I've decided not to make any new goals for 2010. I did manage to follow through on one of my two goals for 2009. This is post #365. The game never got finished. I think I am going to try again with creating another game.
I'm not too disappointed that the game didn't get done. A few more important things came up during the year that absorbed my energy.
whatever.
Thursday, December 31, 2009
The last Game of the Week for 2009:
Infectionator
This game reminded me of Boomshine, but with zombies. Happy new year.
Infectionator
This game reminded me of Boomshine, but with zombies. Happy new year.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
My family and I had a good Christmas this year. I am grateful for that, especially after hearing one or two stories of Christmas at other people's families.
Christmas is about disappointment I think. Of course that's not the "Reason for the Season". Christmas is about many things more important, like:
I remember one Christmas. It may have been 1994 or 1995, I was really excited about Christmas. The excitement started even before Thanksgiving. When Christmas season finally came, and even Christmas, it just wasn't what I expected. It was good, but there was still disappointment. It was no-one's fault but my own. After that, I lowered my expectations for Christmas. Not much, but I did realize that not every year will be special.
For many other people, the cause of disappointment is not merely unrealistic expectations for their own experience. The cause of disappointment may be something far more real or serious, like family members or friends failing to make a equal effort to take part in your celebrations. I realize I don't have any advice to offer on this. I would say, look up at the list I made above. The further down the list your cause for disappointment is, the more petty it is. For example, if you're disappointed because you didn't receive everything you wanted for Christmas, that's an incredibly childish attitude. Anyone over the age of twelve should be mature enough to deal with not getting what they want. If you're disappointed because because something interrupted your traditions, that's a little less petty, but I've never seen a tradition in my family that could be carried out exactly the same way every year. In fact, following traditions too rigidly may bring in unnecessary feelings of disappointment because something that was special the first time can become mundane with repetition.
whatever. What's my point here?
1. If your disappointment was caused by unrealistic expectations, get over it.
2. If your disappointment was caused by circumstances beyond your control, I am truly sorry and hope next year will be better.
Christmas is about disappointment I think. Of course that's not the "Reason for the Season". Christmas is about many things more important, like:
- Remembering Christ's birth and his significance to your salvation (if you are a Christian, as I am)
- Spending time with family
- Following fond traditions
- Exchanging gifts with family and friends
- Enjoying the magic of the winter season (before it starts to drag on)
- Hauling in as much loot as you can
I remember one Christmas. It may have been 1994 or 1995, I was really excited about Christmas. The excitement started even before Thanksgiving. When Christmas season finally came, and even Christmas, it just wasn't what I expected. It was good, but there was still disappointment. It was no-one's fault but my own. After that, I lowered my expectations for Christmas. Not much, but I did realize that not every year will be special.
For many other people, the cause of disappointment is not merely unrealistic expectations for their own experience. The cause of disappointment may be something far more real or serious, like family members or friends failing to make a equal effort to take part in your celebrations. I realize I don't have any advice to offer on this. I would say, look up at the list I made above. The further down the list your cause for disappointment is, the more petty it is. For example, if you're disappointed because you didn't receive everything you wanted for Christmas, that's an incredibly childish attitude. Anyone over the age of twelve should be mature enough to deal with not getting what they want. If you're disappointed because because something interrupted your traditions, that's a little less petty, but I've never seen a tradition in my family that could be carried out exactly the same way every year. In fact, following traditions too rigidly may bring in unnecessary feelings of disappointment because something that was special the first time can become mundane with repetition.
whatever. What's my point here?
1. If your disappointment was caused by unrealistic expectations, get over it.
2. If your disappointment was caused by circumstances beyond your control, I am truly sorry and hope next year will be better.
What a weird time it is between Christmas and New Year's. It kind of feels as if whatever is left of the current year is trying to limp back to the barn.
Sarah Palin taught us that once you are a lame duck, you might as well quit. I thought this was funny when she said it, because I didn't think an executive was a lame duck until he/she lost an election. If you are facing a term limit and can't run, I didn't think it happened until at least the election took place. If you apply Sarah Palin's logic that once you decide to no longer run for the office you hold, than any President is a lame duck once he is inaugurated for his second term. Sometimes people might extend the term lame duck to cover a President whose party loses power in congress in an off-year election. You could have said Bush was a lame duck after the 2006 elections, but I still think that's an exaggeration. whatever. Sarah Palin is a moron.
Maybe 2009 should just call it quits right now. There's nothing left for 2009 to do but wait for 2010.
whatever. Happy Blah Week, everybody!
Sarah Palin taught us that once you are a lame duck, you might as well quit. I thought this was funny when she said it, because I didn't think an executive was a lame duck until he/she lost an election. If you are facing a term limit and can't run, I didn't think it happened until at least the election took place. If you apply Sarah Palin's logic that once you decide to no longer run for the office you hold, than any President is a lame duck once he is inaugurated for his second term. Sometimes people might extend the term lame duck to cover a President whose party loses power in congress in an off-year election. You could have said Bush was a lame duck after the 2006 elections, but I still think that's an exaggeration. whatever. Sarah Palin is a moron.
Maybe 2009 should just call it quits right now. There's nothing left for 2009 to do but wait for 2010.
whatever. Happy Blah Week, everybody!
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
I watched a movie one time. It was a horrible, awful, boring movie. Bounce.
In the movie, a man is about to fly home to see his family. He got stuck with a flight later than he wanted. He was drinking with some strangers at the airport bar, and one of them agreed to swap tickets with him. The stranger was having a good time and didn't care when he went home. The stranger had to pull some strings with a gate attendant he knew to let the wrong man with the right ticket on the earlier flight. They managed to get him on board. The earlier flight crashed, killing everyone on board.
The movie, like I said, was awful, but one thing grabbed me--the widow of the man who got on the wrong plane expressed feelings that she couldn't get closure until they had successfully sued the airline. As I remember it, the lawsuit involved, at least as a part of the trial, the gate attendant breaking the law to do the victim a favor, or what everyone thought was a favor. I couldn't get over that. Was it the money the woman wanted? Was it justice? From what I have heard about lawsuits, I don't know that there is much peace of mind one can attain from a civil suit. There may be plenty of money, if one is lucky, but they sound rather difficult.
A doctor wrote an article about being sued for malpractice. Granted, he doesn't say much about how difficult a lawsuit is from the plaintiff's perspective, but given the final outcome, one can't help but think it must have been a worthless venture. What did strike me was the Doctor's description:
I realize, that not having suffered a close loss like this, I am poorly qualified to offer advice on dealing with grief. I do know, from talking to people who have been on both sides of lawsuits, that bringing a lawsuit to court is an expensive and painful process. In fact, the only time I've heard of one working out well in recent years was when a lawyers sued a former customer for payment. The case itself, unlike a medical malpractice suit, was open and shut.
So, my question is pretty simple--if you have just went through the pain of losing a close relative, why would you sue that relative's doctor unles
1. The doctor was truly incompetent or negligent, and a danger to others, if still practicing.
2. The doctor was evil and murdered your relative. Or
3. You are base and greedy individual who thinks that milking an insurance company for malpractice money will provide some consolation for your loss.
I realize that I have much to learn about grief. I am certain there will be phases in my life when I have to face grief head on. I hope that when I do have to face it, I do not try to find comfort for my grief in money.
In the movie, a man is about to fly home to see his family. He got stuck with a flight later than he wanted. He was drinking with some strangers at the airport bar, and one of them agreed to swap tickets with him. The stranger was having a good time and didn't care when he went home. The stranger had to pull some strings with a gate attendant he knew to let the wrong man with the right ticket on the earlier flight. They managed to get him on board. The earlier flight crashed, killing everyone on board.
The movie, like I said, was awful, but one thing grabbed me--the widow of the man who got on the wrong plane expressed feelings that she couldn't get closure until they had successfully sued the airline. As I remember it, the lawsuit involved, at least as a part of the trial, the gate attendant breaking the law to do the victim a favor, or what everyone thought was a favor. I couldn't get over that. Was it the money the woman wanted? Was it justice? From what I have heard about lawsuits, I don't know that there is much peace of mind one can attain from a civil suit. There may be plenty of money, if one is lucky, but they sound rather difficult.
A doctor wrote an article about being sued for malpractice. Granted, he doesn't say much about how difficult a lawsuit is from the plaintiff's perspective, but given the final outcome, one can't help but think it must have been a worthless venture. What did strike me was the Doctor's description:
'I was being sued for medical malpractice.
That was how it started. Eventually I peeked at the text of the complaint, which was riddled with accusations. Apparently, my conduct was “malicious, willful, wanton or reckless,” and I had “negligently, carelessly and without regard” for my patient’s health treated her in such a manner that she had died the previous year.
At night I lay awake going over and over what happened. My patient was a relatively young woman who had developed an aggressive colon cancer; her illness was unexpected, and her course was tragic. I felt that I had treated her as I would wish to be treated.
But now her children, whom I barely knew, were coping with their own complex emotions, which I imagined to be grief, very likely anger and frustration, and perhaps misunderstanding. Filing a malpractice suit somehow addressed this. And now it would hang over all of us for years.'
I realize, that not having suffered a close loss like this, I am poorly qualified to offer advice on dealing with grief. I do know, from talking to people who have been on both sides of lawsuits, that bringing a lawsuit to court is an expensive and painful process. In fact, the only time I've heard of one working out well in recent years was when a lawyers sued a former customer for payment. The case itself, unlike a medical malpractice suit, was open and shut.
So, my question is pretty simple--if you have just went through the pain of losing a close relative, why would you sue that relative's doctor unles
1. The doctor was truly incompetent or negligent, and a danger to others, if still practicing.
2. The doctor was evil and murdered your relative. Or
3. You are base and greedy individual who thinks that milking an insurance company for malpractice money will provide some consolation for your loss.
I realize that I have much to learn about grief. I am certain there will be phases in my life when I have to face grief head on. I hope that when I do have to face it, I do not try to find comfort for my grief in money.
Yesterday my wife encouraged me to keep on writing posts so I wouldn't miss my goal for the year. The funny thing about it was that seemed to be the only reason she wanted me to write. I even got the impression she wouldn't even read them.
whatever.
If knowledge that no one was reading my posts were to keep me from writing, I would have quit a long time ago.
I was thinking about 2009 and thought about doing a year in review post. Exactly like the stories I hate when news sites post them on their front page. I decided instead to do a decade in review. We are we going to call this past decade, anyway? The turn of the Millennium? The double-zeroes? The Decade of Terror?
I don't know. I haven't heard a good name yet. It may be a decade we want to forget. When we look at pictures of this past decade 30 years in the future, will we be able to tell it was from 2000-2009? This almost seems to me like a decade without an identity. The 90's, 80's, 70's and 60's all had unique distinguishable styles. Many of the pictures from those days seem to scream what decade they're from. Were the 2000's all that different from the 90's?
Computers came a long way this decade. Flat panels are everywhere, even in TVs. The Internet came of age (thanks in no small part to wikipedia and Google). The Internet seems to be accessible from anywhere. Bush was President from most of the decade, which probably gives it an identity as much as anything. Probably in much the same way that Regan defined the 80's and Clinton defined the 90's.
whatever. Here's to the 10's! Here's to hoping it will be a decade far less marred by terrorism. Here's to hoping we can bring a successful close to our military efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq without making either country worse than it already is, so we can stop sending so many troops over there.
I hate to say this, but I think the odds of me becoming a millionaire in the next decade are better than the odds of us making a clean withdrawal from Afghanistan and Iraq. Here's to pessimism!
whatever.
If knowledge that no one was reading my posts were to keep me from writing, I would have quit a long time ago.
I was thinking about 2009 and thought about doing a year in review post. Exactly like the stories I hate when news sites post them on their front page. I decided instead to do a decade in review. We are we going to call this past decade, anyway? The turn of the Millennium? The double-zeroes? The Decade of Terror?
I don't know. I haven't heard a good name yet. It may be a decade we want to forget. When we look at pictures of this past decade 30 years in the future, will we be able to tell it was from 2000-2009? This almost seems to me like a decade without an identity. The 90's, 80's, 70's and 60's all had unique distinguishable styles. Many of the pictures from those days seem to scream what decade they're from. Were the 2000's all that different from the 90's?
Computers came a long way this decade. Flat panels are everywhere, even in TVs. The Internet came of age (thanks in no small part to wikipedia and Google). The Internet seems to be accessible from anywhere. Bush was President from most of the decade, which probably gives it an identity as much as anything. Probably in much the same way that Regan defined the 80's and Clinton defined the 90's.
whatever. Here's to the 10's! Here's to hoping it will be a decade far less marred by terrorism. Here's to hoping we can bring a successful close to our military efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq without making either country worse than it already is, so we can stop sending so many troops over there.
I hate to say this, but I think the odds of me becoming a millionaire in the next decade are better than the odds of us making a clean withdrawal from Afghanistan and Iraq. Here's to pessimism!
Monday, December 28, 2009
Today I had to fill up my wife's car with gas. I was at the pump an I heard some girl yell at me, "Hey, what does unleaded mean?" I must have stood there with an "are you stupid?" expression on my face because she quickly asked me if it meant it was just "regular" gas. "Yeah," I replied. She looked all of about 16 years old.
I told my dad that I felt old because kids who weren't born until after they outlawed leaded gas could now drive. My dad wasn't too sympathetic. whatever.
By the way, for the record, there are more than two more years before kids who were born after the ban took effect. I was surprised to learn it wasn't really banned until 1996. It seemed like it was pretty hard to get in the early for awhile before that. close enough.
Just in case you are in the same position as the girl at the gas station. If the gas is labeled as merely, "unleaded", then it is the regular gas you want to buy. Unleaded means the gas doesn't contain leaded anti-knock compounds. Lead additives allow for higher compression ratios (more power) from engines without detonation, which is harmful to engines. whatever. Look up the article on wikipedia if you need to know more.
I told my dad that I felt old because kids who weren't born until after they outlawed leaded gas could now drive. My dad wasn't too sympathetic. whatever.
By the way, for the record, there are more than two more years before kids who were born after the ban took effect. I was surprised to learn it wasn't really banned until 1996. It seemed like it was pretty hard to get in the early for awhile before that. close enough.
Just in case you are in the same position as the girl at the gas station. If the gas is labeled as merely, "unleaded", then it is the regular gas you want to buy. Unleaded means the gas doesn't contain leaded anti-knock compounds. Lead additives allow for higher compression ratios (more power) from engines without detonation, which is harmful to engines. whatever. Look up the article on wikipedia if you need to know more.
This Christmas memory comes from 1987, I think.
I was with my mom and my younger brother shopping for Christmas presents for my dad. At Sutherland's, they had a tape player on sale. This was a small boom-box type stereo with an AM/FM tuner. We bought the tape player for my dad, along with other items, and took it home. When my dad got home, my brother excitedly greet him him with, "Guess what, Dad! We got you a tape player for Christmas!!!". I have learned again with my own son, three-year-olds do not understand the concept of keeping the contents of Christmas presents a secret so they will be a surprise on Christmas morning.
I never found out what happened to the tape player until Christmas morning. One of the last presents I opened was the exact same tape player. It was also accompanied by books that had tapes. One in particular I remember was Grover's first day of school. Among other things, he traded his peanut butter sandwich at lunch for bologna--he hated bologna (as do I). The lesson of the book was don't give up things you value just to try to make people like you.
One thing I never considered until recently was that the tape player may have been intended for me all along. I always figured it was indented for my dad until my brother ruined the surprise. It was something my dad would have put in his garage and used often. I had never known my mother to deceive anyone, and only later learned the extents to which she would go to keep Christmas presents a surprise. I do remember one case in which lying was justified for this very reason. So, in hindsight, she may have bought a Christmas present I did not ask for in clear view of me and my three-year-old brother (who would have ruined any surprise he could) and quite simply told both us of that is was for our dad.
I don't know which is the case, but I do know that what little backbone I have quite possibly came from the story of Grover having to stomach a bologna sandwich on his first day of school. So, thanks for that, mom and Grover.
While we're on 1987, I have another Christmas memory from that year. In school, we made ornaments to take home to our parents. After we finished them, we had to wrap them. The teacher showed us how to wrap them in a special way so that we only used one piece of tape. One of the kids was absent that day. When he came back, he finished the ornament on his own. He was also given the wrapping paper and single piece of tape. He was told to wrap it only using the single piece of tape. I don't recall if she gave him the same demonstration she gave the rest of us. I was probably focused on more important things, like math problems. I just remember he failed to wrap the ornament, "the right way" and was not given another piece of tape. He had to take it home unwrapped.
I remember it seeming unfair. Teachers can be unfair sometimes, but I don't know if she actually was in this case. She may have offered the demonstration, which he refused, or she may have shown him how to wrap it and he didn't listen. I think he was the kid in the class who was always in trouble.
whatever. One thing I learned well in the schools I went to is that if you witness injustice, don't do anything about it and just go about your business. This may be appropriate in school, because kids don't often have all the facts. Something that seems unfair may not really be. Still, this kind of behavior in adults makes all sorts of evil possible. I have heard of it being a contributing factor to the holocaust (or rather that the holocaust may have been halted if good people had stuck their nose out to stop injustice). I have heard it linked to a rise in abductions--"Why is that man who is not Jamie's dad forcing Jamie into that car I've never seen before? Who cares? It's not my kid, I'll just leave well enough alone."
So now you know how the Holocaust was caused by one piece of tape. No, I'm pretty sure that wasn't the point of my story. whatever. I don't know what the point was anymore.
I was with my mom and my younger brother shopping for Christmas presents for my dad. At Sutherland's, they had a tape player on sale. This was a small boom-box type stereo with an AM/FM tuner. We bought the tape player for my dad, along with other items, and took it home. When my dad got home, my brother excitedly greet him him with, "Guess what, Dad! We got you a tape player for Christmas!!!". I have learned again with my own son, three-year-olds do not understand the concept of keeping the contents of Christmas presents a secret so they will be a surprise on Christmas morning.
I never found out what happened to the tape player until Christmas morning. One of the last presents I opened was the exact same tape player. It was also accompanied by books that had tapes. One in particular I remember was Grover's first day of school. Among other things, he traded his peanut butter sandwich at lunch for bologna--he hated bologna (as do I). The lesson of the book was don't give up things you value just to try to make people like you.
One thing I never considered until recently was that the tape player may have been intended for me all along. I always figured it was indented for my dad until my brother ruined the surprise. It was something my dad would have put in his garage and used often. I had never known my mother to deceive anyone, and only later learned the extents to which she would go to keep Christmas presents a surprise. I do remember one case in which lying was justified for this very reason. So, in hindsight, she may have bought a Christmas present I did not ask for in clear view of me and my three-year-old brother (who would have ruined any surprise he could) and quite simply told both us of that is was for our dad.
I don't know which is the case, but I do know that what little backbone I have quite possibly came from the story of Grover having to stomach a bologna sandwich on his first day of school. So, thanks for that, mom and Grover.
While we're on 1987, I have another Christmas memory from that year. In school, we made ornaments to take home to our parents. After we finished them, we had to wrap them. The teacher showed us how to wrap them in a special way so that we only used one piece of tape. One of the kids was absent that day. When he came back, he finished the ornament on his own. He was also given the wrapping paper and single piece of tape. He was told to wrap it only using the single piece of tape. I don't recall if she gave him the same demonstration she gave the rest of us. I was probably focused on more important things, like math problems. I just remember he failed to wrap the ornament, "the right way" and was not given another piece of tape. He had to take it home unwrapped.
I remember it seeming unfair. Teachers can be unfair sometimes, but I don't know if she actually was in this case. She may have offered the demonstration, which he refused, or she may have shown him how to wrap it and he didn't listen. I think he was the kid in the class who was always in trouble.
whatever. One thing I learned well in the schools I went to is that if you witness injustice, don't do anything about it and just go about your business. This may be appropriate in school, because kids don't often have all the facts. Something that seems unfair may not really be. Still, this kind of behavior in adults makes all sorts of evil possible. I have heard of it being a contributing factor to the holocaust (or rather that the holocaust may have been halted if good people had stuck their nose out to stop injustice). I have heard it linked to a rise in abductions--"Why is that man who is not Jamie's dad forcing Jamie into that car I've never seen before? Who cares? It's not my kid, I'll just leave well enough alone."
So now you know how the Holocaust was caused by one piece of tape. No, I'm pretty sure that wasn't the point of my story. whatever. I don't know what the point was anymore.
My dad told me one time that he relates to life through sitcoms. He told me this when I was a teenager during a serious conversation. I think he was trying to explain something about, who knows what, and referenced a Leave it to Beaver episode. Despite the fact that I can't remember the details of the story, I believe the lesson he was trying to teach me stuck with me.
This, by itself is hilarious. In fact, if there is any sort of premise to Family Guy, I think it is about a man who relates to life through what he watches on TV. If you don't believe me, go back and watch earlier episodes. There was the episode where they won an award for creating a float that graphically depicted what happened in a Who's the Boss episode. There was the episode where they when around acting like they were the A-Team. There was an episode where the intro was ripped from the intro to Family Ties. There was an episode where the intro was ripped from Law & Order. There was an episode where they proclaimed Fred Savage was the "greatest actor" there ever was. There was even an episode where Peter made his son fake an illness to save a TV show. So yes, I am going to go on record as saying that my dad is the original Family Guy. Granted, he is not a crude, obese person who suffers from intellectual disability (mental retardation) like Peter Griffin, but I think that is beside the point.
The real point is that as sad, funny, scary or whatever that it is that my dad relates to life through sitcoms, what I do is at least twice as worse. I relate to life through Star Trek. I am not a Trekkie. I do not have a little Captain Kirk action figure still in its original packaging on my shelf. I do not have the Star Trek Christmas ornament. I have not taken the time to learn how to speak Klingon. All it really comes to is that for far too many things in life, I can remember a Star Trek episode to which that thing relates.
And then we come back to Britney Murphy. Last week I was left wondering how a seemingly healthy 32-year-old could die from natural causes. Rachel sent me a Slate article that helped clear this up, well sort of. And this relates to Star Trek. I watched an episode yesterday of Star Trek, TNG, where people caught a disease that caused them to age rapidly. The Enterprise encountered a ship full of dead people who had "died of natural causes--old age". Of course, if we come back to reality, we must remember that the doctor on the Enterprise is just an actor reading lines written by someone of unknown medical expertise. More likely than not, the writers for the show were just as ignorant of what goes into a coroner's report as I am. Of course, the doctor on the show said nothing wrong--dying of old age is one of many possible ways to die "from natural causes". Still, the common equivalence of dying of old age with dying of natural causes is what led to my confusion in the first place.
whatever. Now that I have written it out, his whole thing makes me sad.
This, by itself is hilarious. In fact, if there is any sort of premise to Family Guy, I think it is about a man who relates to life through what he watches on TV. If you don't believe me, go back and watch earlier episodes. There was the episode where they won an award for creating a float that graphically depicted what happened in a Who's the Boss episode. There was the episode where they when around acting like they were the A-Team. There was an episode where the intro was ripped from the intro to Family Ties. There was an episode where the intro was ripped from Law & Order. There was an episode where they proclaimed Fred Savage was the "greatest actor" there ever was. There was even an episode where Peter made his son fake an illness to save a TV show. So yes, I am going to go on record as saying that my dad is the original Family Guy. Granted, he is not a crude, obese person who suffers from intellectual disability (mental retardation) like Peter Griffin, but I think that is beside the point.
The real point is that as sad, funny, scary or whatever that it is that my dad relates to life through sitcoms, what I do is at least twice as worse. I relate to life through Star Trek. I am not a Trekkie. I do not have a little Captain Kirk action figure still in its original packaging on my shelf. I do not have the Star Trek Christmas ornament. I have not taken the time to learn how to speak Klingon. All it really comes to is that for far too many things in life, I can remember a Star Trek episode to which that thing relates.
And then we come back to Britney Murphy. Last week I was left wondering how a seemingly healthy 32-year-old could die from natural causes. Rachel sent me a Slate article that helped clear this up, well sort of. And this relates to Star Trek. I watched an episode yesterday of Star Trek, TNG, where people caught a disease that caused them to age rapidly. The Enterprise encountered a ship full of dead people who had "died of natural causes--old age". Of course, if we come back to reality, we must remember that the doctor on the Enterprise is just an actor reading lines written by someone of unknown medical expertise. More likely than not, the writers for the show were just as ignorant of what goes into a coroner's report as I am. Of course, the doctor on the show said nothing wrong--dying of old age is one of many possible ways to die "from natural causes". Still, the common equivalence of dying of old age with dying of natural causes is what led to my confusion in the first place.
whatever. Now that I have written it out, his whole thing makes me sad.
Four days left and ten posts to go. As usual, when I went on vacation, I also went on vacation from the blog. This means that aside from the 4 posts that shouldn't be much trouble for me to come up with, I need to add 6 "filler" posts.
I had an idea Christmas Eve to write down some of the memories I have left of previous Christmases. I think I can remember back to Christmas 1987, maybe 1986. Please be warned that the six filler posts coming over the next several days will only have meaning to myself and my family, but I am attempting to preserve these memories in a format that will last before I lose them forever. Losing these memories forever does not seem all that unlikely considering that I have already forgotten much of Christmas 2002. This Christmas is important because my wife and I had just started dating. We cannot for the life of us remember what we got each other for Christmas that year. I remember going to her house that evening. It seemed like she had received about a dozen musical soundtrack CD's for Christmas. That's about all I can remember from that year. whatever. What is more important to me is not forgetting these Christmas memories now that I have kids. For one of my kids, this was the first year he was really excited about Christmas. For the other, this was his first Christmas.
I have to say that having a kid who is older than three is a lot of fun at Christmas. Aside from the already mentioned reason that he was actually excited about Christmas, having full understanding of the concept of presents and remembering the previous Christmas to some extent, there are a lot more presents you can buy for a three year old than you can for a toddler. A lot of them are cheap, too, which also makes stockings fun. I bought my son a plastic snake, some magic sponge pills that turn into shapes when dropped in water, noisy putty, Hot Wheels cars, m&ms and bubbles. He was really spoiled this year.
Of course that wasn't even the biggest part of Christmas this year. This year, we had a White Christmas, which is incredibly rare in Oklahoma. I remember hoping for snow every year at Christmas, only to be disappointed. I think we finally got one when I was in college. The snow changed our plans quite a bit. We got snowed in at my in-laws Christmas Eve, which meant that we did presents at their house Christmas morning instead of Christmas night--a huge break from tradition. We didn't do Christmas at our house until Christmas night. It was a lot of fun, but it was also exhausting.
I had an idea Christmas Eve to write down some of the memories I have left of previous Christmases. I think I can remember back to Christmas 1987, maybe 1986. Please be warned that the six filler posts coming over the next several days will only have meaning to myself and my family, but I am attempting to preserve these memories in a format that will last before I lose them forever. Losing these memories forever does not seem all that unlikely considering that I have already forgotten much of Christmas 2002. This Christmas is important because my wife and I had just started dating. We cannot for the life of us remember what we got each other for Christmas that year. I remember going to her house that evening. It seemed like she had received about a dozen musical soundtrack CD's for Christmas. That's about all I can remember from that year. whatever. What is more important to me is not forgetting these Christmas memories now that I have kids. For one of my kids, this was the first year he was really excited about Christmas. For the other, this was his first Christmas.
I have to say that having a kid who is older than three is a lot of fun at Christmas. Aside from the already mentioned reason that he was actually excited about Christmas, having full understanding of the concept of presents and remembering the previous Christmas to some extent, there are a lot more presents you can buy for a three year old than you can for a toddler. A lot of them are cheap, too, which also makes stockings fun. I bought my son a plastic snake, some magic sponge pills that turn into shapes when dropped in water, noisy putty, Hot Wheels cars, m&ms and bubbles. He was really spoiled this year.
Of course that wasn't even the biggest part of Christmas this year. This year, we had a White Christmas, which is incredibly rare in Oklahoma. I remember hoping for snow every year at Christmas, only to be disappointed. I think we finally got one when I was in college. The snow changed our plans quite a bit. We got snowed in at my in-laws Christmas Eve, which meant that we did presents at their house Christmas morning instead of Christmas night--a huge break from tradition. We didn't do Christmas at our house until Christmas night. It was a lot of fun, but it was also exhausting.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
I just found out that Brittany Murphy died two days ago. I didn't even know who she was until a couple weeks ago. No--I hadn't even heard of her until a couple of weeks ago when someone made fun of her for getting "fired" from a movie. I didn't know who she was until today when I watched the video clips. I hadn't seen anything with her except for King of the Hill. Luanne was my least favorite character.
whatever.
What is interesting is the coroner's statements: 'The 32-year-old appeared to have died Sunday of natural causes... "Naturally occurring diseases could be found in any person that could lead to death," said Capt. John Kades of the coroner's office.'
I'm not a doctor, but this sounds a little like, "These aren't the droids you're looking for." Do 32-year-olds really die from natural causes? Maybe it's pretty straightforward for coroners, either you were killed by violent means, you died from an overdose of a chemical, or you died from natural causes, including diseases. Perhaps it is only in my mind that dying from natural causes means dying because you just got to old.
whatever. I'm sure the coroner's report is pretty standard stuff. I'm sure he sees many people in their 30's who died from "natural causes". I am sure he also has to explain to many confused relatives that dying from some illness is considered "natural". Or maybe I'm the only person who doesn't understand this stuff.
whatever.
What is interesting is the coroner's statements: 'The 32-year-old appeared to have died Sunday of natural causes... "Naturally occurring diseases could be found in any person that could lead to death," said Capt. John Kades of the coroner's office.'
I'm not a doctor, but this sounds a little like, "These aren't the droids you're looking for." Do 32-year-olds really die from natural causes? Maybe it's pretty straightforward for coroners, either you were killed by violent means, you died from an overdose of a chemical, or you died from natural causes, including diseases. Perhaps it is only in my mind that dying from natural causes means dying because you just got to old.
whatever. I'm sure the coroner's report is pretty standard stuff. I'm sure he sees many people in their 30's who died from "natural causes". I am sure he also has to explain to many confused relatives that dying from some illness is considered "natural". Or maybe I'm the only person who doesn't understand this stuff.
Monday, December 21, 2009
I saw a bad headline on cnn.com:
Agassi's book under Christmas trees
All I can say is that I hope that book is not under my Christmas tree. If you bought me Open, please save the receipt so I can take it back an buy a book that I will enjoy.
Along those lines, I'm not sure who would actually enjoy the book. I was shocked with revelations in the book, but what is in the book that hasn't been reported? I don't care. Just please, please don't buy me this book.
Agassi's book under Christmas trees
All I can say is that I hope that book is not under my Christmas tree. If you bought me Open, please save the receipt so I can take it back an buy a book that I will enjoy.
Along those lines, I'm not sure who would actually enjoy the book. I was shocked with revelations in the book, but what is in the book that hasn't been reported? I don't care. Just please, please don't buy me this book.
Clear-Cutting the Truth About Trees
I liked this article, but it took me awhile to identify exactly why. I realized it's because it says that all those carbon-offsets people like Al Gore and John Kerry buy don't work.
I was made aware of these during the 2004 election, when John Kerry, who came under criticism for the number of SUVs he owned, rationalized their use by saying he purchased carbon offsets for them. The carbon offset has become the magic pill affluent semi-environmentalists take so they do have to give up the status symbols that produce so much carbon without feeling pangs of guilt as they try to sleep.
Don't get me wrong--it would be nice if carbon offsets worked as advertised. I just have a particular problem with rich people telling me I have to make sacrifices to save the environment while they do no such thing themselves. It is pure hypocrisy. If people like Al Gore want the "common people" who produce so much carbon emission to make sacrifices, it would be nice to see him make similarly painful sacrifices. The article linked above says that he uses them so he can fly in a private jet. It would be nice to see him fly on American Airlines and wait in the same airport lines. It would be nice to find out that he takes Greyhounds whenever he has to travel across the country.
There are environmentalist who do make sacrifices, but they themselves seem to fall into a unique class of elites. I just think that if people are really serious about reversing global warming by getting massive amounts of people to change their lifestyles, they would try to find ways to show how people who are neither eccentric academics (like the guy who gave up toilet paper) nor affluent hypocrites are making a difference.
whatever.
I liked this article, but it took me awhile to identify exactly why. I realized it's because it says that all those carbon-offsets people like Al Gore and John Kerry buy don't work.
I was made aware of these during the 2004 election, when John Kerry, who came under criticism for the number of SUVs he owned, rationalized their use by saying he purchased carbon offsets for them. The carbon offset has become the magic pill affluent semi-environmentalists take so they do have to give up the status symbols that produce so much carbon without feeling pangs of guilt as they try to sleep.
Don't get me wrong--it would be nice if carbon offsets worked as advertised. I just have a particular problem with rich people telling me I have to make sacrifices to save the environment while they do no such thing themselves. It is pure hypocrisy. If people like Al Gore want the "common people" who produce so much carbon emission to make sacrifices, it would be nice to see him make similarly painful sacrifices. The article linked above says that he uses them so he can fly in a private jet. It would be nice to see him fly on American Airlines and wait in the same airport lines. It would be nice to find out that he takes Greyhounds whenever he has to travel across the country.
There are environmentalist who do make sacrifices, but they themselves seem to fall into a unique class of elites. I just think that if people are really serious about reversing global warming by getting massive amounts of people to change their lifestyles, they would try to find ways to show how people who are neither eccentric academics (like the guy who gave up toilet paper) nor affluent hypocrites are making a difference.
whatever.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
I liked this article:
Never Listen to Céline? Radio Meter Begs to Differ
For the record, I am not one of these men who chill with Céline. I am more likely to fall into another category.
I don't know if my wife has ever made me listen to Delilah. Maybe once or twice. I have, on a few occasions, consciously tuned to a soft-rock station. Usually when I'm in the car with someone else. whatever. Don't judge me.
Never Listen to Céline? Radio Meter Begs to Differ
'American men have a naughty little secret. Sometimes, they like to relax with a little Céline Dion. Professed classical music fans have one, too: as it turns out, they don’t tune into classical radio nearly as much as they claim.'
For the record, I am not one of these men who chill with Céline. I am more likely to fall into another category.
'Then there are the unwilling listeners, like Reece Carter, 40, an architectural designer in Roswell, Ga. Mr. Carter dreads driving with his wife in the evening, when she tunes into the love-laden Delilah show on B98.5 “My wife gives me my recommended daily allowance,” he said.'
I don't know if my wife has ever made me listen to Delilah. Maybe once or twice. I have, on a few occasions, consciously tuned to a soft-rock station. Usually when I'm in the car with someone else. whatever. Don't judge me.
Another Playlist?
Yes...another playlist. This playlist is dedicated to the part of December that isn't covered in Christmas decorations, Christmas music or retail greed. I apologize if there are too many covers and too much Radiohead. whatever.
Also, I was a little surprised how many covers of Wonderwall are out there. I would have taken it off the playlist, but the Ryan Adams cover was half of what inspired me to create this playlist. The other half was inspired by listening to the There will be blood song and the Nada Surf song yesterday. The rest of the songs are just filler. Just kidding about that last part, of course, each song was specially selected to help build a well-thought-out playlist. whatever.
I saw a picture of Hillary Clinton today on the NYTimes. She looked old. She is 62 years old. I don't know if she looks older than her age or if I just never noticed wrinkles on her face before. It's also possible that the image I have of her in my mind is of the Amy Poehler impersonation. She does seem to be younger looking in all of the 2008 photos I could find.
Why would she appear to age so much in just two years? I think a few things could explain this, such as Botox injections wearing off or not getting enough sleep the night before. I'm sure when she was running for President, her campaign staff carefully decided how many wrinkles she should have on her face and where, so as to appear experienced enough to lead, yet young enough to handle the demands of the job. Being that she is not running for election of anything right now, I am sure no one is looking out for Hillary's face.
Why do I care? I find this equally puzzling. Perhaps the real thing that intrigues me is that a person's face can change so much in such little time. I am particularly curious if this is mostly due discontinued use of cosmetic therapies (as I suspect) or if it is only due to natural aging processes.
I wonder what she would look like if she stopped coloring her hair. A woman I know who is about 60 stopped dying her hair. I was surprised how much older it made her look.
I almost hate to mention this, because I don't think older women are ugly, but it would be interesting to see a woman of the age 60 or so do a picture a day video where in the first picture she has her hair dyed and up-to-date on all wrinkle reduction, but stops doing any of that after the first day in the sequence. I am reminded of an old Star Trek episode (41:32 into the episode) where a beautiful woman is trapped on the planet of the butt-heads because she was in a serious accident and looked quite a bit different when the butt-head people were not actively using their technology to make her appear beautiful. whatever. What is the point of all this?
I have a theory--that we fear the aging process in women so much that we have heightened how much older things like wrinkles and gray hair make women appear. I think it's a shame. whatever.
P.S. CBS shows entire episodes of the original Star Trek series.
Why would she appear to age so much in just two years? I think a few things could explain this, such as Botox injections wearing off or not getting enough sleep the night before. I'm sure when she was running for President, her campaign staff carefully decided how many wrinkles she should have on her face and where, so as to appear experienced enough to lead, yet young enough to handle the demands of the job. Being that she is not running for election of anything right now, I am sure no one is looking out for Hillary's face.
Why do I care? I find this equally puzzling. Perhaps the real thing that intrigues me is that a person's face can change so much in such little time. I am particularly curious if this is mostly due discontinued use of cosmetic therapies (as I suspect) or if it is only due to natural aging processes.
I wonder what she would look like if she stopped coloring her hair. A woman I know who is about 60 stopped dying her hair. I was surprised how much older it made her look.
I almost hate to mention this, because I don't think older women are ugly, but it would be interesting to see a woman of the age 60 or so do a picture a day video where in the first picture she has her hair dyed and up-to-date on all wrinkle reduction, but stops doing any of that after the first day in the sequence. I am reminded of an old Star Trek episode (41:32 into the episode) where a beautiful woman is trapped on the planet of the butt-heads because she was in a serious accident and looked quite a bit different when the butt-head people were not actively using their technology to make her appear beautiful. whatever. What is the point of all this?
I have a theory--that we fear the aging process in women so much that we have heightened how much older things like wrinkles and gray hair make women appear. I think it's a shame. whatever.
P.S. CBS shows entire episodes of the original Star Trek series.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
I saw an ad on Facebook for maid services. The ad featured a woman wearing a French maid outfit, more appropriate for a Halloween party than for cleaning, and holding a feather duster. I don't know if that is the right picture for that advertisement. Granted, a maid service that sends attractive young women wearing cute outfits to clean houses owned by single men may have a market, most maids I've seen are women (many of them older) wearing something along the lines of t-shirts and sweatpants. Also, I've been told that no-one cleans with a feather duster anymore.
This makes me wonder, are they really advertising a maid service? To whom are they advertising? If it really is for a legit maid service, won't the single guy who clicks on the ad be disappointed when a real maid shows up?
whatever. Facebook's ads are usually ridiculous. I wonder who clicks on them?
Wife: "The house cleaner you hired was awful. Where did you find her?"
Husband: "I dunno, I just clicked on the picture of the hot chick. That was for a maid?"
Wife: "I hope you like sleeping on the couch."
Husband: "So they really sent someone over here? Was she hot?"
Wife commits act of mild violence
Husband: "Ouch, what was that for?"
Gotta love Facebook.
This makes me wonder, are they really advertising a maid service? To whom are they advertising? If it really is for a legit maid service, won't the single guy who clicks on the ad be disappointed when a real maid shows up?
whatever. Facebook's ads are usually ridiculous. I wonder who clicks on them?
Wife: "The house cleaner you hired was awful. Where did you find her?"
Husband: "I dunno, I just clicked on the picture of the hot chick. That was for a maid?"
Wife: "I hope you like sleeping on the couch."
Husband: "So they really sent someone over here? Was she hot?"
Wife commits act of mild violence
Husband: "Ouch, what was that for?"
Gotta love Facebook.
At 4:54 PM today, the view outside my office was beautiful, particularly considering it is the middle of December.
The picture I took with my phone was pretty lousy. You have to look past the reflections from the glass. The bare trees in the distance are too blurry. whatever. I'm sure you've seen something like this before.
There is a certain about December around here. The bare trees and the dead grass have a certain effect in the golden sunlight.
whatever. If I keep going I'm going to start sounding like a lame poet. Nobody wants that from me.
There is a certain about December around here. The bare trees and the dead grass have a certain effect in the golden sunlight.
whatever. If I keep going I'm going to start sounding like a lame poet. Nobody wants that from me.
Facebook suggests people you should befriend. It is always odd when it recommends a person you have no interest in befriending, but with whom you share a lot of common friends. Today, it recommended one I went to high school with. We have 26 common friends. I wasn't friends with him in high school. I went with him to a concert once. He is a nice guy, but I don't need to add him as a friend. It becomes weirder when I consider that he is popular among 26 of my Facebook friends--on sixth of them.
Of course, I don't know how many friends he has, but it's safe to say the same is true for him. I can imagine him seeing the recommendation on Facebook and thinking, "No, I don't need to be friends with the Handrew...holy crap! 26 of my friends are friends with him. Why is he so popular among my friends?" Of course, the number of friends may not perfectly translate into popularity. Some people ask you to be their friend only because they recognize your name. I'm not one to turn down a friend request from someone I know, either. whatever.
What was weird was when Facebook tried getting me to add an ex-girlfriend as a friend. Of course, Facebook didn't know that we dated at one time, or that we went from being in a relationship to being friends to realizing that we shouldn't be friends because we didn't get along to her spreading rumors about me after I got engaged. All of that happened before Facebook existed, and much of that would have been external to Facebook. It was easy enough to stop with the little 'x' next to her picture. whatever.
Point is, thank you Facebook for reminding me of people who are either of no significance in my life or who bring back bad memories. good times.
Of course, I don't know how many friends he has, but it's safe to say the same is true for him. I can imagine him seeing the recommendation on Facebook and thinking, "No, I don't need to be friends with the Handrew...holy crap! 26 of my friends are friends with him. Why is he so popular among my friends?" Of course, the number of friends may not perfectly translate into popularity. Some people ask you to be their friend only because they recognize your name. I'm not one to turn down a friend request from someone I know, either. whatever.
What was weird was when Facebook tried getting me to add an ex-girlfriend as a friend. Of course, Facebook didn't know that we dated at one time, or that we went from being in a relationship to being friends to realizing that we shouldn't be friends because we didn't get along to her spreading rumors about me after I got engaged. All of that happened before Facebook existed, and much of that would have been external to Facebook. It was easy enough to stop with the little 'x' next to her picture. whatever.
Point is, thank you Facebook for reminding me of people who are either of no significance in my life or who bring back bad memories. good times.
There have been a number of movies this year containing the word "nine". It took me awhile to make the connection between the number 9 and the current year (2009, for those of you slower than me). My mother always told me I was special because I tested off the charts on the IQ tests. Now we know which end of the charts I was off.
Disclaimer: I wasn't really off the charts, but my mom does think I'm special--as do many people.
My pattern-recognition abilities aside, I wonder if next year there will be many movies featuring the number 10. District 10 is a distinct possibility. There was a district 10 in the movie District 9. There was plenty left unresolved in District 9. One thing I found disappointing was that there was not a 007 movie released in 2007. It was the year 007, after all.
whatever.
Disclaimer: I wasn't really off the charts, but my mom does think I'm special--as do many people.
My pattern-recognition abilities aside, I wonder if next year there will be many movies featuring the number 10. District 10 is a distinct possibility. There was a district 10 in the movie District 9. There was plenty left unresolved in District 9. One thing I found disappointing was that there was not a 007 movie released in 2007. It was the year 007, after all.
whatever.
Friday, December 11, 2009
Note: I prefer not to announce when I am out of town, so this article is scheduled to be published on Dec 11, 2009--two days after it was written.
I found out after lunch that I would have to go on a business trip this evening. I feel whatever about it. I kind of had to rush to pack everything, and in the process forgot one or two things I'll have to buy once I arrive. I think this is the first time I've had to make an "emergency" trip. I've made unscheduled trips before, but never the day I found out about the problem.
The only thing I'm not happy about is I'll probably have to work until about midnight once I get there. Actually, I'm really not happy about the mysterious nature of the problem I have to solve. If I knew why there was a problem and how to fix it, I would feel a lot better. Of course, if I knew that, I could phone in the directions. whatever.
This trip could be really easy or really hard. That has me nervous. whatever.
I found out after lunch that I would have to go on a business trip this evening. I feel whatever about it. I kind of had to rush to pack everything, and in the process forgot one or two things I'll have to buy once I arrive. I think this is the first time I've had to make an "emergency" trip. I've made unscheduled trips before, but never the day I found out about the problem.
The only thing I'm not happy about is I'll probably have to work until about midnight once I get there. Actually, I'm really not happy about the mysterious nature of the problem I have to solve. If I knew why there was a problem and how to fix it, I would feel a lot better. Of course, if I knew that, I could phone in the directions. whatever.
This trip could be really easy or really hard. That has me nervous. whatever.
Wednesday, December 09, 2009
I saw this article on cnn.com:
10 fun, affordable gifts for co-workers
May I suggest an alternative? Don't buy your co-worker's gifts for Christmas. There are times where it is appropriate to buy a co-worker a gift--perhaps for a wedding or birth of a child. These tend to go well if the entire office pitches in. Christmas (or any of the other December holidays) is not an occasion to buy a present for a co-worker.
I can think of several reasons why you should not buy your co-worker a present:
1. It creates a situation in which they feel obligated to also buy a gift for you, and they may not enjoy exchanging gifts with people or not want to spend money on every single person they know.
2. There are better ways to spend your time and money if you want to show gratitude to your co-workers. Baking Christmas cookies and placing them in the break-room for everyone to share is a much better alternative.
3. Your co-worker probably already has enough crap on his desk.
Along those lines, there may be a few appropriate times to buy someone in the office something. Perhaps you are the boss and want to thank your employees for the work they have done all year. Maybe there is someone you owe a huge favor (like an IT guy who went the extra mile, maybe). There may be other reasons, but there are couple things to keep in mind:
1. If you are spending company money to buy something for your employees, make sure it doesn't take money away from an account your employees actually want the money to be in. I'm thinking of Christmas Vacation when Chevy Chase's character got a jelly of the month gift instead of the usual bonus.
2. Food often gains more gratitude than trinkets. Something like the "Butt Station Pencil Holder" may not be as appreciated as a gift card to Panera. If the person doesn't hate spending time with you, taking them out for lunch would be nice as well. Just make sure you keep diet considerations in mind. Giving a box of Krispy Kremes to a diebetic with poor self control, for example, would be a bad idea.
Maybe I could write these stupid career articles.
whatever.
10 fun, affordable gifts for co-workers
May I suggest an alternative? Don't buy your co-worker's gifts for Christmas. There are times where it is appropriate to buy a co-worker a gift--perhaps for a wedding or birth of a child. These tend to go well if the entire office pitches in. Christmas (or any of the other December holidays) is not an occasion to buy a present for a co-worker.
I can think of several reasons why you should not buy your co-worker a present:
1. It creates a situation in which they feel obligated to also buy a gift for you, and they may not enjoy exchanging gifts with people or not want to spend money on every single person they know.
2. There are better ways to spend your time and money if you want to show gratitude to your co-workers. Baking Christmas cookies and placing them in the break-room for everyone to share is a much better alternative.
3. Your co-worker probably already has enough crap on his desk.
Along those lines, there may be a few appropriate times to buy someone in the office something. Perhaps you are the boss and want to thank your employees for the work they have done all year. Maybe there is someone you owe a huge favor (like an IT guy who went the extra mile, maybe). There may be other reasons, but there are couple things to keep in mind:
1. If you are spending company money to buy something for your employees, make sure it doesn't take money away from an account your employees actually want the money to be in. I'm thinking of Christmas Vacation when Chevy Chase's character got a jelly of the month gift instead of the usual bonus.
2. Food often gains more gratitude than trinkets. Something like the "Butt Station Pencil Holder" may not be as appreciated as a gift card to Panera. If the person doesn't hate spending time with you, taking them out for lunch would be nice as well. Just make sure you keep diet considerations in mind. Giving a box of Krispy Kremes to a diebetic with poor self control, for example, would be a bad idea.
Maybe I could write these stupid career articles.
whatever.
Tuesday, December 08, 2009
I took a walk again tonight. This time not as far, not as late and with the kids. I have not found any clarity. I think last night was a fluke and I would have found clarity without the walk.
whatever. I still enjoyed it. I wish I could make a habit out of it. There's not too much to stop me. The weather makes it kind of hard. It was cold and wet tonight, but not as cold or as wet as it can get. Trying to keep this up in January could be hard. Along those lines, I think taking 365 miles worth of walks next year may be a bit ambitious for me at this point. Maybe I'm just being a pansy.
I have the rest of the year to think about it. I should probably set some goal. Even if I made it my goal to record only 100 miles worth of walks, it would require that I get out of the house a couple times per week. 300 miles would probably require a commitment, but would give me the flexibility to skip days when the weather is awful.
I know people (lots of people) who run 6 miles at a time, and do it several times a week. Maybe to someone like that, stressing out over walking 365 miles in one year seems silly.
whatever. We've already established that I'm neurotic. This can't be much worse.
whatever. I still enjoyed it. I wish I could make a habit out of it. There's not too much to stop me. The weather makes it kind of hard. It was cold and wet tonight, but not as cold or as wet as it can get. Trying to keep this up in January could be hard. Along those lines, I think taking 365 miles worth of walks next year may be a bit ambitious for me at this point. Maybe I'm just being a pansy.
I have the rest of the year to think about it. I should probably set some goal. Even if I made it my goal to record only 100 miles worth of walks, it would require that I get out of the house a couple times per week. 300 miles would probably require a commitment, but would give me the flexibility to skip days when the weather is awful.
I know people (lots of people) who run 6 miles at a time, and do it several times a week. Maybe to someone like that, stressing out over walking 365 miles in one year seems silly.
whatever. We've already established that I'm neurotic. This can't be much worse.
I had a surprising amount of clarity last night. I went for a walk. It is nice to walk around the neighborhood at night when all the lights are up. I did nothing productive with the clarity I found last night. I did find a new game, though.
Bubble Tanks Tower Defense
Another enjoyable tower defense game. Another new challenge of learning the proper strategy for dealing with the onslaught of baddies. Same old same old. Except the stage select approach is unique for tower defense games.
Bubble Tanks Tower Defense
Another enjoyable tower defense game. Another new challenge of learning the proper strategy for dealing with the onslaught of baddies. Same old same old. Except the stage select approach is unique for tower defense games.
The picture doesn't explain it all that well, but you have to beat certain stages to unlock others. Sometimes you only have to beat one of two stages to advance on that path. It's not all that different from something like the world map for a world on Super Mario Bros. 3.
There also seems to be a lot of variety in game play among the levels. I haven't been playing it all that long, so far, but I imagine I will be playing it for quite awhile to come.
Monday, December 07, 2009
I thought I had a unique idea to create a social network like Facebook that included dislike buttons as well as like buttons and keeping an enemies list as well as friend lists. Unfortunately, someone beat me to the name hatebook.com.
whatever. I wasn't serious about the idea, and if I were, I wouldn't want it to be only about hate.
whatever. I wasn't serious about the idea, and if I were, I wouldn't want it to be only about hate.
Saturday, December 05, 2009
I was watching an old episode of Star Trek TNG, and I thought I saw a transvestite. There was a very mannish looking person in one of the Star Fleet miniskirt uniforms. Was the show trying to make some sort of statement about the future? In the future, humanity will be so open minded that people won't think twice about seeing a man wearing a dress for a uniform on a space ship? Maybe one of the writers was just a big David Bowie fan.
Friday, December 04, 2009
Around here, the nights in December are so clear, quiet, dark and cold you can almost start to think clearly.
When does winter really start? Different traditions give different start dates. My calendar says winter begins on December 21. I would say winter starts December 1 and ends March 1, give or take a couple weeks.
I haven't had a strong memory for a month or so, but thinking about January brought back a rush of memories of time spent in the school gymnasium in the winter.
whatever.
When does winter really start? Different traditions give different start dates. My calendar says winter begins on December 21. I would say winter starts December 1 and ends March 1, give or take a couple weeks.
I haven't had a strong memory for a month or so, but thinking about January brought back a rush of memories of time spent in the school gymnasium in the winter.
whatever.
I'm listening to the Sad Kermit version of Needle in the Hay. I wish I knew what was so powerful about a green puppet singing a sad song.
"Gonna walk walk walk...four more blocks, plus the one in my brain."
whatever. Thanks, Thomas, for posting this on your blog. Now I think of Sad Kermit whenever I hear that song.
"Gonna walk walk walk...four more blocks, plus the one in my brain."
whatever. Thanks, Thomas, for posting this on your blog. Now I think of Sad Kermit whenever I hear that song.
Thursday, December 03, 2009
The first three stories under the "U.S." section of cnn.com right now are about Tiger Woods. I am starting to hear interesting rumors about how much of a playboy he is/has been. At the same time, I'm starting to get over my fascination with the story. I think I started to get over it when I read a story about what the neighbors said about the incident.
It was something like:
I was up at that time watching TV when I heard the crash. When I got outside, I saw Tiger lying on the grass and his wife not beating him with a golf club. She asked me to call 911. The first thing I thought when I saw them was, 'She did not just beat him with a golf club.' I saw the injuries on his face and thought, 'Wow! Those do not look like the injuries of a man who was beat up by his wife with a golf club.'
That's a paraphrase, of course, and subject to much error in retelling. Point is, if his wife didn't beat him up with a golf club, I no longer care. If Tiger Woods sleeps with lots of women, that is a shame and he should have better morals, but it doesn't really surprise me. He is TIGER WOODS. He is the highest paid pro athlete. He is the greatest golfer there ever was. It's hard to find anyone who will ever say anything bad about him. Because of that, he has to have a gigantic ego. In my mind, gigantic egos and insatiable sex drives go together. In fact, I can think of a number of people who were at the top of their craft and got around plenty. Wilt Chamberlain is a good example. It even affects mathematicians, like Bertrand Russell.
I'm not saying I'm OK with Tiger Woods sleeping around. I'm not saying people who are good at something should be held to a different moral code. I don't know what I'm saying, exactly, except that the rumors don't surprise me.
On a related note, was Bertrand Russell the Wilt Chamberlain of math? Think about it and let me know.
One last thing, while we're on it. Do you think Neil Armstrong got around also? He walked on the moon. THE MOON! I'm sure it would make for a great pickup line. "Hey baby, how many times have you made out with the first man to walk on the moon?". Don't get me wrong, I've heard nothing to indicate he used that line on anyone other than his wife, I'm just saying it's a line most bachelors would love to be able to add to their repertoire.
It was something like:
I was up at that time watching TV when I heard the crash. When I got outside, I saw Tiger lying on the grass and his wife not beating him with a golf club. She asked me to call 911. The first thing I thought when I saw them was, 'She did not just beat him with a golf club.' I saw the injuries on his face and thought, 'Wow! Those do not look like the injuries of a man who was beat up by his wife with a golf club.'
That's a paraphrase, of course, and subject to much error in retelling. Point is, if his wife didn't beat him up with a golf club, I no longer care. If Tiger Woods sleeps with lots of women, that is a shame and he should have better morals, but it doesn't really surprise me. He is TIGER WOODS. He is the highest paid pro athlete. He is the greatest golfer there ever was. It's hard to find anyone who will ever say anything bad about him. Because of that, he has to have a gigantic ego. In my mind, gigantic egos and insatiable sex drives go together. In fact, I can think of a number of people who were at the top of their craft and got around plenty. Wilt Chamberlain is a good example. It even affects mathematicians, like Bertrand Russell.
I'm not saying I'm OK with Tiger Woods sleeping around. I'm not saying people who are good at something should be held to a different moral code. I don't know what I'm saying, exactly, except that the rumors don't surprise me.
On a related note, was Bertrand Russell the Wilt Chamberlain of math? Think about it and let me know.
One last thing, while we're on it. Do you think Neil Armstrong got around also? He walked on the moon. THE MOON! I'm sure it would make for a great pickup line. "Hey baby, how many times have you made out with the first man to walk on the moon?". Don't get me wrong, I've heard nothing to indicate he used that line on anyone other than his wife, I'm just saying it's a line most bachelors would love to be able to add to their repertoire.
Wednesday, December 02, 2009
It seems FIFA is going discipline French soccer player Henry for committing a handball or two during a key qualifying match against Ireland (story here). Maybe their will not be a punishment, but they did at least open a "disciplinary case". The Irish team got screwed on this one. The ref missed a call that would have prevented a late goal.
I don't understand disciplining Henry for committing the offense after the fact. This seems to be like the NFL reviewing tapes of games so it can hand out fines to players who tackle their opponents too hard, even if there wasn't a flag on the play. I don't know if the NFL still does that, but it seemed like a well-intentioned ridiculous policy.
I would understand a little more if the handball had been called and Henry had been red-carded for unsportsmanlike like conduct. I've never seen it happen, but I've heard a field player can be red-carded for a hand ball in the penalty box if the hand ball prevented a goal by the other team. I don't know if this is even at a similar level of unsportsmanlike like conduct, but the ref didn't see it, the ref didn't call the foul, Henry got away with it, and that should be the end of it.
Apparently FIFA president Sepp Blatter would not agree with me. 'Blatter described Henry's hand ball as "blatant unfair playing" that was seen around the world.' Fair enough, Blatter, but if it were so blatant and visible, why didn't the official call a foul during the match?
If the hand ball were so flagrant, one of the officials should have seen it and called for a free kick. If the officials did not see it, then either it was not flagrant, they were not in a position to see it, they were not paying attention to the match, or they need to have their vision checked.
In my opinion, it was an intentional handball, and the officials may not have seen it because their vision of the play was obstructed by other players on the field.
I took the above image from a you-tube video and added some annotations. This shot is taken a split second before the hand ball. It gives a good idea of the line of site of the officials. It seems like it would be pretty hard to spot the subtle yet intentional handling of the ball from the positions the officials were in. When you combine this with how obvious the handling is from other camera angles (video here 25 seconds in), it seems to make a good case for adding instant replay to yet another sport.
I think the whole thing is pretty lame on the part of FIFA. Ireland got cheated, but human error is part of the game. FIFA needs to do something, but it doesn't want to reverse the outcome of the match or change the way the game is officiated, so it goes after the player. I understand their reasoning, but it still rubs me the wrong way. It does nothing to rectify the situation or solve the problems that caused it. There is an appropriate way to deal with what Henry did, but it has to come during the match. I think a number of players would have done what Henry did in the same situation. I think a lot of players may have even done it without thinking.
Maybe I'm wrong. I tend to get wishy-washy about this stuff after I think about it for awhile. Henry is a great player. He probably would never unintentionally handle the ball the way a soccer newbie would. He was probably quick enough to assess the situation and realize that the only way to keep the ball in play was to stop it with his hand. He may have even been aware of the fact that he would have gotten away with it, though it's doubtful.
whatever. When does a foul on the field become cheating? Will it improve the integrity of the game if FIFA disciplines Henry? Who cares? If FIFA only fines Henry, then it is probably no big deal for anyone. If Henry has to miss a game in the World Cup next year, that could really hurt France.
I don't understand disciplining Henry for committing the offense after the fact. This seems to be like the NFL reviewing tapes of games so it can hand out fines to players who tackle their opponents too hard, even if there wasn't a flag on the play. I don't know if the NFL still does that, but it seemed like a well-intentioned ridiculous policy.
I would understand a little more if the handball had been called and Henry had been red-carded for unsportsmanlike like conduct. I've never seen it happen, but I've heard a field player can be red-carded for a hand ball in the penalty box if the hand ball prevented a goal by the other team. I don't know if this is even at a similar level of unsportsmanlike like conduct, but the ref didn't see it, the ref didn't call the foul, Henry got away with it, and that should be the end of it.
Apparently FIFA president Sepp Blatter would not agree with me. 'Blatter described Henry's hand ball as "blatant unfair playing" that was seen around the world.' Fair enough, Blatter, but if it were so blatant and visible, why didn't the official call a foul during the match?
If the hand ball were so flagrant, one of the officials should have seen it and called for a free kick. If the officials did not see it, then either it was not flagrant, they were not in a position to see it, they were not paying attention to the match, or they need to have their vision checked.
In my opinion, it was an intentional handball, and the officials may not have seen it because their vision of the play was obstructed by other players on the field.
I took the above image from a you-tube video and added some annotations. This shot is taken a split second before the hand ball. It gives a good idea of the line of site of the officials. It seems like it would be pretty hard to spot the subtle yet intentional handling of the ball from the positions the officials were in. When you combine this with how obvious the handling is from other camera angles (video here 25 seconds in), it seems to make a good case for adding instant replay to yet another sport.
I think the whole thing is pretty lame on the part of FIFA. Ireland got cheated, but human error is part of the game. FIFA needs to do something, but it doesn't want to reverse the outcome of the match or change the way the game is officiated, so it goes after the player. I understand their reasoning, but it still rubs me the wrong way. It does nothing to rectify the situation or solve the problems that caused it. There is an appropriate way to deal with what Henry did, but it has to come during the match. I think a number of players would have done what Henry did in the same situation. I think a lot of players may have even done it without thinking.
Maybe I'm wrong. I tend to get wishy-washy about this stuff after I think about it for awhile. Henry is a great player. He probably would never unintentionally handle the ball the way a soccer newbie would. He was probably quick enough to assess the situation and realize that the only way to keep the ball in play was to stop it with his hand. He may have even been aware of the fact that he would have gotten away with it, though it's doubtful.
whatever. When does a foul on the field become cheating? Will it improve the integrity of the game if FIFA disciplines Henry? Who cares? If FIFA only fines Henry, then it is probably no big deal for anyone. If Henry has to miss a game in the World Cup next year, that could really hurt France.
Tuesday, December 01, 2009
I finally caught a Star Trek TNG from the late 80s. Most of the acting and a lot of the writing was absolutely horrible.
I still don't understand the point of Wesley Crusher. Why would anyone allow a child to operate the helm of a starship? I understand it's fiction, but it's bad fiction. whatever. I still enjoy watching it.
I still don't understand the point of Wesley Crusher. Why would anyone allow a child to operate the helm of a starship? I understand it's fiction, but it's bad fiction. whatever. I still enjoy watching it.
Palin reaches the 1 million mark
Palin sold 1 million copies of her book? I really wonder a few things:
Why would anyone buy, let alone read, a book written by Palin?
Why would anyone buy that book in hardcover? The price for the book ranges from $14.50 to $28.99.
What could possibly be in her book that would be interesting?
Maybe I'm out of touch. I rarely buy hardcover books. I also think Sarah Palin is a stupid woman who makes poor decisions, got lucky in being nominated for Vice President, and has been milking that luck for all the publicity she can get.
whatever.
Palin sold 1 million copies of her book? I really wonder a few things:
Why would anyone buy, let alone read, a book written by Palin?
Why would anyone buy that book in hardcover? The price for the book ranges from $14.50 to $28.99.
What could possibly be in her book that would be interesting?
Maybe I'm out of touch. I rarely buy hardcover books. I also think Sarah Palin is a stupid woman who makes poor decisions, got lucky in being nominated for Vice President, and has been milking that luck for all the publicity she can get.
whatever.
E-Mail Fracas Shows Peril of Trying to Spin Science
I am sure I have mentioned things like this before. Global warming may be a very real phenomenon. It seems likely to me that the levels of greenhouse gasses we release into the atmosphere contribute to global warming.
What I don't understand is why the climate scientists mentioned in the article would hide their raw data. Actually, there are a number of plausible reasons. A couple I could think of:
1. Their raw data is a mess and could be hard to make sense of.
Ideally, their raw data should be organized enough by now so that they could at least keep track of it. Considering the number of different sources they use, managing the complete data set could be a nightmare.
2. Their raw data is littered with data from non-credible sources.
If you combine those two, there could be a reasonable fear among the scientists that skeptics would cherry pick data that would support claims that global warming is a hoax. I think this is understandable, to a degree. I think it would take an expert to be able to separate good data from bad data and piece it together in a way that provides an accurate picture. I do not think it would be all that difficult to piece the data together in a way that does not represent the truth.
Do climate scientists believe that global warming is happening regardless of what the data says or do they have real evidence and don't want people to misconstrue it in a way that gives humanity a false sense of security?
I don't know. I do know that a lack of transparency on the part of the scientists advocating changes in government policy will not help them in the long run. Keeping the source of their data to themselves makes it seem like they are a group of people terrified they will lose relevancy if the "truth" comes out. This probably isn't the case, but adding cause to skepticism will certainly not help their cause.
On a side note, the same goes for Tiger Woods. Until he offers some reasonable explanation for why he hit a fire hydrant at 2:30AM, people are going to assume the following:
He got in a fight with his wife. She chased him out of the house with a golf club. He was distracted by the crazy lady chasing after him and hit a fire hydrant and a tree. He locked the doors so she couldn't get in. She used the golf club to break the window. Once inside the SUV, she beat him to unconsciousness with the golf club. After a minute, she came to her senses and called 911.
That is a ludicrous explanation. I doubt it happened that way, but until Tiger Woods says gives people some reason to think it was just an "ordinary" accident, people are going to assume the worst.
I can't believe I compared global warming to Tiger Woods' accident. whatever.
I am sure I have mentioned things like this before. Global warming may be a very real phenomenon. It seems likely to me that the levels of greenhouse gasses we release into the atmosphere contribute to global warming.
What I don't understand is why the climate scientists mentioned in the article would hide their raw data. Actually, there are a number of plausible reasons. A couple I could think of:
1. Their raw data is a mess and could be hard to make sense of.
Ideally, their raw data should be organized enough by now so that they could at least keep track of it. Considering the number of different sources they use, managing the complete data set could be a nightmare.
2. Their raw data is littered with data from non-credible sources.
If you combine those two, there could be a reasonable fear among the scientists that skeptics would cherry pick data that would support claims that global warming is a hoax. I think this is understandable, to a degree. I think it would take an expert to be able to separate good data from bad data and piece it together in a way that provides an accurate picture. I do not think it would be all that difficult to piece the data together in a way that does not represent the truth.
Do climate scientists believe that global warming is happening regardless of what the data says or do they have real evidence and don't want people to misconstrue it in a way that gives humanity a false sense of security?
I don't know. I do know that a lack of transparency on the part of the scientists advocating changes in government policy will not help them in the long run. Keeping the source of their data to themselves makes it seem like they are a group of people terrified they will lose relevancy if the "truth" comes out. This probably isn't the case, but adding cause to skepticism will certainly not help their cause.
On a side note, the same goes for Tiger Woods. Until he offers some reasonable explanation for why he hit a fire hydrant at 2:30AM, people are going to assume the following:
He got in a fight with his wife. She chased him out of the house with a golf club. He was distracted by the crazy lady chasing after him and hit a fire hydrant and a tree. He locked the doors so she couldn't get in. She used the golf club to break the window. Once inside the SUV, she beat him to unconsciousness with the golf club. After a minute, she came to her senses and called 911.
That is a ludicrous explanation. I doubt it happened that way, but until Tiger Woods says gives people some reason to think it was just an "ordinary" accident, people are going to assume the worst.
I can't believe I compared global warming to Tiger Woods' accident. whatever.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
