Category: What the hell?

Yeah, seriously, what the hell?

Estimating Earth

July 25, 2013

I hate this fucking game.

GeoGuessr

Go ahead. Give it a try.

I’m awesome at it. I think my highest score was up over 28,000. I often get over 25,000 anyway and seldom lower than 20,000. I’ve mastered the art of pinpointing the exact spot to within meters. I very rarely check Wikipedia or the like, and when I do, usually it’s a matter of “okay, I know the name of the town and what country it’s in, I’ve just been panning all over the country’s map looking for it and am getting impatient.”

And oh dear God, the constant panning! Dear Lord at the long barren usually-Australian roads. Yeah, I can pinpoint exact locations within meters after a LOT of panning and clicking down a road, hoping that there will be a sign showing the name of a nearby city or at least telling me what language is spoken in this place. Or the number of the road.

Only twice have I screwed up so badly that I didn’t even pick the right continent. Once wasn’t too long ago. A lot of locations in the game are in Brazil, and usually a sign or something in Portuguese can be spotted before too long telling this, along with rather obviously tropical scenery. Well, sure enough, at one point when I couldn’t identify any town names, was on some endless forest road, and saw some signs in Portuguese and finally guessed a random spot in Brazil and hoped it was close… it was in Portugal! :irked:
Continue reading “Estimating Earth”

Microwave Cookery

May 31, 2013

It occurred to me recently the way people use microwave ovens. How different they can be. How just plain weird and wrong they can be! :doitnow:

You see, when I’m microwaving something, I set the timer to something sensible depending on the item, very rarely more than two minutes for anything unless it’s frozen solid.

And yet, now and then, whether at work or elsewhere with a shared microwave, I see people just heating up some lukewarm soup or chicken or something and setting the timer to something like three minutes! True, the cans and packages sometimes say to microwave for that long, but it’s sort of a general rule that the amount of time they give is more than you need, unless your particular microwave sucks. Then again, packages also give stove top or conventional oven instructions, which nobody who isn’t my mother is dumb enough to pay any attention to.

Hell, I had a burrito once whose conventional oven instructions said to cook for 65 minutes. Not sure if trolling or really fucking crazy.

Anyway, as it sometimes turns out, the people setting their three ounces of clam chowder to microwave for four minutes don’t actually leave it in there the whole time. Oftentimes not even a minute has passed and they decide to stop it and remove their food. Which sort of boggles me further. If the time didn’t even matter, why not, you know, just set the time lower? And, of course, they take the food out and away, and the stupid timer is still blinking with the remaining time. Which the next person has to clear off.

Okay, it makes some sense if they pull it out early to see if it’s warm enough yet, so they could just pop it right back in if it isn’t without having to reset the timer. But they don’t even do that. And why such a ridiculously high time, heating something for four minutes that would be plenty hot in 45 seconds? Is your tongue made of asbestos?

Meh. I don’t know why anybody does anything. 😆

This has been Day 8 of the 100 Days of Summer, Round 13.

Pet Peeve

April 12, 2013

I hereby decree…

Your pets are not your children!

And as such, you are not your pets’ parent.

Now I’ll admit I’ve never liked the term “owner” for the person in that position, since the idea of ownership of an animal just sounds icky. I don’t care for “master” either. I like to just refer to the human as the, well, human. But referring to these people as the pets’ parents or guardians is just way too far in the other direction.

You know whose parents you actually are? Your children! Your human children, born out of a human woman’s womb, whether yours or your partner’s or someone else’s. The dog? Not your child.

I have nothing against elevating the status of one’s pets to “member of the family” consideration. But they are still their own category. The actual children are the HUMAN family, moreso than the pets. Equating the kids to the dog just dehumanizes the kids. And it outrageously ignores the VERY different needs that actual human children and the dogs or cats you call “children” have.

I mean, aren’t there enough people out there who have children with this idea of having a permanent baby or toddler? Completely forgetting they are bringing forth a person with their own mind? Treating their children like their sole purpose in life is to obey their parents and live as their parents dictate and to their parents’ pleasure?

You see, those are the reasons one should get a dog or cat! Dogs and cats aren’t going to grow up to be members of your own society. They’ll go their whole lives wanting your affection and, while not necessarily obeying you, being around when you want them. You don’t have to worry about differences of opinion since they don’t (usually) tend to have that many.

Granted, the idea of seeing pets as children is out of affection, yes. Not intending to make any statement either way about the status of the actual children. But if the pets are being elevated to the status of children, where does that leave the actual children?

Or is it the idea that the pets, like the children, are those within your home that you are obligated to serve? Yeah… I don’t think I need to get into everything that’s wrong there!

Sacked the Gunman

March 14, 2013

Now for a quick-thinking, death-stopping edition of…

Here’s to You!!!!

So I raise my glass and say, “Here’s to you, Cypress Lake hero!”

I don’t actually know his name. Very few people do. But he’s a high school student who, when another student on his school bus pointed a gun at someone else and threatened to kill, he and two others leapt up and tackled him, likely saving one or more lives. Yay! They’re heroes!

So they went to school where they got awards and medals not unlike the final scene from Star Wars…

Oh, no, wait, actually he got suspended. For being involved in an incident “where a weapon was present”.

Well, NYRA and others are on it! My always awesome fellow board member Jeffrey Nadel is on the case and has appeared on a couple of news spots and radio shows talking all about it.

Also, here: SchoolBusHero.com

Go there, watch the video, and sign the petition. And get others to do the same.

Seriously, that principal just isn’t backing down on this, insisting that she “knows the full story”. After the original suspension, they made up some junk about the heroic student being insubordinate and uncooperative, something they added after this story got media attention and they wanted to cover their tracks. Yeah, sure, okay. 🙄

Because the student should totally have instead done nothing like a good little boy and watched his fellow students get killed. And because he didn’t allow people to die in front of him, he now has this suspension blemish on his record because “only I know the full story, he was uncooperative! uncooperative!” Genius!

Come on. Expunge the suspension and move on. The school fighting this is nonsense, even by school administrator standards.

Mmmm, Candy Hearts 8

February 14, 2013

Can I really do another one after last year’s kicked so much ass? Of course I can.

While I sit here on this Valentine’s Day, munching my candy hearts, what is stupid about love and relationships that I feel like blasting now? So many questions…

Wait. That’s it! So many questions!

It’s probably a cliche that when you develop feelings for someone, your common sense pretty much dies. Maybe even your whole brain. And suddenly… everything is suspect and questionable. Usually, things being suspect and questionable means you’re intelligent, but this is a big exception to that.

Ever developed an interest in someone? Or watched a friend do so? Most likely. And you know it’s not pretty. Because you know what it means…

“Why hasn’t he/she called yet?”
“I sent him/her a text five minutes ago. Why no reply? Does he/she hate me?!”
“What did he/she mean by that?”
“Oh no! He/She mentioned an ex in the course of conversation. He/She must want to go back to the ex!”
“What was that look he/she gave me? What is that about? What does it mean?!”
“Oh God, I think he/she is mad at me. He/She said [insert completely benign ambiguous statement]! What does it mean? Why does he/she hate me?”
“I called him/her and he/she was busy. I’m sure it’s a lie. He/She is just avoiding me.”
“How soon should I talk to him/her again?”
“Do you think this will EVER work? Or will he/she hate me FOREVER?”

I’ve heard all of these from a number of people over the years. I’ve even said some of these, most regrettably. Not very attractive, is it? Of course not. It’s fucking stupid. It’s the stupidity that is the void left when one’s brain has fallen into a deep dormancy when one’s heart and/or genitals get all “WANT!”

Might have thought this is mostly what those more inexperienced with relationships do, but no, even those who’ve been through many still act this way. Honestly, how anyone ever hooks up after wading through this bullshit is beyond me. Probably just thinking, with their last inkling of brain power, “That sex better be damn good!” I suppose it is.

Oh, well. *eats candy hearts* What does this one say? TALK 2 ME. Oh, isn’t that cute, it uses a 2 instead of “to”. YOU FLIRT. Um, sure. HEAD/HEELS. Ha! It’s one of them puzzles. I’M IN LOVE. Uh oh. Careful, candy heart, before you start saying the shit listed above.

Best of 2012?

January 1, 2013

So I was at Barnes and Noble yesterday and looking at the science books, when I see a few that are compilations of the best science articles of 2012. Sounds neat. So I took a look. Good stuff for the most part.

And then something about brains… I had a bad feeling about this one. So I flipped to it…

*headdesk*

Yup, you guessed it. It was more “teen brain” bullshit. It starts off about how we all know teenagers are reckless and stupid and whatever other choice stereotypical traits. And says this is because their brains are still developing.

Stuff we hear over and over. But then the realization that this was a best of the year thing. That right alongside advances in real stuff like molecular biology or analytical chemistry, you get this teen brain bullshit being touted as some great discovery.

This is what’s in the mainstream and influencing policy and encouraging discrimination and making the lives of my young friends more and more difficult. While guys like Robert Epstein and Mike Males are still mostly unheard of. Shit.

Why, Animaniacs? Why?

December 27, 2012

Why the “Katie Ka-Boom” segment? What the fuck?

I watched this show 20 years ago, though rather on and off. Why? Because every now and then, some of the segments just bugged me. Really, I think the only ones I consistently liked were the Yakko, Wakko, and Dot ones, and maybe Slappy and Skippy, Goodfeathers, and Rita and Runt. The rest is either frustrating, like Mindy and Buttons. Stupid, like Chicken Boo. And, of course, just wildly offensive like Katie Ka-Boom.

There was a marathon of it on the Hub on Christmas Eve, and I like their Christmas specials. And seems the show is coming on that channel regularly in January. First thought was, yay, I like that show, get to see an old show of mine again! Then I remembered the love-hate relationship with it, that so many segments of the show I prefer to change the channel from.

Particularly Katie Ka-Boom, the teenage girl who explodes in hulk-like fury at the slightest unhappiness, something of which her parents and little brother live in constant fear. Every segment has something frustrate her, usually her family doing something stupid or a guy being a minute late for a date, and then she screams and turns into some kind of fire-breathing monster or some shit, and afterward she reverts to normal and is even friendly, and to close out the segment her parents make some disgusting comment about teenagers.

There’s a certain sadness in seeing blatant anti-teen sentiment in cartoons meant for an audience that has yet to reach their teen years (“fingerprints” joke notwithstanding). Spongebob Squarepants is about as bad when Mr. Krabs’s daughter Pearl is in an episode, behaving like every teen girl stereotype the show’s writers could come up with.

Why are children being told that in a few years they are going to grow into an age group during which they’ll be horrible and their parents will hate them? Or is this being done hoping the kids will behave differently once they reach their teens? Except their behavior doesn’t actually matter, since all anyone will care about then is their age, and every single action they make will be derided as “stupid teenager”. They can’t win, and their elders just want to make fun of them for it. What the fuck?

A Perversion of Darwinism

December 26, 2012

You know what I fucking hate? Ridiculous and fallacious applications of survival of the fittest to human society. And it’s almost always made to mean not so much survival but rather lack of survival of the weak or stupid. While this does apply in certain areas, the idea goes way overboard a lot, to the point of sociopathy.

For example, when looking at history, one might look at, say, the conquest and deaths of the Native Americans at the hands of white settlers to be what can be expected naturally. Why? Because a nice dose of Social Darwinism states that the Native Americans were clearly the weaker and less fit party, that therefore they’d only lose out to the surviving white settlers because they were clearly the fit and strong ones. And that with the weak ones dying out and those strong ones surviving, this would somehow be beneficial to our species.

Another example. A few years ago, I wrote about kids being left to die in hot cars. The comment on that was someone signed in as “Darwin” and saying, “See my theory of Evolution for an explanation of the purpose of this behavior.” That post was mentioned in a forum thread on SnipeMe last year, and the comment got a bit of agreement. Well, there are a lot of problems with that! For one, it reduces the child from personhood and makes him merely a vessel for his parents’ supposedly-faulty genes. And for that reason makes out the child’s unfortunate death to be a good thing for our species! Not to mention that the death had nothing to do with anything the child did, that this death was because his parents killed him through THEIR neglect and stupidity.

It also broadly applies biological determinism where its appropriateness is at best poorly understood by even the people who actually would know what the fuck they are talking about.

And where the fuck does anyone come off saying the deaths of innocent children at the hands of stupid parents, or tribes at the hands of resource-hungry invaders, or any number of people who died in avoidable accidents, are beneficial to our species? That one would make a statement so outrageously callous and defend it by pretending it’s science?!

You see, there is something very advantageous to our species, and that is our ability to discover and solve problems and, you know, help each other! We are supposed to be well beyond leaving the little sick and weak ones to die, so to speak. We are supposed to know better than to assume only those whose genes are “correct” have a right to live. Because maybe, just maybe, we’ve evolved into being better than that!

Same Old Songs

December 23, 2012

New Christmas music gets made still. Sort of. I think Rod Stewart released a new Christmas album. Michael Buble released one a year or two ago. Plenty of singers like to do the usual Christmas album, because why not?

Except it’s usually the same damn songs. Do we really need more versions of Let It Snow, or It’s Beginning to Look a Lot Like Christmas, or It’s the Most Wonderful Time of the Year, or I Saw Mommy Kissing Santa Claus? Or any others that have already been done to death?

Writing a new Christmas song, of course, takes extra work, and God knows that one is a crapshoot anyway. You might get something fun like Christmas Wrapping, something cute like Dominick the Donkey, something depressing like Same Auld Lang Syne, or something godawful and fit for the bowels of hell like Christmas Shoes.

But there’s a zillion Christmas songs already, lots of material for an album of covers. They don’t need to stick to the same old ones. There isn’t a lot of chance they’re going to contribute much to them that hasn’t been done before. Just open up a few Christmas song books and look for stuff that people might generally know but doesn’t get done much. Even excluding the Jesus ones (an exclusion not usually made, though) there’s still a decent selection.

And yet even with all that considered, they’ll still be like “hey, you know what? there should be another rendition of Santa Claus Is Coming to Town!”

Either that, or the same old Santa Claus Is Coming to Town or Rockin’ Around the Christmas Tree are the only ones anyone is willing to promote or play. :irked:

The Difference a Y Makes

December 22, 2012

So, in response to Sandy Hook, the National Rifle Association came out and said words.

On one hand, you’d hate to be them right now, immediately after an incident where everything they stand for just feels especially evil.

On the other hand, what the NRA does end up saying is some stupid shit.

They’re calling for ARMED GUARDS in every school. So in response to one guy with a gun going into a school and shooting some little kids, let’s have every school have a guy with a gun who has a lot more access should he decide to do the same! Genius!

Oh, and they blamed violent video games.

So, basically, guns don’t kill people, but video games do! Of course!

You know… personally I don’t feel very strongly about gun rights either way, but if this is the thought process of those who choose to carry deadly weapons around, I’m thinking there’s something to this whole gun control thing after all!