Big questions (I guess)
Layzeeboy, 2008-10-02 19:05, 1 comment
Is the hardest thing about loving someone accepting their faults? Is there a stage at which you ignore something about someone you love because you know you can't change them and trying will only cause you both suffering? If you can identify a flaw in someone's character, should you tell them? If you knew you had a flaw in your character, would you care or let it slide? Is the difference between someone constantly seeking self-improvement and someone content to remain as they are an impassable gulf? Can you, should you remain silent in the face of anathema to your principles if you know you cannot effect change?Pointless self~absorption
Falco, 2008-08-20 00:02, 4 comments
I'm afraid that I have absolutely no good reason for this post. I'm really just curious about whether it's possible to write an entire post on a PSP. Answer: yes, but only just.Immortality
Falco, 2008-06-28 23:51, 0 comments
We've all heard the story before - the misguided scientist searches for eternal life, doomed to catastrophic failure in an epic moral tale. That's always the slant, the audience knows that the scientist is playing god and must be taught a lesson.
It annoys me, that. As if it's absolutely fine to try to solve some problems and difficulties mankind has, but not others. When it comes down to it, aging isn't really terribly different to an illness, but for some reason, really fighting it is considered wrong. We all have to die one day... why? There are some interesting comments on this article:
Slashdot: The Fight To End Aging Gains Legitimacy, Funding
Some arguments make some sense (population problems? can everyone afford to live forever?) and some don't. For example, "We're not built, physically or mentally, to be able to survive more than a hundred years of changes." Has research been done to prove this? Well... no. We won't know until it happens. Is this a good reason to stop it from happening? I don't think so. "Bad ideas would never die. Bigotry would never fade. Bad people would never go away unless they crossed the line and had an 'accident'." Bad ideas/bigotry: maybe true, but people can and do change. People whose ideals and morals are too out of step with the rest of the world are eventually brought in line, one way or another. Bad people get caught eventually. All in all, I'm not convinced that immortality would make a great difference to the crime stats, the moral climate, or pretty much anything else other than the reduction of a hugely expensive, dependent section of the population, people who in general would rather be working and continuing to contribute to society than being forced to go home and mess with their gardens until they collapse face first into a flower bed.
And quite apart from all that, Aubrey de Grey himself (the most noted current proponent of anti-aging research) himself states that being free of aging isn't really the same thing as being immortal - people will have longer lives, but people regularly die from causes other than aging, e.g. disease, accident.
In the end, most of the arguments against getting rid of aging entirely seem to be full of hot air. It's certainly something that I think we'll be hearing more about; if it starts to actually look viable, or at least attracts more serious research, I think we'll start to see a lot of panicked "We mustn't play god!" ranting and associated bullshit, much like the anti-stem cell protests that wiped out most stem cell research in the USA (and left other countries to leap ahead of the USA in that area of science).
If anyone's interested, this is a good place to find about Aubrey de Grey's ideas (and the man himself).
Nuclear power
Falco, 2008-06-16 17:11, 1 comment
Currently, we're being told that there's a power shortage, or there will be soon, at least. Everyone who cares is hoping that it'll rain solidly for a few weeks to fill the lakes. Isn't it a bit backwards to depend to such an extent on the weather for our power? Once, I was firmly opposed to the concept of nuclear power; now, I'm wondering if it might not be such a bad thing. It's low cost, and the downsides appear to be much less significant than commonly believed. For instance, environmentally speaking, there's no carbon emissions cost, and the amount of nasty radioactive byproduct isn't huge. Plus, the risk of meltdown is very small indeed, for a well-maintained plant. Just considering - to me, it's a very interesting question.
Conversation, dancing, exploding clowns, and how to drown in the kitchen.
Falco, 2008-06-11 14:09, 3 comments
New in-flight entertainment systems available from before take-off until you land
This is all good, really. I've been on a lot of flights where the entertainment system has taken ages to start up, and where it stops early. I appreciate these systems because I'm easily bored, and reading on a plane is somewhat difficult. Another important reason to provide these things is that a lot of people are at least somewhat nervous about flying; watching movies or listening to music takes their mind off the business of hurtling at immense altitudes through freezing air in a metal tube. There's as much as half an hour at each end of the flight where these systems are turned off; that makes me grumpy, but it's the most frightening part of the trip for those who are afraid of flying, so it must be even worse for them, to suddenly have their distraction taken away. So, it's a good thing.
But my point in writing this column is this - in the article, the real benefit being claimed is that you no longer have to talk to the person in the seat beside you. Because apparently, this is a fate worse than death. Conversation? No!! It must be avoided at all costs. Perhaps the author thinks that the little pillow they give you on long flights is actually to bury your face beneath if anyone asks you a question. Not that it's such a big deal for me - I don't remember ever really talking to anyone on a flight before. Having said that, I don't think I'd mind if someone were to start talking at me, and if they were horribly boring, I'd probably excuse myself after ten minutes, ostensibly to make a toilet stop, then come back and quickly slip those headphones on my head. Hell, I could even pretend to listen to music, if the system wasn't on at the time. Most would get the hint.
And now, to wrap it up, we have the funniest three videos on the entire Net. All on YouTube, which is a coincidence, our hard-working panel scoured many YT-clones as well in search of the most wonderful video entertainment.
Third place: Self-propelled spectator
Yes, the dancing is funny enough on its own. But the actual funny bit is only a second or two long, and happens at about 55 seconds into the video. The fallout afterwards is interesting - I picture a confused audience member under a chair, both on top of a broken stereo. If it was shorter, it might have made position #1. Whee!
Second place: How To Irrigate Your Nasal Passages
I can't believe he tried the last method. Watch, and discover what a Neti Pot is, and why they should be kept in locked cabinets in the basements of collapsed buildings (preferably on fire).
First place: The Unenthusiastic Exploding Clown Pinata
Short, sweet. A slight pop, topple, then BLAT. This needs to be watched repeatedly for maximum effect. Pure comedy gold.
(Disclaimer - it is highly likely that these will only only be funny to those with a faulty sense of humour.)
I'm still alive!
Your Worst Nightmare, 2008-05-20 15:34, 3 comments
I just couldn't remember my password for over a year...So, how's everyone doing? I'm putting off writing a report right now, and I got bored with trademe.
Racism?
Falco, 2008-05-15 11:24, 1 comment
Something I'm seeing more and more of as time goes on is a strange kind of implied racism. This goes something like:
1. Event occurs, with no obvious racial subtext/content/...
2. Race-related issues are injected by someone with a barrow to push.
It's bloody annoying, for many reasons. Possibly the most important is that is it undermines the legitimacy of reasoned criticism of racism. If some people are finding racism absolutely everywhere (even where it doesn't exist), legitimate whistle-blowers will find it much more difficult to have their voices heard.
As a couple of examples from today's news-
Rapper Remy Ma gets 8 years for shooting friend
Summary: Idiot rapper Remy Ma (Remy Smith) fights friend over purse and 'accidentally' shoots her.
"In a phone interview from prison last week on the satellite radio show with New York DJ Kay Slay, Smith said she was innocent and that there is a "whole conspiracy against rappers right now. Don't be mistaken by a jury that was not my peers. Like, there was not tan, dark brown, black, nothin' on that jury," she said."
So, all rappers are black. And the white people on the jury won't give her a fair trial. The first statement is wrong, the second is blatantly racist (bizarrely, it can be translated as "all white people ar racist"). In fact, it seems that black rappers should be allowed to shoot their friends, and then be tried by a jury of entirely black rappers (although native American, Indian and some other races may also be OK, it seems).
'Alarm' at museum's large-scale job losses"
Summary: 66 of 150 staff at the Auckland War Memorial Museum are to lose their jobs.
"Ngati Whatua leader Grant Hawke said Maori should think about laying a Treaty of Waitangi claim over the collections.
...
"Before, the only brown faces up there were sweeping the floor. What does this restructuring do? Puts us back there." "
This one's typical of a certain type of Maori activist (though I don't know anything about Grant Hawke, maybe this is just an aberration, but I doubt it). This story, and the job cuts themselves, are completely unrelated to race issues. But this nitwit has decided that it's important to inject a racial element. Why? It's completely irrelevant. Simply having a barrow to push doesn't mean you have to shove it through absolutely everyone's front yard.
Idiocy like this simply promotes racism. Fight it where it exists, certainly, but don't drum it up where it doesn't, please.
The Cheese Experiment
mr selfdestruct, 2008-04-08 15:50, 1 comment
I'm considering banning cheese from my lunch for a month to see if it makes any difference to my weight. I only use about 40g each day anyway which is probably miniscule but the only other non healthy thing in my diet would be the vast amount of beer I consume on the weekend which I can't see myself reducing so cutting out cheese is the plan!I usually have toasted sammies for lunch. Yesterday was day 1 of the experiment and instead of my usual two slices of 98% fat free ham and two small slices of cheese x 2 sammies I opted for the ham, slices of tomato, sweet basil, pepper and spread some garlic on the bread. The garlic was a mistake and will not be attempted again, the rest was 'so so' and the cheese definitely improved it.
I think I'll remove garlic and possibly add a smidge of mustard tomorrow and see what that's like. I'm conscious that if I put most kinds of sauce on that would just negate the removal of the cheese so I think I have to keep it as simple as possible. Any suggestions completely out of left field that I could try instead that anyone can think of??? Maybe cottage cheese?
Hello cardboard box, how are you today?
Falco, 2008-03-12 12:04, 0 comments
Take a look at this. For those not versed in the obvious, it's an article from ComputerWorld.
Why have they decided to squash the actual content into one thin, incredibly long bar of text? I find it so difficult to read like that, and the ads and other navigational crud are very distracting. Okay, so maybe the latter is intentional, but does that excuse the former? I don't think so. For the first time ever, I found myself copying the text out of the three pages that make up that article and pasting them into a text editor, where I found it comparatively comfortable to read.
I guess this is just part of advertising becoming more invasive (and pervasive). I have a set of rules that describe what I find acceptable and what I don't regarding web advertising. Animation is not acceptable if I'm trying to concentrate on something else on the page; what's the point in having content if the page's design is going to make it impossible for me to read it? Simple (preferably text-based) ads are fine - I do find myself reading them much more often than image-based ones, especially given that I have Flash and image animations turned off, in a vain attempt to preserve my sanity. Do the same sort of rules apply outside the confines of a web page?
E-Paper On Cereal Boxes
Walking through the supermarket currently is a fairly static experience. You can cast your eyes over packaging in a fairly relaxed way, there's nothing flashing or animating at you (unless you're in a supermarket in the US, in which case you'll probably have to suffer LCD monitors scattered randomly about the place - still fairly restrained). Now imagine for a moment the wall of cereal boxes you're walking past are showing animated ads for the cereal inside. They may be making sound as well, all the boxes in the wall might be displaying the same ad in sync, or perhaps each box makes up part of the picture, so you're walking past a billboard-sized cereal ad. Maybe the boxes are talking directly to you personally, an animated character ranting at you like some bizarre hybrid of a street beggar and a game show host, beside rows of others all wheedling and tempting shoppers to buy this or that. The article linked is pretty old now (2005),but the technology is far from dead:
World’s first demonstration of “Roll-to-Roll” Processed OLEDs
We won't be seeing anything like this for years, more likely tens of years, but when it comes I really hope it's kept reasonably restrained. Yeah, fat chance, I know...
Tricky
Falco, 2008-02-06 23:18, 1 comment
Hey, I'm posting something. Isn't that weird...Anyway, I've been working for myself lately. Developing strange speculative software, mostly music-related in nature, for Windows, OS X, PocketPC, Smartphone, and hopefully iPhone. Quite tricky, but doable. My bank account shrinks, but I'm hoping the payoff will make it worthwhile. Just like the other zillion programmers who were lured by the promises of millions during the dot-com boom. Most of them got nothing. Will I fare any better? Hard to say really, but I would have to be optimistic, otherwise I wouldn't be doing it, right?