Everything is meaningless

Regarding the post-modernist tendency to reach no conclusion because conclusions are inherently subjectively biased, and no objective reality exists, and thus everything is meaningless, then isn't that very statement meaningless?  Really, how can the statement everything is meaningless have meaning, if everything is truly meaningless? 

Stupid name (Post-Modern) for a stupid movement, I say.

What?

What are you doing?  Put that down.  No.  I said NO!  Put that down.  Leave it alone.  Timeout?  You want time out?  Put it down.  Ready?  3-2-1...Alright, timeout.

The Fray

I've only heard one song on the radio by The Fray, so I'll admit my exposure to this band is limited, but that one song grates on my nerves.  The song starts off so slow, and the singer sings the song in such a deadpan drooling voice.  My solution, I turn off the radio for a minute or two, or change the station (reception isn't the best here in the office, so sometimes turning it off is easier).

Nice pictures of the F-35C

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/gallery_slideshow.html?item_id=941
Above is a link to Code One magazine's pictures of the new F-35C.  I have to admit I've been back and forth on the F-35.  I liked it during the JSF competition; I thought the X-35 had more of a typical fighter look to it, but that the X-32 looked ugly with that big mouth of an intake reminiscent of the A-7/F-8. 

I got a couple of 1/72 scale models a few years ago and now I have them built and displayed next to each other.  I've since come around on the X-32 recognizing that even though the intake was kind of ugly, it was kinda cool in its own right.  I've also espoused the same opinion regarding the A-7/F-8...kinda cool in its own right.  And even though the X-32 failed in vertical landings, I think it would still make a great strike aircraft for the Navy. 

As for the F-35, my opinion has gone back and forth.  I liked it during the JSF competition, then started to think it looked kinda ugly, especially the bulky-ness behind the cockpit, the stubby wings, the narrow rudders, and the lack of thrust vectoring.  Now that the F-35 is getting further in its testing, I've come around on the F-35B, and C.  I still don't really care for the A model, mostly because of the stubby wings.  The C model seems to look cooler with the longer wingspan.

'Time Traveler' Spied in 1928 Chaplin Film

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/10/27/time-traveler-spied-chaplin-film/?test=faces

Have you seen this?  I saw it yesterday, I watched them zoom in on it.  First I was like "What?", then I was like, "Huh?".  Then I was like "This is b***###t".  I mean, come on.  A cell phone in 1928?  And how do they know it's a woman.  It looks like a man to me. 

Are some people really thinking this is a time traveler?  Really?  How about this?  Maybe it was edited in?  Oh, they could never do that, could they?  (Look at the Lochness monster, Bigfoot, or how easily a UFO hoax can be fabricated.)  Maybe this person isn't on a phone or radio at all.  Maybe this person has a toothache, or an ear ache?  Geez.  Some people.

Then, as if it's even remotely feasible that someone could go back in time, there are people that think they have the wherewithal to say "those who possess time travel tech could easily circumvent" the lack of cell phone towers or satellites.  Look, in my family we talk about what to do in the event of a Zombie Apocalypse, and other such events, but we know such conversations are for entertainment.

Have you ever seen the movie Idiocracy?  It wasn't the best movie, even for Mike Judge, but it had a great concept: they always say the future is going to be smarter, etc.  What if it was the other way around?  What if people became dumber over time.  It's not so far-fetched.

Ever thought about being buried in a shoe?

Ever thought about being buried in a shoe, or an over-sized cell phone?  Check this out:
http://www.aolnews.com/weird-news/article/buried-in-a-shoe-ghanas-custom-coffins-celebrate-the-lives-of-the-dead/19688782?test=latestnews

Customer Service can be such a joke

I know I've said a thing or two about customer service before.  Well, here's one for you.  I play a good deal of flight sim games, and while I'm playing I like to hit 'PrintScreen' and paste it to MS Paint and save it for my own perusal later.  One particular game does not respond to 'PrintScreen' at all.  That game is GraphSim's F/A-18 Operation Iraqi Freedom.  Their previous game F/A-18 Precision Strike Fighter does respond to 'PrintScreen' oddly enough.  So, one day I went to their website, got one of their email addresses and asked them if it was even possible to do a 'PrintScreen'.  I'm sure it is possible because I've seen printscreens on the web in various places.  Do an image search, and you'll find some.  The only thing is I don't think any of them are from users.  Anyhow, check out how my pleas for help have fallen on deaf ears.  Tell me if I've used a tone a voice that comes off as condescending or something.  Or maybe this company simply went out of business or something.  I could understand if they tried emailing a reply and it came back as undeliverable or something, but I put my signature from Outlook which has my office phone #, so it's not like I was impossible to reach.  I just get the impression they don't care.  Don't you?

Sent: Monday, September 13, 2010 10:10 AM
To: 'service@graphsim.com'
Subject: F/A-18 OIF

I have owned F/A-18 Operation Iraqi Freedom for a few years now, and have recently begun to make print screens of my flights.  However, when I hit the 'Print Screen' button on my keyboard during game play, no image is captured.  I've also tried Shift+PrintScreen, Ctrl+PrintScreen, Alt+PrintScreen, Ctrl+P, Ctrl+C, all to no avail.  What button(s) do I have to press to capture a print screen?

 

Sent: Monday, September 27, 2010 10:31 AM
To: 'service@graphsim.com'
Subject: RE: F/A-18 OIF

I haven't heard back regarding this email and I sent it two weeks ago.

 

All I'm asking is what button I have to press to get a Print Screen during game play in F/A-18 Operation Iraqi Freedom (for PC).

 

Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2010 4:38 PM
To: 'service@graphsim.com'
Subject: RE: F/A-18 OIF

I still haven't heard back regarding my question below.  Is this print screen feature not available in your game F/A-18 Operation Iraqi Freedom?

 

If I should ask someone else, please let me know.

 

Sent: Wendesday, October 06, 2010 1:34 PM
To: 'info@graphsim.com'; 'service@graphsim.com'; 'sales@graphsim.com'; 'pr@graphsim.com'
Subject: RE: F/A-18 OIF

Hi all,

I'm writing to all of you today because of two issues. 

 

The first is I don't know how to capture a printscreen in your game F/A-18 Operation Iraqi Freedom.  I've tried hitting printscreen, and nothing is captured.  I've tried hitting various combinations of buttons, and nothing seems to capture a printscreen.  Surely this feature must be possible because I've seen them on various webpages.  I know it's not a problem with my keyboard because it continues to work in most other games I've got.  If it's not possible, if you could just kindly tell me "it's not possible."

 

The second is the lack of a response to my previous 3 emails.  This is my fourth email.  The first time I asked about this was September 13th, followed by September 27th, and yesterday, October 5th, and each time resulted in no response.  I'm not trying to make a big deal out of this because the substance of my email wasn't that big of a deal; it's just upsetting when you send a simple question to somebody (especially multiple times) and it falls on deaf ears.  Your support page @ graphsim.com says "Customer Service and Support is a priority for us.  If you are unable to find the answers you need on this site, please send email to service@graphsim.com.  We will endeavor to reply by the next business day." 

 

Excel

Can anybody explain how Excel arrives at the below calculation?

$  21,740.00
(259.67)
(234.42)
(1,228.41)
(2,662.62)
(2,204.05)
(3,588.84)
(1,520.11)
(2,458.85)
(2,965.63)
(3,437.06)
(1,180.34)
4.3201E-12

All of the figures used in the calculation are exactly as you see them; that's not just formatting.  They really are only filled out to the hundredths place.  But for some reason Excel calculates a figure that's almost zero.  Really?  If I didn't put anything beyond the hundredths place, then shouldn't Excel ONLY calculate to the hundredths place?  It gets annoying having to go in after Excel and put in a rounding function because Excel sees something that's not there.  It's as if Excel is telling me 2-2 isn't 0, but 4.5785874E-11 or some such.  Give me a break.

Absolute heat

I've been wondering for a few years now about the opposite of absolute zero.  You always hear about absolute zero, but you never hear about its opposite friend: absolute heat.  Well, I found it on Wikipedia.  Check it out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_hot

ClientLine

I reconcile credit card activity where I work, and I have to use ClientLine.  Not because I chose it, but because that's the only choice out there apparently.  So, when you log-in you get a graph like this:

Notice the numbers off to the left.  Is that the way they were taught in school to make graphs?  What a confusing way to present information to an end-user.  Offer a suggestion, you say?  Ha.  There are two problems with that.  1) ClientLine has no way to offer a suggestion, and they list no way to be contacted (hermits).  2) You and I know what happens to customer feedback.  They always fall on deaf ears.  Maybe that's why ClientLine offers no way to be contacted, because they know they're not going to listen anyways (?).  Even that doesn't make anything easier. 

The numbering on this graph was normal one month, then went back to this weird-o methodology that they seem to embrace.

The good thing (for what it's worth) is that ClientLine has a new part on their log-in screen saying they have a new look coming soon. 

Take that snakes...

Check this out:
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/10/01/navy-bombs-guam-dead-mice/?test=latestnews

Take that snakes.  You're no match against dead frozen mice stuffed with acetaminophen.   Ha ha ha.

On being overly cautious...

I just want to share a little email correspondence between my wife and I regarding our youngest son, whom I had to pick up early on Tuesday.  I started off the email:

 

When I dropped off Matthew @ daycare this morning Sandy asked me if Matthew was all better.  I said he was and that he hadn't had a fever all day yesterday, and what fever he did have on Tuesday was minor.  She then asked me what the doctor said.  I was kind of stunned by that and said "I'm not taking him to the doctor for that.  I'm not going to pay a $25 copay for that."  I don't think I need to pay $25 for somebody, even a professional, to tell me something I already know.  It's allergies.  Life goes on. 

 

I was just so stunned that it made me think about how some people feel the need to go to the doctor for any little thing that goes wrong.  You know, as grown ups who have been to the doctor before they should know that a fever is not necessarily bad; it's just a sign that the body is fighting something off.  And given Matthew's lackluster symptoms, it was no big deal.  Furthermore, the whole concept behind the copay is so people won't be inclined to go to the doctor for every little thing.  When I got in this morning Mindi was talking about how she took her son to the doctor recently and it turned out it was just allergies and the doctor gave her some free samples.  Ooh.  It still took a copay to get in there, and what he gave her probably would have cost less by itself than the copay.

 

Yeah, I'm not taking him to the doctor for something that's either allergies or a virus, because there's nothing the doctor can do anyway. It's wasted money. You would think childcare providers would know the difference between a cold, allergies, and something serious, but evidently that's not the case. Pretty stupid in my book.

Yeah.

 

I wonder how much of it is being slave to government money and working in an industry that is well-regulated, and how much of it is this paranoia that so many people have about taking their kids to the doctor anytime something is wrong because they "just want to make sure it's not something serious."  While that's good logic by itself and in some contexts can serve a good purpose, in this context it's overly cautious. 

 

I find this logic similar to the notion that anytime a mistake happens, something should be done so it never happens again.  While this is good logic by itself and can serve a good purpose depending on the mistake, in some contexts it seems overly cautious.

 

I completely agree. :)

UAV's

I understand the future of military aviation is supposedly UAV's, but something about this doesn't seem right.  It seems to me that if you're going to kill somebody in an act of war that you ought to have the decency to be there, even if you're 30,000 feet in the air.  I can understand the importance of UAV's in a limited sense, but I don't think this should be ubiquitous.

Cell Phones & Driving

Is this you: when you get to your car you get on the cell phone (to talk or text, it doesn't matter), then you start driving?

What could possibly be so important as to endanger those around you?  Oh I know, you can do both because you're competent enough; the problem is when everyone else does it.  I hate to say this, but you can't say your attention is unaffected by doing both simultaneously.  When I'm braking and I look in my rearview mirror, and I see you on your cell phone (talking or texting, it doesn't matter), I get scared of you people.  Is he or she paying attention enough to apply the brakes?  Geez, that was close. 

Check this out:
http://www.aolnews.com/health/article/texting-and-driving-is-growing-american-killer-study-reports/19650470?test=latestnews

The fact of the matter is if you're on the cell phone (talking or texting) while you're driving, you're part of the problem.  That's the societal part of the problem.  The legislative part of the problem is that our legislators are addicted to it too and don't want to give it up...except for a few school zones here and there.  Otherwise, "I'm too busy talking to my friend and tweeting to pay attention to the road".  If being on the cell phone while driving is comparable to drinking and driving, why is one highly legislated but not the other?  Seems like some people are talking out of both sides of their mouths.

Technology

Personally, I'm just not impressed by "touchless" stuff, like papertowel dispensers, trashcans, etc.  I've heard the arguments for touchless papertowel dispensers (disease control), but that kind of goes out the door when you touch the next door knob now doesn't it?  The touchless papertowel dispenser we have at my office says "Motion Activated".  You know what else is motion activated?  A friggin' lever.  What was wrong with the lever anyways?  Were people really contracting diseases enough to justify the existence of this technological twaddle?  Or is the lever too antiquated?  Or are we just obsessed with plugging everything in? 

So, in some places you'll find a motion activated toilet (but not toilet paper - or toilet tissue as some supercilious people quaintly refer to it as - dispenser), a motion activated sink spiggot, a motion activated paper towel dispenser or air dryer, but no motion activated bathroom door.  So, now we have one more thing that runs off of electricity that didn't need it in the first place.  (I know..."That's your opinion."  Yes, yes it is.  That's a very nice observation you made.  Do you not have any?)

We also had an iTouchless trashcan that went kaput after about a year or two, and for the last several months we had it the stupid door wouldn't lift so you could put trash in it.  Some touchless trashcan.  Yep, it was a touchless trashcan, until you had to change out the trashbag.  It was more deserving of the "touchless" title after it made it to the dumpster.  (Now we've got a Simple Human trashcan (that probably cost $120...it's an empty cylinder with a lid...come on) whose lid won't open via the foot-lever; the lid must by manually opened by your hand.  It's been like this for months, and we still have it.  Nobody knows why we still have it.  But that's a separate discussion.)

Yeah, the same people that buy into these touchless things (or otherwise justify their existence) are the same people that pick their nose but don't wash their hands afterwards, or never sanitize their cell phones and every other little thing around them. 

My point is that sometimes we have too much technology around us.  While technology still amazes us with things that are legitimately useful, other times something gets a dose of technological superfluousness that makes some of us wonder "why?". 

Squirrel pictures

Aliens have deactivated British and US nuclear missiles, say US military pilots

Check this out:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/ufo/8026971/Aliens-have-deactivated-British-and-US-nuclear-missiles-say-US-military-pilots.html

My great-granddad was a pilot for TWA a LONG time ago, and said he saw a UFO (cigar-shaped) while in-flight.