Starwars day
May. 4th, 2012 04:34 pmHappy bad pun day!
Fictional medical mystery
Oct. 28th, 2010 07:58 pmI solved a medical problem before the characters on the show did. But it was Scrubs, not House, so that probably doesn't count as clever.
Is Mother Theresa Catholic?
Oct. 5th, 2010 11:26 amI should have used "Is Mother Theresa Catholic?" as the title of the previous post :)
Further snippets about government
May. 14th, 2010 01:07 pmEqualities Minister
Many people were horrified to see that Theresa May is Equalities Minister as an adjunct to Home Secretary, despite having a voting record of unsympathy to gay rights. Somebody pointed out that if you make the uncomfortable compromise that you would prefer to have a woman in the role, there was not much choice of excellent candidates. But I was puzzled that Equality was given to a conservative minister. Although there are conservative MPs with excellent equality opinions, the party is a bit divided on the question, whereas in the Con/Lib alliance, it seems like an obvious are of responsibility. Well, apparently that is what they did do, and the Under Secretary of State for Equalities is a LibDem who is personally definitively in favour of gay equality.
Repeal of half a dozen gigantically terrible civil liberty violations
Wow. It still remains to see if this is legislated, but in short, the majority of ill-thought-out terrible civil-liberty violating legislation people rant about is on the table for being axed. Which, whatever else I may think of the political parties, is a very good thing for the coalition!
Many people were horrified to see that Theresa May is Equalities Minister as an adjunct to Home Secretary, despite having a voting record of unsympathy to gay rights. Somebody pointed out that if you make the uncomfortable compromise that you would prefer to have a woman in the role, there was not much choice of excellent candidates. But I was puzzled that Equality was given to a conservative minister. Although there are conservative MPs with excellent equality opinions, the party is a bit divided on the question, whereas in the Con/Lib alliance, it seems like an obvious are of responsibility. Well, apparently that is what they did do, and the Under Secretary of State for Equalities is a LibDem who is personally definitively in favour of gay equality.
Repeal of half a dozen gigantically terrible civil liberty violations
Wow. It still remains to see if this is legislated, but in short, the majority of ill-thought-out terrible civil-liberty violating legislation people rant about is on the table for being axed. Which, whatever else I may think of the political parties, is a very good thing for the coalition!
Today I actually DID meet someone going to St Ives.
Presumably not the St Ives originally eponymously gone to in the infamous "puzzle" poem, as opposed to the Cornwall St Ives. Although I supposed it could be the Cambridge St Ives.
And presumably they didn't think I have seven wives. Although I suppose I do have friends with at least seven concurrent relationships, just not legally sanctioned (or necessarily eternal) ones.
But the thing that stood out for me, as I've ranted on many occasions before, is that when I met someone going to St Ives WE WERE GOING IN THE SAME DIRECTION!
Presumably not the St Ives originally eponymously gone to in the infamous "puzzle" poem, as opposed to the Cornwall St Ives. Although I supposed it could be the Cambridge St Ives.
And presumably they didn't think I have seven wives. Although I suppose I do have friends with at least seven concurrent relationships, just not legally sanctioned (or necessarily eternal) ones.
But the thing that stood out for me, as I've ranted on many occasions before, is that when I met someone going to St Ives WE WERE GOING IN THE SAME DIRECTION!
Xkcd hell tetris
Apr. 8th, 2010 05:11 pmhttp://xkcd.com/724/ (Tetris with a curved bottom) is a wonderful example of a good visual cartoon: really, really simple, but with an idea that makes you laugh out loud just by seeing it. It's an example of xkcd done really well.
On the other hand, I can't help but notice that you hopefully MIGHT be able to survive the hell-level. If you can land a tall piece right in the centre, you may be able to balance pieces on top of it (especially if they exhibit no balance problems except on the bottom) and then make complete rows across the screen above the curved area where the sides are vertical :)
On the other hand, I can't help but notice that you hopefully MIGHT be able to survive the hell-level. If you can land a tall piece right in the centre, you may be able to balance pieces on top of it (especially if they exhibit no balance problems except on the bottom) and then make complete rows across the screen above the curved area where the sides are vertical :)
Defecatorium
Apr. 5th, 2010 07:48 pmGiven the utter morass of terms for rooms with toilets in, that are to a greater or lesser extent ambiguous, euphemistic, regional, slangy, crude, or all of the above, and the guarantee that if you accidentally use one that is appropriate for another subgroup it will not be understood, take people aback, or lead them into sarcasm at your expense, is it time to officially condone "defecatorium"?
"Chemicals" to mean "artificial chemicals"
Mar. 1st, 2010 01:26 pmI have often had a conversaion something like:
A: Oh, look, this product apparently contains "chemicals".
B: What do they fear people would think it was made out of? Plamsa? Neutronium?
Which is very funny. But I feel compelled to admit that "chemical" is pretty clear in this context.
"Rectangle" means "right-angled quadrilateral" but it ALSO means "right-angled quadrilateral, usually not a square." In a mathematical proof, where each line needs to be unambiguous, you would have to say "non-square rectangle" if that's what you meant. But in normal conversation -- even about maths -- "rectangle" can and should include or exclude square based on context.
Similarly, people use "chemical" to mean "chemical, usually one that doesn't have a more specific description". Which in turn often means "artificially produced", because naturally occurring chemicals are more likely to have colloquial or specific names (either because they've been known for a long time, or are complicated).
This is _indicative_ of people thinking "oh, natural is better" which can become dangerously dogmatized, but I think it's perfectly _clear_.
The above conversation is _funny_, but only some of the time is it an accurate criticism.
A: Oh, look, this product apparently contains "chemicals".
B: What do they fear people would think it was made out of? Plamsa? Neutronium?
Which is very funny. But I feel compelled to admit that "chemical" is pretty clear in this context.
"Rectangle" means "right-angled quadrilateral" but it ALSO means "right-angled quadrilateral, usually not a square." In a mathematical proof, where each line needs to be unambiguous, you would have to say "non-square rectangle" if that's what you meant. But in normal conversation -- even about maths -- "rectangle" can and should include or exclude square based on context.
Similarly, people use "chemical" to mean "chemical, usually one that doesn't have a more specific description". Which in turn often means "artificially produced", because naturally occurring chemicals are more likely to have colloquial or specific names (either because they've been known for a long time, or are complicated).
This is _indicative_ of people thinking "oh, natural is better" which can become dangerously dogmatized, but I think it's perfectly _clear_.
The above conversation is _funny_, but only some of the time is it an accurate criticism.
XKCD pokemon
Feb. 21st, 2010 01:14 pmXkcd provides the perfect rhetorical technique for condescendingly dismissing anything you don't understand, "I'm sorry, I'm not that into pokemon". It implies the other person is unhealthy obsessed with wasting their mind on something bizarre and inconsequential.
I think I've seen it someone use it just once, but to devastating effect :)
However, I've discovered there is exactly one topic of conversation for which, when you become baffled, the come-back is entirely toothless: when you're friends are ACTUALLY talking about pokemon :)
I think I've seen it someone use it just once, but to devastating effect :)
However, I've discovered there is exactly one topic of conversation for which, when you become baffled, the come-back is entirely toothless: when you're friends are ACTUALLY talking about pokemon :)
In-story justifications
Feb. 18th, 2010 12:05 pmStool: Just glossing over an inconsistancy for the sake of the plot.
Stool: Keeping internal consistency, even if it ruins the plot.
Falling between: Having a magic spell which makes "whatever necessary for the story" happen.
Prime examples include:
* A superhero making a deal with the devil to rewind time and be young-superhero all over again, but different
* A magic spell which will take a magic weapon, and extract the magic properties, and apply them to a _different_ weapon.
* A mysterious Klingon plague which turns Klingons with understated 60s makeup into Klingons with over-the-top 80s makeup.
Obviousy satisfying both story and consistency is better if you can, but if you can't, you're better off picking one or the other and not trying to do both and failing, even though I understand the why you may feel trapped into doing so, especially if you're immature and/or a scriptwriter for a popular commercial show.
Stool: Keeping internal consistency, even if it ruins the plot.
Falling between: Having a magic spell which makes "whatever necessary for the story" happen.
Prime examples include:
* A superhero making a deal with the devil to rewind time and be young-superhero all over again, but different
* A magic spell which will take a magic weapon, and extract the magic properties, and apply them to a _different_ weapon.
* A mysterious Klingon plague which turns Klingons with understated 60s makeup into Klingons with over-the-top 80s makeup.
Obviousy satisfying both story and consistency is better if you can, but if you can't, you're better off picking one or the other and not trying to do both and failing, even though I understand the why you may feel trapped into doing so, especially if you're immature and/or a scriptwriter for a popular commercial show.
Jumping a chasm in a mine-cart
Nov. 14th, 2009 09:15 pmIn Speed, there was a notably unrealistic scene where a city bus jumped over a large gap in an unfinished freeway bridge, despite the lip being, you know, flat. Ironically, they filmed this scene by driving an ACTUAL city bus over an ACTUAL bridge with a gap in it (iirc), but then digitally editing the ramp out later to make it look deliberately impossible.
OK, having workmen leaving a convenient ramp at the edge of the lip might be a little unrealistic, but nowhere near as unrealistic as having the bus magically leap upwards against gravity. Alternatively, you could choose a bridge which has a slope on each side, which under good circumstances could be actually realistic.
In Van Helsing, Van Helsing jumps a COACH AND FOUR across a chasm in a similar manoeuvre. Now, horses can in fact jump. But I doubt they could lift a coach by the harness.
Now, I think I've seen an EVEN MORE implausible attempt. In Journey to the Centre of the Earth, the guy from The Mummy jumps a MINE CART over a chasm. Now, ok, there may be a ramp. And it may get across safely. But what are the chances of it landing perfectly on the rails?
OK, having workmen leaving a convenient ramp at the edge of the lip might be a little unrealistic, but nowhere near as unrealistic as having the bus magically leap upwards against gravity. Alternatively, you could choose a bridge which has a slope on each side, which under good circumstances could be actually realistic.
In Van Helsing, Van Helsing jumps a COACH AND FOUR across a chasm in a similar manoeuvre. Now, horses can in fact jump. But I doubt they could lift a coach by the harness.
Now, I think I've seen an EVEN MORE implausible attempt. In Journey to the Centre of the Earth, the guy from The Mummy jumps a MINE CART over a chasm. Now, ok, there may be a ramp. And it may get across safely. But what are the chances of it landing perfectly on the rails?
Apparently my problem is that I don't place enough emphasis on winning in conversations "your problem is that you don't take enough pleasure in winning arguments". I have an affidavit and everything!
US Election
Nov. 5th, 2008 06:06 amIronically, I think this is the first political election where I actually woke up needing to go and find what happened. I am actually remarkably relieved, I could just imagine waking up to lots of fraud and legal challenges (and obviously it's tough to find out in five min what the nuances are.)
But Fox News announced Obama, FiveThirtyEight.com announced Obama, John McCain announced Obama. Congratulations. I regret not considering having someone here to have a toast with.
And regardless of what you think, that's another notable point in history. (Of course, America will have to wait to see how it goes, but enough things about the last eight years worried me, that I really hope some good things happen.)
(I still don't know about the Senate elections. "Lots" of seats for Democrats, but a filibuster-proof majority is in not in the bag, though hopefully that had no reason to matter. Nor about California ban on gay marriage. The second is terrifying: if California starts reversing backward now, it'll crash into the western seaboard, and that place doesn't need more tectonic activity.)
But Fox News announced Obama, FiveThirtyEight.com announced Obama, John McCain announced Obama. Congratulations. I regret not considering having someone here to have a toast with.
And regardless of what you think, that's another notable point in history. (Of course, America will have to wait to see how it goes, but enough things about the last eight years worried me, that I really hope some good things happen.)
(I still don't know about the Senate elections. "Lots" of seats for Democrats, but a filibuster-proof majority is in not in the bag, though hopefully that had no reason to matter. Nor about California ban on gay marriage. The second is terrifying: if California starts reversing backward now, it'll crash into the western seaboard, and that place doesn't need more tectonic activity.)
Spell checkers
Oct. 16th, 2008 12:21 pmWould it be worth having an "unlikely" mark for a spelling checker? For those occasions when it's entirely possible you did mean "licens (n, ceremonial greek fireplace)"[1], but it's overwhelmingly more likely you meant the common word "license"?
It would have to be visually represented as not requiring you to get rid of it, but merely to draw your attention to it, if that's possible. On the other hand, you could argue that's what spelling checkers ought to do anyway, although they are not normally treated like that. At least, "not in dictionary" is a clear judgement, even if the writing is correct (grammar "checkers" results really are all "suggested").
Come to think of it, maybe there's an uncomfortable parallel with compiler warnings?
[1] Warning, not an actual definition.
[2] I think perhaps the "one-liner" tag, as misleading as it has become, represents the nearest I ever come to a single contained thought, rather than a fifteen interrelated ones.
It would have to be visually represented as not requiring you to get rid of it, but merely to draw your attention to it, if that's possible. On the other hand, you could argue that's what spelling checkers ought to do anyway, although they are not normally treated like that. At least, "not in dictionary" is a clear judgement, even if the writing is correct (grammar "checkers" results really are all "suggested").
Come to think of it, maybe there's an uncomfortable parallel with compiler warnings?
[1] Warning, not an actual definition.
[2] I think perhaps the "one-liner" tag, as misleading as it has become, represents the nearest I ever come to a single contained thought, rather than a fifteen interrelated ones.
Independence Day
Jul. 4th, 2008 03:25 pm<Ozy and Millie>Happy Patriotic Explosions Day!&/lt;Ozy and Millie>
(no subject)
Jan. 29th, 2008 09:16 am(1) Apparently there is no time in the morning early enough that I can have to set an alarm for that I don't wake up every hour for three hours before.
(2) See, I'm right, every game of bridge really does have a really stupid theme. Last night, I played bridge with Ralph and a couple of others. There were two hands in a row where he played a 3NT contract with a diamond void in dummy. The next hand broke the streak -- the opponents
(3) Also, Penultima has a systematic flaw in terms of actually being fun, although generally packed with interesting ideas, there really does need to be a wrench taken to something.
(2) See, I'm right, every game of bridge really does have a really stupid theme. Last night, I played bridge with Ralph and a couple of others. There were two hands in a row where he played a 3NT contract with a diamond void in dummy. The next hand broke the streak -- the opponents
(3) Also, Penultima has a systematic flaw in terms of actually being fun, although generally packed with interesting ideas, there really does need to be a wrench taken to something.