Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Savory Savior?

Who says salvation can't be crunchy and crisp? Some chick found Jesus in her Cheetos, and given Catholic ritual cannibalism ("This is my body, this is my blood, this is my appetizer"), I can't believe she didn't chow down on the miniature Christ incarnate.

A messiah munchy, if you will.

Friday, July 25, 2008

He's Now a Teen Spirit

NPR has an article online about Spencer Elden, the guy whose private parts may very well be in your record collection.

Thursday, July 17, 2008

TotallyLooksLike.com

http://s3.lpsol.com/assets/images/scrapes/FlavaStripe.jpg

The makers of ICanHasCheezburger? (the site that dragged the LOLCat meme into the spotlight) has a new site which looks like a soon-to-be-never-ending list of separated at birth photos. Enjoy.

Monday, July 14, 2008

A Modest Proposal

Please, somebody, I'm begging you.

In javascript and C# (and probably C, although I haven't touched it in years) an if statement looks something like this:

if ( i == "one" ) { blah blah blah }

If you need to compare that variable against multiple values, you can do it this way:

if ( i == "one" || i == "two" || i == "three" ) { blah blah blah }

Or you can do it this way:

switch ( i ) case "one": case "two": case "three": { blah blah blah break }

How about doing something like this instead:

if ( i == ( "one" || "two" || "three" ) ) { blah blah blah }

Similarly when assigning a variable using this notation (I forget what the notation is called):

test =
( i == "one" ) ? "number" :
( i == "two" ) ? "number" :
( i == "three" ) ? "number" : "not a number";
// note -- don't know if this works in c# exactly like that, but it
// does in javascript.

How about doing it this way:

test = ( i == ( "one" || "two" || "three" ) ) ? "number" : "not a number";

Thursday, July 10, 2008

Saturday, July 05, 2008

Status Quo

So I was thinking it would be nice to have a service which would update my status on myspace, facebook and maybe even linkedin at the same time via email or sms.

The great thing about the internet is that as soon as you have an idea you just google it up and find out that it's already built. I stumbled on hellotxt this morning, plugged in my information for the various network sites I'm subscribed to, and low and behold I can update my status via email. It does have a separate sms option, but I'm probably likely just to send an sms to the same email address as the phone number for the sms option looks like it's from outer space.

It also supports a bevy of other networks, including twitter if you can't resist updating your peeps from the restroom.

Wednesday, July 02, 2008

Belief In Global Warming = Neurosis?

Bret Stephen at the WSJ observes:

If even slight global cooling remains evidence of global warming, what isn't evidence of global warming? What we have here is a nonfalsifiable hypothesis, logically indistinguishable from claims for the existence of God. This doesn't mean God doesn't exist, or that global warming isn't happening. It does mean it isn't science.

He then goes on to offer three explanations for believing in gw -- ideological (serving as a conduit for your political views), theological (i.e. humans and their by-products are inherently bad, so we need to "tread lightly" as it were) and psychological (a penance system, aka carbon credits).

The psychological aspect, to me, has more to do with providing the basis for the other two motives. In the case of ideological convenience it has to do with the rich and powerful (read: celebrities and politicians) getting off on controlling your life -- telling you what you can drive, what you can illuminate your house with, etc. Those who do it are doing it with your entertainment dollars or votes in their pocket. You've given them value, therefore their edicts (in their minds) are obviously canonical.

The psychological basis behind the theological motive is what I believe to be an innate sense of being morally accountable to something bigger than us. We may do that in varying degrees through our religious beliefs, or if lacking any belief perhaps through the betterment of mankind, family, etc. The average joe driving his Prius preaches self-loathing and capitalistic abstinence (and at times may also exercise the two), looking down his nose as those who don't. It's his mode of worship and should also be yours. It doesn't matter which religious or non-religious belief system he espouses, the mad pursuit of being ecologically friendly is his method of attaining moral justification.

All of this is to ask, does the message of gw arrive with a sense of genuine concern for you and what's important to you, or does it arrive with a sense of "knowing better than you" ?