Google Sitemaps
Posted on 2006-05-31 at 07:12
According to Google Sitemaps, here are the top searches that bring people to my site and my average position in the search list for those terms:
Search query (Average top position)
- dnd radio (3)
- lucifer symbolic meanings in paradise lost (1)
- culumny (8)
- flickering eyelid (8)
- reihold (8)
- koinonias (11)
- ffmpeg 1and1 (7)
- act "emily bronte's" contradiction (10)
- heathcliff's character (21)
- all declassified ufo documents (75)
That's right, I am so all over the search for culumny!
The Danville trip was a success
Posted on 2006-05-30 at 11:17
In that I am still alive, had fun, and relaxed a bit.
The Internet stole my outrage
Posted on 2006-05-26 at 08:26
I have seen war. I have seen war on land and sea. I have seen blood running from the wounded... I have seen the dead in the mud. I have seen cities destroyed... I have seen children starving. I have seen the agony of mothers and wives. I hate war. - Dwight D Eisenhower
The late 60's were a time of upheaval. The country was awash in the phrases of the time like "Operation Dewey Canyon" and the "Tet Offensive" and "Prague Spring" and "Assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.". The world was in trouble. So what did we do?
Americans took to the streets. They protested. They fought. They cried. They shed blood and tears and they failed and they succeeded in countless small battles. They did it because the world needed fixing.
The world needs fixing again, but instead of taking to the streets, we've taken to the Internet. Site after site pops up decrying the President and his hijacked war. We complain about government corruption that has reached heights that would make President Nixon blush. We pass around videos of the few people who stand up to him. We blog angrily about the evils this administration has visited upoin us. We vent outrage at watching more of our personal human rights blindly granted to corporations and callously taken from us. We hate and we seeth and we watch the news with bug-eyed incredulity. And we do nothing.
I read recently that we do nothing becuase we are self absorbed as a culture---that we are too busy picking our favorite American Idol and commiserating with Britney's marital issues to worry about such things and Life, Liberty, and our ability to Pursue Happiness. But I don't believe that. I see the outrage and hate and dissappointment every day. This isn't a community that has given up its moral compass just yet. So why don't we see what we saw in the late 60's? Why don't we see people choking the streets in protest, swarming their congressmen at their offices and on the steps of Capitol Hill with questions and demands? Why don't we see people doing something about all this anger?
The Internet. Why bus up to Washington D.C. to complain when we can send a angry email? Why clog the roads with a thousand person sit-in when we can include millions with an online petition? Why bother with physical confrontation when we can spam our representatives with our views? The Internet stole our collective outrage. What once would have had us rising up to storm our leaders in indignation now drives us to our computers to send harsh messages out with closers like "If you feel as I do, then it is your patriotic duty to forward this message to everyone in your contact list!"
The Internet is a great thing---the Great Equalizer for the distribution of knowledge---but it is not a forum for real protest. In our zealousness to embrace all things e- or i- we have forgotten just how formidible a presence 1500 people can be when they are staring you dead in your real-life eyeballs. That makes an impression! That gets the attention of our representatives! That changes things! That matters! Your spunky missive from "An6ry-dood@aol.com" is dismissed with a click. Your face 2 inches from the face of the representative that betrayed your trust cannot be so easily dismissed or forgotten.
I'll end this entry as I began it---with a quote:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Beautiful people are mean...or is that median?
Posted on 2006-05-24 at 08:05
From a study done a the University of Texas about human beauty:
"Both cognitive and evolutionary theory suggest that faces representing the average of the population will be perceived as attractive as did Galton's work in the 1800s. We examined the hypothesis that averaged faces would be attractive by performing a "high tech" version of Galton's technique. We photographed a substantial number of UT Austin male and female undergraduates using a standard background, lighting, and distance. We randomly selected ninety-six male faces and ninety-six female faces and randomly put them into three sets of thirty-two faces for each sex with no overlapping faces in the sets. We then created three "composite" or averaged faces for each sex on a computer in a two-step process."
"In the first step, we "digitized" the individual faces (Figure 2) by converting the light and dark shades that comprise each face to an array of numbers, or chromatic values, that represent each face and can be manipulated just like any other set of numbers. Each color value represents a different shade present in the picture of the face."
"In the second step, we mathematically averaged the numbers representing the different individual faces in each of the six sets (Figure 3). We created composite faces of two, four, eight, sixteen, and thirty-two different faces averaged together for each set of randomly selected faces. These averaged faces were photographed and rated for attractiveness by 300 judges along with the photographically equivalent (in other words, slightly blurred) slides of the individuals who went into them."
"We found that averaged faces made of sixteen-and thirty-two-faces were judged to be significantly more attractive than the average attractiveness level of all the individual faces (Figure 3). Additional analyses indicated that, of the ninety-six individual male faces, only three were judged to be significantly more attractive than their thirty-two-face composite-about what is expected by chance. Of the female faces, only four were rated as significantly more attractive than the composites, again only the number one would expect by chance (Figure 4)."
"By using advanced computer technology, we demonstrated that "averaged" faces are perceived as attractive; we replicated this finding in two populations, male and female, and in three samples from each population. Although we do not think that "averageness" is the only aspect of facial beauty (expression and age are important as well), we do believe that "averageness" is a necessary and critical element of attractiveness. Without "averageness" even the most youthful, smiling face will not be judged as attractive."
Although evolutionary and cognitive theory are generally considered quite different theoretical accounts of human behavior, they both posit similar mechanisms in the case of preferences for attractive faces by suggesting that prototypic or averaged faces underlies the tendency of infants and adults from diverse cultures to notice and prefer attractive faces. At this point, we can't choose between evolutionary theory, which suggests that preferences for attractive faces are innate, and cognitive theory, which suggests that preferences for attractive faces are acquired early in life through exposure to category members. Indeed one of the most exciting aspects of this work is that we will eventually be able to contribute some answers to the age-old nature vs. nurture debate: what capabilities are we born with and what capabilities are developed due to experience?
It's just interesting. That's all I'm saying.
I am only 4 elements away from validation
Posted on 2006-05-23 at 08:08
When I first write the shell scripts that generate this site and all it's files, the ATOM feed format was still being designed. I used the v.3 spec. Now that it's released and the final version of the spec out there for use, I've been menaing to make the changes needed to have a valid ATOM feed. I made some headway this morning. I still need to address about 4 more issues, but that's a big improvement over yesterday's 20 or so issues.
If you have no idea what I'm talking about, don't worry, you too can learn about the ATOM feed!
The White Man's Mistake
Posted on 2006-05-19 at 20:43
An old Indian Chief sat in his hut on the reservation, smoking a ceremonial pipe and eyeing two U.S. Government officials sent to interview him.
"Chief Two Eagles" asked one Official, "You have observed the white man for 90 years. You've seen his wars and his technological advances. You've seen his progress, and the damage he's done."
The Chief nodded in agreement.
The Official continued, "Considering all these events, in your opinion, where did the white man go wrong?"
The Chief stared at the Government Officials for over a minute and then calmly replied, "When white man found the land, Indians were running it. No taxes. No debt. Plenty buffalo. Plenty beaver. Women did all the work. Medicine man free. Indian man spent all day hunting and fishing and all night having sex."
Then the Chief leaned back and smiled, "Only white man dumb enough to think he could improve system like that."
The sound of history
Posted on 2006-05-19 at 07:20
Listen to the historic words of such people as Woodrow Wilson, JFK, PT Barnum, and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. as they say some of the things that we have never forgotten. It's worth a click.
We'll call him John Doe
Posted on 2006-05-18 at 19:55
He was a large man, with jowls and bowls, fleshy and sweaty and just a little uncomfortable to look at. When he spoke it was like he was eating the air that wandered too closely to his loose mouth---each consonant a chomp and each vowel a gulp of meat sliding from a greasy bone. He seemed nice enough, but to look into his eyes you had the feeling that he was sizing you up, asking himself just how long it would take to roast you whole and how much time he'd save by doing one limb at a time. Yet, even when you looked into his eyes, he wouldn't look into yours. His eyes seemed to hit just shy of their bull's eye, as in a drunken game of pub darts. He spoke imprecisely, as if each word were grabbed haphazard from a bag blindfolded. He would say "supposably" and "if I half to". His cadence was slow and ponderous like the brontosaurus of old, each sentence a lumbering roll with a pause for breath at the end, and each word seemed to plop out and lay at the listener's feet, still hissing air and seeping ichor like a gravy sponge.
Yes, I'm describing someone I met in the last couple of days. No, I'm not giving names. That would be mean. I just had to write this to get it out of my skull. I feel better now.
Senator Clinton, that was damn...good?
Posted on 2006-05-11 at 11:09
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton has introduced a bill that proposes to link congressional pay with the minimum wage.
No, Our Senators would not suddenly make minimum wage. Nope. This one goes the other way. Firstly, minimum wage is raised to just over $7/hour, and secondly, whenever Congress gives itself a raise, so to does the minimum wage rise.
[The Minimum wage] shall be automatically increased for the year involved by a percentage equal to the percentage by which the annual rate of pay for Members of Congress increased for such year.
Surprisingly, that is just about the entire contents of the proposed legislation! Clean and direct. If you raise Congress's pay by 10%, you have to raise the minimum wage by 10%.
I know it's fairly common to dislike her, but if you do, ask yourself why? Think about it for a minute. Are your reasons sound? Are they clear and direct? Are they based in logic or emotion? Whatever you think of her, what do you think of this idea she has proposed? I have a history of disliking her, but I wonder if it was well founded.
Hydra Biosciences working on organs that can regenerate themselves
Posted on 2006-05-11 at 08:32
"Although doctors may someday heal weakened body parts by infusing them with stem cells that develop into specialized tissues, coaxing the body’s own cells to become self-repairing would be an even bigger biological coup. What if we could simply prompt damaged organs to repair themselves?"
If you share my obsession with living forever, you can read the rest of the article now.
I'm the Juggernaut Bitch!
Posted on 2006-05-09 at 07:54
Not work safe (due to foul language) but damn funny anyway.
Imagine how many of those little guys we can save!
Posted on 2006-05-09 at 07:33
Cancer researchers at Wake Forest University have successfully cured cancer in mice. See the original research, the peer reviewed article, and a local news story on the event.
In short, researchers found a single mouse who resisted all the cancers thrown at it in a lab. They extracted purified immune cells (white blood cells) from that mouse and injected it into the system of other mice of the same strain. Those mice saw their various (not just a single type!) cancers disappear. They tried the same on a normal mouse (i.e., one not from the same strain) and sure enough, the same effect! Cancer goes away. They tried it first by injecting the SR/CR immune cells with the cancer cells, then they put the cancer cells in first and let them grow and added the SR/CR immune cells to the cancerous region, then they put the cancers cells in first and let them grow and added the SR/CR immune cells to a different region to see if they would seek out and find the cancer on their own. In each case, the SR/CR immune cells found and destroys the extant cancerous cells.
As with many of the medical breakthroughs I mention on my blog, human trials are not around the corner just yet, but neither are they a century away. This, along with all the other work done in the field of cancer and heart health research adds up to my living forever. FYI, it also means you might as well.
This is the Ultimate Showdown
Posted on 2006-05-08 at 07:22
"Angels sang out in an immaculate chorus and down from the heavens floated Chuck Norris."
Captain America versus the Patriot Act and President Bush
Posted on 2006-05-04 at 08:42
Captain America says that our President is an asshole. From the article:
Captain America is about to battle his most fearsome foe yet: The government of the United States.
Today, Marvel Comics is releasing the first in its miniseries Civil War, which can only be described as a gutsy comic-book series focusing on the whole debate over homeland security and tighter government controls in the name of public safety.
The seven-issue series once again puts superheroes right back in the thick of real-world news, just as DC Comics has Batman battling al-Qaeda in a soon-to-appear comic and Marvel's X-Men continue to explore themes of public intolerance and discrimination.
It also recalls the plotline during the Watergate years when Captain America's alterego, disillusioned by White House politics, stopped donning the patriotic costume.
But with Civil War, hero is pitted against hero in the choice of whether or not to side with the government, as issues ranging from a Guantanamo-like prison camp for superheroes, embedded reporters and the power of media all play in the mix.
A bit of a long quote, but the story is just too interesting to me.
Buy my new DVD you will
Posted on 2006-05-04 at 07:32
Rumor has it that Lucasfilm will be releasing the original theatrical version of Star Wars (as in "Han shoots first" and "No tricked out special effects") on DVD later this year.
And all God's people said AMEN!!!
Gort!
Posted on 2006-05-03 at 08:46
We do not claim to have achieved perfection, but we have a system, and it works.
The REAL ID Act of 2005
Posted on 2006-05-03 at 07:52
The REAL ID Act was passed by Congress in 2005---attached to one of those military appropriations bills that couldn't be turned down. It requires that all states adhere to a federal minimum standards with respect to the issuance and make of legal ID's (like your driver's license. Such federal minimums as biometrics, SSN, and personally-detailed microchips have been discussed.
The part that is interesting, however, is the state-level alternative. States that don't comply may find that their citizens will need a passport (a federally issued ID) to fly domestically. Perhaps you recall the old Soviet reference "Show me your papers."
Here's the fun part. If all the states comply, we'll never notice the new restriction on movement. But if even one state bucks the new system, then there will be a state where travelling in and out will require a federal ID.
Let's all raise a glass in the hopes that at least one state has the fortitude to say No.
Oh, and in case you think I'm making it up, you should read this article about the REAL ID Act and this site by the ACLU that talks about the problems with the REAL ID.
GenCon 2006
Posted on 2006-05-02 at 08:42
The tickets are purchased, the events grabbed, the plans made.
GenCon, here we come!!! w00t!