January 31, 2004

Why do you beat yourself up?

Here's a fun little piece of amateur psychology in the style of Charles Krauthammer:

"The combination of "Stockholm Syndrome" and "cognitive dissonance" produces a victim who firmly believes the relationship is not only acceptable, but also desperately needed for their survival,” writes Joseph M. Carver, PhD for Mental-Health-Matters.com.

Interesting, you say, but what does this have to do with the price of iMacs in China?

Well, nothing, but it does have a great deal to do with a recent issue I had with an IT department head at a company with which I was consulting recently. I won’t get into the specifics, but you know the drill, this guy hated Macs for some reason, made outright fun of Macs using all of the usual myths (too expensive, no software, no one uses them, Apple’s going out of business, etc.), but was getting pounded by his company’s workers and management as his network repeatedly failed due to viruses and patches and just plain Windows crashes.

I think I’ve figured out the answer to my own article from last November, “I really wonder what some Windows users think about Macintosh.”

These Windows users are sick. Sick, I tell you! Mentally ill. Want proof? Okay, but keep in mind that this gets eerie, proceed at your own risk...

I guess you'll put up with almost anything, including data-eating viruses and repeated software crashes, just to be the first person on the block to play Half-Life 2. But it's worth it! </sarcasm>
Posted by Jeffrey at 2:57 PM | TrackBack

January 30, 2004

It was for self-defense

To: Clayton Cramer
From: Jeff
Date: January 30, 2004
Subject: The ultimate gun-defense story

Here's my submission for your gun blog.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Southwest/01/30/cyanide.probe.ap/index.html

An excerpt:

A raid in April found nearly two pounds of a cyanide compound and other chemicals that could create enough poisonous gas to kill everyone inside a space as large as a big-chain bookstore or a small-town civic center.

Authorities also discovered nearly half a million rounds of ammunition, more than 60 pipe bombs, machine guns, silencers and remote-controlled bombs disguised as briefcases, plus pamphlets on how to make chemical weapons, and anti-Semitic, anti-black and anti-government books.

Boy, that couple was really concerned with their self-defense! I bet having half a million rounds of ammunition mitigated their irrational fears of Jews, blacks, and government figures and made them much safer!

Jeff
geekable.com

P.S. I am still unconvinced of your assertions that owning a gun makes you safer. If we take this theory to its logical extreme, then every American would carry a concealed firearm and we'd have the lowest murder rate in the world. As if we didn't live in a state of fear already: now every person you met could kill you at their whim! The hole in your theory is explaining why the average gun-wielding Joe in that hypothetical world would refrain from firing his gun.

P.P.S. I think gun control is great not just for improving personal safety, but improving personal health; when you don't have the luxury of a firearm, you have to beat someone up to kill them, which provides an intense physical workout! Get rid of that gun and lose the pounds....

Posted by Jeffrey at 6:51 PM | TrackBack

Sure thing

From the AP:

KABUL, Afghanistan - The U.S. military is "sure" it will catch Osama bin Laden this year, perhaps within months, a spokesman declared Thursday, but Pakistan said it would not allow American troops to cross the border in search of the al-Qaida leader.
You might ask, how can they be so certain that Osama will be caught? Silly you; you obviously don't know that Osama Bin Laden will be captured on October 29, 2004.
Posted by Jeffrey at 5:24 PM | TrackBack

Improper management technique

This excerpt from a memo qualifies as Business 2.0's Dumbest Human Resources Moment of the Year (scroll down to entry 97):

I expect my computers to be used for work only. I expect my phones to be used for work only. Should you receive a personal call, keep it short. Should you receive a personal e-mail, I expect the e-mail either not answered, or a brief note telling whoever is sending you e-mails at work to stop immediately. Should I go through machines, which I assure you, I will be doing, and I find anything to the contrary, you will be terminated immediately. For those who think I am kidding, and do not get with this program, I will promise you that by Christmas eve 8:00 you will be gone.
Posted by Jeffrey at 5:20 PM | TrackBack

January 29, 2004

The best dessert I ever had....

was at Applebee's today at lunch. I went there to try their new combo offer (appetizer + meal + dessert = $10.99), and when dessert rolled around, I selected the new Raspberry Cheesecake Rapture. Cheesecake with raspberry swirls and a chocolate crust, topped with raspberry sauce and whipped cream -- you will be amazed. Save room for it!

Posted by Jeffrey at 11:54 PM | TrackBack

Stalker update

For those of you who care about these things, I've dropped my German class. If you want more details, e-mail me.

Posted by Jeffrey at 8:28 AM | TrackBack

January 28, 2004

Pig mode

Here's a cute comment on the Pig Mode feature of the old Apple programmer tool, ResEdit:

When you put ResEdit into "Pig Mode", resources will be compacted and purged each time ResEdit goes through its event loop (several times a second). Basically this means it will slow down the system, so I don't recommend you turn it on for any length of time. But for programmers to really stress their code, it was nice to test with some other poorly behaved program in the background trying to steal all your memory (and scramble it) and take up all the processor time. This was before later versions of Microsoft Word (6.0 and above) were released and did this better.
Posted by Jeffrey at 7:37 PM | TrackBack

January 26, 2004

Dennis Miller's Basic Cable Turd

I missed the first five minutes of Dennis Miller's new show on CNBC, but the parts I saw stunk. The first part, where Dennis Miller interviewed Arnold Schwarzenegger, was pathetic. Schwarzenegger went over his talking points over and over, while Miller sat fawning, complimenting his "cadence". Here's the short version of the interview.

Schwarzenegger: Vote Yes on Proposition 57! Vote Yes on Proposition 58! We need to work together! I'm going to bring economic recovery! Vote Yes on Proposition 57! Vote Yes on Proposition 58! We need to work together! I'm going to bring economic recovery!
Miller: Can we make out?
Then he did his "Daily Rorshach", which apparently involves reciting un-funny jokes about the news and hoping for laughs from the crew. (This immediately followed Miller's criticism of studio audiences filled with tourists, explaining that there was no audience but the crew, and that "you'll figure out where the laughs go". I didn't.)

Lastly, Miller had a David Horowitz, Naomi Wolf, and David Frum do a panel discussion on the War on Terror (which apparently only involves Iraq), and New Hampshire. Horowitz and Frum read the RNC talking points, Wolf rolled her eyes, and I couldn't believe I was watching.

I don't think this show will last long.

Posted by Jeffrey at 10:28 PM | TrackBack

David Kay, and conservative cognitive dissonance

Here's the scenario:

An awful leader with socialist leanings is duped by scientists to spend lots of government money on programs that never come to fruition. Meanwhile, the leader thinks the programs are going well, and keeps spending government money, not realizing the scientists are wasting the money on their own livelihood and not on the programs.

You'd think a conservative would love to point that kind of story out, because it totally supports their views of 'all spending is wasteful spending' and 'we want smaller government'. But when that awful leader is Saddam Hussein, and the programs are weapons programs, the conservatives refuse to believe it!. After all, Saddam Hussein was evil!

This is the scenario that David Kay laid out in his latest report, where Saddam thought he was paying for WMD development, but the weapons were never developed. Naomi Wolf valiantly brought this up on Dennis Miller's dreadful new TV show, but David Horowitz and David Frum spun the issue around and said, "It was never about WMDs, it was about UN resolutions being violated, and human rights violations." To which I say,

1. If it wasn't about WMDs, then why did Bush harp on them during his 2003 State of the Union address? "Biological, chemical, nuclear! Are you scared yet?"
2. Do you see any problem at all with waging an illegal war, contrary to UN protocols, to enforce UN resolutions?
3. Amnesty International has lists of many, many countries that violate basic human rights. If that's truly your concern, then we must "liberate" them NOW!

This WMD issue is a major fuck-up on the part of the Bush administration, not the CIA or the UN or whomever Horowitz and Frum would like to blame. The administration that was supposed to 'bring grown-ups back to the White House' is unwilling to take responsibility for their grievous mistakes, and no amount of spin should blind you to that fact.

Posted by Jeffrey at 10:16 PM | TrackBack

Email to Andrew Sullivan

To: andrewmsullivan@aol.com, andrew@andrewsullivan.com
From: Jeff
Date: 26 January 2004
Subject: Counterexamples to your "Atrios punts" claim

Three examples, huh? I think I can handle that...

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2003_12_28_atrios_archive.html#107315165359854434
http://atrios.blogspot.com/2003_12_28_atrios_archive.html#107270416887178926
http://atrios.blogspot.com/2003_12_28_atrios_archive.html#107266979189861797

Here's a link where Atrios praises someone from the right:

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2003_12_28_atrios_archive.html#107274845301237844

Notice that all of these links are from the same one-week period. Why should readers support you when you can't perform the most cursory research?

Atrios should not have to prove you wrong -- you should stop making ignorant claims. (Oh, and since you've got your three now, you can shut the fuck up.)

Jeff

Posted by Jeffrey at 4:07 PM | TrackBack

For the point is the debate

I spent a bit of time in bed last night trying to formulate a response to Andrew Sullivan's challenge on the radio last night. Sully challenged Atrios to stop being anonymous and to reveal himself, partly because Sully complained that it's impossible to attack anonymous figures. The funny part was that Sully's challenge was worded in a way that WAS a personal attack on Atrios, because it challenged Atrios' credibility.

Sadly, No! has written a very good response to Sully's disingenuous attacks, so now I don't have to. Here's the shorter version: Stop being such a fucking hypocrite, Sully!

Posted by Jeffrey at 10:28 AM | TrackBack

January 25, 2004

The Mac's living history

Thanks to Daring Fireball for linking me to Folklore, a community site where original Mac team members are sharing their stories about the development process. I was fortunate enough to attend MacHack 2001, and hear some of these stories first-hand from Andy Hertzfeld, Bill Atkinson, Steve Wozniak, etc., but there are plenty of others I've found and enjoyed. Here are some highlights from the currently posted stories:

Posted by Jeffrey at 10:20 PM | TrackBack

January 24, 2004

Happy Birthday Mac!

You've grown so much in the past twenty years! Here's to twenty more!

Posted by Jeffrey at 2:08 PM | TrackBack

January 23, 2004

With a little help from my friends

Ok, so who's going to invite me to join Orkut?

Anybody?

Hello?

Posted by Jeffrey at 3:27 PM | TrackBack

January 22, 2004

This month's album recommendations

1. Amorino by Isobel Campbell. I think the perfect adjective for this album is 'delicate'.
2. The Bens EP by The Bens. This will have to hold you over until Ben Folds and Ben Kweller release new full-length albums. (As for Ben Lee, I'm not as familiar with his music as I am with the other two Bens.)
3. Rufus Wainwright by Rufus Wainwright. While the editors of the iTunes Music Store are continually (and rightfully) recommending Rufus' latest album, Want One, I think his most masterful work was his first album. The songs are elegant and mature, plus Jon Brion produced them; this is a musical revelation. I only wish Rufus wasn't so unique -- the only person who makes music like Rufus is Rufus! :(

Posted by Jeffrey at 10:54 PM | TrackBack

Just my luck

Why must Dweezil Zappa (with Lisa Loeb) be performing in the Detroit area on the same night as Rufus Wainwright?! It's not fair! Curse you, musical gods!

(I already have tickets to the Rufus show, so that's where I'm going. See you February 17!)

Posted by Jeffrey at 8:36 PM | TrackBack

What a lame excuse for a Commander-in-Chief

Siva recommends:

Try this at work during your annual review:

"Well no, I have not finished that project and have no results. But my desk has some evidence of dozens of project-related program activities."

I suspect that would not go over well. So then why are we letting Bush off the hook? Come on, media!
Posted by Jeffrey at 12:04 AM | TrackBack

January 18, 2004

Gibson Praise? Henry Sugar?

I'm trying to figure out what to make of this story in Pravda, about a girl who supposedly has x-ray vision. The article is based upon this article in a more local newspaper, but there is no English translation provided. I would be really excited if this girl's abilities were confirmed under more rigorous scientific conditions, but right now, I've got a lot of doubt. I suppose we can file this next to similar cases for now.

Posted by Jeffrey at 1:06 PM | TrackBack

Let's put this into perspective, shall we?

Billmon recently took a quotation from a recent New Yorker interview with President Bush and placed it side-by-side with other relevant quotations. I can't excerpt any of Billmon's entry because of rhetorical/historical flow, but I think it's appropriately sassy. Go check it out!

Posted by Jeffrey at 12:56 PM | TrackBack

January 15, 2004

Arab dick

Natalia of Indiscretions has happened upon the real reason that Al-Qaeda wants to kill us. It's not because of our military superiority, or the decadence of Western culture -- no, it's because the top Google results for "Arab dick" are very homoerotic in nature. Sorry guys! Don't blame us, blame PageRank!

Posted by Jeffrey at 11:39 PM | TrackBack

Advice from the masters

Why would you ask anyone but a cowboy for sex advice?

Q: A male friend of mine is having a hard time making his girlfriend come. What's your advice for him?
A: First of all, he should give her to me. Because, goddamn, I'd lick her cross-eyed.
...
Q: Any other words of wisdom?
A: Well, [crosses arms and looks over yonder] I'd say patience. Boy, I tell you: you know what they say about it being a virtue? Well, it's true. You just got to lick 'er and slick 'er, then broom-grab her 'til she hollers.
...
Q: What sex tips can city guys learn from the men of the West?
A: Mostly manners. Some real fuckin', probably. I can't say for sure.

Q: What's a no-fail seduction line?
A: Tell 'em you got a big truck and a big dick.

Well, I've got a blue 2001 Volkswagen New Beetle... does that make you horny, baby?
Posted by Jeffrey at 2:54 PM | TrackBack

January 14, 2004

My shitty snow day

Oy! Nine inches of snow are a bitch! As I was driving down to school today, several things went wrong: first, at the corner of Livernois and Wattles, I temporarily lost control of my car during a left turn and bounced off of a curb. (Isn't that why they're there?) About halfway during the trip, a man in an SUV told me that my front-right tire was going flat, the same tire that took the brunt of the curb impact! I made it down to Wayne State as quickly and safely as possible, and with the assistance of AAA and Wayne State Public Safety, replaced the tire with a spare. When I took the car to Goodyear Tire, I found out that the tire was fine, and the curb encounter barely affected my alignment. So I wasted the whole day cold and not in class, because of the testimony of some random guy. Damn you, Mister Trying-To-Be-Helpful!

(If you're wondering if I checked the tire before I called AAA, the answer is yes. It looked fine to me, but I figured it looked worse as I was driving.)

Posted by Jeffrey at 8:58 PM | TrackBack

January 12, 2004

Reuters is unfair to the rest of us

This is an actual Reuters headline:

Ryan Seacrest Hopes to Score with the Ladies
The article actually describes his upcoming television show, but come on! He has Reuters out advertising his intentions, while millions of less visible folks have to use online dating? The real world blows.
Posted by Jeffrey at 12:23 AM | TrackBack

January 11, 2004

Independent Women

This open letter at McSweeney's made me laugh out loud. I don't want to spoil the end for you, so I'll only cite the first two paragraphs -- you go read the rest!

Dear Young Women Who Work at Chain Bookstores,

The first moment I saw you, I knew you were different. Here, in the midst of this multinational chain bookstore, was an independent soul. Look at her black-plastic-framed glasses! Look at her fierce unwillingness to conform! My heart went out to you.

I know it's hard for you. Most customers are middle-aged middle managers buying a copy of Who Moved My Cheese? I know that daily you deal with women buying kitten calendars, and parents buying American Girl books for their little sorority-sisters-in-training, and teenagers sitting at the café, pretending to like coffee, trying to impress one another and you. Your coworkers like you, but they tease you, because they don't really understand you. They've never heard of the bands you like; they continually recommend best-selling chick-lit novels for you to read; they want to talk about the season finale of Friends, not the season finale of Enterprise. I know that sometimes you go home and cry, and I feel for you...

Posted by Jeffrey at 9:27 PM | TrackBack

Dishearteningly good blogging

Alicublog is such a good site, it makes me wonder why I even blog at all. I wish I had written this:

...One thing has always puzzled me about this. If liberals have a hammerlock on most faculties, and this is a terrible detriment to our nation (as conservatives from Revilo P. Oliver to Megan McArdle have long known), why not let the marketplace solve the problem?

Instead of sending fat checks or resumes to hotbeds of liberalism like Harvard and Berkeley, why not build new citadels of learning upon foundations already laid by sympathetic educators? Jerry Falwell's Liberty University comes to mind. Or Hillsdale, or Wheaton, or any of a number of Catholic colleges and universities that would happily turn the best and brightest conservative minds to a higher, nobler purpose.

What a great advance for the cause it would be if some parents would find the gumption to say, "I know you've been accepted to Yale, honey, but the American Renaissance demands that we send you to Bob Jones U." Or if Harvey Mansfield were to rise up and shout, "Farewell, Harvard commies, glory calls at Magdalen College!"

The gains, admittedly, would not be immediate. But isn't conservatism about taking the long view?

Keep on poking those conservatives in the eye with their own platitudes, Roy!
Posted by Jeffrey at 5:53 PM | TrackBack

The lost Bible passages, Part 1

From Matthew, chapter 20, verses 35-38:

And the two men looked into the multitude, and saw several fine young women;
Even as these ladies were beholding the miracles of Jesus, the two men approached the ladies and cried out, 'Nice sandals, wanna fuck?'
And the two ladies rebuked them, because they were creepy guys, but they cried out the more, 'We may have been blind right up until five minutes ago, but we know nice titties when we see them,'
So the ladies had compassion on them, and revealed their breasts: and immediately the mens' eyes received a joyful sight, and they bestowed beads upon the ladies.
Posted by Jeffrey at 12:32 AM | TrackBack

January 10, 2004

Thoughts regarding MacWorld Expo

Since I'm too lazy to comment myself (and since I didn't actually attend), I'll refer you to Daniel Luke's MacWorld commentary. However, I disagree with him on one issue: the finest computer keyboard ever made was not an Apple, but the IBM "klickety-klack" keyboard. These old keyboards are wonderful, but they are not the best choice for college students who like to work on the computer past midnight. (In addition, you'll probably need a PS2/USB adapter to make one work with a Mac.) I use a Macally iceKey keyboard, which has crisp, quiet action.

Posted by Jeffrey at 2:42 PM | TrackBack

January 8, 2004

Pearl of wisdom from Chef

Mr. Garrison: Chef, what did you do when white people stole your culture?
Chef: Oh, well, we black people just always try to stay out in front of them.
Mr. Garrison's Partner: How did you do that?
Chef: Well, like what I was saying. Black people always used to say, "I'm in the house" instead of "I'm here". But then white people all started to say "In the house", so we switched it to "In the hiz-ouse". "Hiz-ouse" became "Hiz-iz-ouse", and then white folks started sayin' that, and we had to change it to "Heaz-eay". Then "In the hizzle", which we had to change to "Hizzle fuh-zizzle", and now because white people say "Hizzle fuh-zizzle", we have to say "Flippity-floppity-floop".
South Park, "South Park Is Gay"
Posted by Jeffrey at 9:30 PM | TrackBack

Pearl of wisdom from Frank

The essence of Christianity is told to us in the Garden of Eden history. The fruit that was forbidden was on the Tree of Knowledge. The subtext is, All the suffering you have is because you wanted to find out what was going on. You could be in the Garden of Eden if you had just kept your fucking mouth shut and hadn't asked any questions.
Frank Zappa, Playboy interview, May 1993
Posted by Jeffrey at 8:41 PM | TrackBack

Analyzing a libertarian stance on traffic enforcement

John, who works for Apple, comes up with an idea:

What about using traffic lights to effect negative feedback? The lights would turn red when the average speed of traffic is too fast, and turn green when the average speed of traffic is too slow. Like a thermostat. Speed governance would still exist, but it would be implicit ("designed into the system"), not explicit in road signs ("laws"), or completely absent.
Despite the enormous difficulties inherent in modelling traffic flow, I suspect there are several mathematical papers waiting to be written on why this is a bad idea. Let's brainstorm some reasons, shall we?

Think about how a traffic light normally functions. The old traffic lights were set to switch from red to green to red again repeatedly, at a constant interval. Your presence at one of these lights has no effect on when it will change, because the interval is preset.

Some cities time the lights on heavily-traveled roads, so that if you're driving the speed limit, you hit nothing but green. Again, you have no effect on the traffic light's state, as the lights are still preset -- just more intelligently. (Unfortunately, too much traffic will cause congestion because there's just not enough lanes to carry all the traffic, negating the effect of the light timing.)

Newer traffic-light systems measure the traffic volumes on roads and give more green-light time to the roads with more cars, in order to avoid backups. In this system, your presence does have an effect on the traffic-light's state, but only as part of a collective. The system only pays attention to large traffic volumes, of which your car is but a single member.

In John's system, your driving has a much more direct effect on the traffic-light state. If you are driving extremely quickly in one lane while others are driving at the speed limit, you will increase the mean velocity even though your velocity is non-representative of the other drivers. And speaking of mean velocities, what happens when two opposing roads have average speeds above the speed limit? Should you give a red light to the traffic going the fastest? In this case, fast traffic is rewarded for going over the speed limit -- but only because they were slower than the really fast traffic. You definitely don't want to give a red-light to the slower traffic, because this would lead to groups of traffic competing to see who can go the fastest; you can see this defeats the purpose of this exercise (to indirectly punish fast traffic). We could give both speeding traffic flows red lights, but this would quickly lead to gridlock.

What happens when both roads have average velocities that are too slow? You can't give them both green lights; you might as well remove the traffic light! The same problems apply -- one group is rewarded for incorrect behavior.

Another big problem: driving conditions. You can get pulled over for driving at or below the speed limit if you are facing inclement weather, because even the speed limit is unsafe. How will this new system of traffic lights judge the appropriate speed? This has to be done by an intelligent being, not a computer, because it's a judgment call.

Here's another hypothetical situation: say you're on a single-lane highway, and a pack of cars is stuck behind a driver doing 5 mph below the speed limit. The pack gets frustrated, and one-by-one they start to pass the slow driver. Passing requires that you speed up considerably, so the mean velocity increases drastically. Thus, at the next light, they'll be punished, even though the drivers were taking a prudent action intended to increase traffic flow and avoid a backup.

Sorry John... I really do like some libertarian ideas, but this is not one of them. Readers, if you come up with more hypothetical examples of where this system would fail miserably, blog them and trackback to me!

Posted by Jeffrey at 2:35 AM | TrackBack

January 7, 2004

No fair! You did research!

Ah, you gotta love Google, especially in the hands of Roy Edroso...

It has been 54 days since I wondered aloud at Andrew Sullivan's description of Howard Dean as "from Vermont, one of the home bases of what's being called 'the Starbucks Metrosexual elite.'" So I went to Google to see if anyone on the Web has actually used that term in relation to anything except Sullivan's use of it.
Indeed, it's got to be tough to be the 'Starbucks Metrosexual elite' when your state only has two Starbucks locations. Hell, the city I live in has at least six locations.
Posted by Jeffrey at 7:11 PM | TrackBack

A comprehensive introduction to OS X

Via Slashdot, a very good geeky introduction to Mac OS X for Linux-geared people (though also useful for Windoze-heads).

Posted by Jeffrey at 6:11 PM | TrackBack

The probability of boning Britney

When I think about how my low chances of marrying someone as hot as Britney Spears, I'll have to remember this quotation from her ex-husband:

And we wasn't really wanting anything to be official, you know, like the official marriage thing.
That sentence says so much about him -- none of it good. The inevitable question is: because I can speak coherently, does that vastly increase, or decrease, my odds of scoring with Britney Spears? (And because the marriage was annuled, does that mean I shouldn't refer to Mr. Alexander as Britney's ex-husband?)
Posted by Jeffrey at 12:38 AM | TrackBack

January 6, 2004

Another dissatisfied Mail user

See? I'm not the only one displeased with Apple's Mail client -- the great Brent Simmons is switching away from it!

Sorry Apple... I love your operating system in general, but Mail needs some attention. (And while you're at it, could you fix the Finder? Thanks.)

Posted by Jeffrey at 7:52 PM | TrackBack

January 5, 2004

Macworld 2004 San Francisco

Unfortunately, I will not be attending MWSF 2004, though I really want to. But I will be watching Steve Jobs' keynote speech tomorrow over the Internet! (Remember: 9 am PT = 12 pm ET)

This time of year is full of speculation from the Mac rumor sites, wondering what will be announced at MWSF. Among the most likely Apple announcements are new smaller-capacity iPods approaching the $100 price point, faster Power Mac G5s, a new version of iLife, and a new version of Final Cut Express. Less likely, but still possible, is a new version of AppleWorks.

Omni Group (a company I'd love to work for one day) is going to be demonstrating the upcoming OmniWeb 5 at MWSF, and it's pretty likely that Microsoft will be demoing a new version of Virtual PC that runs on Power Mac G5s. You can keep up with all the Apple and non-Apple announcements by reading MacMinute on a regular basis.

Posted by Jeffrey at 4:18 PM | TrackBack

January 3, 2004

Jesus fish are the easiest to shoot in a barrel

To: darthgrills@hotmail.com
From: geekable

In your article dated December 31, 2003, you state that,

Jesus taught that unless you obey God’s Old Testament laws to the letter, you don’t have a fighting chance at getting into heaven. He taught that it all comes down to one question: do you rely on faith alone in God to save you, or are you counting on your own efforts?
Well, I decided to do a quick check in the Bible, and in Luke 16:16, it says "The law and the prophets were until John [the Baptist]: since that time the kingdom of heaven is preached." It also says in Romans 6:14 that "Ye are not under the law, but under grace", and in Ephesians 2:15 it points out that Jesus "Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances". It seems like the New Testament is trying to point out that you no longer have to obey the laws of the Old Testament -- wasn't it called the New Covenant? Maybe your fact-checker can research that.

You also state that,

And [Jesus] didn’t just run with the poor. What about Matthew the tax collector? He wasn’t doing so bad before he decided to follow Jesus. And Joseph of Arimathea, the rich man who loved Jesus so much he had his body placed in his own tomb?
Matthew 19:24 tells us Jesus said, "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." So even though some rich people may have "run with" Jesus, it sounds like they had another thing coming when they reached the pearly gates.

But I'm not a very religious person, so I probably have no idea what I'm talking about, right? I'm only reading the Bible! Still, when you say,

Jesus’ teachings aren’t a salad buffet. You don’t just pick what you want. You can’t hold onto “do unto others as you have them do unto you” and ignore the fact that Jesus said he sits at the right hand of God and that he’ll return someday. Believe it all or don’t believe at all.
I am reminded of Ephesians 1:1-11, which makes it quite clear that believers and non-believers alike don't have a choice of whether we go to heaven or hell; it was decided before we were ever born.

Good day,
Jeffrey

Posted by Jeffrey at 2:38 PM | TrackBack

Truly big pimpin'

From the news wires:

Detroit Eclipses Houston As Fattest City (Associated Press)

HOUSTON - This city, judged the nation's fattest for the past three years, is starting to look thinner — but only when it's measured against Detroit.

Houston is now the second-fattest city among 25 compared by Men's Fitness magazine in its February issue, due out this month.

Fattest? More like phattest! (groan)
Posted by Jeffrey at 1:19 AM | TrackBack

January 2, 2004

Another New Years' resolution

Because I'm not taking a formal mathematics class this semester, I've written a resolution that says I will read through G.H. Hardy's A Course of Pure Mathematics and do all the exercises.

I'm already finding (what I think are) mistakes. Here's a selection from page 5:

If the length PQ, along a given line, is a, and the length QR, along the same straight line, is b, the length PR must be (a+b).
To which I say,
Counterexample diagram
I suppose that if you allow for negative lengths, then the rule still applies, but I've never heard of a negative length before. (For you physics freaks out there, yes, you can have a negative displacement, but this is a length, goddamnit.) I'm surprised to find what looks like a mistake in the tenth edition of a book that's supposed to be "formal and rigorous" (according to the Amazon reviewers). Perhaps it's because of a shift in terminology?
Posted by Jeffrey at 7:12 PM | TrackBack

Those filthy Lib'rul commies

Uggabugga posted a fun little list he found on the Internet, and he's right -- you don't need to watch Fox News anymore after reading it! Actually, I think this list could come in handy, in case I ever want to get past Rush Limbaugh's call screeners. Here are some fun excerpts:

Communist's are Socialists.
This is technically true, but not in the opposite direction. Lenin-inspired Communism is just one theory that falls under the umbrella of "socialism". The part does not necessarily equal the whole, i.e. while many Republicans are hypocrites, not every hypocrite is a Republican.
89% of Journalists in America admit that they only for Liberals.
Assuming this statistic isn't completely bogus, it's still irrelevant. Who cares if the journalists are liberal, when the newspaper owners and other media elites are overwhelmingly conservative? As an analogy, do you think a high-school student can publish anything he or she wants in the school paper? Of course not! The principal (or Rupert Murdoch) has the final say. (Also notice that the subordinate clause does not have a verb. "They only for Liberals"?)
Communist's utilized slave labor in most facets of their economy.
Yeah! Capitalist societies would never do that!
Communist's strove to set up a state religion, and jailed religious leaders who would not comply.
Liberals in America took Bibles out of the classroom long ago - about the same time that drug use, teen pregnancies, violent crime and sexually transmitted diseases started to skyrocket - and SAT scores plummeted.
Aaagh! Can't you feel the cognitive dissonance? First you berate "Communist's" (which are apparently equal to Liberals, but since Communist's are so bad, they deserve an apostrophe) for striving to set up a state religion, but then you berate Liberals for taking Bibles out of the classroom! You can't have it both ways!
...At the same time, [Liberals] have allowed 35 million immigrants to enter the United States.
Unless the author is 100% Native American, one of his ancestors is/was an immigrant. Have you no respect for thy father and thy mother?
Communist's obeyed every order from The Kremlin, believing he could never be wrong.
The Kremlin is a building, not a person, you dumbfuck!
Liberals in America think that Socialism will rule the world forever, even though has failed each and every time it has been tried.
In contrast, conservative ideas work every time they're tried.
Posted by Jeffrey at 3:33 PM | TrackBack

Why are Macs more secure?

If I listed every single reason that the Mac OS X operating system is more secure than Microsoft Windows, then I'd be typing for a long time. Since it's late, I'll leave you with one reason.

When you're about to do something dangerous, or stupid, or significant, a Mac tends not to sit back and watch the fireworks. It will force you to enter your password first. (And if you're not at an administrator level or above, your Mac will halt your meddling.)

Password dialog box

This achieves several objectives: primarily, it makes sure the user has permission to alter critical system settings and/or install new software. But it also indirectly educates the user, by indicating what settings are integral to the well-being of the machine. In contrast, read this article on microsoft.com about editing the guts of a Windows installation and observe how many times your password is required. (I count zero, but to their credit, there is an easy-to-miss warning about Registry Editor's capability to nuke your system.)

In general, if you're about to do something nasty to your PC, Windows will (at best) ask you, "Are you really sure you want to [fuck shit up]?" Most likely, you'll click "Yes", because "Yes" is a positive button, compared to that downer "No" button. "Are you sure you want to [turn your firewall off and let the world download your personal data]?" Yes, yes, yes!!! But when your Mac asks for your password, it makes you stop for a second and consider what you just clicked.

Posted by Jeffrey at 3:12 AM | TrackBack