Categories
| Food | Gaming/Roleplaying | Life and Work | Misc | Rants and Opinions | Web Site Stuff |
October 07, 2008
Military Funding for the Economic Bailout
Am I the only one that see the staggering spending used for Iraq as a source for the bailout? Sure, I'm both naïve in the ways of military and national economics. But that $800bn price tag for the bailout seems like it could quite easily come from supporting our troops by bringing them home.
At $5,000 spent per second in Iraq, that's almost 62 months to make up the $800bn. Say we just cut that in half... $2,500 per second over the next 10 years? All paid off! And that's just from military funding.
Posted at 07:49 PM | Comments (0)
March 07, 2006
Standard Standards
I'm working on a couple of web systems right now in which I need to work with a number of different standards. The problem is each standard is its own standard. There's no standard standard!
I'm talking specifically about syndication. RSS 0.9x, RSS 1.x, RSS 2.x, Atom 0.x are each, in their own right, a standard. But they are standard much in the way HTML was back in the day. Half of the tags were optional or were "legally" used in several different ways. For example, in olde HTML, you didn't need to close your block level elements. A <p> tag was just as happy without its partner </p> as it was with it. Of course with newer HTML (ahem) standards, the reins are tightening a bit, but the same lawlessness applies to the syndication formats.
So how come there are so many standards for syndication formats? I blame the internet. With the net, anyone (me for example) can publish a method of doing something we'll call Verbing and gather a small following. Someone else can just as easily publish a so-called better way of Verbing (in their opinion) and gain their own following. If this verbing gains large exposure and usage, my Verbing becomes one standard and the other another. Then, when a third party wants to support Verbing, they're forced to, for any real usability to their application, support all the different ways of Verbing. To bring this back around, a decent RSS reader needs to support all the different syndication formats, each with their own optional and required components.
As a user, I find this flexibility great! I just want to read my syndicated news. I don't care what format it's in.
As a programmer parsing syndicated news, I hate it! Am I supporting version x.x correctly? Do x.a and x.b and y.c interfere with each other or have conflicting elements? What happens with x.a isn't truly valid because the provider forgot to put something in? Do I punish the end user? Not if I want to provide a good product. How long do I have to support z.a until not many people use it any more? What is that magic cut-off number?
Programatically dealing with all these different standards is really just a matter of knowing about them and accounting for all their possibilities. But it shouldn't take 1,000 rules to handle as many odd cases and standards for 100,000 feeds.
Now, back to fighting with my parsing. :P
Posted at 03:59 PM | Comments (0)
August 01, 2005
English 101, Session 2
Last week it was two [#2] homonym triads: there, their, they're [they are] and your, you're [you are] and yore. As promised, here's [here is] the next round of English for dummies. We'll [we will] discover how to use two, too and to as well as break from the hat trick tradition and explore the then and than dyad.
This is easy stuff folks; live it, love it, and most of all, learn it.
* Two is simply the number. Unless you can replace the word with the numeral 2, do not use two.
* Too indicates addition. Unless you can use the word also instead, or you mean more or excess, do not use too or you will cause too [excess] much confusion. Wow, we get two [number] references to [direction] math in discussions of English. What is this world coming to [state]?
* To, most of the time, indicates some sort of motion or state. Rather than cover to's seemingly infinite uses, let's [let us] just say that if you're [you are] not talking about the number two or the word also, use the word to.
* Then, like yore, is a period of time. Unless the subject exists in or as an element of time, do not use then.
* Than is used in comparisons. Unless you are speaking of differences, do not use than.
Ask yourself, "when is than better than then?" When it is not, did not, or will not happen then, then it is than. I hope that cleared it up for you.
Learning the differences between these words' meanings can save innumerable brain cells from self-destructing upon encountering incorrect usage. The collective intelligence of English-speaking and -learning people appreciate it greatly. Oh, and I'll [I will] feel better too [also].
Posted at 10:39 AM | Comments (0)
July 25, 2005
English 101
Nearly every person on the net is guilty of this and I've [I have] been noticing it with increasing frequency. Unless your domain suffix is two characters other than .us, you have absolutely no excuse. For the love of [insert prayer receptor here], how hard is it to understand the differences between "they're," "there," and "their" as well as "your," "you're," and "yore?" Here's a cheat sheet for the unenlightened:
* "There" is a place. Unless you can go to it, do not use "there."
* "Their" denotes ownership. Unless the proverbial they can actually have the discussed object, do not use "their."
* "They're" is a contraction of "they are." Unless those known as they exist in the further described state, do not use "they're."
* "You're" is a contraction of "you are." As with "they're", unless you or your directed target actually are, do not use "you're."
* "Your" denotes ownership much as "their" does. Unless you, yourself, or your directed target own it, do not use "your." And PLEASE do not use "ur" as it simply makes you look and/or sound like a nine year-old imbecile when in fact you're [you are] a much older imbecile.
* "Yore" is a time period since past and only added for a tinge of mirth and to complete the "your" triad that "there" has. Unless directly preceded by the phrase "in times of", do not use "yore."
While the rules governing the English language are diverse, contradictory and often confusing due to being developed in times of yore [epoch], their [rules of English] use can greatly enhance the readers' comprehension of your [you possess] verbal soup. There [abstract place] will be much rejoicing the day you're [you are] able to read someone's prose without transcribing it into the English it was written in rather than [not "then"--another peeve] the random smattering of letters they're [they are] trying to pass off as cogent statements.
Here is the first step towards learning how to use the correct form of a homonym: cease use of all contractions. Only use the apostrophe for possessive forms. Doing so has the added benefits of reduced chances for error, breaking the use of "ain't," and clarifying the use of "its" [possessive] versus "it's" [it is].
Just say no to contractions until you are able to use the correct words when appropriate.
P.S., Feel free to pick on my grammatical style and any errors that may exist. I do happen to have a functioning brain cell or two remaining that I can and will devote to correcting mistakes in my diction.
Posted at 09:41 AM | Comments (1)
May 31, 2005
Episode 3 - Star Wars in Crisis
Ok, so it's been a while since Ep3 came out, but it's still worth talking about. Here's the highlights of my RotS experience. It should be spoiler-free (given you know what happens from Ep4).
1. H.C.'s potrayal of Anakin had fewer lines but more brooding/staring under the eyebrows. Overall, bad, but better than Ep1 and Ep2.
2. Unfamiliar with the term "phone it in?" Watch N.P.'s Padme in this one. Egads.
3. I finally see why Obiwan earned the title of Jedi MASTER. He rocks the house! He was so badass, you can ignore his fumble with Dooku.
4. "Who da man? Yodaman!"
5. I.M. was laying it on a bit thick as Palpatine, but given NP and HC's acting, it was entirely forgivable.
6. Wookies? Nothing more than a money shot. I'd rather have that than Jar Jar tho.
7. TK421 was the number of the Storm Trooper guarding the Millenium Falcon in Ep4. I knew that and won a Star Wars Monopoly from the trivia question asked by the radio station event while we waited in line.
8. Waiting 6 hours on the mall floor wasn't particularly enjoyable, but many kudos to Brian (which waited almost 12 hours). The good seats were worth it.
9. It was worth it. Go see it. It will make you feel better after seeing Ep1 and Ep2.
Posted at 04:38 PM | Comments (0)
November 24, 2004
Thanksgiving -- The Mall Cop
At least there's one thing to be thankful for for Thanksgiving. It's a pseudo-holiday that acts as the "mall cop" for Christmas (or Chrismahanukwanzakah?). Retailers, barely able to contain themselves, and overzealous shoppers thinking that they can be one of the first 750,000,000 shoppers to get a good deal at their local mall or whore-tail outlet are the flood waters bursting from the damn. The only thing that keeps us sane after Halloween is the duct tape that is Thanksgiving.
Sure, some of you may be ready to argue that Thanksgiving is about getting together with loved ones and sharing happiness, joy, etc., *wretch* stop deluding yourselves. There doesn't need to be a "special time" for that lovey-dovey, feel-good crap. If they truly are loved ones, then why allot a weekend, or even a season for that?
As you may be able to tell, it's about time for me to start my "season" of bah-humbug!
Posted at 06:05 PM | Comments (0)
November 03, 2004
Freedom, R.I.P.
Pack your shit folks. Freedom has conceeded. The winners: the Saudi Royal Family.
It's a short trip to the apocalypse, so pack light. Especially those of you who value life, liberty and the persuit of disestablishmentarianism.
There is, however, one slightly saving grace. The self-preservationism of Corporate America may keep Bush v2.5 from fucking up that badly--I hope.
Posted at 07:32 AM | Comments (2)
October 16, 2004
The Uncivil War
Ever the optimist, ;), I was holding out hope that one of the candidates for president would be worth voting for. Sadly, it's beginning to become clearer and clearer that a vote for one is a vote for either. Neither is really prepared for the next four years. Neither has a firm plan for the future that brings strength to America and americans. Neither can shut down the rhetoric for more than 3 words.
Bush v.2 is committed to molding America to his vision. Too bad he has cataracts. He somehow gives the impression that he can both lead this country in a time of war and still make every fuck up in the book along the way. The only thing he seems to do right is to turn on the charisma when people turn on the TV.
Kerry is certainly able to speak with a vocabulary base greater than a Where's Waldo book, and he directs it better to the common american, but he has a few major strikes against him. First, he makes promises that would never pass a republican-controlled legistative branch. Promise me the moon all you want, but when the bean counters are too busy stuffing the beans in their own pockets, there's not so much moon available. Second, he hasn't displayed the fighting spirit speaks to our collective cores. It may be the wrong war at the wrong time, but it's a reality and it needs to be dealt with in a strong decisive manner. The strongest he's been was slamming Bv2 during the debates; but when that is followed up by big smiles and shaking hands post-debate, I wonder exactly how much of that had been a show.
Regardless of whomever wins the flurry of election-centric lawsuits after the election, we're screwed as a country. The civil war isn't in Fallujah. It's right here at home. It began when the campaigning started and it's not going to end until we have Clinton v.2 to redirect our attentions to future unknown attrocities.
Posted at 10:48 AM | Comments (0)
September 07, 2004
Blogging - The Antacid
I've noticed that the more often I blog, the more mundane the content becomes and far less vitriol gets injected. To me, the ranting is the fun stuff and the day-to-day stuff is simply boring. I just don't lead that exciting a life and telling others about it is even less stimulating. I mean, exactly how exciting is it to know that I watched nearly all of the West Wing marathon yesterday while retro gaming with Sid Meier's Civilization 2, Civilization 2: Test of Time, and Sid Meier's Civilization 3? BFD!
To me, the extraordinary, the biting, the abnormal and the inciting rhetoric is far more entertaining and thought provoking--even if those thoughts are of anger, disappointment, or dissent. Discourse is a discussion, an exchange of ideas, thoughts and points and counter-points. Relating mundane details of my generic actions is one-sided regurgitation which stimulates little more than the sleep centers of the brain.
To that end, as the blogger, it becomes my responsibility to step it up and establish the, albeit solo, discussion. This involves creativity and thought, neither of which are generally brimming on a Monday (or Tuesday after a long weekend). So let's see what sort of exhilarative verbal spewage I can eek out in the next couple of days. ;)
Posted at 09:03 AM | Comments (0)
August 12, 2004
Customer "Service"
To prepare for the upcoming move, I've been getting utilities and services transfered to the new place and have encountered the oxymoron "customer service" over and over again. Was there ever a time when people who collected exhorbitant fees for overrated products/services were ever helpful to the consumer? I sure can't think of such a utopian time.
Oceanic Time-Warner has been particularly vexing. On Friday morning, I called them to arrange the transfer of our cable TV and RoadRunner to the new place. They said there was a problem with scheduling and that a supervisor would be calling me back that afternoon or Monday morning. Gee, no call by Monday afternoon; how suprising! So I called them again and went thru the same process... I told them about the change, they couldn't schedule it, and they said they'd call me right back. Today, Wednesday afternoon, two days later, I hadn't heard back from them. I can tell you're as shocked as I was :P. They checked on the status and sure enough, they're "working on it" and will have to call me back this afternoon or tomorrow morning. That means that I'll have to call them on Friday because they won't have called me. :P
And lest you think I've not been accessible to their calls, they're calling on my cell phone which is always with me and always on during the day.
I guess the reason they call it customer service is because their definition of service is the slang: to have sex with. They rape your wallet and leave you bleeding from ass, feeling used and empty. Perhaps one day, they'll realize that service's more widely used and accepted definitions is "Work done for others as an occupation or business."
Posted at 12:37 AM | Comments (0)
July 12, 2004
Politics and Religion
Ok, so a lot of my blogs touch on religion. But hey, religion is such a large part of society. So many laws, rules, guidelines and such are formed by and around religious beliefs. Deal with it.
I recently saw Farenheit 9/11 and it reminded me so much of why religion is so pervasive. Of politics and religion, which one relies on vague interpretations, obfuscations of the truth, unprovable conjecture, and outright falsehoods? Right, both of them! Which one of them is built around the philosophy that a select few know what's right for the rest of us? Right, both of them! Of religion and politics, which form (AKA political party or governmental structure or religious sect) is the right one for you? Right, none of them!
Both religion and politics rush to tell you what's right for you while simultaneously holding their collective hands out prompting you to pay them for such a service, yet neither are tailored to you, personally. Now obviously, there's just too many people to have either so personalized, but both are so blatantly over-generalized and sanitized that they're simply feeble attempts to placate everyone.
Politics and religion both ignore the truism, "You can't please everyone all of the time," and yet try to do exactly that. Both are murderers of rational thought and any extensive talk on either subject numbs the brain and glazes the eyes to the point where you could even watch a movie like "White Chicks" without feeling the desire to do something drastic with a sharp implement.
What's depressing is that neither will change and neither will be seperate. They are both part of the same amorphus body of sewage, corruption and brainwashing with only one viable way to deal with it: consume in small doses and add copious amounts of free-thinking and individuality.
Posted at 10:11 PM | Comments (0)
June 13, 2004
Why Religion Works
I recently participated in a Japanese culture and language class and one of the of the elements was the reading of old myths and legends. While these were interesting and colorful stories, one can really see how religion has survived and flourished.
Religious texts are really nothing more than a bunch of stories ambiguously bound together by someone's interpreted "moral fiber" and packaged as law. There are so many ways to read into such stories, and so many archetypical lessons to be told and such a wide range of possible interpretations that really, with some creative syntax, one could get nearly anything out of every story.
It's through this ambiguity that religious organization heads bring comfort to people who don't want to think for themselves. People are willing to believe, and pay for, someone to tell them what the "truth" is from these stories simiplified for the child mind. And they'll pay even more to hear that if they follow some laundry list of rules that their life will have meaning, purpose and worth.
This is just bullshit. Meaning, purpose and worth are subjective to each person. And it doesn't take someone else to tell you how you can make your life better. You know if you feel good when you do something. There's a modicum of "common sense" in everyone, so you know if what you do also makes someone else feel good. Figure it out for yourself and go from there. Don't pay someone (a.k.a. tithe) to confirm what you already know or to tell you that what you're doing is right or wrong. The power isn't in some "almighty", it's in every one of us.
Be yourself and believe in yourself. Be smart. Be a human. Realize your own potential by believing in reality and living there.
Posted at 06:05 PM | Comments (0)
May 18, 2004
The Impossible Superhero
I've been playing a lot of City of Heroes lately, and have come to the obvious conclusion that fighting crime and injustice is an impossibility. To do so, one would first have to establish a definition of crime to fight. Then one would have to adjust said definition for international law. Follow up by apprehending the multitudinous amount of criminals, and finally have enough faith in the truth and fairness of the justice system to properly prosecute the offenders. Let's break that down a bit.
Defining crime and injustice is impossible because it's an endless array of splitting hairs and line drawing. What it comes down to is scale. Let's look at stealing as an example. Assuming a superhero could tell, just by looking at you, whether you were a thief. Do they take you in for prosecution for using company resources to print out a personal email? How about for stealing company payroll by using work hours and a work phone for making a local personal call? If that hero brought every one of those petty thiefs in, the justice system would overflow more than it already is. And if they didn't, isn't that essentially saying "I know you're a thief, but there are bigger fish to fry, so I'll let you off to do it again." And what about "injustice?" How many people would be prosecuted for wrongly warring against another nation? Is the soldier following orders to be prosecuted? The "hands" are only doing the evil act the "brain" has instructed, but the evil act couldn't be done without the "hands," so are the "hands" responsible as well? Sadly, common sense rings a resounding YES.
Now take this impossible definition and modify it to support international law. Laws conflict--so which is the correct (aka prosecutable) law? Do women have the right to vote, or not? Is it legal to strike someone or not? Is your own death to be celebrated if you kill people who don't believe in the same gods/saviors/etc. as you or not? Who is "right?"
Following our roadmap to crime prevention, we now assume we have some sort of international definition of crime. I'd have to venture that of the 6+ billion people on this earth, there would be more criminals than people to process and prosecute them. And you can't support the hypocracy that already exists of criminals prosecuting criminals. That would be a prosecutable injustice and would not follow in our final step of utilizing a fair and truthful prosecution system.
So how does all of this fit together? It doesn't. How do we establish a justice system to fight crime? We can't. What, then, are the police of the world doing? Living the impossible dream. What, if anything can we do to solve this dilemna? Not nothing.
There is one mandatory step in bringing justice to the human race: abolish religion. Without religion, many laws would be pointless nods for fictional characters. Without religion, there would be no injustices committed under the fog of war known as "morality." Without religion, ambiguity would be based on syntax rather than belief. Without religion, people would be forced to believe in themselves and could understand that change, justice, truth and right all start from within. Without religion, the number of acts considered criminal would be shattered.
Without religion, this world would be a lot less fucked up.
Posted at 02:44 PM | Comments (0)
April 19, 2004
Can Karma really exist?
There is so much stuff that goes on in my life, I'm questioning one of the few religious products I might have believed in. The generic Western bastardization of Karma is that bad deeds or actions come back to you, generally in a different form and direction. That is, I have a neighbor that yells at the top of his lungs at all hours of the day and night; but this is just karma (payback) for something bad I said or did.
Modern lives are so complex with such high amounts of communication and worldly exposure and chances for touching so many lives, there would have to be a huge stack of "karma" built up for each person. This, then, begs the questions, "who's keeping track?" and "where is the backlog stored?" which break the fourth wall that religion seems to be so dependent upon.
Assuming you see the flaw in the logic of the existence of Karma, does that mean there is no checks and balances system for actions and statements? Of course not.
Karma, then, must only be a mystic label for memory and coincidence. There is so much happening with so relatively few possibilities that coincidences are far more common than most consider them to be. Likewise, when there is a driving force behind the "Karma", (i.e., retribution from someone who knows you), it is a deliberate (even if subconscious) act that has been directed at you because of something they are remembering. Their memory doesn't even have to be of or about you, as we all know hostility is not always directed at the source of the unpleasantness.
So, either none of us are breaking the Law of Karma or I severely misunderstand what Karma is truly about. Fortunately, my apathy prohibits further investigation.
Posted at 10:15 AM | Comments (0)
January 21, 2004
All Microsoft is the Same
It doesn't matter what the delivery platform is, Microsoft is the same. It's prone to the same problems, the same bugs, the same UI quirks, the same inconsistencies and the same user stress for trying to use their products.
Recently, I've been testing out an HP iPAQ with Windows CE 2003. I will grant it some of its due--it's a speedy little piece of hardware with a nice screen and an acceptable array of input methods.
Now if only the software would behave as it should! Getting the built-in 802.11b wireless to work has been a total f**king nightmare. There are some basic settings (like setting SSID) that cannot be set, and the erratic auto-detection behaviour has been a total mystery.
This stupid device will detect networks that don't exist in the area I'm in, try to connect to them, say it has connected to them, when in reality, it hasn't a damn clue what its true status is.
I know the device will work, because the one network it actually functions properly on is precisely the one I don't need it to work on: the wireless in my office. I have the base station in my office, so it can use the net by proxy thru the base station.
Ok, so one function doesn't work because I'm an idiot and haven't found the iPAQ Rosetta stone? Ok, let's go with UI consistency then! The Microsoft applications don't have a Quit function. There's the little close button which hides the application, but doesn't actually stop the program and remove its processes from active memory.
Well, some of the MS apps actually quit when you perform the expected simian-like regurgitation but most don't. Other third-party apps will either quit and remove from the close box or some other method like a File menu. And then, some don't. It's flash memory! Application start time isn't an issue here, so why stay in memory when you don't need to? Having used MS Windows products for so long, I know that the more crap running at once, Windows puts more explosives-carrying circus clowns balancing on a five-hundred year old rusty unicycle. Disaster awaits!
There's a reason MS has the computing world by the balls. They've achieved near total market saturation and yet their crap works just well enough to make us think that it won't crash before we can finish our next sent
Posted at 07:42 AM | Comments (0)
January 05, 2004
Happy "New" Year, 2004
Well, it's the new year, yet so little is new about it. It's still waking up early to go to work, still the same old office with no windows, the same problem with the computers, the same old same stuff. The same.
But as I think about it, there is a certain charm to having things the same. As the idiom goes, "familiarity breeds comfort." (Of course there's Mark Twain's clever variation.) With this familiarity comfort level, stress levels are reduced and we are then able to institute changes on our own time, pace and modus operandi.
The problem with instituting our own changes is many-fold however. We must first see the need for change, then establish the method(s) for change, and finally we need to actually make those changes. While this may be easy for small things (like digging up old classroom knowledge on how to read a new clock), it's not so simple for massive life-affecting alterations.
There is an incredible amount of work that goes into making huge life-changing choices and seeing them through, and I would argue that a major part of such is actually accepting that things have to be or are going to be different. Without that realization, one cannot whole-heartedly put themselves through the process of establishing themselves as a significantly (even if only internally) different person.
Ultimately, it's oneself that must accept the change before it can truely happen.
This all sounds reasonable enough, so what's my point? Essentially, changing oneself or one's environment is the same process no matter the gravity of the alteration; the perceived difference is merely that invisible line where we become unsure as to whether we can accept being different or living in a different space.
So if it's a New Year, what are you really going to do to make it new?
Posted at 08:20 AM | Comments (0)
August 26, 2003
Cleanliness is next to...
Cleanliness is next to ... well, being an athiest, I can't exactly say godliness, now can I? :P
I've been gradually reducing the clutter in my living space significantly and I have to say that it's been well worth the pain of throwing sentimental stuff out. Sure it's fun to reminisce of times past but really what does that accomplish. Life lessons aren't stored in my old high school music collection on tape (I haven't owned a tape player since... well, High School nearly 14 years ago).
And it just goes on from there. Wholesale tossing of cd jewelboxes I never got around to using, disks for games that won't even run on modern operating systems, and piles of old clothes that were made sometime around the turn of the 8th century. BC.
There is actually something very therapeutic about dumping all this junk. First of all, it's getting rid of havens of dust, mold and other fun allergens. Second, it's getting me off my computers for some minor exercise. And third, it's helping me realize the ultimate point of one of the other golden rules: He who dies with the most toys, still dies. Collecting all sorts of crap that one doesn't look at for 10 years accomplishes about the same as buying a book and never reading it. So don't buy that book.
There is a little twist in this whole religious experience, however. I threw out the gigantic box that my TV came in--the TV that I've had for 9.5 years. Within two weeks, my TV has started its death throes. Of course the logcial explanation is that we've recently had a few fits of power outages (where my damn UPSes scream at me in the middle of the night to come and turn them off) that have been primarily responsible for the descent of my device. But it's still fun to think that with it's original packaging gone, my TV doesn't want to live anymore.
Posted at 08:05 AM | Comments (0)