General Lordisimo’s Apocalypse

I have owned my car for a little over a year now and yet I am still discovering new things about it.  I few weeks back I figured out that I could circulate heat/AC in the car by pushing a button (which I had not previously realized was a button).  This morning I learned that if I leave the keys in the ignition and exit the vehicle the car will automatically unlock all the doors.  The first new thing (circulating heat/air) is good to keep all passengers comfortable (not that I ever really have a ton of passengers).  The second thing is a good way to avoid having keys locked in the car, which is something I have often done with previous vehicles (for which I now always keep a spare key on me).  Though I have to admit that I can see a potential downside to the unlocked doors with the key in the ignition.  That downside is that with the key in the ignition and all the doors unlocked it could be pretty easy for somebody to just get in and drive away with the car (assuming you hadn’t noticed right away that you had left your keys behind).

Anyhow, I am curious if there are other features of my vehicle that I have missed.  Maybe I should go back and review my owner’s manual (probably won’t because it is such dry reading).

While in the past I have found a number of reason to strongly disagree with some of PETA’s (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) stances or antics, I have never really considered the organization posing any potential danger to the ongoing survival of humankind.  That was until today, when I heard news that the animal activist group has proposed replacement of the living Punxsutawney Phil with a robotic groundhog.

As you all should know Punxsutawney Phil is the living embodiment and emblem of that oft overlooked holiday of Groundhog Day, which seeks to inform us whether or not winter is going to continue to last for a long time, or if it will be wrapping itself up sooner.  While PETA may claim that their proposed replicant groundhog is all for the good of animal ethics, what they are inadvertently doing is providing the high ground for the future robot revolution which will inevitably see the overthrowing of human kind.

But it is just going to be an animatronics groundhog, how could that spell any certain doom?  Well let me explain.

You see people trust this flesh and blood groundhog in predicting the remaining length of winter even if meteorologists generally dismiss the practice of woodchuck shadow casting as mere superstition (which I find ironic as I am rather certain that if there is one profession that practices witchcraft or augury, it certainly has to be those folks in meteorology).  If however we were to put our forecoming seasonal changing faith on the whim of a mechanical monstrosity that certainly would be the proposed robotic Punxsutawney Phil then I foresee that the thinking machines would make their first major decisive move against their human creators.  I imagine that Robo-Punxsutawney Phil’s first shadow seeing occasion will predict  humankind’s ongoing winter of discontent under the rulership of our future metal masters.

Shame on you PETA, in your attempt to better the life of a single woodchuck you push humankind that much closer to its downfall at the hands of our horrific robotic creations.  I hope whoever the powers that be are in Punxsutawney, PA make the right choice and keep the prophet of winters end a flesh and blood groundhog instead of bowing to the whim of PETA (which is obviously being funded by Skynet).

Self Aware Robots Must Be Stopped!

The New York Times’ Schott’s Vocab directed me to this term in this brief blog posting.  Now I feel like it is important that I point out that I am not suggesting that this is a GDAFSA because it has a Christian theme, but more so because I kind of wonder how the Biblical Jesus would feel about passages about him appearing on the scopes of killing weapons.  I mean, correct me if I am wrong and all, but I kind of recall reading about Jesus being quite into the whole peace and love thing, not into the “hey let’s snipe the shit out of those mother fuckers” attitude.

Anyway, there are further problems with the Jesus rifle-scopes.  First off is that they are appearing on military weapons, which, as the post points out, seems to break the U.S. military’s rules against proselytizing.  I tend to agree with the rules against proselytizing in the military because the military is representative of our secular government.  That isn’t to say that individuals within the militray are not allowed their own personal faith, it is more to suggest that I think it is not right to advertise a certain faith on any specific military equipment.  If a citizen wants to mount a Jesus rifle-scope on his or her hunting rifle that is one thing, but if it is tax dollar equipment for the militray then it shouldn’t be allowed.

The second problem (also mentioned in the post) is how will enemy combatants react to being shot at by “Jesus rifles?”  Consideirng our numerous armed conflicts in nations with a predominantly Muslim population this might really be the wrong way to win hearts and minds.  A lot of effort has been made to point out that fighting terrorism and extrimists is not a Christians versus Muslims kind of thing, but if the army is packing heat that references biblical passages this just might be how it is interpreted (and I can foresee that causing to major problems).

Thirdly and lastly (and probably least important), isn’t the term “Jesus Rifles” more appropriate for the name of a Christian Heavy Metal band?  Or if not that, perhps the way that some radical fringe Christian group decides to try and spread the God-love (I envision a pastor saying, “And then low and behold, our good Lord and Savior takes his ol’ Jesus Rifle and blasts the God-love all over the world!”  Note: anyone is free to use that hypothetical quote however they’d like).

Seriously, if you have a faith, and want to adorn personal property with symbolism from that faith, then as far as I am concenred go right ahead and do it.  But please, if you don’t mind, refrain from making things like Jesus Rifles or Buddha Bombs or Krishna Cannons, it just doesn’t seem all that proper.  Ya dig it?

I feel like I kind of have goats on my mind right now.  Part of this is because Eliza and I went to visit her friend Kirsten’s farm.  Kirsten and her husband John raise goats (amongst other animals including chickens and sheep) for their milk.  Last night I got to try said goat milk for the first time.  In my opinion it was absolutely delicious.  We also made a alfredo-esque cream sauce with the goat’s milk (this was also absolutely delicious). 

While it was quite rainy and wet yesterday I did get to walk around the farm a bit and became friends with one of the goats after I kindly offered to scratch it on the head.  I have to admit that I like goats, and I think that a big part of it is that they strike me as very intelligent animals.  Goats are probably one of the first domesticated animals (proceeded only by sheep and dogs).  They can be used for a wide variety of purposes such as for their milk, meat, and hair.  Some of them have awesome horns, other seem to lack ears (this was the case with the one whose head I gave a good scratching yesterday.  I think it is a LaMancha type of goat). 

Seriously goats are pretty fucking amazing.  They are a member of the Bovidae family of Artiodactyle (even-toed) Ungulates (note that Artiodactyle is the a taxanomical Order of distinction from the Class of Mammalia.  It includes a wide variety of species included goats, sheep, antelopes, cattle, camels, giraffes, deer, pigs, hippopotami, etc.).  They have these really strange sideways irises in their eyes that make them look incredibly curious and mischievous.  The word scapegoat refers to a goat that was to be driven into the wilderness to atone for the sins of a population (basically a beast to place the blame upon). 

Not only can you drink goat milk and eat goat cheese, but you can also munch down on some goat meat.  Goat meat is actually pretty common elsewhere in the world, but for whatever reason it has only been in recent time that it has begun to gain popularity here in the united States.  I first tried goat meat about two years ago and since then I would consider it one of my favorite tasting meats.  It is just tender and delicious, somewhat similar to lamb meat, and yet unique in and of itself.  I have not yet cooked it myself, but I think that that may be something to do in the not too distant future (maybe throwing it on Dan’s smoker). 

Look even great pieces of literature have bene written about goats: 

Goat Husbandry!

 Alright, I kid, I kid . . . this may not be the greatest bit of goat literature out there.  But hey, goats are definitely on folks’ minds.  Over at the OrangeCoat blog Roxy provided a brief contemplation on good goad farms.  Goats are used to combat kudzu growth. Goats can eat just about anything.  Some goats fall over when startled. Goats just look fucking awesome!  

So yeah, I dare you to think about goats a little bit and just how damn lucky you are to share a world with them.  I mean if we weren’t so lucky goats would be endemic to the Jovian moon Ganymede, then we’d probably never get to hang out with them.  Appreciate goats all, they are good times

This weekend a bunch of us were playing the game Cranium. Part of the game requires some charade doing.  While this might not ever be something that any of you all will ever have to charade, I was given the challenge of demonstrating a claw-footed bathtub to my teammates.  Right near the end of our timer Eliza got the correct answer.  Everything about this was awesome!  For posterity purposes (obvious . . . it would never be for the sake of demonstrating how ridiculous I look here) Aaron kindly recorded the entire occurence and posted it on the Interwebs through the YouTube. Enjoy!

For those of you like me who are find a significant amount of interest in the transition between print media and digital media the big news of the day is probably that The New York Times has announced that starting in 2011 it will begin charging readers after they have hit a certain article access cap.  Already this news seems to be causing some serious discussion about what this means and how it is likely to further affect traditional journalism media in the digital day and age.  Being an avid reader of The New York Times (I sit down reading it every morning before heading to work), and not having offered a good contemplation for a long time, I have decided to weigh in on this matter.

I think my opinion can best be summed up with “Good for you New York Times, it is about time that you start charging for your quality services.”  Now there are probably a lot of people who will take issue with my stance but please allow me to explain myself before any of you decide to jump down my throat about how the news should always be free and available.

I support the NYT in charging for access to their content because I want to continue to support their existence and that just ain’t happening with paid advertising.  Is charging for access a surefire means of boosting revenue?  Probably not, but I imagine it will offer some help.  I further support NYT in charging for access because prior to the digital age that is what they were already doing, and guess what (big shocker here), people fucking paid for it.  That is right folks, people used to (and some still loyally do) pay for print media!

I highly support freedom of information and there may be some people who assume that having to pay for news, from a source like The New York Times, will limit that freedom but this is just not so.  Think about it for a second.  The New York Times (and really any news source) is providing people with a service, that service being the gathering and disseminating of relevant news.  To provide this service some form of revenue is needed and while advertising space can provide some, users of the service should be expected to contribute (just as users of any number of other services – phones, Internet, garbage disposal, etc. – pay to be provided such).  Charging for access to a service is perfectly reasonable in my opinion.

And I can just hear the “but doesn’t that charging for access limit the freedom of information?” 

I will stress that is does not.  Before the current age of finding out stuff on the Internet were people who did not subscribe to a newspaper able to find out information?  Of course they were able to!  Just because there is a charge does not mean that all means of access are denied; there are libraries, there are people who are willing to share access to their own paid service, there are other means in which information moves about (think all the social media outlets of today).  The charging is just making one means of information dissemination service cost a user fee (aka a subscription).  The information is in no way being withheld from anybody.  The charge just means that to access the information in a specific format (in this case The New York Times format) people must pay an out of wallet cost.

The users of the NYT are not the only people who will have a responsibility in the newspaper’s decision to have a cost for use.  The New York Times itself will have a responsibility to continue to provide quality service and content to their users (those paying the subscription esp.).  If the NYT were to stop providing quality service then it would be more than reasonable that they would lose customer support (this is, in theory, how things work).  In charging users The New York Times will have the responsibility of providing quality customer service and to listen to their users with respect and tenacity.  Failure to do so would not justify their continued demand for monetary compensation for inadequate service.

The idea of getting something for “free” is a really nice thought but the reality is that any kind of “free” service is only “free” in a subjective sense; basically somebody, somewhere, is paying to provide that service (even if you don’t notice it coming out of your wallet right then).  My dad used to stress this to my brother and I with the reminder that “nothing is free.”  Perhaps a somewhat grim reality of things, but it is a reality nonetheless.  For may of us using various Internet services, we take the concept of “free” for granted and do not think about how these services are provided to us.  That has made some of us think that it is wrong for a business like The New York Times to charge for their online content, when in truth they are doing nothing wrong at all by wanting to make sure of their continued business.  I think it is pertinent that we consider our self-righteous desires for “free” news before we heap any major criticism on The New York Times for their decision.

When 2011 roles around will I be paying for a subscription to continue using The New York Times?  You bet your fucking ass I will.  For years now I have been getting what I feel is quality news, knowledge, and entertainment from reading The New York Times and I have been very grateful to them for courteously providing me with reasonable access and limited advertisement swamping.  I want to do my part to make sure that they continue to provide a great resource of news, knowledge, and entertainment and so I will gladly contribute a portion of my paycheck to do so.  If you do not believe that the service is worth contributing a portion of your own incometo than that is fine and good, but understand that in making that personal decision The New York Times (or any other news service) is more than justified in withholding access to their format of news information.

I’d love to hear what people think about this decision by The New York Times.  I am sure a bunch of you have some great perspectives on the matter.  Leave a comment (keep it respectful please) and we can start a conversation on this.  You all should note that this is probably one of my most adamantly supportive of capitalism pieces I think I have ever written (but that does not mean that I think capitalism is without flaws, I think there are lots of them, but in this case I think the aim of making money is perfectly justified).

Charlie Jane Anders, Editor of the always entertaining, all things dorky i09 offers us a wonderful contemplation Hollywood’s improbably portrayal of gadgetry that survives the end of days.  Ms. Anders is directly referencing the new Denzel Washington film “The Book of Eli” (which I should disclaim that I have not seen) in which the titular character uses a thirty year old iPod to listen to music. 

I must say, I sincerely hope that the term “Post-Apocalyptic iPod” comes into it own in dork jargon.  It really is a perfect example of the theme of “what still works” that shows up in many stories taking place far in the future (post-apocalypse or not).  Personally I am thinking of Woody Allen’s “Sleeper” which pokes fun at the servivability of technology from past gone days, when Allen’s character discovers a Volkswagen Beetle which starts right up when he tries the ignition.  Of course Ms. Anders gets it spot on in suggesting that the reason for including these still working bits of technology from or present time is to create a sense of comfort and in some ways to tie characters back to the stable reality of all the by gone.

Still, I consider this a good GDAFSA because if we are relying on Hollywood to shape our visions of the post-apocalyptic world we are likely to find ourselves quite disappointed.  Much of the gadgets that we use today rely very heavily upon a stable and maintained infrastructure (specifically available electricity), scrap that infrastructure and an iPod will quickly become nothing more than a stylish-looking chuck of plastic.  Basically . . . if the civilization were to collapse tomorrow I think we’d all find ourselves in some pretty serious deep shit, and probably wouldn’t have a good soundtrack to help us navigate through it.

Kudos to you Ms. Anders.  Keep up the great work!

Uncrate often has some interesting questions of which answers are provided by commentors.  Today I point you to the one on scarf tying.  I find this interesting because I often wear a scarf once the weather gets cold.  I do this primarily as a warmth thing and not as a style thing (I have nothing against looking stylish, but I think practicality should always come before style.  I hold this opinion not just for clothing but also for automobiles).  I will admit that I tend to use the Chelsea or Euro Knot described in the “best answer” (which you can see here).  This is an easy way to tie a scarf, it is comfortable, and it keeps your neck warm (which as I have stated above is my main concern when wearing a scarf).  I will also sometimes just sling an end over my shoulder and let it rest against my neck.  The downside of this is that it often becomes unslung.  Really I suggest just finding a way to tie the scarf that provides comfort and warmth.  If you are a stylish person try tucking it in your jacket a bit and bunching it out into a semi-ascot like look.

Here is something you might enjoy.  Eliza and I had it with dinner last night. It is a rather simple and delicious dish to serve either by itself or with other food stuff (couscous and vegetable curry last night, for example). All you need is the following:

• Plain Yogurt:  I actually used Greek Yogurt, which has a slightly different consistency and is a bit more sour.  It is somewhat closer to sour cream.
• Tomatoes: Cherry tomatoes were used last night but really I can imagine using any kind of tomato that you want (I look forward to trying this with some delicious heirloom varieties this summer).
• Cucumber: I use the long wrapped European style cucumbers because they don’t have wax on their skins.  This is another vegetable that is probably good to use home grown (well that can be said for most vegetables probably . . . or at least from a good local farm stand).
• Fresh Dill: I think this speaks for itself.
• Lemon Juice: Just a bit really to add a little citrus flavor.
• Salt & Pepper

Basically you just need to chop the tomato, cucumber, and dill up rather finely and then mix it in with the yogurt, adding some lemon juice, salt, and pepper.  Then you eat it!  Again, we ate it with a vegetable curry last night, but this stuff is good enough to just serve with some pita bread, or just eat straight with a spoon.  I am glad I have some leftover because it is very good eats.