My Quiet Life

Helpful howto: ever cooked something and it's just kinda so-so? Not bad, but not great? Three simple rules. One or more of these is bound to help:

• Put sugar in it
• Put porkfat in it
• Put MSG in it

Thank me later.

I have never been so excited about a phone before. The Motofone F3 is set to be released .. soon. They said Q4 of 2006, but so far only India has gotten it. What's so special about this phone? 40G hard drive? Built-in iPod? A web browser? Groupware support? A bluetooth garagedoor opener and can opener? No, no, and no. It has none of that. Nothing. It's a phone. Period.

For years the cellphone industry has been catering to the convergent market -- i.e. promising more and more functionality in their phones to broaden the appeal to more and more people. The downside of this appeal is that it leaves out the market in the "third world" -- people that don't need mp3 players. They just need a phone. But while this opens up huge markets in poorer countries investing hugely in wireless infrastructure, I think it will also open a market right here in the U.S. People like me.

I don't want all the crap they are cramming into phones. I just want a phone. A phone that works. A phone that holds a charge for more than a day. A phone that doesn't sound like I'm talking through a tin-can on Mars. A phone that fits in my pocket comfortably without making me look like I'm sporting a full-on robot chubby. I want just a phone. And I'll be damned if Motorola isn't finally making just a phone Holy crap!

It's 9mm thick, 68g including the battery. 400 hours of standby, 4.5 hours of talk time. The display is EPD (electronic paper), which apparently makes it very visible, even in direct sunlight. How much for all this dazzling technology? $200? $300? Wouldn't be out of line with most super-awesome modern phones, right? Try $50.

I am pumped. The only downside I see is that it apparently lacks a backlight, which may make it difficult to see in complete darkness (though the EPD is apparently very good even in low light).

If Michael Richards had been smart, he would not have apologized. He would have gone out on stage and done the exact same thing again. Then he would have gone on Letterman -- not to apologize -- but to get bitch-slapped by Jerry Lawler.

Instead, he apologized. Now everyone knows he was serious.

We went to see Casino Royale tonight.

Short version of this blog post: I thought it was great. A good Bond movie, worthy of the franchise. Worth seeing in the theatre. Dragged a little at the end. Eva Green is hot. Ha ha to all the Daniel Craig haters, because Craig kicked ass. We ran into Jag and her man there (see here for her thoughts, mostly about Craig's ass. which was pretty nice, i'm just sayin.)

Longer version of this blog post, containing random observations, accolades, and annoyingly pedantic observations about differences between the novel and the film adaptation, including MASSIVE SPOILERS:

(more...)

Amanda gets really annoyed when she reads someone speculating idly on matters of sociology which are in fact quite well studied, documented, theorized on, tested and concluded in the world of sociology. This happens a lot, as you'd imagine, as sociological topics are ones frequently raised in the blogosphere. You know, like you get a blog post that is like "I woooonder why it is that [something studied, documented and explained by the scientific community 50 years ago] -- someone should look into that!". Sociology (like nutrition, and to a lesser extent perhaps, economics) tends to be more prone to this, because it's the ultimate armchair-theorization candidate. Because, why study something empirically or research it when you can just pull an opinion out of your ass? Admittedly, it's more fun.

Anyways, where am I going with all this? I have a feeling that this post is probably exactly the equivalent to anyone that has studied religious history and comparative religion. I'm sure there are about 8,000 papers and books written on exactly this subject.

But hey, if I wasn't willing to talk out my ass about something I'm clueless about, I wouldn't have a blog, now would I?

So, in a post talking about whether or not Christians are "under attack", in discussing South Park's eviscerations of Christianity and other religions, John Carney says this:

They had a storyline which made fun of fundamentalists for opposing the teaching of evolution, but also mocked the atheist viewpoint that everything would be so much better if we didn't have those darn religious people mucking things up. In "South Park"'s projected future, the atheists have done away with religion, only to fall into their own holy wars between various factions of atheism. The problem is not religion, they seemed to be saying, it's human beings.

And, I disagree. I mean, that is -- it may be an accurate description of what Parker and Stone are going for, though I tend to think a better description is just that they are blissfully irreverent, but whatever.

But I hate the sentiment of the last sentence, which seems to have gotten a good reaction in the comments. The implication in saying "the problem is .. human beings" is that human beings are ultimately, innately flawed. I admit my gut reaction to this was to find it ironic that this itself is actually a concept deeply rooted in the Christian ethos. The idea of "human nature" as being a flawed or corrupt existence is a pervasive one in the Christian religion. In most sects of Christianity, I'd argue that it's taken as a given that humans are flawed beings who require God's mercy and salvation, and you can see this reflected back to Hobbs and his idea of a nasty, brutish, short "state of nature", and even further. It's a very powerful idea -- powerful because it's an excellent tool for reinforcing authority. If it's a given that human beings are cruel, evil and flawed when left to their own devices, it's easy to justify authority (whether the church's or, now, a state's) in reigning us in. (This is somewhat related to my opinion that Christianity can be difficult, but not impossible to reconcile with Libertarianism. Aunt B and I and others had a conversation about Glen Dean or something at one point, but I can't find it. I also have noted in the past the opposite: Christianity used as a tool to refute libertarianism in favor of authoritarianism. This, also, is another blog post.)

Anyways, so .. I checked my thoughts at this point: my knowledge of this flawed-human guilt complex is mostly limited to Christianity, but it would be silly of me to assume it hasn't appeared in other religions. I would, however, argue that it is probably most pervasive in the Christian religion. While I considered this, my thoughts wandered to probably the most extreme instance of Christian self-flagellation in history, which was .. well, self-flagellation. Mortification of the flesh. They loved this shit in the middle ages. This practice of self-inflicted flogging was rooted in the idea that by inflicting pain and suffering upon yourself, you absolve your sins and become closer to god, or something like that. It was also deeply rooted in the fundamental idea that humans are bad (mmkay), e.g. “Put to death what is earthly in you: fornication, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry.” (Col 3:5).

So I found myself wondering if there were parallels of this in any other religions. One that came to mind was "zanjeer matam", a Shiite ceremony involving flagellation with a chain & curved knives to commemorate the day of Ashura. This is similar on its surface, but appears not to be entirely the same. The goal of this symbolic act is to sympathize with the suffering and death of the martyr Husayn, which is similar to the Christian goal of relating to Christ's crucifixion, but it appears to lack the whole "put to death what is earthly in you" element. Maybe.

So, the question: do you agree that the concept of "human nature" as a flawed state is most pervasive in the Christian religion? Are there others in which it's more pervasive?

Roboto went to Hooters.

The Hooters he went to is walking distance from my office, so I go there sometimes to get wings to go (their wings are entirely too greasy, but that's another blog post).

I think the Hooters girls' outfits are a remarkable commentary on American sexuality. The waitresses are sexualized, but not really. The outfits emphasize tits, legs and asses, but .. not really. Closer inspection reveals that the uniform includes thick, non-sheer fleshy-colored pantyhose. They are all wearing thick, padded bras. Because, huge tits and cleavage at a "family restaurant" are cool, but god help us all if we were to see a nipple. They are more like living, semi-desexualized barbie dolls than anything that would actually prove to be sexually stimulating in any way.

Yes, this is what I think about when I go to Hooters. Is that weird?

Milton Friedman dies at age 94.

I didn't really see this one coming -- he was still very active. I guess I didn't realize how old he was.

Yes, I realize I'm only a couple of months late on this, but I have heard too many people make reference to Sen. Stevens and his "series of tubes" comment not to chime in, now. If you're late to the party, like me, here's the quote of Stevens delivering a metaphor for the Internet:

It's a series of tubes. And if you don't understand those tubes can be filled and if they are filled, when you put your message in, it gets in line and it's going to be delayed by anyone that puts into that tube enormous amounts of material, enormous amounts of material.

Ha ha, what an idiot, right? At least, that's the conclusion everyone seems to be jumping to, since surely a senator doesn't know what he's talking about. Except -- well, that's pretty much about right. The Internet really is more or less a series of tubes. It's a great metaphor for how the internet works, and thinking of an Internet connection as a tube is great for helping people visualize the difference between bandwidth and latency, and how congestion can affect things in various ways. Note that "pipe" itself is a common colloquialism for an Internet connection. So, why exactly is this so funny?

This reminds me of this great ad I saw at Target one time. It was a wall mural type thing that they had over their electronics section. Specifically, it was over their booming new MP3 player section. The ad contained the face of a 40-something-year-old-guy in the front, saying "I sure do like this new MP3. It's way better than that old MP2." In the background is a teenage girl, who was quite obviously supposed to be his daughter, rolling her eyes, as if to say "oh geez, dad, you're embarrasing me. there's no such thing as MP2." Except, well, there is. Woops.

So, I guess the moral is: it's dangerous to assume someone doesn't know what they're talking about and then mock them for it if you, yourself, don't actually know what you're talking about. Or something.

A woman was kicked off a plane for breastfeeding her kid. This may sound insane, but she should know that you're not allowed to fly with anything containing fluid, because it could be explosive.

But seriously: If I were ever in the position of even observing a woman getting kicked off a plane for breastfeeding her child, I am not sure if I'd be able to react with anything but sputtering, incoherent rage.