I've realized I have a fairly eclectic taste in movies. I love old classics (like Casablanca, Sabrina and Bringing Up Baby), modern action-blockbusters (like Pirates of the Caribbean, Indiana Jones and the most recent James Bond films), Disney movies (like Beauty and the Beast, The Princess and the Frog, and the severely underrated Hercules), and also camp (both the purposely campy, like Rocky Horror Picture Show and Doctor Horrible's Sing-along Blog and the unintentionally hilarious Shark Attack 3: Megaladon).
Yep, I'm weird.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Teh Awesum
Recently I've been finding a lot of awesome around teh interwebs, so I thought I'd just post a bunch of links with brief descriptions.
1) You know how things from the 80's are sort of simultaneously horrific and amazing?
So I was reading Topless Robot, and at the end of one post was a link titled, "Has anyone seen Tim Curry's tamborine?" Curious title. I think I'll click the link.
And was treated to this explosion of awesomeness.
(Some of the comments are also pretty spectacular.)
2) Another curiously titled link, this time on Mental Floss: "strange charm." Could this have anything to do with particle physics? Why YES! Yes it does!
3) As a Trekkie myself, I was glad to see that my colleagues were quick to set things straight. This article (correction, really) made my week. (found via Techland)
4) Speaking of things Trek, My dad and I are going to see Patrick Stewart on Broadway this weekend; according to my dad our seats are so close that "if he slips and falls off the stage he'll land in your lap!"
With that in mind, my friend Erin has been nagging me to watch this video; I finally got around to it and...wow.
5) And finally...THE MICHAEL BAYIFIER!!! I had far too much fun with this.
1) You know how things from the 80's are sort of simultaneously horrific and amazing?
So I was reading Topless Robot, and at the end of one post was a link titled, "Has anyone seen Tim Curry's tamborine?" Curious title. I think I'll click the link.
And was treated to this explosion of awesomeness.
(Some of the comments are also pretty spectacular.)
It's like someone asked a group of 2nd graders to come up with words that rhyme, and then they pieced together a song, and the effects guys threw in pictures of all the random stuff, and Tim Curry put on a large cape and sang it.
What part of this is not epic?2) Another curiously titled link, this time on Mental Floss: "strange charm." Could this have anything to do with particle physics? Why YES! Yes it does!
3) As a Trekkie myself, I was glad to see that my colleagues were quick to set things straight. This article (correction, really) made my week. (found via Techland)
4) Speaking of things Trek, My dad and I are going to see Patrick Stewart on Broadway this weekend; according to my dad our seats are so close that "if he slips and falls off the stage he'll land in your lap!"
With that in mind, my friend Erin has been nagging me to watch this video; I finally got around to it and...wow.
5) And finally...THE MICHAEL BAYIFIER!!! I had far too much fun with this.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Bullying
This post was inspired by Single Dad Laughing's post on bullying.
I went through a lot of the same things he did, emotionally. I wasn't fat, but I was a geek. And I got tormented for being different. Some of the stand-outs: having a project destroyed in art class; having a "Kick Me" sign taped to my back; getting prank-called; being told that no guy would ever find me attractive; being used as the standard of "loserdom" in school.
Unlike Dan, I haven't hidden this part of my past. It's part of who I am. In some way, it made me stronger. I think it's a major reason why I get so upset about injustice, intolerance, or bigotry. And the process of learning to love myself after questioning my self-worth for so long has helped me mature into the person I am today.
But it was brutal.
I think Dan perfectly captured the mind-set of someone who is bullied relentlessly. I quickly learned to hate myself. To feel I was completely worthless, that no one would (or even could) love me. To feel worse than invisible.
I wanted to die.
Not in the hyperbolic, "Noooo, something didn't go perfectly right, my life is ruined, argh I want to die!!" drama-queen fashion.
No, I really wanted to die.
Sometimes, even now, it scares me how close I came. I remember how much I just wanted to die, to blink out of existence, and it frightens me. I remember trying to think of a painless way to kill myself. That's what held me back, really - the fear of pain. If someone had offered me a pill that would have granted me painless death, there's a good chance I would have taken it.
Maybe you think it's cowardly. Maybe you think I should have been stronger. Maybe you think I should have known that it would get better eventually.
But at that time, the way my peers were treating me convinced me that I was a worthless human being. Not just different, or even less. I was made to feel that I was literally worth nothing. And being worth nothing, what rationale did I have to continue living?
Recently, I mentioned in passing to my dad that I'd gone through this in middle school, and he told me later that he felt he must have been a failure as a father to have not noticed it. But the truth is, there's no way he could have. After all, I felt like a worthless human being - why would I bother anyone else with my troubles? Why should I believe that anyone else would care? I hid my hurt, internalized it, until it festered and consumed me, making me feel worthless from the inside, rather than because of the external bullying.
I'm so grateful that I came through it all, that I survived that experience. Because now, taking the long view, I can see that the bullying was never about me - it was about the bullies' desire (or perhaps need) to feel bigger than someone else. I was an easy target, that's all.
And the experience has had lasting effects, both positive and negative.
Having had to deal with people who made my life miserable just to feel better about themselves, I'm always inclined to be more sympathetic to those in less fortunate positions than myself. I don't feel I have the right to judge others, and I certainly don't need to do so in order to feel good about myself. And if I can sympathize, I want to help. I think dealing with the bullying in school, years ago, has shaped me into a person who is motivated to help others now.
That's the positive.
The negative is the lasting effect of being made to feel personally worthless. Dan mentions that in high school he learned to love himself again; I went through the same thing at about the same time in my life. (For me, the bullying was intense in middle school, but let up significantly in high school.) However, the process of learning to love myself was a long and difficult one, and continues today. I still have feelings of being "less than worthy." I still doubt my intelligence, my beauty, the value of my friendship and love. The bullying was almost a decade ago, but the scars from it run deep.
I went through a lot of the same things he did, emotionally. I wasn't fat, but I was a geek. And I got tormented for being different. Some of the stand-outs: having a project destroyed in art class; having a "Kick Me" sign taped to my back; getting prank-called; being told that no guy would ever find me attractive; being used as the standard of "loserdom" in school.
Unlike Dan, I haven't hidden this part of my past. It's part of who I am. In some way, it made me stronger. I think it's a major reason why I get so upset about injustice, intolerance, or bigotry. And the process of learning to love myself after questioning my self-worth for so long has helped me mature into the person I am today.
But it was brutal.
I think Dan perfectly captured the mind-set of someone who is bullied relentlessly. I quickly learned to hate myself. To feel I was completely worthless, that no one would (or even could) love me. To feel worse than invisible.
I wanted to die.
Not in the hyperbolic, "Noooo, something didn't go perfectly right, my life is ruined, argh I want to die!!" drama-queen fashion.
No, I really wanted to die.
Sometimes, even now, it scares me how close I came. I remember how much I just wanted to die, to blink out of existence, and it frightens me. I remember trying to think of a painless way to kill myself. That's what held me back, really - the fear of pain. If someone had offered me a pill that would have granted me painless death, there's a good chance I would have taken it.
Maybe you think it's cowardly. Maybe you think I should have been stronger. Maybe you think I should have known that it would get better eventually.
But at that time, the way my peers were treating me convinced me that I was a worthless human being. Not just different, or even less. I was made to feel that I was literally worth nothing. And being worth nothing, what rationale did I have to continue living?
Recently, I mentioned in passing to my dad that I'd gone through this in middle school, and he told me later that he felt he must have been a failure as a father to have not noticed it. But the truth is, there's no way he could have. After all, I felt like a worthless human being - why would I bother anyone else with my troubles? Why should I believe that anyone else would care? I hid my hurt, internalized it, until it festered and consumed me, making me feel worthless from the inside, rather than because of the external bullying.
I'm so grateful that I came through it all, that I survived that experience. Because now, taking the long view, I can see that the bullying was never about me - it was about the bullies' desire (or perhaps need) to feel bigger than someone else. I was an easy target, that's all.
And the experience has had lasting effects, both positive and negative.
Having had to deal with people who made my life miserable just to feel better about themselves, I'm always inclined to be more sympathetic to those in less fortunate positions than myself. I don't feel I have the right to judge others, and I certainly don't need to do so in order to feel good about myself. And if I can sympathize, I want to help. I think dealing with the bullying in school, years ago, has shaped me into a person who is motivated to help others now.
That's the positive.
The negative is the lasting effect of being made to feel personally worthless. Dan mentions that in high school he learned to love himself again; I went through the same thing at about the same time in my life. (For me, the bullying was intense in middle school, but let up significantly in high school.) However, the process of learning to love myself was a long and difficult one, and continues today. I still have feelings of being "less than worthy." I still doubt my intelligence, my beauty, the value of my friendship and love. The bullying was almost a decade ago, but the scars from it run deep.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Politics
I was reading a news article on politics and the subsequent reader comments at lunch today.
me: "Well, if you believe the vitriol spewing on the web, either you're a socialist or you're a fascist."
coworker: "There's no middle ground?"
me: "Nope."
coworker: (rolls eyes) "I'm moving to Canada."
me: "So you choose socialism, apparently."
Hopefully the vitriol dies down a bit after the midterms.
me: "Well, if you believe the vitriol spewing on the web, either you're a socialist or you're a fascist."
coworker: "There's no middle ground?"
me: "Nope."
coworker: (rolls eyes) "I'm moving to Canada."
me: "So you choose socialism, apparently."
Hopefully the vitriol dies down a bit after the midterms.
Friday, August 6, 2010
Philosophy - bonus
The bonus braintwister is actually addressed in Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time." The simple answer is that the universe is not static. There's also dust in the way from a lot of stars (like the ones in nebulae).
Speaking of which, if you have a chance, I highly recommend seeing "Hubble" in IMAX. A while back, they took an IMAX camera up on a shuttle flight where the astronauts were repairing the Hubble Space Telescope, so there's actual footage of space and Earth in the background. It's pretty spectacular. And they they took some of the pictures from Hubble and did something awesome with computers so it looks like you're flying into nebulae and you can see the stars inside. I was blown-away.
Speaking of which, if you have a chance, I highly recommend seeing "Hubble" in IMAX. A while back, they took an IMAX camera up on a shuttle flight where the astronauts were repairing the Hubble Space Telescope, so there's actual footage of space and Earth in the background. It's pretty spectacular. And they they took some of the pictures from Hubble and did something awesome with computers so it looks like you're flying into nebulae and you can see the stars inside. I was blown-away.
Philosophy - #2, 3 and 4 (and #6)
Braintwisters #2, 3 and 4 are essentially variations of the following paradox:
1) Statement 2 is true.
2) Statement 1 is false.
If 1 is true, then 2 is true. But if 2 is true, then 1 is false. But if 1 is false, then 2 is false. But if 2 is false, then 1 is true...
It's just wordplay; there's no solution.
#6, though different, is lumped in with this post because both explanations are short. It assumes that the donkey would be caught indefinitely due to never being able to make a rational decision between two equal things. But guys (and gals), in the real world, there's no "perfectly equal" scenario. Maybe the wind blows from the west. The donkey sniffs the food coming from that direction a little stronger than it does the food-smells from the east, so it heads west. Maybe a fly itches the donkey's neck, and it moves its head to the right. Since it's already looking to the right, it ambles in that direction. There will always be some little disturbance that tilts the balance one way or another. Sort of like how an inverted pendulum will never balance upside-down, even though there's an equilibrium position in that arrangement. Mathematically it's fine, but physically it won't work.
1) Statement 2 is true.
2) Statement 1 is false.
If 1 is true, then 2 is true. But if 2 is true, then 1 is false. But if 1 is false, then 2 is false. But if 2 is false, then 1 is true...
It's just wordplay; there's no solution.
#6, though different, is lumped in with this post because both explanations are short. It assumes that the donkey would be caught indefinitely due to never being able to make a rational decision between two equal things. But guys (and gals), in the real world, there's no "perfectly equal" scenario. Maybe the wind blows from the west. The donkey sniffs the food coming from that direction a little stronger than it does the food-smells from the east, so it heads west. Maybe a fly itches the donkey's neck, and it moves its head to the right. Since it's already looking to the right, it ambles in that direction. There will always be some little disturbance that tilts the balance one way or another. Sort of like how an inverted pendulum will never balance upside-down, even though there's an equilibrium position in that arrangement. Mathematically it's fine, but physically it won't work.
Philosophy - #7 and 8
Braintwisters number 7 and 8 are what originally inspired me to write these posts. Both demonstrate a lack of understanding of math and physics.
Number 8 was the one that really made me do a headdesk. The "paradox" only occurs if one ignores velocity. At any given instance the arrow is in one specific place (as stated); however, it has a non-zero velocity!
A similar thing happens when you throw a ball in the air (sort of...I'm gonna take a derivative here...) When the ball reaches the peak of its flight, there's an instant where it hovers - it has zero velocity. But we know from experience that the ball will fall back to Earth. That's because the ball has a non-zero acceleration (in this case, it's the acceleration due to gravity: 9.8 m/s^2). If you look at a "snapshot" of the ball when it's at the peak, you might think that it will hover forever, but that's only because you're not looking at the full picture (so to speak). You've left out acceleration.
It's kind of the same thing here. The arrow is instantaneously in one place, but it keeps moving because of its velocity. If you don't include velocity you're not really looking at the whole system.
Likewise, #7 falls into a mathematical trap. It's essentially a related-rate problem (Calc 101 - Mom always said that calculus was useful). Achilles' velocity is greater than the tortoise's velocity. So eventually he will overtake the tortoise, even though the tortoise keeps moving. You can calculate the distance each has traveled (distance = rate x time) at any particular instant. At the time where distance_Achilles is greater than distance_tortoise, Achilles has passed the tortoise, even though distance_tortoise keeps increasing with time. Distance_Achilles increases with time, too - but at a faster rate.
Sorry if this was garbled; it's been a few years since I took Calc I and I'm not sure if I'm explaining it clearly. If you're interested, take a math class! Yay math!
Number 8 was the one that really made me do a headdesk. The "paradox" only occurs if one ignores velocity. At any given instance the arrow is in one specific place (as stated); however, it has a non-zero velocity!
A similar thing happens when you throw a ball in the air (sort of...I'm gonna take a derivative here...) When the ball reaches the peak of its flight, there's an instant where it hovers - it has zero velocity. But we know from experience that the ball will fall back to Earth. That's because the ball has a non-zero acceleration (in this case, it's the acceleration due to gravity: 9.8 m/s^2). If you look at a "snapshot" of the ball when it's at the peak, you might think that it will hover forever, but that's only because you're not looking at the full picture (so to speak). You've left out acceleration.
It's kind of the same thing here. The arrow is instantaneously in one place, but it keeps moving because of its velocity. If you don't include velocity you're not really looking at the whole system.
Likewise, #7 falls into a mathematical trap. It's essentially a related-rate problem (Calc 101 - Mom always said that calculus was useful). Achilles' velocity is greater than the tortoise's velocity. So eventually he will overtake the tortoise, even though the tortoise keeps moving. You can calculate the distance each has traveled (distance = rate x time) at any particular instant. At the time where distance_Achilles is greater than distance_tortoise, Achilles has passed the tortoise, even though distance_tortoise keeps increasing with time. Distance_Achilles increases with time, too - but at a faster rate.
Sorry if this was garbled; it's been a few years since I took Calc I and I'm not sure if I'm explaining it clearly. If you're interested, take a math class! Yay math!
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Philosophy - #5
Brain-twister # 5 is the "surprise day" paradox. This post is out of order, but I decided to write it quickly since Spiked Math made this comic. Instead of re-writing the deconstruction of logic, I'm just going to cheat and point you to the comments section - the mathematicians explained it better than I could =) They also touch on the "interesting numbers" paradox discussed earlier.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Philosophy - #10 and 9
Both brain-twisters #10 and #9 suffer from an inconsistent definition. Let's take them one at a time, starting with #9.
Take a set of numbers. The "interesting" number is the smallest (in this puzzle). But then, after removing that one, there is still a smallest number. Keep removing the interesting (smallest) number, the argument goes, and you will be left with no "uninteresting" numbers.
But, when you remove the smallest number, you've created a new set! Start again with the initial set; there is a smallest number, but the rest are still uninteresting IN THAT SET. If there are "n" numbers, "n-1" of them are uninteresting. Just stop there. If you remove that number from the set, you've changed the system.
#10 has the same problem. (And actually, I really liked that this problem was included. I used to think along these lines in elementary school when I was home sick for the day. My mom insisted that I go to school unless I had a fever. I used to wonder when the exact minute was that I was officially "sick." And then I'd wonder if I could break it down further - into the exact second, or millisecond, or microsecond that I transitioned from being "well enough to go to school" to "sick enough to stay home." Apparently I was a 6-yr-old philosopher. But I digress.)
Few things in life are in a simple binary state. If someone showed me a millions grains of sand, I'd probably say, "That's a heap of sand!" If someone showed me a single grain of sand, I'd certainly NOT say, "That's a heap of sand!" But this isn't a simple on / off switch. Just as, when I was a child, illness would come on gradually, with an intermediate "take a nap, then see if you're well enough to go to school late" phase, there is a gradient between "heap" and "single grain." Maybe a hundred thousand grains is a "pile." And ten thousand grains is a "lump." There might even be a single-grain difference between what I'd call a "pile" and what I'd call a "lump." But I wouldn't necessarily keep calling a collection of sand a "heap" until I got down to one grain. At some point along that gradient, I'd go into the next label.
Take a set of numbers. The "interesting" number is the smallest (in this puzzle). But then, after removing that one, there is still a smallest number. Keep removing the interesting (smallest) number, the argument goes, and you will be left with no "uninteresting" numbers.
But, when you remove the smallest number, you've created a new set! Start again with the initial set; there is a smallest number, but the rest are still uninteresting IN THAT SET. If there are "n" numbers, "n-1" of them are uninteresting. Just stop there. If you remove that number from the set, you've changed the system.
#10 has the same problem. (And actually, I really liked that this problem was included. I used to think along these lines in elementary school when I was home sick for the day. My mom insisted that I go to school unless I had a fever. I used to wonder when the exact minute was that I was officially "sick." And then I'd wonder if I could break it down further - into the exact second, or millisecond, or microsecond that I transitioned from being "well enough to go to school" to "sick enough to stay home." Apparently I was a 6-yr-old philosopher. But I digress.)
Few things in life are in a simple binary state. If someone showed me a millions grains of sand, I'd probably say, "That's a heap of sand!" If someone showed me a single grain of sand, I'd certainly NOT say, "That's a heap of sand!" But this isn't a simple on / off switch. Just as, when I was a child, illness would come on gradually, with an intermediate "take a nap, then see if you're well enough to go to school late" phase, there is a gradient between "heap" and "single grain." Maybe a hundred thousand grains is a "pile." And ten thousand grains is a "lump." There might even be a single-grain difference between what I'd call a "pile" and what I'd call a "lump." But I wouldn't necessarily keep calling a collection of sand a "heap" until I got down to one grain. At some point along that gradient, I'd go into the next label.
Philosophy - #11 and #1
I'm going to start by looking at the first and last brain-twisters. In my opinion, they're kind of the same argument. The contradiction comes from a lack of clarity in the definitions.
If an object is "unmovable," by definition that means that NOTHING can move it. Similarly, if a force is "unstoppable," that means that NOTHING can arrest its motion. Clearly these two things cannot exist in the same universe, so the hypothetical situation doesn't even make sense. It would (almost) be like saying, "What if gravity were both attractive and repulsive?" According to what we know of physics, this can't happen. The question is meaningless.
(For what it's worth, I'm working really hard here not to throw in a discussion of coordinate systems and how motion is always measured relative to something else.)
Similarly, the "omnipotent" being needs a good definition of "omnipotent." What do you mean when you ask the question? Could this omnipotent being increase its own power? In which case the conflict dissolves - the omnipotent being could create a stone it could not (initially) lift, and then increase its power until it could lift the stone. There needs to be a baseline of power against which to measure the "unliftable stone;" but this contradicts the idea of a truly "omnipotent" being. Again, the argument is meaningless without further clarification.
If an object is "unmovable," by definition that means that NOTHING can move it. Similarly, if a force is "unstoppable," that means that NOTHING can arrest its motion. Clearly these two things cannot exist in the same universe, so the hypothetical situation doesn't even make sense. It would (almost) be like saying, "What if gravity were both attractive and repulsive?" According to what we know of physics, this can't happen. The question is meaningless.
(For what it's worth, I'm working really hard here not to throw in a discussion of coordinate systems and how motion is always measured relative to something else.)
Similarly, the "omnipotent" being needs a good definition of "omnipotent." What do you mean when you ask the question? Could this omnipotent being increase its own power? In which case the conflict dissolves - the omnipotent being could create a stone it could not (initially) lift, and then increase its power until it could lift the stone. There needs to be a baseline of power against which to measure the "unliftable stone;" but this contradicts the idea of a truly "omnipotent" being. Again, the argument is meaningless without further clarification.
Philosophy
I'm generally not shy about my hatred for philosophy. I think it's because I'm scientifically-minded; I like to test theories, not just debate them. And a lot of times it seems like philosophers argue about semantics and language so abstract that what they're saying has no real meaning. Other times, it seems like philosophers argue about things that could be tested or understood scientifically.
I'm not gonna say that all philosophy is bunk; I understand that philosophy helps exercise logical and critical thinking muscles. However, a lot of times I read a philosophical argument or brainteaser and have to roll my eyes. For example, I recently read this article on "philosophical brainteasers" and they all seem to fall into one of two categories:
1) things that people think are paradoxes because they don't properly understand math and science, or
2) arguments based on contradicting definitions.
Over the next several posts, I'll go through them and explain my thoughts on each of the paradoxes. If there's a lack of science / math understanding, I'll point that out and do my best to correct the misunderstanding. If it's a semantics argument, I'll point that out too.
I realize that a lot of this is going to sound pretty snarky. And like I said, I have respect for philosophy as a means to sharpen logic and critical thinking. But I also hate it when people equate something scientific with something mystical or abstract. (I'm thinking mostly of brain twister #8. I did a facepalm as soon as I read that one. Basic misunderstanding of physics going on there.)
And yeah, it'll probably take a while for me to get through all of them. I'm not exactly regular about posting stufff...
(although as I have zero followers I don't think it's really an issue. If you've stumbled upon my blog, HI! leave a comment so I know my words aren't going into the great black hole of cyberspace.)
I'm not gonna say that all philosophy is bunk; I understand that philosophy helps exercise logical and critical thinking muscles. However, a lot of times I read a philosophical argument or brainteaser and have to roll my eyes. For example, I recently read this article on "philosophical brainteasers" and they all seem to fall into one of two categories:
1) things that people think are paradoxes because they don't properly understand math and science, or
2) arguments based on contradicting definitions.
Over the next several posts, I'll go through them and explain my thoughts on each of the paradoxes. If there's a lack of science / math understanding, I'll point that out and do my best to correct the misunderstanding. If it's a semantics argument, I'll point that out too.
I realize that a lot of this is going to sound pretty snarky. And like I said, I have respect for philosophy as a means to sharpen logic and critical thinking. But I also hate it when people equate something scientific with something mystical or abstract. (I'm thinking mostly of brain twister #8. I did a facepalm as soon as I read that one. Basic misunderstanding of physics going on there.)
And yeah, it'll probably take a while for me to get through all of them. I'm not exactly regular about posting stufff...
(although as I have zero followers I don't think it's really an issue. If you've stumbled upon my blog, HI! leave a comment so I know my words aren't going into the great black hole of cyberspace.)
Pizza
Well it's Wednesday, which means that it is the Day of Great Decision
here at work.
First, we have to decide whether or not to get a "specialty" pizza (as
opposed to plain). This requires at least 3 people, preferably 4.
Often, there are several people in the "I'll get a specialty pizza if
there are enough people, but I'm not gonna be emphatic about it."
Which of course complicates matters. And then there are the guys who
might have brought lunch, but are willing to chip in for pizza and eat
the lunch they brought on Thursday. But only if the rest of us need
another person.
Then, if it's been decided to get a specialty pizza, we have to decide
which one to get. We've never had a bad pizza, so no one really wants
to choose because there isn't a lot of strong feeling about a "best"
or "worst" to get. (There's a lot of "Does this sound good to
everyone?" "Yup sounds fine." "Or how about this one?" "Also good."
in this round.) If someone who does not normally get specialty pizza
decides to try it, we make that person choose.
FINALLY, it's time for money collection. Pizza slices are $1.50 /
slice (plain) and $2 / slice (specialty). And there's always at least
one person who recently had to go to the ATM and hasn't bought
anything since then so all they have is twenties. So we have the
great "I'll pay for everyone's pizza with my $20 if everyone gives me
what they owe" finagling, with various people trying to trade money
amongst ourselves to get the correct change to give the guy who only
has $20's. My hand to God, one of my coworkers paid in dimes one
week.
And that's the news from your Friendly Neighborhood Engineers.
UPDATE 03/17/11
Bug has illustrated this beautifully. (This has fast become one of my favorite webcomics.)
here at work.
First, we have to decide whether or not to get a "specialty" pizza (as
opposed to plain). This requires at least 3 people, preferably 4.
Often, there are several people in the "I'll get a specialty pizza if
there are enough people, but I'm not gonna be emphatic about it."
Which of course complicates matters. And then there are the guys who
might have brought lunch, but are willing to chip in for pizza and eat
the lunch they brought on Thursday. But only if the rest of us need
another person.
Then, if it's been decided to get a specialty pizza, we have to decide
which one to get. We've never had a bad pizza, so no one really wants
to choose because there isn't a lot of strong feeling about a "best"
or "worst" to get. (There's a lot of "Does this sound good to
everyone?" "Yup sounds fine." "Or how about this one?" "Also good."
in this round.) If someone who does not normally get specialty pizza
decides to try it, we make that person choose.
FINALLY, it's time for money collection. Pizza slices are $1.50 /
slice (plain) and $2 / slice (specialty). And there's always at least
one person who recently had to go to the ATM and hasn't bought
anything since then so all they have is twenties. So we have the
great "I'll pay for everyone's pizza with my $20 if everyone gives me
what they owe" finagling, with various people trying to trade money
amongst ourselves to get the correct change to give the guy who only
has $20's. My hand to God, one of my coworkers paid in dimes one
week.
And that's the news from your Friendly Neighborhood Engineers.
UPDATE 03/17/11
Bug has illustrated this beautifully. (This has fast become one of my favorite webcomics.)
Monday, March 22, 2010
Unprintable
I just read this (h/t to Nick Kristof.)
If I ever meet Rupert Murdoch, I will punch him in the face. Seriously - what is his deal? It's apparently not even a business decision:
"What is puzzling to analysts and industry executives — including some within the News Corporation — is that none of this makes much sense as a business proposition to aid The Journal, especially at a time when newspapers are struggling through a long-term financial decline. But for Mr. Murdoch, the chairman and chief executive of the company, these people say, profit is not necessarily what all this is about.
If I ever meet Rupert Murdoch, I will punch him in the face. Seriously - what is his deal? It's apparently not even a business decision:
"What is puzzling to analysts and industry executives — including some within the News Corporation — is that none of this makes much sense as a business proposition to aid The Journal, especially at a time when newspapers are struggling through a long-term financial decline. But for Mr. Murdoch, the chairman and chief executive of the company, these people say, profit is not necessarily what all this is about.
For him, newspapering is a blood sport...
...in the News Corporation’s planning discussions about the local New York section, the talk has been less about what The Journal would gain than about “killing The New York Times,” according to several people with direct knowledge of the preparations, who asked for anonymity to discuss what are supposed to be secret matters. “It’s not an economic decision,” one of them said. ..
...Alan D. Mutter, a media analyst and consultant, recently wrote on his Reflections of a Newsosaur blog that “no meaningful business advantage can be gained” from the venture, making it “nothing more than an expensive ego trip aimed at kicking the N.Y.T. while it’s down.” "
In other words, he's (something I refuse to print). He just wants to destroy The Times. No real reason - just malice.
What a (something I refuse to print).
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Archy the Cockroach
When I took a poetry class in high school, one of the poems we read was "The Lesson of the Moth" by Don Marquis. Well, we humans claim it was written by Don Marquis. Don himself claimed he had a pet cockroach, Archy, who wrote free-verse poetry by jumping up and down on the keys of a typewriter.
Today, on a whim, I googled Archy's poetry. Here are two poems I found particularly interesting. They were written around the 20's (not entirely sure), but they could have been written yesterday:
the big bad wolf
what the ants are saying
And here's the webpage on Don Marquis.
Thoughts?
Today, on a whim, I googled Archy's poetry. Here are two poems I found particularly interesting. They were written around the 20's (not entirely sure), but they could have been written yesterday:
the big bad wolf
what the ants are saying
And here's the webpage on Don Marquis.
Thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
