Honestly Anomalous...

Might get a bit quiet 'round these parts...

2009-09-14T21:39:00.000-05:00

I've started blogging about technology for MaximumPC, so posts here will be more infrequent. This blog will probably still be home to my musings on skepticism, science, and scifi.

Jason Calacanis reads my mind, rants about Apple

2009-08-28T20:43:00.004-05:00

Jason Calacanis is the guy behind Mahalo, and he seems to take issue with the closed nature of the iPhone. In a recent episode of This Week in Startups, he really tore into Apple for what he sees as an assault on the open nature of technology. Granted, the App Store is Apple's own personal playground, and they can do what they like. But that doesn't mean that you can't disagree with it on philosophical grounds.

Mr. Calacanis makes his point well, and lays blame on those that blindly follow Apple's lead. It's really shocking how many people seem to be willing to follow Apple to the ends of the Earth. It's not just the iPhone. I've seen numerous people on teh intarwebz raving about how cool the matte screen on the 15" MacBook Pro is. It's a matte display. Get over it. Apple giving you a simple choice that you should have had all along is not the second coming. Some people even see this as grounds to replace their current model. Didn't you just buy one? Can't you at least wait until the next version comes out with a 200Mhz CPU bump?

It seems that Apple has gotten used to their users going with the flow. They are so caught up in controlling the iPhone user experience that they're forgetting about their users. To top it off, I think they're also forgetting about innovation. What has the iPhone really brought to the table UI-wise since it's release? If we've learned anything from WinMo and Symbian, it's that you can't stop innovating. I have an iPhone, and I'm getting fed up. I don't want to go with the flow. I think an Android phone is in my future. I'm doing the capitalist thing, and voting with my dollars.

Apple, AT&T, and Google respond to the FCC

2009-08-22T14:51:00.004-05:00

The three companies involved the debacle known as, the rejection of Google Voice for iPhone, have sent their statements to the FCC. I read them, and it's kind of a mixed bag... a long mixed bag. It seems that all the good stuff in Google's statement is redacted. This includes the bit about the reasons they were given for the rejection of GV. No one's really sure why yet. We may never know.

AT&T for its part said they didn't do it. Nope, no involvement whatsoever. And just why the hell are you even asking? They just want to sell phones, dammit. The straight talk:

"Let me state unequivocally, AT&T had no role in any decision by Apple to not accept the Google Voice application for inclusion in the Apple App Store"

Okay... so maybe they actually didn't do it? Everyone on the internet thought they did. I'll admit they certainly had a better motive than Apple. Being disingenuous to reporters is one thing, but the FCC? Hopefully no one at AT&T is that dumb.

Apple sort of takes responsibility. The juicy part reads:

"The application has not been approved because, as submitted for review, it appears to alter the iPhone's distinctive user experience by replacing the iPhone's core mobile telephone functionality and Apple user interface with its own user interface for telephone calls, text messaging and voicemail. Apple spent a lot of time and effort developing this distinct and innovative way to seamlessly deliver core functionality of the iPhone."

Of course, they say that it technically hasn't been rejected. So really, if the GV app didn't make calls, send SMS, or store voicemail Apple would be FINE with it. I'm sure Google will get right on that. Apple goes on to bitch about protecting their user experience some more. I have news for you Apple, the user experience has barely evolved in the 2 years the iPhone has existed. It could do with a little less protecting.

I still don't understand Apple's objection. It's like Google actually hurt their feelings by suggesting people might want to run the GV app to make calls and such. It's all pretty characteristically Apple. Do not, under any circumstances, fuck with their "revolutionary" interface or else. Apple apologists out there that wanted to absolve them of all wrongdoing in this case, need to step back and take a look around. Apple isn't the same company that asked you to "think different" back in the day.

Aspartame is not going to kill you.

2009-08-04T18:09:00.010-05:00

I cannot stand the Huffington Post. There is not a bigger hive of pseudo-scientific bunk in the mainstream internet. I feel the need to qualify that with "mainstream" because there are some real fringe weirdos out there with tinfoil hats. A Dr. Epstein posted today about how Aspartame is about to be banned... and 'bout time, he says. This is extremely unlikely.

You know Aspartame well, it's also called "Nutrasweet". It's a low calorie sweetener used in all kinds of stuff (including, prominently, soft drinks). What really got me riled up about this, is that the HuffPo article was reposted, and given credence on The Consumerist. I like The Consumerist, but this is unacceptable. They're just parroting the fear-mongering. Why is this just fear-mongering? I'll tell you why...

The good doctor is talking about a study conducted in 2006 by the Italian Ramazzini Foundation that showed that Aspartame caused cancer in lab rats. The results of the study were presented in April of 2007. Why Dr. Epstein feels action on this is imminent now, two years later, is a mystery. If you take him at his word, it does sound damning. But... lets apply some skepticism, just to be sure.

Firstly, despite claiming that the rats were fed Aspartame within the acceptable daily intake (ADI), many of their experimental animals were being fed well over 100 times the ADI. These subjects, in fact, had no reduction in average life span compared to the control group. None! This flies in the face of the authors assertion. (source)

Above: Delicious, safe.

Indeed, even the competency with which the study was conducted is highly questionable according to the European Food Safety Authority. Cancer rates for older rats were compared directly with young rats, leading to skewed results. The feeding methods for the rats was also poorly recorded. It was also indicated that serious over-crowding of the rats likely led to respiratory disease, which is known to cause cancer in rats. Additionally, there was no randomization of the test animals. (source)

And after all these problems, even the histological studies of test animals were poorly done. The U.S. National Toxicology Program found that the researchers had misdiagnosed simple, benign hyperplasia as cancer in multiple cases. (source) In response to this, the US FDA requested that the Italian Ramazzini Foundation provide its raw data and tissue slides. They refused. So, just as the European Food Safety Authority had, the FDA determined that the study was flawed and no changes were needed. (source) If a group of researchers will not share data after publishing, that's a sure sign that there is something fishy going on.

This business with the HuffPo and the original study is another stab into the mainstream by the same activist, anti-science loons we've been hearing from for decades. There's no new evidence. Aspartame has been found to be safe in study after study for over 40 years. Okay... tinfoil hats off now.

Apple, AT&T, and Google Voice... here comes the FCC

2009-07-31T21:05:00.006-05:00

I've hung back on this for a few days. Mostly because it pissed me off so completely that I was afraid I'd make some sort of terroristic threats if I talked about it. A few days ago it came out that Apple rejected the official Google Voice app from the App Store, and pulled all third-party apps. The claim was that it "duplicated iPhone functionality". That's crap, it doesn't.

Google Voice is a free service that allows you to have one number that rings multiple phones. It also provides full call screening, call recording, cheap international calling, transcription of voicemails, and free SMS. In short, it is the coolest thing to happen to cell phones since their inception. On the Blackberry and Android platforms it is possible to install apps that integrate the phone with Google Voice and make it useful away from a computer.

Now iPhone users cannot get Google Voice apps. Some users (myself included) were already using "GV Mobile" by Sean Kovacs on the iPhone when it was pulled. Now we're left twisting in the wind, not knowing when a change in Google Voice or the iPhone OS will break the app, leaving us with poor access to the service.

What they are doing is removing consumer choice. There is no reason to reject these apps. At least before when something was rejected there was some sort of rational. It was usually the concern that AT&T's network would collapse if people started using too much data. But this... this is just AT&T being scared to death that empowering consumers will hurt their bottom line. They hate the idea that you could have a number that isn't tied to them. None of that messy number porting, just one number for life that they can't control.

So... cut to today. The FCC sent letters to Apple, AT&T, and Google asking a lot of questions about why the official and unofficial Google Voice apps were rejected. They seemed particularly interested in exactly how much say AT&T had in the decision. This gives me hope that someone will decide it's not worth it to block this service everyone clearly wants.

The FCC also wants to talk to the devs of third-party apps that were banned, like the aforementioned Sean Kovacs. It would be great if the FCC gave these people a chance to explain how this decision hurts all involved; customers and devs. Banning GV apps from the iPhone is only good for AT&T.

Update: Word has spread that Apple expects devs of banned apps to cover the cost of refunds to people that bought the apps. All this despite the fact that they no longer have any connection to the app store. This is sort of beyond the pale, Apple. Not only do these people spend weeks or months developing apps only to be told they can't sell them anymore, but they have to cover the cost to refund people that are upset with Apple for pulling them.

I find myself really watching upcoming Android handsets. It's too bad. The iPhone is a great piece of hardware with a great platform. If they'd open it up a little, nothing else would stand a chance.

AT&T blocks 4chan? Updated

2009-07-26T20:29:00.005-05:00

No confirmation as of yet from the AT&T side of things, but the internet is starting to freak out. AT&T is apparently blocking access to the img.4chan.org domain for its DSL customers. This means no access to the fabled (infamous?) /b/ message board.

4chan is a bulletin board system based around posting images and anonymous messages. Almost every meme you've ever heard of came from the depths of 4chan's /b/ board. LOLcats? Started as "Caturday" (posting of cat pics on Saturdays) on 4chan. Facepalm? 4chan. Rickrolling? Oh, you better believe it came from 4chan.

This may seem like nothing... not a big deal. I'd say it a huge deal. Whether or not you've ever heard of 4chan, ISPs shouldn't be blocking websites because they don't like the content. This is contrary to the concept of Net Neutrality. Access to, or traffic from a website should not be given preference one way or another.

AT&T doesn't really have any good will to burn after the ongoing iPhone shenanigans. So going up against 4chan seems like a terrible idea. Perhaps you remember the recent Scientology protests? All came from 4chan. Under the collective moniker, "anonymous", 4chan users have a history of pranks and hacks designed to punish those they feel need punishment. AT&T may have a real problem on its hands if this is a real policy, and not just a mistake.

Like they say... 4chan: Because none of us is a cruel as all of us.

I'll update this post as things progress.

Update: AT&T has issued a statement:

Beginning Friday, an AT&T customer was impacted by a denial-of-service attack stemming from IP addresses connected to img.4chan.org. To prevent this attack from disrupting service for the impacted AT&T customer, and to prevent the attack from spreading to impact our other customers, AT&T temporarily blocked access to the IP addresses in question for our customers. This action was in no way related to the content at img.4chan.org; our focus was on protecting our customers from malicious traffic.

Overnight Sunday, after we determined the denial-of-service threat no longer existed, AT&T removed the block on the IP addresses in question. We will continue to monitor for denial-of-service activity and any malicious traffic to protect our customers.

A Customer was DDoSed? Who? Seems fishy to me that this was coming from the img domain. I choose to believe that AT&T had some other reason for doing this. I imagine after realizing that this would be a PR disaster they reevaluated the block.

4chan says:

For the past three weeks, 4chan has been under a constant DDoS attack. We were able to filter this specific type of attack in a fashion that was more or less transparent to the end user.

Unfortunately, as an unintended consequence of the method used, some Internet users received errant traffic from one of our network switches. A handful happened to be AT&T customers.

So AT&T overreacted and blocked the domain for everyone? Interesting. So the war is off. For now at least.

Logitech comes through... eventually.

2009-07-23T19:03:00.003-05:00

Thought I'd relate a story to you about a neat customer service experience I had on twitter (I know, I'm sick of hearing about it too). In early July, my bluetooth Logitech MX Revolution mouse (part of the MX5500 set) stopped taking a charge. The charge indicator just flashed red every time I put it on the cradle. After searching around, it became evident that the mouse was going to need replacement.

I contacted support by email on July 8. Within the next day I was informed that my replacement request would be granted. I supplied the information (including a scan of the receipt) that they requested. Here's where things went off the rails. I didn't hear anything back. No shipping confirmation, no tracking numbers, nothing. I emailed once a few days later to make sure that everything was progressing. No response. On Monday the 13th I called the customer support line. They told me it was listed as in the warehouse and ready to ship. The fellow on the phone said he didn't know why it was held up, but it should go out soon.

A week passes, I call again, I get the same story. I was sort of concerned at this point. It shouldn't take almost 2 weeks for something to be shipped (I'd had a replacement once before and it only took a few days). I could live without it for a while, I just wanted to know that it would actually be shipped at some point. The people on the customer service line had no more information about it. So, dejected I did what everyone is doing these days, I complained about it on Twitter. I made some sort of snarky comments about how Logitech's warranty exchange systems was a bit ridiculous. The next day I had a reply from @Logitech asking for my case number, which I immediately supplied.

The very next day @Logitech explained that the MX5500 was on back-order. No one in the actual customer service department knew this. Not only that, but they were going to pull one from their "stash" in California and ship it to me overnight ( I assume retail stash?). So here I am today with my replacement mouse courtesy of @Logitech on Twitter. After waiting 2 weeks on Logitech Proper, it only took Logitech on Twitter 2 days to get me taken care of.

Verizon Says, "Use our app store, and only our app store."

2009-07-13T20:40:00.005-05:00

Recently, Verizon came out and said they were finally getting into this centralized app store business. This is a cool idea for them. Verizon has a lot of reasonably cool feature phones. It would be nice to have apps for them. Some people might like to just have app purchases charged to their bill. But Verizon isn't just talking about feature phones. They say that no smart phones will come with any other app store portal on them.

So BlackBerrys (BlackBerries? whatevs) and WinMo phones won't have their standard OS app stores out of the box. Conceivably, devs could submit their content to Verizon's store as well... but who wants to deal with two approval processes? RIM and Microsoft could figure a way to allow users to install their clients after the fact, but how many people would?

What does this say about a possible iPhone on the big V? It seems like the masses are clamoring for it. AT&Ts exclusivity is up next year, and it's entirely possible that they'll just back a dump truck of money up to 1 Infinite Loop in Cupertino. But if not, Verizon might have a shot. However, Apple is so big on their branding that I have a hard time believing they'd even allow a carrier badge on an iPhone, let alone have a carrier change the included apps. Allowing a carrier to remove the App store portal itself, and include its own instead? Unlikely. A lot of app purchases are made from that phone portal. It would be a big risk to let the carrier muscle in on that business. Would Verizon just forget their new rules in order to get an iPhone? They'd be stupid not to.

Murphy-Goode Winery is run by dicks.

2009-06-26T19:07:00.006-05:00

So, in case you hadn't heard, the Murphy-Goode Winery was having a cool contest. They were interviewing people via youtube vids for "a really goode job". The position is for a 6 month stint as a social media coordinator for the company. Why is it a "goode" job? Housing is provided, and you get payed $10,000 a month. Also, you probably get drunk a lot. Yeah... sweet.

A somewhat well-known (to geeks) tech personality by the name Martin Sargent (twitter) got into the running. So everyone posts vids and then there was voting to (presumably) whittle down the list of candidates. Martin got the most votes by a huge, huge margin. He did not get a spot in the top 50.

Now, I could bitch and moan all day about my preferred guy not winning. But that's dumb, it happens. They can pick people by whatever method they choose. It doesn't matter that Martin Sargent had a totally funny video and is basically, awesome. That's my opinion. What IS total bullshit here, is that in order to vote, you had to provide an email address.

What is the point of voting if winning the vote by an order of magnitude doesn't even get you into the top 50? There is no point... except to harvest email addresses. Murphy-Goode just got a ton of contact info. Oh sure, I'm sure they promised not to spam people, but maybe a little reminder every now and then about the social media campaign? Yeah.

Whoever came up with this job search idea is the real "social media coodrinator". Briliant way to get everyone's email addresses. If you think this is bunk, let them know how you feel.

Jammie Thomas on trial... again. Updated - She lost, ordered to pay $1.92 million

2009-06-18T15:59:00.007-05:00

So the trial has closed for a second time. What's going to happen this time? I suspect the jury will find her guilty, and fine her a exorbitant amount of money. Last time the RIAA was awarded a lot (over $200,000). Whatever it is, it would be a hefty sum for a single mother. The big question is, did she do it? Well, maybe.

The RIAA lawyers have shown that music was available, and downloaded from her computer. The Kazaa account was clearly set up in her name. No one can contest that. It used her preferred screen name. But what confuses me, is that the content of the shared folder was heavy on Death Metal. No one seems to think that Ms. Thomas is a fan of such acts. Many other tracks were on CDs that she already owned. So who was using the account? My money is on the former live-in boyfriend. That theory was, in fact advanced by the defense.

So then why was her username used? I think I have a theory, and it's a sad reality. People don't understand computers. In fact, they're often afraid of them. People will do anything a computer tells them to. That's why the fake antivirus pop-up have become such an effective method of getting people to install malware. I imagine, her former bo used Kazaa on her PC. She didn't know what it was, and signed in. When presented with boxes to fill in, many people will.

The uninitiated might have just thought Kazaa was a media player of some sort. Don't get me wrong, she may have used Kazaa to download music just like the boyfriend did. But did she even know what she was doing? How do you determine blame in a situation like that? How can you know who set up the share? Or who was behind the keyboard that night that Media Sentry downloaded the files?

Okay, so maybe we say she should have known better. Granted. Everyone SHOULD know enough about computers to know when something fishy is going on, but they don't. How about if she's found guilty they pick a reasonable fine? She's on trial for sharing 24 songs. How about she pay the RIAA for the cost of the 24 CDs she would have presumably had to buy to otherwise acquire those songs? Lets assume about $16 per CD... that works out to $384. Hell, throw in a penalty for having "stolen" (more accurately, made a copy of) them. She pays double. That's $768. That's fair, that's what the RIAA is owed. Do you feel like hundreds of thousands is fair? Have you ever let a friend make a copy of a CD? You too may owe the RIAA $10,000 per track.

While I can ony hope she isn't destroyed by the verdict, I'm not hopeful.

Update - Wow... I'm just shocked, and frankly angry. She was found guilty and ordered to pay $1.92 million. That is fucking unconstitutional. How can 24 songs add up to that kind of fine? How? The guilty verdict isn't a surprise, but the fine of $80,000 per song is unbelievable.

This is a woman of limited means, she can't ever pay this. The RIAA knows that. They just want this huge verdict to leverage a settlement, and to set presidence. If she continues to fight, and all her motions/appeals fail, I wonder how much the RIAA will actually get out of her.

A brief stipulation for iPhone 3GS pricing.

2009-06-11T19:59:00.006-05:00

I just ran across some info about the pricing iPhone pricing. As you may notice below, I was trying to get the whole thing figured out yesterday. I thought I had the problem licked, but apparently not. Had a go at the online ordering system, and was told to pay the no-commitment price. Wow, really?

So after dealing with the folks at the AT&T store again, I was advised to call corporate AT&T help. Apparently, they have a much fuller understanding of pricing. As it turns out if you have ever taken the "early upgrade" pricing on the iPhone 3G, you cannot get early upgrade pricing again. Nope, not even if you're willing to agree to a new 2-year contract.

Of course, this detail escapes the notice of almost everyone at AT&T. I certainly wasn't told about it when I got the 3G. Oh well. $599 for the new phone? That's a tough sell.

The Takeaway:
If you are a current iPhone 3G customer, and you are planning to go for the early-upgrade, think it over first. You will NOT be able to do it again. You will have to finish the contract. They will not offer you any discounts until you complete at least 18 months, or as many as 22 months of your new contract. Apple will inevitably release another iPhone next year. When that happens, you'll be stuck with the full retail price. AT&T is not training their employees properly. They will not explain this to you if you come in to do the early-upgrade.

iPhone 3GS for real pricing. -Updated

2009-06-08T19:35:00.014-05:00

The new iPhone was announced today. You might like it, you might not... that's not what this post is about. There have been some questions about what the pricing will be. Apple of course announced that the pricing was $99/199/299 for the 8, 16, and 32 GB versions respectively. As everyone guessed, that's the new customer price (or if your current contract is up).

What threw everyone for a loop, is that the Apple website said the following:

"For non-qualified customers, including existing AT&T customers who want to upgrade from another phone or replace an iPhone 3G, the price with a new two-year agreement is $499 (8GB), $599 (16GB), or $699 (32GB)."

Wow... those are big scary numbers. If you want to check out the fury that caused, have a look at the comments here, and the alterations to the post here. So what is the deal if you have a current iPhone under contract? It just wouldn't make any sense to charge $599 for the 16GB phone. That's the same as the off-contract price. AT&T told Gizmodo the pricing is as such:

iPhone 3G S: Device Pricing
• iPhone 3G S will cost $199 (16GB) and $299 (32GB) for new and qualifying customers.
• If you are not currently eligible for an upgrade but still want iPhone 3G S, early upgrade prices are $399 (16GB) and $499 (32GB)
• No-commitment pricing: $599 (16GB) and $699 (32GB)

iPhone 3G: Device Pricing
• iPhone 3G will cost $99 (8GB) and, while supplies last, $149 (16GB) for new and qualifying customers.
• If you are not currently eligible for an upgrade but still want iPhone 3G, early upgrade prices are $299 (8GB) and, while supplies last, $349 (16GB)
• No-commitment pricing: $499 (8GB) and, while supplies last, $549 (16GB)

But that doesn't wash. Some people (myself included) were being told by the Apple website that the 16GB phone would be running $599. A call to my local AT&T store resolved this issue. I'll say upfront that this does not explain the strange wording on the Apple site's fine print seen above. AT&T checked, and apparently you can't get even the early upgrade pricing until you are over 6 months into your contract (possibly waved at store, see below). That's why some people were coming up with this higher total. I suppose that makes sense. Otherwise, what's to stop people from coming in and buying a partially subsidized iPhone everyday (and restarting their contract) and selling them on Craigslist?

So come next month I'll be at least down the the $399 tier. I don't know if I'll upgrade yet, but it's good to have this straightened out.

Edit: As a huge nerd, I found myself wanting confirmation on this whole deal. I contacted two additional AT&T stores. One store seemed to be staffed by a fellow who seemed only vaguely aware of what a cell phone was. He claimed there was no such thing as early upgrade pricing. The second store was staffed by really swell people that seemed quite on the ball. They confirmed that early upgrade pricing was available to current 3G owners, and further, they would be willing to give me the early upgrade pricing on the spot if I wanted to put in a pre-order. They said the online sites tend not to offer the early upgrade pricing even though they should. (Note: I no longer believe this to be true, see second edit below)

AT&T has finally added language to their site that, I think, makes everything perfectly clear.

Existing AT&T customers who are not currently eligible for an upgrade discount can purchase iPhone 3G S for $399 for the 16GB model and $499 for the 32GB model. iPhone 3G can be purchased for $299 for the 8GB model and $349 for the 16GB model while supplies last. These options require a new 2-year service agreement. No-Commitment pricing for iPhone 3G S is $599 (16GB), $699 (32GB). No-Commitment pricing for iPhone 3G is $499 (8GB) and $549 (16GB) while supplies last.

So, there you have it. If you want the 3GS, but aren't eligible for the full upgrade, it'll cost you $399-$499. You have to do a new contract, but it saves you $200 up front off the no-commitment price. (not true in all cases, see below)

Edit again: *sigh* there is one caveat. See here.

Leo, Mike, and keyboard cat.

2009-06-07T00:07:00.006-05:00

I don't have too much to say about this. It's just a bit of gossipy tech news today. Leo Laporte of the TWiT network has a number of internet shows. While filming one, Mike Arrington of Techcrunch suggested that Leo getting a "free" Palm Pre was an important disclosure. In fact, Leo only had a 7-day review unit. The keyboard cat was added later. Adding the hottest new meme helps cut through the tension.

To clarify, Leo is, I think, probably the nicest guy on the interwebs. In true nerd fashion, the most shocking part for me was when Leo threw down the Pre at the end. Mike Arrington has a history of being a bit harsh (read: a jerk). In this case Leo wasn't having any of it. I think Mike over-stepped and didn't really realize what he was saying. Leo had every right to tell him off. Leo did overreact a bit in canceling the show, but in true nice guy style, he apologized. Mike posted a sort-of-apology here. Leo's apology is there as well.

The FriendFeed conversation from the show is, well, interesting. Just start reading from the top. You'll see where everything went wrong.

Unrelated: Is Leo Laporte getting younger? I swear he looked older on The Screen Savers.

2001 times better than the movie.

2009-06-02T20:31:00.006-05:00

So I've just finally gotten around to reading the scifi classic, 2001: A Space Odyssey. Now, my reactions a mere 41 years late. Why it took me so long, I'm not sure. I hadn't seen the movie in a number of years, and I didn't remember much about it. So I blew through the book in a few days, and decided I'd watch the film version right after. I was intrigued that Clark had a hand in writing it. Neither the book nor the film could really be considered the source material. I hoped this would mean the movies was (for once) on par with the book. Unfortunately, it was not.

Don't get me wrong, it was a fine film. Never-the-less, it cannot compare to the book. I realize that due to the era it was made in, some sacrifices had to be made for technical reasons. The monolith from the beginning and end of the film was described in the book as perfectly clear crystal. In the movie, they couldn't think of any way to go about that, so it's black.

What really bugged me was the way the film just sort of tip-toed around everything. In the book the ape-men had a much more believable story. They were dumb, understanding only the drive to find food. When the monolith appeared they checked to see if it was edible, since it wasn't, they ignored it. Well... that is, until it started projecting images into their minds and assessing their manual dexterity. Doesn't that sound more interesting than: monolith appears, ape-men freak out, suddenly start hitting things with bones? In the novel, it's clear what is happening from the start. This is clearly a machine created by intelligence. The film skirts the issue.

HAL is chilling in the book, as he is in the movie. But in the movie he just loses it for no reason. If you read the book, you hear about WHY he lost it. You understand his reasons; it's almost an Asimov-style logic problem. The movie made HAL the main focus, but removed so much information about him. This, however, pales in comparison to the story's climax. The novel tells of an awe-inspiring journey through the Star Gate, a giant monolith on Saturn's moon Iapetus. In the film, a monolith near Jupiter takes Dave through a trippy very 60s-ish tunnel.

The film just ended... and was confusing. The book was not entirely easy to get, but made sense when you though about it. When Dave becomes the "Star Child" he returns to Earth and destroys Earth's nuclear weapons. He's advanced to the next level like that first ape-man from the beginning of the film. It gives you chills.

So... nerd communique complete.

Speedfan in Windows 7

2009-05-18T20:25:00.005-05:00

One of the cool things about Windows 7 (henceforth referred to as Win7, because it's full of win) is the cleaned up system tray. That's the group of icons in the lower right hand corner that indicate various programs that are running in the background, as well as some system functions. In previous versions of Windows, this area could get a little crowded. Even with 'hide inactive icons' enabled, programs tended to make themselves visible most of the time.

Win7 is very protective of the system tray. As such you can tell most program icons to take a hike. Extra icons are stored in a pop-up menu. In this menu is the link to customize what icons are allowed in the tray and when. For most programs the 'Only Show Notifications' options is good. This means the icon will only show up if it has a notification for you. By selecting 'Show Icon and Notifications', you keep an icon always visible in the tray.

Other than the default icons, I only allow one app to show an icon there. What is it? I spoiled the surprise by putting it in the title. Speedfan is a application that lets you monitor the sensors in your computer. Things like CPU temp, fan speeds, and even GPU temp are logged by Speedfan. You can set it to display in the tray whatever stats you want. I have it set up to display my CPU temp to keep an eye on a questionable heatsink.

So what makes it so cool in Win7? The color scheme for the system icons is all white. It looks very nice in the Aero Glass interface. Speedfan lets you set the tray icon stats to plain white text, and it looks like it was meant to be there. Have a look:

Cool, right? It's the little things in Win7 that warm my geeky heart. You can get Speedfan here. Works perfectly fine in past versions of Windows as well.

My Windows 7 upgrade.

2009-05-15T22:14:00.006-05:00

The time finally came to do something about the copy of Windows 7 RC that's been staring me in the face for a week now. I burned the disk last weekend and just couldn't decide if I should install it. Tonight I decided to go for it. At least if everything broke I'd have the weekend to fix it. Nothing has, as of yet, gone terribly wrong. I'm writing this on my Windows 7 install, but there's nothing to say it won't blue-screen any minute now. I haven't used it long enough to give you a real analysis of how it performs, but I can tell you about the upgrade process.

I'd usually not bother with a pre-release OS, but the buzz around Win7 got to me. If you're a geek like me, you probably get a bit stressed doing major updates to your main system. There are always those moments when it look like the install may have frozen, or the PC has had to restart one too many times. So here's the rundown of the upgrade process...

I decided to do an in-place upgrade from Vista 64-bit SP1, to Win7 64-bit. You can't go between the 32 and 64-bit versions in an in-place. My reason for this was two-fold. First, I'm just not feeling like reinstalling all my junk right now. Secondly, the final version will not support an upgrade from the RC (so I'd have to format in a few months anyway).

I launched the installer from within Windows Vista and it chugged away for a few minutes. I was informed that NOD32 antivirus and my printer would not function under Win7. Nifty trick. I obtained updated drivers for the printer and the new version of NOD32. Setup copied files; this proceeded quite quickly. In the next step all current settings are gathered. This was the first speed bump. It hung at 18% for a few minutes. There was a restart, then it continued.

The previously copied Win7 files were expanded. No surprises here, went smoothly. The next step installs the new OS files. In this step it seemed to hang twice and there were two more restarts. The first start-up was lengthy... very lengthy. I was getting a little worried, but everything seemed to work out.

So it works... nothing seems broken. I ran Fallout 3 a bit and it ran beautifully. My fingers remain crossed.

What gives with AT&Ts 3G?

2009-05-12T19:16:00.003-05:00

AT&T seems to be trying hard to become a cyberpunk-style evil mega-corporation. The iPhone has effectively given them dominion over the smartphone market, and they know it. Seedy things continue to happen, but could it be they're just hiding behind a big tough facade? I think that AT&Ts 3G data network is more stressed than they're letting on.

The iPhone has resulted in a massive increase in cell data traffic. There are a few little tweaks in the phone's settings that are clearly geared towards reducing the use of cell data. Some functions like downloading podcasts or apps over 10MB are not allowed on cell data (though, some of this may change in the 3.0 software). Skype is also wifi only. Now, here we see a new bandwidth intensive app with 3G limitations. Slingbox is releasing an app that will only work on a wifi connection.

For the uninitiated, a Slingbox is a set-top box that allows you to stream your TV signal over the internet to wherever you like. The iPhone app allows you to view the stream on the phone. It seems unlikely that this is much different than watching youtube videos on the phone, so why the limitation? I think that AT&T is worried about the possibility that their network is reaching the breaking point. They were unprepared for the number of data-using iPhone customers they now have to contend with.

In some areas, the 3G network is already becoming saturated. In the great barbaric northlands, where I live, I rarely see people using smartphones. If I do, they're not usually big data users. I went on a trip to Orlando recently, and I must have seen an iPhone every 5 minutes. The 3G access was also considerably more touch and go. I can only imagine how bad it is in bigger metro areas like Chicago or New York.

They want to limit any bandwidth intensive app they can, to keep ahead of the curve. AT&T will do anything to lock Apple into an extended exclusivity agreement. Their network has to at least appear to be up to the task.

The Kindle DX means Jeff Bezos hates you.

2009-05-06T17:47:00.002-05:00

Did you drop $360 on the Kindle 2 a few months ago? If so, Amazon boss Jeff Bezos hates you. Why? He's just announced a new Kindle. A cooler kindle, you might say. Big screen, lots of storage, all that crap... also it's super expensive at nearly $500. Pricey to say the least.

Above: Still not as practical as dead trees.

I'm going to just say this: as big a nerd as I am, I just can't grok the whole e-book thing. I'm very skeptical of introducing another expensive piece of technology into my life to fill a niche that dead trees fill quite well. I'm already terrified of breaking of losing my phone while out. Why have to worry about spilling something something on my e-book reader? I'm still not happy with the crispness either. Every time I've looked at a Kindle it seems too muddy. E-ink isn't there yet.

There was all this hubbub about a Kindle DX trial run on university campuses. On the face of it, this seems like a good idea. If you can get a big discount on the Kindle version of a text book (and the school is providing a Kindle DX), it could really be appealing. If students had to buy their own Kindles, not so much. Can you imagine how big a target Kindles would be for theft? Much like a laptop, they are very portable (i.e. portable by someone other than the owner).

So lets say you buy a pricey Kindle DX and get all your text books on it. Maybe when all is said and done you only spent a bit more than you would have on all the dead tree versions. Sure, you can't really doodle in the margins, but look how portable! At the local coffee shop someone steals your Kindle, because lets face it, people are dicks. Mid-terms are coming up and you now have no books at all. Time to buy another Kindle? Jeff Bezos sure hopes so.

Complete Windows XP virtualization coming in Windows 7

2009-04-24T19:16:00.006-05:00

I find this pretty cool. Paul Thurrott over at the Super Site for Windows has finally come out with something he's been hinting at for a few weeks. Windows 7 Professional and Ultimate versions will have "XP Mode". This is basically an integrated virtual machine running Windows XP. No virtual desktop needs to be run, all the XP applications will be able to run alongside none XP Mode applications. This is a good move I think. According to Microsoft, this means that Windows 7 will be able to run virtually any XP compatible software.

I'm sure they're doing this for business. XP was around so long that business became entrenched with it. They have applications that work on XP, but maybe not on Vista. XP Mode seems to solve that problem without requiring IT staff to manually configure a virtual machine.

You can read a full workup and see some screens over at the Super Site.

A quick thought about twitter.

2009-04-23T22:03:00.005-05:00

So there's all this stuff about business models, right? No one knows how twitter is supposed to make money. Thus far it hasn't mattered. Everyone with cash to throw around is anxious to throw money at twitter. At some point they're going to have to make money though. But how? Ads? I hope not.

I was tweeting the other day and for some reason, I kept bumping up against the API limit. For the uninitiated, the API limit is basically the maximum number of requests an account can make to the twitter servers from a third-party client in an hour. So if you're using Tweetdeck to tweet, you can only ping the twitter servers 100 times per hour. Searches, refreshing your stream of tweets, sending tweets... everything. The requests are account specific, so using another app won't help.

That's why you see a lot of copmany reps and other heavy users using the web interface a lot. The web interface is not great. So here's my proposal. Offer the ability to pay for access to a higher API limit. I have not looked into this. Maybe they already do this in some capacity. If not, they should.

The word 'tweet' has lost all meaning to me now...

Why is Dell failing?

2009-04-21T20:36:00.012-05:00

Okay, maybe not failing, but things aren't looking very rosy. Quarterly sales figures for PCs came out recently, and there was a bit of a shocker. Dell, who had been the top PC seller for a number of years, has lost the top spot to HP. They've basically lost about 15% of their market share. The real question here is, do they deserve it? Well, maybe. Dell has made some mistakes in the last few years. Don't get me wrong, every time I use a Dell computer, I really like it. They make solid products. But there's always the possibility that things could go wrong. If you've ever had to deal with Dell customer support, you can see why they're going down.

I remember back in the day, when Dell was a really great company to work with. That's what set them apart. As the demand for PCs has increased, the prices have been pushed down. The market has largely become a race to the bottom. So in a way, we're all to blame for this. How does Dell make up for the price cuts? Apparently in the customer service department.

Barely a week goes by when The Consumerist doesn't have a horror story about Dell's poor customer service. I had a Dell a few years back as a second PC, and my experience was... not stellar. They have a serious problem with their image. Consumers often don't realize how much those calls to Dell cost them. If you have to call more than a few times, Dell has effectively lost money on the transaction. So where does Dell go from there? They get cheaper representatives. That's why when you call Dell, you get routed to India. I'm sure there are plenty of tech savvy people in India. But they don't work for Dell.

Above: The perils of tech support

I feel like this strategy has backfired. I really have to wonder how much they are really saving. Even paying someone a fraction of what you would pay in the US, is it still saving that much? If you call with a simple problem, but the rep on the phone is poorly trained and just follows a script, it's likely to take much longer to fix. Maybe it isn't even fixed. Maybe you get transferred around. Maybe you accidentally get cut off and you have to start all over. Maybe when all is said and done, Dell would have saved money having a well trained individual answering the phone. I have my fingers crossed Dell, I actually like your computers.

Oh, and get rid of those weird mouse buttons on the Mini 10. Seriously.

Why download caps suck.

2009-04-20T18:01:00.006-05:00

It's been said before, but not by me in such a formal way as a blog post. Capping internet traffic on residential customers is a terrible idea. End of story. If you're a light user, I can see why you'd neglect this issue. What does it matter to you if the guy down the block can't download all his torrents? Screw that guy, yeah? That's fine for now. But if you get behind this course of action, you're Pigeonholing yourself for two reasons.

Firstly, you are probably expecting that if some users pay more, you pay less. That would only make sense. But it's not likely to go down like that. ISPs don't make a lot of money being a dumb pipe for bits. No, it's the premium services you see in all in-one-providers like Comcast. High internet usage is just something else they want to monetize. It isn't about giving you a better experience, it's about how to cash in. The argument is that higher usage is forcing more upgrades. But where are they? Why am I still getting my internet through copper wires coming into my house? Where's the fiber? Recently, The New York Times wrote about how the largest ISP in Japan upgraded customers to 100Mb/s internet. In case you're wondering, the average speed in the US is 6.2Mb/s. How much did it cost for the Japanese upgrade? About $20 per home. Now take another look at your bill and decide if they should be charging you more for your measly 6 megabits.

Above: Your possible future

The second reason you're screwing yourself by not objecting to this bunk, is that the future of entertainment is online. Already we see this starting with the likes of Hulu and the new Youtube "Shows" section. I will wager that most people are smart enough to work Hulu. But how many of them can reliably monitor their bandwidth? How many even know the difference between bits and bytes? It's a great opportunity for ISPs to nickle and dime their way to a big payday.

As technology changes, we'll all want more bandwidth. If we let these companies start doing this now, it won't stop. It will become part of the business model, and we won't be able to go back. Right now, streaming video is a fairly low bitrate. In the future, however, we will expect HD streaming to be more common. A 1080p video stream uses about 1.25MB/second. That works out to about 4.4GB per hour of content. If you have a 40GB cap like Time Warner was trying to pull, you could watch a little over 9 hours of content per MONTH. That's if you do nothing else. This is where things are headed content-wise. Those that have bundled cable packages especially are fighting tooth and nail against it.

If we give our tacit approval to this now, they won't stop. We already have to complain to get faster speeds, do we really want to have to fight on another front to keep our caps high enough that we can enjoy internet innovation? Your call.

Not just a novelty anymore

2009-04-13T21:39:00.003-05:00

I'm going to gush about my iphone a little. So if you don't care about the iphone, just move on. I find myself playing a lot more games on it. At first, it just seemed like a novelty. You've got this neat phone with all sorts of neat apps, and it plays games... sort of. A lot of them were just ported from existing flash games. There is scarcely a bigger slap in the face than buying a game, and seeing that you could have played it online for free. Unless the format brings something new with the capabilities of the iphone, it ends up a bit of a waste.

Now, though? Now there are a multitude of really interesting games. Things designed specifically for the iphone. The multitouch screen and accelerometer have really been taken advanage of by developers. A lot of them place controls like two analog sticks on the screen. It actually works amazingly well. Driving and flying games often use the accelerometer. And goddammit Apple, you make it so easy to blow money. Oh what's that Apple? You'll save my credit card info and allow me to just click a button and buy all these fun $2 apps? Neat! How much could I blow on $2 apps?

Turns out a lot.

But the some of these games have really grabbed me. I just spent an hour playing a game called "The Void". It's a totally passable space shooter that uses the accelerometer for manuvering. It feel like using a handheld console... oh and did you know the iphone is a phone too? Yeah, I know... it's easy to forget sometimes (especially those times that you're madly tilting it and tapping at the screen to kill something or another). I hearby decree that the iphone is a gmae console. No, I don't have the authority to decree things like that, but it's true.

Snoodio gone from the app store?

2009-04-02T22:29:00.008-05:00

It appears that as of 10PM-ish Central time, Snoodio is no longer available from the Apple App store. Snoodio is an iPhone puzzle game based on Snood. The website is also gone. It appears to just be a squatting site. What happened? If I had to guess, I'd say there was some problem with licensing. Perhaps the Snoodio people didn't have the permission of whoever owns Snood. Maybe it will just come back... we'll see.

Still developing...

11:00PM: I just noticed that the @snoodio account on twitter is "suspended". That's the word tweetie used, don't know if that's actually the case.

11:15PM: Yeah, I don't have anything better to do. It looks like the people from Snood (the original) have been tweeting/facebooking about making an iPhone app. Coincidence? I think not.

Twitter makes me a little sad.

2009-03-31T20:29:00.004-05:00

I have to confess, I like twitter. I never thought I would. I made an account a while back and well... I didn't get it. Never used it. Yeah, I was one of those. Those people with the handfull of tweets about not getting it. I followed some tech community people, but didn't tweet much. I got a smartphone a few months ago, and decided to give it another try. I made another account with my online moniker, so as to confuse the coworkers I would be making fun of. I learned it's much more enjoyable to be able to tweet during the day while not at a computer. Almost everyone in the tech community is active on twitter. This is great for a nerd like myself to build a twitter feed of geekery. But no sooner did I start using twitter again, when the mainstream came on full force.

Everyone is suddenly on it. That's fine I guess. I don't care what Brittney Spears' publicist has to say, I just don't follow her. I don't care that celebrities are given special treatment on the "suggested user list", allowing them to surpass my geek icons. What really bugs me, is how much the mainstream media talks about twitter. When something reaches a certain level of popularity, it runs a serious risk of being uncool in the eyes of the fickle internet generation. If tech people start leaving, I'll go too. Who wants to hang around a wasteland populated by the likes of Brittney Spears? Not me, man... not me.

I'm almost remiss to use the term "mainstream media". It sounds so cliché, but it's the best way to describe it. Every time there's a news story about it, it's just sort of introduced. Some stogery old guy that can't check his email starts spouting the terminology, trying to sound as cool as possible. And would you please excuse him so he can go smoke a blunt with his homies? Cool. We know what twitter is. Most of us have been aware of its existence for some time now. Those that don't, will probably not use it on the advice of the old media. I'm just getting sick of hearing about it.

It's all making me feel like the party's already over. Is twitter going to be the new Myspace? Seems like when the media latches on to something like that, it's as good as doomed. I mean, if you ask me, Facebook is already languishing in the seventh circle of super-poke hell. The golden age of p2p came to an end when the old media got around to sensationalizing piracy. Myspace stopped being acceptable long, long ago (right around the time my mother opened an account... sorry mom). And here's twitter... doing something interesting... maybe not long for this Earth.

Games in the cloud.

2009-03-24T20:49:00.000-05:00

Edit: Apparently, they're using 720p video. Which really isn't high enough. That's about 4Mb/s... see below

If you're a nerd, you may have heard the big gaming news recently. A company called OnLive claims to have a completely new take on gaming. Basically, instead of installing a game on your PC, and running it on your hardware, you just stream video of it. So your control inputs are transmitted to them, and the video is piped back to you. Presumably, they have a way of compensating for the lag in transmitting your control actions to their servers, and then sending the video back. I have to say, this is interesting.

As I referenced previously, I don't like the idea of being entirely dependent on the cloud for my PC to work. But any geek that's spent hundreds of dollars on a video card, only to see a game come out a month later that completely owns the brand new card, is a potential customer here. Because all the rendering and such is being done off site, your PC only needs to be powerful enough to display hi-res video (you can also use a TV with some little streaming box they have). Of course, you'll also need a crazy fast internet connection. These days, even on an online game, you're only transmitting a small amount of data; all the textures and physics are being produced on your machine or console.

That's the problem though. Most people's connection won't be able to cut it. A serious gamer will want HD level resolutions. That's what you get used to when you buy these expensive graphics cards and run games locally. Most gamers these days are running wide screen resolutions with 1050 or 1200 lines (sort of like how HDTV is 1080 lines). Transmitting that amount of video data takes up about 9-10Mb/second. That's a lot. I just don't think you'll be able to get gamers to accept a lower quality image; especially if you are promoting all these cutting edge games. Take away the eye candy, and honestly, a lot of them aren't very compelling.

With various internet providers clamping down on "excessive" usage, this whole idea may be dead before it gets off the ground. As an example, Comcast has a 250GB/month usage cap. A sustained 10Mb/second stream of video (i.e. 1.25MB/s) means that you'd use about 4.4GB per hour of play. After about 50 hours of game play, your cap has been reached for a whole month. That's not even including ANY other usage. Comcast has a fairly generous (but still lame cap). Some ISPs have lower caps like 100 or even 50GB. At that rate you'd run through you cap (if you don't do anything else on the connection) in 22 and 11.3 hours respectively. A serious gamer could easily run through even the Comcast cap. When you add in other normal uses of a connection, the picture becomes grim.

I signed up for the beta anyway. I'm just interested... even though I'm skeptical.

Update: They say that they're using 720p, so at 4Mb/s that's less data. And also much less impressive looking. You're looking at about 125 hours of just game play on the Comcast cap. More reasonable, but still a lot of data when you figure in other uses. I don't know that a lot of gamers will be willing to go down to 720 lines from 1050 or 1200.

If you don't give AT&T your money, they will cut you.

2009-03-17T18:19:00.005-05:00

In the euphoric afterglow of the iPhone 3.0 OS preview, I'm reminded of how irritating cell providers are. There was a very telling exchange in the Q&A section of the presentation today. When asked about "tethering", the Apple reps gave a hand-wavy answer about having built tethering into the new OS, but they would have to work out the details with the service providers. Tethering is the ability to connect a device to a PC and use it as a cellular modem; basically like having a 3G data card in a PC. A lot of phones support this, but AT&T has stifled it on the iPhone.

There are a lot of iPhones, and that's a lot of people that might pay extra for a tethering plan. A tethering application showed up briefly on the app store, only to be taken down at the request of AT&T. See, they'd much rather charge an extra $60/month for the tethering service. Apple has pulled their fair share of douchebag moves, but this one is all AT&T.

Why should it matter to AT&T where the data is coming from? If you pay for unlimited cell data on your phone, it should be none of their business how you use it. Oh, and the tethering plan will have a 5GB/month cap on it. It seems like an outrageous price to me, but when you think about it, there are worse offenses.

Do you know how much a single text message costs on AT&T? If you don't have a plan (or you go over) they cost you $0.20 each. That's sent and received. That's plain ridiculous to charge so much for a few bytes of data. That's all it is. There's nothing special involved. All the data that goes out over the wireless antenna is the same to a carrier. They'll basically let you download and upload all the data you want for $30/month, unless that data happens to be in the form of a text message. But there's money to be had.

Lets put this another way. If you want 1 megabyte (MB/1 million bytes) of data for your phone, you pay $5/month. Frankly, a little steep. But if all you do is check sports scores or the weather, that's fine. A text message is a maximum of 160 bytes of data. At $0.20 per message, that runs a little over $1300 for 1MB of data. Does that make even a LITTLE sense? Nope. Even if you get a plan for 1500 messages ($15/month), you still lose out big time. All 1500 would use only about 240kB of data, that's less than a quarter of a megabyte. To recap, 1MB of data costs $5/month. However, if that data is a text message (and it's really all the same to the carrier network), you pay way, way more.

On my iPhone last month, I used about 200MB of unlimited cell data (I use wifi at home). If AT&T charged the same rate for cell data as they charged for text message data, I'd owe them $262,144. I know... people have complained about this before. But it doesn't get any less annoying with time.

Using iTunes on Windows is awful.

2009-03-13T16:19:00.006-05:00

Seriously Apple... why do this? Are you just trying to torture Windows users? Is this part of a scheme to make people feel like their Windows PCs are too slow? Well, I'm not falling for it. This software is incredibly aggravating to use, and I'd wager it's like that because Apple just doesn't want to waste time making Windows versions of iTunes work properly.

Why use it then? As it turns out, you sort of have to if you have an iPhone and want to avoid a big headache. I will give Apple this, they make a really, really cool phone. But does the software have to be so terrible? Maybe I'm just more conscious of it because I abandoned it long ago, only returning recently when I got the phone. Why is it that the program freezes for like 3 seconds whenever I want to view my phone info? And why does the store have to take forever to open a page (this may actually be a universal issue)? This pile of poorly coded refuse must take 5 seconds to start up; about 4 seconds longer than it should. I mean, Google Earth launches in less time.

When iTunes was fresh and new, it wasn't bad. It was light-weight and ran okay. Version 4.1 was a 19MB download. The new version 8.1? Oh, just 80MB. It has gotten bloated and slow. Of course, the bundling with Quicktime has something to do with that. Installing iTunes seems to give Apple the right to bug you with all manner of prompts asking about installing their other shit. No thanks Apple, I don't want the MobileMe control panel. Fix MobileMe first, then we'll talk.

And about the store... it is not a browser, despite its repeated attempts to trick me into thinking it is. The tiny little forward and back buttons are stupid for this application. There must be a better way to navigate a store within a program. And why the hell can I not highlight ANYTHING? All I want to do is copy a URL. What is Apple's problem with copy an paste? First on the iPhone, now they don't even want my computer to do it.

It's just goddamn awful.

Something I'm sick of.

2009-03-05T21:18:00.005-06:00

What, you may ask? The "armchair economist". This creature is similar to the Internet Libertarian in general weirdness. However, it seems to be much more widespread these days. Look, I'm as guilty as the next in stating my economic opinions during political campaigns. Like many of you, I get carried away. Just look back a few months and you'll see. But here we are taking a course of action, and still everyone is the expert. I always hear on MPR people claiming to have the answer. By people, I mean random callers, not guest experts. What are the experts saying? All the fancy words seem to amount to a shoulder shrug.

No one knows what's going to happen; least of all, some bumpkin from Alabama. Obama is taking a particular course of action, and no amount of complaining is going to change it. I guess I'd just prefer we gave it some time before we judge one way or the other. It might not be the best way to go, but it's the way we're going.

Many wanted to bury Keynesian economic theory in the last few decades. And they may have even had a point, until a few months back when the Federal Reserve lowered the funds rate to basically 0%. Nowhere else to go there. So here we are... no one can lay out the immediate economic future in a neat bullet-point list, but at least something's happening. So how about we all stop being so self-righteous, and see how things go for a bit?

What's the point of a Microsoft retail store?

2009-02-22T14:34:00.004-06:00

After the recent announcement of the imminent arrival of Microsoft retail stores, I found myself wondering, why? Not to say that I think it's a bad idea... I just don't understand what they're going to do there. The Apple stores work because Apple makes the computers. Microsoft is just a software company. Sure they could sell Zunes and the MS Surface, but... well, I think we can all agree that they aren't going to take off any time soon.

The big thing is obviously going to be Windows and Office. But that doesn't really get people in the doors. People go to the Apple store to play with pretty computers and ipod and such. Hell, I've even done it, and I can't imagine ever buying an Apple product (other than my iphone). Microsoft needs to have computers and accessories for sale in the store, I think. But who's hardware? It would probably be a mistake to just go with one company. If they're smart, it will be a number of them. They just need to make sure someone is actually taking care of them. I can't count how many times Ive gone into a Best Buy and multiple computers have been either dead, or incorrectly set up. By contrast, the Apple store's computers are always working just as they should. This definitely adds to the perception that Macs just always work better.

The one thing that I think a Microsoft retail store absolutely must do, is allow customers to bring their computers in for help installing Windows 7. You should be able to bring in your PC or laptop, buy a copy of Windows 7, and have them install it right there on the spot. They could easily set some sort of arbitrary hardware requirements for the service, maybe require the PC already be running Vista. I mean lets face it, they can't spend all day dicking around with a computer with 6 year old hardware that doesn't work with 7.

My concern is that people won't understand what the Microsoft store is. A lot of people that aren't very tech-savvy probably don't understand that Microsoft doesn't actually make computers. If something breaks, they'll wander into the Microsoft store, and get all pissed when they get turned away. It's going to be... interesting.

So you don't like vaccines, eh?

2009-02-12T19:12:00.006-06:00

There was some great news on the legal front today. A federal court ruled against three families that were seeking compensation from the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP). They claim that the MMR vaccine gave their children Autism. So, I (along with every legitimate Autism researcher) think this is bunk, but these people are fucking vehement that vaccination fucked up their kids.

I understand the desire to blame something for a mental disorder. But vaccination? This all started years ago when a study was published in The Lancet that purportedly showed a link between the MMR vaccination and Autism. Shoddy experimental design and data led The Lancet to retract the article. No (legitimate) study since has ever shown a relationship. However, that didn't stop the crazies from yelling and screaming about it ever since.

You always hear them complaining about mercury. Mercury this, mercury that. But guess what? There hasn't even been any Thimerosal(contains a small amount of mercury) in any childhood vaccine for a decade. Don't you think that if that were the cause of Autism, we'd have seen a reduction? In fact, the rates of Autism are the same as always. They appear to be going up because more effective screening has given more mildly Autistic kids the help and diagnosis they need.

Vaccination is one the the most incredible advances in modern medicine. These people that campaign against it are, quite frankly, idiots. They might bandy about their right to raise their children however they wish, but it's a public health issue. We rely on herd immunity. If enough people are vaccinated, it won't matter that a few aren't, or that a few vaccinations didn't take. The reduction of herd immunity is the reason for recent outbreaks of Measles and Mumps. Are we really at this point? Where we'll allow people to believe this sort of crap, and just shrug our shoulders and say, "Oh well, their call." We don't allow parents to withhold medical care in the event of an accident, why is this okay? Measles can be fatal and Mumps can cause sterility. These are serious diseases, people.

Above: This kid is screwed.

I really feel like this whole thing grew out of the alternative medicine scene that's become so trendy in the last number of years. I just can't stand hearing people complaining about things being "unnatural" or "toxic" without knowing anything about it. This is all closely connected with the baseless belief that anything "organic" is better for you by sheer virtue of being organic. Think about it. Can you come up with a rational for that? Why is "natural" or "organic" better for you? It makes no sense. Anti-vaccination and alternative medicine fall into the same category of pseudo-science bunk and nonsense.

Presidential Language

2009-02-11T21:14:00.002-06:00

Obama wrote a book a number of years back called "Dreams of My Father". In the book he quotes a friend from his younger days that apparently had quite a vocabulary. When Obama recoded the audio version of the book, he read those lines. Taken out of context, it's really hilarious. If you've ever wanted to hear a president swear like a sailor (and who doesn't?), take a listen. Listen to some of it here. Thanks to that blogger for assembling the clips. They are clearly timeless.

Don't give her any money.

2009-02-05T20:55:00.004-06:00

You may have heard about the woman from California that just had the Octuplets. You may also have heard about how she had them by in vitro fertilization (IVF). Weird? Yeah. Inadvisable? Well, at least somewhat. However, as it turns out (you may also have heard) she has 6 other kids... all by IVF. Oh, and she's divorced... and lives with her parents. When you lay it all out like that, it sounds really crazy, right? Are we all in agreement? Good. Henceforth, I shall refer to her as the crazy lady (or maybe 'bat-shit crazy lady').

Now, I have no problem with people conceiving in whatever way they see fit. So long as it's not putting the eventual baby at unnecessary risk. That is, if you're intending to bring a child to term, don't do stupid things that will mess the kid up. Hell, grow it in a test tube (when the technology exists) for all I care. What irks me here, is that she took unbelievable risks to carry 8 children to term. These kids are probably going to have long term medical issues because she's a selfish bitch that just wanted, "to have a large family, a huge family..." She tries to claim that it was because she was an only child, and just wanted the connection of a big family. Bunk. I'm an only child, and I don't even think I want kids at all. Those that do want a big family, they tend to stop at a more reasonable number; a number they can reasonably take care of.

It also makes you think about the doctor here. Who would implant 8 embryos? Sure she may claim that fewer were implanted, and there were multiple-multiple births. But that's bullshit (so says a doctor on NPR, I'm too lazy to look up the reference). This raises real ethical concerns, and I feel this doctor has some explaining to do. I understand the feeling that we can't interfere with reproductive freedom. The knife cuts both ways. If women want the right not to have babies, others get the right to have them. But most institutions will do basic ethical screenings before doing IVF. It's just common sense.

These kids are going to cost millions of dollars in just their first few years due to the medical costs. You can't really expect a cheap run with 8 premature infants. Who's going to pay for it? Well , I'd wager she's on medicaid or something. Now this bat-shit crazy lady is shopping around for book/movie deals. I have this to say (I know, sooooo many people listen to me after all), no one should reward her for this kind of asinine behavior. Maybe when she sees what it's like to raise 14 kids alone, she'll wise up and give them up for adoption.

DTV delay? Why?

2009-01-26T20:06:00.003-06:00

I just do not get this. The Senate passed a bill today that would delay the switch to digital TV broadcasts that was going to take effect in February. The new date would be June 12. I'm just not sure I understand the rationale. The coupon program (for purchasing digital converters) is out of money, and with Congress squabbling over the stimulus package, I don't imagine they're going to throw more money at it.

There have been ads and info bars crawling across the bottom of the country's analog screens for months now. Anyone that hasn't already done something about it, isn't going to. Well... at least not until they lose their TV signal and end up missing 'The Wheel'.

It's almost a foregone conclusion that the delay will happen. It's not like I'm personally affected by it, I just find it irritating that we are delaying technological progress because some people didn't pay attention to the media blitz. All the extra spectrum was to be freed up was already auctioned off. Due to a stipulation by Google, some of it is to be kept at least partially open to any device. This is cool, this is important. What say that, if nothing else, we let this go through in June? We'll never get everyone to get up to speed until they have no other choice.

Seth Lind- please stop messing up the tags on the "This American Life" podcast.

2009-01-18T20:53:00.004-06:00

"Production help from Seth Lind." or "Our production manager today was Seth Lind"

This is what Ira Glass says after each episode of This American Life. As I've said before, I'm a huge dork and I listen to a lot of public radio, especially This American Life. I always make it a point to miss the actual broadcast on the weekend so I can download the podcast, and listen to it at work. Sometimes I don't get around to it right away and I may have several episodes waiting on the player.

Here's the thing though, mp3 players rely on tags to organize files. There's a fair amount of inconsistency in the tags for This American Life. Who do I blame? Seth Lind. I don't know that it's his fault, but his fingerprints are all over it... by which I mean sometimes he tags himself as the artist. Well, actually he sets the 'Artist' field to 'Seth Lind2'. I assume 'Seth Lind1' is the being he was cloned from. Sometimes he gets closer the the mark with 'Chicago Public Radio' or 'This American Life' listed as the artist. The title may or may not have the episode number in it.

I always have to go through and change the tags so they'll be easily found in my mp3 player. Maybe Mr. Lind will be vain enough to Google himself, and he'll run across this. It'd be nice. So, Seth (can I call you Seth?) can you please just decide on a tagging scheme and stick to it? Thanks.

This is in reference to the files downloaded from the website, not itunes. Stop emailing me.

What if I don't WANT to "live in the cloud"?

2009-01-16T21:32:00.005-06:00

I've been hearing this a lot lately. The future of computer use is "in the cloud". This, of course, refers to cloud computing. The idea is that you won't store your files and applications on your physical PC. Instead, all you stuff will be on some server somewhere, and you'll be able to access it from anywhere. Presumably, this would include redundant backups to prevent the loss of data. We're already seeing the beginning of this with the all the Google tools and explosion of online storage solutions. It sounds like a good deal, right? Not for me.

While I'm in constant fear of losing my data, I just don't want to trust my ability to use a computer to the availability of an internet connection. Just think about it. No internet connection, no files or applications. I think I've been soured on the idea by Comcast. I've spent more time troubleshooting my internet connection than I would have ever thought possible. If it's too cold, the internet goes down. If it's been too long since I had my crappy used modem replaced, it breaks. If some tech has nothing better to do, he "accidentally" damages the local node.

When my connection goes down, I have other options. I can play a game (unless it's steam based), do some photoshopping, or watch a video of some sort on my PC. It just feels too constraining to have everything online. I know that seems counterintuitive, but it's not. The whole cloud computing thing seems too much like shared computing from way back in the day (the day that I never experienced, but I've heard stories).

The general idea seems sound, but I like having a physical computer with my files on it. Backing up to the cloud is perfectly fine, and I already do some of that. But have you seen the crappy upload speeds everyone is getting? I'm damn lucky that when my connection actually works I get about 2Mbit/s up. Even then it takes way too long to get any substantial amount of date uploaded anywhere. ISPs are already complaining about not having enough bandwidth, where is all this capacity going to come from?

I'll be perfectly happy to go along with cloud computing after I have 1Gbit fiber to my door and a constant WiMAX connection to the implanted computer in my central nervous system. I imagine this will be some time after the technological singularity. So just as soon as super-intelligent computers solve all the world's problems and/or kill us all, I'll be happy to entrust all my data to the cloud.

Are they serious?

2009-01-12T18:46:00.004-06:00

I don't understand PETA. I mean, I just don't get the things they do. If you're trying to affect real societal change, you can't keep doing bat-shit insane things. I already discussed their recent request that Ben & Jerry's use human milk in their ice cream, but this is possibly weirder. PETA seems to be seriously trying to call fish "sea kittens". I thought this was just some weird publicity thing for kids. The website for this campaign seems to be geared towards kids. But their more serious site "Fishing Hurts" calls them sea kittens too.

I just can't help but be confused about PETA's priorities here. I just don't understand the comparison of fish with domesticated animals. Humans domesticated some animals as pets, and that gives us the responsibility to protect (i.e. not eat) them. They'd like to point to vague studies that say something about fish having complex something-or-other. But complex compared to what? Snails? How far down the food chain would PETA like to go?

There is an entire sub-group of vegetarians that eat fish. They are prevalent enough that the term "pescatarian" was added to the dictionary. I'm sure these people would consider themselves animal rights supporters, and they have no problem eating fish. A rational person does not consider fish to be on equal footing with dogs or cats.

Would PETA like Inuit people that rely on fish to stop eating them? Will they be airlifting tofu in as a replacement? These sort of over the top antics are only going to assure that people with a more moderate view on eating animals will be driven away. If PETA wants anyone to listen, they have to stop acting like nuts.

Just let BitTorrent save the day.

2009-01-10T20:55:00.003-06:00

It seems like BitTorrent has a bad image. Mainstream business don't seem to even consider it as a useful tool. But they should... seriously.

I'm a giant dork, and as such, I like public radio. I always listen to This American Life in podcast form. As of late Ira Glass has been making a little speech as the beginning of the show reminding everyone that Chicago Public Radio spends $150,000 each year on just the bandwidth for the podcast, and could we maybe kick in a couple bucks? I give money to public radio, but most people don't. I can see how this would be distressing in these rough economic times.

Here's the deal though... why not just release the show on BitTorrent instead of direct downloads? Maybe they can still offer the DDL on the website, but ask people to use the torrent as it helps save money. This seems like a perfectly reasonable delivery model.

Microsoft can take a lesson here as well. Just yesterday they underestimated the popularity of the public beta of Windows 7. They had to take it down for the better part of a day while they dealt with "very heavy traffic". So a few new servers later all is well. But at what cost? If they had instead posted a .torrent file and set up a tracker, everything would have been fine. The beta was, of course, available on torrents without Microsoft's consent (if you knew where to look). But why couldn't Microsoft just provide people with a legitimate .torrent file that everyone knew was the real deal?

Norm Coleman's journey towards acceptance.

2009-01-03T22:56:00.007-06:00

As many of you know, Minnesota has the only still unresolved Senate race in the country. It's beginning to look like the state will certify Al Franken the winner. However, Coleman can still challenge that in court. It's been a long few months for Norm. In some ways it seems like he's going through the grieving process. In fact, he seems to be going through the 5 stages of grief. Loosing a Senate seat can be traumatic, here's how Norm has dealt with it. This is satirical and a gross over-simplification... duh.

Claims victory:

Counting every vote is wrong?:

Lost ballots:

Norm begins to lose hope, withdraws challenges:

"Virtually certain" that the result is heading for a court challenge:

Umm... as a disclaimer, Norm Coleman has not killed any hookers that I'm aware of.

So Norm has accepted that he may not win the election by the traditionally accepted method of "getting the most votes". He might have accepted the outcome of the recount, but will he have to grieve all over again in the court battle? Maybe... so it goes.

Get a clue, Digg (Oolon Colluphid fixes everything, pt. 4)

2008-12-30T20:14:00.007-06:00

Yes, time for another installment of Oolon Colluphid fixes everything; the segment where I banter about how things should be, and no one listens. Well... it makes me feel a little better at least.

There was some recent hubbub on Digg.com about the so called "power users". These are people that submit a lot of news stories to the site, and regularly see their submission made "popular". Popular stories are displayed on the front page, where anyone loading the site will see it. This generates huge traffic for the site in the submission. Many of these people network with other power users to trade "diggs" (i.e. votes) on each other's stories. They just go down a list of submission from people and digg them all, in return theirs are dugg. You'll see a lot of them with hundreds of diggs in a day. Far more than one would expect if they were... you know, actually reading the submission to see if they were any good.

In addition, it is not uncommon for power users to resubmit a link they found on digg (posted by a regular user), and pretend it was their own. Some of them don't even have real jobs, they just Digg things for a living. Being able to get something on the front page of Digg is an in-demand "skill".

Some feel the power users have too much control, others think they contribute to the community and should be allowed to operate as they please. I think from the tone, it should be obvious where I come down on this issue. I think the power users have taken over Digg. There are too many examples of them gaming the system.

Digg is supposed to be a web 2.0 site, so you can't just make things anonymous. But I have to admit, I'd be fine with that (I don't use it as a social networking site). There's an easy solution here, put a flood filter on Digg. A lot of forums have similar measures to keep people from posting in quick succession. Just set it up so that no one can digg more than say... five stories in a five minute period. It still seems like a lot, huh? It is, but it will make it incredibly tedious to go down a list to click the "Digg" button on a bunch of stories as part of a power user "quid pro quo".

It might be enough to wrest control of the front page back from the same small group of users. If it's no longer virtually guaranteed that their submission will be made popular, they'll have no reason to continue gaming the system.

She should have known this...

2008-12-21T21:42:00.002-06:00

So I was on Digg today and stumbled across a story about "10 Things You Should Never Say to Twins". Yeah, sounds stupid, doesn't it? My better judgment was overridden somehow. Current working theory is temporary mental impairment due to micro-stroke.

It was written by one of the two twins staring in some new dating show. I didn't care to figure out which one, so I'll just call her "twin 1". Anyway, I browsed through the list feeling skeptical that anyone had actually said those things to her. I was feeling a little stupid for even reading the article and was about to stop when I noticed something. Number three reads:

"You're not twins. (People try to get in arguments about how we're not identical twins. Identical doesn't mean that we look exactly the same, identical means that we came from the same placenta. But when I talk about placentas they get all flustered.)"

Now... I may have just had a minor stroke (again, just the current theory), but I'm pretty sure that doesn't make any sense. I'm almost remiss to bring it up, but lets face it, what's the point of the internet if I can't make fun of people anonymously? Also, I have nothing better to do on a Sunday night. Perhaps twin 1 just wants publicity for her trashy reality show, and was talked into writing this article. Fine, but at least do a little research. One would expect that if you were say, a fireman or a pilot, you would know a bit about fires and planes respectively. Same goes for being a twin. You really ought to know a bit about it.

So here's the skinny, twin 1; twins are not twins because they come from one placenta. The placenta is the organ that develops in the womb that delivers nutrients and processes waste. It is also fucking gross. If you've never seen one, have a look. I'll wait... ... gross, huh? Some people eat that thing... anyway, back on topic. Twins can have individual placentas or share one. It's just not a factor. So I can indeed understand how people get "flustered" when you talk about placentas, twin 1. They're probably thinking to themselves, "Is everything I know about twins wrong?" It's a natural reaction, considering you would expect a twin to know what caused her to be a twin.

So what is a twin? I'm sure twin 1 knows by now, after the flood (trickle?) of comments and emails this article probably produced. If you paw through the ones with subject lines like, "YOUR HOTT" and the more grammatically correct, "YOU ARE HOT", you'll probably find a few that say the following: monozygotic, or "identical" twins are the product of a single fertilized egg that split into two complete embryos early in development.

So... for shame, twin 1. You're just playing into the blond model stereotype. I know that they aren't putting you on TV for your brains... but still. Oh, and by the way, the rest of the list was really vapid as well.

Ring the bell all you want, I don't feel bad.

2008-12-18T18:37:00.004-06:00

'Tis the season to avoid eye contact with those Salvation Army bell ringers. You probably feel bad about it, don't you? Well, in recent years I've come to the conclusion that I don't really feel bad about ignoring them. I give to charitable causes, just not them. Why, you may ask? Well, there are lots of charitable groups out there, and most of them don't show a pattern of discrimination.

Most people don't realize that the Salvation Army is a church first and foremost. Of course, they'd prefer you didn't think of them like that. It's not that surprising, just think about the name: Salvation Army. What sort of salvation? The religious kind, I guess. Their officers are ministers, and their charter clearly emphasizes their mission to spread Christianity.

If this were the extent of it, I wouldn't care so much. There are instances of the nicer donated items going home with high-ranking employees, theft of funds by employees, and then there's that creepy militaristic thing they do. In many areas officers are not even allowed to marry outside the church -er, I mean organization.

There is a clear pattern of discrimination against homosexuals in the Salvation Army. They refuse to hire anyone known to be gay. They even worked out secret deals with the Bush administration to protect that policy in exchange for supporting the "faith-based initiatives". In fact, they even actively lobby against pro-gay legislation. Their addiction treatment programs are just glorified bible study. It that's your thing, fine. But people should know that's what they're donating to.

When New York City moved to require all organizations to provide benefits to the domestic partners of employees, the Salvation Army threatened to close all their New York soup kitchens. It seems like their priorities are a little off. They're a church when it's beneficial, and a charitable organization when that's beneficial.

Okay, I get it... they're technically a church and they can do this stuff (as stupid as it is). That doesn't mean that people shouldn't know this before they fork over donations. There are lots of other charities to donate to. Why not give some money to public radio or Amnesty International instead?

Mike Huckabee thinks you're dumb.

2008-12-10T21:37:00.007-06:00

If you're pressed for time, allow me to summarize my feelings on fmr. Gov. Huckabee. Huck (as I like to call him) is trying his hardest to convince people that conservative values are the right ones. In the process he says really offensive things in a really polite tone in an attempt to fool you. He thinks you're an idiot.

Huck just wrote a book, and is therefore, on a book tour. I've caught a few of his interviews and was instantly reminded of how much I dislike him. In each interview the subject of gay marriage has come up. This seems to be the most contentious right now; probably because of the Prop 8 fiasco. He has a really interesting (and moronic) way of responding to the totally valid point that gay marriage doesn't hurt anyone, and he comes off as patronizing. His first argument is on the basis of definitions.

Seriously, he just blathers on about how we shouldn't be changing the definition of marriage. My response is, "why the hell does it matter?" Definitions change all the time. What is this, some sort of language worship? But when he says "definition" I think he means "biblical definition". In order not to sound too preachy, he carefully avoids this phrase. There are a lot of things that were acceptable in biblical times that are not appropriate now, and vice versa. He's talking down to people with this. Why would he think that definitions are a reason to deny someone equality? When this gets old he moves on to, what must be, the lamest argument. Chromosomes.

He always starts this line of reasoning talking about how humans have 46 chromosomes. He does this to sound smart. What he's getting at is the classic argument that marriage is for procreation. It was laughable the first time I heard it, and it still is. My wife and I have no plans to have kids... are we not allowed to be married? What if someone is sterile? This argument just doesn't make sense to me. This seems like a well masked "tab A, slot B" obsession. I can almost see him yelling, "THEY JUST GO TOGETHER!" And what about transgendered people? Are they allowed to marry someone of the opposite physical gender, but same genetic gender? Will Huck be checking their genitals just to make sure?

Above: This is either the cover of Huck's new book, or it's a cunning photoshop... your call.

This whole argument shouldn't even be happening. Denying marriage to gay people is discrimination, plain and simple. To mask it behind some sort of congenial business-like discussion seems even more insulting... if that's possible. Just imagine Huck walking up to you and saying, "So, just so you're aware we're gonna go ahead and deny you some rights. Don't worry about it though, it makes more sense this way."

Don't get used to it.

2008-12-07T01:11:00.002-06:00

I purchased some gas today, and I was actually happy about it. Why? Because it was $1.59/gallon. We call that awesome 'round these parts. I just think it's especially interesting because we've sort of gotten in this mindset that we'd never see these sort of prices again. Case in point:

Above: I don't remember any planes at the gas station today

It's not every day the Internet has to eat its words. But here's the thing, it won't last. Lets all enjoy it, but don't rely on it. Even though this trend is recent, people seem to be forgetting that. According to Marketwatch, in May only about 9% of SUV owners that traded in their vehicles got another large one. Just a few months ago, when prices began to plummet, that rate had risen to over 20%. This is a troubling trend.

I just don't want this to be one of those never-ending cycles. Gas gets cheap, people buy huge cars that they don't need, gas prices spike, everyone freaks out. I could see the "big three" thinking that they don't actually need to retool in the near future. Maybe they get their bailout, and gas stays cheap for a year or two. Enough time for people to stop clamoring for fuel efficiency (because people have shit long-term memories). It's like a snake eating it's own tail or something.

Keep god out of homeland security.

2008-12-02T22:51:00.006-06:00

I came across this article the other day and was a bit taken aback. Last time I checked, we have separation of Church and state:

"Atheists want God out of Ky. homeland security"

My favorite part was :

"No government by itself can guarantee perfect security," Riner said. "There will always be this opposition to the acknowledgment of divine providence, but this is a foundational understanding of what America is."

Hmmm... pretty sure we don't have to acknowledge divine providence. I mean, can anyone explain to me how this is acceptable? It's a clear endorsement of a religious belief. We don't need to be officially endorsing anything of the sort. If you wanna believe in a god that cares and has control over what happens on Earth, that's you call. Though, what with all the stuff that goes down in the world, that would seem to make him a bit of a jerk. Whatever. I'm not asking for a giant "keep god out of government" sign, just that we ignore the issue in the public sphere.

If we suppose for a minute that god is real, who's to say that he's rooting for us? I mean, Bush has done some very un-christian things in the last 8 years. What if god is like, totally cool with Switzerland or Belgium, and could care less what happens to America? I don't think people should be trying to attach intentions to the supposedly omnipotent god they worship. If I were omnipotent, that would piss my almighty ass off.

A zillion dollars?

2008-11-26T21:47:00.006-06:00

It's all over the blogosphere today that the estimated value of the "bailout" is about $7.5 trillion. Sounds gigantic doesn't it? Well, yeah it is. But it's not that simple, this is a bit of double speak. I think it's meant to shock. It's a fuzzy number, and I've yet to see a real explanation of how you arrive at it. I think people hear this and think that's how much has been doled out to banks and insurance companies.

I'm just not sure where the number came from. As near as I can figure, that value actually represents a worst case scenario. It includes all the assets that the government has agreed to guarantee, and all the loans they could possibly give. So those don't cost anything unless things go south in a lot of ways. Could it happen? Yeah. Will it? No clue. As evidenced by my previous post, I'm not too happy with this whole situation. But lets not bandy about these hypothetical numbers like they're real.

I totally get that this is ridiculous and shouldn't have to be done. But that doesn't change the fact that we're in dire straights. We can't be too worried about defect spending right now. That's what got us into the Great Depression. Hoover didn't respond to the stock market crisis, instead he tried to balance the budget. We know how that ended. That being said, I certainly wouldn't be pleased if the real cost of this thing ended up at that $7.5 trillion mark. Lets just agree not to foam at the mouth quite yet.

What Citibank really meant to say was...

2008-11-24T17:45:00.009-06:00

Oh Citi... where to start? So many things have gone wrong for you lately (all your own fault, by the way). You lost billions due to bad sub-prime loans, then you managed to botch the purchase of Wachovia. Luckily you received monetary help from the government, and got good terms too. Well, that's fine. Everyone's doing it these days. Though I'd have liked to see your managemnt fired (and possibly flogged), as long as you pay it back, it's all good. At least this way you won't have to send your customers through the ringer to fix your mistakes. Well... now that I've gotten that out of my system I'll just go check my mail... be right back...

*step* *step* *step* *step* ... *stepstepstepstepstep* What the hell, Citi!?

Okay... I'd heard this was a possibility, but really? Even though Citi was bucking for a federal bailout, they still planned to raise rate on some customers. Turns out that I am among them. I have a good credit history and a fairly low balance. So even though they got billions in bailout money, they still want more from us. So without further adieu, here is what citi meant to say in their notice (my assumptions in red):

Above: It's a wide image... I know, just maximize your window. They're just so full of shit that I couldn't make it any smaller.

It's not that I'm completely against economic recovery plans that involve bailouts. I'm fine with it if that's what needs to be done. I just don't want those companies to jack me around. I could call and complain... but I know from MPR and the consumerist that it won't do any good. This Citi card is one of my oldest cards, so I don't want to close it and make my credit history look worse. The hell with it... I'll pay off the balance soon, and leave the card in a drawer somewhere. For shame Citi, for shame.

An eventful patol for this cop.

2008-11-23T20:12:00.004-06:00

The other night an object of some sort (probably a small asteroid) fell into the Earth's atmosphere. It broke up as it descended, producing quite the light show. Luckily for us, there were some cameras pointed at it. The best footage is from a police squad car's dashboard camera.

Above: that'll spice up your night.

Neat, huh? It apparently weighed over 7 tons. If it hadn't broken up it could have left a nifty crater. The whole asteroid impact thing has really enter the mainstream these days. It's probably one of the more popular doomsday scenarios. Wonder what the cop thought when he saw that. I'd have probably been picturing a wall of fire headed my way. Of course, now I know it wasn't big enough to cause any real havoc, but at the time it would have probably been crazy.

A new level of nerdiness?

2008-11-18T21:14:00.003-06:00

So I was sitting here typing and realized something was amiss. As my left ring finger reached for the 'w', there was a shot of pain. It was fairly annoying, I actually had to stop typing and get an ibuprofen. This struck me as extremely odd. I am careful to avoid any physical activity that may produce soreness. Why would I bother with that? So, it becomes obvious that I've done something to my hand. I begin thinking about what I could possibly have done.

I'm right handed, and not even the tiniest bit ambidextrous. I use my right hand to mouse and to write. At work, I use my right hand to work pipettes. But my left... nothing. As I held up my hand and looked at the palm, something occurred to me. I like to read during my downtime at work. I'm reading a particularly engrossing classic scifi book right now, so I'm even reading during lunch. I use my right hand to eat, obviously. This leaves my left had to hold the book.

I remember thinking today that holding the book was a little uncomfortable. As it turns out, it was awkward enough to make my hand sore hours later. So lets just recap: while blogging about scifi, I realized that my hand hurt from reading too much. Also, I was listening to MPR online when all this happened. That's right, I'm awesome.

What's up with the anti-scifi stuff?

2008-11-18T20:23:00.007-06:00

You may remember that recently I complained about Buzz Aldrin. Why? Was it to piss him off? Hell no:

Above: If you walk on the moon you get one free punch.

He just said some disparaging things about scifi, and I wanted to set the record straight. Buzz claimed that scifi leaves people disappointed with real science. I disagree with that, like I said before. Now the folks at Science 09 have some news on a similar front. A survey of science bloggers indicated that they feel like scifi makes people less able to understand real science. I think that's crap, frankly. I used to do some science blogging, and I work as a scientist, so maybe I come from a unique perspective here.

Maybe the issue here is that there's too much emphasis on mainstream scifi... stuff like Fringe and Sarah Connor Chronicles. A TV show is going to automatically be softer scifi than a good scifi novel. Same with movies; while they may have better science than a TV series, it can't compare to books. Yeah, a lot of these shows and movies are, well... bad. But they're bad conceptually first, and scientifically second. Most scif that is (in my opinion) good, has solid science in it. Read "A Fire Upon the Deep" and tell me it doesn't spark the imagination, doesn't make you think. Oh sure, there's some hand waving about this or that, but they don't go around ignoring the whole of science.

I can understand objections to say, CSI. I can't stand CSI. It's not really scifi, but I think it's an example of what we're talking about. They can magically reconstruct photos, extract DNA evidence from anything, and generally walk all over biological principals. The difference here is that it's not billed as scifi. People think it's based on fact, and that can be dangerous in legal settings where people expect all this crazy stuff to be possible. But that's the way CSI is presented. Not so with real scif, no matter how lame.

Science fiction is not supposed to be teaching science. I really don't think anyone watches Star Trek, and then automatically becomes unable to understand special relativity. I think people expect scifi to be fiction, it's right in the name. If there's anyone to blame about the lack of public understanding of science it's schools. When you can get through high school and only take one year of science, the systems has failed. Our society doesn't put enough emphasis on understanding science. THAT'S the problem. Not scifi, which I am on record saying I believe increases interest in science.

Technology overload

2008-11-17T21:28:00.004-06:00

I know that technology moves fast. It's just sort of what you expect. But it seems like lately the pace has picked up. Less than a year ago I got a fairly nice video card. Now it's somehow two generations out of date. At least the new ones aren't completely over priced. More troubling, about 9 months ago I got a just released Intel E8400 CPU. Now all of a sudden the next generation Intel chips are coming out. Oh, and if I was thinking about upgrading just that one component I'd better think again. Completely new CPU socket, which means a new motherboard. All the motherboards are at least $300.

The entry level processor in the new Intel Core i7 line is selling for $320. Who would pay that much for the low end model? And why the new socket? Was it really necessary? Was is just so the early adopters could blow $300+ on a motherboard? So lets just say I felt the need to upgrade now, I wouldn't need anything else, right? Wrong! The new motherboards use DDR3 RAM. My lowly DDR2 won't work.

This happens all the time... you'd think I'd have gotten used to it by now. I haven't, it's still depressing.

The Mormon church fucked up.

2008-11-10T22:05:00.003-06:00

I imagine this will offend some people, but I have to confess, I don't care...

The Mormon church (or LDS) threw a lot of money at the campaign to get California "prop 8" passed. This was the state constitutional amendment that made same-sex marriage illegal again. 'Cause, you know... if anyone should be telling people about marriage, it's Mormons. So, I'll overlook (for now) that the premise of the Mormon faith is perhaps even more ridiculous than regular old Christianity. I'll restrain myself... this is me not pointing out anything about magic underwear, conveniently missing golden tablets, or idiotic beliefs about Native Americans. Okay... moving on and not discussing any of that stuff...

What it comes down to is this: as a church, LDS receives tax exempt status. Due to the constitutional separation of church and state, they are not permitted to use their funds to support political causes. It's the same as using the pulpit to campaign for a particular political figure. Some churches got in trouble in that way recently by endorsing McCain. After prop 8 passed there were several protests at the LDS headquarters in Salt Lake City. The church was very quick to point out that they were not happy, a church spokesperson said:

"While those who disagree with our position on Proposition 8 have the right to make their feelings known, it is wrong to target the Church and its sacred places of worship for being part of the democratic process"

Well, two things wrong there. First, a church is not protected from peaceful protests being directed at it. Second, the church shouldn't have been involved in the "democratic process" at all. Do they not get this? Plain and simple, the Mormon church should be stripped of its tax exempt status. Go here, sign the petition, and send the Mormon church a message. Show them we won't have religious organizations interfering with our laws.

Apple store eavesdropping...

2008-11-07T20:50:00.005-06:00

So I was killing time the other day while the wife did whatever women do in a mall. I decided to swing by the Apple store and look at the new macbooks. I'm not particularly keen on Apple products, but I wanted to see if the new aluminum bodies looked or felt much different. As I wandered around glancing at price tags I was reminded why I don't like Macs. I just can't bring myself to drop that kind of money on a retail computer, no matter how pretty it is. I messed around with OS X a little and was once again aggravated by the lack of a right click on the laptops. I swear, Steve Jobs would get rid of all the buttons if he could.

As I was preparing to leave I heard a sales person trying to sell a couple on a reeeeeeeealy expensive 24" iMac. There was some technobabble so I hung back and listened in. He was explaining (or attempting to explain) how data is stored on a hard drive. I couldn't decide if he was just uninformed, or trying to sell a computer at any cost. Allow me to paraphrase:

"Oh yeah, the OS X file systems is way better than PCs. You have to defrag a PC all the time because pieces of files get moved all over the hard drive and it has to search to get all the parts before you can open it. Macs don't have that problem, they never need to be defragged . "

*Customer asks about large video files, and what you do to defrag a PC*

"Nope, the OS X file system is really efficient so don't worry about it. It's pretty complicated to defrag a PC. See here, this is the home folder. All your stuff will be here. It's much nicer than a PC file system."

Bah humbug... I'm not sure if this guy realized he was equating locations in a file explorer with physical locations on a hard drive. Clearly, it's this guy's job to sell computers, but I have a problem when people claim that Macs can be all things to all people. In fact, it is recommended that you defrag a Mac if you have large files on it (like videos). And these days PCs actually defrag themselves when idle. As for the file system, it's really a matter of opinion. Claiming that everything about a Mac is better, even when you're making it up, is the kind of irritating behavior I'd expect in an Apple store.

Macs are just... lame.

America has pleased me.

2008-11-04T23:30:00.003-06:00

Well done, everyone. We just elected Barack Obama president. I'm amazed how far we have come since the Civil Rights Act in 1964. I'm too excited to sleep... but at least I can rest now. I'll blog more about this later... I just need to revel in this victory a little more for now.

Politics is killing me.

2008-11-03T18:24:00.003-06:00

I haven't been blogging as much lately. Why? Politics. I listen to MPR at work every day, and I think it's made me significantly more engaged in this election cycle. I listen to all the banter and analysis all day at work, then I get home and scrutinize every single poll on Real Clear Politics. I build possible electoral maps based on their "poll of polls". Then I realize that I've spent hours pouring over imaginary electoral counts. It's become an impediment to my relaxation time.

Tomorrow morning I'll be voting for Obama. There was never any question about this. I've liked him ever since the speech in 2004. I caucused for him back in February, then I donated to his campaign. Now here we are at the moment of truth. I wish I could say I'm optimistic, but it's just not in my nature. The first time I really took an interest in politics was the 2000 election... and we all know how that turned out. I always knew what I believed, but at that point I put a label on it. I'm a liberal Democrat.

So in just over 24 hours I'll hopefully be celebrating the election of Barack Obama. That's not to say I haven't worked out a contingency plan. Did you know that Canada has a nifty citizenship questionnaire that rates you on a point scale? Turns out I count as a "skilled worker". So if McCain gets elected I can put my plan into action and (if all goes to plan) be living in Canada by the time the first Supreme Court liberal is replaced by a conservative. One way or another, I'll know tomorrow... at least I damn-well better.

Can Asimov work on the big screen?

2008-10-24T21:26:00.007-05:00

I've just now noticed some slightly disturbing news. Apparently this came out a few months ago, but I managed to miss it. I'm not even sure how this happened. I spend an inordinate amount of time on the internet, often reading nerdy blogs. But I am now just processing the possibility that Isaac Asimov's "Foundation Series" will be adapted for the big screen. I love Asimov's work and Foundation is a personal favorite.

Foundation (the first in the series) is made up of several shorter novellas that tell the story of how the Foundation was set up on the edge of the galaxy to incubate science as a great galactic empire began it's slow decline into anarchy. Using a new statistical technique known as Psychohistory, the decline is predicted and the Foundation is set along a predicted path that should lead it to become a new empire. This is all told in one coherent storyline but each section has its own plot and characters. It takes place over generations. The sequels (made up of longer novellas) pick up the story in future generations as the preordained destiny of the Foundation is tested. This makes it a bit of an odd movie adaptation.

Classic scifi is an acquired taste, I think, it has a certain esoteric quality. It's more concerned with working out ideas and structuring a logical rational for the plot than more modern works. Asimov is sort of the 'gold standard' for hard scifi. I really find myself thinking about concepts in Asimov stories, not just absorbing them. And that's the rub... I don't know if Asimov was ever meant for the big screen. A movie needs to have wide appeal. This has lead to a great many scifi movies being mucked up by excessive action sequences.

The last movie based on an Asimov work was a good example of this: I, Robot. The Asimov book is actually a collection of some of his robot short stories. You may have noticed (if you saw the movie) that it was the standard movie format with a slowly building (but predictable) plot, random bits of comic relief, and a peak in action 3/4 of the way through. It also had nothing to do with any of Asimov's robot stories. The movie basically took the title and a few character names, then made up the rest.

I'm worried about the Foundation movie largely because I, Robot was such a disaster from a philosophical point of view. Asimov was always very clear that he disliked the "robot as the enemy" storyline... the Frankenstein complex, he called it. He thought that for a robot to be useful it had to have safeguards just as more simple machines do. So he created the 3 laws of robotics:

A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
A robot must obey orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

It hangs together rather well, doesn't it? Asimov's robot stories were based around the 3 laws. In many ways they were logic puzzles. Often, a robot seems to be disobeying the 3 laws, and it's up to you to figure out why their behavior fits into the 3 laws afterall. The film version ignores this and tries to cram an action-packed robot attack into the elegant confines of the 3 laws. It was ridiculous.

I love the Foundation novels and would like to see them faithfully interpreted. But maybe a miniseries would be a better way. The foundation series has an epic feel because you see so many generations striving towards something. Some generations feel like pawns in a game, others feel it's their duty to actively forge a new empire. Some are peaceful, and some are expansionist. Are any of them right or wrong? Or is it all just destiny regardless? Can you make this into a movie? I don't know... I just hope they don't mess it up.

Really, we're not all crazy...

2008-10-19T20:50:00.008-05:00

I feel the need to say this, and I shouldn't have to. There has been some crazy stuff coming out of Minnesota recently. It makes us look like complete weirdos, and most of us are not. Seriously though everyone, our state voted against Bush twice. You wouldn't know it if you watched the news.

First we have crazy-pants Michelle Bachmann (who I voted against because she's an extreme right-wing creationist). She was on TV bantering on about Obama and terrorists, just really towing the party line. In the course of the interview she suggested that members of Congress should be investigated to determine it they're "pro-America" enough. Here's Bachmann:

McCarthy anyone? She clearly called for some sort of witch hunt there. Now she's claiming that she was misunderstood. How can what she said be misconstrued? It was pretty straight forward from my point of view. However, this did lead to one decidedly pleasant side effect. Her opponent, DFL candidate Elwyn Tinklenberg, has seen a flood of donations.

If Bachmann were the extent of the bad press we've gotten lately, that would be fine. She's a career politician trying to suck up to the higher-ups in the party. But no... some old lady from Minnesota let out a whole bunch of crazy at a McCain event. You've probably seen the video, but here it is anyway.

Firstly, how about mentioning that Arab Americans can also be decent people? No? Oh, well. Here's the problem though, McCain has been whipping the crowds up into a frenzy using subconscious cues like 'terrorist' and 'dangerous'. What did he expect to happen? This comic makes the point rather well:

Finally, in one last attempt to make Minnesota look like the backwoods of the Appalachians, we have crazy sign guy. Todd Palin had a rally in Minnesota and some idiot decided to make a sign... a really, really, insulting one. Just watch:

So... just a heads up to all you community organizers, you might as well be mass murderers. I can't believe that the McCain campaign didn't have people checking for anti-McCain signs. So did they just decide to let this one through?

I'll just say this once more, most Minnesotans are not crazy. These crazy people just happened to be on TV.

The Evolution Omni-Post

2008-10-17T21:37:00.006-05:00

Right... so I seem to get a fair number of crazies passing through here. You know the type, believes in a young Earth, literal biblical creation, science is evil, etc... It can get a little repetitive at times. I recently went over (pretty thoroughly I think) the evidence for evolution as a rebuttal of pointless arguments made by a commenter. I can see now that it hasn't sunk in yet. I'm still getting comments on this post from people that apparently need everything spelled out for them.

So here we go. As close to a complete explanation of evolutionary principal as I can, given the medium and current scientific knowledge. I'll even cite some references... I'm not going overboard though, so don't be picky. This will be a post for me to direct all the crazies to as I feel it makes the point well. If you count yourself among the anti-evolution crowd you're likely to find this post patronizing. I mean... c'mon, I have to jazz things up by making fun of you or it would just be too dry.

Origin:
I feel like I sort of have to cover this because it always comes up even though it's not really important to a discussion of evolution. So when the solar system formed Earth was rather on the boring side. Quite dreary I'd imagine, what with its low-oxygen atmosphere and frequent asteroid strikes. This is just the start, we're looking for life, right? So how do we get from nothing to something? Chemistry. I know... I'm not huge on chemistry either, but bare with me. Early Earth was probably rife with organic molecules (We refer to an organic molecule as something that contains carbon... so please don't freak out and think I'm jumping the gun using the term "organic". No, it doesn't mean "alive"... we'll get there.) like methane. There was very little oxygen at that point so these compounds could exist in acceptable numbers. [3]

"But wait!" you shout, "What does that have to do with anything? Isn't there supposed to be something to do with lightening and a mud puddle, how can that create life?"

*Ding Ding Ding* Here comes the clue mobile! If you thought anything like that, you must have seen that awful Ben Stein movie. We're not going right from nothing to little organisms swimming around. Lighting may have been involved, but we are basically talking about a source of energy. [1] Lets look at this from a different angle first. When organic molecules are irradiated with UV radiation and there's some nitrogen about you get chemicals called tholins (we could also get polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, same results). [2] This is not a point of contention, we can see them in other atmospheres in this and other solar systems. When you drop tholins in water, you know what you get? Amino acids and nucleic acids, the building blocks of proteins and DNA respectively. [2][3] This required no supernatural intervention... just organic chemistry. Have you finished praying for my immortal soul? Can we continue? Good.

Still more evidence is seen in the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment. By sealing a concoction of water, methane, ammonia, and hydrogen in a glass vessel an analog of the early Earth's atmosphere was created. A spark simulating an energy source resulted in the production of organic molecules, amino acids. At the time only 5 were detected. [1] Recently the samples were reanalyzed and the more sensitive techniques detected 22 amino acids present. Some of these were not present in the proteins of living things making contamination unlikely. [6]

So now we've got these important molecules and they tend to want to stick together. So they do, and most of the time it doesn't do a damn thing. But protein function is all about shape, and shape is determined by stability. Catalytic RNA may have also helped amino acids bind and reach their most stable shape. Proteins can function catalytically on other proteins and nucleic acid. [8] So long story short, we eventually have functional proteins and RNA-based information. Cell membranes are also fairly easy to explain. Lipid bilayers that would have formed the earliest "homes" for RNA and proteins self assemble with no real problem. Thus, life.

Is it likely? I'll be the first one to admit that it is not terribly likely that a chemical reaction will result in useful information being created. But here's the thing, we had billions of years for it to work. Even if the likelihood of intelligent life evolving on a planet is a billion to 1, that's not that bad. There are hundreds of billions of stars in our galaxy, and we know many of them have planetary systems. Then there are hundreds of billions of other galaxies in the observable universe (and that's just the observable universe, there could be more that we cannot see). Even with steep odds of success, there would be many, many intelligent species out there (of which we are one) to contemplate how unlikely their existence is. [3]

Can we all accept this? It's really just chemistry; it's not like I'm spitting on a cross here. Now, onward.

Evolution by Natural Selection:
Imagine two organisms, they can even be simple ones (and that's actually easier to visualize if you're a daft creationist). Lets say primitive bacteria. They compete for food and have identical methods of locomotion. Now lets say that one has an in-frame mutation, This means that its DNA has an alteration that simply substitutes an amino acid for a different one. Lets say further that this is a gene for the flagellar motor that the bacteria uses to move. Since protein function depends on shape and shape depends on interaction between amino acids, this mutation could be good, bad, or it might not do anything. [7]

Maybe it royally messes up the flagella, and the bacteria spends its short life spinning in circles like a dog chasing its tail. But maybe it allows the flagella to move more freely and makes the bacteria more competitive. So the likelihood of this organism to obtain more food and avoid predators is higher. Thus, it's more likely to reproduce in greater numbers. Now this is not a guarantee, simply more likely. Nothing keeps an asteroid from falling out of the sky and smashing a lucky mutant. [9]

So the genes carried by this mutant have a higher chance of propagating throughout the gene pool. The organism might carry other mutations that don't have any benefit. But conditions can change and they might prove helpful later on. All these little tiny changes over and over again will eventually separate a group of organisms so completely in terms of genetics that they are no longer the same species. Members of the original species might still exist. An entire species does not evolve monolithically. [9]

Now, if you're a creationist you're probably yelling at the monitor right now. "But WAIT!" you cry. "What about transitional fossils? I've heard that if evolution is true there should be tons of them but there aren't ANY!"

Well you're really quite panicky, aren't you? Settle down and listen up. As it turns out, this is one of those things that creationists should really stop bantering about because it is totally, unequivocally, spectacularly false. [5] There are many "transitional forms" in the fossil record. Considering that only a small fraction of living things actually fossilize (the rest end up as fossil fuels), we're actually doing pretty well to have found so many. Before I launch into a description of these organisms, I'd like to make a point. When a new transitional form is placed in the record it will take what was a large gap in the record and leave two smaller ones on each side. I am aware of this, please do not try to point this out thinking you've won some sort of victory. [4] [5]

Probably the best example of a transitional form in my book is Tiktaalik. It is sort of the real life "Darwin Fish". Science has predicted a creature exactly like Tiktaalik would be found. It is a perfect transition between fish and amphibians. But why? It has a neck like an amphibian for one; it's the oldest specimen with that feature. The big thing here is that its fins had wrists and even simple fingers. This clearly shows that they were weight bearing. Tiktaalik had the ability to raise itself out of the water where it used... its lung. Yep, fish with a lung and gills. It would have been a primitive lung similar to what the still living (yet primitive) lungfish has. Its head also supports this theory. The head was flattened like a crocodile. This indicates it may have spent time just at the surface, using its limbs for support. Even the rib cage was well on its way to that of the amphibians. It was much more robust, such that the creature would have been supported in the shallows. [4]

Here is, I think, a good time to muse a bit about evolutionary principal. Like the bacteria discussed before. Slight variations in the lead up to Tiktaalik would have resulted in the prorogation of different genes. Lets say that something like Tiktaalik, but a little more fish-like, had a slight variation in gene expression that reduced the size of the bony plates along its gills. This is a feature of fish, but not Tiktaalik. [4] This gives the mutant slightly (maybe very slightly) more head movement. This makes it easier to hunt in the shallows (and maybe on land in later generations) and gives a competitive advantage. Just like the bacteria above, this increased the likelihood of survival. That's all it takes... probabilities.

I'd also like to point out that the classic Darwin fish is clearly a joke. A take on the ubiquitous Jesus fish seen around. No one is implying that a fish ever existed that looked like that. I sometimes worry that some creationists think it's a serious depiction. So lets just clear that up now.

Above: Clarification

Oh right... there might be creationists reading this. Here you go:

hy·per·bo·le
[hahy-pur-buh-lee] –noun
1. obvious and intentional exaggeration.

The final point I'd like to talk about is genetic evidence. We have a great number of genes sequenced in multiple species. What we see when we compare them is a certain amount of overlap based on the degree of evolutionary divergence. It shows that a sequence was retained as evolution proceeded. Many proteins act by fitting together with another one. When we examine receptors and other so called "active sites" we see high conservation. That is, we see a ton of similarity between organisms, even some that are not as closely related.

We would expect that organisms further down the evolutionary tree would be less similar in this way. Sure enough, this is demonstrably the case. If we look at the protein dystrophin for instance, we see that human dystrophin is 96.1% identical the the version found in cattle (a mammal). However, in Caenorhabditis elegans (a nematode) there is only 26.2% overlap. It is remarkable that over 25% of this protein is the same in such different creatures. As another example we share over 50% sequence homology of hemoglobin with zebrafish. The protein MON2 humans and Drosophila melanogaster (a fruit fly) have over 50% homology. An insect and humans share the majority of amino acids in this protein.

So... you've got you choice between a well reasoned scientific view of life, and a dogmatic view devoid of evidence. All you need to know about evolution is out there. I've gathered just a tiny fraction of what is available here. I could probably go on for quite some time longer, but this has gotten long enough. We've evolved our big, juicy brains for a reason. Utilize you critical thinking skills and take another look at your preconceptions.

Bibliography:
1. Miller, Stanley L. (May 1953). "Production of Amino Acids Under Possible Primitive Earth Conditions". Science 117: 528

2. Carey, Francis. Organic Chemistry. City: McGraw-Hill Science/Engineering/Math, 2007.

3. Sagan, Carl. Pale Blue Dot. New York: Ballantine Books, 1997.

4. Shubin, Neil. Your Inner Fish. New York: Pantheon, 2008.

5. New Scientist, 27 February 2008, Issue 2645, pages 35-40, "Evolution: What missing link?" by Donald Prothero

6. ScienceDaily 16 October 2008. 17 October 2008 /releases/2008/10/081016141405.htm>

7. Matzke NJ (2006-09-07). "Flagellum evolution in Nature Reviews Microbiology

8. Zhang and Cech, Peptide bond formation by in vitro selected ribozymes, Nature 390, 96-100

9. Darwin 1859, p. 60-79

Vista is perfectly stable if you're not a moron

2008-10-15T16:07:00.004-05:00

I ran some Vista updates today that I suspected would require me to restart. So, I decided to check my uptime. I don't really shut off my PC much and in a stable environment this can go on for quite some time. The result of this, I believe, is proof positive that Vista is very stable as long as you're not an idiot.

Above: Almost 25 days of heavy computing without a reboot.

Almost 25 days with no crashes or system errors that required a restart to fix. I'd wager that people that think Vista crashes a lot for them would have similar luck with XP (or OSX for that matter). They just want something to blame other than themselves. You know what? Lets just check the reliability monitor and see how many system errors there have even been.

Above: Not a single fucking error.

Apparently I had a Firefox crash in early September. I'll have to take the monitor's word for it because it was so long ago I CAN'T REMEMBER IT. My last program crash was over a month ago. Okay? Vista works fine with my hardware and software. If you can't get it working right, you're probably not good with computers. In the time shown on this graph I've installed and uninstalled half a dozen games, downloaded many gigs of data, and altered numerous systems settings. Also, I have always had UAC turned off.

So can we just get over this? I'm not cheerleading for Microsoft here; I'm just really sick of people that have no idea how to use a computer bitching about Vista. If you need a new PC and it comes with Vista, don't get all whiney. Just learn how to use a computer properly. Install a proper antivirus like NOD32, do your security updates, and don't install every random program you come across on the internet.

Nerd Test: What powers robots in sci-fi?

2008-10-09T18:48:00.005-05:00

*Warning* Random, nerdy musings coming up...

So I've been reading some of Isaac Asimov's robot stories recently. As is the custom with hard sci-fi, Asimov goes into great technical detail. Much more than say... Star Trek. I grew up watching Star Trek: TNG and didn't realize how much they just gloss over. Case in point, I was reading "The Bicentennial Man" and got to the bit about the main character's power supply. It's "atomic" in nature. This is a theme in Asimov's work. Robots in the latter Foundation novels are atomic as well. Much of Asimov's robot stories were written back in the days when nuclear technology was seen as the be-all end-all. So this begs the exceedingly nerdy question... what powers Star Trek's android "Data"?

I mean... I can't remember any sort of discussion of his power source on the show. He doesn't eat, and he doesn't sleep (except for his unrelated dream program). Data is always referred to as having a "positronic" brain just like Asimov's robots... but not the same power source? Star Trek uses the catch-all "matter/anti-matter" reaction a lot. But there's no time I can recall where Data had to take a timeout to refill his reaction chamber. Does he just have some giant rechargeable battery built in or something? Is he always threatening to run out of juice like a half-dead cell phone?

Above: Data must be on his last battery bar.

I'm not asking for complete rationality in sci-fi. Especially not in Star Trek. Lets face it, this is a show where every alien species looks suspiciously like humans, and there is sound in space. It just seems like a bit of an oversight that there's no explanation of how a complicated machine like Data is supplied with power. Until I hear otherwise I'm going with the "Data=cell phone" theory.

Why the bailout sucks... just not as much as you think

2008-09-30T21:22:00.007-05:00

Basically, this bailout package (or rescue package, depending on who you're talking to) is meant to buy the mortgage backed securities from financial institutions to improve their balance sheets. This increases liquidity and frees up credit. This package was also an example of trickle-down economics, which is lame. I'm not necessarily in favor of this particular package, and now that it's been defeated we'll just have to see what they come up with next. It's probably going to end up being some variation on the Paulsen plan, maybe with some minor changes. I'd like it if they could come up with something though. I'm not willing to trust the free market to clean up the mess it caused... at least not without an unnecessarily deep recession.

However, something does need to be done. Other countries that rely on the US economy are downright pissed that we can't get our collective act together and pass something... anything. We're really just trying to reduce the uncertainty about what's in the weird securities. Instead of going through the banks, I'd prefer it if the package were directed from the bottom up.

I'm sort of feeling like we're going to end up nationalizing (or at least effectively nationalizing) a lot of our financial system. We've already placed Fannie and Freddy into conservatorship, purchased an equity stake in AIG, and we'll probably end up with some sort of stake in a LOT of bad securities. Maybe re-regulation is the way to go. A more socialist system.

When deregulation started it wasn't all bad. It did allow for innovation... it was all about monetary choice. However... somewhere along the way deregulation came to mean, "whatever business wants." I'm not usually one to make slippery slope arguments, I tend to think they're fraught with assumptions, but in this case I think deregulation of the financial systems is too slippery a slope. We're headed towards nationalizing things... lets just get it over with and dive into the red, comrades!

Above: Is Hank Paulsen a commie in disguise? Could the red tie be a sign? Yeah... probably not.

I understand the aversion to this whole thing. The feeling that rich Wall St. bankers are getting a life line from tax payers. Well, sort of. Even if we didn't do anything, and the financial system collapsed... and then we spiraled into a long recession, most of the morons that caused this would still be fine. Most of the investment bankers and hedge fund managers that could share the blame have already set aside enough money the carry them through their old age.

Ignoring the Paulsen plan in particular, a "bailout" package isn't going to help that jerk hedge fund manager. He's already helped himself to quite the nestegg and nothing's going to change that. Something has to be done (I'm not saying it necessarily has be the Paulsen plan or something like it) so that the next time you need a loan, you'll be able to get one without paying obscene interest rates.

*I borrowed parts of this from several forum posts I've made recently. It's not plagiarism if I'm the one that said it.

Wow PETA, that's gross.

2008-09-24T22:13:00.009-05:00

I seriously thought that I was about to read an Onion article when I saw this headline on Digg. Can you really blame me? Look at this:

As it turns out this is a real headline. Here's the story. Okay... so I think it's gross. I'd wager that most people agree with me. Moving beyond the visceral response, there are other problems as well. This is a very poorly thought our request on PETA's part. In the letter to Ben and Jerry's PETA actually used the phrase "breast is best". Yeah... for infants because they have no immune system. Breast milk gives infants antibodies and immune cells to keep them healthy until their thymus kicks into high gear around 1 year. It's not any healthier for adult humans to drink human milk than it is to drink cow milk.

Next I'd like to point out that using human products raises a lot of public health issues. What sort of medication would these milk-producing women be taking? Does anyone know how to effectively filter them out? How would the milk be treated to prevent human disease from being transmitted? You can catch a lot more stuff from a person than from a cow. In fact, breast milk is one of the vectors by which HIV can be transmitted. I mean... are we going to pasteurize human milk? What about excessive hormone levels? Bovine hormones MIGHT have some effect on humans, but the homology between human and bovine proteins is not so high. Human hormones are bound to affect us. You know what we call human products in the sciences? Biohazardous waste.

Finally, PETA missed the mark because human don't produce a lot of milk. It takes about 5.3 liters of milk to make a gallon of ice cream. Yeah, seems like a lot, but I'm admittedly too lazy to find another source. Ben and Jerry's produces about 13 million gallons of ice cream each year. A dairy cow can produce upwards of 30 liters of milk in a day. An adult human female is lucky to get around 1 liter. So, assuming that Ben and Jerry were to hire a bunch of wet nurses to provide them milk, they'd need... *doing math*... 188,767.12 lactating women employed at all times to produce sufficient milk. Since it's kinda hard to get 0.12 of a person (barring some sort of gruesome experiment) we'll just round that up to 188,768 lactating women.

So PETA... your suggestion is totally workable provided you can come up with thousands and thousands of lactating women. And really, what women wouldn't want to be hooked up to a milking machine all day? It should be easy to find recruits.

Palin is NOT fucking qualified, deal with it Digg trolls

2008-09-19T17:04:00.011-05:00

At one of John McCain's lame town hall meetings Palin was asked about her foreign policy experience. The question was obviously asked in a respectful way by a woman and, presumably, a Republican. What is her response?

Oh... that was interesting. Didn't really answer the question, and sounded kinda stupid deflecting it. At least she didn't claim the proximity to Russia again. It wasn't a biased question. Just a wide open request for her to make her case.

This was posted to Digg in the form of a clip from Larry King. You can see the thread here. You may notice that at the top it says the following:

"Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate

Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate."

Now... how can this be inaccurate? The title says, "Epic Fail: Palin can’t answer softball question on security". You can't really argue with that. She was unable to answer the question, and that is clearly an epic fail. This has been happening a lot lately on Digg. The McCain campaign is trying to get people to fight back on liberal sites. Digg isn't a way lefty blog or anything, but it's certainly on the left of the spectrum.

McCain's cronies can't get their stories to the front page often, but they can report an anti-Palin story as inaccurate fairly efficiently. This can't be coming from that many users, so why can't Digg fix this? It's just irritating.

I cut through John McCain's bullshit.

2008-09-19T17:04:00.010-05:00

John McCain is hiding some very distasteful things behind the dressed up policy-speak of his "health care" proposal. McCain is an anti-regulation person. Forget about all the talk in the last few days about how much he wants to clamp down on Wall Street. That's just him telling people what they want to hear. He'd like to pretend that he wasn't in favor of all the deregulation (and poor new regulation) that led to this. Now he wants to bring this same private sector approach to health care.

If you have insurance provided by your employer, you should be concerned. McCain intends to gear the system almost entirely toward private insurance. Under McCain, you will be taxed for the value of your employer-provided insurance. That's another few thousand added on to your taxable income. He believes that compensation is compensation, whether is comes in the form of money or health care. It's laughable, ask your employer if they could just change you over to all cash compensation. Not happening if you have a company insurance plan.

But fear not, Johnny will come to the rescue with a tax credit for you to purchase private insurance. A whopping $2500 for individuals and $5000 for families. The average cost for a family health insurance plan is over $12000 per year. To top it off the "tax credit" wouldn't even be yours, it goes right to the insurance company (it even says so right on his website). A lot of people have good insurance provided by their employer, and a lot of them are middle-income union workers. John McCain's policy is a tax on the middle class.

This policy would drive up the cost of employer provided insurance as workers had no choice but to move to private insurance. The meager subsidies would be the draw, allowing them to at least avoid the higher taxes on their employer coverage. But it's likely the "tax credit" would still leave them paying more. Additionally, what about those that are not insurable? How will McCain ensure that people with preexisting conditions can get sufficient coverage? Well... he probably won't.

Microsoft listens to me, discontinues terrible ads.

2008-09-18T17:48:00.003-05:00

Microsoft has announced that they're discontinuing the terrible Jerry Seinfeld ads that I ranted about recently. It's good to know that Bill Gates reads my blog... okay, probably not, but I got what I wanted anyway. I'm not going to post the second ad in the series, you can find it on youtube if you dare. It was as bad as the first one. So congrats to Microsoft for taking a step in the right direction.

Looks like their new ads will be a response to the Apple vs. PC ads that made everyone think Macs are cool. Apparently, it will open with the use of the phrase, "I'm a PC." This is, of course, what we're used to hearing John Hodgman say in all the Apple comercials. The spots will consist of "exciting people" emphasizing their use of PCs. Could be a hit or miss at this point. Only time will tell. I have hope Microsoft... now just drop the draconian DRM and we can really get down to business.

Edit: Gizmodo is now reporting that they're not canceled? The previous info seemed pretty definitive. I guess only time will tell what's up.

Burn Notice is the best show you're not watching.

2008-09-14T21:44:00.003-05:00

Okay, so here's the premise: Michael Westen was a spy for a crazy underground black-ops agency. In the middle of a mission he's informed by his handlers that they've gotten a burn notice on him. This means they suspect him of being untrustworthy. After escaping as his mission consequently collapses, he finds himself dumped in Miami. His bank accounts are frozen, his credit is deactivated, and his passport is invalid. Thus begins his quest to find out who issued the burn notice on him, how to clear his name, and what they want from him.

If you didn't feel the awesomeness emanating from that paragraph, I'm going to assume you're functionally illiterate. The show is downright fun to watch. Michael takes various odd jobs as a detective and general "fixer" to make his way. He's helped by an ex-girlfriend/former IRA bomb expert, Fiona, as well as his old spy buddy, Sam (played by Bruce "chainsaw-for-a-fucking-hand" Campbell).

Throughout the show there are voice overs by Michael explaining the spy game. These are both informative and often hilarious. I don't watch a lot of TV, but I love this show. The writing is so clever that you can't tell where a plot is going to go. And the acting is nothing to scoff at either. Campbell is great as usual, but Michael (Jeffrey Donovan) and Fiona (Gabrielle Anwar) are impressive too. The characters often have to assume different identities in the course of their investigations, and they do it convincingly.

Michael tends go up against various criminals in the course of his odd jobs. These guys usually think they're big fish in a little pond. Then a highly trained ex-spy comes along and ruins their shit. It's spectacular. Watch it. The first half of the second season is about to end, so you'd have time to catchup before the second half starts in a few months. You can see the first season on their website here. It's worth your time.

Dammit Microsoft... that's just terrible. (Oolon Colluphid fixes everything, pt 3)

2008-09-05T17:33:00.007-05:00

Listen up Microsoft, I'm going to tell you what the people are thinking.

Microsoft just released the first in a series of commercials featuring Jerry Seinfeld. It may be the most incredible abortion of an ad I've seen in a long time.

Seriously? There wasn't a damn thing in that about computers or (more importantly) Windows Vista. Having Jerry Seinfeld ask about the possibility of eating a computer doesn't count. That's fucking stupid. What's with the shoe store? What is this supposed to be? The entire 90 seconds exemplifies why Apple has become known as a "hipster" brand. Cool people have Macs... this is the popular perception. I may think that's bullshit, but no one cares what I think about it. Microsoft isn't going to turn around that perception with this boring crap.

I actually liked the "Mojave Experiment" site Microsoft put up. It made a good point. People are blinded by Apple's hip, funny ads. They don't even know what Vista is like. But this ad... it's exactly the wrong thing to do. It reinforces the image many young people have of Microsoft. Jerry Seinfeld was funny 10 years ago... not so much now. Was the ad trying to capture the feel of his show? If so, it's not only a failure, but a poor concept. Going with a guy that used to be huge in entertainment a decade ago (granted, he's got more money than god, so he really doesn't have to do anything) makes Microsoft look out of touch.

Microsoft, if you paid some marketing firm for that, sue them. Drop Seinfeld, or at least develop a campaign that has him making light of his non-relevance. If you don't say it, everyone will be thinking it. Organize it all around the Mojave Experiment. Don't fuck up, I don't want to buy a Mac.

Don't you have other matters to attend to?

2008-09-01T13:31:00.010-05:00

Hey... two political blogs in a row. So it goes...

Sarah Palin... I mean, what is there to say at this point? It only took 72 hours to get the first political scandal out of her. Her 17 year-old daughter is pregnant. They claim they came out with this announcement to quell the rumors that Sarah's infant was really her daughter's. But really, if that's how you stop a rumor you don't really gain much. No no, everyone, she wasn't pregnant before; she's pregnant now. See how stupid that sounds?

Palin is an odd one. She claims to be "pro-contraception" but is in favor of abstinence-only sex ed. In 2006 she was asked about it and said she'd increase support for these programs and that:

"The explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support."

Yeah, because that worked out so well in this case. How the hell does she think teenagers are supposed to learn that stuff? Between 20 and 25% of young people think there is a cure for HIV. She's trusting that this population will just figure the whole thing out on their own? Humbug.

To top it off, the Palins ended their press release with this little gem:

"We ask the media to respect our daughter and Levi's privacy as has always been the tradition of children of candidates."

Ohhhh really? Miss anti-choice, abstinence-only wants us to forget that her teenage daughter is preggers. I think not. This is an indictment of Palin's world view. Maybe if her daughter knew about contraception this wouldn't have happened. It's damn ironic that a socially conservative Republican should have this happen. Do you think she'll still promote abstinence-only sex ed? Probably.

So Sarah Palin has 5 kids (to be fair, only 4 are still her problem), one of them has Downs Syndrome, and her teenage daughter is knocked-up. I think she has other shit to deal with right now. Maybe running for major political office isn't in the cards right now, eh?

That's all I have to say about the pregnant teenager (mostly). Maybe Sarah Palin will provide us with an even better scandal next week. Does this make me one of those left-wing bloggers? Well, I'd like to think I'm just pointing out obvious irony.

McCain panders at every turn.

2008-08-29T23:27:00.011-05:00

So McCain's running mate is a 44 year-old right-wing woman, with no national political experience, and less than 2 years of state-wide experience. Scan that sentence and look for the reason she was picked. Hard isn't it? Is it the right-wing part? Nah, probably not. There were plenty of other conservative candidates he could have picked. Was it her youth? Well, probably not. McCain hammers Obama for being too young and inexperienced. This move sort of concedes the point, doesn't it? But if you guessed the part where she's a woman, you're right.

He wants to woo former Clinton supporters. This may be a misguided strategy. Any Democratic woman that supported Clinton would be appalled at Palin's policies. Sure, they might draw some independent women, but she undermines the ticket in so many other ways. I think it's rather insulting to assume women will flock to any female candidate you put in front of them. Even the tone of her speech made it clear that's what they were after. Using the rhetoric Clinton used in her concession speech was cheap and pedantic. It shows a lack of respect for women.

Above: John McCain's inner dialogue.

Also, when I first looked at this pic I could have sworn Sarah Palin was standing next to a decomposing corpse. I mean, the comparison really accentuates the negatives for McCain. He's more than old enough to be her father, and that's a little creepy. Case in point:

Above: Can you tell which one of these is real, and which is a cunning photoshop?

McCain's VP choice is a PR stunt. He can't seriously expect people to believe that he thinks she can run the nation. He complains that Obama with his years as a Constitutional law scholar, state legislator, and US Senator doesn't have enough experience. But he's fine with Gov. Palin? He's picked her for her vagina, plain and simple. Her years as a "commercial fisherman" don't really count as pertinent experience. Nor does being mayor of a town of 5000. It's just such an odd choice that I have to believe he's working the woman angle... and it's ridiculous.

A Creationist Gets Destroyed.

2008-08-29T18:33:00.020-05:00

I just recently got a comment on my post "ZOMG! Survival of teh fittest!". And holy crap is it a riot. "Michael" said the following:

"Teh" Truth fish eating the Darwin legged fish somehow illustrates evolution? Not sure how you arrived at that illogical crossroads, but all it's very clearly llustrating is that The Truth will always overcome a lie. Sorry you missed that.

I think you might also have missed the irony behind the Darwin legged fish as well. The Darwin legged fish is a perfect example of exactly why logically-thinking people do not accept the notion that living creatures evolved in such a transient(definition 2 in Webster's) manner--nobody has ever found such a transitional form. Oh, and that silly little ol' thing about life springing from non-life ... it's surely been witnessed, right? It hasn't? Oops. "Well, nevermind that. Science will discover the hows and whys eventually," the people chant.
How can we say the Scientific Method is still being used if a theory is embraced and the very thing being theorized cannot be proven even after 150 years of study? Oops again. Politics/big money would never, ever tilt the results of research to fit their agendas, would it? Oops again. Money talks, babe, and crooked scientists are people, too.

Don't ever think people are stupid just because they don't agree with you, all right? That's about as intolerant and egocentric as it gets and I know you're a better man than that."

Well, I've decided to tear ol' Michael to pieces. I mean... he sort of asked for it by posting something so poorly researched and without merit. In addition to destroying his non-arguments and misconceptions, I'll also be poking fun at him. So, without further ado... why Michael is completely wrong:

Point One-

Michael Says:

""Teh" Truth fish eating the Darwin legged fish somehow illustrates evolution? Not sure how you arrived at that illogical crossroads, but all it's very clearly llustrating is that The Truth will always overcome a lie. Sorry you missed that."

My Response: Oh you... trying to cut me to the quick with your witty repartee. Having this post start off by accusing me of reaching an "illogical crossroads" is so ripe with irony I can scarcely comprehend it. Obviously the "truth" fish in this scenario is supposed to be more "fit". Otherwise it wouldn't be preying on the Darwin fish. The "truth" fish is being successful at what it does, thereby beating out the Darwin fish. We call that natural selection. Try to stay with me. We can ale it a step further by assuming the two fish to be memes. The ideas fight for dominance in a sort of ideological natural selection. In the creationist mind the "truth" fish is superior, and thus, wins. So it's based on natural selection in two distinct ways.

Point Two-

Michael Says:

"I think you might also have missed the irony behind the Darwin legged fish as well. The Darwin legged fish is a perfect example of exactly why logically-thinking people do not accept the notion that living creatures evolved in such a transient(definition 2 in Webster's) manner--nobody has ever found such a transitional form."

My Response: Ah, now we get to the crux of your asinine objection to evolution. Do you know what it is? Give up? You object because you don't know anything about it! Don't despair though, this can be fixed with a little reading. You contend that "logically thinking" people reject the concept of fish evolving terrestrial traits. I have to wonder if you feel this way because of the comical way the Darwin Fish is presented (I think I'll explain just to be safe). Clearly, the plaque is a caricature of a transitional species. No one thinks that a fish sprouted human-like feet.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that Paleontologists just wander about digging up nothing in particular. To put it simply, there are a great number of known "transitional fossils". In fact, if you'd like to learn more about the real life "Darwin Fish" it's called Tiktaalik and there's a book all about it called "Your Inner Fish". Do yourself a favor and pick it up. If you want to see details on the many other well-researched transitional fossils (and I know a sharp young man like you will) , do please follow this wikipedia link.

Point Three-

Michael Says:

"Oh, and that silly little ol' thing about life springing from non-life ... it's surely been witnessed, right? It hasn't? Oops. "Well, nevermind that. Science will discover the hows and whys eventually," the people chant."

My Response: It's funny how any discussion of evolution with dim-witted creation advocates comes back to this. The origin of life isn't really all that pertinant to evolutionary theory, but I'll discuss it nonetheless. I hate to break it to you, but biological molecules are fairly well understood at this point. Amino acids (the building blocks of proteins) are ubiquitous and abundant. In fact, spectrographic studies have recently spotted molecules with amino bonds in nebulae thousands of lightyears from Earth.

Protiens are the basis for all life on Earth. And guess what Michael, they can self assemble. Protein function is governed by shape, and shape is governed by low-energy stability. Proteins attain their functional shape automatically. If the right proteins are formed, all the rest can follow. Now stay with me, Michael... similarly, cell membranes self assemble from lipids. Nucleic acids? Yep, same deal. I'm not saying it's likely... but that's not even taking into account the possible catalytic activity of Ribozymes (just google it, I'm too lazy to explain everything to you). Most early nucleic sequences (probably RNA at first) were probably just junk. In billions of years though you get a lot of chances to get it right. But given all the billions of chemical reactions that would occur on a planet without life to stir it up, doesn't it start to look more reasonable even from your (admittedly foolish) point of view?

Point Four-

Michael Says:

"How can we say the Scientific Method is still being used if a theory is embraced and the very thing being theorized cannot be proven even after 150 years of study? Oops again. Politics/big money would never, ever tilt the results of research to fit their agendas, would it? Oops again. Money talks, babe, and crooked scientists are people, too."

My Response: You seem to have a simple case of "biased jerk disorder" here. Not much to argue with you about. Maybe this is a case of that old "theory" misunderstanding. A scientific theory is different from a day to day life "theory". In science, if we call something a theory, that means it is strongly supported by the evidence, and experiments showing this are reproducible/repeatable.

I have taken part in research, and I can assure you that the evidence for evolution is real. The genetic and fossil evidence is irrefutable. The only people that really dispute it are those that haven't got the ability to crack a book. See how I just called you dumb in so many words? Just thought I'd point that out so you didn't miss it.

Point Five (wherein Michael tries to make me feel bad, and fails)-

Michael Says:

"Don't ever think people are stupid just because they don't agree with you, all right? That's about as intolerant and egocentric as it gets and I know you're a better man than that."

My Response: Well, look at you. That's right, you stand up to the nasty, godless evolutionist. In this case, I do think that people who don't agree with me are stupid. To disagree with me you must ignore scientific knowledge and accept a child-like view of the world. That's stupid. What exactly makes you think I'm "a better man than that"? What if I feel justified in that point of view? To feel bad about that I'd have to accept the implied assertion that yours is a valid point of view. It's not, and you, my friend, lose.

The Internet owns me, and I can live with that.

2008-08-24T02:09:00.001-05:00

So I just had a minor internet outage scare. Many people, should their internet go out at 1:00AM, would shrug their shoulders and go to bed at a somewhat reasonable time. Not me... oh no, not me. Here I was, happy as a clam, when an internet outage interrupted my Digg commenting and wikipedia meandering. I whipped my head around and stared down the modem, hoping to affect some change in its circuitry. Confused, I did all the usual troubleshooting to no avail. The pattern of flashing lights on the modem didn't look good, not good at all. Clearly, this can only mean one thing, the Internet is trying to kill me.

My pulse quickening, I dialed the number for Comcast. To my tepid surprise, there was someone there at 1:15AM. This is the only positive thing about Comcast that comes to mind. Surely they would know if my modem had died or if it was just a temporary outage. He attempted to access the modem, but his fumbling led no where. I inquired if he know of any service outages. I was informed that, in fact, the systems that monitor that kind of thing were down. I was actually not as surprised as I thought I'd be. Comcast's outage tracking systems are currently experiencing an outage. The irony is still palpable.

It was sheepishly suggested to me that I wait until morning, when the aforementioned systems should be back up. Going to bed was simply not an option, not while there was a mysteriously unresolved computer problem. My sleep would be tortured... 1s and 0s would fly through the air, pelting me as I tried to reach the modem's power cord. Circuit boards would be flung at me like shurikens. If only I could power cycle it one last time it would work! If only I wasn't being attacked by technology! I pushed these disturbing images aside. I quickly tried to think of a store where I could purchase a cable modem at such an unreasonable hour... there are none. It seemed hopeless.

I got off the phone with Comcast and valiantly continued attempting to fix the problem. Then, suddenly, everything was working. The hallelujah chorus could be heard somewhere off in the distance. Like those of a junkie taking a hit, my hands ceased their trembling. My heart rate returned to normal. Simple Comcast outage, or the Internet reasserting its dominance over me? I'm not sure.

Although all is well now, I still find myself glancing back at the modem every few seconds, waiting for the time when it will try to destroy me again. Like the grim specter of death, I am stalked constantly by my inability to deal with a lack of connectivity. The Internet has me in its clutches. If it required a blood sacrifice, I'd have to seriously consider it.

Above: not an unreasonable proposition.

I cite this as an example, kind reader. Proof positive that I am, without a doubt, the biggest nerd you shall ever encounter... EVAR!!!1one

* To be clear, this is largly satirical. I don't need to be told to go outside.

Badminton? Really?

2008-08-17T22:36:00.005-05:00

So I didn't know that Badminton was an Olympic event. It's kinda neat I suppose. It gives hope to the geekiest among us that we too could win an Olympic gold metal. Now, I'm not saying that Badminton requires no athletic skills or training... but really, if you compare it to say, swimming or wrestling it's sort of in a class of its own. I know I couldn't just hop into the Badminton court (?) and win, but I think I'd have a better chance than in any other sport. Okay, so here's why I think I'd have a shot:

1) The court is small. That means less running... that's good.

2) The shuttlecock is a "high-drag" projectile. This means it goes slower, which is good. Certainly slower than a ball. I'm no good with tennis balls, footballs, or any of the faster projectiles.

Above: the truth

3) Years of playing computer games have put my hand-eye coordination in a good place. Not great. I'm not going to be smacking down any volleyball serves or hitting a baseball, but I think I could track a shuttlecock fairly well.

4) The constant opportunity to say "shuttlecock" would be a good motivator.

5) The rackets are light, they only weigh between 79 and 91 grams. I don't like carrying around heavy things, so that's a plus.

It's been a while, but I seem to recall I was pretty good at Badminton in gym class when I was young. Surely, if I had known there was a world of competitive Badminton out there, I could have altered my life trajectory a bit. I got winded today pulling weeds out of my yard. I am not what you would call "athletic". But if there was ever a sport I could play, Badminton would be it. If there's hope for me, there's hope for all of us.

Why is this so creepy?

2008-08-12T21:32:00.005-05:00

I love robotics... but why is it that it's so weird to see something man-made moving in an organic way? Seeing Asimo walk around is mildly odd, but you always get the feeling that he's a banana peel away from a cartoon-style fall that would cost Honda millions. But having robots walking around that seem able to adapt to terrain is, well... creepy. Case in point, Big Dog:

Above: These will be chasing you down in a post-apocalyptic future.

I have to admit, I didn't even think this level of locomotion was possible yet. Aside from being creepy, it's also really cool. The damn thing is already more mobile than C3PO. They actually try to knock it down in the video. So when some AI becomes self-aware, I think we can guess what mechanical construct it will choose to load itself into.

But congrats to Boston Dynamics for building a really neat robot. I have to wonder what kind of computer(s) that thing has to tote around to do all this crazy shit. What I wouldn't give to kick it like that guy in the video.

My least favorite thing about moving? Comcast.

2008-08-11T21:21:00.002-05:00

Sometimes I cannot believe that Comcast survives as a company. The level of ineptitude is staggering. I have never, NEVER had any contact with the company that has ended positively. I moved recently (hence the lack of updates), and of course, had to deal with Comcast to get my cable transferred. The tech brought the wrong cable box and then forgot to take my old cable modem. The cable modem thing is probably fine though, since the new modem doesn't work. Yeah, big surprise, they gave me a broken modem.

After just realizing I still had the working old modem I thought everything would be fine. Alas, it was not to be... now several HD cable channels are not working. A call to Comcast resulted in me being told it wasn't their fault, it was the local affiliates. I informed the rep that that made no goddamn sense because then no one would have these HD channels (most do), and it would be very unlikely that multiple stations had messed up HD feeds at the same time.

So after being served a giant, piping-hot plate of logic, they changed their tune and admitted fault. They promised to fix it soon and would send a tech out later in the week if it wasn't. I don't have high hopes. Bah humbug, Comcast... I wish you weren't a monopoly.

The Large Hadron Collider Makes Me Proud of Humanity

2008-08-02T20:12:00.000-05:00

The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) is nearly finished. This is an ambitious project from the European research group CERN. A particle accelerator is for... well... accelerating particles. Protons are magnetically accelerated to nearly the speed of light and slammed into each other. This encourages them to spew forth all their quantum insides, like a sorority girl that's had too much tequila.

Above: this is a detector where the aforementioned "quantum spew" is analyzed. Note the size of the person standing next to it.

The sheer magnitude of the project is unbelievable. It's the most complicated engineering project humanity has ever undertaken. Like most particle accelerators, it consists of a circular track with superconducting magnets to keep the proton beam moving along. The LHC has over 1600 magnets, many weighting multiple tons. One of the goals of the project is to spot the elusive theoretical Higgs boson. The theory holds that this particle is what gives matter mass. You'd think we had that little detail pinned down, but no. Oh yeah, and the collider ring is 27 kilometers long!

The gigantic ring there? That's the main collider.

The engineering that went into this is of a scale we've never seen before. This is the most complicated scientific tool ever built, and it's about to be activated. There's been some bluster about the possibility that the LHC may produce micro black holes and other super-dangerous sounding things. Even though physicists have explained that something sounding dangerous isn't the same as it actually being dangerous, some people can't come to terms with that. I guess they figure those 5 episodes of "Star Trek: Voyager" they saw made them experts on black holes. Really though... even if the LHC did destroy us all, I can't think of a way I'd rather go than "death by black hole".

So, have one more look at this. The most complex example of engineering we have created. It's a tribute to our big juicy brains, and our quest to understand the universe. This is what Homo sapiens has done.

Lists in slideshow format must die. (Oolong Caloophid fixes everything, pt. 2)

2008-07-28T21:09:00.005-05:00

Why do they do this? It's often a perfectly good idea for a story, but I don't want to click through a bunch of pages just to see everything. Case in point, I recently saw a story about the top 50 sci-fi TV shows of all time. "Neat," I thought. But upon opening the page I saw that the list was in slideshow format... 50 goddamn pages to click through. Being a giant nerd, I proceeded anyway. This is a rarity. Most of the time I would just skip it all together. And as a side note, whoever wrote that list is a moron. Xena is higher than Firefly!? Xena isn't even sci-fi! But I digress.

The next list-type thing that caught my eye was "top tech blunders". Wouldn't you know it? A slideshow. Why? Why is this an acceptable way to display a story? Clearly you encounter more ads... but is that reason enough to use such an irritating format? Here's how it probably goes in editor's offices (or AIM chat if there's no office) all over the world:

Writer: Hey, here's that witty top 20 list you wanted boss.

Douche Boss: Ok... looks good. Really interesting, insightful stuff.

Writer: Thanks, boss. I worked really hard on it. I bet it would make it to the front page of Digg.

Douche Boss: So now all we have to do is put in an annoying slideshow format that allows us to serve up a bunch more ads.

Writer: Isn't that such a huge hassle to read that many people won't even click through all the pages, thus resulting in fewer ads being viewed?

Douche Boss: What did I tell you about using logic around here? The ads are a secondary objective, I mostly just like being a dick.

So, listen up douchebag editors: Stop it with the slideshows! Just put everything on one page. It will make people actually want to read your site. It has the added benefit of not pissing me off.

Do people even know why they don't like Vista?

2008-07-25T22:35:00.004-05:00

I'm certainly no Microsoft fanboy, but I use Vista and even defend it from time to time. There's a lot of negative press about Vista right now. Everyone is hearing from a friend that Vista is bad news, and they shouldn't buy a new PC with it pre-installed (not like they have a choice anymore). The question is... does that friend know anything about Vista? Turns out that the answer might be, "no". In preparation for a new marketing campaign MS got together a bunch of XP users with bad impressions of Vista. The subjects were chatted up about why they disliked Vista, and were then given a sneak preview of a new OS: 'Mojave'. Over 90% liked it. Then MS told them that there is no Mojave. What they'd just seen was Vista. Pwned? Yep.

I'm not saying Windows Vista is the perfect OS. You can't really deny that Linux has it beat in most ways. But I think this 'Mojave' thing shows a good deal of the bad press is just bluster. The official site will be up in a few days. I'm interested to see if it will be an effective marketing campaign, or if it will just come off as "out of touch".

Cnet article here.

Who is John McCain's Greatest Critic?

2008-07-23T21:47:00.008-05:00

Well... it's John McCain of course.

This is a great video by The Jed Report. McCain now says the war was mismanaged, and that he was very against it. With all the proselytizing he was doing around 2003-2006 it wasn't hard to find contradictory footage. I said back in June that he was willing to do anything to be president. This is just more evidence.

I particularly like the end of this video when he's asked about how he would react if Iraq asked for a "timeline". Apparently, he doesn't know al-Maliki as well as he thought. Iraq was going to have to distance themselves from the US eventually. Having a long term US presence makes them look impotent to their neighbors. The UAE recently decided to forgive billions in Iraqi debt. This shows other Arab states are going to get behind Iraq. I think the subtext here is loose the Americans, and we'll help you out.

This video was on Digg once before its current run and was buried by the McCain squad. A closer examination of McCain's website gives me chills:

"Select from the numerous web, blog and news sites listed here, go there, and make your opinions supporting John McCain known. Once you’ve commented on a post, video or news story, report the details of your comment by clicking the button below. After your comments are verified, you will be awarded points through the McCain Online Action Center."

What the fuck is that all about? That's just idiotic. There are talking points there too. So they reward their supporters with "points" for regurgitating the campaign's talking points. That's just tacky. If McCain knew how to use a computer I'd blame him directly. As it is, I'm sure some 20-something staffer came up with this cluster-fuck.

Inappropriate? Yeah, I think so.

2008-07-22T19:27:00.006-05:00

Writer Lisa Taddeo apparently thinks that people want to know more about Heath Ledger. I can understand this... I mean, his portrayal of The Joker in the new Batman is fucking spectacular. So she wrote an account of his last few days. When I came across this I thought it may be interesting. Well, I did until I got to this:

"The result is what we call reported fiction. Some of the elements are true. (Ledger was in London. He was a regular at the Beatrice Inn and the Mirö Cafe. And he was infatuated with Nick Drake.) Others are not."

Hmmm...so the author used her "artistic license" to fictionalize the last few days of someone's life. I must admit I was not really enthused by the concept. Oh, it gets better though... it's written in first person. So you get things like this:

"That's the kind of shit you can get away with when you're a celebrity. You can go out there in a fucking ski mask and you can still get laid. They will know your eyes from a mile off. They will smell your fame no matter how much you try to scrub it off.."

It just comes off badly; it's tasteless. All this random shit that gives an impression of how a person thought... but who is this lady to put things in a dead person's mouth? He's dead, and making up stories about him banging a chick in a fur coat (and then blowing her off) is just fucking weird. It's just presumptuous to assume you can speak using a dead man's voice. As totally metal as that last phrase sounds, I don't like it. I give this pedantic bunk two thumbs down.

Oolon Colluphid Fixes Everything (part 1)

2008-07-17T20:12:00.002-05:00

I've got a proposition for everyone...

We've come to the point that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae need government help. Okay, fine... I agree that they can't be allowed to fail. Of course, the internet libertarian thinks otherwise. But I have news on that front: the market cannot recover from the failure of two companies that hold over 5 trillion in US mortgage debt. Even if they might be fine, we have to be ready in case they're not. Lack of regulation has become rampant in the last few years. The Republicans are all about keeping the government from sticking its nose in the private sector... unless their rich buddies at Fannie and Freddie need help.

It would have been better policy to keep these two companies from becoming so large in the first place. How did this happen? Why were there no regulations? Why were these companies allowed to borrow so much money on the strength of implicit government backing? The answer to all these is lobbying. Yep, Freddie and Fannie have some of the best lobbyists in the business. Every time the question of better regulation came up, it was crushed. Opposing these companies looked to be an attack on low income home buyers. This isn't true. In the future there needs to be more regulation, plain and simple.

But how? Clearly, we can't just ban them from talking (what with the first amendment and all). But... we can record the lobbyists. Everything a lobbyist says to a lawmaker should be recorded and placed on the internet. If every meeting is part of the public record there will be none of this quid pro quo bunk. There would be people that spent all their time obsessively listening to all the hours of dry, inane chit chat, just witing for that inapropriate insinuation. Then they'd be off to some blog to post all about it. Just think about it. A lobbyist won't be able to imply that a vote in their clients favor will elicit a campaign donation. Nor will they be able to threaten to support a political rival. No organization would want that sort of publicity. C'mon... it's a good idea.

Buzz Aldrin Hates Sci-fi?

2008-07-15T19:11:00.013-05:00

Ok... so apparently Buzz Aldrin blames science fiction for lack of interest in space exploration. Especially among young people. I'll say up front that I disagree with this hypothesis. Here's what he said:

"I blame the fantastic and unbelievable shows about space flight and rocket ships that are on today. All the shows where they beam people around and things like that have made young people think that that is what the space program should be doing. It's not realistic."

I think Buzz is yearning for the old days. Back when the space program was synonymous with patriotism. That's not how it is anymore, but it should be. We do few things more fantastic, more important, than explore the universe and our place in it. When he walked on the moon he was an American hero. It made everyone believe that America was more ingenious, more fit than the Soviet Union. We don't have a technological rival anymore. No one is racing us to Mars. For the most part, scientists work together on space exploration (and that's for the best). Astronomers make discoveries constantly that expand our knowledge of the universe, but it gets buried on page G11... below the fold.

But I don't think this can be blamed on sci-fi. I, as a giant nerd, loves me some hard sci-fi. If anything, sci-fi increases interest the sciences. I grew up watching Star Trek: TNG and reading sci-fi books. If anything, young people need more exposure to science fiction. It's not their fault that the sort of "popular" sci-fi that might lead them down that path is scarce these days. Good science fiction elicits a sense of wonder, and that's where science starts.

The "unrealistic" technology in sci-fi doesn't make what we can do any less important or impressive. As Phil Plait of the Bad Astronomy blog points out, we can take a picture of a man-made object parachuting to the surface of Mars with another man-made object already orbiting the planet. That is damn impressive. Even though we have a long way to go, it's not discouraging.

Since I was a teenager, science fiction made me think about the future of humanity. Are we destined to stay on this planet until we go extinct? I hope not. I believe if our species is to survive, we have to spread out someday. Spaceflight is important, knowing what's out there is important. My love for science and science fiction are one in the same. These, and other things I have learned from the likes of Asimov, Card, Vinge, Roddenberry, and many others.

Guillermo Del Toro Loves Steampunk

2008-07-12T23:47:00.008-05:00

So I saw Hellboy II the other day. I'd heard it was really good. I mean, an 87% on rotten tomatoes seemed to be pretty convincing. But I have to admit... I was disappointed in it. It had all the standard comic book movie foibles: irritating sub-plots, cringe-worthy dialogue, and not very believable sequences. I can forgive a lot of this kind of stuff for the right film, and this one was close. What it really came down to was the imagery. A closer look at the reviews indicates that many of the positive ones pointed favorably to the visuals of Del Toro. Case in point:

"There's so much beauty and imagination on display in Hellboy II: The Golden Army that it's sometimes hard to tell if you're watching an action movie or a museum exhibit called 'The Artistry of Guillermo Del Toro.'" -Chris Hewitt (St. Paul Pioneer Press)

And...

"Hellboy II, like its 2004 predecessor, has a middling story line, but it's made memorable by the dark, freaky visions of director Guillermo del Toro. And this time, his imagination runs wilder than ever." - Rafer Guzman (Newsday)

Ok... so the visuals make the film in a lot of people's eyes. It makes sense, under its shiny, steam-driven exterior it's a pretty standard comic book film. Most of the visuals can be described with one word: Steampunk. The whole time I couldn't help but notice all the steampunk elements. It's fairly obvious from the various goggles and eye pieces, to the mechanized golden army, to Johann Strauss' diving suit.

Above: Johann Strauss' suit screams steampunk in a not so subtle way.

Without giving too much away, I have to say the end is a steampunk extravaganza. Complete with giant steam powered gears and the very steampunk-esque golden army:

Above: Possibly more steampunk than Strauss

Surprisingly, the visuals don't do it for me. It's all just too conventionally steampunk. You don't see a lot of this sort of stuff in the mainstream, but that doesn't mean it hasn't been done before. This might be fine for most people though. I have to admit, I don't much care for steampunk... the goggles, the gears, steam pouring out of everything. Not my bag. If you think this whole steampunk thing is up your alley, then by all means, see this movie.

This film was just ok for me...

Yep, I borrowed the pics from io9, what of it?

Singer Chris Brown Annoys Me On Goodreads

2008-06-30T21:37:00.007-05:00

So recently I was nerding around (yeah, nerd is a verb now) on Goodreads looking into some books and such. Then something odd happened, I got a friend request. I don't socialize much on Goodreads. I use it mainly as a record of what I've read and to research what I want to read next. So a random friend request is an event indeed.

I usually reject such requests. They're usually just from people that want to look like they have a lot of friends. I'd just like to point out that these are INTERNET friends, and as such, don't really matter. But many people (teenagers mostly I'd imagine) seem to associate large friend lists online with real life self-esteem. This is the height of internet stupidity and makes me question the judgment of my generation. I'm happy to say this is more common with Myspace and Facebook than with Goodreads. Goodreads is, for the most part, a society for book nerds (which is why this request was so odd).

But I digress... the request was from one "Chris Brown", male, 19 years old. I was perplexed by the lack of books in the profile. I then noticed the interests that were listed, "Singing,Acting,Dancing,talk to fans". Side note: if you start a list in the progressive tense, all the elements should use it, douchebag. Fans? Is this someone of note? Turns out it is. Well, I had no idea who it was, but then, I don't watch MTV.

Mr. Brown has the following listed in his "About Me" section:

When I was 3 I loved to sing and dance.Then when I was 14 A got a record deal,and signed a contract.After that I started making songs and tryin new dance moves.
(formatting and sentence structure original)

Oh, how nice to know that Chris... but what do you read? Well, it turns out that his favorite book is "Nothin really". Side note: if you choose to go with the informal shortening of a word, an apostrophe is customary. So a semi-famous singer doesn't read (big shocker) but has a Goodreads profile.

So what did I do with this friend request? Why, accepted it of course. Turns out you can't post on someone's profile unless you're their friend. So I said:

"This is not myspace. Goodreads is for books. If your favorite book is "Nothin really" (and you don't even have any books listed) maybe you should stick to a more general place, like myspace."

I then un-friended Chris. My post was deleted because the loser can't handle the truth. He then posted one book. What is it? Well it is "One-Man Band (A Stepping Stone Book)". Yep, Chris Brown is doing his best to get into this whole reading thing with hard-hitting, elementary school lit.

You may be asking yourself, why would this fucking tool be randomly friending people on Goodreads (a book site)? Well, this goes back to my original point about social networking. More friends = more popular. This may be fine for Myspace, but having a Goodreads profile isn't going to help you stay popular or sell more albums. No, it just serves to remind me that douchebags like this are dumbing down young people. Not trying to sound like a crotchety old man here, but seriously, go read a fucking book.

Note: for the purposes of this post I'm assuming that the profile is run by Chris Brown and not a publicist or rabid fan... it's funnier that way.

Time For Some Nitpicking.

2008-06-20T23:12:00.005-05:00

So I'm looking at RottenTomatoes.com and I see a blurb about the upcoming Gears of War (or GoW if you're 1337) movie. I haven't heard much about it so I had a look.

"Also aiming for 2010 is the movie version of the popular XBox 360 videogame, Gears of War, which is a futuristic shooter about bugs invading Earth. And the very large men who kill them. Len Wiseman (Live Free or Die Hard) will be directing, from a script by Chris Morgan (The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift), and whatever part of Warner Bros that now handles the former New Line Cinema projects hopes to get the movie in theaters sometime in 2010. Except for DOOM, there really isn't a big budget adaptation of a first person shooter to compare Gears of War to, except that I think in a way that it sort of fills the void that was left over when the HALO movie plans fell apart. Gears of War is also a lot like Starship Troopers, except on Earth. And probably with no Neil Patrick Harris." -Greg Dean Schmitz

This is a big box of fail and here's why: almost every fact about Gears of War in this paragraph is wrong. I usually wouldn't mind if some RT writer got some stuff wrong, but this is SO wrong. And all the information he would have needed is readily available on wikipedia. Under five minutes of research and everything would have been fine. I am a giant nerd that has played this game (on the PC). However, I'm not perterbed by this because it insults my nerdiness, but rather because of the lazyness it demonsrtates.

The specifics:

"Gears of War, which is a futuristic shooter about bugs invading Earth."

Wrong. Gears of War takes place on the fictional planet or "Sera". This is in the second paragraph of the wikipedia article (and is repeated several times). Also, only some of the enemies in the game resemble bugs. The vast majority have more of a "night of the living reptiles" vibe. Their name, "Locust Horde" must have led the author to believe they were insects. But wikipedia tells us the name comes from, "their sudden appearance out of the ground as locusts do when coming out of hibernation."

"Except for DOOM, there really isn't a big budget adaptation of a first person shooter to compare Gears of War"

Well, he starts off strong here. But GoW is not a first-person shooter. Doom is though. GoW is a third-person shooter. In Doom you play the game through the character's eyes; in GoW you follow behind the character, looking over his shoulder. This fact is actually in the very first line of the wikipedia article.

"Gears of War is also a lot like Starship Troopers, except on Earth. And probably with no Neil Patrick Harris."

It's really only like Starship Troopers for the approximately 15 minutes of game time you spend blowing up large vaguely insectoid things. The rest of the time it is very, very unlike Starship Troopers. And once again, it doesn't take place on Earth. Finally, giving Neil Patrick Harris a small role in GoW would rock.

So this just goes to show you... if you don't do your research, some random nerd on the internet might make fun of you. I know... serious consequences, huh?

The IMAX of Broken Dreams

2008-06-19T21:39:00.010-05:00

So I recently went to the new Star Wars exhibit at the Science Museum. Being a fairly huge nerd I was pleased by this. Overall, it was an excellent outing. There was, however, one dark spot. As is customary, the main exhibit is accompanied by a related IMAX film. In this case, "Special Effects: Anything Can Happen". I settled in and got comfortable with the cheezy title. At first I saw various Star Wars related models, and they went through the familiar "we move the cameras, not the models" routine. They then went on to discuss the gound-breaking (I was becoming intrigued) new effects being created for (what could it be?)... um...the 20th aniversary of Star Wars? A cursory calculation told me that it had, in fact, been over 30 years since the release of Star Wars. Indeed, what discussion there was of computer technology seemed to be limited to the amazing advances Mac OS7 had brought.

I thought to myself, they wouldn't be showing us a film from over a decade ago... that would be ludicrous. So I convinced my self that this must just be a look into the past and soon they'll talk about how things have changed, what with computers and such. Maybe discuss the decreasing role of models in special effects. But no... there was something better in store. Because we were going to get a "behind the scenes" look at the upcoming HOLLYWOOD BLOCKBUSTER... Independence Day. This effectively shot to shit my theory that this was to be some wide-ranging look at the history of special effects that had only just begun. No, this was just old. For those of you not aware, this film was released in 1996.

So there were a few segments about blowing up models for the movie. At one point they blew up a miniature white house. To which an audience member shouted, "Whoa, they blew it up!?" Yeah, shithead... they blew it up. Who would have thought those explosives you just watched them attach to it were for blowing it up? And what manner of super-genius would it have taken to pick up on the pattern that every model in this fucking segment is getting blown up? Seriously, when did the Science Museum start catering to sub-par bumpkins?

The debacle was not over yet though. For now, this bastion of modern movie magic moved on to... Kazaam. What? Shaquille O'neal as a genie, clearly this was not well thought out. Even before this was released everyone must have known that it was a disaster. I could have gone the rest of my life without seeing Shaquille O'neal's giant bald head blurting out poorly written quips on a screen the size of a fucking building. What a waste... an hour of my life I wish I could forget. I suppose I can't really expect much more from an institiution that's spent the last few years slowly becoming a second Children's Museum. From now on, special exhibits only for me.

The Internet Libertarian

2008-06-14T00:14:00.012-05:00

Of all the organisms in the world one of the most baffling is the internet libertarian. It has unique behavior, habitat, nutritional requirements, and reproduction.

Habitat:
To put it simply, the internet libertarian is a wily creature. It can often be found lurking in forums and commenting on Digg. Depending on the political climate it may go into hibernation for years at a time. Some specimens have been observed deep in the blogosphere. It is believed these individuals are engaged in some sort of ritual worship that shall be discussed later. The internet libertarian is also known to be comfortable on various social networking sites where they can mingle with their own kind. Many specimens have also been seen in ECON 101 classes. Conspicuously, they seem to find higher level classes inhospitable.

Social Interaction/Worship:
The internet libertarian has a distinctive call. If you briefly scan Digg comments you'll see it: "Ron Paul '08!". The internet libertarian is a simple creature and is unable to adapt to change very quickly. Despite Rep. Paul's inability to win, many internet libertarians cannot cope. This leads me to the ritual worship I discussed earlier. It seems clear from careful observation that most internet libertarians have begun to consider Rep. Ron Paul their god. Many specimens seem to spend a great deal of time in the blogosphere praising their deity. This is also a point of congregation for the internet libertarian's group activities as they are unable to leave the safety of the internet.

Suggesting that the federal government has a role to play in offering social services and benefits in the presence of the internet libertarian triggers a remarkable behavior. This is known as the "pseudo-patriotic rant". The individual is likely to puff out the chest and proclaim themselves to be the only real patriots. This is followed by a series of poorly worded complaints about the size of the government. This usually end with the distinctive call, "Ron Paul '08!"

Nutritional Requirements:
As a whole, the species relies on an all liquid diet consisting of the tears of uninsured children and minorities. Their opposition to government programs of any sort seems to be an attempt to secure a future supply of liquid nourishment.

Reproduction:
The internet libertarian is an opportunistic breeder. They appear to be able to produce offspring with Homo sapiens as well as each other. Research indicates that the offspring from a human/internet libertarian union begin human but over time are molded into young internet libertarians. This process is not a certain success.

So in conclusion, the internet libertarian is truly a remarkable species. The reason for much of their behavior is still a mystery. Many naturalists feel that they are an evolutionary dead end (this author being no exception). Still others feel that they may, in fact, be a subspecies of Homo sapiens. Most reputable researchers dismiss this suggestion out of hand. Nevertheless, their behavior gives excellent queues on how not to act.

6 Reasons Why John McCain Should Not Represent You.

2008-06-03T19:47:00.013-05:00

1) He has a notorious temper. Throughout his career he's had a string of obscenity laden tirades, both public and private. He's fond of calling senate colleagues "Fucking Jerks", and telling them, "Only an asshole would put together a budget like this".

2) His wife became addicted to prescription pain medication in the late 80s and early 90s. This may not seem like a big deal, I mean... Obama smoked for however long. But Cindy McCain admitted stealing the pills from the American Voluntary Medical Team (a charitable group which she was president of). Of course, she was not prosecuted (maybe because her husband was a senator?) even though each theft carried a possible penalty of one year in prison.

3) He is way too rich and pretends not to be. He seems (from his tax records) to have respectable, but not outlandish, wealth. But he and his wife file separate tax returns. She will not release her records. But her fortune is likely in excess of $100 million. We have no way of knowing what she does with it. The suspicion is that these funds have been improperly used in McCain's campaigns. There are also questions about whether all her fortune comes from ethical sources. Oh, and he has 8 houses. That seems a little excessive, some people don't even have one.

4) He is old, and as such, probably smells. McCain (or as I like to call him, Methuselah) would be 72 when elected. Watching him speak is agonizing. It looks like he's concentrating SO hard to keep his train of thought. Also, he sounds like Gonzo reading "A Muppet Christmas Carol".

5) McCain is willing to partner with anyone to be president. He spent much of the early 2000s referring to the neocon religious right as "agents of intolerance". Then approaching the primary season, he got awful cozy with Falwell and the gang. It took him weeks to decide he didn't want the endorsement of extreme right-wing nutbag Chuck Hagel.

6) He clearly prefers military action over diplomacy. The way McCain tries to make diplomacy seem weak is just spin. Ignoring our enemies just makes force the only option. Polls show Americans agree with Obama's assertion that we need to have discussions with hostile states.

Very, Very Bad Advice from Public Radio.

2008-05-28T19:38:00.010-05:00

So I'm listening to MPR today at work because I'm a giant dork. They were talking about how the rate of childhood obesity has stopped increasing. That doesn't mean it's going down... just not up anymore. But that's not the point here. So they have Dr. Reginald Washington (a pediatric cardiologist) on. He was talking about all the kids he sees in his practice that are overweight. He says you don't have to go to a hospital to see the effects of the "childhood obesity epidemic". His advice if you want to see it first hand:

"Go to a local school, park out front and observe the kids and you will see that roughly one-third of them are overweight or obese. "

So... go park outside a school and... observe the kids? This sounds like something a well adjusted person would do. If someone gets suspicious and calls the cops you have a good excuse. You just needed to see how many of them were fat (bonus points if you say the radio told you to do it). But why would anyone call the cops anyway? You're just loitering around a school staring at children. Here's how I see that going:

Guy getting indirectly pwned by public radio.

It was a weird statement made by the good doctor. He could have just pointed out that there are obese kids all over, not just at hospitals. So specific... but then, he didn't go to medical school to give vague instructions... srsly.

Story link if you don't believe me.

14% Say, "Screw You".

2008-05-27T21:38:00.007-05:00

So a Ford dealership in Mojave, CA is running a nifty radio ad. In it they have some harsh words for non-believers.

If you missed some of the crazy:

["Did you know that there are people in this country who want prayer out of schools, "Under God" out of the Pledge, and "In God We Trust" to be taken off our money?"]

"But did you know that 86% of Americans say they believe in God? Since we all know that 86 out of every 100 of us are Christians, who believe in God, we at Kieffe & Sons Ford wonder why we don't tell the other 14% to sit down and shut up. I guess I just offended 14% of the people who are listening to this message. Well, if that is the case then I say that's tough, this is America folks, it's called free speech. None of us at Kieffe & Sons Ford is afraid to speak out. Kieffe & Sons Ford on Sierra Highway in Mojave and Rosamond, if we don't see you today, by the grace of God, we'll be here tomorrow."

The audio cut off the very beginning. The poll in question (Gallup May 10-13, 2007) also lists 8% as not sure, and 6% as Atheist. Lets ignore the fact that belief in god does not mean one is a Christian. This doesn't mean all 86% are crazy people that want Atheists and the like to, "sit down and shut up". Way to whore out your religion to sell cars, douche.

If the beliefs of religious people are to be tolerated, then lack of belief should be as well. I make no secret of my distaste for religion, but I don't think a radio ad telling Christians to "screw off" would be appropriate.

Dammit, imagine if that had been an ad telling off Jews or Muslims. Can you imagine the shit-storm that podunk car dealership would be dealing with? But it's all well and good when it's the Atheists taking the hit. Maybe that explains the recent Gallup polls on electability. Of all the groups, Atheists poll the lowest. 53% of people said they would absolutely not vote for an Atheist. By contrast, 42% said they wouldn't vote for a homosexual; and 24% wouldn't vote for a Mormon.

Well, looks like I'm in the most hated minority in the country. Thankfully, I have my outwardly apparent white, male, presumably god-fearing persona. I suppose if 86% of people think one thing, they're more likely to assume you agree. So much for being president... srsly.

ZOMG! Survival of teh fittest!

2008-05-21T20:59:00.004-05:00

So I was driving today and saw one of these:

I hate these things. Aside from indicating I'm driving behind someone with the critical thinking skills of a tomato, I feel the need to pit maneuver the car and lecture the occupant. It's not good for the insurance premiums.

I have to wonder what the originator of this design thought he was doing. Was he trying to turn the concept of natural selection around on "Darwinists"? In which case it's not really very clever, it seems to concede the point. Or did he not even realize he was illustrating natural selection? I mean... did he just think that having a bigger fish eat the darwin fish was effectively illustrating his disdain for evolution?

I feel like that's beside the point though. I'd bet ten heads of cattle that 99% of those that have this plaque don't know what natural selection is. They just see the "truth" fish getting the upper hand on the "darwin" fish and think, "I can get behind that." It's a failure of our education system indeed. But for those individuals I have a visual:

The people that buy these are probably too dense to understand this point.

So how about you guys just stick to your Jesus fish and I'll stick to my Darwin fish? That way we can just clearly espouse what we believe in without stepping on each other's toes (to recap that's... me: logic; you: superstition). So think before you affix plaques... srsly.

This fills me with a childlike sense of glee.

2008-05-19T18:34:00.003-05:00

I love this. It combines two classically nerdy things, Indiana Jones and Legos.

It's been said around the internet that the boulder was filled with styrofoam. I choose not to believe that. Not because it seems unreasonable, but because it makes me sad.

Windows Vista is just fine, stop complaining.

2008-05-18T21:39:00.006-05:00

If you've spent any length of time reading about Vista on the internet, you've probably heard it sucks. Well to get right to the point, it doesn't. Is it perfect? No. But neither is OSX or Linux. Each has its strengths. I will be the first to admit that the activation scheme is a pain, but you can't really expect otherwise.

That being said, there are a few things holding Windows back. Firstly, legacy support. Vista was made to be compatible with almost everything that XP was compatible with. You've probably heard about people having all sorts of problems with old hardware on Vista. What they mean is REALLY old hardware. I had only a single device refuse to work with Vista, a bluetooth headset.

The other challenge for Vista is the sheer number of hardware permutations. Considering the number of hardware vendors out there, I think Microsoft does an admirable job of making Windows work. This is a major reason for the higher hardware requirement for Vista. Are the hardware requirements outlandish? Of course not. You can get a perfectly reasonable laptop for under $1000 that runs all of Vista's eyecandy. OSX is lighter weight because it only has to work for a few dozen different hardware configs, seeing as all the hardware comes from Apple. Of course, you pay a premium to Apple since they can't be undercut. I'm also an hardware enthusiast, and Macs are too locked down.

Ok, now to set the record straight (as I see it). Vista is stable. I've gotten less than five "blue screens of death" in over a year. Most of them were my fault due to overclocking and running beta drivers. I don't know who these people are that keep getting crashes. I suspect they would be doing the same thing on XP. By the way, Macs crash too. Apple's marketing would lead you to believe that they don't... ever.

Next, Vista is more secure than OSX. You never hear about big security vulnerabilities in OSX because it has such a small market share. Vista's UAC is annoying, but it can be turned off if you're a tinkerer. Most light users will seldom encounter it; these are the same ones that need it more. At the recent CanSecWest security conference a "PWN to Own" contest was held. Three machines (Linux, OSX and Vista) were updated with all current patches and attacked by the competitors. Compromising a machines security won you the computer (and other stuff). The first to go down? OSX. Vista was next, but only after third party software was installed. Linux was, of course, the winner. They don't talk about that in the Mac commercials.

Yeah, I know you can run Parallels or Boot Camp and boot XP, but it doesn't work as well and Macs still have shit video cards. Stop pestering me.

Really, just run an antivirus and get a router for the firewall... done. Hell, the firewall is even more important for Macs. So enough with the Mac fanboy-ism. Don't believe everything you see on those commercials... srsly.

What the Hell AMD?

2008-05-16T22:47:00.007-05:00

AMD, you and me need to have a talk. You used to make the best processors. Every enthusiast worth his motherboard ran an AMD CPU. But here we are... Intel has an architecture that trounces the Phenom. Now to top it off you're selling defective processors. The Toliman core is just a busted Agena core.

You can call a CPU with a defective core anything you want, it's still broken. Seriously, tri-core CPUs? You just fucked up one of the cores! Just a tip, if you break a processor in the manufacturing process, don't sell it. It just doesn't inspire confidence. Here's how I imagine it going:

Yeah, I know this isn't really how it happens.

I'm begging you AMD, don't go under. Even if you can never again hold that special geeky place in my heart, we need you. Without you, Intel will extort more money from us that they already are... srsly.

Your Bike is Not a Car.

2008-05-16T17:56:00.001-05:00

I understand the desire to ride a bike. It's better for the environment, saves gas money, and it's good exercise. But for the love of god, ride on the damn sidewalk.

MN statute 169.222:

Persons riding bicycles upon a roadway or shoulder
shall not ride more than two abreast and shall not impede the
normal and reasonable movement of traffic

You cannot keep up with traffic no matter how much you try. Are you Lance Armstrong? No? Well, don't bother trying. The shoulder is also unacceptable. It sucks to have to drift over the median to avoid hitting you. See that nice smooth piece of cement? Yeah, the one that doesn't have giant chunks of metal driving down it at 40MPH. That's what we call a sidewalk. Even when there's a widened sidewalk (some of them with lanes no less) people still ride on the street. Here's a visual if you're not getting my point:

Some people still won't get it despite this nifty diagram.

So here's my proposal: since you cannot manage to avoid impeding traffic, use the sidewalk. And another thing, what's with the riding through red lights? If you're going to use the street, you could at least not give people a heart attack by nearly getting run over by that car you didn't see. Now that this has been cleared up I hope we can stay out of each other's way. By the way, I don't care if you disagree. So don't bother arguing... srsly.

Jesse Ventura is Probably Insane.

2008-05-15T19:21:00.001-05:00

So I was listening to MPR today and former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura was on. He was being interviewed by kindly old Gery Eichton. Gery is just too nice to tell him he's an idiot. I was a little young when he was elected and consequently didn't know much about him. At the time I thought it was kinda fun and quirky to have an eccentric former wrestler be the governor... but I was a stupid 15 year old and what the hell did I know anyway? So long story short, I learned from his MPR interview that he's a complete nut. I don't mean in that funny sort of exaggerated way... like, "Oh, good ol' cousin Jim! That guy is a nut!". No, I mean he's a fucking crazy person.

He claims he's thinking about running for congress, I hope he's just trying to sell books. Among other pearls of wisdom, Governor Ventura explained that donating aid to help victims of the cyclone in Myanmar was bad fiscal policy. Really? That's the example of bad fiscal policy you decided to go with? Not the war, or funding for faith-based initiatives, or tax cuts for the wealthy... nope. Jesse draws the line at aid for poor people in a brutal military dictatorship that have just lost their homes. Bravo, well played sir, well played...

He also said he believes that if the congress voted to go to war, a draft should begin immediately because, "...war should hurt." And each member of congress that voted for the war should have to predesignate a member of their family for military service. Seems like involuntary servitude to me... isn't there an amendment about that or something? Nah, couldn't be. I mean, Jesse would know about that, right?

He then proceeded to insinuate that Bush was gay... ok, I actually like to do this sometimes too. But in a more tasteful way. He didn't really so much insinuate it as call him gay three of four times because he holds hands with visiting Saudi officials. Anyone with half a brain knows that this is just a cultural difference, and Bush is just trying to make the oil-rich Saudis feel at home. Wouldn't want to piss them off... then we might have to research (eeek) ALTERNATIVE ENERGY! *dramatic music* But I digress...

Next, in a stunning display of self destructive behavior, he said he was suspicious of the official 9/11 story. Because he just didn't see how, "a building could fall at the speed of gravity." What? He didn't really explain that... I don't think it would have made any sense anyway.

For his grand finale he tried to rebound a bit by stating his support for combating global warming. But he said he believes in global warming for the following (paraphrased) reason: He was once waiting in line at the Mexican border to get back into the country, and as more and more cars started stacking up he noticed something. All those cars running for hours on end... appeared to be making the temperature outside go up! Of course! It's all so simple now... global warming in action! (End paraphrase) He seems to think that global warming can manifest itself as a local warming of the air by a few degrees, from car exhaust... wow.

Minnesota elected this weirdo for the highest office in the state... for shame. We could have at least elected a cool third party candidate... srsly.

If you want to listen to Jesse Ventura continuously thrust his foot into his mouth, here's the link to the interview.

Yep, you're a douche bag.

2008-05-13T18:17:00.000-05:00

So I went to a concert recently (which I don't do much these days). And as usual there were security guards at the door to check for recording devices. I assume this was the main purpose as the notices everywhere were very clear about recording devices. I guess if they found a gun or knife or something they'd probably take that too... but mainly they don't want any shitty bootlegs of an obscure metal show to get out. So I get up to the groping station and am informed that I'll have to empty my pockets. The guy looks disgruntled. I can't really blame him for that though as his efforts to grow a mustache have clearly been fruitless, despite no lack of trying. So I scoop out my keys and the security guy (who I will henceforth refer to as Security Douche) takes my keys and looks very very closely at them. For the record I have one of these on my key chain:

It's a USB flash drive. He looks closely at it and we begin to converse... sort of...

(Note that things in blue are things I thought, not said.)

Me: It's a flash drive.
Security Douche: *Confused look, begins unscrewing cap*
Me: You know... a USB drive. I really wish he wouldn't open that. It's a pain to get back on.
Security Douche: *Says nothing, still confused, still unscrewing cap* (it has a lot of threading)
Me: Is he even listening? ... a thumb drive?
Security Douche: *Confused look turns to anger* I fuckin' got it dude! *throws keys at me*
Me: *extremely irritated look* Fine. Asshole...
Security Douche: Fuck off.
Me: (Cheerily) You too, man. What a douche bag. What's that on your neck there, man? Oh, a tattoo? Aw... cool. What a great idea. And it's a name, "Brandon". Oh, that must be your name. Dude, that's fucking clever now it's like you're wearing a name tag all the time. That'll save ALL your future employers money... idiot.

Srsly...

Yes... I have a lot of Healthy Choice. So?

2008-05-11T19:15:00.000-05:00

I was at the store today and all was going well up until I was in line for check out (I mean really well, no human interaction at all). But it was not to be...

Among other things, I had about 8 Healthy Choice frozen meals in the cart (some for me and some for the wife). The older woman in front of me turns around and I could feel she was about to strike up a conversation. I checked for possible escape routes... nothing. No cover for at least 20 feet, I'd never make it. "My," she said, "you have a lot of Healthy Choice."

"Yeah... they're a good deal for lunches," I reply. I'm hoping she doesn't continue this conversation (about frozen dinners of all things). I don't like conversing with random people in general... but if I have to, I'd prefer it if the conversation was about something I have more to say about. I mean, what can you really say about Healthy Choice?

"Oh," She continues to my infinite dismay, "my husband used to do that." She quickly adds, "Before he retired." And honestly, I had never suspected that her husband would be anything other than retired or dead. I mumble some sort of acknowledgment. Seriously... I have no idea how I got into this conversation. "Honey look," She continues, "he has a bunch of Healthy Choice." I had not yet noticed the older gentleman in front of her, who is apparently her husband. I suppress a shudder.

"Oh," he says, "those are a good deal with the economy the way it is." This is an odd statement, but he goes back to minding his own business, so the statement is of little consequence. She asks how much they are at this particular store. I don't know and tell her as much. I really have nothing else to say about Healthy Choice... I didn't even have anything to say from the start. At this point I start fumbling for my wallet, trying to kill time until their stuff is bagged.

"So do you have a favorite one?" She asks, "I was always like that." Oh, Jesus Fucking Christ! I can't end this conversation about frozen meals. How the hell does something like this happen? I have no response to her query... I just shrug. I am out of social ability. The clerk acknowledges me and the old woman that is obsessed with my Healthy Choice meals is gone with her bags.

The grocery store is an irritating place... srsly

What’s wrong with the Jehovah’s Witnesses?

2008-05-10T18:01:00.001-05:00

And for my first trick I shall make a post from my old blog appear. This is just a one time thing to get things rolling...

I got a handwritten note from someone I had never met. It had my name (as it appeared on my mailbox) and address. In addition to the note (God, blah blah blah) there was a pamphlet. And oh goodness, you've never seen such a thing. Inside there was a ton of biblical verses but the cover was great, here it is:

How's that for weird? Such a strong claim, "all suffering soon to end". So we can assume that this image is the Jehovah's Witnesses' idea of a world without suffering.

So in their ideal world the following are true: there will be pumpkins... lots of pumpkins. Because, you know, pumpkins are useful for so many things... like pumpkin pie... and other things I'm sure. Also there will be apples (for when you're sick of munching on pumpkins). After a day of harvesting, pumpkins and apples will be placed in a garden of ambiguous looking flowers.

In the ideal Jehovah's Witness paradise the moose will have lost its desire to protect its territory. In fact, here they will graze quietly near humans that have apparently just harvested some pumpkins and apples. And it seems that black people do the harvesting. I'm not saying that Jehovah's Witnesses are in favor of slavery... I mean there's no suffering there. But maybe the artist should have thought that through better.

Oh, and log cabins, you bet there'll be log cabins. Who needs modern building technology anyway? But don't fear, we can still use horses for transport. So I guess everyone is happy and free... except for horses.

By the way, if this offended you I offer my most sinc- actually... I don't care.