Thursday, June 12, 2008
Word Press
Apparently, the Word Press platform has some problems with security risks. Fortunately for them, there do appear to be things you can do. If you use WP, you might want to check it out.
Thinking
It occurred to me this evening that it'd be useful to compare the two presidential candidates according to how they felt on several issues, and what they were likely to do if they were elected. Then I thought 'well, whats the point of that -- you already know whom you support, and you know why. He's not likely to make major changes in what he says, so why worry about details?' And you know, I couldn't think of a good reason. I want to believe there IS one, but nothing came to mind.
Oh!
From The Bloomberg News:
David All, who backs Senator John McCain and co-founded an online site that helps Republicans raise money, blames party officials "who control the purse strings'' for not grasping the Internet. "They are over the age of 35 or 40,'' he said, "and they are unwilling to be anything but a modern ostrich.'
Those geezers! Good thing they have such a bright, sensitive young guy on their side....
David All, who backs Senator John McCain and co-founded an online site that helps Republicans raise money, blames party officials "who control the purse strings'' for not grasping the Internet. "They are over the age of 35 or 40,'' he said, "and they are unwilling to be anything but a modern ostrich.'
Those geezers! Good thing they have such a bright, sensitive young guy on their side....
Stray Observations
Some people have really interesting names for their websites. This morning, I came across one called Monkeys And Princesses. Pretty nifty. It's written by someone who lives in Texas. Seems pretty nice. I lived there for a while, but I don't think I met them.
When I said the bread didn't rise satisfactorily, I didn't mean it didn't rise at all. It rose about an inch. I'm guessing it should have risen about three to four inches. Its still pretty good stuff, though.
I'm enjoying reading Debateable Space. If you read the reviews of it on Amazon, it sounds pretty awful, and maybe to serious readers, it is. But to me, its great summertime reading -- and when you're retired, its always summertime. Well, attitudinally.
I feel like taking a walk, but its about 90 degrees out. Perhaps not. My wife and I did take one this morning. We talked about whether we're really going to stay in this house. I'm guessing we will... but I'm still not sure. I think if we had a) an elevator and b) a groundscrew, we would, no question. The first is doable. The second, not. We could get a John Deere tractor with a snow blade and a mower attachment. That'd be about, oh, sixty percent more power than we'd routinely need.
I see where Obama's folks have set up a web site to counter rumours about him. I can't see as it will be all that effective. Then again, I so brilliantly called his eventual successes before, I can't lay claim to any great insight. Still wish I knew why anyone would vote for McCain. It certainly can't be his economic policy or his foreign affairs thoughts. All I can think of is, they just like him. See him as 'one of them'. Oh, man -- thats the reason lots of people voted for Bush.
When I said the bread didn't rise satisfactorily, I didn't mean it didn't rise at all. It rose about an inch. I'm guessing it should have risen about three to four inches. Its still pretty good stuff, though.
I'm enjoying reading Debateable Space. If you read the reviews of it on Amazon, it sounds pretty awful, and maybe to serious readers, it is. But to me, its great summertime reading -- and when you're retired, its always summertime. Well, attitudinally.
I feel like taking a walk, but its about 90 degrees out. Perhaps not. My wife and I did take one this morning. We talked about whether we're really going to stay in this house. I'm guessing we will... but I'm still not sure. I think if we had a) an elevator and b) a groundscrew, we would, no question. The first is doable. The second, not. We could get a John Deere tractor with a snow blade and a mower attachment. That'd be about, oh, sixty percent more power than we'd routinely need.
I see where Obama's folks have set up a web site to counter rumours about him. I can't see as it will be all that effective. Then again, I so brilliantly called his eventual successes before, I can't lay claim to any great insight. Still wish I knew why anyone would vote for McCain. It certainly can't be his economic policy or his foreign affairs thoughts. All I can think of is, they just like him. See him as 'one of them'. Oh, man -- thats the reason lots of people voted for Bush.
Extravagance
I have no use for people who own massive homes. If I had one, I might feel differently, but barring a surprise call from the Lottery folks (it really would be a surprise, as I don't play the lottery), I'll never own one, so I can remain smug in my condescension.
But if I did ever own one....this'd be a pretty cool way to handle it.
But if I did ever own one....this'd be a pretty cool way to handle it.
Rosemary!
I came across this recipe this morning, and made it -- only takes a couple of hours. As I usually do, I wish it had risen more -- there's something about getting dough to rise that I just don't get -- but it wasn't a big deal -- I just told myself it was a puffy flatbread. The rosemary was a faint aftertaste, which was good, and the sea salt on the crust was an excellent touch. I found the original recipe on Make and Takes.
* 1 packet dry yeast (or 2 1/2 tsp)
* 2 c. warm water
* 1 T. sugar
* 2 tsp salt
* 4 c. flour
* 1-2 tsp. fresh Rosemary plus more for topping
* Olive Oil, Corn meal, Melted butter and salt
Dissolve yeast in the warm water and sugar.
Add flour, salt, and 1-2 tsp Rosemary and stir until blended, do not Knead!!
Cover and let rise for 1 hour or until double in size. If you have a Bosch Mixer, I keep the dough right in there with the top lid on, it’s nice and moist in there. Or simply keep it in the mixer bowl and cover with a moist cloth to raise.
Remove dough. It will be sticky.
Place it in 2 rounds on a cookie sheet lightly coated in olive oil and sprinkled with corn meal. OR you can place it on your silicone baking mat with no oil.
Cover with a towel or greased plastic wrap.
Let it rise another hour.
Brush each round with melted butter and lightly sprinkle with more Rosemary and sea salt
Bake @ 425 for 10 minutes, then reduce temp to 375 for 15 minutes more.
Rosemary Bread
* 1 packet dry yeast (or 2 1/2 tsp)
* 2 c. warm water
* 1 T. sugar
* 2 tsp salt
* 4 c. flour
* 1-2 tsp. fresh Rosemary plus more for topping
* Olive Oil, Corn meal, Melted butter and salt
Dissolve yeast in the warm water and sugar.
Add flour, salt, and 1-2 tsp Rosemary and stir until blended, do not Knead!!
Cover and let rise for 1 hour or until double in size. If you have a Bosch Mixer, I keep the dough right in there with the top lid on, it’s nice and moist in there. Or simply keep it in the mixer bowl and cover with a moist cloth to raise.
Remove dough. It will be sticky.
Place it in 2 rounds on a cookie sheet lightly coated in olive oil and sprinkled with corn meal. OR you can place it on your silicone baking mat with no oil.
Cover with a towel or greased plastic wrap.
Let it rise another hour.
Brush each round with melted butter and lightly sprinkle with more Rosemary and sea salt
Bake @ 425 for 10 minutes, then reduce temp to 375 for 15 minutes more.
Thats Entertainment
I came across a web site this morning that I at first thought was a parody. It offered a view of Star Wars 'as you'd never seen it before'. How could they possibly do that, I wondered. I knew that Lucas had recut parts of the original, but this site was obviously displaying something that was animation. Why would I want to see that? Nevertheless, I watched their trailer -- it turned out to be for The Clone Wars; I'm not enough of a Star Wars fan to know whether that was an actual movie or simply a reference that was made in the original series -- and to my surprise, it wasn't bad. More directly, it wasn't cartoonish. The characters were well drawn (the aliens looked more 'real' than the humans), and the plot, insofar as they showed it, was believable. Could I see myself paying real money to see this in a theater? Well... perhaps. ( In a good theater, with comfort and style. Part of the package of the experience is where and how you see it; if I'm giving up something in the characterization, I think I'd want payback in the environment. At least, I would now. Who knows what I'd want, after this kind of entertainment became routine?)
It got me to thinking a little bit about the nature of entertainment. I am not up on what the prevailing attitudes were when television first became popular, but I seem to recall reading that many people felt it couldn't possibly work; after all, audiences were used to live performances, with live actors who were right there in front of you. How could this little box with an imperfect image possibly compete? Of course, based on those criteria, it couldn't -- but when you factored in the idea of delivery of the entertainment to your home, at your convenience, it became more believable. So when I think of an animated entertainment as a competition with live actors, I think 'who would want to see that?' But when I think of it as the opportunity to see entertainment, period, without comparison to a different style of delivery -- then it becomes more plausible to me.
Years ago, I read science fiction novels that postulated a time when the 'people' in these films wouldn't be real. Some of the novels postulated that the 'people' would look real, but not be; others said that they'd look 'real enough'. None of them thought about the idea of cartoonish animation as a possibility, let alone the concept of the 'uncanny valley' which roboticists have come across -- the idea that there is a point where a mechanical face looks so real, without being totally believable, that it gives you the shivers; its as if you're watching an animated dead person. And so they have to back off, just a bit, so that its obvious that this is a fake person (Oh, look how real it looks). I find this to be an interesting possibility, and I wonder if the two fields will merge to deliver entertainment thats entirely done via technology, no visible humans involved.
I wonder: would we give it a special name?
It got me to thinking a little bit about the nature of entertainment. I am not up on what the prevailing attitudes were when television first became popular, but I seem to recall reading that many people felt it couldn't possibly work; after all, audiences were used to live performances, with live actors who were right there in front of you. How could this little box with an imperfect image possibly compete? Of course, based on those criteria, it couldn't -- but when you factored in the idea of delivery of the entertainment to your home, at your convenience, it became more believable. So when I think of an animated entertainment as a competition with live actors, I think 'who would want to see that?' But when I think of it as the opportunity to see entertainment, period, without comparison to a different style of delivery -- then it becomes more plausible to me.
Years ago, I read science fiction novels that postulated a time when the 'people' in these films wouldn't be real. Some of the novels postulated that the 'people' would look real, but not be; others said that they'd look 'real enough'. None of them thought about the idea of cartoonish animation as a possibility, let alone the concept of the 'uncanny valley' which roboticists have come across -- the idea that there is a point where a mechanical face looks so real, without being totally believable, that it gives you the shivers; its as if you're watching an animated dead person. And so they have to back off, just a bit, so that its obvious that this is a fake person (Oh, look how real it looks). I find this to be an interesting possibility, and I wonder if the two fields will merge to deliver entertainment thats entirely done via technology, no visible humans involved.
I wonder: would we give it a special name?
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Scary Thoughts
I've been reading two books lately. One's a Star Trek novel I read some time ago, and the other's a - well, I'd call it science fiction, but I suppose by the current hard-nosed standards its more space-opera than scifi. Certainly it doesn't rely on science fiction tools and environments, though it has its share of hyperspeed-capable ships, intelligent machines, and unspeakably different aliens. The first is Crossroad, by Barbara Hambly; the second is Debatable Space, by Philip Palmer. I mention these not to demonstrate how shallow my reading pool is -- I hear of people who routinely polish off massive books one, two a week, and I am in awe of that -- but because I came across an article whose title resonated with me: Is Google Making Us Stupid?
Google's the stalking horse. What they're really asking is, does the easy availability of information have the effect of damaging our ability to comprehend, to summarize large quantities of information. You can see why I would be tickled by that, because I've said in the past that I feel that sort of thing happening to me. I don't read books that are difficult, anymore. Not that I ever did to any great degree, but I did, a little; now, I don't. If I want to read, the odds are that I'll read something simple, like the science fiction/space operas I mentioned, or I'll read something short, like a New Yorker article, or something linear, like a book that talks in straightforward terms about medical science, or about architecture, or about city planning. Its not that I don't like complex thoughts, but my ability to handle them, to hold them up to the light and, however imperfectly, turn them, look at them from different angles, seems to have diminished over the years. I don't know why that is, but I agree that the easy availability of information makes it likely that I now expect to be able to find out things quickly -- to the point that when the web can't do it, I'm left feeling a bit bereft. This afternoon, I wrote a response to a blog which used the word 'vicarious', but I couldn't recall the word, nor could I easily come up with a way to describe it so that a search engine could find it. All I had was a feeling of what the word ought to be, and Google doesn't operate at that level. At least, not yet. I finally did find it, but I had to almost work at it.
Even when reading the article, I found that I was doing almost exactly what they said a lot of people do now -- skipping ahead, looking for key phrases, glancing at summary sentences. I wasn't reading every word, and I certainly wasn't savoring it. I was looking for information, and I wanted it quick, and preferably in an easily digestible format. My motto was Don't Make Me Think Too Hard-- and, you know? That was a little scary.
Google's the stalking horse. What they're really asking is, does the easy availability of information have the effect of damaging our ability to comprehend, to summarize large quantities of information. You can see why I would be tickled by that, because I've said in the past that I feel that sort of thing happening to me. I don't read books that are difficult, anymore. Not that I ever did to any great degree, but I did, a little; now, I don't. If I want to read, the odds are that I'll read something simple, like the science fiction/space operas I mentioned, or I'll read something short, like a New Yorker article, or something linear, like a book that talks in straightforward terms about medical science, or about architecture, or about city planning. Its not that I don't like complex thoughts, but my ability to handle them, to hold them up to the light and, however imperfectly, turn them, look at them from different angles, seems to have diminished over the years. I don't know why that is, but I agree that the easy availability of information makes it likely that I now expect to be able to find out things quickly -- to the point that when the web can't do it, I'm left feeling a bit bereft. This afternoon, I wrote a response to a blog which used the word 'vicarious', but I couldn't recall the word, nor could I easily come up with a way to describe it so that a search engine could find it. All I had was a feeling of what the word ought to be, and Google doesn't operate at that level. At least, not yet. I finally did find it, but I had to almost work at it.
Even when reading the article, I found that I was doing almost exactly what they said a lot of people do now -- skipping ahead, looking for key phrases, glancing at summary sentences. I wasn't reading every word, and I certainly wasn't savoring it. I was looking for information, and I wanted it quick, and preferably in an easily digestible format. My motto was Don't Make Me Think Too Hard-- and, you know? That was a little scary.
Learning Styles
I don't actually know which way I learn best. Some things, it seems to be 'just let me read about it, and I'll get it'. Some, I have to see it: oh, thats what they meant! Some, I get right away, others I have to mull over. And still others, I have to touch, while others, I have to do. Jeez, this sex while skydiving on a pogo stick isn't as straightforward as I thought!!
But whatever the best style, these people seem to have an idea how to make it better.
But whatever the best style, these people seem to have an idea how to make it better.
Food Comment
I want to tell whomever just beamed the thought into my head of how incredibly good it would be to have a really tasty hamburger right about now: thanks a lot.
Bussed
I havent actually kissed all that many people in my life (I know, hard to believe). I don't think I could quite number all of them with just one set of fingers...well, then again, maybe I could. Few or many, theres nothing like the immediate sensual delight of a good one - but for vicarious pleasure in the event, this site's not bad.
Al - Ralph
You know things are weird when I'm willing to read the Al-Jazeera site because I know I'll get a different viewpoint than the standard one, but I stop reading when I realize that the lead article is by Ralph Nader.
NPRd
I happened to be listening to NPR this morning, while waiting for my daughter and her friend to get ready to go out. They're both in a dance class that's part of the summer routine for color guard. I don't know what it is, exactly, they do there, but they were both pleased that they did not have to get pink leotards this year -- apparently, the instructor last year was big on that. This year, black is the new pink. And they didn't need new dance shoes, either.
Anyway, I heard a couple of interesting items, only one of which had to do with Obama. I'm not swearing off The Big O, more like swearing off news entirely until I don't routinely see articles about fuel (not there yet, not by a long shot). But I was there, it was there, and so... Apparently, the Russians are having some problems with their military. This is always something that delights me, though I am sure that the mature approach would be to understand that their response to problems might not be what we would like, and might actually be substantially in the other direction. I didn't hear the entire article, but what I gathered was that the Russians, at Putin's direction, have spent a great deal of money beefing up their military, only to find that a substantial amount of that money has disappeared due to flaws in the system, not to mention, outright egregious corruption. The only things they have to show for the money put into the Air Force, for example, are some new fighters; quite nice, but not nearly enough of them. Similarly, their nuclear submarine fleet has gotten expanded, but the missiles which are their primary (though not sole) reason for existence don't work correctly. I don't know if that means that launching might sink the ship, or whether, in aiming for New York, they hit Omaha, or what, but whatever, it isn't good. The end result is that a lot of people, many of them opposed to the steps, are now stepping up to say how silly it was, and my gosh, what are we going to do now. Not a whole bunch of them, because Putin is still around, still in power, but still: some. I remember reading about this buildup when it was starting, and thinking that while I didn't like the idea from a national standpoint, still it did imply that the Russians were doing okay in their economy if they could divert funds to it. I suppose this is why I am not a prognosticator for a living.
I also heard some competing speeches between McCain and Obama about economics, the gist of which seemed to be that either a) whats needed is more of what we've been doing, cutting taxes for the wealthy, cutting taxes on businesses, while still being sensitive to the needs of the not-so-well-off, or b) whats needed is to increase taxes on the wealthy, elimination or reduction of taxes on the low end. It seems to come down (I know this is a gross simplification, but its the way I think) to whether you believe trickle - down economics works - that being the idea that if you keep the top of the economic ecosystem happy, it'll feed the lower branches. I don't agree with that. Without getting mystical, I think you have to be sensitive to all parts of that ecosystem. Damage to one part can be ameliorated by nourishment of another, and you can actually do damage to one part by nourishing another recklessly. I think McCain's stretching the truth when he talks -- for example, he said that lots of people would be affected by Obama's plan to increase taxes, which is true, but it skips over the part that the people affected are only those who own stocks (still, thats a lot) and that the bulk of the increased taxes would go on the people with the biggest amount of stock. While nobody likes taxes, I think thats fair. I understand why McCain wants to make it sound as grim as possible (kind of the economic version of the NRA shouting that the gummint will kick in your door at 3AM and steal all your guns). Not to say that Obama is blameless, but I think in this case, he's more correct than McCain. Lets see what others think.
Anyway, I heard a couple of interesting items, only one of which had to do with Obama. I'm not swearing off The Big O, more like swearing off news entirely until I don't routinely see articles about fuel (not there yet, not by a long shot). But I was there, it was there, and so... Apparently, the Russians are having some problems with their military. This is always something that delights me, though I am sure that the mature approach would be to understand that their response to problems might not be what we would like, and might actually be substantially in the other direction. I didn't hear the entire article, but what I gathered was that the Russians, at Putin's direction, have spent a great deal of money beefing up their military, only to find that a substantial amount of that money has disappeared due to flaws in the system, not to mention, outright egregious corruption. The only things they have to show for the money put into the Air Force, for example, are some new fighters; quite nice, but not nearly enough of them. Similarly, their nuclear submarine fleet has gotten expanded, but the missiles which are their primary (though not sole) reason for existence don't work correctly. I don't know if that means that launching might sink the ship, or whether, in aiming for New York, they hit Omaha, or what, but whatever, it isn't good. The end result is that a lot of people, many of them opposed to the steps, are now stepping up to say how silly it was, and my gosh, what are we going to do now. Not a whole bunch of them, because Putin is still around, still in power, but still: some. I remember reading about this buildup when it was starting, and thinking that while I didn't like the idea from a national standpoint, still it did imply that the Russians were doing okay in their economy if they could divert funds to it. I suppose this is why I am not a prognosticator for a living.
I also heard some competing speeches between McCain and Obama about economics, the gist of which seemed to be that either a) whats needed is more of what we've been doing, cutting taxes for the wealthy, cutting taxes on businesses, while still being sensitive to the needs of the not-so-well-off, or b) whats needed is to increase taxes on the wealthy, elimination or reduction of taxes on the low end. It seems to come down (I know this is a gross simplification, but its the way I think) to whether you believe trickle - down economics works - that being the idea that if you keep the top of the economic ecosystem happy, it'll feed the lower branches. I don't agree with that. Without getting mystical, I think you have to be sensitive to all parts of that ecosystem. Damage to one part can be ameliorated by nourishment of another, and you can actually do damage to one part by nourishing another recklessly. I think McCain's stretching the truth when he talks -- for example, he said that lots of people would be affected by Obama's plan to increase taxes, which is true, but it skips over the part that the people affected are only those who own stocks (still, thats a lot) and that the bulk of the increased taxes would go on the people with the biggest amount of stock. While nobody likes taxes, I think thats fair. I understand why McCain wants to make it sound as grim as possible (kind of the economic version of the NRA shouting that the gummint will kick in your door at 3AM and steal all your guns). Not to say that Obama is blameless, but I think in this case, he's more correct than McCain. Lets see what others think.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Story
The stories in One Sentence are almost uniformly good. This one, though, for some reason, caught my attention:
His efforts were so valiant, I didn't have the heart to tell him it was front clasp.
Environment
When we moved into this house, there was an active cow pasture abutting our property.
The cows weren't all that active -- though the first time I realized that you could get something that big to move just by walking quickly up to it, I was pretty impressed -- but the pasture, yes -- about thirty cows and calves. Over time, the number of cows dwindled, and after about ten years, the pasture was converted to crops -- usually corn. One of the side effects of that changeover was that without the mobile fertilizers, the farmer had to periodically put down something. That was new to me - not too much of that where I'd lived before. Even in South Dakota, not too much. When I first came to this area, I was taking a test drive in a car I was thinking of buying. We stopped out in the country so that we could switch drivers. Ah, smell that country air! the salesman exclaimed, and I thought What, are you crazy? What a stench! I've gotten used to it, though it doesn't hurt that you don't smell it all that often. This morning, you do. Hoo, boy.
The aroma mixes nicely, though, with the hot smell of the tar that the paving crew is putting on a driveway about a half block from here, and the sounds of their equipment -- big honkin' dump trucks, Bobcats, some kind of gihugic paving machine with a shrill backup tone -- mixes nicely with the sound of the massive cement truck in our driveway, or the sweating, hustling guys slopping it into wheelbarrows and into the forms for our new steps.
Just another day in the country....
The cows weren't all that active -- though the first time I realized that you could get something that big to move just by walking quickly up to it, I was pretty impressed -- but the pasture, yes -- about thirty cows and calves. Over time, the number of cows dwindled, and after about ten years, the pasture was converted to crops -- usually corn. One of the side effects of that changeover was that without the mobile fertilizers, the farmer had to periodically put down something. That was new to me - not too much of that where I'd lived before. Even in South Dakota, not too much. When I first came to this area, I was taking a test drive in a car I was thinking of buying. We stopped out in the country so that we could switch drivers. Ah, smell that country air! the salesman exclaimed, and I thought What, are you crazy? What a stench! I've gotten used to it, though it doesn't hurt that you don't smell it all that often. This morning, you do. Hoo, boy.
The aroma mixes nicely, though, with the hot smell of the tar that the paving crew is putting on a driveway about a half block from here, and the sounds of their equipment -- big honkin' dump trucks, Bobcats, some kind of gihugic paving machine with a shrill backup tone -- mixes nicely with the sound of the massive cement truck in our driveway, or the sweating, hustling guys slopping it into wheelbarrows and into the forms for our new steps.
Just another day in the country....
Monday, June 09, 2008
Sauce for the Goose....
Is it fair to question the integrity of someone who's checking out vice-presidential candidates if that person received loans from a mortgage broker during the time that the person ran a federal agency that guarantees the loans issued by mortgage brokers? I'm thinking yes, it is.
Even if it is from my candidate's side of the aisle.
The question is being raised by the other side, for political gain, but its a fair question. Our guys need to be above reproach. Perhaps thats asking too much, of any big-time politician these days. Perhaps its like our side refusing to use character-innuendo when the then-opponent did, thus appearing weaker, even if morally superior. But I don't think its unreasonable. I think it's very reasonable. Or as my wife put it, at what point did the criterion for being a 'top advisor' switch from 'do nothing wrong' to 'don't get caught when you do'?
This needs to be aired and explained. Quickly, succinctly, and authoritatively.
Even if it is from my candidate's side of the aisle.
The question is being raised by the other side, for political gain, but its a fair question. Our guys need to be above reproach. Perhaps thats asking too much, of any big-time politician these days. Perhaps its like our side refusing to use character-innuendo when the then-opponent did, thus appearing weaker, even if morally superior. But I don't think its unreasonable. I think it's very reasonable. Or as my wife put it, at what point did the criterion for being a 'top advisor' switch from 'do nothing wrong' to 'don't get caught when you do'?
This needs to be aired and explained. Quickly, succinctly, and authoritatively.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)