|
|
Friday, October 17th, 2008
|
|
|
I've spent several hours today trying to decide how to vote the many, many lines on the NC ballot this year. Having invested so much time, I feel compelled to spell out my reasoning somewhere. These are in ballot order.
President - Obama/Biden (D)
I don't think much needs saying about this one. I don't think McCain is terrible, but I disagree with him on almost everything, most of all on the disgraceful way he has conducted his campaign.
Senate - Kay Hagan (D)
I am not crazy about her -- I voted for Jim Neal in the democratic primary -- but I am definitely not a fan of Elizabeth Dole. I also like Hagan for strategic reasons. If she wins, the Democrat/Independent coalition will be very close to 60 votes in the senate. Complete democratic control of the legislature is somewhat scary -- even to me -- but it should shift the balance of power to the moderate Republicans and Democrats whose votes the leadership will need on key issues (right now it is too easy for conservative Republicans to block proposals with a filibuster threat). I thought hard about the third candidate, Christopher Cole (who is openly gay which is almost enough to get him my vote), but in the end he doesn't really have any relevant experience or qualifications. He also says he wants to "abolish the federal income tax", which I think is a little too far out.
House District 4 - David Price (D)
I think Price is doing a fine job, and this is a rubber stamp anyway. He voted for the bailout both times, which his opponent is trying to use against him, but which is a big plus in my book.
Governor - Mike Munger (L)
Munger is chair of the Poly. Sci. department at Duke. He's not going to win, but he is far and away the best choice. As he says, he is the liberal candidate in the race. He opposes capital punishment, supports gay marriage, and has a reasonable policy on immigration (which in this state seems to be impossible).
I fell out with Bev Purdue (D) over her decision to ban illegal immigrants from community colleges. I consider this to be racist pandering, since I don't think Purdue is personally racist (I haven't decided which would be worse). Undocumented immigrants pay out-of-state tuition by the way, and cost the state nothing. If I were really worried about McCrory (the R candidate) winning I might vote for her anyway, but although I don't care for him I'm not terrified by him either. McCrory would be only the third Republican governor in NC history, and I think the state Democrats have grown a little too fat through one-party rule (viz. Mike "'Education' Lottery" Easley, Jim "Optometry for all" Black). I actually might have supported McCrory, since he had a reputation as a moderate while mayor of Charlotte, but he went the way of McCain and toed the conservative line in his campaign for governor. His rhetoric on immigration is even more dire than Purdue's.
One thing I will say about Purdue, she has a Ph.D. in Education. How many states have two gubernatorial candidates with Ph.D.s?
Lieutenant Governor - Walter H. Dalton (D)
I agonized over this one for a while, Dalton is another Democrat I didn't vote for in the primary round, and in the end he's basically a default choice. A lawyer and an establishment politician, his main opposition from the left seems to be that, in 2004, he signed a petition in favor of an NC constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Of this the Durham People's Alliance says "We are assured his homophobia is not sincere", so it sounds like he's their default choice too. His Republican challenger is a land speculator, which does not incline me to vote for him. The libertarian candidate is a computer programmer with an associates degree (ok, multiple associates degrees). You may call me an elitist, but I tend to vote for people with more education.
Attorney General - Roy Cooper (D)
Cooper put an end to the Duke lacrosse fiasco in a way that I thought was swift, decisive, and appropriate. I haven't seen anything I don't like about him.
Auditor - Leslie Merritt (R)
I haven't read any criticism of Merritt aside from the fairly partisan stuff his opponent has tried to bring up, and it seems like pretty weak sauce. I don't think this should really be a partisan office. He's the incumbent, and he seems to be doing a fine job. Combine this with my general impression of the state democrats (above), and the fact that I think a Republican may be temperamentally better suited to a job like auditor, and that makes me inclined to vote for him. Also (and this is just petty), his opponent wears way too much make-up. In my defense, John Edwards' hair was one of my main criticisms of him as well.
Commissioner of Agriculture - Steve Troxler (R)
Troxler is the incumbent, and a farmer. His opponent is a lawyer and perennial candidate. This seems like an easy one.
Commissioner of Insurance - Wayne Goodwin (D)
Goodwin is the handpicked successor of the current commissioner, who I think has done a good job. He is also endorsed by the PA, and other organizations I look to. I'm skeptical of the number of elected offices in NC (particularly the judicial elections), but based on my comparitive experience, electing a comissioner of insurance is a big win for people who buy insurance (i.e. everyone). My father, an insurance agent, has long maintained that the (appointed) comissioner in his state is basically in the pocket of the insurance industry.
Comissioner of Labor - Mary Fant Donnan (D)
Again, Donnan is the choice of most of the organizations I look to. Her opponents picture is in every elevator in the state. I don't know if Cherie Berry started this practice, but I think it amounds to spending state money to mount a permament campaign for herself, and I hope Donnan will not continue it. Also, in line with my comments above about the auditor, this is an office that I think a Democrat should probably hold.
Secretary of State - Elaine Marshall (D)
A two-term incumbent, I see no reason not to vote for her.
Superintendent of Public Instruction - June St. Clair Atkinson (D)
Ms. Atkinson has a Ph.D in educational policy (and an M.A. from my alma mater) and has worked for the state dept. of education for 27 years. Her opponent is a farmer, insurance agent, and former legistlator. On the one hand, I think a fresh approach to education might not be a bad thing, but on the other I think Atkinson's qualifications mean that she really understands the issues.
Treasurer - Janet Cowell (D)
This is one of those offices that I only somewhat think should even be elected. Both candidates have MBA's, both have been state legislators. Daughtridge works in the petroleum industry, which tends to bias me against him, although I guess it doesn't have much bearing on the office. Cowell has the stong support of progressive organizations, which is good enough for me.
In the state legislature seats, I'm voting for the incumbents (one of whom is my neighbor!).
The county-wide offices were all decided in the primaries. The DA, registrar of deeds, and county commissioners are all running unopposed. That said, the People's Alliance still declined to endorse Joe Bowser. Ouch. For some reason the state doesn't allow write-ins for this office. They do for some, but I can't detect a pattern. I would probably write in Don Moffitt if I could.
I'm basing my votes for the non-partisan offices on the endorsements of the Durham People's Alliance and The Independent. I have to say, the PA's judicial endorsements are less than convincing, since they provide no rationale whatsoever, but the Indy's are excellent. I think this task would have been a lot easier if the Indy had released all their endorsements before the start of early voting, instead of gradually releasing them throughout the process. I'm currently
planning to vote tomorrow.
Also, I'm supporting the prepared food tax. I think Durham needs additional ways to raise money, and since this is all the state is giving them (Dillon rule FTW!), I think we need to take advantage of it.
|
|
Comments: Add Your Own.
|
|
Sunday, February 24th, 2008
|
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif) electriclaury and I have finally started watching "The Wire". I resisted for a long time because I tend to get sucked into serials, but eventually L got tired of my stalling and it arrived at our happy home. It's just as good as everyone says, btw. Something has to pay for those excellent production values, though. I wasn't really paying close attention to the first three episodes, so I may have missed some, but here's what I saw in the 4th:
One of the principals (a homicide detective) is assigned an old case. His partner tries to call a witness listed in the file, but the number is disconnected. He says something like "I'll call Verizon and see if I can get a current listing". A few scenes later a character is shown making a call on a Verizon payphone. This one could go either way, but given how few pay phones I see these days that are actually owned by the phone company, I think some money changed hands here. The title of the show refers to phone tapping and electronic surveillance, so this is a situation business types refer to with a word that comes from the Greek for "working together".
Two officers take a car trip to the juvenile detention facility in Cheltenham, MD. One of them is holding a 7-11 coffee cup in his hand pretty much the whole time. The logo just happens to be facing the screen. Again, this could go either way, especially since the 7-11 logo is rather small. It's their coffee slogan that's prominently displayed.
|
|
Comments: Read 1 or Add Your Own.
|
|
Saturday, November 17th, 2007
|
|
|
We saw "Once" last night. I enjoyed it pretty well. I'm impressed by a romantic comedy that doesn't need stupid plot tricks or schmaltzy endings. I also enjoy the new variations that filmmakers are developing to keep the musical alive. The music was great, BTW.
The movie is about musicians, but the only instruments named by brand are two pianos. Fairly early on a shopkeeper tells "girl" (that's how she's credited) that she can play any piano "except the baby Yamaha, it's already sold".
Right before the end, the same character plays a piano alone in a recording studio. Another character comes in and they have an exchange like
a: "That piano sounds great"
b: "It's beautiful, it's a Baldwin"
a: "It's excellent"
The relationship between the two characters is awkward through the whole movie, but this dialog has that extra-awkwardness that smacks of product placement. Usually these things are exclusive, so I'm inclined to think the Yamaha was just a toss-off, but I suspect Baldwin forked over some money.
The male lead works in a vacuum cleaner repair shop, but vacuum cleaners are referred to (I think) exclusively as "Hoovers" throughout the movie. e.g. "I work in a Hoover repair shop". Now, that brand is fairly synonymous with the vacuum cleaner in the U.S. (although I don't know what it's like in Ireland, where the movie is set and was made), so this one could go either way. As far as I remember one never sees the brand logo, or hears about the excellent reliability of Hoover Brand Vacuum Cleaners.
The last one I noticed is quite clever. The aforementioned recording studio is identified as "Samson Studios". The company that made the movie is "Samson Films"
|
|
Comments: Read 2 or Add Your Own.
|
|
Friday, October 26th, 2007
|
|
|
I wrote this a while ago (about a year, actually), but never got around to posting it. Obviously "Talladega Nights" is no longer "forthcoming", but I'm not going to change it now. Fortunately, the article still seems to be live:
Movie product placement has been a bete noire of mine for a while. Although I enjoyed "Thank you for Smoking", my main memory of it now is the way the main characters continually, and obviously name-dropped a television show. I didn't even realize it was a real show until after the movie, so I guess it worked?
Whenever I drive by the "Replacements, LTD" billboard on I-40 in central NC, I remember the weirdly incongruous scene in "Junebug" where the characters talk about how great it is to work there. If it enabled the movie to get made, though, I guess I can't complain too much, because it was pretty cool.
So I've been amused to see the fucking Wonder Bread logo plastered all over ads for the forthcoming "Talladega Nights". The facts of these deals are not often common knowledge, because the media doesn't usually cover them. Fortunately, the industry press still reports on the business side of Hollywood, even when they're telling the tale of its creative sins, as in this article; from the Hollywood Reporter.
Things I love about it:
They have the gall to claim that the sponsors "didn't pay integration fees", then, 2 paragraphs later, tell us that old spice has spent $2.3 million on advertising promoting the film.
This quote, from Sony Pictures executive vice president for worldwide consumer marketing George Leon. "Creatively, (the product placement) worked for the film. We benefited from it as well on many levels."
Also, I love that it refers to Will Ferrell as an A list actor. The sad part is, I guess its true.
|
|
Comments: Add Your Own.
|
|
|
There's a lot of product placement in movies lately (especially the low-budget ones I usually find myself seeing). It's often very hamhanded (it must be, for me to notice), but it's hard to find details about it. For a while I've been wanting to keep a record every time I come across it. For now I'm just going to put it here, and maybe I'll get it organized later.
I just watched "A History of Violence" tonight (which I didn't like at all, BTW). The main product placement was by GM. Almost all the cars are GM brands (mostly Cadillacs), and they are usually introduced front-on, so you can see the brand badge. The main family is seen to drive an old Ford station wagon at the beginning, though.
It goes over the top at 1hr 15 when one of the characters says "and then I take you to see Ritchie in the Escalade". It's not the kind of movie where characters drop specific names, so this sounds pretty dumb.
In the next scene, when the same characters are driving by a row of mansions in the aforementioned 4-wheeled monstrosity, they have the following exchange:
A: "nice houses"
B: "Ritchie is a very upscale kind of guy".
This also makes no sense (although to be fair, most of the dialog in the movie sounds pretty forced), so I assume the sponsor wanted the word "upscale" associated with their vehicle. The fact that Ritchie is a crime lord apparently didn't bother them.
It may be while before I see another movie, but I'm going to try to keep this as up to date as I can.
|
|
Comments: Add Your Own.
|
|
Wednesday, February 22nd, 2006
|
|
|
The tail light problem is now resolved (I'm sure you were all glued to your monitors awaiting that news). As I guessed, the light failure sensor had gone bad. Oh delicious irony, you are like unto rain on my wedding day.
The sensor itself is an old-fashioned through-hole circuit board mounted in a plastic box. I pried it open, and was pleased to see that it had failed in exactly the way I hoped for: with a big black spot on it where one of the traces had burned out. I patched over it with a wire, and now I have tail lights again. There is one down side, which is that now the tail light failure indicator is lit on my dash. I'm also left with a nagging doubt. Something caused that trace to burn out in the first place, and it could conceivably happen again. I guess I shouldn't worry, after all, since I'd never replaced the fuse, so whatever happened wasn't serious enough to burn through it. I just really don't want my trunk to catch on fire.
Next up: I need to replace the door latch on the driver's side. It's had a crack in it for a while, and now a piece has broken off, exposing part of the latch mechanism. Unfortunately, as I've learned from the service info on AllData, I have to take the whole door apart from the inside to fix it. Also, new spark plugs. Then maybe people will stop flipping me off when they zoom by. ;)
|
|
Comments: Read 1 or Add Your Own.
|
|
Tuesday, February 21st, 2006
|
|
|
This will be quick because Laury is waiting for me.
The tail lights on my car have been out for a while (like, 4 months now?). I changed the bulbs and checked the fuse, but the problem was in the wiring. I wasn't super worried about it because, hey, the marker lights (and brake lights) were still on, and people could see those. I knew the police would not agree with my line of reasoning, so I attempted to solve the problem by only taking electriclaury's car after dark. This was an imperfect solution, because sometimes we have to be different places on the same night. Finally, 2 weeks ago, I got stopped. I lied ("No officer, I don't know why you stopped me! Oh really, they are?"), it was shameful, but he didn't ticket me (he was nice, and mostly looking for DUIs), and it did motivate me to fix them. It's taken me two weeks because its fucking cold outside and I don't have a garage. It's hard to hold the multimeter's probe leads when your hands are frozen.
I worked at it for a while on Friday, because it was amazingly nice out, but I didn't get very far. I did rip out a large portion of the interior of my car (in a non-destructive way). Who knew you could get the back seat out of a camry by just pulling up in 2 places? There was definitely no voltage on the wire to the taillights, but it quickly disappeared into a huge bundle between the trunk wiring harness and the driver's side kick-panel. I shorted a couple of fuses (who knew you could put 15 Amps across a probe lead?!?), quickly determined it was hopeless, and almost decided to turn it over to a professional. Then a friend at work pointed me to AllData.com. They have most (all?) of the manufacturer's service info on-line for most makes and models for 20 years or so. You can get access to data on 1 car for $25/year, and additional cars for $15 each. That's not bad, considering the fine people at Toyota Parts and Service want $20 just for the Camry wiring diagram (more on newer models), and another $150 or so for the 3-volume service manual. I subscribed to it tonight, and have alread printed out the tail light wiring diagram, connector pinouts, and connector locator.
The best part of all is that the most likely spot for the failure is clearly marked on the diagram: L2 - Light Failure Sensor. Older Camrys have a sensor on the dash that's supposed to tell you if your tail lights or brake lights are out. lol.
J.p.
|
|
Comments: Read 3 or Add Your Own.
|
|
|
1. The person (or persons) who passed the baton to you.
Jody, a fellow EE from VT with whom I used to play QB.
2. Total volume of music files on your computer.
About 750MB. I also have 4 pretty much full CDs that I made in the days of smaller hard disks (or "Winchester Drives", as we called them then). This is how I learned, much to my chagrin, that CD-Rs are not what is known in the trade as an "archival quality medium", as I can't read many of the files on most of those discs now. I'd also like to point out, in case any impressionable children or lawyers happen to read this, that every byte of the music under discussion was acquired through entirely legitimate means. I mean, how else would one even get music on a computer?
3. The title and artist of the last CD you bought.
Le Tigre - This Island
I got it at Schoolkids records in Chapel Hill, NC. It's amazing the experience didn't convert me to communism, in fact. For those of you not acquainted, Le Tigre call their music "Feminist Punk Electronica", and they are fronted Kathleen Hanna, formerly of Bikini Kill, Kill Rock Stars, and general feminist punk pioneer. The album is awesome by the way, and if you like music to dance to, you should purchase it without delay. There are many high points, but the track "New Kicks" is particularly notable. The song is made up primarily of audio samples from protests against the invasion of Iraq, and if a dance tune with a refrain of "Peace! Now!" can't get you going, well, you're probably a neocon. As an extra benefit, one of the samples is a catalogue of places that were involved in one of the largest days of world protest, including an event in Blacksburg, VA in which electriclaury and I participated.
4. Song playing at the moment of writing.
Stan Getz & Astrud Gilberto - Gentle Rain
I have a thing for Samba, especially of the Antonio Carlos Jobim/Stan Getz/Joao & Astrud Gilberto variety.
5. Five songs you have been listening to of late (or all-time favorites, or particularly personally meaningful songs).
Franz Ferdinand - Take me Out
Since I don't really listen to music radio, I tend not to get sick of hit songs the way other people do. Of course, most hits make me sick the first time I hear them, but the ones I like I tend to want to hear months after everyone else, since I've heard them dozens fewer times. This is an example, as I just got around to getting it last week.
Animotion - Obsession
Also a recent acquisition. I first heard this one on my favorite fake radio station "The Wave", from Grand Theft Auto: Vice City.
Breeders - Title TK
Ok, this is an album, not a song, but it's one of those albums where all the songs are so good, I never even bother to learn the names or choose favorites, because I just play it through. I've had it for a couple of years, but lately it's been in my car stereo pretty much non-stop. Those of you who remember the Breeders from "Cannonball" won't find much familiar, but if you liked the last two Wilco albums, I think you'll really dig it. I had to play it a couple of times before it really got its hooks in, but now it's one of the few albums that I'm never tired of.
The Stanley Brothers - Angel Band
This is in the all-time favorites category. I'm not sure it's my favorite song ever, but at some point I decided that if I could only ever hear one song for the rest of my life, this would be the one. I find it really uplifting, in spite of the fact that I don't believe a word of the lyrics.
Old 97s - Big Brown Eyes
Also an all-time favorite, for sentimental reasons, and because Rhett Miller is a songwriting genius.
6. The five victims people to whom you will 'pass the musical baton.'
I could discourse on the perils of exponential growth, but I'll just summarize by saying that I find chain letters both annoying and mathematically unsound. Feel free to do this and blame me for it if you want.
|
|
Comments: Read 2 or Add Your Own.
|
|
|
I learned today that the Republicans are right to blame the Democrats for the devious filibustering tactics that have been so much in the news recently. You see, it turns out that Senate procedure, in addition to relying on Robert's Rules of Order, is based largely on a book called A Manual of Parliamentary Practice, written by none other than the founder of the Democratic party, one Thomas Jefferson. He served as Vice President (and thus President of the Senate) under John Adams, and since that job has almost no responsibilities, found the time to write a set of rules. Although the filibuster isn't mentioned anywhere in the book (and wasn't used as such until 1841), it's a natural consequence of the idea of unrestricted debate.
As much as I've enjoyed posting exclusively about Jefferson, I'll be on to something else shortly.
|
|
Comments: Add Your Own.
|
|
Wednesday, March 30th, 2005
|
|
|
More interesting facts from Jefferson (these first two will be of particular interest to Jody).
In France, it was at one time forbidden to eat potatoes. (Also, Dan Quayle would be pleased to note that Jefferson uses his "potatoe" spelling. Perhaps that whole incident was an effort to seem presidential?).
Additionally, the teaching of any doctrine contrary to Aristotle was punishable by death at one time in La Belle Pays. Fortunately, electriclaury didn't ask her question about the forms in 18th century France.
In general, it's fascinating to see what they knew and didn't know at that time. For instance, Jefferson discusses the heart's role in the circulatory system at one point, but at another doesn't seem to understand the inverse relationship between air temperature and altitude.
He also discourses on the nature of native animals vs. European ones. You probably knew that the honey bee was of European origin, but did you know that the house fly is a part of the olde country's bequest to our continent?
|
|
Comments: Read 1 or Add Your Own.
|
|
|
Lately I've been reading Thomas Jefferson's "Notes on the State of Virginia". It's really interesting in several ways, and it truly highlights Jefferson as a man of genius and discerning taste. As an example of the latter, I present here his opinion of the architecture of the college of William and Mary:
The College [buildings] are rude, mis-shapen piles, which, but that they have roofs, would be taken for brick-kilns.
I find it especially edifying because I grew up in Williamsburg, where singing the praises of its "beautiful" campus is de rigeur. Personally, I find it to be amongst the ugliest of any I've visited, and I've visited more than a few.
|
|
Comments: Read 1 or Add Your Own.
|
|
Wednesday, January 19th, 2005
|
|
|
I can't claim to know much about philosophy, but that's not going to stop me from rambling in a pseudo-philosophical manner on a topic about which I've been thinking (no doubt also in a pseudo-philosophical manner) a lot lately.
It all started because a friend of mine has been discussing U.S. interrogation practices in the "war on terror" in his blog. Some of his arguments led me to consider a hypothetical situation which I'd like to pose to my hypothetical readership.
Suppose that agents of the U.S. government have certain knowledge of an imminent, deadly, terrorist attack. These agents are also holding a person whom they know to have details about the attack which would enable them to prevent it. Should there be any limits on what these agents can do to discover the information and prevent the attack? I could have posed that question a lot more quickly by simply asking "does the end justify the means?", but I think the context makes it more interesting.
On the one hand, I'm tempted to say that torture is objectively wrong, and that to permit it under any circumstances is moral relativism. On the other, it seems that one can make a fairly compelling utilitarian argument that the good which will be gained from preventing the attack will outweigh the wrong that will be done to the tortured.
If that is what we believe, then just how much wrong is acceptable? Suppose that, to prevent the attack, the agents had to kill more terrorists than there were potential victims. Is that ok? If so, isn't that saying that one human life is worth less than another? On what grounds can that claim be made?
The one thing I'm sure of is that this is a hypothetical scenario. I can't imagine a real circumstance where anyone would be certain that by torturing someone they could prevent a terrorist attack. Given that lack of certainty, I find the argument made by our president and his apologists, that detentions and interrogations which would not be permitted with ordinary criminal suspects inside the U.S. are acceptable in the name of national security, to be totally without merit.
|
|
Comments: Read 5 or Add Your Own.
|
|
Wednesday, November 3rd, 2004
|
|
|
Congratulations to all the millionaires, bigots, and warmongers. The next four years will probably be almost as good for you as the last four. I hope you enjoy your deficits, your curtailing of civil liberties, and your pointless killing. It looks like there's no stopping you now.
The rest of you may want to print out this handy Harper's article, just in case. You may also take consolation in the fact that the Dem's didn't lose as many house seats as they might have, given the whole Texas redistricting thing, and the huge turnout by the other side. Of the senate, only two good things can be said: The Senate Black Caucus once again has a member, and the R's still don't have enough to block a filibuster.
I didn't get much sleep last night, so I'm going to go sulk for a while.
|
|
Comments: Read 1 or Add Your Own.
|
|
Friday, October 29th, 2004
|
|
|
This space increasingly serves as a forum for things that I've wanted to tell to the population at large, but that I've been unable to tell them, because I keep getting their voice mail every time I call. Unfortunately, most of America doesn't read my LJ, but those of you who do will have to suffice.
First, as a bit of background, I voted for Nader in 2000, although I do not plan to vote for him this year in spite of my view that he would be a superior president to either of the major party candidates. I was discussing this with csp via e-mail today, and he expressed a negative view of Mr. Nader's decision to run again this year. I had this to say, which neatly crystallizes many of my thoughts on the issue.
I am of the opinion that Ralph Nader has done more for the population of America than virtually any other human being alive today. In terms of the number of lives he has saved, and the number of lives he has improved, and continues to improve, I can't think of anyone who can compare. Therefore, in my mind, he is above reproach. He could literally kill someone, and while I would be disappointed, I would still look on him as a great person (if for no other reason than that his net number of lives saved would still be positive). About those who criticize him I can only say that they are foolish, shortsighted, and either ungrateful or uninformed. That no more than 3% of the country was willing to vote for him in the last election proves to me that our political system is so thoroughly controlled by the two major parties as to be perverse. I have no patience with anyone who says that he cost Gore the election. If Al Gore had been able to carry his home state, or any other additional state, the votes in Florida wouldn't have mattered. His loss was due to his own failures as a candidate.
Having said that, if I were Nader, I would probably not have run this time around. I do see his point though, that the interests of a large number of people are not being represented by either of the two dominant parties, and that those issues will not be addressed for as long as the system continues in this way. I also see his point that many of the people who vote for him will be Republicans. People on the extreme right actually tend to agree with people on the extreme left on a number of policy issues, although usually for different reasons. After all, Nader was nominated this year by the Reform party, which ran Pat Buchanan last time around.
|
|
Comments: Read 2 or Add Your Own.
|
|
Thursday, October 21st, 2004
|
|
|
So I was (un)lucky enough to stumble upon a link to The Daily WTF today. Every day they post a new bit of random code that some reader has stumbled upon in the wild. It is hilarious, and a huge time sink.
Today's most recent entry manages to illustrate virtually everything that makes people crazy about C programming in 1 line!
#define MAX_PID 2^sizeof(SpaceId)-1 //SpaceId is typedef int, sizeof(int) is 4
The first thing I noticed is that the programmer, while trying writing portable code, annoyingly (and non-portably) assumes the size of a fundamental data type in the comment. Of course, actions speak louder than words I guess.
It also uses the C pre-processor, which is super-useful, but has the power to confuse the hell out of people, and seriously mess up your code, like it would do to this guy if he ever referenced his constant. First of all, this is a stupid thing to use the preprocessor for, because what it's going to do is insert that code into your code every time you reference "MAX_PID", thus performing the computation over and over again, when you could've used a constant and it would've only done it once! So, for the sake of saving 4 bytes (he thinks) of heap memory, this person chose to perform an arbitrary number of useless computations.
What I didn't notice (since I now program 100% of the time in Matlab) is that the ^ operator totally does not do what this guy thinks it does (exponentiation), because C doesn't have an exponentiation operator. Instead, it's bitwise exclusive or. It also has lower precedence than most operators, so if you try to use this in an expression, it's pretty much anyone's guess what will happen.
Now, if it did dynamic memory allocation or wrote off the end of a buffer, it would truly be the ultimate line of C code.
|
|
Comments: Read 3 or Add Your Own.
|
|
Friday, September 10th, 2004
|
|
|
|
I've noticed a theme in diet and health research. In fact, I've begun to think virtually every article on diet could be retitled "Scientists Report: Fruit, Vegetables, Good for You!". Here is a good example from the New Scientist. Broccoli gets a boost here, and Kiwifruit receives big ups here. All these stories were published today!
|
|
Comments: Read 2 or Add Your Own.
|
|
Saturday, August 7th, 2004
|
|
|
More anger, ripped from the headlines.
Page 1, above the fold: "Feds: Internet a Terror Weapon". I mean, come on. How about "Feds: Telephone a Terror Weapon". or even "Feds: Pencil, Paper used in Terrorist Plot!"
Also, on page A6 there is an article about Kerry's presentation of his $20 billion energy initiative. Given the media's continual claims that he has no concrete policies, I guess they wouldn't want to mention something like this where people can actually see it.
On that note, I'm going to the beach.
|
|
Comments: Add Your Own.
|
|
|
I wanted to let that last one stand on its own, but some parts of the article were too funny to not include here.
"I think colleges ought to use merit in order for people to get in." quoth our President, no doubt making the Yale English department beam with pride.
"On Friday, Bush again noted his family's ties to Yale, where his grandfather, who would become a U.S. Senator, went to college, and his daughter, Barbara, recieved a degree this year. 'Yeah, yeah. I thought you were referring to my legacy,' he said, when a journalist pressed him for his views on the admissions practice. Later in the day, White House press secretary Scott McClellan said the president had been referring to `how hard he had to work to follow his father into the White House.'"
I bet you kinda thought this president might apologize for something there for a minute, didn't you?
|
|
Comments: Add Your Own.
|
|
|
The front page of my local newspaper today had this headline:
Bush Denounces College Legacies
...the president says students should be admitted on merit alone.
|
|
Comments: Add Your Own.
|
|
Thursday, July 29th, 2004
|
|
|
I hadn't heard about this before, but apparently Alabama passed a law in 1998 banning certain, umm, 'adult novelty items'. This law was recently upheld in a federal court of appeals.
I am absolutely baffled as to what the state legislature's intent could have been with that bill, although I am quite pleased to learn that the problems of poverty, illiteracy, and unemployment have all been solved in Alabama, permitting them to spend their time passing whatever ridiculous laws they see fit to enact.
Finally, I am a bit surprised that two of the three federal appelate judges who heard this case have not yet gotten around to reading the Supreme Court's decision in Lawrence v. Texas from last summer or, for that matter, even Griswold v. Connecticut, which was decided in 1965! They make it fairly clear that consenting adults have the right to conduct their sex lives however they see fit.
|
|
Comments: Read 1 or Add Your Own.
|
|
|
