My pride as a language major has just been dealt a crippling blow. I've suffered a defeat at the hands of the word "segue."
I spelled it wrong, and my husband, who has only the most basic knowledge of spelling, knew that I had spelled it wrong.
My mistake was not for lack of having encountered the word before. I had read plenty of written examples of a word that meant "transition" and was spelled "segue," and I had heard plenty of spoken examples of a word that meant "transition" and was pronounced "segway."
Yet, somehow, I had never figured out that the two were the same word.
I had assumed that the word that was pronounced "segway" was spelled "segway" (I don't think it was because of the vehicle; I think my misconception of the spelling dates back to before the vehicle existed). And I assumed that the word that was spelled "segue" would be pronounced "seg," or "seeg," or "sayg."
The latter was because, to my knowledge, all words in the English language that end in "gue" pronounced it as a simple hard G. Spanish and French, two languages from which English has gotten many words, follow the same rule. Up until then I had found no exception to that rule in any language, and supposing that "segue" might be pronounced "segway" would require assuming an exception.
So my misconception was caused by my knowledge of a somewhat obscure spelling rule-- while my husband, who knows only the most basic spelling rules, had figured out the correct pronunciation of "segue" by sounding it out phonetically-- a technique that any literate fourth-grader knows you can't trust in this language.
I feel I've been punished for knowledge, and my husband has been rewarded for ignorance. I can't help but think life has been unfair to me. But I guess it just means I have to keep gaining more knowledge.
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Friday, November 02, 2007
Abby and Norma Latest News!!
Abby and Norma is now on a new website, with automatic updating so that I will never, ever be late in posting a strip again! Also, there is now an Abby and Norma Merchandise Page, with various shirts, hats, mugs and bags bearing these pictures:
(inspired by strip #42)
(inspired by strip #15)
(inspired by strip #51)
(inspired by strip #39)
(inspired by strip #36)
(not inspired by any strip, just a random idea I had)
(just a simple Abby and Norma logo).
Any ideas will be welcome.
(inspired by strip #42)
(inspired by strip #15)
(inspired by strip #51)
(inspired by strip #39)
(inspired by strip #36)
(not inspired by any strip, just a random idea I had)
(just a simple Abby and Norma logo).
Any ideas will be welcome.
Friday, September 28, 2007
Four weeks of bad luck
I'm posting while lying on my back with the laptop on my stomach, which is a very awkward typing position, so this may not be a long post.
Week before the week before last: busy helping a friend move out of her house and clean up/recycle/ebay a basement full of computer paraphernalia that her husband left her and refused to help get rid of when he divorced her.
Week before last: busy moving our own stuff (and leftover computer crap from helping this friend) into our new townhouse.
Last week: on vacation at Lake Superior. Husband broke his leg on second day of trip. Spent most of it in cabin taking care of bedridden husband. We will be a single-income family until he recovers in 4-6 weeks.
This week: busy unboxing and putting away stuff in new townhouse, until my back gave out last night. Today we are a no-income family. Hope I can go back to work tomorrow.
You see why I have been so quiet lately?
Week before the week before last: busy helping a friend move out of her house and clean up/recycle/ebay a basement full of computer paraphernalia that her husband left her and refused to help get rid of when he divorced her.
Week before last: busy moving our own stuff (and leftover computer crap from helping this friend) into our new townhouse.
Last week: on vacation at Lake Superior. Husband broke his leg on second day of trip. Spent most of it in cabin taking care of bedridden husband. We will be a single-income family until he recovers in 4-6 weeks.
This week: busy unboxing and putting away stuff in new townhouse, until my back gave out last night. Today we are a no-income family. Hope I can go back to work tomorrow.
You see why I have been so quiet lately?
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Ah, college days... and grade school days...
I'm reminiscing about college a bit today.
I took an education class once in college, more just to pass the time than because I was interested in learning about education. But there was some interesting stuff there... some of which just made me laugh at how silly people can be.
One article talked about a project in which hundreds of children were encouraged to write poems. A couple paragraphs of it were devoted to talking about a child whose poems were "disturbing"... specifically, that he wrote about "shooting his teachers, and killing his mother and flushing her head down the toilet." He was removed from the class and put in counseling.
Now, I don't know if his teachers had ever been children. I know I was a child once, and I remember it very well, and I remember that when I was a child, at least half of the other children I knew sang some variation of a song that went:
"Joy to the world, [insert name of victim here] is dead.
What happened to her head?
I took it from her body
And flushed it down the potty
And around and around it goes..."
And they also sang some variation of a song that went:
"On top of spaghetti, all covered with cheese,
I shot my poor teacher with a 40 MC
Thirty years later he rose from the dead
And I took my bazooka and blew off his head."
I strongly suspect that the poems written by the boy in the article were these ones, or something like them, and that the reason he wrote them was because he had heard them from other children. So he shouldn't have gotten in trouble for "disturbing writing"-- he should have gotten in trouble for freaking plagiarism.
Not that I approve of those songs, mind you. They're so unrealistic. You can't flush someone's head down a toilet. The only toilets that a human head would fit down are outhouses and porta-potties, and those don't flush.
But I digress...
I took an education class once in college, more just to pass the time than because I was interested in learning about education. But there was some interesting stuff there... some of which just made me laugh at how silly people can be.
One article talked about a project in which hundreds of children were encouraged to write poems. A couple paragraphs of it were devoted to talking about a child whose poems were "disturbing"... specifically, that he wrote about "shooting his teachers, and killing his mother and flushing her head down the toilet." He was removed from the class and put in counseling.
Now, I don't know if his teachers had ever been children. I know I was a child once, and I remember it very well, and I remember that when I was a child, at least half of the other children I knew sang some variation of a song that went:
"Joy to the world, [insert name of victim here] is dead.
What happened to her head?
I took it from her body
And flushed it down the potty
And around and around it goes..."
And they also sang some variation of a song that went:
"On top of spaghetti, all covered with cheese,
I shot my poor teacher with a 40 MC
Thirty years later he rose from the dead
And I took my bazooka and blew off his head."
I strongly suspect that the poems written by the boy in the article were these ones, or something like them, and that the reason he wrote them was because he had heard them from other children. So he shouldn't have gotten in trouble for "disturbing writing"-- he should have gotten in trouble for freaking plagiarism.
Not that I approve of those songs, mind you. They're so unrealistic. You can't flush someone's head down a toilet. The only toilets that a human head would fit down are outhouses and porta-potties, and those don't flush.
But I digress...
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
long essay on random topic
There's a lot of talk about how many of our personality traits come from genes, and there's a lot of dispute over it, especially when the question comes up of whether, and how strongly, any of these traits are connected to gender or race. Basically, I believe that many of our behaviors are genetic-- but also that many people take the idea of genetic traits too far, and that we have to recognize the dangers that come with this kind of thought.
First of all, I do believe that many of the personality traits we associate with gender are genetic, and that there is a basic tendency for these traits to follow the genders we expect them to follow. After all, practically every animal species that has genders exhibits behavior differences between them-- differences that often resemble the gender differences we see in humans-- and nobody doubts that they are genetic when found in animals. We share over half our genes with most animals; why should we think that we're the only species that doesn't have any inherent instincts (or at least any that tend to follow the gender lines)?
However-- and this is a big "however"-- we must be careful not to fall into the trap of thinking that such genetic traits always, or even almost always, follow the gender lines. They do not. They are tendencies, no more. Within the human species there is enormous variation in what instincts we experience, and also in whether we choose to act on our instincts. For any generalization describing human behavior, there are so many exceptions that the rule is barely any use.
When I was little, I was obsessed with frilly dresses, princesses, ballerinas and jewelry, and my brother was obsessed with cars, tanks, submarines, airplanes and guns. No one knew where this came from. Our parents had made an enormous effort to raise both of us in a gender-neutral environment, encouraging both of us equally to play with traditionally "feminine" toys, traditionally "masculine" toys, and gender-neutral toys. We couldn't have learned traditional gender roles from our parents' example; they were as far from the traditional gender roles as any parents can be. We had barely any friends, and mostly avoided our peers; I doubt we learned anything from them. We were isolated from almost everything outside the family. We didn't even watch TV. And at that age, we saw our mother as the ultimate authority on everything, and she said gender didn't matter, so we wouldn't have listened to anyone who said otherwise.
And yet, somehow, we had developed stereotypical masculine and feminine interests. The only explanation seems to be that it was an inherent instinct.
Yet it's also clear that such inherent instincts do not always appear in the genders they're expected from. At the same time that I was obsessed with princesses and ballerinas, I also played with worms and centipedes in the backyard. At the same time that he was fascinated with war machines, my brother also devotedly loved kittens and puppies.
And of course, time and time again throughout history, a mother has brought her daughter up with nothing but dolls and tea sets to play with, forbidden her to associate with anyone who went against gender expectations, and still found the girl becoming a "tomboy," developing interests in traditionally masculine activities. Such a girl's interests must be genetic-- there's no place else they could come from-- and yet they do not follow our expectations of where such a genetic instinct would appear.
There are similar issues with race. I believe it is quite possible that there are some genetic behavioral tendencies associated with race-- after all, evolution has caused different races to have many different physical characteristics depending on what is useful for survival in the environment where each race originally developed. It's not too much of a stretch beyond that to suppose that we might also have evolved different genetic leanings toward behaviors that were beneficial in our ancestors' original habitats.
However, this idea poses the same dangers as the thought of gender-related genetic tendencies. First, it sometimes leads people to believe that some races are genetically "inferior" to others. Obviously, this is not true. There would never have been any reason for a race to evolve a behavior that was inherently harmful. The only traits that could have been evolved are ones that are helpful in certain environments.
For instance, it's been shown that members of cultures that live in cold climates tend to be more introverted, while members of cultures that live in warm climates tend to be more extroverted. It's quite possible that this is just cultural, but I also wouldn't be surprised if there were some genetic factor. After all, the ability to enjoy being alone is very useful in an environment where snow and cold may often prevent you from going out and spending time with people... while the ability to enjoy other people's company is useful in an environment where warm weather brings everyone outside most of the time.
In contrast, I do not believe that there is anything genetic behind the fact that some races in the United States have higher crime rates than others. There would be no reason to evolve a tendency toward crime. The most likely explanation is that such tendencies come from the economic situations that some races are forced into.
And again, as in the case of gender, it is dangerous to start making assumptions about people based on the idea that there are genetic behavior traits linked to race. It is possible that there are such links, but if so, they are weak links; remember that we haven't even found proof of them yet. And even the most reliable generalizations about human beings have enough exceptions to get you in trouble if you use them as your basis for understanding people.
Using generalizations may increase your chances of guessing correctly about people's personalities, but it's better not to guess at all. There will always be times when your generalizations will cause you to guess wrong and offend someone, and those times will cause a lot more problems than the times when you start out with no assumption at all.
For instance, I would be very upset if everybody looked at me and said, "She's a woman, therefore she probably has a strong maternal instinct-- let's all ask her to baby-sit our kids." They would be wrong. Most women (and most men, for that matter) do have some parental feelings, but I'm different. I panic if I have to look after a child, and I'd be offended if people assumed otherwise just because of my gender. Similarly, I'd be very upset if people looked at me and said, "She's part Norwegian, and Norway is a cold place; therefore she's probably a loner. She'll be happier if we all avoid her and don't talk to her." I am introverted, but that doesn't mean I want everyone to ignore me... and I certainly don't want anyone to make assumptions about me based on my ethnicity.
So, the conclusion I've come to is that each race or gender may carry a somewhat increased likelihood of having certain genetic behavior traits, but even if that's true, it's irrelevant to the question of what's the moral way to treat people. Such traits, if they exist, are not universal or even close to universal within the given gender or race. The best thing we can do for society is to act as if there were no connection between behavior traits and race or gender... and simply avoid making assumptions about people until we get to know them.
First of all, I do believe that many of the personality traits we associate with gender are genetic, and that there is a basic tendency for these traits to follow the genders we expect them to follow. After all, practically every animal species that has genders exhibits behavior differences between them-- differences that often resemble the gender differences we see in humans-- and nobody doubts that they are genetic when found in animals. We share over half our genes with most animals; why should we think that we're the only species that doesn't have any inherent instincts (or at least any that tend to follow the gender lines)?
However-- and this is a big "however"-- we must be careful not to fall into the trap of thinking that such genetic traits always, or even almost always, follow the gender lines. They do not. They are tendencies, no more. Within the human species there is enormous variation in what instincts we experience, and also in whether we choose to act on our instincts. For any generalization describing human behavior, there are so many exceptions that the rule is barely any use.
When I was little, I was obsessed with frilly dresses, princesses, ballerinas and jewelry, and my brother was obsessed with cars, tanks, submarines, airplanes and guns. No one knew where this came from. Our parents had made an enormous effort to raise both of us in a gender-neutral environment, encouraging both of us equally to play with traditionally "feminine" toys, traditionally "masculine" toys, and gender-neutral toys. We couldn't have learned traditional gender roles from our parents' example; they were as far from the traditional gender roles as any parents can be. We had barely any friends, and mostly avoided our peers; I doubt we learned anything from them. We were isolated from almost everything outside the family. We didn't even watch TV. And at that age, we saw our mother as the ultimate authority on everything, and she said gender didn't matter, so we wouldn't have listened to anyone who said otherwise.
And yet, somehow, we had developed stereotypical masculine and feminine interests. The only explanation seems to be that it was an inherent instinct.
Yet it's also clear that such inherent instincts do not always appear in the genders they're expected from. At the same time that I was obsessed with princesses and ballerinas, I also played with worms and centipedes in the backyard. At the same time that he was fascinated with war machines, my brother also devotedly loved kittens and puppies.
And of course, time and time again throughout history, a mother has brought her daughter up with nothing but dolls and tea sets to play with, forbidden her to associate with anyone who went against gender expectations, and still found the girl becoming a "tomboy," developing interests in traditionally masculine activities. Such a girl's interests must be genetic-- there's no place else they could come from-- and yet they do not follow our expectations of where such a genetic instinct would appear.
There are similar issues with race. I believe it is quite possible that there are some genetic behavioral tendencies associated with race-- after all, evolution has caused different races to have many different physical characteristics depending on what is useful for survival in the environment where each race originally developed. It's not too much of a stretch beyond that to suppose that we might also have evolved different genetic leanings toward behaviors that were beneficial in our ancestors' original habitats.
However, this idea poses the same dangers as the thought of gender-related genetic tendencies. First, it sometimes leads people to believe that some races are genetically "inferior" to others. Obviously, this is not true. There would never have been any reason for a race to evolve a behavior that was inherently harmful. The only traits that could have been evolved are ones that are helpful in certain environments.
For instance, it's been shown that members of cultures that live in cold climates tend to be more introverted, while members of cultures that live in warm climates tend to be more extroverted. It's quite possible that this is just cultural, but I also wouldn't be surprised if there were some genetic factor. After all, the ability to enjoy being alone is very useful in an environment where snow and cold may often prevent you from going out and spending time with people... while the ability to enjoy other people's company is useful in an environment where warm weather brings everyone outside most of the time.
In contrast, I do not believe that there is anything genetic behind the fact that some races in the United States have higher crime rates than others. There would be no reason to evolve a tendency toward crime. The most likely explanation is that such tendencies come from the economic situations that some races are forced into.
And again, as in the case of gender, it is dangerous to start making assumptions about people based on the idea that there are genetic behavior traits linked to race. It is possible that there are such links, but if so, they are weak links; remember that we haven't even found proof of them yet. And even the most reliable generalizations about human beings have enough exceptions to get you in trouble if you use them as your basis for understanding people.
Using generalizations may increase your chances of guessing correctly about people's personalities, but it's better not to guess at all. There will always be times when your generalizations will cause you to guess wrong and offend someone, and those times will cause a lot more problems than the times when you start out with no assumption at all.
For instance, I would be very upset if everybody looked at me and said, "She's a woman, therefore she probably has a strong maternal instinct-- let's all ask her to baby-sit our kids." They would be wrong. Most women (and most men, for that matter) do have some parental feelings, but I'm different. I panic if I have to look after a child, and I'd be offended if people assumed otherwise just because of my gender. Similarly, I'd be very upset if people looked at me and said, "She's part Norwegian, and Norway is a cold place; therefore she's probably a loner. She'll be happier if we all avoid her and don't talk to her." I am introverted, but that doesn't mean I want everyone to ignore me... and I certainly don't want anyone to make assumptions about me based on my ethnicity.
So, the conclusion I've come to is that each race or gender may carry a somewhat increased likelihood of having certain genetic behavior traits, but even if that's true, it's irrelevant to the question of what's the moral way to treat people. Such traits, if they exist, are not universal or even close to universal within the given gender or race. The best thing we can do for society is to act as if there were no connection between behavior traits and race or gender... and simply avoid making assumptions about people until we get to know them.
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Domain name etc.
I know I haven't been posting on this blog every week as I said I would-- that's partly because I'm reconsidering whether some of the things I was going to post are too controversial, and also whether they may be boring.
In any case, I'd like to announce that I've bought the domain name www.abbyandnorma.com, which now redirects to my comic page. The comic is getting more and more hits, and I wanted to be sure I got that domain before anyone else did.
Which may mean I'm smarter than the government, which didn't even think of buying the domain names "whitehouse.com" and "whitehouse.org" until they'd already been bought by a porn site and an anti-Bush parody site.
This is why I don't trust any decisions the government makes regarding computers. Every government is made up mainly of old men who have spent their whole lives in careers almost completely unrelated to technology-- so expecting them to be tech-savvy is expecting too much.
In any case, I'd like to announce that I've bought the domain name www.abbyandnorma.com, which now redirects to my comic page. The comic is getting more and more hits, and I wanted to be sure I got that domain before anyone else did.
Which may mean I'm smarter than the government, which didn't even think of buying the domain names "whitehouse.com" and "whitehouse.org" until they'd already been bought by a porn site and an anti-Bush parody site.
This is why I don't trust any decisions the government makes regarding computers. Every government is made up mainly of old men who have spent their whole lives in careers almost completely unrelated to technology-- so expecting them to be tech-savvy is expecting too much.
Thursday, August 09, 2007
What. The.
Someone just found my website by searching for "how to fix baby's pointy ear."
Obviously without the quotes, because that sentence is not on my website. I may have used the words "how to," "fix" and "baby" a few times, but my only reference to pointy ears was about a costume piece I made that you can wear in order to look as if you have pointy ears.
So, fat lot of help they got for Poor Pointy-Eared Baby. I hope they buy one of my pointy ear headbands. That'll at least make Baby look like he has two MATCHING pointy ears.
Obviously without the quotes, because that sentence is not on my website. I may have used the words "how to," "fix" and "baby" a few times, but my only reference to pointy ears was about a costume piece I made that you can wear in order to look as if you have pointy ears.
So, fat lot of help they got for Poor Pointy-Eared Baby. I hope they buy one of my pointy ear headbands. That'll at least make Baby look like he has two MATCHING pointy ears.
Thursday, August 02, 2007
I'm safe
Those of you who know that I live in Minneapolis, don't worry about me. We were on our way home when the Mississippi River bridge fell down, but we weren't on that route, although it was one of the routes we could have taken. (When the collapse happened, there were workers on the bridge repairing the surface, and some other construction going on nearby... and we try to avoid routes that are under construction, because of the traffic.)
For what it's worth, we don't think it was sabotage. My husband, who's into physics and chemistry, thinks that it could've been caused by a malfunction of the heater that they were using in repairing the bridge surface... and the reason it collapsed during rush hour instead of some quieter time is probably because of all the extra weight of cars on the bridge.
For what it's worth, we don't think it was sabotage. My husband, who's into physics and chemistry, thinks that it could've been caused by a malfunction of the heater that they were using in repairing the bridge surface... and the reason it collapsed during rush hour instead of some quieter time is probably because of all the extra weight of cars on the bridge.
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Abby and Norma's first mention on *someone else's website*!
I'm all excited today because I found out that Abby and Norma was mentioned on ITworld.com! In fact, it was the Geek Comic of the Week! Still is, as of the time of this writing. Awesome! I had put a few Project Wonderful ads for it on Dinosaur Comics and Dr. McNinja... and I guess the publicity is paying off.
By the way, I highly recommend Project Wonderful to any ordinary person trying to get visitors to a website. I got three days of ads on Dinosaur Comics and one day of ads on Dr. McNinja for less than ten dollars. The genius of their system is that they charge by the day, not by clicks or page impressions, so you can't get screwed by someone who decides to click on your ad eighty times. If you've decided you don't want to get charged more than ten bucks, you won't get charged more than ten bucks. (Not so great if you're the person selling ad space... but actually, in my case, it would be better than Google Ads, which have gotten me only 5 clicks and $3.34 in the several months and thousands of page views that they've been on my website.)
By the way, I highly recommend Project Wonderful to any ordinary person trying to get visitors to a website. I got three days of ads on Dinosaur Comics and one day of ads on Dr. McNinja for less than ten dollars. The genius of their system is that they charge by the day, not by clicks or page impressions, so you can't get screwed by someone who decides to click on your ad eighty times. If you've decided you don't want to get charged more than ten bucks, you won't get charged more than ten bucks. (Not so great if you're the person selling ad space... but actually, in my case, it would be better than Google Ads, which have gotten me only 5 clicks and $3.34 in the several months and thousands of page views that they've been on my website.)
No faith in the existence of faith
If "faith" is defined as "believing something without evidence," then there is no such thing as faith.
Now, when I say "evidence," I don't mean "absolute proof." It's impossible to have absolute proof of anything. Even if you see something with your own eyes, you could just be hallucinating. Even if the answer to a mathematical problem makes perfect sense to you, that might be because of some deformity in your brain. There are plenty of things that can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but there is nothing that can be proven beyond all doubt.
So if someone says that we don't have absolute proof of the theory of evolution, for example... well, that's technically true, but meaningless, since we also don't have absolute proof that there are any planets besides Earth, or that light comes from the sun, or that fairies don't exist.
It's pointless to define evidence as absolute proof. The most that evidence can be is "a piece of information that convinces you that something is likely to be true." And nobody can believe something without any evidence at all. It's just that some people need more evidence than others.
For example, I believe that evolution happened-- because there is a lot of scientific evidence that convinces me that evolution is more likely than the alternative (since the alternative is either "Thousands of scientists are conspiring to fake their results" or "God faked all the fossil evidence just to mess with our minds.")
But some people hold their beliefs based on lines of reasoning like the following:
A) "My parents taught this to me, and I believe my parents are always right about things like this, therefore I will believe it."
Or:
B) "I believe that God is good, and I like X and dislike Y, therefore I believe that God also likes X and dislikes Y, because otherwise God wouldn't be good in my opinion."
Most religious beliefs are held based on these two logical processes. They are not very strong lines of reasoning, but they are also not faith. They are evidence, in the sense of "a piece of information that convinces a person that something is likely to be true." Starting with pieces of information like "My parents believe this" or "God is good and I think that these things are good," people draw a line of logical reasoning and reach a religious belief.
The reason it's impossible to have blind faith is because there are thousands of religions in the world. If people could have faith in a religion without any concrete proof or logical argument in favor of it, then they would believe every religion that exists... and since religions contradict each other, this would necessitate a lot of doublethink.
So it doesn't happen that way. In reality, people believe in their religions either because they've been brought up in those religions, or because the teachings of those religions make sense to them... in other words, arguments A and B as described above.
Which are a form of evidence, as I've shown. So it makes no sense for a proselytizer to tell me that I just need to have faith and believe what he says without evidence of any kind. A dozen other proselytizers for different religions are telling me the same thing-- so if I didn't need any evidence in order to believe something, then how could I choose which one to listen to? Obviously, when multiple people are trying to convince me of different things, I have to choose who to believe based on who has the best evidence. And right now, the theory of evolution has the best evidence for me.
Now, when I say "evidence," I don't mean "absolute proof." It's impossible to have absolute proof of anything. Even if you see something with your own eyes, you could just be hallucinating. Even if the answer to a mathematical problem makes perfect sense to you, that might be because of some deformity in your brain. There are plenty of things that can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but there is nothing that can be proven beyond all doubt.
So if someone says that we don't have absolute proof of the theory of evolution, for example... well, that's technically true, but meaningless, since we also don't have absolute proof that there are any planets besides Earth, or that light comes from the sun, or that fairies don't exist.
It's pointless to define evidence as absolute proof. The most that evidence can be is "a piece of information that convinces you that something is likely to be true." And nobody can believe something without any evidence at all. It's just that some people need more evidence than others.
For example, I believe that evolution happened-- because there is a lot of scientific evidence that convinces me that evolution is more likely than the alternative (since the alternative is either "Thousands of scientists are conspiring to fake their results" or "God faked all the fossil evidence just to mess with our minds.")
But some people hold their beliefs based on lines of reasoning like the following:
A) "My parents taught this to me, and I believe my parents are always right about things like this, therefore I will believe it."
Or:
B) "I believe that God is good, and I like X and dislike Y, therefore I believe that God also likes X and dislikes Y, because otherwise God wouldn't be good in my opinion."
Most religious beliefs are held based on these two logical processes. They are not very strong lines of reasoning, but they are also not faith. They are evidence, in the sense of "a piece of information that convinces a person that something is likely to be true." Starting with pieces of information like "My parents believe this" or "God is good and I think that these things are good," people draw a line of logical reasoning and reach a religious belief.
The reason it's impossible to have blind faith is because there are thousands of religions in the world. If people could have faith in a religion without any concrete proof or logical argument in favor of it, then they would believe every religion that exists... and since religions contradict each other, this would necessitate a lot of doublethink.
So it doesn't happen that way. In reality, people believe in their religions either because they've been brought up in those religions, or because the teachings of those religions make sense to them... in other words, arguments A and B as described above.
Which are a form of evidence, as I've shown. So it makes no sense for a proselytizer to tell me that I just need to have faith and believe what he says without evidence of any kind. A dozen other proselytizers for different religions are telling me the same thing-- so if I didn't need any evidence in order to believe something, then how could I choose which one to listen to? Obviously, when multiple people are trying to convince me of different things, I have to choose who to believe based on who has the best evidence. And right now, the theory of evolution has the best evidence for me.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
There's always a reason... but not in real life
Have you ever noticed that everything always happens for a reason in fiction?
I don't mean that everything has a cause, or that everything is connected to everything else in small, hard-to-detect ways-- those things are true in real life, too. What I mean is that whenever something, no matter how small, happens in a work of fiction, it always seems to be connected to the main events of the story in an important, "meaningful" way.
For example, if a fictional character has a slip of the tongue, saying something other than what he or she meant to say, it can mean one of three things:
1. It's a Freudian slip, and it gives us a glimpse into what was on the character's mind.
Or:
2. It shows that the character is nervous or stressed, and therefore making mistakes in speech because of distraction.
Or:
3. It's part of character development, indicating that the character is "the type of person" who would make such a mistake-- which, in stories, always seems to mean a clumsy, bumbling type of character.
Of course, in real life, we frequently see dexterous, alert individuals in relaxed, non-stressful situations having little slips of the tongue that cannot possibly be interpreted as windows into their psyches. But those mistakes are completely irrelevant to the "important" events of these people's lives-- and so, if the events of their lives were made into a fictionalized story, those slips of the tongue would undoubtedly be left out. Everything in a novel or short story has to be relevant to the plot, or else readers start asking, "Why is this even in here?"
This is one of the things that annoy me about fiction. In real life, not every tiny little event is relevant to the things we consider important. Connected, yes, in some tiny way-- but not connected in the overt ways we always seem to see in fiction. Which means that fiction-- or at least the vast majority of fiction-- is unrealistic.
I'm guilty of doing this in my own fiction, too, if only because I'm afraid of readers getting confused about why I put some particular detail into the story. There always has to be a "why." If any author ever wrote a realistic story-- a story in which at least 70% of the events were unrelated to the plot in any vital way-- people would not understand it. They would look at 70% of the paragraphs and ask, "Why is this even here? It's not relevant." In fact, the same would happen with a story where only 10% of the paragraphs were irrelevant. If there's even one sentence in a story that's not connected to the plot, then someone, somewhere, is going to criticize it.
So all the characters have to speak perfectly, unless they are nervous, clumsy, or thinking about another subject. No sight, sound or event can be described unless it is useful in building character, setting or plot. How can people say that this is the right way to write a story, and yet still say that fiction should be realistic?
I don't mean that everything has a cause, or that everything is connected to everything else in small, hard-to-detect ways-- those things are true in real life, too. What I mean is that whenever something, no matter how small, happens in a work of fiction, it always seems to be connected to the main events of the story in an important, "meaningful" way.
For example, if a fictional character has a slip of the tongue, saying something other than what he or she meant to say, it can mean one of three things:
1. It's a Freudian slip, and it gives us a glimpse into what was on the character's mind.
Or:
2. It shows that the character is nervous or stressed, and therefore making mistakes in speech because of distraction.
Or:
3. It's part of character development, indicating that the character is "the type of person" who would make such a mistake-- which, in stories, always seems to mean a clumsy, bumbling type of character.
Of course, in real life, we frequently see dexterous, alert individuals in relaxed, non-stressful situations having little slips of the tongue that cannot possibly be interpreted as windows into their psyches. But those mistakes are completely irrelevant to the "important" events of these people's lives-- and so, if the events of their lives were made into a fictionalized story, those slips of the tongue would undoubtedly be left out. Everything in a novel or short story has to be relevant to the plot, or else readers start asking, "Why is this even in here?"
This is one of the things that annoy me about fiction. In real life, not every tiny little event is relevant to the things we consider important. Connected, yes, in some tiny way-- but not connected in the overt ways we always seem to see in fiction. Which means that fiction-- or at least the vast majority of fiction-- is unrealistic.
I'm guilty of doing this in my own fiction, too, if only because I'm afraid of readers getting confused about why I put some particular detail into the story. There always has to be a "why." If any author ever wrote a realistic story-- a story in which at least 70% of the events were unrelated to the plot in any vital way-- people would not understand it. They would look at 70% of the paragraphs and ask, "Why is this even here? It's not relevant." In fact, the same would happen with a story where only 10% of the paragraphs were irrelevant. If there's even one sentence in a story that's not connected to the plot, then someone, somewhere, is going to criticize it.
So all the characters have to speak perfectly, unless they are nervous, clumsy, or thinking about another subject. No sight, sound or event can be described unless it is useful in building character, setting or plot. How can people say that this is the right way to write a story, and yet still say that fiction should be realistic?
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
The insane conversations that my brain has with itself...
"Hi, my name is Roe. I am a salmon egg."
"Hi. My name is Wade. I am a guy wading into the water to take you out and cook you and eat you."
"But I don't want to be eaten! I want to hatch into a salmon and grow up."
"Sorry, that's not your choice. Life begins at hatching, it doesn't begin at spawning. Right now, it's your mother's choice."
"But my mother is dead. All salmon die right after they spawn."
"Oh. Well, then, I believe that this situation does not fall under the legislation established by the Supreme Court."
"Then this conversation has been meaningless. We have not reached any conclusion on any controversial topic. We have only established that salmon are different from humans."
"Well, then I guess it also pointless for me to eat you. Goodbye, Roe."
"Goodbye, Wade."
... goodbye, sanity...
"Hi. My name is Wade. I am a guy wading into the water to take you out and cook you and eat you."
"But I don't want to be eaten! I want to hatch into a salmon and grow up."
"Sorry, that's not your choice. Life begins at hatching, it doesn't begin at spawning. Right now, it's your mother's choice."
"But my mother is dead. All salmon die right after they spawn."
"Oh. Well, then, I believe that this situation does not fall under the legislation established by the Supreme Court."
"Then this conversation has been meaningless. We have not reached any conclusion on any controversial topic. We have only established that salmon are different from humans."
"Well, then I guess it also pointless for me to eat you. Goodbye, Roe."
"Goodbye, Wade."
... goodbye, sanity...
Monday, July 16, 2007
Spiders on potatoes are better than fruit flies
Sorry that Abby and Norma is late today. I was out late last night and had to work early this morning.
There is a Spider-Man/Mr. Potato Head crossover toy called Spider Spud. I am not even kidding. He shoots webs... what are they, a mutant version of those white tendrils that potatoes send out when you leave them in the drawer too long? And who does he fight? Doctor Okra and the Green Gherkin? Nobody knows. There is no comic book, no story, not even the usual plethora of accessories... just the potato and the web.
I got heat stroke today on the way home. Didn't pass out or anything, but I started feeling very sleepy as I approached my apartment building. Once inside, I drank ice water and put a cold cloth over my head, and now I'm a little shivery, but awake.
We bought Guitar Hero! It's bizarre that I enjoy it, seeing that I'm usually rather indifferent to both music and video games-- but I really do enjoy it. I guess there's no accounting for taste, even one's own.
There is a Spider-Man/Mr. Potato Head crossover toy called Spider Spud. I am not even kidding. He shoots webs... what are they, a mutant version of those white tendrils that potatoes send out when you leave them in the drawer too long? And who does he fight? Doctor Okra and the Green Gherkin? Nobody knows. There is no comic book, no story, not even the usual plethora of accessories... just the potato and the web.
I got heat stroke today on the way home. Didn't pass out or anything, but I started feeling very sleepy as I approached my apartment building. Once inside, I drank ice water and put a cold cloth over my head, and now I'm a little shivery, but awake.
We bought Guitar Hero! It's bizarre that I enjoy it, seeing that I'm usually rather indifferent to both music and video games-- but I really do enjoy it. I guess there's no accounting for taste, even one's own.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
IKEA bot again
I've managed to get my IKEA bot video to upload to YouTube with a better screencap picture showing up in Youtube search results. You basically just have to make sure the frame you want them to use is right in the middle of your video.
I improved a few other things too, but basically it's the same.
I improved a few other things too, but basically it's the same.
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Random robotic reflections
Have you heard of the "Uncanny Valley"? It's a theory about people's reactions to robots. People can't relate to robots if they look nothing like humans, and we find them cute if they look slightly like humans... but the closer they get to looking exactly like humans, the more disturbing they will seem. They stop seeming like cartoonish representations of people, and start seeming like very strange-looking, creepy real people. It's a "valley" because we can theoretically come back out of it on the other side, when we get good enough at making humanoid robots that they can't be distinguished from humans at all.
I personally apply the same theory to animals. Humans tend to find animals very unattractive if they look completely and utterly unlike humans (for example, centipedes and worms and squids). We begin to find animals attractive when they look a little more like us (lions, gazelles, eagles). We admire their beauty, and compare beautiful people to them. Yet when animals get too close to looking like humans (monkeys, chimpanzees, gorillas) we suddenly don't find them beautiful at all.
However, there is one important difference: Animals that look very much like humans do not disturb us in the same way as robots that look very much like humans. Most people do not get "creeped out" when they see a monkey or ape. We have a certain affection for them, even though we would never look at our spouses and say "You're so beautiful, you look like a gorilla." We might very well look at our children and say "You're so cute, you look like a monkey." The difference between "cute" and "beautiful" is important here; we might compare a monkey to a child, someone toward whom we feel parental affection-- but we do not compare it to someone with whom we could be "in love." This may be because monkeys and apes remind us of human children instead of human adults, with their more playful and simple nature.
And speaking of children, this is where I first found out about the "Uncanny Valley." It is graphic proof that a robot that looks like a human child is definitely not endearing in the same way as an animal that looks like a human child. Prepare to be creeped out.
I personally apply the same theory to animals. Humans tend to find animals very unattractive if they look completely and utterly unlike humans (for example, centipedes and worms and squids). We begin to find animals attractive when they look a little more like us (lions, gazelles, eagles). We admire their beauty, and compare beautiful people to them. Yet when animals get too close to looking like humans (monkeys, chimpanzees, gorillas) we suddenly don't find them beautiful at all.
However, there is one important difference: Animals that look very much like humans do not disturb us in the same way as robots that look very much like humans. Most people do not get "creeped out" when they see a monkey or ape. We have a certain affection for them, even though we would never look at our spouses and say "You're so beautiful, you look like a gorilla." We might very well look at our children and say "You're so cute, you look like a monkey." The difference between "cute" and "beautiful" is important here; we might compare a monkey to a child, someone toward whom we feel parental affection-- but we do not compare it to someone with whom we could be "in love." This may be because monkeys and apes remind us of human children instead of human adults, with their more playful and simple nature.
And speaking of children, this is where I first found out about the "Uncanny Valley." It is graphic proof that a robot that looks like a human child is definitely not endearing in the same way as an animal that looks like a human child. Prepare to be creeped out.
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
New logo!
After posting about the updates to my jewelry page, I started thinking about the logo a bit more, and realized it was awfully amateurish (I made it when I was in high school, for crying out loud).
And after thinking about it for a few minutes, I got inspired and made a new one. Take a look!
That's all for tonight. Really.
And after thinking about it for a few minutes, I got inspired and made a new one. Take a look!
That's all for tonight. Really.
Propaganda for me!
My Abby and Norma comic recently had a little three-strip story arc that I'm pretty proud of. It started here.
But there's bigger news: My jewelry page is now fully functional! It's undergone various changes, including the addition of Lake Superior jewelry with real silver wire, and geometric tube bead jewelry with real silver beads and freshwater pearls. Go take a look!
(Oh, and see if you can find the hidden "Enterprises" in the "Erika's Enterprises" logo. I made the logo years and years ago, and incorporated it into my jewelry page back when I first put it up on Geocities... but as far as I know, nobody's ever noticed the Enterprises. Probably only I would recognize a Constitution-class vessel seen from the front. I am such a Star Trek nerd...)
But there's bigger news: My jewelry page is now fully functional! It's undergone various changes, including the addition of Lake Superior jewelry with real silver wire, and geometric tube bead jewelry with real silver beads and freshwater pearls. Go take a look!
(Oh, and see if you can find the hidden "Enterprises" in the "Erika's Enterprises" logo. I made the logo years and years ago, and incorporated it into my jewelry page back when I first put it up on Geocities... but as far as I know, nobody's ever noticed the Enterprises. Probably only I would recognize a Constitution-class vessel seen from the front. I am such a Star Trek nerd...)
"Nice" signals
And here's my deep thoughtful post for the week. I posted a version of this as a comment on someone's LJ, and thought it would make a good post of its own.
Basically, there's a very fascinating and informative blog post here, by a person on the autism spectrum who talks about being misunderstood because of an inability to give off "I-am-nice signals." While the post is mainly talking about signals that can be given over the internet (nuances in the wording of a sentence, for example) it's also very much of an issue with signals in body language.
As a person with Asperger's Syndrome, I can certainly relate... but my problems are a bit different. Personally, I'm the kind of Aspie who only has mild difficulty with giving off and perceiving "nice" signals, and I guess I have actually become kind of dependent on perceiving them when dealing with non-autistics.
What I mean is that non-autistics (and many autistics) often say things they don't mean (like "I want to kill him")... but when non-autistics say these things, they will give off fewer "nice" signals depending on how angry they are. So, you often can't tell what people mean by their words (usually the person who says "I want to kill him" doesn't really want to kill anyone)... but when people say words that seem angry, you can usually tell how angry they are by noticing how much or how little they laugh, smile, etc. while saying it.
If a coworker says something like "You brought peanut butter cookies in to work on a day I wasn't there, and you know how much I love your peanut butter cookies! You're so awful!"... there will probably be a lot of smiles and laughs along with those words, and I'll understand that the coworker is not really mad at me. But if a coworker says something like "Why did you go on break while there was still work to do? We didn't get the work done on time!" ...then there will be an overall absence of "nice" signals, and I will know the person's mad at me for real. This is the way the system usually goes, in theory.
Interestingly, there are both "friendly" signals (smiles, laughs, raised eyebrows) and "angry" signals (frowns, bared teeth, lowered eyebrows)... but while an absence of "friendly" signals is often a sign of anger, an absence of "angry" signals is often not a sign of friendliness. Angry people often hide their anger signals, but people who are being friendly usually do not hide their friendly signals. So, in non-autistics, a total absence of facial expression is usually a sign of anger, not friendliness.
So I'm somewhat guilty of making the kind of assumptions that "Ballastexistenz" complains about: When I'm talking to a stranger who doesn't give off many "nice" signals, I tend to assume that they're angry at me, because that's what is usually true for non-autistics. But then, sometimes, I observe this person for a long time, and notice that I'm seeing the same absence of "nice" signals whether we're talking about something serious like a badly-timed break or something silly like a badly-timed batch of peanut butter cookies. Then I realize that there are two possibilities: Either I have offended this person in the past without realizing it, and so they're mad at me all the time... or they're the kind of person who just doesn't use much body language.
Unfortunately, I'm pretty paranoid about making social mistakes and causing people to have grudges against me, and so usually my first assumption is that the person is mad at me all the time because of some unwitting wrong I have committed against them in the past. And I'm really scared of conflict, so I will tend to be afraid of such people for a long time.
There are a few cases, currently, in which I am just beginning to realize that the people in question probably don't really have anything against me, they're probably just not very expressive people. I'm working on getting over my fear of them. It's hard.
Interestingly, I don't differentiate much between men and women on this subject. There are people of both sexes who scare me because their facial expressions don't change while talking to me. It's true that, in our society, men can get away with an absence of friendly body language more than women can-- but as a matter of fact, I tend to get along better with men who do give off a lot of friendly body language (my husband is an Aspie whose mannerisms have often been called "feminine").
So, even though I do have some mild difficulties of my own in figuring out body language, I have become somewhat reliant on it when dealing with non-autistics, because the words they speak often don't say anything at all about what they're really feeling, and body language is the only way to figure out what they are feeling. And when I meet someone who seems otherwise normal but doesn't use much body language, I'm usually out of my depth for a while.
(ETA: I used the word "autistics" in the above paragraph when I meant "non-autistics." I've changed it now. Sorry if it confused you.)
Basically, there's a very fascinating and informative blog post here, by a person on the autism spectrum who talks about being misunderstood because of an inability to give off "I-am-nice signals." While the post is mainly talking about signals that can be given over the internet (nuances in the wording of a sentence, for example) it's also very much of an issue with signals in body language.
As a person with Asperger's Syndrome, I can certainly relate... but my problems are a bit different. Personally, I'm the kind of Aspie who only has mild difficulty with giving off and perceiving "nice" signals, and I guess I have actually become kind of dependent on perceiving them when dealing with non-autistics.
What I mean is that non-autistics (and many autistics) often say things they don't mean (like "I want to kill him")... but when non-autistics say these things, they will give off fewer "nice" signals depending on how angry they are. So, you often can't tell what people mean by their words (usually the person who says "I want to kill him" doesn't really want to kill anyone)... but when people say words that seem angry, you can usually tell how angry they are by noticing how much or how little they laugh, smile, etc. while saying it.
If a coworker says something like "You brought peanut butter cookies in to work on a day I wasn't there, and you know how much I love your peanut butter cookies! You're so awful!"... there will probably be a lot of smiles and laughs along with those words, and I'll understand that the coworker is not really mad at me. But if a coworker says something like "Why did you go on break while there was still work to do? We didn't get the work done on time!" ...then there will be an overall absence of "nice" signals, and I will know the person's mad at me for real. This is the way the system usually goes, in theory.
Interestingly, there are both "friendly" signals (smiles, laughs, raised eyebrows) and "angry" signals (frowns, bared teeth, lowered eyebrows)... but while an absence of "friendly" signals is often a sign of anger, an absence of "angry" signals is often not a sign of friendliness. Angry people often hide their anger signals, but people who are being friendly usually do not hide their friendly signals. So, in non-autistics, a total absence of facial expression is usually a sign of anger, not friendliness.
So I'm somewhat guilty of making the kind of assumptions that "Ballastexistenz" complains about: When I'm talking to a stranger who doesn't give off many "nice" signals, I tend to assume that they're angry at me, because that's what is usually true for non-autistics. But then, sometimes, I observe this person for a long time, and notice that I'm seeing the same absence of "nice" signals whether we're talking about something serious like a badly-timed break or something silly like a badly-timed batch of peanut butter cookies. Then I realize that there are two possibilities: Either I have offended this person in the past without realizing it, and so they're mad at me all the time... or they're the kind of person who just doesn't use much body language.
Unfortunately, I'm pretty paranoid about making social mistakes and causing people to have grudges against me, and so usually my first assumption is that the person is mad at me all the time because of some unwitting wrong I have committed against them in the past. And I'm really scared of conflict, so I will tend to be afraid of such people for a long time.
There are a few cases, currently, in which I am just beginning to realize that the people in question probably don't really have anything against me, they're probably just not very expressive people. I'm working on getting over my fear of them. It's hard.
Interestingly, I don't differentiate much between men and women on this subject. There are people of both sexes who scare me because their facial expressions don't change while talking to me. It's true that, in our society, men can get away with an absence of friendly body language more than women can-- but as a matter of fact, I tend to get along better with men who do give off a lot of friendly body language (my husband is an Aspie whose mannerisms have often been called "feminine").
So, even though I do have some mild difficulties of my own in figuring out body language, I have become somewhat reliant on it when dealing with non-autistics, because the words they speak often don't say anything at all about what they're really feeling, and body language is the only way to figure out what they are feeling. And when I meet someone who seems otherwise normal but doesn't use much body language, I'm usually out of my depth for a while.
(ETA: I used the word "autistics" in the above paragraph when I meant "non-autistics." I've changed it now. Sorry if it confused you.)
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Finally: a thoughtful, serious post
I wish there were a politically correct word for "politically correct."
When I try to talk about the concept of using words that won't offend people, the only way I can describe it is "being politically correct," and that's a phrase with negative connotations, giving the impression that I don't like having to be that way.
That's not the impression I want to give. I really do make a good-faith effort to talk nicely and politely; I really try to avoid saying anything that could hurt someone's feelings. I do so because I believe it's the good thing to do, and I don't have any resentment about having to do it.
Of course, there are situations when people take offense at something that I don't feel it makes sense to be offended at... and there are situations when I really don't know what to say to avoid offending people. But most of the time it's pretty clear.
It's just important to remember that most rules about what is offensive are based more on association than logic. For instance, the word "Negro" is an Americanized pronunciation of the Spanish word for "black," so it literally means nothing more than "black," and logically it shouldn't be any more offensive than the word "black." (And the "N-word," for that matter, is just a distorted pronunciation of the word "Negro," and logically shouldn't be any more offensive than that). But words aren't purely logical-- they have meanings beyond the literal; they have meanings based on feelings and connections in people's minds.
Every word for a group of people is associated with a certain attitude toward that group, because of what opinions have been expressed in the past by people who used that word. This is much more important than the literal meanings of the words. And as long as we continue moving toward greater acceptance of minority groups, we will never have words that stay "politically correct." Every word for a minority group will, over time, become associated with an earlier generation that was less accepting of that group, and become an offensive word. (It happened to the word "Negro," which was not always offensive; in fact, it was the word used by those who wanted to abolish slavery. But it was used by many bigots, too, and even the abolitionists' attitudes toward race were much less enlightened than the attitudes that are popular today, and so the word became an insult.)
This tendency toward change is not necessarily a bad thing. It is, at least, a sign that shows that we are still moving forward in our acceptance of people. If any word for a group ever stays acceptable for an extended period of time, it will mean either that we have reached perfect acceptance of people, or that we've just stopped making progress.
When I try to talk about the concept of using words that won't offend people, the only way I can describe it is "being politically correct," and that's a phrase with negative connotations, giving the impression that I don't like having to be that way.
That's not the impression I want to give. I really do make a good-faith effort to talk nicely and politely; I really try to avoid saying anything that could hurt someone's feelings. I do so because I believe it's the good thing to do, and I don't have any resentment about having to do it.
Of course, there are situations when people take offense at something that I don't feel it makes sense to be offended at... and there are situations when I really don't know what to say to avoid offending people. But most of the time it's pretty clear.
It's just important to remember that most rules about what is offensive are based more on association than logic. For instance, the word "Negro" is an Americanized pronunciation of the Spanish word for "black," so it literally means nothing more than "black," and logically it shouldn't be any more offensive than the word "black." (And the "N-word," for that matter, is just a distorted pronunciation of the word "Negro," and logically shouldn't be any more offensive than that). But words aren't purely logical-- they have meanings beyond the literal; they have meanings based on feelings and connections in people's minds.
Every word for a group of people is associated with a certain attitude toward that group, because of what opinions have been expressed in the past by people who used that word. This is much more important than the literal meanings of the words. And as long as we continue moving toward greater acceptance of minority groups, we will never have words that stay "politically correct." Every word for a minority group will, over time, become associated with an earlier generation that was less accepting of that group, and become an offensive word. (It happened to the word "Negro," which was not always offensive; in fact, it was the word used by those who wanted to abolish slavery. But it was used by many bigots, too, and even the abolitionists' attitudes toward race were much less enlightened than the attitudes that are popular today, and so the word became an insult.)
This tendency toward change is not necessarily a bad thing. It is, at least, a sign that shows that we are still moving forward in our acceptance of people. If any word for a group ever stays acceptable for an extended period of time, it will mean either that we have reached perfect acceptance of people, or that we've just stopped making progress.
Miles O'Brien on the space station
Did you know CNN's Space Correspondent is named Miles O'Brien?
Seriously. I saw him giving a report about the Space Station the other day. Am I the last person to notice this?
Seriously. I saw him giving a report about the Space Station the other day. Am I the last person to notice this?
Thursday, June 21, 2007
IKEA has a bot; her name is Anna, Anna is her name
The main thing I don't like about YouTube is that you don't get to choose the picture that represents your video. They just have a program that chooses a frame from the video and uses it as the picture that people see when they decide whether or not to watch your video. If it's a sucky frame, or a frame that reveals a surprise in the video and spoils the ending for viewers-- then tough luck.
Anyway, I made a silly parody video that you'll only understand if you're familiar with both the song "Boten Anna" and the "Ask Anna" function on IKEA's website. It would have been nicer if the picture had been one of the ones with Anna's face in them... but this is how it turned out:
Anyway, I made a silly parody video that you'll only understand if you're familiar with both the song "Boten Anna" and the "Ask Anna" function on IKEA's website. It would have been nicer if the picture had been one of the ones with Anna's face in them... but this is how it turned out:
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Making Fiends, etc.
I'm going to start posting on a regular schedule-- every Wednesday-- and I'm going to try to have thoughtful, insightful posts every time, but today my thoughts are pretty random.
I love this site. Ah, the joy of silly Flash animations. With bizarre quirky humor. I was hooked as soon as I read the FAQ.
Poor Vendetta, reluctantly headed toward heaven on a road paved with bad intentions. She tries so hard to make Charlotte suffer, but only succeeds in amusing her.
Speaking of suffering... we all know that Disney took "The Little Mermaid"-- a Hans Christian Andersen story with a depressing ending-- and made it into a bouncy, uplifting story with a Disney Happy Ending (TM). I can't help but wonder if they can do the same to "The Little Match Girl." After all, it's a Hans Christian Andersen story with a depressing ending, too. Come on, guys! Give it a try!
Seriously. When you read a story in which the entire plot consists of a homeless child sitting outside in subzero weather, trying to sell matches, and lighting them one by one to keep warm until she runs out of matches and freezes to death-- you just have to wonder if Disney is up to the challenge.
(Aw, come on! Disney can do anything!)
I love this site. Ah, the joy of silly Flash animations. With bizarre quirky humor. I was hooked as soon as I read the FAQ.
Poor Vendetta, reluctantly headed toward heaven on a road paved with bad intentions. She tries so hard to make Charlotte suffer, but only succeeds in amusing her.
Speaking of suffering... we all know that Disney took "The Little Mermaid"-- a Hans Christian Andersen story with a depressing ending-- and made it into a bouncy, uplifting story with a Disney Happy Ending (TM). I can't help but wonder if they can do the same to "The Little Match Girl." After all, it's a Hans Christian Andersen story with a depressing ending, too. Come on, guys! Give it a try!
Seriously. When you read a story in which the entire plot consists of a homeless child sitting outside in subzero weather, trying to sell matches, and lighting them one by one to keep warm until she runs out of matches and freezes to death-- you just have to wonder if Disney is up to the challenge.
(Aw, come on! Disney can do anything!)
Monday, May 21, 2007
In South Korea, video games pay money to YOU
Excerpt from the article:
(12-18) 04:00 PDT Seoul -- Choi Yeon-sung avoids going out most days, and when he's on the street, he puts his head down -- to dodge the whispers, the stares and the pleas for autographs.
Such are the hardships of a celebrity video game player in South Korea.
I guess it figures. All the people that we idolize-- actors, singers, sports players-- are gaining enormous fame and fortune for doing something that we all did for fun when we were kids.
I mean, as kids, most of us enjoyed singing songs. Most of us played pretend, and most of us threw a ball around from time to time. And now, as adults, we have a certain fascination for people who can take these seemingly simple activities almost to the level of an art form, doing them with such skill that they make gigantic amounts of money just from the expenditures of people who are willing to pay to see them do it.
This happens even when (as in the case of some actors) there is very little actual skill present, and the individual in question got this ridiculously high-paying job because of other traits, like inherited wealth or good looks. In some ways, this may fascinate people even more, because not only is the person making millions doing an activity that kids do for fun, but he or she is making millions without even doing this activity much better than kids do it. It's the American dream of attaining fame and fortune without any significant effort.
So it's no surprise that some country, someday, would convey this kind of celebrity status to video game players. I say it's great-- at least video game players have to have actual skill in order to achieve celebrity status.
I just wish that there were some kind of respect for people who don't do anything fun and useless for a living, and instead work long hours doing hard manual labor that benefits others in a tangible way. Why is it people like that who earn minimum wage?
(12-18) 04:00 PDT Seoul -- Choi Yeon-sung avoids going out most days, and when he's on the street, he puts his head down -- to dodge the whispers, the stares and the pleas for autographs.
Such are the hardships of a celebrity video game player in South Korea.
I guess it figures. All the people that we idolize-- actors, singers, sports players-- are gaining enormous fame and fortune for doing something that we all did for fun when we were kids.
I mean, as kids, most of us enjoyed singing songs. Most of us played pretend, and most of us threw a ball around from time to time. And now, as adults, we have a certain fascination for people who can take these seemingly simple activities almost to the level of an art form, doing them with such skill that they make gigantic amounts of money just from the expenditures of people who are willing to pay to see them do it.
This happens even when (as in the case of some actors) there is very little actual skill present, and the individual in question got this ridiculously high-paying job because of other traits, like inherited wealth or good looks. In some ways, this may fascinate people even more, because not only is the person making millions doing an activity that kids do for fun, but he or she is making millions without even doing this activity much better than kids do it. It's the American dream of attaining fame and fortune without any significant effort.
So it's no surprise that some country, someday, would convey this kind of celebrity status to video game players. I say it's great-- at least video game players have to have actual skill in order to achieve celebrity status.
I just wish that there were some kind of respect for people who don't do anything fun and useless for a living, and instead work long hours doing hard manual labor that benefits others in a tangible way. Why is it people like that who earn minimum wage?
The things that a backroom job does to your mind...
Days like this just leave me in awe of how many people there are in the world. Specifically, how many people there are in a big city like Minneapolis (which isn't even one of the most populous cities in the world, which boggles my mind even more).
People are buying patio furniture. A lot. At the Target store where I have my backroom job, if you just counted the number of people who came in for patio furniture and needed to have it pulled from the backroom for them-- heck, if you just counted the ones who did that during the hours I was on duty... I'm sure you'd get over a hundred so far this spring.
I can only imagine what number you'd get if you included people who bought patio furniture when I wasn't there, and people who bought patio furniture that didn't need to be pulled from the backroom, and people who bought patio furniture at other Target stores in the area, and people who bought it at other patio furniture retailers besides Target.
And yet this huge number of people is not even the majority of people in this city. I know this, because there are three situations when you buy patio furniture:
1. When you get a patio for the first time in your life, and have to buy your very first set of patio furniture. (Hasn't happened to me yet.)
2. When your old patio furniture breaks. (Also hasn't happened to me, of course.)
3. When you decide that your old patio furniture is so godawful ugly that getting new, better-looking patio furniture is worth a few hundred dollars to you. (Won't ever happen to me, but probably happens to many of the yuppies around here.)
I am willing to bet that, for the average person, quite a few years pass between these events. I doubt there are many people who buy a set of patio furniture every year, or even every two or three years. So, at any given time, the number of people currently buying patio furniture has got to be a pretty small fraction of the population.
And yet this small fraction of the population is huge. Patio sets just keep marching out the door, day after day, nonstop. I see them being bought, and I know I'm only seeing a small percentage of the ones that are being bought, and yet it seems like a staggering number to me. And not only is this staggering number only a small percentage of the patio sets being bought, but the mind-blowing number of people buying patio sets is only a small percentage of all the people in the city.
And this city is only a tiny, tiny percentage of the people in the world.
Some people look up at the stars to think about how gigantic the universe is and how small they are as individuals. I look at South Bali Gazebos and Parisienne Wrought Iron Chair and Table Sets.
People are buying patio furniture. A lot. At the Target store where I have my backroom job, if you just counted the number of people who came in for patio furniture and needed to have it pulled from the backroom for them-- heck, if you just counted the ones who did that during the hours I was on duty... I'm sure you'd get over a hundred so far this spring.
I can only imagine what number you'd get if you included people who bought patio furniture when I wasn't there, and people who bought patio furniture that didn't need to be pulled from the backroom, and people who bought patio furniture at other Target stores in the area, and people who bought it at other patio furniture retailers besides Target.
And yet this huge number of people is not even the majority of people in this city. I know this, because there are three situations when you buy patio furniture:
1. When you get a patio for the first time in your life, and have to buy your very first set of patio furniture. (Hasn't happened to me yet.)
2. When your old patio furniture breaks. (Also hasn't happened to me, of course.)
3. When you decide that your old patio furniture is so godawful ugly that getting new, better-looking patio furniture is worth a few hundred dollars to you. (Won't ever happen to me, but probably happens to many of the yuppies around here.)
I am willing to bet that, for the average person, quite a few years pass between these events. I doubt there are many people who buy a set of patio furniture every year, or even every two or three years. So, at any given time, the number of people currently buying patio furniture has got to be a pretty small fraction of the population.
And yet this small fraction of the population is huge. Patio sets just keep marching out the door, day after day, nonstop. I see them being bought, and I know I'm only seeing a small percentage of the ones that are being bought, and yet it seems like a staggering number to me. And not only is this staggering number only a small percentage of the patio sets being bought, but the mind-blowing number of people buying patio sets is only a small percentage of all the people in the city.
And this city is only a tiny, tiny percentage of the people in the world.
Some people look up at the stars to think about how gigantic the universe is and how small they are as individuals. I look at South Bali Gazebos and Parisienne Wrought Iron Chair and Table Sets.
Thursday, May 03, 2007
Late-night thoughts
In my city, from time to time, there are billboards and signs advertising religion. Nothing flamingly fundamentalist; just things like "Teenagers, rebel! Take your parents to church!" In 1999 there was an ad campaign pointing out that "the Bible is Y2K compatible." "If the lights go out, turn to the Light of the World." Cute stuff like that.
It occurs to me that, while there seems to be a law against having religious material in a government-owned area like a courtroom, there is no law against having religious material in a government-owned area like a city street.
So I think we can quit arguing over the whole issue. If a judge wants to display the Ten Commandments, all he needs to do is rent some billboard space in front of his courthouse.
It occurs to me that, while there seems to be a law against having religious material in a government-owned area like a courtroom, there is no law against having religious material in a government-owned area like a city street.
So I think we can quit arguing over the whole issue. If a judge wants to display the Ten Commandments, all he needs to do is rent some billboard space in front of his courthouse.
Sunday, April 29, 2007
Hopefully we're not waiting on feeling nauseous
Okay, I love the ideas in the song "Waiting on the World to Change," but... the grammar in the refrain... I just couldn't help writing a parody.
Language isn't static
It changes day by day
And those changes, they're decided
By what most people say.
So when an error's really common
You can pretty much expect
That within a few years it'll be
The way that's deemed correct.
So we keep waiting
Waiting
waiting for more words to change
We keep waiting
Waiting
waiting for more words to change
We know we can't prevent it
And that it's silly to resent it
So we keep waiting
Waiting
waiting for more words to change
"Waiting on" means serving
That's how waiters got their name
It's not the same as "waiting for"
But it's often used the same.
If some day the dictionaries
list the two as synonyms
It just means language has evolved
To suit the public's whims.
So we keep waiting
Waiting
waiting for more words to change
We keep waiting
Waiting
waiting for more words to change
It's not that we don't care
But it's the only option that's there
So we keep waiting
Waiting
waiting for more words to change
"Hopefully" doesn't mean "I hope"
It means "in a hopeful way"
But some dictionaries list them both
'Cause of what most people say.
"Nauseous" means "nauseating"
It does not mean "nauseated"
But so many people said it wrong
The original meaning's faded.
So we keep waiting
Waiting
waiting for more words to change
We keep waiting
Waiting
waiting for more words to change
There aren't logical excuses
For objecting to new uses
So we keep waiting
Waiting
waiting for more words to change.
Language isn't static
It changes day by day
And those changes, they're decided
By what most people say.
So when an error's really common
You can pretty much expect
That within a few years it'll be
The way that's deemed correct.
So we keep waiting
Waiting
waiting for more words to change
We keep waiting
Waiting
waiting for more words to change
We know we can't prevent it
And that it's silly to resent it
So we keep waiting
Waiting
waiting for more words to change
"Waiting on" means serving
That's how waiters got their name
It's not the same as "waiting for"
But it's often used the same.
If some day the dictionaries
list the two as synonyms
It just means language has evolved
To suit the public's whims.
So we keep waiting
Waiting
waiting for more words to change
We keep waiting
Waiting
waiting for more words to change
It's not that we don't care
But it's the only option that's there
So we keep waiting
Waiting
waiting for more words to change
"Hopefully" doesn't mean "I hope"
It means "in a hopeful way"
But some dictionaries list them both
'Cause of what most people say.
"Nauseous" means "nauseating"
It does not mean "nauseated"
But so many people said it wrong
The original meaning's faded.
So we keep waiting
Waiting
waiting for more words to change
We keep waiting
Waiting
waiting for more words to change
There aren't logical excuses
For objecting to new uses
So we keep waiting
Waiting
waiting for more words to change.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Some loners just write blog posts when they're angry
I hate it when someone who fits the stereotypical description of a criminal goes and commits a crime. The last thing we need is more people reinforcing stereotypes.
Today at work I heard a discussion on the radio about how we can make loners stop being loners and "become more social" so they won't commit crimes. Give me a $%@#! break.
Being a loner doesn't fricking cause violence. Yes, there are a few people who become violent because they don't like society in general, or because society in general has rejected them-- but there are millions more who just quietly cry over being lonely, and also plenty of people who actually enjoy their solitude. Trying to force them into being more social would just make them angry, and probably more likely to attack someone.
And just because someone writes violent stories (or listens to violent music, or plays violent video games) that doesn't mean he's going to be violent. You ever see Stephen King go on a psychotic killing rampage? Of all the bloody, gory, terrifying books and movies out there, how many were written by people who went on to shoot up a school? Geez.
I've been trying to convince the world of these things all my life, and now it just got twenty times harder. Thanks for nothing, VA Tech gunman.
Today at work I heard a discussion on the radio about how we can make loners stop being loners and "become more social" so they won't commit crimes. Give me a $%@#! break.
Being a loner doesn't fricking cause violence. Yes, there are a few people who become violent because they don't like society in general, or because society in general has rejected them-- but there are millions more who just quietly cry over being lonely, and also plenty of people who actually enjoy their solitude. Trying to force them into being more social would just make them angry, and probably more likely to attack someone.
And just because someone writes violent stories (or listens to violent music, or plays violent video games) that doesn't mean he's going to be violent. You ever see Stephen King go on a psychotic killing rampage? Of all the bloody, gory, terrifying books and movies out there, how many were written by people who went on to shoot up a school? Geez.
I've been trying to convince the world of these things all my life, and now it just got twenty times harder. Thanks for nothing, VA Tech gunman.
Saturday, April 14, 2007
Kira or be killed
I love Death Note. Just love it. Love the intelligent plots. The attention to the detail and complexity of the magical system in the anime. And I adore L. Absolutely adore him.
And the fact that the name "Kira" is involved is only a tiny detail. That's not why I love the show. I just made that picture for the heck of it.
Anyway, I love Death Note. Just wanted to get that out of my system. I'm going to bed now.
Thursday, April 05, 2007
Wednesday, April 04, 2007
I deserve to be pun-ished
I just said to a friend, "You know, so far two of the state quarters have bison on them. Now we need one that has ten eels on it, too. Then we'll have a bison-ten-eel quarter."
He said absolutely nothing. Either he doesn't know what a bicentennial quarter is, or the pun was so awful that it didn't deserve a reply.
Probably both.
*goes back to doing random useless stuff*
He said absolutely nothing. Either he doesn't know what a bicentennial quarter is, or the pun was so awful that it didn't deserve a reply.
Probably both.
*goes back to doing random useless stuff*
There is no other holiday with dates this crazy.
When is Easter? It takes a 1,248-word article to answer that question. I especially love the distinction between an "ecclesiastical" full moon and an "astronomical" full moon. Some people are verrrrrry strange...
Speaking of dates, I'm bringing oatmeal-date cookies to this year's family Easter party, in addition to oatmeal-raisin and oatmeal-chocolate-chip. I hope they turn out well. I've never made them with dates before, but I figure I need some use for the chopped dates I bought in honor of Palm Sunday.
(I also bought a coconut, which wasn't even ripe and was absolutely impossible to eat, earning me a lot of teasing from the husband, especially since Palm Sunday is named after date palms and has nothing to do with coconut palms. But I was in a silly mood. That's my excuse for most insane things I do, and it usually works well.)
Speaking of dates, I'm bringing oatmeal-date cookies to this year's family Easter party, in addition to oatmeal-raisin and oatmeal-chocolate-chip. I hope they turn out well. I've never made them with dates before, but I figure I need some use for the chopped dates I bought in honor of Palm Sunday.
(I also bought a coconut, which wasn't even ripe and was absolutely impossible to eat, earning me a lot of teasing from the husband, especially since Palm Sunday is named after date palms and has nothing to do with coconut palms. But I was in a silly mood. That's my excuse for most insane things I do, and it usually works well.)
Friday, March 30, 2007
Star light, star bright
I found it on the way to work a few days ago. A turquoise blue stretchy adjustable strap, with a flashy thing on it. The flashy thing is yellow, octagonal, and faceted sort of like a really cheap toy jewel.
It has a button on the back. Push the button once, and two lights inside it flash alternately. Push it twice, and both lights flash together. Push it three times, and both lights stay on and don't flash. Push it a fourth time and it turns off.
When it's on my head, or around my neck (the adjustable strap allows for either) I look like some alien babe in Star Trek. (The Original Series, of course.)
When it's over my eye, I look like some android or cyborg alien babe in Star Trek. (Still the Original Series. Back then, they were on such a low budget that something like this item might very well have been used as a costume accessory. In multiple episodes. For multiple types of alien babes. With only minor alterations. Like wearing it on the neck instead of the head.)
Wearing it drives my husband absolutely crazy. He says it is the dumbest-looking thing he has ever seen. It's become a game between us. I put it on and see how long it takes him to look up from his video game and notice. Eventually, he notices, and grabs it off my head and throws it across the room. I try to sneak over to where it is and put it back on before he notices.
*dies laughing*
It has a button on the back. Push the button once, and two lights inside it flash alternately. Push it twice, and both lights flash together. Push it three times, and both lights stay on and don't flash. Push it a fourth time and it turns off.
When it's on my head, or around my neck (the adjustable strap allows for either) I look like some alien babe in Star Trek. (The Original Series, of course.)
When it's over my eye, I look like some android or cyborg alien babe in Star Trek. (Still the Original Series. Back then, they were on such a low budget that something like this item might very well have been used as a costume accessory. In multiple episodes. For multiple types of alien babes. With only minor alterations. Like wearing it on the neck instead of the head.)
Wearing it drives my husband absolutely crazy. He says it is the dumbest-looking thing he has ever seen. It's become a game between us. I put it on and see how long it takes him to look up from his video game and notice. Eventually, he notices, and grabs it off my head and throws it across the room. I try to sneak over to where it is and put it back on before he notices.
*dies laughing*
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Now, nothing can be done by machines
For some reason, today I've been thinking about a story one of my teachers told me once. Some young relative of his had wanted to participate in an Invention Fair, but couldn't think of a real invention, so he just put a name card next to an empty space, with "Invisible Nothing Machine" written on the card.
I can just imagine his conversation with the judges:
"What's that?"
"It's an Invisible Nothing Machine."
"What's it made out of?"
"It's made out of nothing."
"What does it do?"
"It does nothing."
"Why would we need a machine that's made out of nothing and does nothing?"
"It saves a lot of time and money. Building it requires no resources and no work, and once it's built, it saves humans from having to do nothing all by themselves."
"Hmm. He's got a point. If we had a machine to do nothing for us, we could spend more time doing something. It would greatly boost our overall productivity as a species."
"I say we give him a prize."
According to my teacher, the kid actually did get a prize. An Honorable Mention or something. I suppose that says something about the world, but I'm not sure what.
I can just imagine his conversation with the judges:
"What's that?"
"It's an Invisible Nothing Machine."
"What's it made out of?"
"It's made out of nothing."
"What does it do?"
"It does nothing."
"Why would we need a machine that's made out of nothing and does nothing?"
"It saves a lot of time and money. Building it requires no resources and no work, and once it's built, it saves humans from having to do nothing all by themselves."
"Hmm. He's got a point. If we had a machine to do nothing for us, we could spend more time doing something. It would greatly boost our overall productivity as a species."
"I say we give him a prize."
According to my teacher, the kid actually did get a prize. An Honorable Mention or something. I suppose that says something about the world, but I'm not sure what.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Don't ask, don't tell... doesn't work
Okay, so now the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy is coming back into the public eye. Frankly, it has always annoyed me. Clinton had some good ideas, but this was not one of them. And I think that kind of policy is useless not only in the military, but also in all the other places it's put into practice.
There are various possible kinds of "don't ask, don't tell" policies... including the one that is commonly used for interviewing anyone for any job. Of course, depending on the company, this policy may or may not apply to sexual orientation, but it generally does apply to such things as ethnicity, religion, marital status and disability. Questions on such subjects are referred to as "illegal" questions, but interviewers are not technically prohibited from asking them; they are just prohibited from requiring the applicant to answer them.
On the one hand, I can see why the law tries to keep interviewers from finding out things that might cause them to discriminate against the applicant. If you want to prevent discrimination, it's not enough just to prohibit choosing applicants based on religion, ethnicity, disability, etc. For instance, if a company refuses to hire a certain applicant who is known to have a disability, there is absolutely no way to prove that they did it because of the disability. You can't prove why people did something, because that information exists only in those people's heads... and sometimes it's buried pretty deep in there. They may even have convinced themselves they're doing it for an acceptable reason. There is only one way to make sure people don't discriminate against you: Make sure they never find out that you have any traits they might discriminate against.
But sometimes that's impossible. If an applicant refuses to answer an "illegal" question, it will pretty much always be assumed that the answer is something the interviewer doesn't want to hear, and that will be taken into account when deciding whether to hire the applicant. Obviously, the system doesn't work.
One could make it a little stricter, so that interviewers could actually be punished for asking such questions-- but that still wouldn't be foolproof, because lots of applicants wouldn't even know that the questions were illegal, and if one of them did decide to charge the interviewer with asking an illegal question, it would be very difficult to prove him guilty. And, of course, if the interviewer broke the rule and asked the question, an applicant who replied "You aren't supposed to ask that" would still be assumed to be gay, disabled, of an unwanted religion, or whatever the question was about.
One could try to deal with this problem by penalizing both "asking" and "telling"... not only making it punishable for the interviewer to ask the question, but also making it punishable for the applicant to reply either yes or no. The only advantage of this: if the applicant refused to answer the question, it could be seen as an attempt to avoid committing a crime, instead of an admission that the answer would be unattractive to the interviewer.
But it would create a lot more problems. Applicants would have to be constantly on guard to avoid mentioning anything that could give the answer away, even if it were not an unattractive answer. For example, if such a policy were used in the military, a male applicant who happened to mention his wife or girlfriend at any point in the selection process would essentially be stating that he was not gay, thus violating the rule against "telling," and earning whatever punishment the law provided for that offense.
The only conclusion I can come to is that it's impossible for any kind of "don't ask, don't tell" policy to work worth crap. That's why so many people can't get hired for any job-- because there's no even remotely workable way to prevent discrimination. And it's especially impossible for it to work the way it's set up in the military, where the law requires discriminating against any applicant who gives the unwanted answer.
There are various possible kinds of "don't ask, don't tell" policies... including the one that is commonly used for interviewing anyone for any job. Of course, depending on the company, this policy may or may not apply to sexual orientation, but it generally does apply to such things as ethnicity, religion, marital status and disability. Questions on such subjects are referred to as "illegal" questions, but interviewers are not technically prohibited from asking them; they are just prohibited from requiring the applicant to answer them.
On the one hand, I can see why the law tries to keep interviewers from finding out things that might cause them to discriminate against the applicant. If you want to prevent discrimination, it's not enough just to prohibit choosing applicants based on religion, ethnicity, disability, etc. For instance, if a company refuses to hire a certain applicant who is known to have a disability, there is absolutely no way to prove that they did it because of the disability. You can't prove why people did something, because that information exists only in those people's heads... and sometimes it's buried pretty deep in there. They may even have convinced themselves they're doing it for an acceptable reason. There is only one way to make sure people don't discriminate against you: Make sure they never find out that you have any traits they might discriminate against.
But sometimes that's impossible. If an applicant refuses to answer an "illegal" question, it will pretty much always be assumed that the answer is something the interviewer doesn't want to hear, and that will be taken into account when deciding whether to hire the applicant. Obviously, the system doesn't work.
One could make it a little stricter, so that interviewers could actually be punished for asking such questions-- but that still wouldn't be foolproof, because lots of applicants wouldn't even know that the questions were illegal, and if one of them did decide to charge the interviewer with asking an illegal question, it would be very difficult to prove him guilty. And, of course, if the interviewer broke the rule and asked the question, an applicant who replied "You aren't supposed to ask that" would still be assumed to be gay, disabled, of an unwanted religion, or whatever the question was about.
One could try to deal with this problem by penalizing both "asking" and "telling"... not only making it punishable for the interviewer to ask the question, but also making it punishable for the applicant to reply either yes or no. The only advantage of this: if the applicant refused to answer the question, it could be seen as an attempt to avoid committing a crime, instead of an admission that the answer would be unattractive to the interviewer.
But it would create a lot more problems. Applicants would have to be constantly on guard to avoid mentioning anything that could give the answer away, even if it were not an unattractive answer. For example, if such a policy were used in the military, a male applicant who happened to mention his wife or girlfriend at any point in the selection process would essentially be stating that he was not gay, thus violating the rule against "telling," and earning whatever punishment the law provided for that offense.
The only conclusion I can come to is that it's impossible for any kind of "don't ask, don't tell" policy to work worth crap. That's why so many people can't get hired for any job-- because there's no even remotely workable way to prevent discrimination. And it's especially impossible for it to work the way it's set up in the military, where the law requires discriminating against any applicant who gives the unwanted answer.
Thursday, March 15, 2007
No more Orson Scott Card
I once read a diatribe against gay marriage by the celebrated science fiction writer Orson Scott Card-- a diatribe that had a lot of big words and fancy language, trying to look intelligent, but had no real arguments. Assertions that children needed both a mother and a father, but no real explanation why.
And one overly literal interpretation of the law: "Gays already have equal marriage rights. Just like heterosexuals, they have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex." (Well, if we're going to be that sophomoric, we can even go a little further and say that men and women don't currently have equal marriage rights: unlike men, women have the right to marry men, and unlike women, men have the right to marry women. How unfair.)
But I was still able to read and enjoy his work, for the same reason I can enjoy Tom Cruise movies despite disagreeing wholeheartedly with his religious beliefs. The man does not equal the actor, and the man does not always equal the author, either. I enjoyed Ender's Game, Speaker for the Dead, Xenocide, Children of the Mind, Ender's Shadow, and Shadow of the Hegemon.
Sure, he had some scattered references to "every living creature's natural desire to reproduce," and I would balk for a moment at his apparent assertion that I wasn't a living creature, but then I would ignore it and read on.
But when I got to Shadow Puppets, I drew the line.
(Spoilers beyond this point.)
Bean, the main character, because of a very disadvantageous genetic condition, has decided not to have children. His friend Petra wants to have his children, and she keeps pestering him about it.
Then, at one point, they meet a man who "has no desire for women." It is not 100% clear whether he is gay or just not interested in love and sex at all. But he clearly serves as a mouthpiece for the author.
He claims he is about to get married to a woman who already has some children of her own, and spend the rest of his life living with her and raising her children, despite having no desire for her.
And he gives them this long lecture about how the only way to feel truly fulfilled in life is to raise children together with a member of the opposite sex. They don't have to be your own children, and you don't even have to like this member of the opposite sex-- but raising children with a member of the opposite sex is the instinct that's programmed into every living creature, so if you don't do it one way or another, then you won't feel that your life was worth living.
And this convinces Bean; he gets all weepy and realizes deep in his heart that this man is right. That's where I stopped reading.
When I had read Orson Scott Card's essay on gay marriage, I had taken his comment about equal marriage rights as an over-literal interpretation of the phrase "equal rights," twisting it to fit his own views while choosing to ignore the fact that gays can't be happy being married to the opposite sex. But now I realize he's even crazier. He actually thinks gays will be happier in heterosexual marriages.
Furthermore, he thinks I am incapable of being happy in my own lifestyle-- a heterosexual marriage with no children. Never mind the fact that I panic, curl up in a ball with my hands over my ears, and rock like the stereotypical autistic, if I spend more than fifteen minutes trying to be in a position of control over a child. Never mind that screaming babies and whining toddlers make me want to physically smash something if I even overhear them in the supermarket. He actually thinks I would be happier if I were raising kids.
No more. I'm not reading his books any more. That's it.
And one overly literal interpretation of the law: "Gays already have equal marriage rights. Just like heterosexuals, they have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex." (Well, if we're going to be that sophomoric, we can even go a little further and say that men and women don't currently have equal marriage rights: unlike men, women have the right to marry men, and unlike women, men have the right to marry women. How unfair.)
But I was still able to read and enjoy his work, for the same reason I can enjoy Tom Cruise movies despite disagreeing wholeheartedly with his religious beliefs. The man does not equal the actor, and the man does not always equal the author, either. I enjoyed Ender's Game, Speaker for the Dead, Xenocide, Children of the Mind, Ender's Shadow, and Shadow of the Hegemon.
Sure, he had some scattered references to "every living creature's natural desire to reproduce," and I would balk for a moment at his apparent assertion that I wasn't a living creature, but then I would ignore it and read on.
But when I got to Shadow Puppets, I drew the line.
(Spoilers beyond this point.)
Bean, the main character, because of a very disadvantageous genetic condition, has decided not to have children. His friend Petra wants to have his children, and she keeps pestering him about it.
Then, at one point, they meet a man who "has no desire for women." It is not 100% clear whether he is gay or just not interested in love and sex at all. But he clearly serves as a mouthpiece for the author.
He claims he is about to get married to a woman who already has some children of her own, and spend the rest of his life living with her and raising her children, despite having no desire for her.
And he gives them this long lecture about how the only way to feel truly fulfilled in life is to raise children together with a member of the opposite sex. They don't have to be your own children, and you don't even have to like this member of the opposite sex-- but raising children with a member of the opposite sex is the instinct that's programmed into every living creature, so if you don't do it one way or another, then you won't feel that your life was worth living.
And this convinces Bean; he gets all weepy and realizes deep in his heart that this man is right. That's where I stopped reading.
When I had read Orson Scott Card's essay on gay marriage, I had taken his comment about equal marriage rights as an over-literal interpretation of the phrase "equal rights," twisting it to fit his own views while choosing to ignore the fact that gays can't be happy being married to the opposite sex. But now I realize he's even crazier. He actually thinks gays will be happier in heterosexual marriages.
Furthermore, he thinks I am incapable of being happy in my own lifestyle-- a heterosexual marriage with no children. Never mind the fact that I panic, curl up in a ball with my hands over my ears, and rock like the stereotypical autistic, if I spend more than fifteen minutes trying to be in a position of control over a child. Never mind that screaming babies and whining toddlers make me want to physically smash something if I even overhear them in the supermarket. He actually thinks I would be happier if I were raising kids.
No more. I'm not reading his books any more. That's it.
Friday, March 09, 2007
%$@#! new Starfleet Academy movie thing
Don't mind the following, I'm just ranting about the makers of Star Trek and their evident inability to let anything rest in peace.
(To the tune of Beautiful Wreck.)
All you newer Treks, I've given up on you,
'Cause I like the original Trek, I do.
Of all of those shows set in the Milky Way
TOS, you're the one I wish could have stayed.
You're the one that's least sub-par
What a beautiful Trek you are
Flying star to star,
Beautiful Trek you are.
They go crazy every seven years, you know
And so every seven years they make a new Trek show.
Except for TOS, 'cause you just got three,
Which is sad, 'cause you're still the best Trek to me.
I’m still sitting here waiting by my TV set
But there's been nothing good yet
But there's been nothing good yet
You've got Spock pon farr
What a beautiful Trek you are
You've got Kolinahr
Beautiful Trek you are.
What a beautiful, such a beautiful
A beautiful Trek you are.
All you newer Treks, I've given up on you,
'Cause I like the original Trek, I do.
Yeah, I like the original Trek, I do.
I like the original Trek, I do.
Yeah, you've got T'Lar
What a beautiful Trek you are
But not Tasha Yar
And not Selar
But what a beautiful Trek you are.
What a beautiful, such a beautiful,
Beautiful Trek you are.
What a beautiful, such a beautiful,
Beautiful Trek you are.
(To the tune of Beautiful Wreck.)
All you newer Treks, I've given up on you,
'Cause I like the original Trek, I do.
Of all of those shows set in the Milky Way
TOS, you're the one I wish could have stayed.
You're the one that's least sub-par
What a beautiful Trek you are
Flying star to star,
Beautiful Trek you are.
They go crazy every seven years, you know
And so every seven years they make a new Trek show.
Except for TOS, 'cause you just got three,
Which is sad, 'cause you're still the best Trek to me.
I’m still sitting here waiting by my TV set
But there's been nothing good yet
But there's been nothing good yet
You've got Spock pon farr
What a beautiful Trek you are
You've got Kolinahr
Beautiful Trek you are.
What a beautiful, such a beautiful
A beautiful Trek you are.
All you newer Treks, I've given up on you,
'Cause I like the original Trek, I do.
Yeah, I like the original Trek, I do.
I like the original Trek, I do.
Yeah, you've got T'Lar
What a beautiful Trek you are
But not Tasha Yar
And not Selar
But what a beautiful Trek you are.
What a beautiful, such a beautiful,
Beautiful Trek you are.
What a beautiful, such a beautiful,
Beautiful Trek you are.
Saturday, February 17, 2007
There are 10 kinds of dogs. Those who know binary and those who don't.
Okay, remember the first dog toy I bought at Target? The creepy eyeless pig with only one front leg and one hind leg?
Well, I've found that it's not the only totally wacko dog toy they have.
The highlight of my day today was a dog newspaper.
But the absolutely awesome thing about it isn't the fact that it's a newspaper. Or the fact that it's really just a squeaky toy in the shape of a rolled-up newspaper. It also isn't the title "Doggy News," or the slogan "All the news that's fit to chew on." Nor is it the price (two dog bones), the paw-stamp with "edition" written under it, or the headline "Man bites dog" with the corresponding illustration.
It is the fact that the newspaper is written in binary.
Think of it! Dogs can read binary! Who'd have thought it? The headline in plain alphabetical characters was just to throw off computer-illiterate humans. Your dog can spend joyful hours poring through articles that you would need a decoding program to understand. Now you know why your dog gets jealous when you pay too much attention to your computer. It's because he wants the computer all to himself!
I suppose it says a lot about me that I actually went to the trouble of transcribing all those ones and zeroes into my text editor, and then went looking for online binary-to-text translation programs. But, alas, when you paste
01110110 111011011 1101 101110 111 0110 01 01101101 110110 110110 10 011 01101110 011 111011 0110 11010 01101110 11011011 1101 0110110 11011 111011 011011101 10 0110 1101101 01101 11101 0110 1101101 11101 011011101011 1101101 01101 0110 011 0010111 110110 11101 01101 01101 0111011 011011 0110101 011
into an online decoder, you get either an error message, or a line of characters that looks like this:
I guess dogs know something that I don't.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Abby and Norma updates!
My web comic "Abby and Norma" is now in color, and it's now weekly instead of bi-weekly.
Just letting y'all know.
Just letting y'all know.
Thursday, February 08, 2007
Even skeletons need a hug sometimes
Maybe Romeo and Juliet really did make it to Mantua before they died.
And maybe they really lived in the Neolithic era...
article
And maybe they really lived in the Neolithic era...
article
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
This is even scarier than the two-legged pig.
Scary article, right here.
I don't know about you, but I am absolutely terrified by that whole bunch of new laws. And don't make the mistake of thinking that they're only going to be used against people who really are terrorists. If you read enough articles, you know that the government has searched and trashed people's houses, destroying their possessions, for reasons no more valid than "She was checking out a lot of terrorism-related books from the library. How could we know she was just doing research for something she was going to write?"
Still, this is kinda funny.
I don't know about you, but I am absolutely terrified by that whole bunch of new laws. And don't make the mistake of thinking that they're only going to be used against people who really are terrorists. If you read enough articles, you know that the government has searched and trashed people's houses, destroying their possessions, for reasons no more valid than "She was checking out a lot of terrorism-related books from the library. How could we know she was just doing research for something she was going to write?"
Still, this is kinda funny.
I cannot BELIEVE...
...that Coca-Cola stole the Ninja Kitten song! How did they think they were going to get away with that?
I mean, I'm sure that, if they'd just asked nicely, the awesome folks at Rathergood.com would have been delighted to let them use it for a price that would be almost nothing to a giant like Coke. But I guess nobody asks nicely these days.
*sigh*
I mean, I'm sure that, if they'd just asked nicely, the awesome folks at Rathergood.com would have been delighted to let them use it for a price that would be almost nothing to a giant like Coke. But I guess nobody asks nicely these days.
*sigh*
Sunday, January 21, 2007
Four legs good, two legs bad
Transition to the new Target store went very well. I have walked to work every day so far, with no trouble-- which is very good, since our car is, we think, permanently dead now after a small accident in a parking lot, in which the driver's side front wheel was bent to an angle that a wheel simply shouldn't be at. Fixing it would undoubtedly cost more than the car is worth. It was going to die any minute anyway, and I guess there were worse ways and worse places it could have happened.
Anyway, I love this new Target. And it's so much closer to home than the one where I used to work. Part of me is hoping that when my old store finishes its transformation into a Super Target, I can just stay here instead of moving back.
On break today, I spent $4.23 ever-so-frivolously. But it made me happy. See, I found the most bizarre, fascinating, vaguely creepy product I have seen in all (both?) my years stocking shelves.
Seen from the side, this toy looks more or less like a normal pig. But turn it, and you will find that IT HAS ONLY TWO LEGS. And not "two legs" in the sense of an anthropomorphic fairy-tale pig that walks on its hind limbs and uses the front ones as arms. This pig could never walk in a million years. That's right, it has just ONE LEG IN FRONT AND ONE IN BACK.
The idea for designing this creature, I imagine, started with the thought of making an outline of a pig seen from the side, and creating a toy that was little more than a two-dimensional cutout. But then they went too far in giving that cutout some realistic features.
You will note, seeing the pig from the front, bottom, or back, that the body is fatter than the legs. Furthermore, the face is carefully designed to look like a pig's face when seen from the front-- which, of course, encourages the viewer to look at the toy from the front, whereupon the eye will wander down to the single front leg, and the brain will go "WTF?"
And he only cost $2.99... in my opinion, the bargain of a lifetime.
(The rest of the $4.23 was a little tiny pool table from Target's dollar-store section, plus some sales tax.)
I'm naming the pig "Big Brother," in honor of the cartoon on Homestarrunner.com where Strong Bad draws a picture of a one-legged dog named "Li'l Brudder." I figure that since my pig has twice as many legs as that dog, he can be called "Big Brother." Plus the fact that George Orwell's two most famous books featured (a) a society ruled by an imaginary figurehead named Big Brother and (b) a farm ruled by pigs.
(Oh, and he has a squeaky thing inside him!! He's really meant as a dog toy, you see. But no dog would appreciate the Dada-ness of it all.)
Anyway, I love this new Target. And it's so much closer to home than the one where I used to work. Part of me is hoping that when my old store finishes its transformation into a Super Target, I can just stay here instead of moving back.
On break today, I spent $4.23 ever-so-frivolously. But it made me happy. See, I found the most bizarre, fascinating, vaguely creepy product I have seen in all (both?) my years stocking shelves.
Seen from the side, this toy looks more or less like a normal pig. But turn it, and you will find that IT HAS ONLY TWO LEGS. And not "two legs" in the sense of an anthropomorphic fairy-tale pig that walks on its hind limbs and uses the front ones as arms. This pig could never walk in a million years. That's right, it has just ONE LEG IN FRONT AND ONE IN BACK.
The idea for designing this creature, I imagine, started with the thought of making an outline of a pig seen from the side, and creating a toy that was little more than a two-dimensional cutout. But then they went too far in giving that cutout some realistic features.
You will note, seeing the pig from the front, bottom, or back, that the body is fatter than the legs. Furthermore, the face is carefully designed to look like a pig's face when seen from the front-- which, of course, encourages the viewer to look at the toy from the front, whereupon the eye will wander down to the single front leg, and the brain will go "WTF?"
And he only cost $2.99... in my opinion, the bargain of a lifetime.
(The rest of the $4.23 was a little tiny pool table from Target's dollar-store section, plus some sales tax.)
I'm naming the pig "Big Brother," in honor of the cartoon on Homestarrunner.com where Strong Bad draws a picture of a one-legged dog named "Li'l Brudder." I figure that since my pig has twice as many legs as that dog, he can be called "Big Brother." Plus the fact that George Orwell's two most famous books featured (a) a society ruled by an imaginary figurehead named Big Brother and (b) a farm ruled by pigs.
(Oh, and he has a squeaky thing inside him!! He's really meant as a dog toy, you see. But no dog would appreciate the Dada-ness of it all.)
Saturday, January 13, 2007
Bad brain! Nothing really rhymes with 'purple'!
My dream the other night was so weird and pointless that it is not even worth describing... except that at the very end, someone showed me a Spock doll, and I responded by singing, to the tune of the "Popeye" song,
"I'm Spockie and I don't laugh,
I live in a Spirograph,
I go 'round in circles while I draw in purple,
I'm Spockie and I don't laugh."
I think that is one of the weirdest songs I have ever made up in my sleep. And now I am not going back to sleep, because I think sleep has become a hallucinogenic drug for me.
"I'm Spockie and I don't laugh,
I live in a Spirograph,
I go 'round in circles while I draw in purple,
I'm Spockie and I don't laugh."
I think that is one of the weirdest songs I have ever made up in my sleep. And now I am not going back to sleep, because I think sleep has become a hallucinogenic drug for me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)