| Dinner and a Movie |
[06 Dec 2009|04:07pm] |
| [ |
mood |
| |
 amused |
] |
| [ |
music |
| |
Hikaru Nanase |
] |
Dinner of Darkness
The Amazing Dinner Adventure
Waking Dinner
Funeral Parade of Dinners
The Most Dangerous Dinner
A Fistful of Dinner
Dinner in the Garden of Good and Evil
Million Dollar Dinner
Dinner Begins
Rosencrantz & Gildenstern are Dinner
Lethal Dinner
No Dinner for Old Men
|
|
| Par for the Course |
[02 Dec 2009|04:26pm] |
| [ |
mood |
| |
 productive |
] |
| [ |
music |
| |
Phoenix |
] |
A short film I worked on with my intern for my friend Tom Lutz, the Pastor of the local Lutheran Church.
|
|
| Unmistaken Nonsense |
[25 Nov 2009|12:37pm] |
| [ |
mood |
| |
 aggravated |
] |
| [ |
music |
| |
Vangelis |
] |
I recently had a debate with a friend of mine about the documentary film, Unmistaken Child.
I was arguing in favor of reason and he was arguing in favor of the movie. The events in the film are virtually harmless; Tenzin Zopa, a Nepalese monk, sets out on a journey to finds a child he believes to be the reincarnation of his master of 21 years and proceeds to take the child from his parents to be brought up in a monastery.
Things go rather smoothly for the monk and without any questioning and that's what bothers me.
This is 2009, we actually know something about the Universe we live in, we have observed objects in space lightyears away, we have discovered a subatomic world, we use satellites to guide us while we drive. What are we doing using wind directions, the interpretation of ashes and astrological readings?
The monks aren't hurting anybody, so their practice doesn't bother me as much as the exoticism that surrounds it. The people that come to its defense are the same people that will defend something like this:
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20091124/twl-tv-presenter-on-death-row-for-witchc-3fd0ae9.html
The attitude of, "Well, that's their culture and beliefs, so we should respect them," is something I've lost patience with. Magic is not real and this casual belief in it holds the door open for more dangerous nonsense.
Perhaps in the future we can have a series of robot older brothers whose only function is to recognise stupid statements and follow them with a punch to the person's upper arm.
|
|
| Anti-Social Networking Ideas |
[25 Nov 2009|02:43am] |
| [ |
mood |
| |
 rejuvenated |
] |
| [ |
music |
| |
Jonathan Coulton - Still Alive |
] |
A while ago I made a satirical entry about a fictional website called getawayfromme.com
Today I was made aware that similar anti-social networking sites exist, arsebook and farcebook These sites aren't nearly as innovative as getawayfromme.com, which is disappointing. Basically, all they did was paint the old idea a different color, "Instead of your friends, it'll be your enemies!"
Uh huh.
Discovering another one of my predictions about the Internet, culture, and art exists is affirming but not surprising. Humans have only a limited number of reactions, therefore the idea of an anti-social networking site was inevitable.
You all remember http://www.deadjournal.com "Instead of life, it'll be death!"
Where do you suppose all the other inversions of websites are. Where's the upturned Twitter where you can type all the words you want (er... I think that's called a blog), or how about a variant of Google that changes your search into an anagram of what you typed and searches that instead.
"Above all, it's creative thinking that lies at the basis of discoveries. You must dare to think differently, see things from different sides, in order to come across fortuitous new ideas frequently. You should develop even the most stupid ideas and when you do this systematically, there will always come something useful out of it." -Simon van der Meer
|
|
| the truth |
[22 Nov 2009|09:15pm] |
| [ |
mood |
| |
 okay |
] |
| [ |
music |
| |
You Are The Quarry |
] |
"You can't handle the truth." -Aaron Sorkin
The above quote is taken out of context, but nevertheless is an accurate description about how most of us respond to reality; we can't handle it because we find it uncomfortable, and because we find it uncomfortable we will therefore find ways to dodge it. People will deny the truth, twist it about, select the pieces that they like while leaving the rest, et cetera.
Why is this?
I don't think the truth hurts. Or rather, I don't think the truth should have to hurt.
Everytime the truth does hurt it happens under special circumstances and I feel as though I may have uncovered what those circumstances are.
A few cultures across the globe have the morally suspect practice of teaching their children that a rotund man will methodically follow and document their every move all day, every day, for the entire year, in order to determine whether or not the child is worthy of receiving his presents.
If you happen to be a particularly paranoid child, learning that you are in fact not being followed year round by this unusual and bearded man and his wild animals is something of a relief.
However, most children become distressed once they learn the truth and for various reasons.
But what actually upset them?
I would argue that a child that had the truth explained to them from the very beginning does not face the same disappointment. Aside from questioning the motives of the adults that perpetuate a tradition of needlessly lying to their children, we learn from this example that it wasn't actually the truth that hurt.
Consequently, I believe that people should be exposed to the truth immediately, whatever the case may be.
|
|
| World Peace |
[18 Nov 2009|02:42pm] |
|
Is World Peace possible?
Or a better question, do you think people want World Peace?
|
|
| Hypothetical Fools |
[15 Nov 2009|09:07pm] |
| [ |
mood |
| |
 frustrated |
] |
| [ |
music |
| |
Phoenix |
] |
I ask a great deal of questions, many of them hypothetical. Most times it's to spark conversation at a party or to play around with an idea. Some of the trouble I run into when asking questions is that I run into pompous fools.
You know the type, guys who are fools and are covering for it by impressing on people as to how wonderful they are with all this self-flattery and trying to prove they are correct by holding the same opinion at the end of a conversation as they did at the beginning.
Take for example a someone who asks, "So, you believe in the Big Bang Theory then?"
This person is going to have another idea about astrophysics than is accurate, which is absurd.
You can take the time to discuss observational evidence, the expansion of the Universe and if they knew that the static on their television is caused by radiation left over from the Big Bang, but these points are not helpful when dealing with a pompous fool.
The pompous fool will argue back nonsense, "You weren't there, so how could you know?""What happened before the Big Bang?" and "How do you know TV static isn't ghosts?"
Uh huh.
There's a difference between arguing a hypothetical for the sake of creating a fertile ground for iterative problem solving and being an obstinate tosspot only interested in being able to find new ways to interpret your own ideas.
|
|
| Privacy problems |
[13 Nov 2009|02:34pm] |
| [ |
mood |
| |
 indifferent |
] |
| [ |
music |
| |
Phoenix |
] |
What exactly do you need privacy for?
Your morning shower, getting dressed, sex?
Whenever some malnourished hippie that smells of incense and a liberal agenda explains to me about privacy issues and how, "they don't want the government watching them," I can't help but find those thoughts egocentric.
This is the same person willfully sharing with the Internet details about their life, either on some social networking site or a blog or a youtube page. Even the details one would choose to leave out of one's profile, can be added by friends by picture tagging or posting comments.
Chances are no one in the government cares nor has the time to check out your facebook page anyway.
What are people up to that they don't want other people to know about?
In my experience, it can never be anything good.
Say you know a couple that on the surface looks very much in love, but you know for a fact one of them is cheating, but you don't know which one it is.
They don't know that you know this. So, in an effort to get the cheater to expose themselves to you, you bring up privacy and facebook.
Which one out of the two would probably have ambiguous issues with a lack of privacy?
|
|
| Macho Comedian |
[04 Nov 2009|05:12pm] |
| [ |
mood |
| |
complacent |
] |
| [ |
music |
| |
Johnny Cash |
] |
I have this weird suspicion that Randall Mario Poffo, better known as Macho Man Randy Savage, really wanted to be a stand-up comedian, but felt compelled to follow in the family business, which was wrestling.
Think I'm talking nonsense? Watch this clip:
Both his father and brother were wrestlers. This probably prompted Macho Man to hide what his family would consider to be a lesser profession.
You could argue that Macho Man actually wanted to be a baseball player, since that's what he was doing before he threw his shoulder out and became a wrestler, but the problem with that argument is that if you look at Macho Man you can tell he's a natural athlete, so being a minor league baseball outfielder was probably something that came naturally to him, and the things that come natural to us are rarely the things that we have a passion for.
My guess is that he tried the baseball thing to avoid falling into the footsteps of his father, but when he had no choice but to become a wrestler he found ways to work in his true passion.
How many of you have a career path that was influenced by your parents?
How many of you are doing something that comes naturally to you while secretly working on your passion?
|
|
| Is Google... |
[31 Oct 2009|05:48pm] |
| [ |
mood |
| |
complacent |
] |
| [ |
music |
| |
symphony of science |
] |
Everyone remembers the Google screenshots I've captured on this blog?
Well, ![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif) monochromeninja just informed me that this page exists: http://www.gdumb.com
Now that I know someone has this covered, I can get back to work on more serious topics and stop messing around with the silly questions people have for the Internet.
|
|
| Why I am for the Global Blasphemy Law |
[30 Oct 2009|12:16pm] |
| [ |
mood |
| |
 listless |
] |
| [ |
music |
| |
Shakkazombie |
] |
If you're not familiar with the Global Blasphemy Law allow me to sum up:
No one anywhere on the planet Earth is allowed to, in any way whatsoever, insult any and all religious beliefs, under penalty of something probably very nasty and ludicrously legal.
(If you like, you can read more about it here: http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/1027/p08s01-comv.html)
So, why exactly am I for this nonsense when it clearly violates any and all free speech, while also giving these people permission to slap several hefty fines on my person?
Because they couldn't.
And the reason they couldn't is because they wouldn't be allowed to admit they were offended in any way whatsoever, because that would mean that they would have to admit that they held religious beliefs, which, under Global Blasphemy Law, they are not allowed to do.
Allow me to explain, and follow my logic carefully, because it is calculatedly flawed.
1. No one is allowed to insult any religion according to Global Blasphemy Law.
2. Most holy books will insist on its followers not worshiping alternate deities.
3. Belief in another deity or set of beliefs is abhorrent in the eyes of God and therefore an insult to that religion and its people (not to mention the act being punishable by eternal torture).
4. Hence, the mere practice of any religion would be an insult to any other religion, thus making it impossible for anyone to practice anything.
5. World Peace?
So there you have it, problem solved and everyone can go back to just getting on with their lives.
|
|
| Mortality Quote |
[24 Oct 2009|12:05pm] |
| [ |
mood |
| |
 awake |
] |
| [ |
music |
| |
Smashing Pumpkins |
] |
"Whatever became of the moment when one first knew about death? There must have been one. A moment. In childhood. When it first occurred to you that you don't go on forever. Must have been shattering. Stamped into one's memory. And yet, I can't remember it. It never occurred to me at all. We must be born with an intuition of mortality. Before we know the word for it. Before we know that there are words. Out we come, bloodied and squalling, with the knowledge that for all the points of the compass, there's only one direction. And time is its only measure." -Rosencrantz
|
|
| Another Doomsday |
[20 Oct 2009|11:44am] |
| [ |
mood |
| |
 tired |
] |
| [ |
music |
| |
Lady Gaga |
] |
For those of you who haven't figured it out already, (which is no one here now, since the people who read my blog are more intelligent than that) the world ending in 2012 is a hoax:
http://www.physorg.com/news175236478.html
We've seen this nonsense spread everywhere from the Interwebs to the History Channel to the glossies, and a good question to ask ourselves right about now would be, "Why?"
Why what? Why didn't someone laugh in the face of the person who suggested it, why do people continually give into doomsday predictions (see: Y2K), why wasn't this simply printed in the Weekly World News so we could snicker at it while waiting in the checkout line at the market?
People like to feel important. They like to believe that the time they live in is a special one where interesting and grand cosmical events will take place. Take for example the Evangelicals who believe we're living in the "end of days" (note: not the same end of days as 2012 mind you).
What's downright bizarre is how these events people look forward to are ones that will destroy them and everyone they care about.
Chances are doomsday predictions have a sort of social effect that could be beneficial.
For instance, my attempts to get people who claim to believe the world will end Dec. 21, 2012 to write me a check the size of their bank account that will clear on Dec. 22, 2012.
Their apprehension in whipping out the checkbook tells me there is something inside their head that has made the automatic calculation of 2012 being a hoax. Why this something hasn't been brought to the forefront of this person's thinking is beyond me.
Doomsday predictions can also act as a way to get someone to express their fears or ignorance on a particular topic. Y2K struck when people knew less about computers than they do now.
Before it came back from the future to stop itself, I've heard people suggest that the Large Hadron Collider and 2012 are somehow linked.
Why do you suppose people need the world to constantly be on the brink of destruction?
|
|
| Two Movies Hypothetical |
[06 Oct 2009|11:51pm] |
| [ |
mood |
| |
 curious |
] |
Somehow someone produced two unauthorized movies about your life.
The first is an independent documentary. The documentary features vignettes of you going about your life completely unaware of the camera crew that must've been hiding in the bushes (or as the bushes) in order to procure this footage. It also includes uncomfortably honest interviews with all your family, friends, and enemies.
The Second movie is a major motion picture from Hollywood. It has all the people you would have suspected playing you and all of your friends and family. Critics and audiences alike find they like the film and it has both a 91% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes and has a 9 star rating on IMDB.
Which film are you more interested in watching?
|
|
| Mono no AWARE Study |
[29 Sep 2009|12:37am] |
| [ |
mood |
| |
 confused |
] |
| [ |
music |
| |
Yasunori Mitsuda |
] |
Death is one of those many things your mind blocks out on a day-to-day basis in an attempt to keep you on a mentally even keel.
The reason is because Death is not pleasant and being constantly aware of it will make life rather difficult.
Just try to function in society while being fixated on Death.
You start asking perfectly happy people questions about it they simply don't want to be asked.
These are nice folk who have Death fenced off in a dark and sunless prairie, located on a desolate moon, deep in the subconscious Universe of their minds and here you come in your morbid spaceship asking things like, "I keep thinking about Death from the perspective of being alive, don't you?"
I spent a good portion of last night reading Epitaphs and from a quick bit of math I could tell the majority of them ironically didn't believe in Death (or rather, being dead).
Dr. Sam Parnia and the AWARE Study seem to be fixated on Death.
Their dilemma is that no one wants to hear about Death. Their solution is to not talk about Death and instead talk about consciousness... sorta....
Sources of the above nonsense:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/33055341#33055341 (w/ video)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33055601/ns/today-today_health
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080910090829.htm
"Curiosity did not kill this cat." -Studs Terkel
|
|
| You and your Clone: The Dilemma |
[21 Sep 2009|01:31pm] |
This is supplementary material to the question posed in You and your Clone
We'll presume our situation to be the exact way it was in the previous thought experiment, except this time, as you and your clone are being lead into the room, you are instead seated next to each other.
Sitting on the other side of the table is a tall, thin, and serious looking man in his 50's.
He explains that overnight there was a power surge that deleted all of their documentation and files.
Every security camera tape had been erased and in the darkness there was much confusion.
His point being, the facility has lost track of which room you were placed in and which room the clone was placed in.
How can you go about telling yourselves apart?
|
|
| You and your Clone |
[18 Sep 2009|05:07pm] |
| [ |
mood |
| |
 thoughtful |
] |
| [ |
music |
| |
Morrissey |
] |
PREFACE
For the sake of this thought experiment, we will use the marvels of Science Fiction and assume the Clone in question is one of those clones that is an exact duplicate of you. It will look exactly like you and have all of your memories.
One evening you enter a cloning facility.
Upon entering you are greeted by an orderly and guided to a plain room with a single bed.
You lie down on the bed and fall asleep.
The following morning you are awoken by the same orderly and lead into a white room.
Centered in the white room is a square table with two chairs, one on either side.
Each chair has in front of it one sheet of paper and one sharpened number two pencil.
Across the room you notice another orderly, that looks exactly like your orderly, simultaneously lead your clone into the room and towards the table.
You and your clone are seated at the table and left alone.
A disembodied voice instructs you and your clone to draw a picture.
Will you and your clone draw the same picture?
|
|
| Internet Anthropology: Round 2 |
[13 Sep 2009|10:30pm] |
| [ |
mood |
| |
amused |
] |
| [ |
music |
| |
Procol Harum - A Salty Dog |
] |
While wasting more time typing random phrases and questions into the Google search bar something occurred to me.
The aggregate of searches typed into Google is a window into the human condition.
The questions people ask, their desperation for answers about the unknown; these are the similarities about being human that might be exactly what people need to get past the shallow differences that are created by our post-modern world.
( What are people searching for when they turn to the Internet... )
|
|
| Toby |
[09 Aug 2009|02:32pm] |
| [ |
mood |
| |
apathetic |
] |
| [ |
music |
| |
柏原芳恵 |
] |
Back in college, the editor of the campus magazine nicknamed me Toby.
This didn't really change anything about me. Another personality, a "Toby" with his own distinctive qualities and characteristics never developed.
Oddly, I never felt the urge to correct him when he called me Toby and neither did anyone else. No one else ever called me Toby, just him.
All his calling me Toby really did was allow him to remember my name.
Recently I took an online poll of what people believe.
Below is a list of the more interesting responses.
( The List )
|
|
| navigation |
| [ |
viewing |
| |
most recent entries |
] |
| [ |
go |
| |
earlier |
] |
|
|
|
|
relieved