Tuesday, November 15, 2005
Monday, November 14, 2005
On achievement
I had what was, in some ways, a very troubling conversation with a friend last night.
I can always rely on him to provide me with a unique view of the world. Bizarre, warped, and twisted to suit his particular biases, yes, but unique nonetheless. It got me thinking about people's ideal state.
My friend maintained that he would be happy if he had enough money not to worry about it (e.g., enough to comfortably pay rent, car, insurance, etc.) and could spend his days watching Aqua Team Hunger Force and smoking pot. Personally, I spend a lot more time in bed than most people, and yet I want to spend more. I have been saying for quite some time that only good things happen to me in bed. The bad shit only happens when I leave bed.
Case in point: today was a good day. Why? Largely because I spent most of it sleeping. I got up once or twice for things like food and bathroom, but by and large my time was spent sleeping. And it was wonderful.
Now, I know that sleeping a lot is a sign of depression, but in my case, it's really not that. I'm quite happy with my life. I just love being asleep. Being in a soft bed, under the covers, with no responsibilities to anyone other than curling up and falling asleep is the best thing in the world. In some ways, it's more fulfilling than either sex or masturbation. Certainly more wholesome. I mean, who can get mad at you for having a sleep addiction? Sure, I guess it falls under the auspices of the sin of sloth, but the Christian Right doesn't seem to give much of a shit about sloth these days. Really more lust that gets their panties in a twist.
Anyway, here's the thing: sex is work. With sex, you have to worry about the other person. It's really more of a cooperative activity than an indulgence. Sure it's fun, but it's nonetheless work, and it's not really relaxing. Even masturbation, which you can do on your own terms, on your own schedule, and worry about no one but yourself, feels somehow hollow because you are alone. After all, most of us don't fantasize about masturbation, do we? We fantasize about sex. So masturbation feels like a poor proxy for actual sex, and I've already discussed the inherent problems with sex itself...it never lives up to the ideals you have of it in your head.
Sleep has no such complications. It is pure, wholesome, good for you, and poses very little risk of disease. And it feels fantastic.
It really makes me wonder...why bother doing all this other shit we do? Was that comment in Office Space really much deeper than we ever imagined?
Lawrence: Well you don't need a million dollars to do nothing, man. Just take a look at my cousin, he's broke, don't do shit.
The problem with achievement is that it never stops. You never achieve something and then say, "ok, I got that thing I was after. I'm done now." All that work for...more work.
I dunno...I can never figure out whether Americans are overworked or lazy fucks. Compared to the Europeans (and Australians, for that matter), we take tragically few vacations and work way too many hours. They think we're crazy, and they're probably right. We have way more stress-related illnesses, among other things. On the other hand, we're fucking lazy compared to, for example, the Chinese. The Chinese still understand what it's like to be a third-world country where you have to work just to survive. They have no notions of having the universe owe them rest and leisure time. They work their flat little asses off at whatever they're doing because some deep, dark part of their brain tells them that if they don't, they will be discarded as worthless and starve. From that perspective, maybe we're just all spoiled. I don't know.
I do think, however, that a collective social goal should be to maximize leisure time. GDP is a fucking retarded measure of quality of life for the average person. So even is salary. Lawyers make a fuck-ton of money, but they're usually unhappy. Why? They work too goddamn much. What's the point of earning all that money if you have no life in which to spend it? Sure, you can retire early, but it seems similarly pointless to take advantage of your massive hoard when you're too old and frail to enjoy it. Having a 20-something trophy wife when you're in your 50's is great and all, but what's the point if you have to pop a viagra in order to bang her because your dick broke 10 years ago?
Anyway. I digress. I think I'm going to go to sleep now. All this rambling has tired me out and has wasted precious time I could have spent sleeping.
I can always rely on him to provide me with a unique view of the world. Bizarre, warped, and twisted to suit his particular biases, yes, but unique nonetheless. It got me thinking about people's ideal state.
My friend maintained that he would be happy if he had enough money not to worry about it (e.g., enough to comfortably pay rent, car, insurance, etc.) and could spend his days watching Aqua Team Hunger Force and smoking pot. Personally, I spend a lot more time in bed than most people, and yet I want to spend more. I have been saying for quite some time that only good things happen to me in bed. The bad shit only happens when I leave bed.
Case in point: today was a good day. Why? Largely because I spent most of it sleeping. I got up once or twice for things like food and bathroom, but by and large my time was spent sleeping. And it was wonderful.
Now, I know that sleeping a lot is a sign of depression, but in my case, it's really not that. I'm quite happy with my life. I just love being asleep. Being in a soft bed, under the covers, with no responsibilities to anyone other than curling up and falling asleep is the best thing in the world. In some ways, it's more fulfilling than either sex or masturbation. Certainly more wholesome. I mean, who can get mad at you for having a sleep addiction? Sure, I guess it falls under the auspices of the sin of sloth, but the Christian Right doesn't seem to give much of a shit about sloth these days. Really more lust that gets their panties in a twist.
Anyway, here's the thing: sex is work. With sex, you have to worry about the other person. It's really more of a cooperative activity than an indulgence. Sure it's fun, but it's nonetheless work, and it's not really relaxing. Even masturbation, which you can do on your own terms, on your own schedule, and worry about no one but yourself, feels somehow hollow because you are alone. After all, most of us don't fantasize about masturbation, do we? We fantasize about sex. So masturbation feels like a poor proxy for actual sex, and I've already discussed the inherent problems with sex itself...it never lives up to the ideals you have of it in your head.
Sleep has no such complications. It is pure, wholesome, good for you, and poses very little risk of disease. And it feels fantastic.
It really makes me wonder...why bother doing all this other shit we do? Was that comment in Office Space really much deeper than we ever imagined?
Lawrence: Well you don't need a million dollars to do nothing, man. Just take a look at my cousin, he's broke, don't do shit.
The problem with achievement is that it never stops. You never achieve something and then say, "ok, I got that thing I was after. I'm done now." All that work for...more work.
I dunno...I can never figure out whether Americans are overworked or lazy fucks. Compared to the Europeans (and Australians, for that matter), we take tragically few vacations and work way too many hours. They think we're crazy, and they're probably right. We have way more stress-related illnesses, among other things. On the other hand, we're fucking lazy compared to, for example, the Chinese. The Chinese still understand what it's like to be a third-world country where you have to work just to survive. They have no notions of having the universe owe them rest and leisure time. They work their flat little asses off at whatever they're doing because some deep, dark part of their brain tells them that if they don't, they will be discarded as worthless and starve. From that perspective, maybe we're just all spoiled. I don't know.
I do think, however, that a collective social goal should be to maximize leisure time. GDP is a fucking retarded measure of quality of life for the average person. So even is salary. Lawyers make a fuck-ton of money, but they're usually unhappy. Why? They work too goddamn much. What's the point of earning all that money if you have no life in which to spend it? Sure, you can retire early, but it seems similarly pointless to take advantage of your massive hoard when you're too old and frail to enjoy it. Having a 20-something trophy wife when you're in your 50's is great and all, but what's the point if you have to pop a viagra in order to bang her because your dick broke 10 years ago?
Anyway. I digress. I think I'm going to go to sleep now. All this rambling has tired me out and has wasted precious time I could have spent sleeping.
Colorful simile of the day
I had this weird spray-candy my roommate gave to me, and it turned my tongue this really weird, deep blue.
It occurred to me that I looked like I had gone down on a blueberry.
Yes, that's just the way my brain works.
In related news, my two new favorite words are "jewy" and "enwanged." Please find a way to work them into any future casual conversations you may have.
It occurred to me that I looked like I had gone down on a blueberry.
Yes, that's just the way my brain works.
In related news, my two new favorite words are "jewy" and "enwanged." Please find a way to work them into any future casual conversations you may have.
Friday, November 11, 2005
Worst...myspace...hair...ever!
I think the First Annual MySpace Stupid Haircut Awards speak for themselves.
Inevitable
I knew this was bound to happen...
This is why Microsoft Research has to be very, very careful to clear any numbers they report on Windows with the Windows team. Because Linux morons jump all over stupid statistics like this.
It's not really an apples-to-apples comparison because Windows does all kinds of shit that Linux and FreeBSD don't on process startup, and they've also optimized thread creation over process creation. And if you have no idea what I'm talking about, count yourself lucky.
This is why Microsoft Research has to be very, very careful to clear any numbers they report on Windows with the Windows team. Because Linux morons jump all over stupid statistics like this.
It's not really an apples-to-apples comparison because Windows does all kinds of shit that Linux and FreeBSD don't on process startup, and they've also optimized thread creation over process creation. And if you have no idea what I'm talking about, count yourself lucky.
Hello kettle
He really has the balls to accuse _other_ people of rewriting history? Mr. Weapons of Mass Destruction/Iraq Has Links to Al Queda? Are you shitting me?
This administration has the most remarkable ability to piss me off...
This administration has the most remarkable ability to piss me off...
Thursday, November 10, 2005
Crazy hippies
Rolling stone article on the ineffectiveness of the anti-war movement.
I find this deeply frustrating. These are exactly the people who have turned "liberal" into a bad word. I don't consider them liberal. I consider them crazy, disorganized, undirected, and addicted to protesting for protest's sake. I consider them idiots who do a disservice to the anti-war movement. They mostly just like yelling and feeling self-righteous and superior. Kinda like the religious right.
It reminds me of Matt Macinnis' editorial at the end of his college tenure about how most of the Living Wage crew were 'tards that caused him to re-evaluate some of his political views. They're just going to turn people who might have been sympathetic against the cause because they don't want to ally themselves with crazy morons.
I find this deeply frustrating. These are exactly the people who have turned "liberal" into a bad word. I don't consider them liberal. I consider them crazy, disorganized, undirected, and addicted to protesting for protest's sake. I consider them idiots who do a disservice to the anti-war movement. They mostly just like yelling and feeling self-righteous and superior. Kinda like the religious right.
It reminds me of Matt Macinnis' editorial at the end of his college tenure about how most of the Living Wage crew were 'tards that caused him to re-evaluate some of his political views. They're just going to turn people who might have been sympathetic against the cause because they don't want to ally themselves with crazy morons.
Tuesday, November 08, 2005
Reality show addict
Show of choice: California election results.
The parental notification prop is dangerously close to passing. Please god, don't let Californians be that stupid...
The parental notification prop is dangerously close to passing. Please god, don't let Californians be that stupid...
I voted!
And I have a sticker to prove it.
As per previous post, voted down everything but 79 and 80. I found a Republican voting guide in my booth and threw it out (immensely satisfying experience), but not before noting that I went against every recommendation they made. And that, children, is how you know you cast the right vote...
As per previous post, voted down everything but 79 and 80. I found a Republican voting guide in my booth and threw it out (immensely satisfying experience), but not before noting that I went against every recommendation they made. And that, children, is how you know you cast the right vote...
Monday, November 07, 2005
Another step in Google taking over the universe
I've been waiting for someone to put their mapping program in mobile form. Goodbye printing out directions!
Thursday, November 03, 2005
Sweet poetic justice
Really, is there anything more poetic than using Sony's anti-piracy rootkit to circumvent World of Warcraft's Warden?
(Probably yes, lots of things, but it's still amusing)
(Probably yes, lots of things, but it's still amusing)
Wednesday, November 02, 2005
Wikipedia
I'm increasingly annoyed with the hype surrounding wikipedia. I am immediately suspicious of any technology people claim will "revolutionize" something, because it usually doesn't. In this respect, wikipedia doesn't disappoint.
First, a wee bit of background. Wikipedia is a democratic encyclopedia. Rather than have annoying "experts" editing the entries, any redneck schmuck can add or edit entries anywhere in the database.
For the most part, it actually works pretty well. Enough people look at the articles to prevent them from being tinfoil hat-crazy most of the time, and no one political group generally can run roughshod over another in any given article.
So what's it good for? Gist. It's great for getting the gist of any given topic. Want to know who the fuck czar Nicholas II was? Check out wikipedia. Want to know what the fuck a kumquat is and why anybody in their right mind would name a fruit that? Flip to wikipedia. It's a great resource for getting a general understanding of something you know jack shit about. In this respect, it is especially good at being a source of information for truly obscure topics. It's a fun exercise to try to find a topic wikipedia _doesn't_ have an entry for.
Which brings me to what's wrong with wikipedia. Or, perhaps more accurately, what people think wikipedia is good for and it isn't. It isn't, never will be, and never should be an authoritative source on anything. Nothing! You hear me? The academic advancement of knowledge depends on being able to rely on the prior work and sources of knowledge it's based on as being objectively correct, verified, and thoroughly scrunized by experts. Wikipedia gives you no such guarantee, and due to its structure, it never can. Wikipedia is a repository for conventional wisdom, but unfortunately conventional wisdom is sometimes wrong, even dangerously wrong.
There's a reason the world has experts, people. It's because they know stuff other people don't. If I don't have a guarantee an article was written by an expert and verified by other experts, it's worthless to me as a basis for other academic work, and the point at which wikipedia adopts that structure is the point at which it becomes just another encyclopedia and loses anything that might have been remarkable about it.
I'm fucking tired of hearing about how the great wikipedia is empowering the everyday joe to overturn the monoliths like Encyclopedia Brittanica. Shut up. All of you. Seriously. Just because something is new and different doesn't automatically mean it's better. Wikipedia can do certain things that traditional encyclopedias can't, but serving as an authoritative source of verified knowledge is not one of them. Get over yourselves.
That said, wikis are a great idea for tech companies to document the development of their products. Everyone in the company is definitionally an expert on the technology they're working on, so you can rely on their contributions to the wiki. Moreover, software is such a dynamic entity anyway that a knowledge repository that can evolve at the same pace as the software development is a godsend.
So go ahead...use wikipedia. But use it intelligently. Use it to figure out where else you should look for more detailed and more accurate information. Just don't, for the love of christ, cite it in a paper. You might as well just stamp the word "retard" on your forehead and be done with it.
(reading over this entry, it kinda sucks, isn't terribly coherent, and isn't terribly funny, but I'm sick and too lazy to rewrite it. Deal.)
First, a wee bit of background. Wikipedia is a democratic encyclopedia. Rather than have annoying "experts" editing the entries, any redneck schmuck can add or edit entries anywhere in the database.
For the most part, it actually works pretty well. Enough people look at the articles to prevent them from being tinfoil hat-crazy most of the time, and no one political group generally can run roughshod over another in any given article.
So what's it good for? Gist. It's great for getting the gist of any given topic. Want to know who the fuck czar Nicholas II was? Check out wikipedia. Want to know what the fuck a kumquat is and why anybody in their right mind would name a fruit that? Flip to wikipedia. It's a great resource for getting a general understanding of something you know jack shit about. In this respect, it is especially good at being a source of information for truly obscure topics. It's a fun exercise to try to find a topic wikipedia _doesn't_ have an entry for.
Which brings me to what's wrong with wikipedia. Or, perhaps more accurately, what people think wikipedia is good for and it isn't. It isn't, never will be, and never should be an authoritative source on anything. Nothing! You hear me? The academic advancement of knowledge depends on being able to rely on the prior work and sources of knowledge it's based on as being objectively correct, verified, and thoroughly scrunized by experts. Wikipedia gives you no such guarantee, and due to its structure, it never can. Wikipedia is a repository for conventional wisdom, but unfortunately conventional wisdom is sometimes wrong, even dangerously wrong.
There's a reason the world has experts, people. It's because they know stuff other people don't. If I don't have a guarantee an article was written by an expert and verified by other experts, it's worthless to me as a basis for other academic work, and the point at which wikipedia adopts that structure is the point at which it becomes just another encyclopedia and loses anything that might have been remarkable about it.
I'm fucking tired of hearing about how the great wikipedia is empowering the everyday joe to overturn the monoliths like Encyclopedia Brittanica. Shut up. All of you. Seriously. Just because something is new and different doesn't automatically mean it's better. Wikipedia can do certain things that traditional encyclopedias can't, but serving as an authoritative source of verified knowledge is not one of them. Get over yourselves.
That said, wikis are a great idea for tech companies to document the development of their products. Everyone in the company is definitionally an expert on the technology they're working on, so you can rely on their contributions to the wiki. Moreover, software is such a dynamic entity anyway that a knowledge repository that can evolve at the same pace as the software development is a godsend.
So go ahead...use wikipedia. But use it intelligently. Use it to figure out where else you should look for more detailed and more accurate information. Just don't, for the love of christ, cite it in a paper. You might as well just stamp the word "retard" on your forehead and be done with it.
(reading over this entry, it kinda sucks, isn't terribly coherent, and isn't terribly funny, but I'm sick and too lazy to rewrite it. Deal.)
Tuesday, November 01, 2005
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)