't figure out what the fuck else they will do when they graduate, and who will inevitably vanish into directionless oblivion soon after their grad school careers. I could quite happily stay in this job, but for some reason (one which is apparently beyond your comprehension), I voluntarily decided to take a drastic pay cut and up-end my life. Now, maybe you, my dear douche, are retarded enough and so incapable of independent thought that you would actually move to a different state and live off of $25k a year just because your friends did, but some of us actually, like, think through things. Try it sometime.
So, to reiterate, fuck you, fuck you, and, in closing, fuck you. If you didn't like me, or you thought the money would be better spent on someone with fewer financial means, fine, but you didn't have to be a dick about it.
Fuck you,
Nick
Don't make me come over there
Hey! Fuckers! Didn't I just say I didn't want to hear the word "teledildonics" used ever again? Didn't I?
-----
"A field dubbed "teledildonics" already allows people at two remote computers to manipulate electronic devices such as a vibrator at the other end for sexual purposes.
"People who use it are just blown away," said Steve Rhodes, president of Sinulate Entertainment, which has sold thousands of Internet-connected sex devices over the past three years. "This is not something that just the lunatic fringe does."
"The Iraq war...was kind of a boom for our company."
-----
*shudder*
-----
"A field dubbed "teledildonics" already allows people at two remote computers to manipulate electronic devices such as a vibrator at the other end for sexual purposes.
"People who use it are just blown away," said Steve Rhodes, president of Sinulate Entertainment, which has sold thousands of Internet-connected sex devices over the past three years. "This is not something that just the lunatic fringe does."
"The Iraq war...was kind of a boom for our company."
-----
*shudder*
How I learned to stop worrying and love the reactor
A founder of Greenpeace says he wants to take some time out from hugging trees and hug nuclear reactors. Aww...how cute.
Seriously, if we want to get rid of fossil fuels as a power source, the replacement is going to have to involve nuclear reactors. It's just that simple.
Seriously, if we want to get rid of fossil fuels as a power source, the replacement is going to have to involve nuclear reactors. It's just that simple.
Sunday, April 16, 2006
From the "No, seriously, don't even _think_ of trying this at home" files
This has to be the most elaborate, and sloooowest, Rube Goldberg machine ever built. Nice use of chemistry.
I am a truly terrible person
Fun things to do on Easter Sunday: give your cousin a hard time about her paper on black kids in special-ed programs. Extra bonus: cross any and all lines of decency you can think of.
-----
...
(18:34:35) Suzanna: my paper
(18:40:34) Sirius137: on?
(18:43:45) Suzanna: the overrepresentation of african american males in special education programs
(18:44:32) Sirius137: so you're saying black people _aren't_ special?
(18:44:40) Suzanna: precisely
(18:44:45) Suzanna: no...
(18:44:58) Sirius137: they all look the same to you?
(18:45:16) Suzanna: word
(18:45:40) Suzanna: i'm saying that teachers are stupid and that tests used to assess and diagnose (to place) kids with LD in sp. ed. are culturally and linguistically biased and that aa males are five more times likely to be diagnosed as MR than white females
(18:45:46) Suzanna: ...among other things
(18:47:31) Sirius137: so black people can't take tests?
(18:48:03) Suzanna: no
(18:48:45) Sirius137: Why don't you want black people to be special, Suz?
(18:48:49) Sirius137: What do you have against them?
(18:48:56) Suzanna: they scare me
(18:49:32) Sirius137: fair enough. They are kind of violent. You can tell from the shape of the skull.
(18:49:45) Suzanna: And they smell kinda funny
(18:49:59) Sirius137: like chicken. and watermelon.
(18:50:09) Suzanna: oh nick...we're terrible
(18:50:38) Sirius137: you're the one writing a paper on how not special black people are.
(18:50:46) Suzanna: it's also kinda my major and minor
(18:50:58) Suzanna: afro am studies with a minor in education and child study (concentration: special needs)
(18:51:17) Sirius137: so, black people and how retarded they are?
(18:51:26) Suzanna: ...
(18:51:32) Sirius137: Jesus...that's so insensitive.
-----
...
(18:34:35) Suzanna: my paper
(18:40:34) Sirius137: on?
(18:43:45) Suzanna: the overrepresentation of african american males in special education programs
(18:44:32) Sirius137: so you're saying black people _aren't_ special?
(18:44:40) Suzanna: precisely
(18:44:45) Suzanna: no...
(18:44:58) Sirius137: they all look the same to you?
(18:45:16) Suzanna: word
(18:45:40) Suzanna: i'm saying that teachers are stupid and that tests used to assess and diagnose (to place) kids with LD in sp. ed. are culturally and linguistically biased and that aa males are five more times likely to be diagnosed as MR than white females
(18:45:46) Suzanna: ...among other things
(18:47:31) Sirius137: so black people can't take tests?
(18:48:03) Suzanna: no
(18:48:45) Sirius137: Why don't you want black people to be special, Suz?
(18:48:49) Sirius137: What do you have against them?
(18:48:56) Suzanna: they scare me
(18:49:32) Sirius137: fair enough. They are kind of violent. You can tell from the shape of the skull.
(18:49:45) Suzanna: And they smell kinda funny
(18:49:59) Sirius137: like chicken. and watermelon.
(18:50:09) Suzanna: oh nick...we're terrible
(18:50:38) Sirius137: you're the one writing a paper on how not special black people are.
(18:50:46) Suzanna: it's also kinda my major and minor
(18:50:58) Suzanna: afro am studies with a minor in education and child study (concentration: special needs)
(18:51:17) Sirius137: so, black people and how retarded they are?
(18:51:26) Suzanna: ...
(18:51:32) Sirius137: Jesus...that's so insensitive.
Saturday, April 15, 2006
Friday, April 14, 2006
Wednesday, April 12, 2006
Damn skippy
No shit Rumsfeld should resign.
From what I can tell, the military is doing the best they can in a totally unworkable situation. At the same time as I find it totally incomprehensible why anyone would (while sober) join the military (in the past few years...not necessarily in general...I can understand why you might have done it back when the illusion that the military kept America safe and wasn't simply a political pawn hadn't been completely shattered), I think they deserve a lot of credit. They're being given idiotic orders, and they somehow have to find a way to carry them out. And they're doing it.
How about we do them a favor and get rid of the fucktards deciding policy?
From what I can tell, the military is doing the best they can in a totally unworkable situation. At the same time as I find it totally incomprehensible why anyone would (while sober) join the military (in the past few years...not necessarily in general...I can understand why you might have done it back when the illusion that the military kept America safe and wasn't simply a political pawn hadn't been completely shattered), I think they deserve a lot of credit. They're being given idiotic orders, and they somehow have to find a way to carry them out. And they're doing it.
How about we do them a favor and get rid of the fucktards deciding policy?
A (hopefully) quick education rant
Look, I understand that the Republican leadership and the business leaders don't like academics who actually have some degree of independence and have an annoying penchant for pointing out what lying, underhanded pricks the Republicans and various industry agents are, but you don't have to go fucking up the American higher education system just because you're bitter.
Look, boys and girls: America doesn't produce shit anymore. Their manufacturing is dead, and agriculture is on its way out. The one (you hear me? The _one_!...) remaining competitive advantage we have is our academies, which are pretty much unparalleled in the world. Sure, they have their inefficiencies, but basically, yes, Mr. Miller, they're doing just fine, and we would do well to pat them on the back, say, 'Good job!", and give them more money to educate more people. The worst possible things you could do would be to a) drown them in standardized tests, or b) turn them into vocational schools that teach them just enough to get them employed.
American ingenuity is the one advantage we still have over the rest of the world, and these fuckers want to kill it. You breed ingenuity by both giving college students the background knowledge they need _and_ giving them relatively free reign to pursue the topics that interest them as per any decent liberal arts education. Making them take a semester class on fucking Excel just so companies can save on those training costs when they hire college grads is going to rapidly erode the quality of American universities and turn our college grads into mindless drones who not only can't think for themselves but know only how to perform drudgerous, repetitive tasks not even as well as their Indian and Chinese counterparts.
God I fucking hate businessmen who think the country should be run like a giant quantifiable assembly line.
Look, boys and girls: America doesn't produce shit anymore. Their manufacturing is dead, and agriculture is on its way out. The one (you hear me? The _one_!...) remaining competitive advantage we have is our academies, which are pretty much unparalleled in the world. Sure, they have their inefficiencies, but basically, yes, Mr. Miller, they're doing just fine, and we would do well to pat them on the back, say, 'Good job!", and give them more money to educate more people. The worst possible things you could do would be to a) drown them in standardized tests, or b) turn them into vocational schools that teach them just enough to get them employed.
American ingenuity is the one advantage we still have over the rest of the world, and these fuckers want to kill it. You breed ingenuity by both giving college students the background knowledge they need _and_ giving them relatively free reign to pursue the topics that interest them as per any decent liberal arts education. Making them take a semester class on fucking Excel just so companies can save on those training costs when they hire college grads is going to rapidly erode the quality of American universities and turn our college grads into mindless drones who not only can't think for themselves but know only how to perform drudgerous, repetitive tasks not even as well as their Indian and Chinese counterparts.
God I fucking hate businessmen who think the country should be run like a giant quantifiable assembly line.
Tuesday, April 11, 2006
Teledildonics
Can I please never read anything ever again with the word "teledildonics" in it? Thanks. That'd be great.
Hey, I'm all in favor sexual exploration, but I really, really hope the tech part of my life and the sex part of my life never, ever meet. Ever.
(don't read too much into the fact I'm posting a sex article at 2 am...the correct conclusion you should draw is _not_ that I was up googling "teledildonics" [shudder] but rather that I'm bored and avoiding going to sleep because I know it means getting up and having to work will occur sooner)
Hey, I'm all in favor sexual exploration, but I really, really hope the tech part of my life and the sex part of my life never, ever meet. Ever.
(don't read too much into the fact I'm posting a sex article at 2 am...the correct conclusion you should draw is _not_ that I was up googling "teledildonics" [shudder] but rather that I'm bored and avoiding going to sleep because I know it means getting up and having to work will occur sooner)
Monday, April 10, 2006
An...alternate...view on parenting
For those of you who think babies cute, perhaps this will illuminate my feelings on parenting.
My god...a coherent essay on software patents
This is probably the most cogent essay on software patents I've ever read, and it is a breath of fresh air when compared against RMS's nonsense.
My only gripe with it is the degree to which Graham thinks software patents are inherently okay. I buy all (or at least most) of his pragmatic arguments to the effect that patents actually have very little effect on modern software development. But that doesn't mean that the patent system is therefore good. Big companies tend to hoard patents in the way superpowers tend to hoard nuclear weapons; no one is stupid enough to actually use them. Okay, fine...but then why do we have patents at all? Graham argues that the USPTO is to blame for issuing idiotic patents. I agree. But I don't necessarily agree that it's possible even in an ideal world that the USPTO could differentiate between trivial and non-trivial patents. I mean really...how in the world would you codify what is a "trivial" software creation and what isn't? Some of the most powerful ideas in software are the simplest (think of, for example, auto-complete).
Oddly, Graham seems to indirectly recognize this when he talks about the different barriers to construction of real world inventions versus software inventions. Moreover, he (correctly) notes that the particular algorithms used _aren't_ what's hard about writing software. It's the thousand little details and performance optimizations that differentiate a good program from a bad one. Consequently, it can't possibly be patents that are creating the incentive for people to invent in the software world. It's the fundamental difficulty in copying the idea alone. Most of the time, the patent is irrelevent.
So, I dunno...the more I think about it, the more I am of the opinion that software patents are pointless. Copyright and trade secrets are enough to promote growth in the field.
My only gripe with it is the degree to which Graham thinks software patents are inherently okay. I buy all (or at least most) of his pragmatic arguments to the effect that patents actually have very little effect on modern software development. But that doesn't mean that the patent system is therefore good. Big companies tend to hoard patents in the way superpowers tend to hoard nuclear weapons; no one is stupid enough to actually use them. Okay, fine...but then why do we have patents at all? Graham argues that the USPTO is to blame for issuing idiotic patents. I agree. But I don't necessarily agree that it's possible even in an ideal world that the USPTO could differentiate between trivial and non-trivial patents. I mean really...how in the world would you codify what is a "trivial" software creation and what isn't? Some of the most powerful ideas in software are the simplest (think of, for example, auto-complete).
Oddly, Graham seems to indirectly recognize this when he talks about the different barriers to construction of real world inventions versus software inventions. Moreover, he (correctly) notes that the particular algorithms used _aren't_ what's hard about writing software. It's the thousand little details and performance optimizations that differentiate a good program from a bad one. Consequently, it can't possibly be patents that are creating the incentive for people to invent in the software world. It's the fundamental difficulty in copying the idea alone. Most of the time, the patent is irrelevent.
So, I dunno...the more I think about it, the more I am of the opinion that software patents are pointless. Copyright and trade secrets are enough to promote growth in the field.
Sunday, April 09, 2006
Our brains are actually different
Ever wondered why women make no sense? Well, it really is because their brains are wired differently.
:-D
:-D
Tuesday, April 04, 2006
Ladies and Gentlemen, a quick reminder:
Richard M Stallman is still an idiot.
It's the usual free software drivel, so rather than rant, I'll simply refer you to my previous posts on the subject.
It's the usual free software drivel, so rather than rant, I'll simply refer you to my previous posts on the subject.
A goddamn motherfucking brain teaser
Usually I hate brain teasers. And this case is no exception. Except this one keeps preoccupying me, so I'm going to make you suffer through it too.
-----
13 Yakuza subordinates go to the Yakuza boss's house. Out of respect, they all take off their shoes on the way in. After all of them have gathered, the boss walks over to the collection of shoes, sniffs, makes an unpleasant face, and picks up one (matching) pair of shoes. "These shoes are dirty and disgusting! Who dishonors me with such shoes?!" No one raises their hand. Infuriated, the Yakuza boss immediately shoots one of the subordinates utterly at random, takes the body and the offending shoes, and throws them into the snow.
Since the meeting cannot continue after such a violent episode, the boss dismisses the remaining subordinates. Each leaves one by one. If the subordinate's shoes are in the pile, he takes them and leaves. If not, he takes a random (matching) pair of shoes and leaves.
The question: What is the probability that the last man to leave takes his own shoes?
Update: I'll give you a small hint. I think it's probably easier to intuit the answer and then prove it than try to derive the answer (as I tried to).
-----
13 Yakuza subordinates go to the Yakuza boss's house. Out of respect, they all take off their shoes on the way in. After all of them have gathered, the boss walks over to the collection of shoes, sniffs, makes an unpleasant face, and picks up one (matching) pair of shoes. "These shoes are dirty and disgusting! Who dishonors me with such shoes?!" No one raises their hand. Infuriated, the Yakuza boss immediately shoots one of the subordinates utterly at random, takes the body and the offending shoes, and throws them into the snow.
Since the meeting cannot continue after such a violent episode, the boss dismisses the remaining subordinates. Each leaves one by one. If the subordinate's shoes are in the pile, he takes them and leaves. If not, he takes a random (matching) pair of shoes and leaves.
The question: What is the probability that the last man to leave takes his own shoes?
Update: I'll give you a small hint. I think it's probably easier to intuit the answer and then prove it than try to derive the answer (as I tried to).
Monday, April 03, 2006
Talk to me, Blendie!
I think I would do a lot more cooking if I had this blender.
(further proof that people at MIT have too much time on their hands)
(further proof that people at MIT have too much time on their hands)
Sunday, April 02, 2006
Crazy clouds
I'd never heard of mammatus clouds before. You'll think it's photoshopped, but amazingly, it's not. An actual sight over Nebraska. Is this the first interesting thing to ever come out of Nebraska?
Saturday, April 01, 2006
Google romance
You gotta love a company that has a sense of humor about itself. Microsoft would do well to poke a little more fun at its own ridiculousness.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)