Thursday, February 28, 2013

Ethan Van Sciver buys a Blu Ray player

The story goes
The blu ray player in my office died today. I needed to get a new one, along with Game of Thrones 2. And I'm a dick. This is what happened.
BEST BUY DUDE: Can I help you?
ME: Yeah, new blu ray player for my office. Top of the line. All I do is watch movies.
BEST BUY DUDE: Well, this is the Sony BDP-S790.
ME: Yeah.
BEST BUY DUDE: It's 4K Upscale, Superbit mapping 16 bit signal processing...
ME: Yeah?
BEST BUY DUDE: And it has Skype. 3D compatible.
ME: Oh yeah?
BEST BUY DUDE: Yep. It's the one I have.
ME: (long pause) Show me a better one, then.
I laughed and he laughed and said, "No really. You'll be happy with this one." And I bought it.
There were many responses. A critique of the technology comes from Kevin Falkenberg
It's not $4,000, it's a 4K Upscale player. 4K (or Ultra HD) is the latest unnecessary advancement in HDTV technology, and really only means anything if you have a huge TV that you sit up close to. Aside from that, the big 4K TVs you'll be able to find will probably run $20,000-$40,000. So, if you have an 80in TV that you sit about 3ft from, then it's time to start rolling some coins if you want that higher resolution!
I love Mr Van Sciver's response:
Kevin, I have an 82 inch TV.
I think I would have to re-arrange my entire house to accommodate a screen that size.

Wednesday, February 27, 2013

Reason TV tackles Obama's sequestion lies in five steps

The President of the United States is begging for money and lying to us about why he needs it.  This sort of obnoxious ridiculous nonsense likely causes other world leaders to laugh at us.

Poor Toss car commercial

Ethan Van Sciver asks
Dude, what's up with this commercial with the dad teaching his kid to throw like a woman??

He refers to this television commercial of course:

The answers?
It's supposed to be funny. The dad doesn't know how to throw either and the car is something that his son can be proud of having from his father... Key word "supposed"
Another answer:
I think the point is that the boy will one day be glad that his father passed this car on to him, unlike the throwing lessons, which he will resent his father for.
Jeff Sparks notes the trend of fathers portrayed poorly on television:
I cringe everytime that crap comes on. But its typical of how badly dad's are portrayed in the majority(not all) of advertising today. Most of the time time we are stupid and gullible(sp?), with this we are now becoming physically inept. I'm curious if this will become a trend.
The sad fact is that kind of portrayal has been continuing for years at this point.

Tuesday, February 26, 2013

Rush Limbaugh on Seth MacFarlane hosting the Oscars

the Rant-Man on word weapons

Why I am so cranky about misuse of words, especially words that sound the same and mean different things:

Most of our thinking is internal dialogue, talking to ourselves. Words and language are the building blocks of thought. The inability to speak, read and write correctly and specifically manifests itself in the inability to think clearly, logically and concisely, and the inability to accurately convey your thoughts to others. If you can't think critically, you can't vote intelligently.

The world is full of fast-talking charlatans who want to sell you lies, take what you have and want you to eagerly vote for your own oppression, and words are the weapons they use. They know the difference between "flaunt" and "flout" and will not hesitate to use it against you. They will use words you think you know, say the opposite of what they want you to think they are saying, and if you don't know your own language, you are screwed.

I'm not a nitpicking martinet. I'm trying to arm you against the would-be dictators.
-- Jim MacQuarrie, Feb 26 2012 I remember Grant Morrison writing in FINAL CRISIS about the use of words as weapons although he was speaking more in terms of gods and cosmic powers. He used those precise terms if I recall correctly. A better example is found in LEGENDS, a mini-series and crossover event published almost two decades prior. The character Glorious Godfrey was a more literal literary example of the Rant-Man's speech. Mind you Glorious Godfrey is a New God with the power to hypnotize and control minds with his speech so he does not quite need to trick with language. He used the secret identity G. Gordon Godfrey, an obvious take on G. Gordon Liddy, who went to jail for the Watergate scandal and then received a radio show for some time. What I find a little unfortunate is that in the television programs adapting from the source material only use the talk show host character.

quote composition of horseshit detection

Jim MacQuarrie said
A prodigious lexicon and facility with its deployment is merely a single component to an efficacious horseshit detector, but it is a significant one.
Now if I were to compose this sentence I would replace "horseshit detector". Let us explore
A prodigious lexicon and facility with its deployment is merely a single component to an efficacious equine excrement divination sense although a significant one.
The remaining question is now: is my version an original quote because the diction is different although the composition owes its existence entirely to Mr MacQuarrie? I would answer tentatively that my line is my line as the composition exists due to my existence however it is not original given its specifically derivative nature.

Sunday, February 24, 2013

EVS says Tea Party folk can hurt out movement

Looking at some of these Tea Party signs carried by some very misinformed people...look, if you say crazy stuff, it reflects on the whole movement. You idiots are making the idea of less government intrusion look bizarre. Democrats may be spending us into oblivion, but you, lunatic tea partier, are helping them. Knock it off.
-- Ethan Van Sciver February 23 at 6:03pm And folks, he is right!

Thursday, February 14, 2013

Valentine's Day

The chance to show the one you love how much you care by sending flowers that will make all the other bitches in her office jealous.

Monday, February 11, 2013

Iraq had a lot of oil to burn in 2003

From an old AOL Instant Messenger exchange taken March 23rd, 2003 (1:04 PM):
me: where'd you get that info regarding burning oil fields, slow burn, environmental damage, and the Kyoto Treaty?
Akaeb1: i dont know exactly where you would get the exact numbers,
Akaeb1: but you can find the info for burning crude oil
Akaeb1: and look at the amount a well would be putting out
Akaeb1: if Iraq is producing sevearl million barrels a day, you can make some assumptions about how much each well is producing, and then determine the amount of oil being burned
me: ah
me: based on how approx how many wells are being burned
me: since when could the Kyoto Treaty solve anything
Akaeb1: 3 million barrels prduced per day oil
me: ah thx
I don't know if this really helped solve anything. Remember when that service was useful and populated, back in the old wonderful pre-Facebook days?

Sunday, February 10, 2013

the Lord Monckton has ten questions for climate extremists

10 killer questions for climate extremists

1. CO2 concentration has risen by 10% in the past 23 years, but the RSS satellite global lower-troposphere temperature-anomaly record shows warming over that period that is statistically indistinguishable from zero. How come?

2. Aristotle, 2350 years ago, demonstrated that to argue from “consensus” is a logical fallacy – the headcount fallacy. Some 95% of all published arguments for alarm about our influence on the climate say we must believe the “consensus”. Why was Aristotle wrong?

3. Aristotle, 2350 years ago, demonstrated that to argue that the “consensus” is a “consensus” of experts is a logical fallacy – the fallacy of appeal to authority. What has changed since 2350 years ago to make argument from appeal to authority acceptable rather than fallacious?

4. There has been 0.6 Celsius global warming since 1950. There are 5-7 times more polar bears today than there were in 1950. In what meaningful sense, then, are polar bears a species at imminent threat of extinction caused by global warming?

5. A recent paper shows that a naturally-occurring reduction in cloud cover has had four and a half times more warming effect than man-made increases in CO2 concentrations. Why are you so certain that the recently-published paper is wrong?

6. In the past 247 years – almost a quarter of a millennium – the trend in rainfall over England and Wales shows an increase of just 2 inches/year, or 5%. Why do you regard so insignificant an increase over so long a period as being beyond the natural variability of the climate?

7. Australia’s carbon tax, a typical measure intended to make global warming go away, will cost $150 billion over ten years. In that time, the tax is intended to abate 5% of Australia’s CO2 emissions, which represent 1.2% of global emissions. Do you agree, therefore, that at a cost of $150 billion the Australian scheme, if it succeeds, will abate just 0.06% of global CO2 emissions over ten years, at a cost of $150 billion?

8. The IPCC’s own climate-sensitivity equations show that abating 0.06% of global carbon emissions would reduce CO2 concentration from a predicted business-as-usual 410 microatmospheres to 409.988 microatmospheres, and that this would reduce global mean surface temperature by just 0.0006 Celsius degrees – if the carbon tax succeeded every bit as fully as its framers had intended. Do you consider that spending $150 billion to cut surface temperature by 0.00006 Celsius degrees is a sensible, proportionate, cost-effective use of other people’s money?

9. If Australia’s carbon tax were adopted worldwide, and if it worked every bit as well as its inventors had intended, it would cost $317 trillion to abate the one-sixth of a Celsius degree of warming that is predicted for the current decade. That is $45,000 per head of the global population over the period, or 59% of global GDP? Compared with the 1.23%-of-GDP cost of paying to abate the damage from 1/6 C of warming the day after tomorrow, is it worth spending 59% of GDP today?

10. In 2005 the UN said there would be 50 million climate refugees because of rising sea levels and other effects of global warming by 2010. Where are they?

Thursday, February 07, 2013

Sean Hannity versus Lindsey Graham

Amy J. Hawkins made this proclamation a little while ago:
Anyone watch Sean Hannity's interview moments ago with U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham? Definitely worth a #youtube watch. Fantastic. New hero.
Then it just occurred to me how Lindsey and Sean are both gender neutral names.

I haven't seen this interview and I do not desire to. After watching Chris Wallace's multiple interviews with Senator Graham on Fox News Sunday I am not impressed with the Senator's mettle, although he likely is just the representative that the people of his state deserve. Sean Hannity has not impressed me for years with generic commercial-grade conservatism.

So when the interviwer and the interviewee both fail to pique my interest then I will not burn my time on the interview. But I will burn my time on why these two fail to keep my interest: I've seen them before, separately.

Here is the interview, from Senator Graham's YouTube channel:

Sunday, February 03, 2013

Calvin Klein Super Bowl 47 audience

I asked,"Why was there Calvin Klein underwear ad with half naked dudes in a Super Bowl commercial? Don't they know the audience? My cousin replied, "San Francisco's playing. They know the audience alright." I stood silently corrected.
Perhaps females have an aesthetic that this fits. I tell you it does not fit my ideal aesthetic paradigm. Why do underwear packages in the Meijer and the Wal-Mart feature male anatomy?

Doritos verus Calvin Klein

Aisha Tyler tweets truth:
Ah the joy of Super Bowl 47 tv commercials and twitter.