Greetings and salutations!
I'm trying to resuscitate this blog. Again. Yeah, I know. That hasn't worked too well in the past. I've been trying to juggle too many different blogs at the same time, and keeping that many balls up in the air just isn't working out. So here's what I'm doing: All of my other blogs are now pointing to this one blog, and this is where I'm going to be posting everything from this point on. I can't guarantee that this lifecycle will last any more than the previous life cycles of this blog, but I'll do my best to post regularly.
Cheers,
Aladdin
Monday, July 16, 2012
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
The wheels, they keep on turning
Hey there hi there ho there, happy internet denizens!
Today marks the day after a very… significant day. Yes, yesterday was Valentine's day, but that's not really my cup of tuna. For those of you who know me well (if that's not you, get off of my lawn!) you'll either know or ask why the day of pinkness is relevant in my life. In honor of that historic and salty day, I present for your perusement a list of in-jokes from High School. I will be quite happy if anyone recognizes any of them, since for the uninitiated, it will probably read like a load of jibjab.
- Ham
- Placenta
- Lam
- Mishmosh
- String
- Red Pepper
- Weebles wobble but they don't fall down
- …Nothing!
- mmmMaaa, says the cow.
- Bit much, sorry
- [Austin Fry]
- IT
- Potito + Kumar
- PMS
- Iggy's banana (this is technically from middle school)
- Tralala
- Shoop
- Fwom
Thank you for playing, and enjoy your Tuesday.
- Aladdin
Monday, February 14, 2011
Neatness
Awesometastic. I love it when geeky people hide non-geeky easter eggs in software.
12 Love-Themed Wolfram Alpha Easter Eggs for Valentine's Day [PICS]: ""
Sunday, February 13, 2011
No Stopping for Avalanche!
Last night my brain exploded, and dripped onto the page. This is what was written:
Everywhere I look I see eyes. Dark, brooding eyes that pierce deep into the soul, hungry eyes, eyes without purpose or focus or even color. Yet it is the eyes that keep me sane. With out eyes, there is no face, and without a face, there is no identity. The sea may heave and ho, but without eyes, it might as well be steam or glass or slices of the ether. Everywhere, and forever. You see, eyes are forever. Their bodies may decompose, they may roll away, even off the edge of the earth, but they will always find their way
back, like a dog or a small child bouncing down the stairs. As these eyes probe and poke, I whimper, cough, and loose. I see a face without eyes standing before me. A whole face, there is nothing missing, but there are no eyes. And at this moment I am scared. Scared that the face before me could actually be real, scared that the eyes that are not are looking not at me or even in me, but through me, through to the future and the past and the dirty dust bunnies that I swore would never see the light of day. The eyes that are not are pulling my secrets out of me, out in front of me, forcing me to look at them. The pain of the secrets, of regurgitating them, of having them forced out of me, is almost too much to bear. If I were alone, I could shove those secrets under the mat, off the edge, out the window, but no, I am not alone. Not even just me and the face with eyes that are not. The whole world is in bed with me, in my car with me, even behind my ears when I go to sleep. The whole world lies embedded in the words on the page and the pixels on the screen that I surround myself with to escape, but there is no escape. Now that the face with eyes that aren’t has pulled out my secrets, they are there forever. No flattening them, no shredding them, burning them, painting over them, erasing them, no waiting for them to just disappear, as if they were a date on the calendar that came and went, never to be seen from again. I stare at the secrets, and they stare back, with shiny green eyes, eyes much like my own, but with something else, something soft and feminine, powerful and bold, something that is familiar and both comforting and frightening. As my secret’s eyes stare, unblinking, at me, I feel the urge to look away, to close and scream and never open again, but I can not. I can not look away, for the face without eyes has forced me to deal with the secrets with green eyes and scars along their backs, metal instruments and gelatinous pellets and strange pieces of paper that contain nothing but black lines floating like jellyfish around the room. I pull and push, but the window will not open, and I don’t know what to do. Even if the window did open, what then? Where would I jump to? Would I grow a beard, shave it off, marry a grey person with no birthday and drown in my own daze, my own fat and lipids? I start, stop, begin again. The secrets are still there, but now they are untouchable, separated from me by an invisible sheet of orange, orange, orange film. Spinning, I glance around me, not surprised when I find myself missing a limb. What was that? A leg? A tail? Did it ever even belong to me? As I round back to the beginning, I hear a cracking, clinking sound, like the whisper of the wind when the world is asleep. The mirror which couldn’t, shouldn’t, mustn’t be there is now only inches from my face, and with an electric jolt I come to the terrifying conclusion that the face with eyes that are not must be my own face, that I pulled my own secrets with green eyes out from under my feet, and now I am alone, alone at last, alone forevermore, alone, alone, alone.
Really? Again?
Hey there, internet plebs!
So, here's the deal-i-o. Yes, I know I said that I would be blogging regularly, yes, I know I lied, and yes, I know, I don't look anything like Martha Washington (one can dream, though).
Obviously, I can't guarantee that this blogging spree will stick, but I recently came across a lovely little piece of software called MarsEdit, which will hopefully jab me with skewers regularly enough to provoke blog posts. And with that, I leave you to dream. There may or may not (although hopefully may) be another post today, we shall see (I'll give you a hint: yes, there will be).
Until the day when something actually interesting shows up here, enjoy the overbearing orangeness of this page!
- Aladdin
Friday, December 10, 2010
Hello… Hello Again!
Greetings, comrade!
I am proud to announce that, after over a year of inactivity, The Words of Magic is now ACTIVE!
Thrusters on full…
Prelude: After letting this blog fall by the wayside, I finally stopped beating around the bush and nabbed the birds. In reality, I got an official, real, legit, shiny website with its own URL. Check it out, its called Aladdin's World, and there you can find all of my movies and short films. Check it out. No, really. NOW!
Ok, welcome back. I hope you enjoyed my other website. You see, I give that URL to a lot of people. Friends, family, random hobos I meet on the street in exchange for a mostly empty jar of Nutella. Mmm, delicious Nutella. While almost everyone who visits Aladdin's World likes it, I have to be careful about what I post on there. Good golly, I wouldn't want my grandma reading THIS blog!
That, my friends, is why I've reactivated this blog, dusted the old comment off of the posts, and begun posting regularly. Hope to see you all in the future!
And, as always, dream on…
I am proud to announce that, after over a year of inactivity, The Words of Magic is now ACTIVE!
Thrusters on full…
Prelude: After letting this blog fall by the wayside, I finally stopped beating around the bush and nabbed the birds. In reality, I got an official, real, legit, shiny website with its own URL. Check it out, its called Aladdin's World, and there you can find all of my movies and short films. Check it out. No, really. NOW!
Ok, welcome back. I hope you enjoyed my other website. You see, I give that URL to a lot of people. Friends, family, random hobos I meet on the street in exchange for a mostly empty jar of Nutella. Mmm, delicious Nutella. While almost everyone who visits Aladdin's World likes it, I have to be careful about what I post on there. Good golly, I wouldn't want my grandma reading THIS blog!
That, my friends, is why I've reactivated this blog, dusted the old comment off of the posts, and begun posting regularly. Hope to see you all in the future!
And, as always, dream on…
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
A Bushel of Potatoes for Breakfast?
Hello, Internet! To all who come to this happy place, welcome. The world wide web is your land. Here age relives fond memories of the past, and here youth may savor the challenge and promise of the future. We are dedicated to the ideals, the dreams, and the hard facts that have shaped america, with the hope that it will lead to a better tomorrow.
Something I believe in. What do I believe in?
I believe in inquiry. Yes, there we go. I believe in mutual exchange of knowledge. I believe in learning from the past, the present, and that which may have yet to come.
To be more specific, I believe that we should always keep our minds open to the possibility that enlightenment may come from anywhere. When we disagree with others, we must bear in mind the often difficult possibility that they may (1) be correct, and/or (2) have some parcel of knowledge that could alter you.
Furthermore, just because someone is different, they are not inherently wrong. This, my friends, is called xenophobia. I dream of a world where there is xenophillia. People are attracted to that which is different. True, different is not always better, but there is always something that we can learn from those who have different worldly experiences.
Ladies and gentlemen, this I believe.
Something I believe in. What do I believe in?
I believe in inquiry. Yes, there we go. I believe in mutual exchange of knowledge. I believe in learning from the past, the present, and that which may have yet to come.
To be more specific, I believe that we should always keep our minds open to the possibility that enlightenment may come from anywhere. When we disagree with others, we must bear in mind the often difficult possibility that they may (1) be correct, and/or (2) have some parcel of knowledge that could alter you.
Furthermore, just because someone is different, they are not inherently wrong. This, my friends, is called xenophobia. I dream of a world where there is xenophillia. People are attracted to that which is different. True, different is not always better, but there is always something that we can learn from those who have different worldly experiences.
Ladies and gentlemen, this I believe.
Monday, May 11, 2009
Ppt, Part 1
Hello, internet!
I just finished building a powerpoint, and I have a couple things to say about powerpoint making. First of all, no one puts enough effort into one.
No one. Steve Jobs, maybe. I just spent the last three hours on this one and I’m not satisfied. Three hours on the slideshow alone.
Why did I spend so much time on it? Because I custom photoshopped a whole bunch of stuff to fit in with the “motif” of the presentation. Because I double-checked every single fact. Because I took the time to look up the Kubelka-Munk formula. You’ll find out what that is in my powerpoint.
I’ve also spent the last hour and a half practicing, and I still have a run-through or two left to do. No one prepares enough for their presentation. My god, I hate it when people read verbatim off of the slides. The dude and dudette from Lilly both did that, and it drove me crazy. I can read, you know.
Why did I custom photochop everything? Because I want my presentations to have what hollywood calls “production value”. When your images are pixely, grainy, blown-out, matted, pre-multiplied, or watermarked, your audience instantly has a preconceived notion of the quality of the presentation. So I make sure all of my images look great.
And not just my images. I’ve found that talking heads and chalky slides tend to bore people, no matter how great they look. So I’ve always
I just finished building a powerpoint, and I have a couple things to say about powerpoint making. First of all, no one puts enough effort into one.
No one. Steve Jobs, maybe. I just spent the last three hours on this one and I’m not satisfied. Three hours on the slideshow alone.
Why did I spend so much time on it? Because I custom photoshopped a whole bunch of stuff to fit in with the “motif” of the presentation. Because I double-checked every single fact. Because I took the time to look up the Kubelka-Munk formula. You’ll find out what that is in my powerpoint.
I’ve also spent the last hour and a half practicing, and I still have a run-through or two left to do. No one prepares enough for their presentation. My god, I hate it when people read verbatim off of the slides. The dude and dudette from Lilly both did that, and it drove me crazy. I can read, you know.
Why did I custom photochop everything? Because I want my presentations to have what hollywood calls “production value”. When your images are pixely, grainy, blown-out, matted, pre-multiplied, or watermarked, your audience instantly has a preconceived notion of the quality of the presentation. So I make sure all of my images look great.
And not just my images. I’ve found that talking heads and chalky slides tend to bore people, no matter how great they look. So I’ve always
Ppt, Part 2
Been very careful to have some element of my presentation be physical. Tangible. Non-electronic. That’s why I threw a laptop across the stage last time I ran a morning meeting, and why tomorrow I’ll be wearing a cool hat and be playing with food coloring. Its called interactivity, and its the way of the future.
You see, the audiences we face today have a problem. Its called puny attention span disorder. PASD. As in “passed”, but different. Today’s audiences really don’t care about pie charts, bar graphs, histograms, bibliographies, previews, recaps, or bullet points. Really? We’ve already sunk past bullet points? I don’t really think bullet points ever belonged on slide shows. They should live on my grocery list and US History fact test, and no where else.
So this is the general rule of the slide shows of the past. 20 minutes of talking, 10 slides, no more than 5 points per slide.
I don’t think that applies any more. My new rule is this: 15 minutes of talking, ½ a point per slide, and as many slides as you can get through. By sparsely populating your slides and having an overall low information density, you can create the illusion of “flying through the presentation”, and finish before your audience has lost all attention. I can’t stand presentations that have some really interesting stuff to say, but the info is packed into 5 slides and we stay stuck on one slide for twenty minutes.
Good night, my friends.
You see, the audiences we face today have a problem. Its called puny attention span disorder. PASD. As in “passed”, but different. Today’s audiences really don’t care about pie charts, bar graphs, histograms, bibliographies, previews, recaps, or bullet points. Really? We’ve already sunk past bullet points? I don’t really think bullet points ever belonged on slide shows. They should live on my grocery list and US History fact test, and no where else.
So this is the general rule of the slide shows of the past. 20 minutes of talking, 10 slides, no more than 5 points per slide.
I don’t think that applies any more. My new rule is this: 15 minutes of talking, ½ a point per slide, and as many slides as you can get through. By sparsely populating your slides and having an overall low information density, you can create the illusion of “flying through the presentation”, and finish before your audience has lost all attention. I can’t stand presentations that have some really interesting stuff to say, but the info is packed into 5 slides and we stay stuck on one slide for twenty minutes.
Good night, my friends.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Stark Raving Mad
Hello, Internet! I hope all is well in the SSA. Independence day is a little rainy, but I know that this will be a day to remember. A day that will be celebrated in history. A day which your children will revere you for having experienced.
Joe. Ah, Joe. Joe has figured out how to communicate. He morse-codes by tapping his head. I was wondering if he would ever figure that out since, like, halfway through Book 1: The Dead. They ask him what he wants (they being the doctors) and he responds that he wants to go on tour, to get out of the hospital, to share his story with every church, town, school, country, smick, smack, and smoo.
This, to me, sounds like a great idea. As I see it, Joe has four options:
Ahem. I would, if I were Joe, personally ask to die. But Joe might not be groovy with that, so my second choice would be to tour and make a difference.
You see, as Joe pointed out earlier in the book, he has a unique condition. He is effectually dead, yet he still has the ability to think and reason and, now, to communicate. This has never happened before, and Joe, who by now is incredibly anti-war, has some really interesting things to say.
Whoops, went over again! Oh, well. See y’all later, and happy Independence Day. I wonder if there will be cake?
Joe. Ah, Joe. Joe has figured out how to communicate. He morse-codes by tapping his head. I was wondering if he would ever figure that out since, like, halfway through Book 1: The Dead. They ask him what he wants (they being the doctors) and he responds that he wants to go on tour, to get out of the hospital, to share his story with every church, town, school, country, smick, smack, and smoo.
This, to me, sounds like a great idea. As I see it, Joe has four options:
- Joe could die and finally be at peace
- Joe could live and tour and make a difference with what little life he has left
- Joe could live but stay in his hospital bed and do nothing, being bored and lonely out of his mind
- Joe could go completely crazy bonkers mad tipsy-turvey insane disturbed raving looney cuckoo bananas wacko loco TIMBUKTU AND KALAMAZOO
Ahem. I would, if I were Joe, personally ask to die. But Joe might not be groovy with that, so my second choice would be to tour and make a difference.
You see, as Joe pointed out earlier in the book, he has a unique condition. He is effectually dead, yet he still has the ability to think and reason and, now, to communicate. This has never happened before, and Joe, who by now is incredibly anti-war, has some really interesting things to say.
Whoops, went over again! Oh, well. See y’all later, and happy Independence Day. I wonder if there will be cake?
COMMENT GOSH DARNIT
Hello, internet! Today you shall witness the inevitable downfall of the corrupt and ineffectual representative democracy of the United States of Amerika. On this day, 6 May 2009, a new government shall emerge. One just, fair, equal, and ready to serve and protect. This government will officially mark the first notes of a new movement: the Socialist States of America, The SSA!
Preamble:
We the people of the socialist nation of America, in order to provide a more effective government, to provide and protect the natural and social rights of its citizens, establish a new and improved form of government. After witnessing and often participating in the results of a government run by a select few empowered unnaturally through the course of American history, we the people now enact a people's government, to be run by the people, for the people. With this new tentative and experimental form of government comes great responsibility, thus it is the right of the people to make changes where changes are warranted, to foster progress when will benefit the people, and to restrict outdated practices when times call for such.
Article I:
The people's government shall be divided into three branches, all with equal power to govern and equal power to moderate the other branches. There shall be a people's branch, known as the Plebicy, made up of the citizens of the nation. They shall be divided into concentric jurisdictions, so as to better handle the growing population and the proclivity of citizens to be unsuited to make decisions on matters geographically foreign or unaffecting of them. The second branch shall be composed of the executive, a series of offices and ministries or cabinets to take care of the more specific duties of government such as money and transportation. The last branch of the government shall be composed of the learned scholars of the country, so that they may be the voice of reason and consultance when matters go beyond the knowledge of the layman. So shall be the basic framework of the government.
Preamble:
We the people of the socialist nation of America, in order to provide a more effective government, to provide and protect the natural and social rights of its citizens, establish a new and improved form of government. After witnessing and often participating in the results of a government run by a select few empowered unnaturally through the course of American history, we the people now enact a people's government, to be run by the people, for the people. With this new tentative and experimental form of government comes great responsibility, thus it is the right of the people to make changes where changes are warranted, to foster progress when will benefit the people, and to restrict outdated practices when times call for such.
Article I:
The people's government shall be divided into three branches, all with equal power to govern and equal power to moderate the other branches. There shall be a people's branch, known as the Plebicy, made up of the citizens of the nation. They shall be divided into concentric jurisdictions, so as to better handle the growing population and the proclivity of citizens to be unsuited to make decisions on matters geographically foreign or unaffecting of them. The second branch shall be composed of the executive, a series of offices and ministries or cabinets to take care of the more specific duties of government such as money and transportation. The last branch of the government shall be composed of the learned scholars of the country, so that they may be the voice of reason and consultance when matters go beyond the knowledge of the layman. So shall be the basic framework of the government.
Monday, May 4, 2009
Hello, internet! Sorry I haven’t blogged in a while, but my life has been incredibly busy.
The March of the Flag is all about how America needs to expand. It needs to conquer the foreign lands, spread out, and create a great empire with which to trade. This, interestingly enough, is the exact reason why England established the American colonies in the first place.
This whole notion is very much in contradiction to Joe’s idea of life in Johnny Got His Gun. Joe believes that the only time in which people should ever go to war is if they are defending something tangible, something that personally affects them, like a person, property, etc. He states that when people begin fighting for a word, like freedom or democracy, then the war is over a bulk generalization. Its stupid, because no one is fighting for a specific reason.
Joe would probably disagree with the author of The March of the Flag because of this. Joe would ask why he couldn’t just live in his house and not worry about the Philippines or Mexico or Puerto Rico. The author of The March of the Flag would respond that Joe is an American, and he needs to act for the good of America.
Who is right? Who is wrong? I dunno.
The March of the Flag is all about how America needs to expand. It needs to conquer the foreign lands, spread out, and create a great empire with which to trade. This, interestingly enough, is the exact reason why England established the American colonies in the first place.
This whole notion is very much in contradiction to Joe’s idea of life in Johnny Got His Gun. Joe believes that the only time in which people should ever go to war is if they are defending something tangible, something that personally affects them, like a person, property, etc. He states that when people begin fighting for a word, like freedom or democracy, then the war is over a bulk generalization. Its stupid, because no one is fighting for a specific reason.
Joe would probably disagree with the author of The March of the Flag because of this. Joe would ask why he couldn’t just live in his house and not worry about the Philippines or Mexico or Puerto Rico. The author of The March of the Flag would respond that Joe is an American, and he needs to act for the good of America.
Who is right? Who is wrong? I dunno.
Monday, April 27, 2009
The Chair is Actually Blue.
Hello, internet!
Today’s blog assignment is to basically blog about something. Not anything in particular, just 250 words on some topic. So... I need a topic.
I think I’ll talk about why I like making movies so much. Yeah. That sounds like a good enough topic.
First of all, I have startling news for you. Ready? You don’t actually live in reality. You see, reality (and I know this is incredibly clichéd, but whatever) is in the eye of the beholder. What you experience is your brain’s way of interpreting the world. You experience a computer in front of you, but you have no way of knowing that it’s actually there. You assume that it is, because your brain is telling you that it is receiving tiny electrical impulses, transmitted along myelin shafts from nerve endings in your retina, your inner ear, your olfactory receivers, and your temperature, pain, and pressure nerves in your hands.
So. Your reality may or may not be accurate. We will never know.
And now, a question: How do we communicate? If I have a fantastic idea, or concept, or belief, and I really really really need to convey it to you, how do I do that? I could tell you? Sure, I could tell you. You will hear my voice, your brain will automatically transcribe it into text, and, along with cues from my visual appearance as I talk and the minute changes in pitch and timbre, your brain will decide what I’m trying to convey, and you will generate your own opinion.
Text and pitch variations. Not an incredibly efficient way to communicate. Effective, yes. The best? No.
So I need to communicate better. How do I do this? Well, the best way to communicate in theory would be to manipulate your reality so that you truly experience what I have to say.
Now, that is patently ridiculous. Not only is it practically impossible for me to take total control over your understanding of the world, it’s more than a little creepy.
So what am I to do? I really really really need to express myself.
Well, how about this? I’ll create a reality, not impose it on you, but rather present to you, and you can experience it as you wish. I’ll do this by putting you in a dark room with no distractions, and manipulate your visual and auditory experience. You can watch and listen if you want, or you can get up and walk away.
What will I present to you, if you care to watch? I will manufacture an experience, capture it, and modify it to convey my point.
Thus, we have film.
Think about it. Film, even digital video, can convey so much more information than text, mono oral audio, or still pictures. One single frame of digital video contains over 300,000 pixels, each of which can be one of over 16 million colors. Furthermore, each pixel changes its color almost 30 times a second (29.97 to be exact), faster than the human eye can detect. Furthermore, straight video is augmented by sound. Six separate speakers, each emitting a distinct separate audio track, synchronized perfectly with the video, with a range that can replicate the entire gamut of human hearing.
Pretty amazing, huh?
Video is an illusion. The illusion of motion. You see 24 or 30 pictures flashed in front of you, and you believe that the car that was on the left side of the frame actually moved to the right side. Video is the illusion of life. You perceive that what is happening
Today’s blog assignment is to basically blog about something. Not anything in particular, just 250 words on some topic. So... I need a topic.
I think I’ll talk about why I like making movies so much. Yeah. That sounds like a good enough topic.
First of all, I have startling news for you. Ready? You don’t actually live in reality. You see, reality (and I know this is incredibly clichéd, but whatever) is in the eye of the beholder. What you experience is your brain’s way of interpreting the world. You experience a computer in front of you, but you have no way of knowing that it’s actually there. You assume that it is, because your brain is telling you that it is receiving tiny electrical impulses, transmitted along myelin shafts from nerve endings in your retina, your inner ear, your olfactory receivers, and your temperature, pain, and pressure nerves in your hands.
So. Your reality may or may not be accurate. We will never know.
And now, a question: How do we communicate? If I have a fantastic idea, or concept, or belief, and I really really really need to convey it to you, how do I do that? I could tell you? Sure, I could tell you. You will hear my voice, your brain will automatically transcribe it into text, and, along with cues from my visual appearance as I talk and the minute changes in pitch and timbre, your brain will decide what I’m trying to convey, and you will generate your own opinion.
Text and pitch variations. Not an incredibly efficient way to communicate. Effective, yes. The best? No.
So I need to communicate better. How do I do this? Well, the best way to communicate in theory would be to manipulate your reality so that you truly experience what I have to say.
Now, that is patently ridiculous. Not only is it practically impossible for me to take total control over your understanding of the world, it’s more than a little creepy.
So what am I to do? I really really really need to express myself.
Well, how about this? I’ll create a reality, not impose it on you, but rather present to you, and you can experience it as you wish. I’ll do this by putting you in a dark room with no distractions, and manipulate your visual and auditory experience. You can watch and listen if you want, or you can get up and walk away.
What will I present to you, if you care to watch? I will manufacture an experience, capture it, and modify it to convey my point.
Thus, we have film.
Think about it. Film, even digital video, can convey so much more information than text, mono oral audio, or still pictures. One single frame of digital video contains over 300,000 pixels, each of which can be one of over 16 million colors. Furthermore, each pixel changes its color almost 30 times a second (29.97 to be exact), faster than the human eye can detect. Furthermore, straight video is augmented by sound. Six separate speakers, each emitting a distinct separate audio track, synchronized perfectly with the video, with a range that can replicate the entire gamut of human hearing.
Pretty amazing, huh?
Video is an illusion. The illusion of motion. You see 24 or 30 pictures flashed in front of you, and you believe that the car that was on the left side of the frame actually moved to the right side. Video is the illusion of life. You perceive that what is happening
Action!
Hello, internet! And welcome to the exciting world of technology. A wondrous realm, where dreams become reality, where the future begins, and where you and I will someday expend our entire lives. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the singularity.
Tonight I get to blog about something. 250 words. What to talk about...?
I know! Today was the Chemistry wizard show. I got to use the really cool school camera. Even though I know no one will actually read this all the way through, I’d like to take a moment to talk about why it is such a freakin’ awesome camera.
First, it comes with threaded neutral density and polarized filters, which screw in to the lens. It also comes with a crazy huge wide angle, or fisheye lens, that weights, like, two pounds. It also has built-in neutral density filters in 1, 1.3, and 2 increments. This means that you can open the aperture way up, but cut down on light without affecting exposure to decrease the depth of field. Speaking of depth of field, this thing must have at least a 1” CCD or CMOS chip. Coupled with the length of the lens, I bet you could get some pretty sweet DOF out of that thing.
I also really like how the zoom, gain, aperture, and focus are on manual analogue dials and rings. This means that there is no banding in the gradation of any of these setting, as there is on my wee little handycam. The optical image stabilization has multiple float settings, which means that I can control the amount of shake I get. Oh, and there’s a bayonet-mounted lens hood, which means that you can clamp on gels and filters.
I want that camera soooo bad.
And... Cut.
Tonight I get to blog about something. 250 words. What to talk about...?
I know! Today was the Chemistry wizard show. I got to use the really cool school camera. Even though I know no one will actually read this all the way through, I’d like to take a moment to talk about why it is such a freakin’ awesome camera.
First, it comes with threaded neutral density and polarized filters, which screw in to the lens. It also comes with a crazy huge wide angle, or fisheye lens, that weights, like, two pounds. It also has built-in neutral density filters in 1, 1.3, and 2 increments. This means that you can open the aperture way up, but cut down on light without affecting exposure to decrease the depth of field. Speaking of depth of field, this thing must have at least a 1” CCD or CMOS chip. Coupled with the length of the lens, I bet you could get some pretty sweet DOF out of that thing.
I also really like how the zoom, gain, aperture, and focus are on manual analogue dials and rings. This means that there is no banding in the gradation of any of these setting, as there is on my wee little handycam. The optical image stabilization has multiple float settings, which means that I can control the amount of shake I get. Oh, and there’s a bayonet-mounted lens hood, which means that you can clamp on gels and filters.
I want that camera soooo bad.
And... Cut.
Monday, April 20, 2009
The Tree of Life
Hello, internet! It’s raining outside.
So. Gender. First of all, what the heck is gender? Gender is a point of view from which you participate in society. Gender is how masculine or feminine you are, but it seems to me that there are genders outside of the male to female gradation. Gender is how you act in the presence of others. Are you submissive? Dominant? Are you attracted to them? Do you feel awkward or threatened by their gender?
Now the tough question... My own gender. First of all, who made my gender? Who decided it?
This is a hard question to answer. I think that when I was born, I already had, encoded within me, a specific gender. I knew that I was very gender neutral, with a slight feminine side and submissive tendencies. I knew that when the time came, I would be attracted to men, and that I would have no interest whatsoever in cross dressing.
Well, I didn’t consciously know these things. When I was born all I knew was... Actually, I don’t really remember knowing anything immediately after I was birthed. But my gender was built into me nonetheless, just like the fact that I would have curly hair, a slight lisp, and greenish-hazel eyes was encoded into me as well.
But then there’s the flip side. I had all of these things built into me at the start, but I had no clue how to behave based on these things. I didn’t know what it meant to be masculine or feminine. All these things I learned through my social experiences. I learned that women generally wear dresses, makeup, earrings, stay at home and wear pearls. I learned wrong, as you can see. I also learned that men are macho, play football, don’t express their feelings, bully, and make money. I learned very very wrong.
So that is what gender is to me.
Boom.
So. Gender. First of all, what the heck is gender? Gender is a point of view from which you participate in society. Gender is how masculine or feminine you are, but it seems to me that there are genders outside of the male to female gradation. Gender is how you act in the presence of others. Are you submissive? Dominant? Are you attracted to them? Do you feel awkward or threatened by their gender?
Now the tough question... My own gender. First of all, who made my gender? Who decided it?
This is a hard question to answer. I think that when I was born, I already had, encoded within me, a specific gender. I knew that I was very gender neutral, with a slight feminine side and submissive tendencies. I knew that when the time came, I would be attracted to men, and that I would have no interest whatsoever in cross dressing.
Well, I didn’t consciously know these things. When I was born all I knew was... Actually, I don’t really remember knowing anything immediately after I was birthed. But my gender was built into me nonetheless, just like the fact that I would have curly hair, a slight lisp, and greenish-hazel eyes was encoded into me as well.
But then there’s the flip side. I had all of these things built into me at the start, but I had no clue how to behave based on these things. I didn’t know what it meant to be masculine or feminine. All these things I learned through my social experiences. I learned that women generally wear dresses, makeup, earrings, stay at home and wear pearls. I learned wrong, as you can see. I also learned that men are macho, play football, don’t express their feelings, bully, and make money. I learned very very wrong.
So that is what gender is to me.
Boom.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Ortiz Cofer writes about how her perception of her own body was shaped by outside sources. Everything from the way she defined her skin color to the weight that she perceived she should weigh. Most of it was enforced by “media images”. The best example of this was her incessant desire to have the body of Wonder Woman. Wonder Woman was feminine, yes, but she could also lift a bazillion times her own weight. Isn’t she wonderful? One of Ortiz’s body image issues growing up was her weight, and thus, her physical ability.
Let’s see... Ortiz also envied Talking Susie, the doll with those luscious locks of golden love.
Actually, almost all of Ortiz’s visions of herself were defined by the media in one way or the other. Girls should be pretty. American girls should be white. Girls should be feminine, but not skinny. They should be shapely and womanly, with bulges and curves in all the right places.
Whoa. That’s all I have to say. Aren’t you proud of me for keeping this post really short?
;-)
Thursday, April 16, 2009
The Speed of Silence
Hello, internet. I’m really really tired, so I’ll cut right to the chase.
I have a lot to say about gay marriage. I’ve written three papers on it, and I am also very affected by it as well. Let’s see...
First of all, I would like to lay out a situation that, luckily, I don’t believe has ever happened to anyone I know, although a few of my family members live in continuous fear of its occurance:
Let’s pick two dudes who like each other very much. How about Ted and Fred. Ted has a very nice, supporting family, who has embraced him and his 30 year relationship with Fred. Fred’s family, however, disowned him when he came out, and refuses to speak to him.
Ted and Fred are driving home one night from dinner. Wham! They get into a rather serious accident. Ted is pretty bloodied up, and Fred is out cold. The ambulances take them to the hospital, where it is discovered that Ted only had a couple of nasty cuts and a few broken ribs, but Fred has a broken arm, a fracture in his collarbone, and internal bleeding. He needs surgery right away. Of course, Ted says to the doctors “Give him the surgery!” The doctors respond that only immediate family can make decisions about major surgeries. So Ted calls Fred’s family. “Well, its just another homo we don’t have to worry about,” is the response he gets. So Ted, who has lived with Fred for over twice the length of the average marriage in America, has to sit and watch his life partner die.
A month passes, and as Ted is sadly cleaning up his house, he gets a phone call. Its Fred’s family’s lawyer. It turns out that, since Fred was responsible for their money, Fred’s family had inherited everything. The house, the car, the furniture, and, worst of all, custody of their 5 year old adopted daughter. Of course, Fred’s family hates Ted, so he will never see his property and daughter again.
Now I know that you’re saying to yourself, “This could never happen.” But it does, repeatedly, happen. Furthermore, it is a fear that lives in almost every same-sex couple’s hearts.
It seems kind of silly to me to be having a grammatical quibble over whether or not the word marriage applies to just hetero couples or to gay couples as well.
The facts, it turns out, actually support gay marriage. Gay couples who are at the point in their relationship that they would, given the chance, marry, are significantly more likely to stay together in a relationship than a straight couple. Furthermore, children raised by same-sex couples have nearly identical “success” rates to children raised in “traditional” marriages (in fact, the former are slightly less likely to engage in crime, drugs, etc).
So, before I get over 500 words, I would just like to say that I support civil marriage between same-sex couples.
Good night, and good luck.
I have a lot to say about gay marriage. I’ve written three papers on it, and I am also very affected by it as well. Let’s see...
First of all, I would like to lay out a situation that, luckily, I don’t believe has ever happened to anyone I know, although a few of my family members live in continuous fear of its occurance:
Let’s pick two dudes who like each other very much. How about Ted and Fred. Ted has a very nice, supporting family, who has embraced him and his 30 year relationship with Fred. Fred’s family, however, disowned him when he came out, and refuses to speak to him.
Ted and Fred are driving home one night from dinner. Wham! They get into a rather serious accident. Ted is pretty bloodied up, and Fred is out cold. The ambulances take them to the hospital, where it is discovered that Ted only had a couple of nasty cuts and a few broken ribs, but Fred has a broken arm, a fracture in his collarbone, and internal bleeding. He needs surgery right away. Of course, Ted says to the doctors “Give him the surgery!” The doctors respond that only immediate family can make decisions about major surgeries. So Ted calls Fred’s family. “Well, its just another homo we don’t have to worry about,” is the response he gets. So Ted, who has lived with Fred for over twice the length of the average marriage in America, has to sit and watch his life partner die.
A month passes, and as Ted is sadly cleaning up his house, he gets a phone call. Its Fred’s family’s lawyer. It turns out that, since Fred was responsible for their money, Fred’s family had inherited everything. The house, the car, the furniture, and, worst of all, custody of their 5 year old adopted daughter. Of course, Fred’s family hates Ted, so he will never see his property and daughter again.
Now I know that you’re saying to yourself, “This could never happen.” But it does, repeatedly, happen. Furthermore, it is a fear that lives in almost every same-sex couple’s hearts.
It seems kind of silly to me to be having a grammatical quibble over whether or not the word marriage applies to just hetero couples or to gay couples as well.
The facts, it turns out, actually support gay marriage. Gay couples who are at the point in their relationship that they would, given the chance, marry, are significantly more likely to stay together in a relationship than a straight couple. Furthermore, children raised by same-sex couples have nearly identical “success” rates to children raised in “traditional” marriages (in fact, the former are slightly less likely to engage in crime, drugs, etc).
So, before I get over 500 words, I would just like to say that I support civil marriage between same-sex couples.
Good night, and good luck.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
A Waka Waka Doo Doo... Yeah.
Hello, internet! Tahuwaiila-a tahuwaiiwaiila! Ehu hene la-a pili-ko a-loo a-lao! Pu tutui a-itito-ela! Hanu lipo ita pa-alai! Aaah-wae, taah, ho-alau!
In the beginning of “What Is Marriage?”, Wolfson spends a significant amount of page space to developing his definition of marriage. Why? I’ll tell you why.
Wolfson’s argument is that same-sex couples have just as much right to get married as straight couples do. He shows all of the benefits of marriage, and how they are denied to all gay couples, and thus, the hardships they have to go through to work around their lack of basic relationship rights.
In the beginning, though, we don’t know that this is his argument. All we know is that he is explaining what marriage is. I like his definition of marriage, although it does leave room for a few quirky situations that I haven’t yet fully developed my opinion on (such as under-age marriage, inter-generational marriage, bigamy, etc). Not that there’s anything wrong with his definition. It’s just a little loose.
Anyways, we build up to a point where we feel that we know what marriage is. Boom. Gays don’t have access to this. Why? Wolfson doesn’t go into that. The obvious question hanging in the air is WHY? WHY don’t gays get this right? In the end, because there is no logic supporting it, it seems like restricting gays from marriage is a pretty bad decision.
QED.
In the beginning of “What Is Marriage?”, Wolfson spends a significant amount of page space to developing his definition of marriage. Why? I’ll tell you why.
Wolfson’s argument is that same-sex couples have just as much right to get married as straight couples do. He shows all of the benefits of marriage, and how they are denied to all gay couples, and thus, the hardships they have to go through to work around their lack of basic relationship rights.
In the beginning, though, we don’t know that this is his argument. All we know is that he is explaining what marriage is. I like his definition of marriage, although it does leave room for a few quirky situations that I haven’t yet fully developed my opinion on (such as under-age marriage, inter-generational marriage, bigamy, etc). Not that there’s anything wrong with his definition. It’s just a little loose.
Anyways, we build up to a point where we feel that we know what marriage is. Boom. Gays don’t have access to this. Why? Wolfson doesn’t go into that. The obvious question hanging in the air is WHY? WHY don’t gays get this right? In the end, because there is no logic supporting it, it seems like restricting gays from marriage is a pretty bad decision.
QED.
Monday, April 13, 2009
The Marriage-Mobile
Hello, internet!
Good golly, this article really got my goat. Not only do I disagree with just about everything in it, but the author bent fact to suit his needs. For example: “In absolute numbers, there are more white children growing up in single-parent households than black children.” Well, duh! There are more white kids overall than black kids. Percentage-wise, the very opposite is true. Santorum did this kind of thing repeatedly.
So let’s not talk about him. Let’s talk about Dr. Wade Horn, and his metaphorical airplanes. I don’t like his analogy. I think it’s totally off. The processes of raising children are not all identical trips to the same pre-defined place. Marriages aren’t “yes” or “no” things. True, there are definitely “successful” marriages, and there are definitely “failed” marriages. We call those “divorces”. But there are all other sorts of marriages. It’s not even a gradated scale from point A to point B. I think of it more as a three dimensional object that you can climb around.
Let me come up with a more accurate metaphor...
OK, got one.
Marriage to me is like two people painting a picture together: a team. Both people have to work well together and be able to cooperate. The success of their marriage is judged on the artfulness of their picture. There are some that have obviously succeeded, and some that have obviously failed. But other than those sad outliers, just about every other picture is up for interpretation. I may not like couple x’s picture, but they may love it and feel incredibly proud about it.
Furthermore, to extend my metaphor and go way over my word limit, just because I don’t like couple x’s painting or I think it’s pretty ugly doesn’t mean I have the right to tell them to never paint again. If they both really like their picture, then they’re free to hang it in their living room and look at it all the time. They may not win any awards for it, but I can’t stop them from keeping the picture.
OK. That’s the end of my rant. Good bye!
Good golly, this article really got my goat. Not only do I disagree with just about everything in it, but the author bent fact to suit his needs. For example: “In absolute numbers, there are more white children growing up in single-parent households than black children.” Well, duh! There are more white kids overall than black kids. Percentage-wise, the very opposite is true. Santorum did this kind of thing repeatedly.
So let’s not talk about him. Let’s talk about Dr. Wade Horn, and his metaphorical airplanes. I don’t like his analogy. I think it’s totally off. The processes of raising children are not all identical trips to the same pre-defined place. Marriages aren’t “yes” or “no” things. True, there are definitely “successful” marriages, and there are definitely “failed” marriages. We call those “divorces”. But there are all other sorts of marriages. It’s not even a gradated scale from point A to point B. I think of it more as a three dimensional object that you can climb around.
Let me come up with a more accurate metaphor...
OK, got one.
Marriage to me is like two people painting a picture together: a team. Both people have to work well together and be able to cooperate. The success of their marriage is judged on the artfulness of their picture. There are some that have obviously succeeded, and some that have obviously failed. But other than those sad outliers, just about every other picture is up for interpretation. I may not like couple x’s picture, but they may love it and feel incredibly proud about it.
Furthermore, to extend my metaphor and go way over my word limit, just because I don’t like couple x’s painting or I think it’s pretty ugly doesn’t mean I have the right to tell them to never paint again. If they both really like their picture, then they’re free to hang it in their living room and look at it all the time. They may not win any awards for it, but I can’t stop them from keeping the picture.
OK. That’s the end of my rant. Good bye!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)