*=Crazy x=Big
6:26 PM
You left the chat by logging out or being disconnected.
Michael Smith is now online.
x what's good
8:07 PM
*doing laundry/sweating my nads off
x no ac?
*trying to live green
only use it when i sleep
x ah
xi don't try to live green
i use just enough energy to be comfortable, no more
no less
*a true citizen of the globe
x i am
the green movement is a communist movement
and im a lot of things, but i sure as hell ain't no commie
*your applying adam smith to something thats kind of outside its perview
x huh?
*laisezz faire and capitalism
dont apply to the environment
x no
what im saying is
*unless the rich have some new earth thats built for them once the planet goes to shit
x communists have backed off from the overt commie angle
and have moved into the environmentalist niche
but theyre the same people and they have the same agenda
don't let them fool you
* i could give 2 shits about the developing world getting equal parts
i just dont want long island to turn into a reef
x if we really wanted to save the environment, we'd just nuke china and india
send a few H bombs there way
it's not going to happen, long island turning into a reef
you not using your ac
will make 0% difference
you say laissez-faire doesn't work
it works
look at how people's behavior is changing now that gas is over $4 a gallon
* because carbon emissions in cars drop without government intervention
x this is not some thing where if we don't make drastic changes soon, the earth is going to be fucked in 20 years
* until theres profit in conversation, no corporation will be interested in it
x we'll naturally progress and find alternative energy sources
they're already interested
they all research it
they know there's only so much oil in the ground, they know there is an environmentally conscious niche market, they get government grants, they research it for the sake of science
plus, they know the first person to figure it out controls the global energy market
so there's plenty of incentive
*explain the lack of hydrogen cars
this isnt the space age where competition spurs invention
x what's the point?
* if it was, shit would be coming out every day
x there's no feasible way to do
you need to burn fossil fuels to get hydrogen
*no
x yes
*nah
x there's no plain old H occurring naturally last time i checked
*i know of several water splitting engines as well as several biochemical pathways being exploited to produce massive amounts of hydrogen
its a matter of people know pouring in the money to make them feasible
x what do the engines run on
* http://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-cell2.htm (cheap plug for Howstuffworks)
x this isn't even what im arguing though
i 100% support government grants for that kind of research
i just don't think the govt. should punish the average american in the mean time
if they released a hydrogen car that did everything a regular car did as well that was price competitive, id but it
buy*
* as would i
but the american consumer is a dick
x no
* is there any need for a hummer
to be sold commercially
x if everything else was the same
and the only difference was the engine
most americans would choose the hydrogen engine
im confident in that
*i think so too
x if it was cost effective
*but the car is as much as status symbol
which removes practicality out of the equation
for the middle class, it works
x but for the 10% who want the v8 because its cool, you dont fix them without regulation
make a hydrogen v8
why isn't that possible?
you can do upper end too
*true
*but that doesnt solve short term problems
x the short term problems aren't going to kill us
*might kill our grandkids
or their kids
x then by definition they're not short term
*not even the loss of oil
the climate shift is the shit that'll cause the most problems
x ah fuck the climate change
* dude im a scientist, you cant dispute the changes
x what is it like half a degree?
they were saying there was gonna be another ice age 30 years ago
*yeah, that was before 2 billion new people had cars
x in 30 years?
i don't think so
*i mean the proliferation of vehicles in china/india
as well as their indusries
x i think they were just wrong
earth is a big, tough mother fucker
it can take it
for a couple more decades
* tell that to the dinosaurs
x o so conservation is going to stop a big fucking asteroid from hitting us?
* no, thats bruce wilis
x they didn't even burn fossil fuels
they are fossil fuels
we can't last as a race forever anyway
we've had a good run
time to let the next great race have a shot, i say
* our insect overlords?
x something that can withstand the new earth climate
listen to this
side story
cold blooded animals
i remember in like 6th grade
in religion class, we were reading the old testament, genesis, and learning about creation
and i raised my hand and asked, where do the dinosaurs fit int
b/c they tell you of course that they were around millions of years ago
which makes no sense in the context of genesis
i thought this was a smart observation
my teacher laughed at me
and so did the whole class
i hated that bitch
* was it a public school?
x no of course not
* i meant CCD
x i was catholic educated k-8
it was catholic grammar school
*no comment on it whatsoever
x yea
just laughed
and moved on
isn't that kinda fucked up?
* probably wasnt qualified to answer it
x yea definitely
she was like 26
*theological its a relatively simple explanation
x depends if you're evangelical or not
* evangelical its simpler "if it aint in the bible, it didnt happen"
x yea but that's, of course, ridiculous
x the catholic explanation is either that it's a parable or they were 7 really long days
*well humans invented the concept of time
x you're a scientist
you shouldn't be saying that
* science and faith arent exclusive
there are plenty of things that are unexplainable in science
x but time is just a measuring system
isn't*
*exactly
x o ok
* time is a human construct
x i think it's more accurate to say that humans invented the system for measuring time, not time itself
*what is time
its an arbitrary system developed by humans
its only a constant because we have no other rules for it
x time is a dimension
a fundamental structure of the universe
* because we defined the universe
x aright, whatever
* its all a matter of perspective
x i dont really care
we just post this convo on the blog
*because your getting philosophiucally pwnzord
THE END... FOR NOW????
philosophical conversations between big and crazy
philosophical ruminations
yea
i'll do it
ok
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
Choose Your Own Adventure
I haven't added content lately because of a new job, and Crazy hasn't because he's a lazy asshole (well, so am I). So I asked Greg, friend of the blog, to make a contribution. He decided to make a choose your own adventure story, where at the end there are four choices for how the story progresses. Vote in the comments section of the entry.
Intro:
You, the Main Character, Vincent D’Marco:
You, a 31 year old male, are a detective for the New Haven, CT police department. You’ve been apart of the force for almost 8 years. You were promoted to detective 3 years ago and have been working hard towards a promotion to captain. The recent rash of gun violence the past few years has, perhaps somewhat sadly, bolstered your reputation around the city. You are known as a cunning detective, an investigator that can both stick to the rules and think outside the box. Most of the department respects you, but there are a few cops on the force believe you to be too soft at times. You don’t make arrests and until you are certain you have the evidence for a conviction, much to the chagrin of a few colleagues. The men and women on the SWAT team are particularly fond of you, having almost made the team before deciding to accept a promotion to detective.
Detective Casey Breyers, your partner:
Your partner is a 27 year old female, fairly attractive, just recently promoted to detective. Many around the precinct believe she isn’t ready for the responsibilities of detective, and some suspect she was promoted solely because she is a woman. You’ve been partners for about 9 months now, and from what you’ve seen she’s intelligent and a good cop, but lacks an air of confidence the other detectives carry, perhaps from the both the pressure of the new promotion and her gender. You think she might be interested in you romantically, but the last few months have been busy and you hesitate to ask out someone you have to work with every day.
Captain Francis Giancano, your boss:
A 47 year old male, tough on crime and sometimes tougher on his precinct. Demands results, and doesn’t care how he gets them, often leading to confrontations with some of the officers that do things strictly by the book. You and the captain get along most of the time, but only because your arrests lead to convictions. He and Casey do not get along, and he resents her mostly because he felt pressure to promote her from department brass.
More character intros as the story progresses
You sit at your desk and take a glance at the clock on the wall in front of you. 4:50pm. 10 more minutes and you can leave for the day. You look forward to getting home, cracking open a beer, and catching the Yankee game. Your paper work is done, so you grab your jacket and start to head out a few minutes early. You begin to walk away from you desk when Casey strolls down the hallway calling you name. Almost simultaneously the phone on your desk begins to ring. What do you do?
A)Ignore the phone, and see what Casey wants
B)Ignore Casey and answer the phone
C)Put your cellphone to your ear pretending to be on a call, ignoring both Casey and the phone and leaving the station.
D)Motion to Casey to come over and chat while you quickly see what the phone call concerns
Intro:
You, the Main Character, Vincent D’Marco:
You, a 31 year old male, are a detective for the New Haven, CT police department. You’ve been apart of the force for almost 8 years. You were promoted to detective 3 years ago and have been working hard towards a promotion to captain. The recent rash of gun violence the past few years has, perhaps somewhat sadly, bolstered your reputation around the city. You are known as a cunning detective, an investigator that can both stick to the rules and think outside the box. Most of the department respects you, but there are a few cops on the force believe you to be too soft at times. You don’t make arrests and until you are certain you have the evidence for a conviction, much to the chagrin of a few colleagues. The men and women on the SWAT team are particularly fond of you, having almost made the team before deciding to accept a promotion to detective.
Detective Casey Breyers, your partner:
Your partner is a 27 year old female, fairly attractive, just recently promoted to detective. Many around the precinct believe she isn’t ready for the responsibilities of detective, and some suspect she was promoted solely because she is a woman. You’ve been partners for about 9 months now, and from what you’ve seen she’s intelligent and a good cop, but lacks an air of confidence the other detectives carry, perhaps from the both the pressure of the new promotion and her gender. You think she might be interested in you romantically, but the last few months have been busy and you hesitate to ask out someone you have to work with every day.
Captain Francis Giancano, your boss:
A 47 year old male, tough on crime and sometimes tougher on his precinct. Demands results, and doesn’t care how he gets them, often leading to confrontations with some of the officers that do things strictly by the book. You and the captain get along most of the time, but only because your arrests lead to convictions. He and Casey do not get along, and he resents her mostly because he felt pressure to promote her from department brass.
More character intros as the story progresses
You sit at your desk and take a glance at the clock on the wall in front of you. 4:50pm. 10 more minutes and you can leave for the day. You look forward to getting home, cracking open a beer, and catching the Yankee game. Your paper work is done, so you grab your jacket and start to head out a few minutes early. You begin to walk away from you desk when Casey strolls down the hallway calling you name. Almost simultaneously the phone on your desk begins to ring. What do you do?
A)Ignore the phone, and see what Casey wants
B)Ignore Casey and answer the phone
C)Put your cellphone to your ear pretending to be on a call, ignoring both Casey and the phone and leaving the station.
D)Motion to Casey to come over and chat while you quickly see what the phone call concerns
Friday, June 13, 2008
My Fury / Why I Will Not Hesitate When I Pull the Lever Next to John McCain this November
My vote for John McCain was never really in doubt, but I can't say I was overly excited about his candicacy. That was until today. I consider myself to be an old school pro small government, pro state, and most importanly pro separation of powers Republican. The U.S.'s separation of powers between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches is one of, if not the, most fundamental tenets of American republicanism. I know this because I actually got a decent education in civics from kindergarten through high school, and it continues to grow to this day. But many do not have the benefit of this education, including, (perhaps surprisingly, perhaps not), five justices of the United Supreme Court. John McCain does know his civics, however, which is why he's getting my vote and I'll sleep guilt free the night November 4, 2008.
If you don't know what I'm talking about, I'm refering to Boumediene v. Bush, yesterday's apalling Supreme Court decision. Yesterday, the Supreme Court changed literally hundreds of years of established law by extending the right of habeas corpus to enemy soldiers captured by our military in foreign theaters of war. Habeas corpus, sometimes called the great writ, is a legendary legal right that we inherited from English law that allows a prisoner to challenge his detention in a civilian court. So if you're arrested, you can apply for a writ of habeas corpus, and the government will have adequately show that they have lawfully detained you. If they fail to do so, the court will order your release. This right was always extended to the far reaches of wherever this nation may have jurisdiction, but no further. Yesterday, the Supreme Court changed that and opened our civilian courts to detainees in the prison in Guantanamo Bay, in the sovereign nation of Cuba. If you want to fully understand why this is so horrible, you need to read Chief Justice Roberts' and Justice Scalia's dissents to the case, but I'll do my best to lay everything out for you.
For decades our Supreme Court's case law always said that during war, lawful enemy combatants are held as P.O.W.'s, while unlawful enemy combatants (like our current enemy which fights in plain clothes) are subject to military tribunal. Yesterday our Supreme Court changed that. This is how enemy combatants were always dealt with in a foreign theater, because, oh I don't know, it was logical. This is how wars are fought. The U.S. is not unique in this way. Did the Nazis get habeas corpus? If you don't know the answer to that question, I'll answer it for you. The answer is no. Until yesterday, habeas corpus had never been interpreted to extend beyond a nation's jurisdictional territory. This was the case 2 days ago, and this was the case when our founders formally adopted the great writ from the English common law.
One of the main reasons President Bush set up the prison at Guantanamo is because the Solicitor General advised him, based on the case law, that he could keep the unlawful enemy combatants there and try them in military tribunals if need be. He would not have set up this prison if he thought they would have civilian courts opened to them. Otherwise he would have made a temporary prison in Iraq or asked our allies to help with them. And now that is what is most likely to happen. This is a military base in Cuba. I don't care what you think the law ought to be, but the legal fact is, the Constitution as a legal document does not extend beyond wherever the United States may have jurisdiction. Now our Supreme Court says it does. The other thing you may not realize here is, the Supreme Court shouldn't even have gotten to the habeas issue. You don't get to habeas if the case can be decided on other grounds, particularly if due process is already being provided. Habeas corpus is a last ditch resort you get when the executive has violated your right to due process or other Constitutional rights. It's the court's final ability to check the corrupt military or police officer. These detainees were already getting ample due process. The Supreme Court itself outlined what that process ought to be in cases such as Hamdi v. Rumsfeld and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. And Congress modified federal statutes at least twice to comply with these decisions. Quoting from Roberts' dissent, this is the process the Court had previously given these enemy combatants:
If you don't know what I'm talking about, I'm refering to Boumediene v. Bush, yesterday's apalling Supreme Court decision. Yesterday, the Supreme Court changed literally hundreds of years of established law by extending the right of habeas corpus to enemy soldiers captured by our military in foreign theaters of war. Habeas corpus, sometimes called the great writ, is a legendary legal right that we inherited from English law that allows a prisoner to challenge his detention in a civilian court. So if you're arrested, you can apply for a writ of habeas corpus, and the government will have adequately show that they have lawfully detained you. If they fail to do so, the court will order your release. This right was always extended to the far reaches of wherever this nation may have jurisdiction, but no further. Yesterday, the Supreme Court changed that and opened our civilian courts to detainees in the prison in Guantanamo Bay, in the sovereign nation of Cuba. If you want to fully understand why this is so horrible, you need to read Chief Justice Roberts' and Justice Scalia's dissents to the case, but I'll do my best to lay everything out for you.
For decades our Supreme Court's case law always said that during war, lawful enemy combatants are held as P.O.W.'s, while unlawful enemy combatants (like our current enemy which fights in plain clothes) are subject to military tribunal. Yesterday our Supreme Court changed that. This is how enemy combatants were always dealt with in a foreign theater, because, oh I don't know, it was logical. This is how wars are fought. The U.S. is not unique in this way. Did the Nazis get habeas corpus? If you don't know the answer to that question, I'll answer it for you. The answer is no. Until yesterday, habeas corpus had never been interpreted to extend beyond a nation's jurisdictional territory. This was the case 2 days ago, and this was the case when our founders formally adopted the great writ from the English common law.
One of the main reasons President Bush set up the prison at Guantanamo is because the Solicitor General advised him, based on the case law, that he could keep the unlawful enemy combatants there and try them in military tribunals if need be. He would not have set up this prison if he thought they would have civilian courts opened to them. Otherwise he would have made a temporary prison in Iraq or asked our allies to help with them. And now that is what is most likely to happen. This is a military base in Cuba. I don't care what you think the law ought to be, but the legal fact is, the Constitution as a legal document does not extend beyond wherever the United States may have jurisdiction. Now our Supreme Court says it does. The other thing you may not realize here is, the Supreme Court shouldn't even have gotten to the habeas issue. You don't get to habeas if the case can be decided on other grounds, particularly if due process is already being provided. Habeas corpus is a last ditch resort you get when the executive has violated your right to due process or other Constitutional rights. It's the court's final ability to check the corrupt military or police officer. These detainees were already getting ample due process. The Supreme Court itself outlined what that process ought to be in cases such as Hamdi v. Rumsfeld and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. And Congress modified federal statutes at least twice to comply with these decisions. Quoting from Roberts' dissent, this is the process the Court had previously given these enemy combatants:
"The right to hear the bases of the charges against them, including a summary of any classified evidence.
The ability to challenge the bases of their detention before military tribunals modeled after Geneva Convention procedures. Some 38 detainees have been released as a result of this process.
The right, before the CSRT, to testify, introduce evidence, call witnesses, question those the Government calls, and secure release, if and when appropriate.
The right to the aid of a personal representative in arranging and presenting their cases before a CSRT.
Before the D. C. Circuit, the right to employ counsel, challenge the factual record, contest the lower tribunal’s legal determinations, ensure compliance with the Constitution and laws, and secure release, if any errors below establish their entitlement to such relief."
Keep in mind, Congress made this process available to enemy combatants at the direction of the Supreme Court. And they changed their mind again.
The sad irony is, the process the detainees will now get in federal civilian courts is likely to be far worse than what they were getting before. Our civilian courts are not equipped for these types of hearings and trials. How do they know if the military lawfully detained a combatant? They know about warrants, probable cause, and Miranda rights. They know nothing about U.S. military capturing terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan. And even if they did, are they supposed to call in witnesses? What's a soldier going to say on the stand? We arbitrarily detained that guy? No! They're gonna say he had a bomb strapped to him, he had a trunk full of guns. It's ludicrous.
These people were detained in a foreign land, in the theater of war, in violation of the law of war, by our military. And they get access to our civilian courts just because they were brought to a prison that could only be considered within jurisdictional reach by some abstract technicality? --access to civilian courts that our own military personnel would not get. I cry outrageous! And if you're living in the real world, that's the only appropriate response.
So, what does this have to do with John McCain? McCain called this decision one of the worst in our nation's history. And he said he'd nominate justices like John Roberts. McCain understands that the role of the judicial branch is to tell us what the law is, not make up new law. That's something of fundamental importance to our system of government. If you remove that pole, the tent collapses. I don't know about you, but that's something I'd rather avoid.Friday, June 6, 2008
20%! You don't just give them 20%!
For full effect, reread the topic title aloud while doing your best George Costanza impression.
So I ran across the folowing article on MSN: http://men.msn.com/articlees.aspx?cp-documentid=6273622. It's entitled "Things a Man Should Never Do in the Company of a Woman". I scanned down the list and came across this gem: "Tip less than 20%". I was outraged. This was an overreaction, but it's beside the point and I'll get to that later. I bring this up with my buddy Greg, a friend of the blog. He says he always tips 20%. Many of his friends do too. Apparently, 20% is the new 15%. I tell him this is ridiculous. 15% is a standard tip for ordinary service; 20% is for excellent service.
I knew Greg couldn't be right. How did I know this? Because I've been at restaurants all the time that apply an automatic gratuity of 18% if the party is 6 or more people. Since a party of 6 or more is obviously more trouble for a waiter/waitress, logically it should follow that a less than 18% tip is perfectly acceptable for smaller parties. Sometimes logic just isn't good enough for people, so I set out to settle this debate the best way I knew how:
Wikipedia.
And here's what the Big W came up with:
"Today 15 to 20 % (before tax for good to excellent service) is apparently now the norm. According to Fodor's: At restaurants, a 15% tip is typical for waiters; up to 20% may be expected by some waiters at more expensive establishments.
Many restaurants include a tip at 18% or more on the bill for groups of 6 or more guests."
Seems like game, set, match to me. But Greg takes the first sentence to include 20% as part of the norm. This is true enough, but he ignores the fact that the big W clearly says that 15% is still a normal tip, and more importanly ignores context. To me, it's clear that in the context of those three sentences, 20% could be the norm at fancier restaurants or for excellent service, but 15% is still the standard for normal service at your run of the mill diner, pizzeria, or Friday's.
Still a little irked that I have not definitively won the debate, I turn to the best conglomerate of useless knowledge I know: Teh Vesti. By this time, I had given the topic of tipping etiquette considerable thought, and revised by initial definition of what constitutes a standard tip. 15% is still the default, but several circumstances could warrant a higher tip. 16-19% is for good service (with 18% often being the default for large groups). 20% and up is for excellent service, fancy restaurants, or if you're trying to impress a woman.
This is why I say I initially overreacted to the MSN article. I still think the article is wrong, because it talks in absolutes. It says you should never let a woman see you tip less than 20%. This is just flat out wrong. If you're dining with a girl you've been dating for a while, or friends, family or coworkers, the normal rules of tipping should apply. But if you're just starting to date a woman, it's probably a good idea not to skimp on the tip. So I gave my revised idea of tipping etiquette to the vesti. I admit this was a bit unfair to Greg because I didn't give him a chance to rebut my modified theory. But I don't feel too bad, because he was contending that 20% had become the standard tip, and I was still contending that this notion was preposterous. You can see the results for yourself here: http://boards.ign.com/Message.aspx?topic=164941578&brd=5296&replies=23. Most people's conception seemed to be more in line with mine, but a few people did agree with Greg.
I haven't gotten a concession call from Greg yet, but I'm preemptively giving myself a win in the first ever Blog Wars.
BigMike 1, Greg 0.
O, and Crazy, I know how you might be tempted to respond, but those jokes are just too easy and beneath what I want this blog to be.
So I ran across the folowing article on MSN: http://men.msn.com/articlees.aspx?cp-documentid=6273622. It's entitled "Things a Man Should Never Do in the Company of a Woman". I scanned down the list and came across this gem: "Tip less than 20%". I was outraged. This was an overreaction, but it's beside the point and I'll get to that later. I bring this up with my buddy Greg, a friend of the blog. He says he always tips 20%. Many of his friends do too. Apparently, 20% is the new 15%. I tell him this is ridiculous. 15% is a standard tip for ordinary service; 20% is for excellent service.
I knew Greg couldn't be right. How did I know this? Because I've been at restaurants all the time that apply an automatic gratuity of 18% if the party is 6 or more people. Since a party of 6 or more is obviously more trouble for a waiter/waitress, logically it should follow that a less than 18% tip is perfectly acceptable for smaller parties. Sometimes logic just isn't good enough for people, so I set out to settle this debate the best way I knew how:
Wikipedia.
And here's what the Big W came up with:
"Today 15 to 20 % (before tax for good to excellent service) is apparently now the norm. According to Fodor's: At restaurants, a 15% tip is typical for waiters; up to 20% may be expected by some waiters at more expensive establishments.
Many restaurants include a tip at 18% or more on the bill for groups of 6 or more guests."
Seems like game, set, match to me. But Greg takes the first sentence to include 20% as part of the norm. This is true enough, but he ignores the fact that the big W clearly says that 15% is still a normal tip, and more importanly ignores context. To me, it's clear that in the context of those three sentences, 20% could be the norm at fancier restaurants or for excellent service, but 15% is still the standard for normal service at your run of the mill diner, pizzeria, or Friday's.
Still a little irked that I have not definitively won the debate, I turn to the best conglomerate of useless knowledge I know: Teh Vesti. By this time, I had given the topic of tipping etiquette considerable thought, and revised by initial definition of what constitutes a standard tip. 15% is still the default, but several circumstances could warrant a higher tip. 16-19% is for good service (with 18% often being the default for large groups). 20% and up is for excellent service, fancy restaurants, or if you're trying to impress a woman.
This is why I say I initially overreacted to the MSN article. I still think the article is wrong, because it talks in absolutes. It says you should never let a woman see you tip less than 20%. This is just flat out wrong. If you're dining with a girl you've been dating for a while, or friends, family or coworkers, the normal rules of tipping should apply. But if you're just starting to date a woman, it's probably a good idea not to skimp on the tip. So I gave my revised idea of tipping etiquette to the vesti. I admit this was a bit unfair to Greg because I didn't give him a chance to rebut my modified theory. But I don't feel too bad, because he was contending that 20% had become the standard tip, and I was still contending that this notion was preposterous. You can see the results for yourself here: http://boards.ign.com/Message.aspx?topic=164941578&brd=5296&replies=23. Most people's conception seemed to be more in line with mine, but a few people did agree with Greg.
I haven't gotten a concession call from Greg yet, but I'm preemptively giving myself a win in the first ever Blog Wars.
BigMike 1, Greg 0.
O, and Crazy, I know how you might be tempted to respond, but those jokes are just too easy and beneath what I want this blog to be.
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Apparently since its the Flavor of the Month, Time for my Top 10 list of Famous Brawds
10. Emma Watson
Yes, not exactly what we'd call classically beautiful yet, but this is my buy low, sell high choice. She just keeps getting hotter, and the lack of coke-whoriness will only help her prospects.
9. Lacey Chabert
I gotta go her over Jennifer Love Hewit from the Party of Fivers. Younger, cuter, not as talented (but who says Ghost Whisperer takes talent), but I saw her on Celebrity Poker Showdown and she's a vision.
8. Diora Bard
No idea what she's done, but there's a picture of her in Maxim that is just awesome.
7. Leighton Meester
Never have seen an episode of Gossip Girl, but maybe I should start
6.Kristen Bell
Smart, pretty, sassy... whats not to like
5. Eliza Dushku
The Bathing suit montage in the New Guy... nough said
4. Minka Kelly
In a straight up fight between Meghan Fox and Minka Kelly, I'll take Minka Kelly, bonus points cuz she slept with Tim Riggins, and I'm jealous
3. Elisha Cuthbert
She outlived the mountlion, only increases her hotness
2. Jessica Biel
Jt's a lucky man, classy beautiful and sexy at the same time
1. Rachel Bilson
If only I was Seth Cohen
Crazy's Take on The Democrats and their Latest Idiocies
Hey all, I know so far we've kept it pretty loose in terms of what we've talked about, but now its about time we had some grownup time. So gather around, my peeps, and I will weave you a tale of retardedness and ineptitude that will cost the Democratic Party of the United States possibly the easiest win in Presidential history.
The Democratic National Committe, in its infinite wisdom, has had a restriction on the states for their primaries could not be held before February 5th. This was the way the DNC kept the Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada in the spotlight because, lets be honest, none of those states have anything going for them except Nevada (gambling and legalized prostitution, but they also have nuclear waste depots, so i would call it a wash). However, the state legislatures in Florida and Michigan decided to push up their primaries because they felt Iowa and New Hampshire had unfair advantages in choosing who the next presidental candidate would be. Newsflash: those states have like a combined .2 delegates. In terms of actually choosing the president, they have about as much say as Guam and Puerto Rico. The only reason they have any real say is because the media gives them a say by covering them insanely. Also hilarious, not a single democrat cast a vote in these vote to push up the primary. It passed amongst republican and third party officials 21-17, if the democrats had any common sense and had cost a vote against the measure, they might have disenchfranchised all their constituents.
So over the weekend the DNC decided to seat the delegates and give them each a 1/2 of a vote. Clinton voted the delegates fully seated, because essentially she would have carried both states' delegates because of the demographics favored her as well as the fact that since Obama didnt campaign in either state (his name wasnt even on the ballot in Michigan). However, the point seems to be moot now, with the South Dakota and Montana primaries all but giving Obama the nomination, Clinton still refuses to abdicate her position in the race. She has begun to say that she is welcome to the possibility of the vice president position, but but just refusing to remove herself from the race, she continues to run the risk of alienating the rest of the Democratic Party and making Obama unwinable come November.
Obama's first job now is to try and unite the Democratic party. During the primaries, the young, the educated, black voters, and upper class Dems all leaned towards him. However, Hispanics, older voters, and blue collar Democrats all leaned towards Clinton. During the primaries, there were multiple polls that showed that if one person's candidate didnt win, then they wouldnt vote for the winner. If Obama cant even rally the majority of the Democrats to his side, he's never going to be able to get undecided voters to come over (let alone all the problems he's gonna run into the south just for being a black guy running for president, the one thing everybody doesnt seem to want to bring up). Hillary needs to do as much as she can to try and get her supporters to get on the Obama bandwagon, convince those who wanted her "experience" that Obama is more than capable of taking on the challenge. If Hillary remains too close to his campaign, then Barack loses all the momentum of the "reformer" that he's been carrying since Iowa. And if he doesn't have that, he's got nothing. And the democrats will have nobody to complain to when on January 20th Chief Justice Roberts is swearing in President McCain.
The Democratic National Committe, in its infinite wisdom, has had a restriction on the states for their primaries could not be held before February 5th. This was the way the DNC kept the Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada in the spotlight because, lets be honest, none of those states have anything going for them except Nevada (gambling and legalized prostitution, but they also have nuclear waste depots, so i would call it a wash). However, the state legislatures in Florida and Michigan decided to push up their primaries because they felt Iowa and New Hampshire had unfair advantages in choosing who the next presidental candidate would be. Newsflash: those states have like a combined .2 delegates. In terms of actually choosing the president, they have about as much say as Guam and Puerto Rico. The only reason they have any real say is because the media gives them a say by covering them insanely. Also hilarious, not a single democrat cast a vote in these vote to push up the primary. It passed amongst republican and third party officials 21-17, if the democrats had any common sense and had cost a vote against the measure, they might have disenchfranchised all their constituents.
So over the weekend the DNC decided to seat the delegates and give them each a 1/2 of a vote. Clinton voted the delegates fully seated, because essentially she would have carried both states' delegates because of the demographics favored her as well as the fact that since Obama didnt campaign in either state (his name wasnt even on the ballot in Michigan). However, the point seems to be moot now, with the South Dakota and Montana primaries all but giving Obama the nomination, Clinton still refuses to abdicate her position in the race. She has begun to say that she is welcome to the possibility of the vice president position, but but just refusing to remove herself from the race, she continues to run the risk of alienating the rest of the Democratic Party and making Obama unwinable come November.
Obama's first job now is to try and unite the Democratic party. During the primaries, the young, the educated, black voters, and upper class Dems all leaned towards him. However, Hispanics, older voters, and blue collar Democrats all leaned towards Clinton. During the primaries, there were multiple polls that showed that if one person's candidate didnt win, then they wouldnt vote for the winner. If Obama cant even rally the majority of the Democrats to his side, he's never going to be able to get undecided voters to come over (let alone all the problems he's gonna run into the south just for being a black guy running for president, the one thing everybody doesnt seem to want to bring up). Hillary needs to do as much as she can to try and get her supporters to get on the Obama bandwagon, convince those who wanted her "experience" that Obama is more than capable of taking on the challenge. If Hillary remains too close to his campaign, then Barack loses all the momentum of the "reformer" that he's been carrying since Iowa. And if he doesn't have that, he's got nothing. And the democrats will have nobody to complain to when on January 20th Chief Justice Roberts is swearing in President McCain.
Did they just do that?
http://gawker.com/5012149/
No, I don't think they did. But Seth Rogen and James Franco made quite the buzz Sunday night when they presented at the MTV movie awards with what people are dubbing "Weedgate" (People meaning me). That video, linked above, is probably NSFW (although it aired on basic cable), so I'll summarize:
Seth Rogen and James Franco come out to present the award for "Best Summer Movie So Far". Pretty pointless award if you ask me. Iron Man, which I'm finally seeing tonight, kicked off the summer movie season, and everything since has been a disappointment. Summer doesn't really start for me until The Dark Knight debuts next month, but I digress. So Rogen and Franco do a shameless, yet ingenious viral type plug for their upcoming stoner action flick Pineapple Express. Rogen says they don't actually smoke real weed on set, and he proceeds to pull out a giant bag of "fake" weed that they use in the movie, followed by a "fake" joint. Rogen and Franco then "fake" light up. During this, the camera pans to various celebrities. Chris Brown's reaction in particular is priceless. Then, instead of showing Rogen and Franco "fake" light up, the cameraman zooms out so you can't see what they're doing. Naturally, this fueled speculation that they weren't merely "fake" lighting up.
I don't buy it. Sure, they could get away with smoking a joint at an event like that, filled with celebrities and not much in terms of law enforcement. But that bag of "fake" weed was big. Big enough to get them a possession with intent to distribute charge. They definitely ran the risk of attracting the attention of law enforcement, which they just don't need at this point in their careers. One possibility is that MTV intentionally filmed it that way to manufacture the controversy. But I don't think MTV is that clever anymore. I think the more likely scenario is that MTV initially signed off on the sketch, and then chickened out at the last second. Drug use, along with nudity, is really one of the last taboo's that mainstream television has yet to embrace. Whatever actually happened, it's sure to give a big boost for Pineapple Express. The movie's been on my radar for a while and is sure to jump to the top of my most anticipated list after The Dark Knight debuts, but I don't know of a lot of other people that were aware of it. A lot of people apparently do think that was real weed and they really smoked up on national television. I'm curious to hear what you guys think, so leave a comment.
No, I don't think they did. But Seth Rogen and James Franco made quite the buzz Sunday night when they presented at the MTV movie awards with what people are dubbing "Weedgate" (People meaning me). That video, linked above, is probably NSFW (although it aired on basic cable), so I'll summarize:
Seth Rogen and James Franco come out to present the award for "Best Summer Movie So Far". Pretty pointless award if you ask me. Iron Man, which I'm finally seeing tonight, kicked off the summer movie season, and everything since has been a disappointment. Summer doesn't really start for me until The Dark Knight debuts next month, but I digress. So Rogen and Franco do a shameless, yet ingenious viral type plug for their upcoming stoner action flick Pineapple Express. Rogen says they don't actually smoke real weed on set, and he proceeds to pull out a giant bag of "fake" weed that they use in the movie, followed by a "fake" joint. Rogen and Franco then "fake" light up. During this, the camera pans to various celebrities. Chris Brown's reaction in particular is priceless. Then, instead of showing Rogen and Franco "fake" light up, the cameraman zooms out so you can't see what they're doing. Naturally, this fueled speculation that they weren't merely "fake" lighting up.
I don't buy it. Sure, they could get away with smoking a joint at an event like that, filled with celebrities and not much in terms of law enforcement. But that bag of "fake" weed was big. Big enough to get them a possession with intent to distribute charge. They definitely ran the risk of attracting the attention of law enforcement, which they just don't need at this point in their careers. One possibility is that MTV intentionally filmed it that way to manufacture the controversy. But I don't think MTV is that clever anymore. I think the more likely scenario is that MTV initially signed off on the sketch, and then chickened out at the last second. Drug use, along with nudity, is really one of the last taboo's that mainstream television has yet to embrace. Whatever actually happened, it's sure to give a big boost for Pineapple Express. The movie's been on my radar for a while and is sure to jump to the top of my most anticipated list after The Dark Knight debuts, but I don't know of a lot of other people that were aware of it. A lot of people apparently do think that was real weed and they really smoked up on national television. I'm curious to hear what you guys think, so leave a comment.
Monday, June 2, 2008
re: babes
Here are 40 of my 10s:
- rose byrne
- jordan ladd
- olivia wilde
- anna faris
- amy adams
- laura harris
- asia argento
- naomi watts
- milla jovavich
- ellen page
- amber tamblyn
- lacey chabert
- lovefoxxx
- kirsten bell
- rachael leigh cooke
- mila kunis
- leelee sobieski
- megan fox
- mandy moore
- sarah silverman
- blake lively
- kristen stewart
- jennifer connelly
- emma watson
- joanna levesque
- beverly mitchell
- alyson hannigan
- mischa barton
- marley shelton
- kristen davis
- natalie portman
- mary lynn rajskub
- jena malone
- hilary duff
- elisha cuthbert
- emmanuelle chriqui
- jennifer love hewitt
- elisabeth shue
- molly ringwald
- ally sheedy
Top 10 Celebrity Babes
I thought I'd inject a little more testosterone into this blog with my next top 10 list. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, as they say, and as such, it's something I find quite difficult to put into words. That's why guys invented the 10 point scale, although such a scale is meaningless for comparing the women on this list, because they're all 10's. Friends have criticized my 10 point scale as being too harsh. They say I never give out 10's. Well guys, here's 10 of them. No photos, because I don't own any and I don't want to leech other people's bandwith. Besides, a Google image search is easy enough.
10. Mila Kunis
I was never an avid viewer of That 70's Show. Still, I've seen around a couple dozen episodes over the years, and it's an undeniably funny show. It's just one I never got into. Mila Kunis' Jackie was bubbly cute, but also incredibly annoying, with a shrieky nails on the chalkboard voice. I didn't fully appreciate her natural beauty until I recently saw the hilarious Forgetting Sarah Marshall. Here, her character isn't a nag, so she uses her naturally adorable voice which has a throaty quality to it that I absolutely love, which a couple other women on this list share. She's also sporting a fine tan from the glorious Hawaiian sunshine, from where the movie was filmed. For any straight man that hasn't seen the movie, I present to you the Mila Kunis challenge: Watch Kunis in Forgetting Sarah Marshall, and exit the theater without nursing at least a minor crush. You don't win anything if you do. I'll just think you're a liar and/or question your heterosexuality.
9. Elisha Cuthbert
Best known as Jack Bauer's epically stupid daughter that somehow lands a job at CTU, but also as The Girl Next Door, and a star in a couple terrible slasher flicks, Elisha Cuthbert is a blonde bombshell. She might be higher on the list if she'd done anything of note recently. I think it's pretty hilarious how seemless her transition from 24 to movies like House of Wax and Captivity was. In 24, she played Kim Bauer, the hot, stupid damsel in distress. Some Hollywood exec was paying attention: "We need her running, screaming, wet, bouncing, and let's stick a knife in her while we're at it". Kim Bauer was a frequently criticized character, but looking back, I'll take Elisha Cuthbert in a tight white T over the laughably bad CTU soap like the Morris-Milo-Chloe triangle any day of the week.
8. Jessica Simpson
Here's a babe I took a while to come around on. That wasn't gross innuendo, what I'm saying is, while I always acknowledged she was hot, I never got why some guys were so obsessed with her. Everything about her looks fake, and she's not exactly the sharpest tool in the shed. I'm not going to pretend I'm one of those guys that values smarts over looks, but I draw the line somewhere around not being able to identify basic metaphors (even if you don't know what the word metaphor means) like "Chicken of the Sea". In the end though, Jessica Simpson brushes up against that line but ends up on the right side. She's just that good looking. I admit I initially underestimated that.
7. Christina Aguilera
Remember the "Genie in a Bottle" music video? This came out way back when Britney Spears and Christina Aguilera were duking it out for cutest slut on the planet (not an oxymoron BTW). Back then, I always came down fervently on Christina's side, and I know I was in the minority. Whereas I admit I was initially wrong about Jessica Simpson, history proves me right on this one. Even before Britney went bipolar and put on a few pounds too many, there was photographic evidence that Britney on TV was way hotter than Britney in real life. In the meantime, Christina kept on doing what she does best: being hot. OK, she had that weird Xtina dirty slut phase, but she was still hot.
6. Eva Longoria Parker
I admit it. I watch Desperate Housewives. Crazy and I watch a lot of the same shows, but I admittedly watch a few "chick" shows. He rarely passes up the opportunity to make fun of me for this. I justify watching some of these shows in a number of ways. First, if you check out the watercooler buzz for these shows, the audiences are usually watching for very different reasons than I am. They're interested in shipping (who is or should be hooking up), while I could usually care less about stuff like that. Good writing is usually something that attracts me to a show, and DH has plenty of that. Eva Longoria is another, and DH has plenty of that too. There's something about a woman that appreciates sports. Tony Parker is a lucky man.
5. Lauren Conrad
The Hills is another show I watch that is likely to induce eyerolls, but I can justify this one too. I read an interview recently where Christian Bale says he doesn't view American Psycho as a horror film, but rather as a black comedy. Similarly, I don't watch The Hills as a reality show, but rather as a sitcom. Give The Hills another shot with this frame of mind. It's fucking hilarious. All it's missing is a studio audience and a laugh track. (If you don't believe me, check out this video where James Franco and Mila Kunis re-enact a scene from the show, word for word: http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/56c2d6a703.) Here are a bunch of girls and guys that were born on third and think they hit a triple. Everyone is amazing looking on this show, yet Lauren manages to stand out. She's been involved in a ridiculous feud over a possible sex tape (please Santa) with frenemy Heidi Montag. There's no reason to believe Lauren over Heidi, yet nearly everyone does. It's because she's adorable, and Heidi's got a terrible nose and boob job, and zero musical talent. That's really all there is to it. Well, maybe the soon to be trademarked Lauren Conrad stare is a factor. If you watch the show, you know what I'm talking about. It's the one where she opens her eyes up wide, tilts her head, and melts your heart and burns your soul.
4. Jessica Alba
Here's where the list may start to look a little generic. The previous 6 girls are 10's, but these could be 11's if the scale allowed it. I don't really know what to say about Jessica Alba. Just check out some pictures of her. She's really hot. Wait, I do have something to say. A couple years ago, she might have topped this list, but now she's a little too skinny for my taste. She looks a little bonier and less curvy than she did a couple years ago. I'm grasping at straws though.
3. Megan Fox
I think Megan Fox made Paramount at least $200 million. If you take Fox out of Transformers, you're left with nostalgia, eye candy, and Shia LeBeouf. I can sort of understand how that's a formula for a $150 million opening weekend, but I can't begin to fathom how this mediocre of a film made $700 million worldwide. It's not a secret that 14-30 year old males are Hollywood's most lucrative demographic. They're the ones that drag their girlfriends out to The Lord of the Rings or see Revenge of the Sith 11 times. They usually have a decent reason for seeing these movies multiple times, and Megan Fox is all I can come up with for Transformers. And in an age where you can type an actress' name into a search engine and have access to hundreds of photos at your fingertips, guys definitely don't need to go to the movies to get their hot chick fix. That's how hot Megan Fox is. Not only is she so hot that guys were repeatedly willing to fork over $10 so they could see her, when they could see her for free, she's so hot that she tricked many of these guys into thinking the movie was pretty good.
2. Natalie Portman
Now we're getting into the stratosphere. There are a number of things that are attractive about Natalie Portman. She seems to care about acting and usually picks good roles. She's an ivy grad. She looks like she was sculpted by the hands of God. Oh, and have you seen Closer?
1. Scarlett Johansson
Deciding between Scarlett and Natalie was tough for me. I think Natalie has a prettier face, but Scarlett definitely has the better body. And it's not like she doesn't have a pretty face. She's got lips that rival Angelina Jolie's. Plus, I have a thing for blondes. She's also got that throaty voice I love. I wonder if a man has ever said "no" to her. The only minuses are her typical Hollywood me too, "I live in a bubble" political opinions, and I think she might have an old man fetish.
So, how's my list? Who's too high? Too low? Missing? Doesn't belong? Let me have it. Leave a comment.
I'm Big Mike, and I approve this message.
10. Mila Kunis
I was never an avid viewer of That 70's Show. Still, I've seen around a couple dozen episodes over the years, and it's an undeniably funny show. It's just one I never got into. Mila Kunis' Jackie was bubbly cute, but also incredibly annoying, with a shrieky nails on the chalkboard voice. I didn't fully appreciate her natural beauty until I recently saw the hilarious Forgetting Sarah Marshall. Here, her character isn't a nag, so she uses her naturally adorable voice which has a throaty quality to it that I absolutely love, which a couple other women on this list share. She's also sporting a fine tan from the glorious Hawaiian sunshine, from where the movie was filmed. For any straight man that hasn't seen the movie, I present to you the Mila Kunis challenge: Watch Kunis in Forgetting Sarah Marshall, and exit the theater without nursing at least a minor crush. You don't win anything if you do. I'll just think you're a liar and/or question your heterosexuality.
9. Elisha Cuthbert
Best known as Jack Bauer's epically stupid daughter that somehow lands a job at CTU, but also as The Girl Next Door, and a star in a couple terrible slasher flicks, Elisha Cuthbert is a blonde bombshell. She might be higher on the list if she'd done anything of note recently. I think it's pretty hilarious how seemless her transition from 24 to movies like House of Wax and Captivity was. In 24, she played Kim Bauer, the hot, stupid damsel in distress. Some Hollywood exec was paying attention: "We need her running, screaming, wet, bouncing, and let's stick a knife in her while we're at it". Kim Bauer was a frequently criticized character, but looking back, I'll take Elisha Cuthbert in a tight white T over the laughably bad CTU soap like the Morris-Milo-Chloe triangle any day of the week.
8. Jessica Simpson
Here's a babe I took a while to come around on. That wasn't gross innuendo, what I'm saying is, while I always acknowledged she was hot, I never got why some guys were so obsessed with her. Everything about her looks fake, and she's not exactly the sharpest tool in the shed. I'm not going to pretend I'm one of those guys that values smarts over looks, but I draw the line somewhere around not being able to identify basic metaphors (even if you don't know what the word metaphor means) like "Chicken of the Sea". In the end though, Jessica Simpson brushes up against that line but ends up on the right side. She's just that good looking. I admit I initially underestimated that.
7. Christina Aguilera
Remember the "Genie in a Bottle" music video? This came out way back when Britney Spears and Christina Aguilera were duking it out for cutest slut on the planet (not an oxymoron BTW). Back then, I always came down fervently on Christina's side, and I know I was in the minority. Whereas I admit I was initially wrong about Jessica Simpson, history proves me right on this one. Even before Britney went bipolar and put on a few pounds too many, there was photographic evidence that Britney on TV was way hotter than Britney in real life. In the meantime, Christina kept on doing what she does best: being hot. OK, she had that weird Xtina dirty slut phase, but she was still hot.
6. Eva Longoria Parker
I admit it. I watch Desperate Housewives. Crazy and I watch a lot of the same shows, but I admittedly watch a few "chick" shows. He rarely passes up the opportunity to make fun of me for this. I justify watching some of these shows in a number of ways. First, if you check out the watercooler buzz for these shows, the audiences are usually watching for very different reasons than I am. They're interested in shipping (who is or should be hooking up), while I could usually care less about stuff like that. Good writing is usually something that attracts me to a show, and DH has plenty of that. Eva Longoria is another, and DH has plenty of that too. There's something about a woman that appreciates sports. Tony Parker is a lucky man.
5. Lauren Conrad
The Hills is another show I watch that is likely to induce eyerolls, but I can justify this one too. I read an interview recently where Christian Bale says he doesn't view American Psycho as a horror film, but rather as a black comedy. Similarly, I don't watch The Hills as a reality show, but rather as a sitcom. Give The Hills another shot with this frame of mind. It's fucking hilarious. All it's missing is a studio audience and a laugh track. (If you don't believe me, check out this video where James Franco and Mila Kunis re-enact a scene from the show, word for word: http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/56c2d6a703.) Here are a bunch of girls and guys that were born on third and think they hit a triple. Everyone is amazing looking on this show, yet Lauren manages to stand out. She's been involved in a ridiculous feud over a possible sex tape (please Santa) with frenemy Heidi Montag. There's no reason to believe Lauren over Heidi, yet nearly everyone does. It's because she's adorable, and Heidi's got a terrible nose and boob job, and zero musical talent. That's really all there is to it. Well, maybe the soon to be trademarked Lauren Conrad stare is a factor. If you watch the show, you know what I'm talking about. It's the one where she opens her eyes up wide, tilts her head, and melts your heart and burns your soul.
4. Jessica Alba
Here's where the list may start to look a little generic. The previous 6 girls are 10's, but these could be 11's if the scale allowed it. I don't really know what to say about Jessica Alba. Just check out some pictures of her. She's really hot. Wait, I do have something to say. A couple years ago, she might have topped this list, but now she's a little too skinny for my taste. She looks a little bonier and less curvy than she did a couple years ago. I'm grasping at straws though.
3. Megan Fox
I think Megan Fox made Paramount at least $200 million. If you take Fox out of Transformers, you're left with nostalgia, eye candy, and Shia LeBeouf. I can sort of understand how that's a formula for a $150 million opening weekend, but I can't begin to fathom how this mediocre of a film made $700 million worldwide. It's not a secret that 14-30 year old males are Hollywood's most lucrative demographic. They're the ones that drag their girlfriends out to The Lord of the Rings or see Revenge of the Sith 11 times. They usually have a decent reason for seeing these movies multiple times, and Megan Fox is all I can come up with for Transformers. And in an age where you can type an actress' name into a search engine and have access to hundreds of photos at your fingertips, guys definitely don't need to go to the movies to get their hot chick fix. That's how hot Megan Fox is. Not only is she so hot that guys were repeatedly willing to fork over $10 so they could see her, when they could see her for free, she's so hot that she tricked many of these guys into thinking the movie was pretty good.
2. Natalie Portman
Now we're getting into the stratosphere. There are a number of things that are attractive about Natalie Portman. She seems to care about acting and usually picks good roles. She's an ivy grad. She looks like she was sculpted by the hands of God. Oh, and have you seen Closer?
1. Scarlett Johansson
Deciding between Scarlett and Natalie was tough for me. I think Natalie has a prettier face, but Scarlett definitely has the better body. And it's not like she doesn't have a pretty face. She's got lips that rival Angelina Jolie's. Plus, I have a thing for blondes. She's also got that throaty voice I love. I wonder if a man has ever said "no" to her. The only minuses are her typical Hollywood me too, "I live in a bubble" political opinions, and I think she might have an old man fetish.
So, how's my list? Who's too high? Too low? Missing? Doesn't belong? Let me have it. Leave a comment.
I'm Big Mike, and I approve this message.
Sunday, June 1, 2008
Transcript of Our Live Lost Convo
.
Crazy (9:07:47 PM): jeremy bantham?
Big (9:08:09 PM): yea
Big (9:08:12 PM): he's the guy in the coffin?
Big (9:08:28 PM): im 2 minutes behind btw
Crazy (9:08:49 PM): why are you behind?
Crazy (9:08:52 PM): tivo?
Big (9:09:56 PM): yea im caught up now
Crazy (9:16:13 PM): do you think alpert's really immortal?
Big (9:17:39 PM): no idea
Big (9:17:53 PM): it's probably just another weird island thing
Big (9:18:03 PM): that sayid fight was crazy
Crazy (9:18:06 PM): i think he was the first to use the time travel
Crazy (9:18:23 PM): its about time they showed him being capable of the shit he's gonna throw down on in the future
Big (9:18:52 PM): lol walt
Big (9:19:21 PM): damn he's old
Big (9:20:48 PM): bentham is the name of another philospher
Big (9:22:25 PM): nice to see locke hasn't forgotten that jack tried to kill him
Crazy (9:25:29 PM): i had
Big (9:28:22 PM): lost has the best hd on television
Big (9:28:33 PM): it's like you're looking through a window
Crazy (9:28:37 PM): i feel like i miss out on shit without hd
Big (9:30:07 PM): who has the remote?
Crazy (9:31:20 PM): i'm guessing kealy had it
Crazy (9:31:32 PM): im not seeing elizabeth mitchell surving through this ep
Big (9:32:20 PM): if that's a case ill miss her boobs
Crazy (9:37:32 PM): so ben's gotta use the orchid to travel through time
Big (9:38:05 PM): apparently
Big (9:39:01 PM): when jack says "we have to go back"
Big (9:39:20 PM): there's really not that many people to go back for, unless you count the anonymous crash survivors
Big (9:40:23 PM): michael, desmond, sawyer, jin if he lives, claire if she's alive, juliet
Crazy (9:41:13 PM): locke
Big (9:41:15 PM): right
Crazy5 (9:41:22 PM): resurrected boone
Big (9:41:23 PM): who i don't think jack was talking about
Big (9:41:27 PM): lol
Big (9:42:49 PM): they really can't afford to be killing off too many more of the original cast
Big (9:44:02 PM): this could end poorly
Big (9:44:09 PM): or not
Big (9:46:51 PM): wtf
Crazy (9:50:10 PM): how hard would it be to just switch it to someone who's not as dea
Crazy (9:50:11 PM): d
Big (9:50:12 PM): that's the sign of a cold blooded killer
Crazy (9:50:18 PM): killing without remorse
Big (9:50:23 PM): and responding
Big (9:50:24 PM): so?
Crazy (9:50:26 PM): or worrying about collateral damage
Big (9:52:27 PM): ok so who's daughter is charlotte?
Crazy (9:53:18 PM): no clue
Crazy (9:53:25 PM): i smell a bunch of redshirts bout to die
Big (9:53:33 PM): was there ever anything between juliet and faraday in prior episodes?
Big (9:53:39 PM): i hardly remember them interacting
Big (9:54:28 PM): why hasn't the light turned red yet
Big (9:55:40 PM): sawyer's jumping
Big (9:56:33 PM): god right in front of jack
Crazy (9:57:48 PM): a little in the juliette flashback ep
Crazy (9:58:03 PM): im like 98% sure what sawyer tasks kate with
Big (9:58:09 PM): which is?
Big (9:58:33 PM): find the girl who he schlepped
Big (9:59:42 PM): totally forgot about that weird mission that faraday and charlotte were on
Big (10:01:26 PM): o right it was to prevent ben from using the gas again
Big (10:03:29 PM): haha i was just gonna type that bentham is definitely an alias
Big (10:10:32 PM): i was so right about michael
Crazy (10:11:56 PM): i guess christian is gonna be the jacob
Crazy (10:12:00 PM): until there is a jacob
Big (10:12:38 PM): he can apparently leave the island
Crazy (10:13:16 PM): their fx shots are so shitty sometimes
Big (10:13:36 PM): there was one bad green screen shot in the helicopter
Big (10:13:43 PM): for the most part tonight's been good
Big (10:13:55 PM): in the fx department
Big (10:15:25 PM): what's gonna happen to desmond?
Big (10:18:22 PM): nice dharma brand rum
Crazy (10:49:40 PM): and we're back
Big (10:50:20 PM): 10 minutes until lost is gone until january 2009
Crazy (10:52:06 PM): sad but true
Crazy (10:52:10 PM): except for the tivo overru
Crazy (10:52:11 PM): n
Crazy (10:53:31 PM): so penny helped set up their cover?
Big (10:53:55 PM): are we going to find out what happened to claire?
Big (10:54:10 PM): they better give us 5 solid minutes back on the island
Big (10:54:57 PM): ok here it comes
Big (10:55:01 PM): don't be desmond
Crazy (10:59:30 PM): WHAAA
Big (11:00:06 PM): WHAT THE FUCK
Crazy (11:00:17 PM): AINT THAT A BITCH
Big (11:00:28 PM): who was the "he" that ben was talking about
Big (11:00:33 PM): that told jack ben was back
Crazy (11:00:41 PM): had to be locke
Crazy (11:00:50 PM): i doubt he had talked to sayid
Big (11:03:00 PM): im rewatching the scene
Crazy (11:03:16 PM): emerson's eyes are so huge
Big (11:03:41 PM): yea jack is clearly talking about locke
Big (11:03:54 PM): so shit goes down on the island and locke leaves to convince jack to go back
Big (11:04:04 PM): i am pissed
Big (11:04:08 PM): how could they kill locke
Big (11:04:30 PM): this is BULL shit
Crazy (11:05:20 PM): they have 3 years to explain why
Crazy (11:09:01 PM): they still have no claire explanation
Crazy (11:09:08 PM): unless alpert is a regular
Crazy (11:09:17 PM): michael and jin survived
Crazy (11:09:23 PM): farraday should be dead
Crazy (11:09:29 PM): along with the read shirts
Crazy (11:09:37 PM): *red
Big (11:09:42 PM): unless faraday somehow went with the island
Big (11:09:48 PM): are the red shirts the nameless people
Crazy (11:09:57 PM): i dont know if they're close enough
Crazy (11:10:06 PM): yea
Crazy (11:10:13 PM): red shirts is a star trek term
Crazy (11:10:30 PM): in the original, whoever wore a red shirt and went away with kirk on a mission would die
Big (11:11:29 PM): http://lostpedia.com/wiki/Coffin_%28Through_the_Looking_Glass%29/Theories#Locke
Big (11:11:38 PM): a bunch of people had locke theories
Crazy (11:18:34 PM): i gotta go to bed, email me the chat transcript, i'll put it up tomorrow
Big (11:18:37 PM): ok
Crazy (11:18:41 PM): night
Crazy (11:18:42 PM) has left the room.
Big (11:18:42 PM): later
Crazy (9:07:47 PM): jeremy bantham?
Big (9:08:09 PM): yea
Big (9:08:12 PM): he's the guy in the coffin?
Big (9:08:28 PM): im 2 minutes behind btw
Crazy (9:08:49 PM): why are you behind?
Crazy (9:08:52 PM): tivo?
Big (9:09:56 PM): yea im caught up now
Crazy (9:16:13 PM): do you think alpert's really immortal?
Big (9:17:39 PM): no idea
Big (9:17:53 PM): it's probably just another weird island thing
Big (9:18:03 PM): that sayid fight was crazy
Crazy (9:18:06 PM): i think he was the first to use the time travel
Crazy (9:18:23 PM): its about time they showed him being capable of the shit he's gonna throw down on in the future
Big (9:18:52 PM): lol walt
Big (9:19:21 PM): damn he's old
Big (9:20:48 PM): bentham is the name of another philospher
Big (9:22:25 PM): nice to see locke hasn't forgotten that jack tried to kill him
Crazy (9:25:29 PM): i had
Big (9:28:22 PM): lost has the best hd on television
Big (9:28:33 PM): it's like you're looking through a window
Crazy (9:28:37 PM): i feel like i miss out on shit without hd
Big (9:30:07 PM): who has the remote?
Crazy (9:31:20 PM): i'm guessing kealy had it
Crazy (9:31:32 PM): im not seeing elizabeth mitchell surving through this ep
Big (9:32:20 PM): if that's a case ill miss her boobs
Crazy (9:37:32 PM): so ben's gotta use the orchid to travel through time
Big (9:38:05 PM): apparently
Big (9:39:01 PM): when jack says "we have to go back"
Big (9:39:20 PM): there's really not that many people to go back for, unless you count the anonymous crash survivors
Big (9:40:23 PM): michael, desmond, sawyer, jin if he lives, claire if she's alive, juliet
Crazy (9:41:13 PM): locke
Big (9:41:15 PM): right
Crazy5 (9:41:22 PM): resurrected boone
Big (9:41:23 PM): who i don't think jack was talking about
Big (9:41:27 PM): lol
Big (9:42:49 PM): they really can't afford to be killing off too many more of the original cast
Big (9:44:02 PM): this could end poorly
Big (9:44:09 PM): or not
Big (9:46:51 PM): wtf
Crazy (9:50:10 PM): how hard would it be to just switch it to someone who's not as dea
Crazy (9:50:11 PM): d
Big (9:50:12 PM): that's the sign of a cold blooded killer
Crazy (9:50:18 PM): killing without remorse
Big (9:50:23 PM): and responding
Big (9:50:24 PM): so?
Crazy (9:50:26 PM): or worrying about collateral damage
Big (9:52:27 PM): ok so who's daughter is charlotte?
Crazy (9:53:18 PM): no clue
Crazy (9:53:25 PM): i smell a bunch of redshirts bout to die
Big (9:53:33 PM): was there ever anything between juliet and faraday in prior episodes?
Big (9:53:39 PM): i hardly remember them interacting
Big (9:54:28 PM): why hasn't the light turned red yet
Big (9:55:40 PM): sawyer's jumping
Big (9:56:33 PM): god right in front of jack
Crazy (9:57:48 PM): a little in the juliette flashback ep
Crazy (9:58:03 PM): im like 98% sure what sawyer tasks kate with
Big (9:58:09 PM): which is?
Big (9:58:33 PM): find the girl who he schlepped
Big (9:59:42 PM): totally forgot about that weird mission that faraday and charlotte were on
Big (10:01:26 PM): o right it was to prevent ben from using the gas again
Big (10:03:29 PM): haha i was just gonna type that bentham is definitely an alias
Big (10:10:32 PM): i was so right about michael
Crazy (10:11:56 PM): i guess christian is gonna be the jacob
Crazy (10:12:00 PM): until there is a jacob
Big (10:12:38 PM): he can apparently leave the island
Crazy (10:13:16 PM): their fx shots are so shitty sometimes
Big (10:13:36 PM): there was one bad green screen shot in the helicopter
Big (10:13:43 PM): for the most part tonight's been good
Big (10:13:55 PM): in the fx department
Big (10:15:25 PM): what's gonna happen to desmond?
Big (10:18:22 PM): nice dharma brand rum
Crazy (10:49:40 PM): and we're back
Big (10:50:20 PM): 10 minutes until lost is gone until january 2009
Crazy (10:52:06 PM): sad but true
Crazy (10:52:10 PM): except for the tivo overru
Crazy (10:52:11 PM): n
Crazy (10:53:31 PM): so penny helped set up their cover?
Big (10:53:55 PM): are we going to find out what happened to claire?
Big (10:54:10 PM): they better give us 5 solid minutes back on the island
Big (10:54:57 PM): ok here it comes
Big (10:55:01 PM): don't be desmond
Crazy (10:59:30 PM): WHAAA
Big (11:00:06 PM): WHAT THE FUCK
Crazy (11:00:17 PM): AINT THAT A BITCH
Big (11:00:28 PM): who was the "he" that ben was talking about
Big (11:00:33 PM): that told jack ben was back
Crazy (11:00:41 PM): had to be locke
Crazy (11:00:50 PM): i doubt he had talked to sayid
Big (11:03:00 PM): im rewatching the scene
Crazy (11:03:16 PM): emerson's eyes are so huge
Big (11:03:41 PM): yea jack is clearly talking about locke
Big (11:03:54 PM): so shit goes down on the island and locke leaves to convince jack to go back
Big (11:04:04 PM): i am pissed
Big (11:04:08 PM): how could they kill locke
Big (11:04:30 PM): this is BULL shit
Crazy (11:05:20 PM): they have 3 years to explain why
Crazy (11:09:01 PM): they still have no claire explanation
Crazy (11:09:08 PM): unless alpert is a regular
Crazy (11:09:17 PM): michael and jin survived
Crazy (11:09:23 PM): farraday should be dead
Crazy (11:09:29 PM): along with the read shirts
Crazy (11:09:37 PM): *red
Big (11:09:42 PM): unless faraday somehow went with the island
Big (11:09:48 PM): are the red shirts the nameless people
Crazy (11:09:57 PM): i dont know if they're close enough
Crazy (11:10:06 PM): yea
Crazy (11:10:13 PM): red shirts is a star trek term
Crazy (11:10:30 PM): in the original, whoever wore a red shirt and went away with kirk on a mission would die
Big (11:11:29 PM): http://lostpedia.com/wiki/Coffin_%28Through_the_Looking_Glass%29/Theories#Locke
Big (11:11:38 PM): a bunch of people had locke theories
Crazy (11:18:34 PM): i gotta go to bed, email me the chat transcript, i'll put it up tomorrow
Big (11:18:37 PM): ok
Crazy (11:18:41 PM): night
Crazy (11:18:42 PM) has left the room.
Big (11:18:42 PM): later
Friday, May 30, 2008
"It's not an Island..."
"It's a place where miracles can happen." - John Locke, 5/30/1956 - 4/4/2007... ?
Last night, between the hours of 9 and 11 pm, my television was a place where miracles happened. As I predicted, season 4's finale would not be quite as jaw dropping as season 3's because of a number of things that "needed" to happen, but that didn't stop Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse from providing us with 2 hours of captivating television. And unlike last season's finale, for once it can be said that the show actually seems to be headed somewhere. Lost draws a lot of comparisons to The X-Files for its supernatural themes and inverse proportion between questions presented and questions answered. Unlike The X-Files, it seems like we the viewers will catch up with that dangling banana that the producers have been holding out in front of us since the beginning. When we do, I'm not sure the final explanation will be nearly as good as the one Locke provided tonight, though.
I, like many others I'm sure, was shocked by the final reveal that Locke was Jeremy Bentham. Over the last 2 seasons, Desmond has become my favorite Lost character. Since he was the only major character that escaped the island and was not confirmed alive in the future, I dreaded that it would be him in the coffin. I was so convinced it would be him that it made the Locke reveal all the more shocking. I failed to consider that someone else might escape the island. The reveal hit pretty hard too. Locke was Lost's first truly great character. Terry O'Quinn has done magnificent work on the show, and unlike say, James Spader, is completely deserving of his Emmy. If that's the last we've seen of Locke, O'Quinn's already done enough to ensure the character will go down in TV history as one of the all time greats.
Some other quick thoughts:
"Jack, I said all of you. We're gonna have to bring him too." - Ben Linus
"It's not an Island. It's a place where miracles can happen." - John Locke
Last night, between the hours of 9 and 11 pm, my television was a place where miracles happened. As I predicted, season 4's finale would not be quite as jaw dropping as season 3's because of a number of things that "needed" to happen, but that didn't stop Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse from providing us with 2 hours of captivating television. And unlike last season's finale, for once it can be said that the show actually seems to be headed somewhere. Lost draws a lot of comparisons to The X-Files for its supernatural themes and inverse proportion between questions presented and questions answered. Unlike The X-Files, it seems like we the viewers will catch up with that dangling banana that the producers have been holding out in front of us since the beginning. When we do, I'm not sure the final explanation will be nearly as good as the one Locke provided tonight, though.
I, like many others I'm sure, was shocked by the final reveal that Locke was Jeremy Bentham. Over the last 2 seasons, Desmond has become my favorite Lost character. Since he was the only major character that escaped the island and was not confirmed alive in the future, I dreaded that it would be him in the coffin. I was so convinced it would be him that it made the Locke reveal all the more shocking. I failed to consider that someone else might escape the island. The reveal hit pretty hard too. Locke was Lost's first truly great character. Terry O'Quinn has done magnificent work on the show, and unlike say, James Spader, is completely deserving of his Emmy. If that's the last we've seen of Locke, O'Quinn's already done enough to ensure the character will go down in TV history as one of the all time greats.
Some other quick thoughts:
- Now that Malcolm David Kelley's growth spurt seems to be done, maybe it's time for Walt to rejoin the cast. After all, Locke had been visiting him, and Ben said "everyone" had to go back to the island.
- Speaking of "everyone" having to go back, when are we the viewers going to learn to not believe a word that comes out of Ben's mouth? I think Claire's warning to Kate will prove to be significant.
- Michael got his redemption. In a recent TV Guide interview Harold Perrineau was less than pleased with how his character was brought back only to be killed. I thought the send off for Michael was fitting, but it did seem a little reminiscent of what 24 did to Tony in Season 5.
- Desmond got his happy ending... or did he? Ben's still out to get Penelope. Henry Ian Cusick and Michael Emerson are complete joys to watch, but Desmond and Ben haven't interacted much on the show. Here's to hoping we'll see some of that in season 5.
- There seemed to be some serious lusting between Juliet and Faraday going on last night. If any of that was going on in prior episodes, I certainly missed it. It strikes me as an odd pairing, but it's one we may never see, given that Faraday wasn't on the island when it "moved".
- Speaking of the island moving, Jack, the Man of Science, doesn't believe what his eyes are telling him. Last night we saw Jack at some all time lows, and for once it seems Lindelof and Cuse have staunchly sided with the "Faith" side of the debate. But Jack hasn't had his last say, and this debate isn't over yet. Not by a long shot.
- Lost seemingly killed off 3 series premiere characters last night, and it really seems like Claire is dead. I think we haven't seen the last of at least 1 of these characters in living, breathing form (but I doubt Michael's one of them). The producers really can't afford to kill off many more major characters. Who's really left on the island that Jack would have to go back for?
"Jack, I said all of you. We're gonna have to bring him too." - Ben Linus
"It's not an Island. It's a place where miracles can happen." - John Locke
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Quick Pre-Lost Finale Thoughts
Unlike last year, I've managed to stay spoiler free prior to this year's season finale. Last season's finale featured a game changing shocker, though, which this season's is unlikely top. In fact, there are a number of things that need to or are likely to happen that I could see occupying the final frames of Lost's mostly excellent fourth season.
1) A big explosion on the freighter. This could work well on a number of levels. Lost alway features top notch production values, so this would certainly be a sight to see and hear with the proper home setup. Also, this could provide a strong cliffhanger ending. There are a few main characters on the freighter that are not part of the Oceanic 6 (Jin, Michael, Desmond... anyone else?). I'm predicting an ambiguous ending where the lives of at least one of these characters hangs in the balance. I think either Jin or Michael (or perhaps both) will attempt to sacrifice themselves to save others. I'm still not entirely convinced Jin is dead in the future, although Sun's comments to her father announcing her buyout of his company and blaming him for Jin's death have started to sway me that maybe he actually is. It would also make for good drama if the reason Michael coudn't die was because he was supposed to redeem himself for the murders of Ana Lucia and Libby by sacrificing himself to save others. Since Jin and Michael are friends, maybe they will go out together. I think Desmond is too important to the plot to kill off. He'll end up in the last place on earth he wants to be: back on the island.
2) Jin's fate revealed. If I'm wrong about Jin going down on the freighter, I could still see the ending involving him, as the revelation that he may be dead was one of season 4's biggest shockers. Maybe he'll die another way, or maybe he'll survive and the final frames will be occupied by a heartbreaking goodbye between him and Sun.
3) Ben and Locke move the island. I think it's a foregone conclusion that this is happening. This is the most likely thing to be on screen before season 4 fades to black. What this exactly entails, and what the consequences are, could be the difference between a predictable finale and a tremendous one.
The last episode teased a number of other possible revelations in the finale. It seems the Others (remember them?) are doing just fine without Ben, now being led by the immortal freak Richard Alpert. I haven't heard anything about the finale's flashback/forward. How wild would an Alpert centric episode be? Also let's not forget about the craziness going on with Claire maybe being dead and Christian apparently being alive. I'm not exactly sure what to say about that. I'm as stupefied as everyone else.
That ended up being a little longer than I planned. Anyways, enjoy the finale everyone, and check back tomorrow for some post finale thoughts, and to see how close my predictions were.
1) A big explosion on the freighter. This could work well on a number of levels. Lost alway features top notch production values, so this would certainly be a sight to see and hear with the proper home setup. Also, this could provide a strong cliffhanger ending. There are a few main characters on the freighter that are not part of the Oceanic 6 (Jin, Michael, Desmond... anyone else?). I'm predicting an ambiguous ending where the lives of at least one of these characters hangs in the balance. I think either Jin or Michael (or perhaps both) will attempt to sacrifice themselves to save others. I'm still not entirely convinced Jin is dead in the future, although Sun's comments to her father announcing her buyout of his company and blaming him for Jin's death have started to sway me that maybe he actually is. It would also make for good drama if the reason Michael coudn't die was because he was supposed to redeem himself for the murders of Ana Lucia and Libby by sacrificing himself to save others. Since Jin and Michael are friends, maybe they will go out together. I think Desmond is too important to the plot to kill off. He'll end up in the last place on earth he wants to be: back on the island.
2) Jin's fate revealed. If I'm wrong about Jin going down on the freighter, I could still see the ending involving him, as the revelation that he may be dead was one of season 4's biggest shockers. Maybe he'll die another way, or maybe he'll survive and the final frames will be occupied by a heartbreaking goodbye between him and Sun.
3) Ben and Locke move the island. I think it's a foregone conclusion that this is happening. This is the most likely thing to be on screen before season 4 fades to black. What this exactly entails, and what the consequences are, could be the difference between a predictable finale and a tremendous one.
The last episode teased a number of other possible revelations in the finale. It seems the Others (remember them?) are doing just fine without Ben, now being led by the immortal freak Richard Alpert. I haven't heard anything about the finale's flashback/forward. How wild would an Alpert centric episode be? Also let's not forget about the craziness going on with Claire maybe being dead and Christian apparently being alive. I'm not exactly sure what to say about that. I'm as stupefied as everyone else.
That ended up being a little longer than I planned. Anyways, enjoy the finale everyone, and check back tomorrow for some post finale thoughts, and to see how close my predictions were.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Buyer Beware: Paper Laptops
A***e's MacBook Air is the holy grail of mobile computing: a paper-thin laptop; how novel! Well, today, I unknowingly purchased a paper laptop.
Towards the end of the workday, I was tasked by a superior with purchasing a laptop for a new hire. I suggested we get one from W*****t, because they have "always low prices". I showed him an $800 D**l Inspirion on W*****t.com. The specs were more than adequate, so he handed over his corporate credit card and sent me on my way.
I rushed over to our local W*****t, 2.7 miles away from our small 5-story office building of which we occupy one suite on the fourth floor. I was in good spirits, as such a trip is more of an adventure rather than work. I made my way to the laptop section of the electronics department, and saw several D**l boxes locked underneath several empty display cases. I waited several minutes until finding an associate to open up the cage, so I could actually see the specs on the computers. I weeded through and picked the one closest to what we had seen online. I was a little bothered by the fact that the handle on the box was missing, but the box seemed to still be sealed, so I thought no more of it. With a swoop of the electronic pen at the register, I was on my way.
I arrived back at the office proud of my achievement, carrying in the new addition as a trophy. Eager to unpack this new baby, I used scissors to slice open the "check contents if unsealed" seal. I took out the box containing the manuals and discs, and set that aside. I took out the box that housed the laptop and opened it up. Inside the box, placed between the two pieces of styrofoam meant to protect the laptop was a bundle of several hundred sheets of printer paper. I sat for a few moments, in disbelief. This was one of the most surreal moments of my existence.
I brought this disappointment to my superior and he laughed. We realized we would both have to go back for this one. So, to the batmobile, we made the journey back to the place of purchase. We brought our paper laptop back to the service desk. He did the talking, "so, we bought this laptop half an hour ago. But, the unusual thing is that when we opened it up there was no laptop, just paper inside." A stoner kid returning a defective Millenium Falcon controller overheard, "Dude, did you just say you bought a laptop and it wasn't inside? Wild! Never heard that one before." And with that, he stumbled away.
We were left to face the music. The electronics dept manager came down and did some typing on the computer and talked on the phone for awhile. He then left us, saying he had to go get something. We waited for half an hour with nothing happening. The employing handling returns assured us that the manager would be shortly. Eventually, she did show up, in style. She arrived in the company of another employee, who said nothing, and only observed.
In a interrogation-lite, we were told to tell the story again. It felt more like she was my 1st grade teacher asking me to tell the truth about what happened at recess. "I took the laptop back to my office, cut open the seal, opened up the box, and it was just paper." Sternly she pressed, "You opened it up and it was just like this?" "Yes," I responded as earnestly as I could. She stared at my eyes for what seemed like 30 seconds. After which she gave her decision, "I have no way of knowing this is how you bought the laptop. No offense to you, but I can not know." I agreed with her totally. She continued, "I'm going to let you get a new laptop, we shouldn't but we are." My supervisor asked if we can open it this time. Smiling, the manager agreed that from now on laptops are to be opened every time.
Relieved, we took a walk back to the laptops. Picked out one that was a bit better, because we had gotten the last of the other kind. I noticed the handle was missing, too. We both expected another paper laptop. They opened it up at the service desk and let us inspect it. It seemed fine. So, we made our purchase finally.
On the return trip to the office my co-worker joked, "So, what'd you do with the real laptop?"
We enjoyed a hearty chuckle, but at what cost? Somewhere, there is an underground syndicate of fiends buying laptops from W*****t and replacing them with paper before re-sealing and returning them.
Back at the office, everything seemed to be in order with the second non-paper laptop, but being in its presence chills me to the bone. Was it just a coincidence that this second box had no handle as well, or had the laptop thieves already done something to this one. Hopefully, there is no GPS transponder guiding the thieves to our office's location, but only time will tell.
Towards the end of the workday, I was tasked by a superior with purchasing a laptop for a new hire. I suggested we get one from W*****t, because they have "always low prices". I showed him an $800 D**l Inspirion on W*****t.com. The specs were more than adequate, so he handed over his corporate credit card and sent me on my way.
I rushed over to our local W*****t, 2.7 miles away from our small 5-story office building of which we occupy one suite on the fourth floor. I was in good spirits, as such a trip is more of an adventure rather than work. I made my way to the laptop section of the electronics department, and saw several D**l boxes locked underneath several empty display cases. I waited several minutes until finding an associate to open up the cage, so I could actually see the specs on the computers. I weeded through and picked the one closest to what we had seen online. I was a little bothered by the fact that the handle on the box was missing, but the box seemed to still be sealed, so I thought no more of it. With a swoop of the electronic pen at the register, I was on my way.
I arrived back at the office proud of my achievement, carrying in the new addition as a trophy. Eager to unpack this new baby, I used scissors to slice open the "check contents if unsealed" seal. I took out the box containing the manuals and discs, and set that aside. I took out the box that housed the laptop and opened it up. Inside the box, placed between the two pieces of styrofoam meant to protect the laptop was a bundle of several hundred sheets of printer paper. I sat for a few moments, in disbelief. This was one of the most surreal moments of my existence.
I brought this disappointment to my superior and he laughed. We realized we would both have to go back for this one. So, to the batmobile, we made the journey back to the place of purchase. We brought our paper laptop back to the service desk. He did the talking, "so, we bought this laptop half an hour ago. But, the unusual thing is that when we opened it up there was no laptop, just paper inside." A stoner kid returning a defective Millenium Falcon controller overheard, "Dude, did you just say you bought a laptop and it wasn't inside? Wild! Never heard that one before." And with that, he stumbled away.
We were left to face the music. The electronics dept manager came down and did some typing on the computer and talked on the phone for awhile. He then left us, saying he had to go get something. We waited for half an hour with nothing happening. The employing handling returns assured us that the manager would be shortly. Eventually, she did show up, in style. She arrived in the company of another employee, who said nothing, and only observed.
In a interrogation-lite, we were told to tell the story again. It felt more like she was my 1st grade teacher asking me to tell the truth about what happened at recess. "I took the laptop back to my office, cut open the seal, opened up the box, and it was just paper." Sternly she pressed, "You opened it up and it was just like this?" "Yes," I responded as earnestly as I could. She stared at my eyes for what seemed like 30 seconds. After which she gave her decision, "I have no way of knowing this is how you bought the laptop. No offense to you, but I can not know." I agreed with her totally. She continued, "I'm going to let you get a new laptop, we shouldn't but we are." My supervisor asked if we can open it this time. Smiling, the manager agreed that from now on laptops are to be opened every time.
Relieved, we took a walk back to the laptops. Picked out one that was a bit better, because we had gotten the last of the other kind. I noticed the handle was missing, too. We both expected another paper laptop. They opened it up at the service desk and let us inspect it. It seemed fine. So, we made our purchase finally.
On the return trip to the office my co-worker joked, "So, what'd you do with the real laptop?"
We enjoyed a hearty chuckle, but at what cost? Somewhere, there is an underground syndicate of fiends buying laptops from W*****t and replacing them with paper before re-sealing and returning them.
Back at the office, everything seemed to be in order with the second non-paper laptop, but being in its presence chills me to the bone. Was it just a coincidence that this second box had no handle as well, or had the laptop thieves already done something to this one. Hopefully, there is no GPS transponder guiding the thieves to our office's location, but only time will tell.
Top 10 Videogames
Every so often I'll post a top 10 list of my favorite whatever's on my mind. Today it's videogames. My general rule with these is to only include 1 title per franchise. I used only 3 criteria to compile this list: fun factor (guaged by how much time I spent with the game, and my rough estimate of how much "fun" I had playing it), influence (did the game revolutionize or evolve games in some important way?), and durability (Does the game stand the test of time? Games with great controls, clean graphics, and a smooth framerate tend to succeed in this area). And a disclaimer: It's too soon to know if and where GTAIV falls on this list, which is why it's absent. Without further ado, my top 10 videogames of all time.
10. Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest (SNES)
Complex level design, tough and creative boss fights, and a lengthy adventure that (unlike later Rare efforts) isn't too overextended by tedious fetch quests.
9. MVP Baseball 2005 (XBOX)
Still the pinnacle of virtual baseball. I hate Take Two for killing it, but EA brought it on themselves when they made a deal with the devil (the NFL). The Batter's Eye addresses the inherent depth perception problem that all baseball games struggle with better than any game before or after it.
8. Mass Effect (XBOX 360)
First time I felt like I was playing a next gen game rather than an HD Xbox game. Games were starting to feel a little tired, but a writer's strike and BioWare brought me back in.
7. Halo 2 (XBOX)
The 10 year evolution of the console FPS culminated in this. And unlike Goldeneye, this hasn't shown it's age (yet).
6. Super Mario 64 (N64)
Mario had to be somewhere on this list, it was only a question of which game and where. SM64 is one of the most influential games of all time, and still the best of the 3d Marios.
5. Shenmue (Dreamcast)
There was a lot of talk about GTAIV providing the feeling of a "lived in" world. Shenmue did it first, and is still unmatched in this regard.
4. The Sims 2 (PC)
Virtual comfort soup. This is the game the keeps on giving. Every time I think I'm done with this game, there's another expansion that pulls me back in. Seriously, I've probably put in over 400 hours. Nearly unlimited replay value.
3. Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic (XBOX)
Star Wars + d20 system = wet dream for any nerd that grew up in the 70's or 80's.
2. Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask (N64)
Tough to pick a favorite Zelda, but it usually comes down to this or OoT for me. I'm the type of Zelda player that enjoys towns and sidequests more than dungeons, and MM is best for that.
1. Metal Gear Solid 3: Subsistence (PS2)
The Metal Gear franchise, more than most classic franchises, has stayed very close to its roots. This is great for gamers looking for an old school experience in a next gen package. Subsistence's camera was a long time coming; Snake Eater was beginning to show the franchise's age.
Honorable Mentions: Goldeneye, Sim City 2000, Chrono Trigger
UPDATE: I'm pleased to announce the addition of guest contributors. Expect a post from our good friend Izzy in the near future.
10. Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest (SNES)
Complex level design, tough and creative boss fights, and a lengthy adventure that (unlike later Rare efforts) isn't too overextended by tedious fetch quests.
9. MVP Baseball 2005 (XBOX)
Still the pinnacle of virtual baseball. I hate Take Two for killing it, but EA brought it on themselves when they made a deal with the devil (the NFL). The Batter's Eye addresses the inherent depth perception problem that all baseball games struggle with better than any game before or after it.
8. Mass Effect (XBOX 360)
First time I felt like I was playing a next gen game rather than an HD Xbox game. Games were starting to feel a little tired, but a writer's strike and BioWare brought me back in.
7. Halo 2 (XBOX)
The 10 year evolution of the console FPS culminated in this. And unlike Goldeneye, this hasn't shown it's age (yet).
6. Super Mario 64 (N64)
Mario had to be somewhere on this list, it was only a question of which game and where. SM64 is one of the most influential games of all time, and still the best of the 3d Marios.
5. Shenmue (Dreamcast)
There was a lot of talk about GTAIV providing the feeling of a "lived in" world. Shenmue did it first, and is still unmatched in this regard.
4. The Sims 2 (PC)
Virtual comfort soup. This is the game the keeps on giving. Every time I think I'm done with this game, there's another expansion that pulls me back in. Seriously, I've probably put in over 400 hours. Nearly unlimited replay value.
3. Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic (XBOX)
Star Wars + d20 system = wet dream for any nerd that grew up in the 70's or 80's.
2. Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask (N64)
Tough to pick a favorite Zelda, but it usually comes down to this or OoT for me. I'm the type of Zelda player that enjoys towns and sidequests more than dungeons, and MM is best for that.
1. Metal Gear Solid 3: Subsistence (PS2)
The Metal Gear franchise, more than most classic franchises, has stayed very close to its roots. This is great for gamers looking for an old school experience in a next gen package. Subsistence's camera was a long time coming; Snake Eater was beginning to show the franchise's age.
Honorable Mentions: Goldeneye, Sim City 2000, Chrono Trigger
UPDATE: I'm pleased to announce the addition of guest contributors. Expect a post from our good friend Izzy in the near future.
Sunday, May 25, 2008
WELCOME TO THUNDERDOME!!!
Hey all, if you're reading this then chances are you know who I am. If not, and you made a wrong turn somewhere looking for goat on goat action, I'm Crazy. I developed that nickname in college basically because there wasnt really anything I wouldn't say or do, which made me look slightly psychotic at times. I'm gonna be co-blogging here with my hetero-lifemate Big on all the things we like to keep track of (sports, music, politics, tv, etc).
Before I get into the main part of this post, I gotta disagree with Big on his Joba view. I concur, starting pitching is essential to win, but in a regular season as long as baseball is, an offense like the Yankees have could carry them into the wild card even without a killer ace. The playoffs, however, are won and lost in the bullpen. In this era of starters going no more than 7 innings, without a reliable 8th and 9th inning guy, you're opening yourself up to a myriad of late inning collapses. Ask the rockies, who've gone through 3 closers this year. Or the Braves of the mid to late 90s, who i watched every year lose games to scrubs because Mike Remlinger couldnt get a late inning out. The goal is to shorten the game as much as possible. When Mariano retires, you had his heir apparent waiting like they had in 1996. Now they're making a huge gamble and all they might end up with is another Jeff Weaver.
The real meat of this post is a little something I'm gonna do now and again where I just go through whats going on in the world and through a bit of the ol' two cents in. Here we go
Before I get into the main part of this post, I gotta disagree with Big on his Joba view. I concur, starting pitching is essential to win, but in a regular season as long as baseball is, an offense like the Yankees have could carry them into the wild card even without a killer ace. The playoffs, however, are won and lost in the bullpen. In this era of starters going no more than 7 innings, without a reliable 8th and 9th inning guy, you're opening yourself up to a myriad of late inning collapses. Ask the rockies, who've gone through 3 closers this year. Or the Braves of the mid to late 90s, who i watched every year lose games to scrubs because Mike Remlinger couldnt get a late inning out. The goal is to shorten the game as much as possible. When Mariano retires, you had his heir apparent waiting like they had in 1996. Now they're making a huge gamble and all they might end up with is another Jeff Weaver.
The real meat of this post is a little something I'm gonna do now and again where I just go through whats going on in the world and through a bit of the ol' two cents in. Here we go
- Why is everyone so interested if Lindsey Lohan's a lesbian? So what if she's trying to set the record for the person whose given the clap to the most people? If she is, she's gotta diversify her portfolio.
- When Heroes comes back in September, they're going to be having a three hour premiere night. How am I supposed to make it through 3 hours when I can barely make it through 1 of Milo's "I'm channeling Keanu" looks
- Ashley Simpson got married.... NEXT
- Usher's about to release his next album, with lines describing how he's gonna deliver "it" like FedEx, his wife and child must be proud
- Ellen Degeneres is tying the knot to Portia De Rossi, and she wants all these politicans at her wedding... Hey Ellen, save it for the show while you can dance and I can dance with you.
Friday, May 23, 2008
Quick Intro / Yankee Thoughts
Quick Intro: I'm Big. I'll be writing this blog with Crazy. We're both Mikes, hence the name of the blog. This blog will be about our various areas of interests, which often intersect. They include movies, TV, sports, videogames, comics... I know, pretty generic. We share a fascination with pop culture that goes a little bit further and in a little bit of a different (read: geeky) direction than the typical person. Think non-emo Seth Cohen. Without further ado...
I thought I'd kick this blog off with a Kevin Millar quote, which would have been somwhat ironic since I'm a diehard Yankee fan. Can't find it. But the gist of it was, Millar was asked during the Yankee pre-game show the other night (since YES needs to fill up a full hour before games with whatever they can get their hands on) what he thought about the Yankees transitioning Joba Chamberlain to the starting rotation, and specifically how they would fill the void in the 8th inning. His response to the latter question was rather smart for a baseball player: Who cares?
As if the specialization of bullpens wasn't bad enough, it's now gotten so bad that the "Set-up Man" gets a designated spot on the Depth Chart along with the "Closer". With this increased specialization, baseball people have forgotten a number of important truths. 1) Relief pitchers are usually in the bullpen for a reason: they're not good enough to start. 2) On average, the last 6 outs of a game are no tougher than the first 21. 3) No matter how great a relief pitcher is, he can never be as important to a winning team as a good (or even average) healthy starter.
I read Money Ball and am a frequent reader of ESPN's Rob Neyer. I'm aware of some SABR metrics such as VORP, WARP, PERA, etc., but no expert on them. I have been completely sold on the merits of statistical analysis in baseball, and try to understand some of these newer stats as best I can. I have come to understand that many traditional statistics, such as batting average and RBI, are often not very good and sometimes even downright deceptive measures of a player's worth. Some of the traditional stats are still pretty good, and there's one very simple one that the New York beat writers and radio hosts (I'm talking to you Chris Russo and Mike Francesa) can't seem to wrap their heads around. And that's Innings Pitched.
The more innings a player plays for a team, the more good or harm he can do. Common sense, right? This is why pitchers almost never win MVP's. They can win 20 games and post ERA's in the low 2's, but that doesn't change the fact that they only participate in 1/5 of their team's games. Relief pitchers contribute an even smaller fraction to their team's success (or failure). Joba Chamberlain has been a starter his whole life until being called up to the bigs. He's got 4 pitches, including a 95+ mph heater and a devasting slider. He's dominated at the major league level. The Yankees should be trying to maximize his playing time (without jeopardizing his health, of course) not minimize it. Because the bottom line is, that means more wins. As for who pitches the 8th inning, Kevin Millar had it right. Who cares? It's one inning. The Yankees will no longer get the same quality pitching in the 8th, and might frustratingly blow a few more late leads. But it's only 1 inning out of 9. Those losses will be more than made up for by the wins that Joba will bring as a starter.
I thought I'd kick this blog off with a Kevin Millar quote, which would have been somwhat ironic since I'm a diehard Yankee fan. Can't find it. But the gist of it was, Millar was asked during the Yankee pre-game show the other night (since YES needs to fill up a full hour before games with whatever they can get their hands on) what he thought about the Yankees transitioning Joba Chamberlain to the starting rotation, and specifically how they would fill the void in the 8th inning. His response to the latter question was rather smart for a baseball player: Who cares?
As if the specialization of bullpens wasn't bad enough, it's now gotten so bad that the "Set-up Man" gets a designated spot on the Depth Chart along with the "Closer". With this increased specialization, baseball people have forgotten a number of important truths. 1) Relief pitchers are usually in the bullpen for a reason: they're not good enough to start. 2) On average, the last 6 outs of a game are no tougher than the first 21. 3) No matter how great a relief pitcher is, he can never be as important to a winning team as a good (or even average) healthy starter.
I read Money Ball and am a frequent reader of ESPN's Rob Neyer. I'm aware of some SABR metrics such as VORP, WARP, PERA, etc., but no expert on them. I have been completely sold on the merits of statistical analysis in baseball, and try to understand some of these newer stats as best I can. I have come to understand that many traditional statistics, such as batting average and RBI, are often not very good and sometimes even downright deceptive measures of a player's worth. Some of the traditional stats are still pretty good, and there's one very simple one that the New York beat writers and radio hosts (I'm talking to you Chris Russo and Mike Francesa) can't seem to wrap their heads around. And that's Innings Pitched.
The more innings a player plays for a team, the more good or harm he can do. Common sense, right? This is why pitchers almost never win MVP's. They can win 20 games and post ERA's in the low 2's, but that doesn't change the fact that they only participate in 1/5 of their team's games. Relief pitchers contribute an even smaller fraction to their team's success (or failure). Joba Chamberlain has been a starter his whole life until being called up to the bigs. He's got 4 pitches, including a 95+ mph heater and a devasting slider. He's dominated at the major league level. The Yankees should be trying to maximize his playing time (without jeopardizing his health, of course) not minimize it. Because the bottom line is, that means more wins. As for who pitches the 8th inning, Kevin Millar had it right. Who cares? It's one inning. The Yankees will no longer get the same quality pitching in the 8th, and might frustratingly blow a few more late leads. But it's only 1 inning out of 9. Those losses will be more than made up for by the wins that Joba will bring as a starter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)