Can everybody please stop spelling the word "well" with a P? It annoys me to no end. "Welp" is not a word. I hate everybody who has ever typed the word "welp." Fucking internet.
(And yes, I know it's supposed to be from Dumb and Dumber, but I've seen that movie plenty of times and NEVER thought that Jim Carrey was saying anything other than "well." There is no "P" sound at the end. I guarantee you the script uses the word "well.")
Monday, June 3, 2013
Friday, May 24, 2013
Star Trek Into an Inexplicably Precise Point of Darkness
I recently went to see the new Star Trek movie, and although it was a generally entertaining movie, one thing about it really bothered me: the coordinate system used. In the film, a key plot point is when Kirk is given a set of coordinates: (23, 17, 46, 11). Notice anything strange about those coordinates?
Here are my thoughts:
1. Why in the hell are there 4 numbers?
Space is, of course, three dimensional, and therefore it would make sense to map it using 3 coordinates. So what's up with that fourth number? What does it stand for? After much thought, I concluded that the fourth number could plausibly be the number of the "sector." Space being very large, it makes sense to break it up into sectors to make the mapping more manageable. I can accept this. But it brings me to my next point.
2. Why in the hell are the numbers so small?
What units are these numbers in? I'd imagine that the area (volume?) described by such a set of numbers would be enormous. I guess it could just be describing a point near the origin ((0, 0, 0, 11) or whatever). Seems unlikely.
Mapping space is hard. Things are moving all the time. Orbits and whatnot. I would think it would be best to set your reference points to relatively stationary objects such as stars, and not planets. And that the location of planets would be kept in some sort of guide that would list the coordinates of the planets at various times.
In the movie, by the way, the location ends up being a moon of Jupiter. Wouldn't it have been much simpler to just say that? "Why don't you see what's happening near Europa?"
KAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHNNNNNNNNNNNNN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Here are my thoughts:
1. Why in the hell are there 4 numbers?
Space is, of course, three dimensional, and therefore it would make sense to map it using 3 coordinates. So what's up with that fourth number? What does it stand for? After much thought, I concluded that the fourth number could plausibly be the number of the "sector." Space being very large, it makes sense to break it up into sectors to make the mapping more manageable. I can accept this. But it brings me to my next point.
2. Why in the hell are the numbers so small?
What units are these numbers in? I'd imagine that the area (volume?) described by such a set of numbers would be enormous. I guess it could just be describing a point near the origin ((0, 0, 0, 11) or whatever). Seems unlikely.
Mapping space is hard. Things are moving all the time. Orbits and whatnot. I would think it would be best to set your reference points to relatively stationary objects such as stars, and not planets. And that the location of planets would be kept in some sort of guide that would list the coordinates of the planets at various times.
In the movie, by the way, the location ends up being a moon of Jupiter. Wouldn't it have been much simpler to just say that? "Why don't you see what's happening near Europa?"
KAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHNNNNNNNNNNNNN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Monday, April 15, 2013
Answers from Oakland
Today, I'm going to try out a new segment I like to call "Answers from Oakland." Since nobody actually reads this site, I can't answer emails sent to me from readers like other sites do. So what I will be doing is looking through questions people have in the place where only crazy people (like Pat) and mouth-breathers (like me) would ever look for answers: Yahoo! Answers. Let's see how it goes:
Francine:
Would 9 stone be too thin for me?First of all, this is America (yes, the whole internet is located in America. We invented it, assholes!), so I have no fucking idea what a "stone" is. Now, if I were a crazy person I could probably find out by asking people on Yahoo! Answers. But instead I'll just google it like a properly functioning human being. Ok, so a stone is 14 pounds. What a god-awful unit of measurement.
I currently weigh 11st 7lb- 11 stone 10lb, I'm 5"7 and a UK size 10/12. I exercise a lot. I am slim for my weight and am told I look less than what I weigh, like around 9 and a half stone. I really want to get down to 9 stone, but I find it hard to loose weight past 10 and a half stone. My weight tends to want to stay at a certain weight.
I think 9 stone is a nice weight to be at but I feel stupid because I weigh so much. My BMI says that 9st is healthy. I exercise a lot and I don't see my weight go down much ever. I don't even build much muscle. Would 9 stone be too light for me? I don't mind getting down to 11 stone for now, that's my current goal then I'd like to get down to 10 stone. I look thin at 10 and a half stone. I want to look what I weight and BMI gets me down.
Second, the sentence structure and overall level of coherency is about what I would expect for people posting on Yahoo! Answers. Now, to answer your question,
Robert:
Question from a man to a woman about the vagina!!!!?You had sex with a prostitute, didn't you?
This sounds like a terrible thing to say, i totally have respect for this woman, but she was "loose" down there. She had a rep for getting around. My penis size is like 5 inches hard in length, i know thats in the average area, and about 4.3/4.4 inches in girth/circumference when hard, so a little thin i guess...But my question is, could a woman be "loose" like that to where just an average sized guy wouldnt really do much for them? I dont think she felt much of me is why im asking. It was my first time, i laid there when she was on top and thrusted some, so i didnt do a ton. But would this be because of my size, or because she was a bit larger down there? Thanks!!
ps... i know its how its used... im just curious if im a decent/average size, and maybe she was bigger than normal down there? is that possible? and i know i've asked... i keep getting different crazy answers lol. thanks!
Germanicus:
Do you agree with liberals/progressives that homosexuality is good for the environment?Great question! It is a common fallacy that homosexual couples are good for the environment. The Liberal Media would like you to believe that homosexuals are helping the environment by not buying as much clothing as their heterosexual counterparts. They can do this because homosexuals have a 47% chance to wear the same size and type of clothing as their partner, while heterosexuals have a 0% chance of this. This allows homosexuals to share their wardrobes with their partners, thus decreasing the total number of clothes they buy. They also help the environment by being 69% more likely to drive a Prius.
But that's not the whole story! While it is true that a gay couple on average buys less clothing than a straight couple, their clothing contains 9000% more environmentally harmful materials such as glitter and sequins.
Ok, that's all for now. I probably will never do this again. Unless I do.
Pat is crazy!
Thursday, April 11, 2013
Oakland's Vinyl Vault - Graceland
Sorry for the long delay between posts, kids, but I promise to try to be better about it in the near future (not that anyone but me cares). Anyway, right now I'm once again reaching into the ol' Vault! And the winner is... Graceland, by Paul Simon.
Release Date: August 12, 1986
Singles: You Can Call Me Al, Graceland, The Boy in the Bubble, Diamonds on the Soles of Her Shoes
What do you do if you're a once legendary singer/songwriter and your career looks like it's heading for years of tours singing the same 12 songs over and over? You get your ass on a plane to a country with an oppressive government and work with local musicians to make a goddamn hit album named after the home of a celebrity! At least, that's what Paul Simon did, and it certainly worked for him.
Graceland is a fun album that mixes pop-rock music with South African music. The result is surprisingly good, and solidified Simon's reputation as one of the great songwriters of his generation. The album is highlighted by the lead single, "You Can Call Me Al," but for me it is songs like "I Know What I Know," "Homeless," and "Diamonds on the Soles of Her Shoes" that separate this album from its peers. Listening to it today, it does not sound like it was made in the heart of the '80s, which is obviously a huge plus.
Rating: 5 hip shakes - I have no idea what this album has to do with Elvis or Graceland, but I do know that I enjoy listening to it and I'd recommend anybody out there to give it a spin.
And now, here's the official music video for "You Can Call Me Al." God, I love music videos from the '80s.
Pat is crazy.
Singles: You Can Call Me Al, Graceland, The Boy in the Bubble, Diamonds on the Soles of Her Shoes
What do you do if you're a once legendary singer/songwriter and your career looks like it's heading for years of tours singing the same 12 songs over and over? You get your ass on a plane to a country with an oppressive government and work with local musicians to make a goddamn hit album named after the home of a celebrity! At least, that's what Paul Simon did, and it certainly worked for him.
Graceland is a fun album that mixes pop-rock music with South African music. The result is surprisingly good, and solidified Simon's reputation as one of the great songwriters of his generation. The album is highlighted by the lead single, "You Can Call Me Al," but for me it is songs like "I Know What I Know," "Homeless," and "Diamonds on the Soles of Her Shoes" that separate this album from its peers. Listening to it today, it does not sound like it was made in the heart of the '80s, which is obviously a huge plus.
Rating: 5 hip shakes - I have no idea what this album has to do with Elvis or Graceland, but I do know that I enjoy listening to it and I'd recommend anybody out there to give it a spin.
And now, here's the official music video for "You Can Call Me Al." God, I love music videos from the '80s.
Pat is crazy.
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
How to Lose Weight - An Engineer's Perspective
It seems that everybody is concerned with losing weight. Even I am looking to shed a few extra pounds these days, and it got me thinking: just how is it that we lose weight? And I don't mean "dieting and exercise," I mean how do we PHYSICALLY lose weight? As an engineer, my first instinct was to do a mass balance around the system, in this case the human body, and determine the variables involved.
Ok, so now that we know this, a question immediately comes to my mind: Do people poop and/or pee more when they are losing weight than when not? Or is it all lost by sweating more/eating less?
To answer this, I did some light research into the other side of weight loss: energy. In other words, what happens to food/drink after we consume it? Well, obviously some part of what we eat is used to make new cells, but that would happen whether we were losing weight or not. So the key here is how the energy from that food is used.
We're all aware that food has a certain number of calories, or energy, that is associated with it. When we eat it, our body breaks down the food to release that energy to use it for whatever it is that the body needs to do. Any energy that is not used is stored as fat, and that's generally accepted as the method in which we gain weight. So to lose weight, we need to use the energy stored in those fat cells (in addition to the food we're continuing to eat). So for the purposes of our discussion, we need to know what the byproducts are of breaking down fat. And it turns out that the byproducts are two simple things: water and carbon dioxide.
The excess water from breaking down the fat can be lost in two ways, as I see it: sweating and urinating. The carbon dioxide, I assume, is all breathed out. Pooping is seemingly unaffected.
The second part came as somewhat of a revelation to me: WE LOSE WEIGHT WITH EVERY BREATH WE TAKE. Carbon dioxide is heavier than oxygen, and breathing is exchanging those two gases. That said, I did a little more research and some quick calculations and found that, assuming normal breathing the entire time, it takes about 3.3 days to lose 1 pound by breathing alone. Which really isn't bad, considering.
So in conclusion, my grade-school level analysis suggests that the majority of weight loss is from sweating and urinating, with some loss from breathing more due to exercise. The best bet to lose weight is to eat less food (which means less mass in), and expend more energy, which will cause you to sweat more and breath more and possibly pee more (which means more mass out). In other words, diet and exercise.
What a waste of time.
Engineer's approximation of the human body
Ok, so now we need to know what is represented by each stream. First, the easy one: Mass in. As far as I know, the only significant source of mass entering the body is food/drink from eating. Inhaling air is another source, but considering that inhaling is (nearly) always followed by exhaling approximately the same amount of mass, I'll ignore it for now.
Now let's look at the other side of the equation: Mass out. Here are all of the ways that I can think of that we lose mass from our bodies:
Urinating, defecating, flatulence, sweating, vomiting, bleeding, loss of dead skin, hair loss/cuts, nail loss/cuts, crying, spitting, boogers/snot coming out of nose, sexual fluids
That, as far as I can tell, is it, unless you count losing limbs/teeth, which, quite frankly, I think is cheating if your goal is to lose weight. Of that list, I would say that the only significant sources are urinating, defecating, and sweating. I doubt hair/dead skin loss is significant, but I could be wrong about that, and if you're losing a significant amount of weight with any of the other methods, I suggest you consult a doctor about that.
Ok, so now that we know this, a question immediately comes to my mind: Do people poop and/or pee more when they are losing weight than when not? Or is it all lost by sweating more/eating less?
To answer this, I did some light research into the other side of weight loss: energy. In other words, what happens to food/drink after we consume it? Well, obviously some part of what we eat is used to make new cells, but that would happen whether we were losing weight or not. So the key here is how the energy from that food is used.
We're all aware that food has a certain number of calories, or energy, that is associated with it. When we eat it, our body breaks down the food to release that energy to use it for whatever it is that the body needs to do. Any energy that is not used is stored as fat, and that's generally accepted as the method in which we gain weight. So to lose weight, we need to use the energy stored in those fat cells (in addition to the food we're continuing to eat). So for the purposes of our discussion, we need to know what the byproducts are of breaking down fat. And it turns out that the byproducts are two simple things: water and carbon dioxide.
The excess water from breaking down the fat can be lost in two ways, as I see it: sweating and urinating. The carbon dioxide, I assume, is all breathed out. Pooping is seemingly unaffected.
The second part came as somewhat of a revelation to me: WE LOSE WEIGHT WITH EVERY BREATH WE TAKE. Carbon dioxide is heavier than oxygen, and breathing is exchanging those two gases. That said, I did a little more research and some quick calculations and found that, assuming normal breathing the entire time, it takes about 3.3 days to lose 1 pound by breathing alone. Which really isn't bad, considering.
So in conclusion, my grade-school level analysis suggests that the majority of weight loss is from sweating and urinating, with some loss from breathing more due to exercise. The best bet to lose weight is to eat less food (which means less mass in), and expend more energy, which will cause you to sweat more and breath more and possibly pee more (which means more mass out). In other words, diet and exercise.
What a waste of time.
Saturday, February 2, 2013
Oakland's Vinyl Vault - Layla
Hello again loyal reader! Today we look at a band formed seemingly only so that Eric Clapton could hit on his best friend's wife. That's right, it's Layla and Other Assorted Love Songs by Derek and the Dominos!
Release date: November 1970
Singles: Tell the Truth, Layla, Bell Bottom Blues
Derek and the Dominos only album, Layla and Other Assorted Love Songs, was inspired by the beautiful Pattie Boyd. The only problem was that she was married at the time to "Derek's" best friend, George Harrison.
Musically, this album is about as good as it gets if you love listening to people play the guitar at a high level. That's because in addition to Eric Clapton, Duane Allman is on the album. Even if you don't like love songs, which obviously most of these songs are, you can't help but marvel at these two doing what they do best. It's really something special.
Back to the inspiration for the album. While "Derek" may be a pretty weak pseudonym for Eric, he was at least wise enough not to go with his original title "Mattie." His boldest move on the album was choosing to include a cover of Billy Myles's "Have You Ever Loved a Woman," which is explicitly about being in love with your best friend's wife. I have to believe that George was a little suspicious. I imagine their conversation after listening to this song going a little like this:
GEORGE: My sweet lord! Are you trying to tell me something, Eric?
ERIC: What are you talking about?
GEORGE: Are you in love with Pattie? You know, there's something in the way you look at her. She's I, me, MINE, Eric. So, get back!
ERIC: Mate, I didn't even write the song! It's a cover! Duane wanted to put it on the album.
GEORGE: Ok, but if I find out you're lying, it'll really hurt me! You'll find me on Blue Jay Way playing my guitar while I gently weep.
ERIC: Trust me, mate, Lay-, er, Pattie and I are just friends.
Rating: 8 thumbs up - A great album and a must have for any Clapton fan. Perfect for listening to in the car or at a party, especially if your best friend's girl is there and you're trying to seduce her.
Now here is "Why Do Love Songs Got to Be So Sad," which is surprisingly upbeat.
Pat is crazy.
Release date: November 1970
Singles: Tell the Truth, Layla, Bell Bottom Blues
Derek and the Dominos only album, Layla and Other Assorted Love Songs, was inspired by the beautiful Pattie Boyd. The only problem was that she was married at the time to "Derek's" best friend, George Harrison.
Musically, this album is about as good as it gets if you love listening to people play the guitar at a high level. That's because in addition to Eric Clapton, Duane Allman is on the album. Even if you don't like love songs, which obviously most of these songs are, you can't help but marvel at these two doing what they do best. It's really something special.
Back to the inspiration for the album. While "Derek" may be a pretty weak pseudonym for Eric, he was at least wise enough not to go with his original title "Mattie." His boldest move on the album was choosing to include a cover of Billy Myles's "Have You Ever Loved a Woman," which is explicitly about being in love with your best friend's wife. I have to believe that George was a little suspicious. I imagine their conversation after listening to this song going a little like this:
GEORGE: My sweet lord! Are you trying to tell me something, Eric?
ERIC: What are you talking about?
GEORGE: Are you in love with Pattie? You know, there's something in the way you look at her. She's I, me, MINE, Eric. So, get back!
ERIC: Mate, I didn't even write the song! It's a cover! Duane wanted to put it on the album.
GEORGE: Ok, but if I find out you're lying, it'll really hurt me! You'll find me on Blue Jay Way playing my guitar while I gently weep.
ERIC: Trust me, mate, Lay-, er, Pattie and I are just friends.
Rating: 8 thumbs up - A great album and a must have for any Clapton fan. Perfect for listening to in the car or at a party, especially if your best friend's girl is there and you're trying to seduce her.
Now here is "Why Do Love Songs Got to Be So Sad," which is surprisingly upbeat.
Pat is crazy.
Thursday, January 3, 2013
Oakland's Vinyl Vault - Mind Games
Happy New Year folks! To kick off 2013, the random album generator spit out an album by one of the all time greats: John Lennon. The first album of the year is Mind Games.
Release Date: November 2, 1973
Singles: Mind Games
Let's start off where we sometimes do, with the cover. It was put together by John Lennon himself, and let me tell you, it... could have been better. I mean, it looks kind of like an eight year old did it. Not his greatest work, in my opinion.
But luckily, the music is much better. There are several gems on this album, including the title track, "Bring on the Lucie (Freda Peeple)," "Intuition," and "Out the Blue." The track that makes this a bona fide John Lennon album is "Tight A$," a little elbow into the side of the censors. As you'll find out if you listen to some other Lennon albums, he always seems to have at least one song that takes a not-so-subtle shot at somebody who he doesn't like.
Rating: 4 thumbs up - It's a nice album. Though often overshadowed by as his two previous albums, Plastic Ono Band and Imagine, it is certainly a must own for any Lennon fan out there.
Now here's "Only People." Enjoy!
Pat is crazy.
Release Date: November 2, 1973
Singles: Mind Games
Let's start off where we sometimes do, with the cover. It was put together by John Lennon himself, and let me tell you, it... could have been better. I mean, it looks kind of like an eight year old did it. Not his greatest work, in my opinion.
But luckily, the music is much better. There are several gems on this album, including the title track, "Bring on the Lucie (Freda Peeple)," "Intuition," and "Out the Blue." The track that makes this a bona fide John Lennon album is "Tight A$," a little elbow into the side of the censors. As you'll find out if you listen to some other Lennon albums, he always seems to have at least one song that takes a not-so-subtle shot at somebody who he doesn't like.
Rating: 4 thumbs up - It's a nice album. Though often overshadowed by as his two previous albums, Plastic Ono Band and Imagine, it is certainly a must own for any Lennon fan out there.
Now here's "Only People." Enjoy!
Pat is crazy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)