stress venting area of an australian with a phd. allegedly.
Many people would decry this as language imperialism. Others lament the loss many minor native languages. How is it imperialism if the Chlieans are imposing it on themselves? Why is it that nobody even mentions the main, overwhelming positive aspect: a global language would be mightly useful. A multitude of languages promotes divisions, and is hence conducive to misunderstandings. Granted, English is far from perfect (mainly due to its screwed up spelling); it is, however, quite simple in its grammar. It also belongs to no one: if you feel like using a new word (either stolen from a different language or artifically constructed), nobody is stopping you.
Wasn't that profoundly insightful kids? Now back to the regularly scheduled imperialistic activities.
What an amazing revelation. And this new bible to relationships is having a second printing of 400,000 copies.
Are US chicks really this retarded ? Have they ever heard of picking up the phone themselves, instead of just sitting around, pretending to be helpless ?
The article gets even more enlightening, with "[a female] asked Behrendt about a guy she had jogged with, and really liked, who never asked her out." Why on earth are only guys supposed to do the asking ?
If you need a time filler for two hours, you could do worse. If you want to be entertained, go see Collateral instead.
Collateral has, what some people call, Big Name Stars, i.e. Tom Cruise and Jada Pinkett Smith. One would could thus expect the usual Hollywood shlock. Collateral definitely has the shlock element, via the presence of convenient coincidences and people wearing sunglasses in the middle of the night. Once you get over that, the movie offers a bunch of good elements which bring it over the "just an action flick" line. One of the elements is the use of hand held digital cameras. These things are much smaller than the typical film cameras, meaning they fit in places that the latter do not, giving the movie (in parts) an eerie "i'm there" feeling. A consequence of being in closer quarters with the characters is a simmering tension: you feel that one of the main characters is a dangerous fuck and you don't know what he has in mind next. The performance of Jamie Foxx is less impressionable... or maybe that's the point: the character is somewhat disconnected from the world, and is thus someone who hasn't got a hold of the situation and is just waiting for it to pass. In other areas the flick offers nicely stylistic night time views of a sprawling metropolis, and dialogue that has a considerable portion of substance to it.
Overall Collateral is not a masterpiece, but it is notably better than most of the recent stuff in cinemas and on DVD.
The movie relies on the non-linear showing of the storyline, ala Pulp Fiction. This sucks you in, as you try to figure out what fits where. Along the way you see three types of acting: fine, with great emotional depth (Watts), annoyingly stoic (Sean Penn, who seems to do this in every movie) and old-school (Del Toro). If you re-assemble the movie into a linear portrayal, you get a fairly boring story about human loss, loss of faith, organ transplants and bad luck. The movie attempts to make itself more serious by trying rather too hard to make the relationships between its characters dysfunctional and convoluted. This works against it, as the plot gets to the point of being unbelievable. Towards the end I really didn't care what happened.
Was this worth $7 ? You already know my answer.
An extract from the above-linked poll (which is part of similar polls from around the world):
Q2. Overall, do you have a very favourable opinion, a somewhat favourable, somewhat unfavourable or very unfavourable opinion towards...
This says so many things it's not funny. Many times have I encountered females like that. My sister is one of them.
The above quote is the tip of more general ideas, one of them being: a female will almost always wait for the male to make a move, which she can then reject or accept. In other words, it is in her nature to prefer to have the power in the situation. Nice'n'safe. The male has to do the work. No wonder males die earlier.
Thank fucking God there is a short-circuit to this bullshit behaviour: don't put yourself in that kind of situation in the first place. I don't mean become gay or start rooting chickens, simply DO NOT say things like "you have the most beautiful eyes. Can I buy you a drink?" to a girl you've just met. The girl hears this instead: "I am the 192nd guy today who said the same thing. Can I bribe you with an alcoholic beverage so we can have sex later?". You've just failed the first test. That's right, the first test. It shows that you're willing to be a supplicate her. That you're not a challenge. That she can freeload a drink from you.
If you have to comment on her eyes at all (let's say she has green eyes), a more useful thing to say would be: "You have nice eyes. Are you wearing coloured contact lenses?" That puts an entirely different spin on things. It's a compliment mixed with something which defuses the compliment. Yeah, heavy stuff. It shows that you've noticed her, but you're also telling her that you think she is a fake. That you're not like the 191 guys before you. If she keeps talking to you, presto: you've just passed the first test.
One can write an entire book on this shit. To be continued.
"I come from Maine and we had one of the coldest winters on record. It was very, very cold. A lot of people are scratching their beans about whether global warming is occurring. It's a question worth addressing, but on a global basis." [source: NY Times]
Fred "The Retard" Webber made the comments in context to California's regulation that requires automakers to begin selling vehicles with reduced greenhouse gas emissions by model year 2009. The auto industry is screaming blue murder! there is no proven technology! it will be too expensive! there is no such thing as global climate change! the dog ate my homework! blah blah! [related news stories: CNN, Motortrend]
No such thing as global climate change? Fred, dear boy, extreme weather (such as very cold winters) is one of its effects. Since you're too busy brown-nosing your pay masters, here are a few relevant links: The Exploratorium, The Science of Global Warming and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. If that's too heavy for you Fred, a recent news story on melting glaciers might be easier to digest.
No proven technology? Let's take a quick stroll: the simple Displacement on Demand (DoD), which shuts down half the cylinders during highway crusing; Continuously Variable Transmission (CVT); reducing weight via use of aluminium instead of steel (as in the Jaguar XJ); replacing large displacement engines with turbo-charged or super-charged lower displacement engines; replacing hydraulic power steering with electric power steering; integrated alternator/starter motor; use of petrol-electric hybrid engines, more than adequately demonstrated in the Toyota Prius; or how about the relatively simple Permo-Drive, which can be easily added to trucks. No, you're right Fred, there is no proven technology.
Too expensive? Sure, adding extra shit always makes a product more expensive at first. But then, Freddie boy, you're forgetting the effects of economies of scale, which in English means that the more you produce of something, the cheaper it becomes (prime example: DVD players).
Fred, there is one thing I have to know: did you get your qualifications from a Corn Flakes box? Or did you suck one of your paymasters' cocks?
I have taken to the view that research is a game of sorts. There really isn't anything new for the past few years (in my broad research field anyway), and making a small contribution takes a lot of effort. 90% of publications are bullshit (this includes journal articles and conference papers). They're bullshit in the sense that they just rehash ideas, add a little sprinkling on top, tune a few parameters and call it "new". Most of the modifications to well established techniques are just hacks; they are things that would not be taught in a class. They're also bullshit in that ideas "jump" from one field to another; sure you need to demonstrate that it works in the new field, but this type of stuff cannot be seriously called a "new idea".
So the obvious question is: why is crap like this published ? Answer: it is part of the research game. Get a lot of papers published, and people often think that you're doing great work. Lecturers need papers to get promotions (and sometimes to satisfy the research component of their contracts). "Pure researchers" need it as a work output measure to justify their grants or to impress a potential new employer. Laboratories/institutes/universities use it to maintain or enhance their reputation or simply to get some attention. In other words, there is a lot of pressure to publish. But in the end, most of the stuff is just incremental. Rather than working on something decent for a few years, almost all people take the easy road of tinkering with existing methods. Those in the "system" know this, and play along; otherwise, most journals would be only 10 pages thick every month, or conferences would be comprised of presentations for 5 papers... However, applying the economies of scale idea, a lot of the crap publications are necessary to support the good stuff; i.e. for every 100 papers there may be 5 decent ones.
To be continued.
sure... you want me to stick around after the money runs out by dangling a carrot of "you can get money for doing almost nothing". how stupid do you think I am ??
onto the other thought line: i wonder whether the western civilization (and the rest of the world, due to globalization) will fall apart. the precedent: the Roman Empire; the Romans abused humans (which indirectly caused the empire's fall); we abuse technology. prime example: the car. we use it without a second thought; we're addicted to it. warnings about global climate change don't concern us - let's go for a drive and get some coffee at that new place... one of the waitresses is real cute.
today, even though he hasn't come asking more questions: "check with the sponsor, to make sure that the report has stuff that they want".
this is the type of retard i have to work with.
here i sit, analyzing why an experiment is giving me shit results. backtracking the steps I eventually find the cause. next time i know that without certain precautions the same problem will creep up.
sat nite was a few games of pool. sink the required ball in the pocket. if you hit the target ball at the required angle and power, it will go where it is supposed to.
if i don't put enough fuel in a car and go on a long trip, i will never get to my destination.
or how about this: david was speeding and ran over a pedestrian. the pedestrian wasn't looking and ran across the street. the pedestrian was too distracted talking on a mobile fone. to his girlfriend. his girlfriend wanted something from the shop. the pedestrian and his girlfriend met 6 months ago. david, our hapless speed addict, bought a V8 last week and was coming back from a football game, where his team won. he bought the V8 after saving up for it for 5 years. the pedestrian later died in a hospital.
sensing the common theme yet ? yes, it involves using the brain, but that's not the point.
what if we take this to the extreme ? what if every action is just a sum of previous actions ? what if we are able to predict things at a finer and finer level ? say atom movements, say sub-atomic particle movements, etc. wouldn't eventually everything be predictable ?
in other news, i have escaped. new place. new area. now just need to get rid of that pesky cat smell.