For awhile now I've been using the customizable home page features of Google, which has been pretty cool. But what makes it good is cut short, I think, because it doesn't take customization as far as anyone could want.
Protopage takes over from where Google stops by giving you color scheme access, more organizational control and wallpaper options. More features for protopage supposedly are in the works, and meanwhile updates and news for it can be seen at blog.protopage.com
Take a look at my protopage here, and if anyone knows of cool protopages out there, let me know about them with the comments! My page isn't much to look at now, but hopefully I'll keep at it to make it interesting. For right now, it serves as a decent homepage for me, and maybe you can get some ideas off of it if you want to make your own.
-ic
Found out about Protopage from the TWIT podcast
Portfolio
Wednesday, December 28, 2005
Saturday, December 24, 2005
Merry Christmas 2005
I'm happy to say that this marks my second Christmas post for this blog, and that really is something worth celebrating in and of itself! Never mind this whole "birth of Christ" thing everyone is talking about...Ian's still blogging!
(Please don't lynch me.)
In all seriousness though, Merry Christmas to everyone out there who happened to wander across this post. And to those of you who don't celebrate Christmas, have a great day anyway - I mean, sure everything is closed, but that means most of us who had to work don't, and those of us who do, get paid doubletime. So smile damn it, it's Christmas.
Last year I linked to a story about a Dad who decided to not give his kids presents, and I was reminded again of that this week. On the radio the other day they actually referred to Santa Claus as an economic trend, something along the lines of a "non-credible threat". Basically, you parents out there threaten coal in the stockings but you somehow still manage to come through with presents, so there's no credibility in your threat, and your kids know it.
I also heard on public radio (but not long enough to know what program I was listening to) that versions of Santa Claus used to be much more stern looking, mean in fact. Doesn't hearing that make you wonder how our Coca-Cola-red jolly Saint Nick could ever have been seen as a stern and disapproving figure? Have we become too soft on our kids in these past years? What general trend has led to the loosening of the belt, and the opening of the wallet? I guess you could blame big business for making us believe it's better to give gifts then receive spankings, but I'd say you could also blame a lot of other people, like pyschologists, lawyers, butchers, bakers, candle stick makers, and Wal-Mart.
And yet I can't really believe that it's all some conspiracy, because I know that if punishing kids was the thing to do, Wal-Mart would just be selling bamboo sticks and paddles. No, any and all blame has to be put on the parents not laying the clamp down on bad behavior to begin with all year. Take a look at this gem, which many of you I'm sure have already seen (be sure to watch the whole thing to the end), and you can see just how much control some parents wield.
Here's an even harder question to answer - "Have YOU been Good this year?" Well, have you? I guess it all depends on what we all consider good and bad to begin with, because if cussing is bad I definitely deserve coals in my stockings this year. As for the rest of you, what is the line you did/didn't cross? Did you cheat, steal, lie? Did you take too many pennies from the jar; did you cross the red light because no one was around for miles, or even worse - did you not do anything when you should have?
When it comes to kids making the "Good" and "Bad" lists, it really settles on how much they pissed off their parents. When it comes to grown ups, it probably settles on how much money you can afford to spend (and if you owe them something to begin with). Unfortunately good behavior is rarely given it's fair rewards, and there's no telling who's been really good or bad unless you can read minds...Or in the case of that brat playing video games, you have a Google search ready.
Unfortunately gift giving has more obligation than actual meaning attached to it now a days. If you don't believe me, take one look at all the gift cards available in your local Circle K and try to tell me I'm wrong. It's not that these are bad gifts, it's more that they have cheapened gift giving to a point where someone is saying, "I felt like I HAD to give you something," and that isn't what I think the holiday concept should be about.
Look at charities like Child's Play and you can see something that really hits home with what I think the intention of gift giving should be...making someone really happy out of pure selfless intent. It really isn't that difficult to do, and all it really costs is just some effort to go out of your way to make someone smile.
Well, that's what I think anyways.
I hope everyone out there has a great holiday. Enjoy your day off, or your doubletime, whatever it may be.
-ic
Thanks to Stephen for emailing the brat wanting chocolate milk to me.
(Please don't lynch me.)
In all seriousness though, Merry Christmas to everyone out there who happened to wander across this post. And to those of you who don't celebrate Christmas, have a great day anyway - I mean, sure everything is closed, but that means most of us who had to work don't, and those of us who do, get paid doubletime. So smile damn it, it's Christmas.
Last year I linked to a story about a Dad who decided to not give his kids presents, and I was reminded again of that this week. On the radio the other day they actually referred to Santa Claus as an economic trend, something along the lines of a "non-credible threat". Basically, you parents out there threaten coal in the stockings but you somehow still manage to come through with presents, so there's no credibility in your threat, and your kids know it.
I also heard on public radio (but not long enough to know what program I was listening to) that versions of Santa Claus used to be much more stern looking, mean in fact. Doesn't hearing that make you wonder how our Coca-Cola-red jolly Saint Nick could ever have been seen as a stern and disapproving figure? Have we become too soft on our kids in these past years? What general trend has led to the loosening of the belt, and the opening of the wallet? I guess you could blame big business for making us believe it's better to give gifts then receive spankings, but I'd say you could also blame a lot of other people, like pyschologists, lawyers, butchers, bakers, candle stick makers, and Wal-Mart.
And yet I can't really believe that it's all some conspiracy, because I know that if punishing kids was the thing to do, Wal-Mart would just be selling bamboo sticks and paddles. No, any and all blame has to be put on the parents not laying the clamp down on bad behavior to begin with all year. Take a look at this gem, which many of you I'm sure have already seen (be sure to watch the whole thing to the end), and you can see just how much control some parents wield.
Here's an even harder question to answer - "Have YOU been Good this year?" Well, have you? I guess it all depends on what we all consider good and bad to begin with, because if cussing is bad I definitely deserve coals in my stockings this year. As for the rest of you, what is the line you did/didn't cross? Did you cheat, steal, lie? Did you take too many pennies from the jar; did you cross the red light because no one was around for miles, or even worse - did you not do anything when you should have?
When it comes to kids making the "Good" and "Bad" lists, it really settles on how much they pissed off their parents. When it comes to grown ups, it probably settles on how much money you can afford to spend (and if you owe them something to begin with). Unfortunately good behavior is rarely given it's fair rewards, and there's no telling who's been really good or bad unless you can read minds...Or in the case of that brat playing video games, you have a Google search ready.
Unfortunately gift giving has more obligation than actual meaning attached to it now a days. If you don't believe me, take one look at all the gift cards available in your local Circle K and try to tell me I'm wrong. It's not that these are bad gifts, it's more that they have cheapened gift giving to a point where someone is saying, "I felt like I HAD to give you something," and that isn't what I think the holiday concept should be about.
Look at charities like Child's Play and you can see something that really hits home with what I think the intention of gift giving should be...making someone really happy out of pure selfless intent. It really isn't that difficult to do, and all it really costs is just some effort to go out of your way to make someone smile.
Well, that's what I think anyways.
I hope everyone out there has a great holiday. Enjoy your day off, or your doubletime, whatever it may be.
-ic
Thanks to Stephen for emailing the brat wanting chocolate milk to me.
Sunday, December 11, 2005
Taking Things Seriously
The end of Humanity?
Maybe, maybe not. Read carefully and you'll see that doomsday hinges on a "small possibility" which relies on the chance that the asteroid "Apophis" will pass through a "keyhole". Here's the quote-
Apophis, by the way, is Greek for Apep, the ancient Egyptian deity of evil, darkness and chaos, and isn't to be entirely confused with Apophis, a principle bad guy in the television series Stargate SG-1. Or maybe the thing is named after a television show, in which case that's kind of cool and sad at the same time. At least it wasn't really obvious though, like the asteroid is named "Kahn" or "Zod", or something.
But anyways, I'm going to be ranting about the end of the world today. Walk with me, as I stride down the corridors of human reaction and over-reaction. Step with me through the shrubbery of millennia mania as we enjoy the smooth stylings of Gabriel and his horn, with the Four Horsemen jazz ensemble along the way.
All of this according to Ian, of course; and without the fuss for credibility that most of us enjoy from actual philosophers and social historians.
Red Tape Doesn't Stop Asteroids, But That Doesn't Mean There Won't Be Rolls Of It.
Apparently from what I gather off the article, and quick Google'ing, world governments aren't as concerned with asteroids slamming into their embassies as much as they are worried about car bombs doing it first. The only thing close to keeping the "big picture" in mind is that there's talk about the "possibility" of global warming, which could lead to us all dying off too.
But it's not like we can suddenly decide it's worth worrying about the day before it (maybe) hits us. If these scientist types are right, they might be on to something about a need to at least be prudent in preparing ourselves for the event.
And should we wait to develop such technology even if we discover Apophis isn't going to be a threat? Just because something doesn't happen doesn't mean it will never happen. Yet we also have to be realistic, and in addition to assuming we can't deflect threats from outer space, we can also assume that such threats are so far away that we can let our great-great-grandkids sort it out.
What exactly can we do if we do take action? We haven't put a man on the moon in over 30 years, and things like the Mars Rovers are the equivalent of us playing with remote controlled cars on the street corner. Can we develop technological capabilities potent enough to alter the course of spacial bodies as big as Apophis in thirty years?
What is it that is the most important thing for humanity as a whole? Unfortunately, we don't have all of our heads wired together for quick consensus, and many will argue vehemently for all sides possible. Never mind the "extinction" thing, what about the economic condition of nations that pool resources to stop it? Can we bankroll the strategy to deflect Apophis, and if not are others going to be willing to pony up the dough for the good of all? Who will be put in charge of the program to stop extinction, and will he/she be American/French/German/etc., Catholic/Jewish/Muslim/etc.? And do they have a good complexion? What if some Nations think this is all a Hoax to begin with? These things may sound "petty" considering the magnitude of the big picture, but I don't doubt that will stop people from fueling public opinion with so much muck we all slide around in it.
I Already Saw This Movie
There's a lot to think about here, but there's a good possibility that science fiction has covered a lot of the possibilities already. Whether or not it ever is credible, Science Fiction is only effective if it speaks to that part of humanity which we can sympathize with. So, in it's own way, Sci Fi reveals a lot of the human aspect of any plight, and maybe does it well.
So, if movies have taught me anything, it's that all hell will break loose if we find out extinction is near. Governments might be better off not letting you know all the facts of any situation involving humanity's fate because of this. After all, people are only controlled when they think everything is under control. If I see a damn asteroid bearing down on me, why not run that red light...why not run them all? Oh, and the IRS...who cares? I mean, my 10-40 will be used for kindling my fire in the apocalypse, not filing my joint income. This of course, is me being kind about what could happen...in true anarchy I'd probably equip a few guns and knives just to get a gallon of milk, and to protect it.
In movies and most fiction you'll see that the few save the many. It's usually a few people who overcome the odds and save us all. If there's anything to learn from this, it's that there will be a "hero" or group of "heroes" that will face the world in the name of whatever project there is that tries to stop extinction. The good money says it's a few politicians, and a handful of astronauts. And talk about good PR...those men and women could become the equivalent of Jason and the Argonauts for the 21st Century. "Famous" would be putting it lightly.
Hardly any fiction writer, aside from Douglas Adams, completely ends humanity. So if movies taught me anything it could be that mankind might survive in a spaceship set off in search of a new planet? Or maybe select few will sleep in frozen hibernation, to hopefully be reawaken after the dust settles? What any "survival" scenario usually entails is that there is a hope that although civilization can be destroyed, the power to rebuild always rests with the survivors. Or, I guess...the apes.
Apophis may occur, consult your Theologian to see if ReligionTM is right for you.
It seems that we've all been anticipating the end of the world for quite some time now, and you can look farther back than Y2K to see that it never really went out of fashion. Apparently Y1K hysteria was just as pronounced, with the church receiving huge amounts of donations from people trying to be in good favor with the church before they died. I guess Y2k wasn't so dissimilar except people were forking money over to stores for toilet paper and cans of soup.
Far from trying to criticize religion, I'm more curious on how it will react to such events should the imminent collision of an asteroid with earth be proven. Religion is seen in wars, and athletic events, why not sides in an epic battle for humanity itself? Is an asteroid the hand of God, or the challenge to prove our worth to survive into even more advanced states of civilization and technology?
Not to drag this back into movies, but those of you who've seen Contact could probably understand the complexity of Religion's role in this. From extremism to evangelism, austerity to reactionary - religion will change the landscape of this event tremendously. I imagine such an event may even effect religion as well.
It's the End Of the Post as We Know It, and I Feel Fine.
If the world is to end in 2036, I'll be 57 years old. That's kind of disappointing because in discussing this with people at work and at bars, I've told them I'd be in my forties, so my math is terrible. But I can't really complain about being 57 and seeing the end of humanity. I guess the only complaining I could do would be if I manage to finish paying off my student loans the day before Apophis hits (if it does). But there's a better chance in me paying off the loans than witnessing the end of mankind, so there you go.
At any rate, it's still 2005, and there is a long time to get things done. Go ahead and fix the fixer-upper, clean the attic, finish that novel, and dot those I's. If the end comes any sooner we certainly can't do anything about it now, so we might as well live like there still is a tomorrow.
-ic
Although he probably regrets it, special thanks to Aaron for sending me the Guardian article!
Maybe, maybe not. Read carefully and you'll see that doomsday hinges on a "small possibility" which relies on the chance that the asteroid "Apophis" will pass through a "keyhole". Here's the quote-
"Alan Fitzsimmons, an astronomer from Queen's University Belfast, said: 'When it does pass close to us on April 13 2029, the Earth will deflect it and change its orbit. There's a small possibility that if it passes through a particular point in space, the so-called keyhole, ... the Earth's gravity will change things so that when it comes back around again in 2036, it will collide with us.' The chance of Apophis passing through the keyhole, a 600-metre patch of space, is 1 in 5,500 based on current information."
Apophis, by the way, is Greek for Apep, the ancient Egyptian deity of evil, darkness and chaos, and isn't to be entirely confused with Apophis, a principle bad guy in the television series Stargate SG-1. Or maybe the thing is named after a television show, in which case that's kind of cool and sad at the same time. At least it wasn't really obvious though, like the asteroid is named "Kahn" or "Zod", or something.
But anyways, I'm going to be ranting about the end of the world today. Walk with me, as I stride down the corridors of human reaction and over-reaction. Step with me through the shrubbery of millennia mania as we enjoy the smooth stylings of Gabriel and his horn, with the Four Horsemen jazz ensemble along the way.
All of this according to Ian, of course; and without the fuss for credibility that most of us enjoy from actual philosophers and social historians.
Red Tape Doesn't Stop Asteroids, But That Doesn't Mean There Won't Be Rolls Of It.
Apparently from what I gather off the article, and quick Google'ing, world governments aren't as concerned with asteroids slamming into their embassies as much as they are worried about car bombs doing it first. The only thing close to keeping the "big picture" in mind is that there's talk about the "possibility" of global warming, which could lead to us all dying off too.
But it's not like we can suddenly decide it's worth worrying about the day before it (maybe) hits us. If these scientist types are right, they might be on to something about a need to at least be prudent in preparing ourselves for the event.
And should we wait to develop such technology even if we discover Apophis isn't going to be a threat? Just because something doesn't happen doesn't mean it will never happen. Yet we also have to be realistic, and in addition to assuming we can't deflect threats from outer space, we can also assume that such threats are so far away that we can let our great-great-grandkids sort it out.
What exactly can we do if we do take action? We haven't put a man on the moon in over 30 years, and things like the Mars Rovers are the equivalent of us playing with remote controlled cars on the street corner. Can we develop technological capabilities potent enough to alter the course of spacial bodies as big as Apophis in thirty years?
What is it that is the most important thing for humanity as a whole? Unfortunately, we don't have all of our heads wired together for quick consensus, and many will argue vehemently for all sides possible. Never mind the "extinction" thing, what about the economic condition of nations that pool resources to stop it? Can we bankroll the strategy to deflect Apophis, and if not are others going to be willing to pony up the dough for the good of all? Who will be put in charge of the program to stop extinction, and will he/she be American/French/German/etc., Catholic/Jewish/Muslim/etc.? And do they have a good complexion? What if some Nations think this is all a Hoax to begin with? These things may sound "petty" considering the magnitude of the big picture, but I don't doubt that will stop people from fueling public opinion with so much muck we all slide around in it.
I Already Saw This Movie
There's a lot to think about here, but there's a good possibility that science fiction has covered a lot of the possibilities already. Whether or not it ever is credible, Science Fiction is only effective if it speaks to that part of humanity which we can sympathize with. So, in it's own way, Sci Fi reveals a lot of the human aspect of any plight, and maybe does it well.
So, if movies have taught me anything, it's that all hell will break loose if we find out extinction is near. Governments might be better off not letting you know all the facts of any situation involving humanity's fate because of this. After all, people are only controlled when they think everything is under control. If I see a damn asteroid bearing down on me, why not run that red light...why not run them all? Oh, and the IRS...who cares? I mean, my 10-40 will be used for kindling my fire in the apocalypse, not filing my joint income. This of course, is me being kind about what could happen...in true anarchy I'd probably equip a few guns and knives just to get a gallon of milk, and to protect it.
In movies and most fiction you'll see that the few save the many. It's usually a few people who overcome the odds and save us all. If there's anything to learn from this, it's that there will be a "hero" or group of "heroes" that will face the world in the name of whatever project there is that tries to stop extinction. The good money says it's a few politicians, and a handful of astronauts. And talk about good PR...those men and women could become the equivalent of Jason and the Argonauts for the 21st Century. "Famous" would be putting it lightly.
Hardly any fiction writer, aside from Douglas Adams, completely ends humanity. So if movies taught me anything it could be that mankind might survive in a spaceship set off in search of a new planet? Or maybe select few will sleep in frozen hibernation, to hopefully be reawaken after the dust settles? What any "survival" scenario usually entails is that there is a hope that although civilization can be destroyed, the power to rebuild always rests with the survivors. Or, I guess...the apes.
Apophis may occur, consult your Theologian to see if ReligionTM is right for you.
It seems that we've all been anticipating the end of the world for quite some time now, and you can look farther back than Y2K to see that it never really went out of fashion. Apparently Y1K hysteria was just as pronounced, with the church receiving huge amounts of donations from people trying to be in good favor with the church before they died. I guess Y2k wasn't so dissimilar except people were forking money over to stores for toilet paper and cans of soup.
Far from trying to criticize religion, I'm more curious on how it will react to such events should the imminent collision of an asteroid with earth be proven. Religion is seen in wars, and athletic events, why not sides in an epic battle for humanity itself? Is an asteroid the hand of God, or the challenge to prove our worth to survive into even more advanced states of civilization and technology?
Not to drag this back into movies, but those of you who've seen Contact could probably understand the complexity of Religion's role in this. From extremism to evangelism, austerity to reactionary - religion will change the landscape of this event tremendously. I imagine such an event may even effect religion as well.
It's the End Of the Post as We Know It, and I Feel Fine.
If the world is to end in 2036, I'll be 57 years old. That's kind of disappointing because in discussing this with people at work and at bars, I've told them I'd be in my forties, so my math is terrible. But I can't really complain about being 57 and seeing the end of humanity. I guess the only complaining I could do would be if I manage to finish paying off my student loans the day before Apophis hits (if it does). But there's a better chance in me paying off the loans than witnessing the end of mankind, so there you go.
At any rate, it's still 2005, and there is a long time to get things done. Go ahead and fix the fixer-upper, clean the attic, finish that novel, and dot those I's. If the end comes any sooner we certainly can't do anything about it now, so we might as well live like there still is a tomorrow.
-ic
Although he probably regrets it, special thanks to Aaron for sending me the Guardian article!
Wednesday, December 07, 2005
Terrible Video Game Covers
Check this out.
Forgive the Digg post, but I thought everyone would get a kick out of this. There are some really sad covers on here, and unfortunately Mega Man has a few to his credit. My favorite (although there are many good ones) has to be Phalanx, which features an old hillbilly and a banjo - the caption reading,
"The Hyper-Speed Shoot-Out in Space"
Well, hot damn! If that ain't some the most hyper-speed'inest shoot-out'edness excitement wit a banjo you ever done seen, you can slap me on the ass and call me Susie! YEE HAH!
-ic
| digg story
Forgive the Digg post, but I thought everyone would get a kick out of this. There are some really sad covers on here, and unfortunately Mega Man has a few to his credit. My favorite (although there are many good ones) has to be Phalanx, which features an old hillbilly and a banjo - the caption reading,
"The Hyper-Speed Shoot-Out in Space"
Well, hot damn! If that ain't some the most hyper-speed'inest shoot-out'edness excitement wit a banjo you ever done seen, you can slap me on the ass and call me Susie! YEE HAH!
-ic
| digg story
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)