Mall Wind Turbines

Finally a wind turbine that isn't just for show and actually utilizes large buildings like malls and airports to create more flow.  I've mentioned before how stupid it is that companies will put on turbines on the sides of their buildings to seem environmentally friendly, but the turbines aren't really doing anything.  This turbine (Architectural Wind), shown here at the Maui Ocean Center in Hawaii, makes use of the accelerated air flow caused by wind being pushed up the sides of large walls.  I want to these more often.  Then, I might actually believe you are an environmentally conscious company.

Children Games

This man clearly never learnt how to play "stop hitting yourself".

Sharks

It is commonly known that sharks will eat anything, but I disagree. Just like every human, there has to be something sharks won't eat. For example, do you really think if you toss a cheeseburger into a shark tank that they'll just be like CHOMP and chow down on it.  I have my doubts.  Burgers might be eating, but I seriously doubt vegatables would get eaten.  Sharks may eat random junk but they obviously aren't as good trash cans as people think.  Otherwise, I would build a disposal drain in my table that leftovers get dumped through to a shark tank.

On a somewhat related note, if anyone has a pet shark or access to a shark, you should start a show like "Will It Blend?".  Each episode have a random object or item of food and see if the shark will eat it. I can personally say that I'd definitely watch that.

Highways

When you look at highways and really think about what you're looking at, it's kinda funny. It is like we've all been brainwashed to go places and we must drive inside the lanes at specified speeds. And every vehicle is doing the same thing. If you were driving at night with the highway empty, you would probably stay in your lane. What keeps us from just driving wherever we like? It doesn't seem like we are in control. We are not free to drive as we please, we are controlled by the government. Looking at streets in other countries such as Egypt or other middle Eastern countries, cars are all over the place with no organized lanes. So maybe some people would choose to stick to an imaginery lane, but if we had the freedom, we'd drive wherever it is convenient.  

Then I wonder if we all are going in the same general direction, at the same speed and are restricted to lanes, why bother driving ourselves? Some people must've figured this out and ride trains or subways. But why don't we have these systems everywhere or a human transport system of air tubes, like in Futurama. We buy cars, pay to be licensed, for gas, repairs, et cetera and we have to perform the function of driving ourselves. A robotic track system with individual pod cars would allow us to program in a location and relax until the car delivers us to our destination. It would almost completely eliminate accidents and some cars can park themselves now, so why not let them have entire control over driving? Let's be honest, driving is boring. At least highway driving from point A to B, racing and Sunday cruises have their own merits. So, really the only question left to ask is would you let governments raise tax to build some type of robotic system if it meant you didn't have to buy cars or pay for gas?

Time Travelling

Today I will be time travelling back to EST.  This gives me the opportunity to ask the question, is crossing time zones technically time travel?  If you are on the border of the Eastern and Central time zones and you jump from EST to CST, in less than 5 seconds you've gone back in time one hour.  Or if you happen to have a fighter jet, you can skip over many time zones and go back or forward several hours.  Is this really time travel?  You can watch a TV show at 8 PM and then the same episode again at 8PM if you rush from the Eastern time zone to the Pacific zone.  Obviously, you never actually travel through time looking at GMT or UTC.  I think this is kinda like "random" numbers.  Most random number generators just follow a massive pattern to appear random, these are actually only pseudo-random (random.org has a good explanation of this).  Time zone travel is not true time travel, but it is pseudo-time travel.  Well, I'm off to pseudo-time travel back to Ontario.

Re-Gifting

Are there limitations on what gifts can be re-gifted?  For example, birthday sex.  Can one re-gift this back to their partner at a later date?

"Honey, it's Friday (Friday), so I got you a present."
"Oh, what is it?"
"You know the sex you gave me for my birthday last week?  I decided to give it back to you."

Comment something else you can't re-gift below.

Ninja Scooter

How am I just hearing about this game now and why isn't there a Ninja Scooter franchise already?

Symbol Celebrities

~ Swinton

^ Top

&dra Bullock

: Farrell (or Firth)

/

* Jones

Little Known Fact

The song "What's My Name" by Rihanna is about her Grandmother who suffers from Alzheimer's disease.  Read some of the lyrics and think about it.

Oh Nana, what's my name?
Oh Nana, what's my name?
Oh Nana, what's my name?

This is a common symptom of Alzheimer's, sufferers can forget who you are in the middle of a conversation.  Unfortunately for Rihanna, this must be happening to her Grandmother.  The more you know!

Veggie Oil Bread

Mhmm, mhmm good! Just the way I like my bread, 100% vegetable oil.

New Pop Tarts Ad

Edit this to 30 seconds, slap a logo at the end and your done. Now you can hypnotize children into wanting Pop Tarts, or make adults buy more Pop Tarts until sales increase so much they can stop running the ad.

1984 Tech Theory

This is my brief theory [or rather it was supposed to be brief] explaining why the elevator in the apartment of Winston Smith from Nineteen Eighty-Four (by George Orwell) is always broken.

For those who have read the novel or know anything about it, you likely know that the Party (the government) reduces language, rewrites history, et cetera.  If they declare 2 + 2 = 5, then it is so.  I believe it is with these changes that the Party either intentionally (to keep technology and machines from the Outer Party and Proles) or unintentionally have changed enough of history, language or accepted physics standards that most mechanical objects for use by Proles and the Outer Party will not be built to last.

Exactly what fact or event was rewritten to cause this is unknown, but there are several possibilities.  Changing something simple like 2 + 2 from four to five could have been the cause.  Implementing the change and having all minds believe it would take more time than simply burning all copies of a news article.  So when engineers (who are probably in or close to the Inner Party design an elevator to hold 2 people, each who weigh 2 units, the marked capacity would be 5.  Then people in the Outer Party or Proles who are not yet indoctrinated with this change, will be overloading the elevator.  Eventually it will break.

It is also possible for language alterations and eliminations to have caused machinery to be faulty.  Similar to idea that removing words such as "hate" or "anger" will prevent people from thinking or feeling these emotions, if "brake" or some other similar key feature was removed from language, designers would not think or even know to construct those components.  An elevator without brakes would just crash on its first run.

Often events occur that lead to the formation of standards or codes, especially for safety.  If an engineer had built an elevator that malfunctioned resulting in death or injuries, after an investigation, laws may be created or amended regarding various things to ensure the safe operation of elevators in the future.  If this engineer becomes an unperson, all articles involving them would be destroyed or modified.  Say the investigation determined the engineer used the current safety factor (at the time) of 1.5 for the cables, which was then increased to 3 as a result of the malfunction.  Obviously, if this incident and associated standards published from it are erased, elevators would continue to malfunction.  One might argue that they would just modify the articles regarding the engineer to a different engineer.  This is a valid point, but remember that the party members who work in Minitrue and the politicians of the Inner Party who are both involved in modifying the documents are not professional engineers qualified to change design details of machines.  As an example, say, Winston received this document to "rectify" and as he is changing the "malreported" facts, he decides the investigation of this new engineer determined the safety factor should be increased from 1.5 to 2.  To him this may seem perfectly fine, but it may not be enough to avoid malfunctioning elevators.  He changed a small detail that was seemingly unimportant, but he was unqualified to make this change.

As various changes like those discussed above are repeated and all the changes compile, machines would no longer be designed to the quality standards they are today.  These machines would break down and any persons who say they know how to fix the machine would be accused of thoughtcrime.  Knowing how to fix the machine would mean they know things they shouldn't and it would also imply the Party was wrong, which they can never be.

In attempting to disprove my own theory, I thought about the fully functioning Telescreens that allow communication to Outer Party members and between them and Inner Party members (at Inner members' request).  Surely this must have complex machinery that would have been affected by at least one change and so, should also be malfunctioning.  Then I reminded myself that these machines are of no use to Outer Party members and only for spreading propaganda during "two minute hate" and as a surveillance system for the Party and Thought Police.  Telescreens are used only for the will of the Party and as revealed in Part 2, Chapter 8 of the novel, Inner Party members have privileges available to no one else.  O'Brien reveals their access to disabling the Telescreens and that they also get rare delicacies like wine (as opposed to awful Victory Gin).  So, it is very possible the Inner Party has access to technology not available to anyone else and since the Telescreens are mostly used to counter resistance efforts, they can be visible to all citizens.

It is for these reasons that I think Winston's elevator is broken and never fixed.  The literary meaning of the broken elevator is usually taken to be part of the dystopian atmosphere.  This theory fits it in with the censorship theme in a literary analysis.  The Party is depriving most citizens of technology and machines, many devices may not even be known to the public.  And you might even argue that depriving the public of technology fits in with the sexual repression theme of the novel.  A large portion of the internet is pornographic entertainment, and the Party believes sex should be for reproducing only, not enjoyment or pleasure.  Therefore, repressing technology which promotes contradicting ideals would be in the Party's interests.

In-Laws

The logic behind the names for relatives gained through marriage just does not make sense.  Let me first start by pointing out the obvious. Dating and/or marrying your sister is wrong and disgusting (as I'm sure most of you will agree).  Now, let's look at a man who marries a woman with one brother and the standard [aside: this term is questionable] set of two parents.  Once the man and woman are married, the woman's brother becomes the man's brother-in-law.  This is fact. He is essentially your brother, only by legal documentation.  So then, his sister would also be your sister, even if only by law.  Thus, I can only conclude that this man's wife is also his sister-in-law.  The man has married his sister, which we all agreed was wrong.  The same conclusion is made if one follows the logic of one of the parents-in-law.  Why would the term "sister" be chosen for a man's wife?  From here, you can believe one of two things.  Either sibling marriage is okay or the names for in-laws need to be changed.  I personally prefer the second option.  I'm not a language expert, so I can't use the origin of "brother" and "sister" to offer you better terms, but someone needs to.  If it is too difficult to create a new term, at least bump them back to cousins-in-law.  While still wrong, the weirdness of the terms is less obvious.

Get Ripped Spoiler

I'm sure you've seen them, but if not, here is an example of the ads I talk about. I believe I figured out the secret behind what these ads report will get you ripped in 4 weeks, or whatever short timeline. It's tanning. As the example ad clearly shows, the difference between the before and after photos is that he has been tanning. This secret is similar to all the diet and makeover commercials and infomercials you see on TV. Their secret is to style your hair and dress nicely. Every before and after photo set they show always has the after photo showing the person with a completely new hair style and not dressed like a slob. I've never click these ads before but from what I see, if you want to get ripped in 4 weeks, tan.  If you want to lose 10 pounds, hire a stylist.

Net Generation

Recently, I was wondering about how things might change as the "net generation" starts to reach the age where they have kids and jobs that impact society. I was thinking that it may become common for parents to check their baby name choices for free usernames on Twitter, YouTube, GMail, blogs, et cetera (Assuming they are still around). We might even start giving them as presents at baby showers, "here's a list of usernames and password for every major social networking site. I didn't know if Jesse was a boy or girl, so I made accounts for both."

It is hard to get usernames even today. So it might be smart to make them ahead of time or use such a unique baby name. Names like John, Matt, or Mohamed just can't cut it anymore. These names make it impossible to get a decent username. Especially for people with common last names like Smith or Patel. I have an even harder time because my initials are MRM. That means if another MRM or MattM doesn't take my name, one of the millions of men with a last name starting with 'M' will already have taken it. If I delay signing up for a new site, even for 30 minutes, all the good name combos for me are gone. It would have been smart to plan ahead (but of course that was never possible when I was born).

You might be saying that the kid might want a fun email or username for awhile. That's all well and good, but you can only use snorlax55555@yahoo.ca for so long. There comes a time when you start applying for jobs and your email address just gets weird. And as more people use the internet, your children may have a limited number of these names available to them. I think the next person I know who has a child, is going to get a list of pre-setup accounts, even just as a joke.

I won't go into the changes as the net generation become high ranking members of the community, because many of these changes have already begun. Online only newspapers, Twitter accounts for politicians, phones connected to the various online sites, and the many other recent changes with technology.

P.S. Now that I think about it, it's more likely that all humans will be assigned a unique number at birth (just like a student ID or social) that is used for all email addresses, social network accounts and various site logins. This would also make it easier to track who was sending spam or viruses, and tell if people really are who they say they are online.

Wind Energy

I've always found this annoying and kind of funny in a way. As a society in general, people want more environmentally friendly methods of power generation, such as wind turbines and solar panels. But then the instant the government listens and decides to install wind turbines, everyone in that community is suddenly against it and the town is full of "stop the windmills" signs. They're all for renewable energy, as long as it's nowhere near them. Corporations are just as bad. They really don't care one way or the other, as long as it makes them look good. I've seen wind turbines put on the side of department stores that never spin. The company could have put it high on the their roof or in some field where it might actually do some good, but then no one would see the "effort" the company is putting in to preserve the environment.

The thing I don't get is that the companies are worried that they will not be recognized for their good deed. Yet somehow environmental and animal advocacy groups get information not on display for the public, thus they should also see these deeds. I've been handed brochures before accusing a clothing manufacturer of genital electrocution on animals. I'm pretty sure they didn't have an animal tied to the side of their store being electrocuted, so obviously the things they do are being watched. So if they were to pay for wind turbines to be set up in an ideal location, the lobbyists would see that they aren't the anti-environment corporation they thought they were. We want renewable energy such as wind, but don't want to have turbines in our backyards. So we say large corporations should take the initiative because they have money to spend. So they construct useless turbines in the public eye to increase positive opinion and nothing changes.

The other reason I found this funny was because I saw several towns showing protest against these turbines during the worst of the job recession.  They obviously didn't realize the number of jobs this would be creating to have the turbines transported, built and maintained.

Half Acronyms

Are we slowly de-evolving? We must have reached our peak stage with our Ninety Eighty-Four-esque language with short forms and acronyms for everything. But recently I've notice more and more the use of half acronyms, which I henceforth dub hacronyms. Two examples I hear most often are, FY information and ASA possible. Language was functioning at maximum efficiency with common phrases reduced to as little as three letters. So why now is language reverting to these less efficient hacronyms?

The use of hacronyms can actually be quite funny when used properly in sitcoms, but use is real life in unjustified. And it's even worse when people can't grasp the concept of a hacronym and say the acronym and part of the phrase. I've seen the use of "FAQ questions," "FYI information," "for your FYI" and many others. In attempting to use an acronym they actually lengthened what they were trying to say and looked really dumb in the process.  For your for your information, seriously? This is like accidentally writing the word "the" twice or when people following physically laughing out loud by saying "LOL."

I've decided that if this is going to be permitted by society, I will regress language even further by using half English and half Latin phrases. No longer shall I use "et cetera." I must now use "and cetera," until society can no longer tolerate the de-evolution of language and once again returns it to its maximum efficiency. If you want to help me here are some other words you can use:

    Example gratia
    Quod erat demonstrated
    Ad infinity
    Good fide (or) Bona faith

There's plenty more to use, but unless you're a lawyer, you're probably not tossing them around too often.

I wonder how this got started and who is responsible?  Maybe it is a brain-washing advertising campaign by TGI Fridays?

Noah's Ark

Much like everyone else in the world right now, I've been following the tragedy in Japan. In thinking about everything with the tsunami, earthquake and the resulting disaster even with the protection measures they had. Seeing this, I really can't understand how some people still say that stories in the Bible are just that, stories. With the size of buildings today, there is still a lot of damage. Imagine Old Testament times where buildings were not as structurally sound and much shorter, thus easily destroyed with the same amount of flooding. No preventative measures against earthquakes and no barriers against tidal waves. The tragedy in Japan is still ongoing after several days, even with all the clean up efforts and support from around the globe. So it's not hard to believe an unrestricted tsunami could last 40 days and 40 nights before it spreads thin or is absorbed into the Earth. But why is the story of Noah's Ark so hard to believe? Maybe it's the animals coming to the ark, but it is quite common for animal to sense danger and react to avoid it. So animals coming out from their caves, nests, burrows et cetera to seek safety and get gathered up by Noah and his family. Not much else is out of the ordinary in Ark story and anything that is, is likely due to the story being transferred verbally before finally being recorded. Ever played broken telephone? It's like that. I really don't see what is difficult to accept about the events with Noah's Ark actually happening.

Epic Music

Is it just me or has playing music got a lot less epic with the latest developments in music formats. Now, if you want to show a friend some sweet song, you open your iTunes library (or whatever software you use) and double click the song and it plays. Or if your friend is elsewhere, you email it to them or link them to YouTube. Either way it is even lamer when you have a slow computer or media player. You tell your bud all about this wicked song, queue it up and then wait this long awkward pause until it finally plays. Probably the coolest modern way to share music is passing your friend one earbud and playing it on your iPod, and I'm still unimpressed.  

Rewind a few decades back to cassette tapes. Imagine popping in a cassette and all the clicks you hear as you close the tape deck. Wait for the cue tone (that slowly increasing pitch) and then your song plays. Pretty rad, but let's go back further to the LP. You pull out your new record sleeve (likely from a milk crate), slide out the vinyl and twirl it in between your fingers. Then you place it onto the turntable and listen to the beautiful crackling static as you drop the needle. With this epic a listening experience and the lack of one with the current medium, it's no wonder records have been coming back in style. Which sounds better to you? "Left click twice in rapid succession," or "drop the needle."

The Office

Most people know that season 7 (the current season) will be Michael Scott's last season since Steve Carell's contract will be expiring. And if you didn't, now you know.  The good news is that NBC plans to continue the show, which you may also have known.  The big question is who will be replacing Michael?  Will it be Jim or Dwight?  Or Pam?  Or Kelly!??  Jim has been the co-manager in the past, Pam has started a management type role, and Kelly took the Sabre executive training. But, I think it will go to none of these characters.  At the beginning of "The Seminar" episode, Michael ran into David Brent, the manager of Wernham Hogg in the original series.  They really hit it off and when Michael said he worked for Dunder Mifflin, David said, "Any jobs going?" Michael even agreed to let if know if any do.  David Brent has experience managing a paper company and even uses the that's what she said jokes.  He is the perfect candidate for the job.  Plus, Ricky Gervais is brillant.  Oh, and he is an executive producer on the show. Six seasons and he doesn't appear until the 140th episode, which just happens to be 7 episodes before the first part of the "Goodbye, Michael" episodes.  I really think there is a possibility Gervais could be replacing Carell, and I must say I am excited about this possibility.  You should be too!

vCards

Worst name ever.  I would love to meet the business masterminds and titans of industry who decided to name contact information vCards. For those who don't know, a vCard stores details such as phone numbers, name, email, etc. and is transferred through urls, tags, and QR codes. I am also quite certain vCard is a commonly known name for virginity. Imagine how odd mentions of vCards in everyday discussions will be, especially in business.  Great example, you are at a bar and introduce yourself to the man next to you.  He says, "Sorry, I'm only here to score as many vCards as possible."  Guys talking about taking a girl's vCard at a bar may not seem entirely weird, but imagine a business situation.  Say that after a client meeting the client leaves forgetting to leave his contact info and you hear your boss yell to him, "wait, I need your vCard."  If math and science have taught me anything, it is to not give two things the same name.  Come up with something original.  It may seem hard at first, but heeds much better results.  There had to be an alternative to vCard.  I guess this will only end with a sexual harassment lawsuit, because if The Office has taught me anything, it's that the Michael Scott bosses of the world will only take advantage of this.  "Sorry Dwight, I can't give you my vCard.  I lost it to Jan years ago." (And yes, nerd, I know Michael wasn't a virgin with Jan)

Wow, I`m Bored

Number One Gun, U2, Three Days Grace, Frankie Valli & the Four Seasons, Five for Fighting, Six Feet Under, Avenge Sevenfold (S Club 7, if that doesn't work for you), Maroon 5 + Three Dog Night, Nine Inch Nails, Ten Years After, Finger 11, 12 Stones, Eiffel 65 - B52s, ... nope, cannot continue (also to lazy too).

Flying Cars

This strip got me thinking, technology is known for rapid growth. People always throw around the saying, "in a year, your computer processor will be half the size and run at double the speed."  Okay maybe not that exactly, but it is commonly known that technology growth is exponential.  This made me wonder why we actually don't have flying cars already and why developments in that technological field seem slow in comparison to other industries.  I thought maybe some science fiction was better at predicting the future than others (such as George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four).  Looking into this, I found myself assuming what most people likely assume.  It is 21st century and flying cars have been imagined in every different way in TV, movies and novels.  But, despite it being the 21st century, it is only 2011.  Some of the most popular flying car examples I could think of were The Jetsons and The Fifth Element.  There is still time for flying cars to make their way from auto show prototypes to every suburban driveway, because The Jetsons takes place in 2062 and The Fifth Element in 2263.  Closer predictions, such as the year 2019 in Do Android Dream of Electric Sheep? (or Blade Runner), show more restricted flying cars like hovercrafts or those limited to flying close to the Earth's surface.  Other times the flying cars are only available to the government and wealthy people, as in the case of Blade Runner.  So maybe the flying cars out today are leading us towards this next step and soon towards flying cars for the common man.

[Sometimes when I look at how much time I spend thinking about or referencing a comic strip that should have only taken 30 seconds out of my day, I wish Randall Munroe would write a bad strip every once in a while.]

Wording

The ordering of words is important.  Simple differences in the wording and order of a sentence can completely change its meaning and how it comes across to people.  Let use the first date example.  Imagine the reaction of a woman when her date tells her he "lives with his mom."  She obviously thinks he is a loser with no future.  Now what if the man had said, "my mom lives with me."  The woman likely thinks he is a nice, sympathetic guy for taking in his mom.  Both statements tell you that the man and his mom live together, but neither actually specify who owns the house they live in.  Now if the man on the date wanted to admit who owned the house, he could say "I live in my mom's house" to the same reaction as the first statement.  But, if he stated that he lived in his mom's house differently, say "I moved into my mom's house."  He never specifies when he moved into his mom's house (whether at birth or recently).  With the assumption that the man on the date is not a teenager, this statement is usually taken to mean that he moved back into his mom's house, possibly to help take care of her or something.  Simply rearranging the words gives the woman a very different opinion of the man.  Weird.

NHL Sucks [Up]

I'm tired of the NHL and Commissioner Gary Bettman pandering to Americans. Most Canadians remember Jim Balsillie's several attempts and legal battles to purchase a team and move it to Canada. The NHL put Balsillie through as many legal battles as they could and always found ways to fund the teams in their current locations. Now the Atlanta Thrashers are struggling for funding and both Quebec City and Winnipeg are willing to bring in the team. Despite being 28th in attendance, the league has stated they will do everything possible to keep the team in Atlanta. Teams in the USA are dying left, right and center. Despite being consistently terrible for the last 40 years, the Toronto Maple Leafs are still fifth in attendance this season. The Canadiens are second, Canucks eighth and Senators tenth. Detroit is in fourth and they attract many Ontarians close to the border. [See 2010-2011 Attendance Report] Canadian teams are thriving whether they win or lose. There are dozens of cities in Canada that could easily support an NHL team, yet it is unlikely they will ever get one. The NHL focuses it's attention on keeping dying American teams alive and securing American TV deals. If more teams are located in Canada, they will consistently bring in revenue for the league and TV deals in Canada are guaranteed. I can't say for sure why this is, but one possible reason is Commissioner Bettman is American and wants to bring revenue to American cities. What perplexes me is how a sport toted as Canadian, has an American running its elite league.

This isn't the only attempt the NHL has made to please American fans. Some may remember FoxTrax, the electronic puck used by Fox in the 90s to follow puck movements with glowing streaks. Clips are easily found online, and you'll see that they are quite ridiculous looking [See 1996 All-Star Highlights].  Americans were complaining that it was too difficult to follow the puck on the ice (despite them being complete opposite colours).  I would argue other "gimmicks" and changes to the league were made to bring more excitement to the game and attract less loyal hockey fans in the United States.  Some of these are the change to a shootout after a brief overtime.  I had never seen an NHL shootout before this change and yet it was included in all my EA Sports NHL games growing up.  Penalty shots only occurred on rare occasions and fans got excited when these were called.  I think this change was made to make this excitement happen more often.  This isn't a bad thing (I find them very suspenseful), but I think changing the game to get more American viewers is bad.  Other things like the All-Star Fantasy Draft and the addition of the lottery system as part of the entry draft seem like ways the NHL tries to gather American media attention and give fans more to bet on.  If this is truly Canada's game, the NHL should realize the financial potential of the Canadian markets and allow them to develop teams.  Many hockey fans in several provinces and major cities in Canada must travel great distances to watch an NHL team.  If teams are located in these areas, the low attendance in American cities will increase greatly.  Plus, once teams are established and have a loyal fan base, tickets prices can increase and further increase revenues.  To put this into perspective, the cheapest Thrashers tickets are $10 USD each and the cheapest Leafs tickets are $35.50 CDA (which I believe is standing room behind the very back row).  Not to mention the lengthy waiting list for season tickets in Toronto, whereas I can sign up now to get excellent season seats for 2011-2012 in Atlanta and many other cities.

[Oh, I forgot one thing.  Why was the Star Spangled Banner sung during the NHL Heritage Classic between two Canadian teams (Flames and Canadiens) and played in Calgary, Alberta?]

This is Heavy Duty

This video is great!  Good music and a plethora of 80s film references.  James Roday just peed a little somewhere.

Benefits of Hybrids

Hybridization doesn't just give us eco-friendly cars.  Allow me to explain.  Vampires are a huge craze right now, but they have their downfalls.  They are restricted to darkness and drink blood, which usually involves killing people or animals.  Bam, vampire-human hybrid [and the dirt is gone]!  Imagine this, a vampire who can not only venture into sunlight [oh look, we didn't even have to make them sparkle], but whenever they feel the taste for blood they just bite their tongue literally.  A continuous cycle of fresh blood for themselves and no killing of humans.  Now the benefits of being a vampire can truly be taken advantage of.  Another hybrid with vampires was Michael, the lycan-vampire hybrid, from Underworld: Evolution.  As you know if you've seen the movie, he gained superior strength and the advantages of both species.  That's right, movie science wins.

Another example of these benefits is the iPad, which is basically half iPod and half laptop.  Not to mention all the popular smart phones that combine touch and full keyboard phones.  Even examples not from the modern era show the benefits of hybridization.  Take some of the mythological hybrids into consideration.  Snakes and reptiles are both pretty cool animals.  Merge them (sometimes add bat wings) and you have one of the coolest animals.  But, it's obvious that if you add two cool animals together you get one super awesome beast.  Well, look at Pegasus.  Horses and birds are not the most dominate animals, but a hybrid of horse and bird creates a majestic animal worthy of fierce warriors and gods.  Even words get better with hybridization.  Hybrid words (derived from two separate languages), such as automobile and television, are things we can't live without and other hybrid words are great if you want to sound smart (e.g. bioluminescence, macroinstruction, or quadraphonic).

Being Canadian, I shouldn't leave out Marquis wheat.  This was the hybrid wheat that helped Canada grow in population and industry due to its ability to survive in many harsh conditions.  Clearly there are more benefits to hybridization than environmentally friendly cars.  One might also notice many of these examples are very old.  Hybrids are nothing new, society has just become too lazy to create a new name for hybrid (or hybrid-electric vehicles), so they've just been called hybrids.

File Sharing

Why is file sharing considered wrong?  Is it illegal to invite a big group of friends over and watch a new DVD you purchased?  What about letting friends and family members borrow it and watch it at their homes?  Or to play a new record you bought to all your friends.  Well, people have been sharing media this way for decades and for some reason now that we have the internet to support sharing files, it becomes illegal.  I don't know about you, but I wasn't taught in kindergarten to tell other kids to go buy their own toy to play with. I learnt to share.

YouTube Theory

Why has YouTube become so popular and vlogging become a viable career?  My theory is based on its personal connection and the reality of vloggers.  TV series and movies all have characters that we love.  Viewers could see themselves being best friends with a character or dating one.  But, in the end these imaginary connections are made with characters played by actresses and actors.  Since most often these characters don't exist, the imagined connection is impossible.  I never understood how videos of people living their lives or talking about their day could garner so much attention and following.  I think it is because just like with TV and movie characters we can develop a connection to the vloggers, except that the characters of most vloggers are real (exceptions: lonelygirl15, sexynerdgurl).  Thus, no matter how ridiculous having your imagined relationship with the character is, it is actually possible.  Furthermore, the characters of vloggers are infinite (except for in death), whereas TV series and movies finish or get cancelled.  Any connections imagined with these characters is lost.  Due to the excess number of sitcoms and movies, the loss is only momentary as we develop a new connection.  But with connections imagined through vlogs, even if the user stopped uploading videos and closed their channel the connection can still exist.  This is because that person is still the same character they were in their vlogs (themselves) and the connection is made with their personality.  If you bumped into one of these people on the street, they would still act and dress in the same way you got to know them in.  Whereas, for example, actresses playing a cute, awkward girl will most likely not be that awkward person in real life (and they were probably wearing outfits specific to their role).

For those of you who are confused and don't understand what these connections I'm talking about are, just look at arrested development.  Just 3 seasons aired and fans developed such strong connections that for years they've fought and prayed for a movie continuation.  Or look at long series like Friends, Seinfeld, Scrubs, etc.  These series finales are big TV events because viewers don't want to let go of their favourite characters.  They hold onto the connections they've made and then watch re-runs to keep them alive.  YouTube allows viewers to be entertained and create real(istic) connections to the people entertaining them, and that it why so many people subscribe to vlogs.  The same is probably true for reality shows to some people.

One is Not Enough

This sort of continues from my Villain Movie post, which got me thinking about all the upcoming comic-based movies.  I realized that Hollywood may not be as dumb as I took it to be.  Looking at the upcoming superhero movies, it seems as if movies with one hero are no longer satisfying audiences.  X-Men has always been a popular film franchise and the next film, First Class, class may possibly show the stories of more than any of the previous films.  There has been much development of characters for the upcoming Avengers movie (Iron Man, Captain America, Thor, et cetera).  I hadn't heard anything for sure, but with Green Lantern out this summer and years of rumors about who will be the next Wonder Woman, I suspected an eventual Justice League movie.  Searching up on this it seems as if that is the actual plan.  The Superman film franchise had died after Superman Returns, prompting the Zack Snyder reboot, and after Spider-Man 3 it has been some time, work and recasting to get the franchise back on its feet.  Fantastic Four (and it's sequel) were released a few years back now and they made their dollars (maybe not all fans were pleased).  Is it at the point were not even four superheroes is good enough for audiences?  Maybe this is just a phase like the LOST and Heroes years of television, where we went from a couple of main characters to countless.  In time we will know if this is for the better, but for now all I can say is that X-Men: First Class looks pretty awesome.  Who cares if our attention span is decreasing and we need more heroes to hold our interest?  I'm still excited!

Villain Movie

There is an abundance of movies and movie franchises with superheroes as central characters.  A large majority of these heroes emerge after some form of tragedy (often a family one).  Bruce Wayne's parents are murdered, Batman is born.  Tony Stark is attacked and held captive, Iron Man is born.  Matt Murdock discovers his father is a mob thug causing him to get in an accident, Daredevil is born.  Peter Parker's Uncle is killed, Spider-man is born.  Britt Reid's father dies, Green Hornet is born.  But in reality don't many children become disobedient, get into drugs and generally misbehave in what ever ways possible after they experience tragedies like a parent's death, divorce, et cetera?  I constantly hear of studies saying that these events can cause kids to become criminals in later life, or other similar concepts.  Then why do these characters fight for justice?  There needs to be more villain movies.  Bruce Wayne's parents die and he kills thugs turning into a full blown serial killer or Tony Stark decides to use his Iron Man suit to way war on the country whose people held him captive.  These plots may make for really dark films, but it gives plenty of opportunity for redemptions or other perspectives.  Obviously no one wants to taint these heroes names, but with all the sequels, remakes and adaptations in Hollywood, some originally can't hurt.  Not wanting to be original and create a villain with his own world and back story is no excuse for not making villain films though.  Why is there not simply a reverse perspective superhero movie?  For example, the Dark Knight shown from Joker's perspective.  Feature Batman as a secondary character and focus on Joker's story and his inner struggles.  That might not be the best example, but eventually people will get tired of going to see sequel upon sequel.  Mix it up once it a while, the number of heroes out there is running low.  Even do some sidekick spin-off films if you have to (I mean, Kato is where all the action is in Green Hornet).  I'm sure people would watch a Robin movie.  He even comes with more developments for future superhero movies (i.e. Nightwing).  Why bore audiences with one hero development film followed by sequels with new enemies when you can progress from normal person to sidekick to superhero?  It's no secret studios love blockbuster franchises, and the more character development, the more sequels, thus more box office winnings.  Nonetheless, I'm still going to watch every one of the superhero movies that come out.

Newspeak¿

'av u eva writ10 @ 13tt3r 0r txt pos'd oƒ $h0r7 4m's 0π l337?  'tis r3@l1y h@rd 2 do, lol!  I $p3n|) moar t1m3 den !f I h@|) wr!t10 i|\| phü11 ¢10sez.  N.E. w@¥z, g0e$ w/o $@y!n9 ¡ \/\/!LL b <µtt!n dis p0§† $hø®t.

P.S. it took nearly an hour to type this brief message.

Plants vs. Fish

ZOMBIE FISH!  Just kidding.  This is just a short post about something I noticed.  I don't really understand the reasons for it, but maybe you do.  So while a group of people with me were eating sushi (some of whom had never tried it before) they were discussing related topics.  One person stated that they were fine with sushi, but are more hesitant about eating potentially poisonous fish.  I completely understand that someone might not be gung ho about eating sushi made from poisonous fish.  What I don't get is that people have no issue eating things like a rhubarb pie, but are completely against sushi from poisonous fish.  Some fish are potentially poisonous, but when prepared properly they are safe for consumption.  This is the same with rhubarb.  Rhubarb is potentially poisonous but if prepared properly (i.e. without the leaves) most have no problem with eating it.  Both are poisonous living things that if correctly served are consumable.  So why does the poisonous fish seem more intimidating to eat?  Kinda weird, so for now I'll just stick to eating no sushi at all.

Music and YouTube

Nearly everyone has clicked a link to a video and found that the video was removed or the audio muted, so you should know what I'm talking about.  Record companies, such as WMG, force YouTube to remove videos uploaded with songs by their artists.  Often this is because they have the video posted on their own page and prefer it be viewed there, so they'll get money from YouTube.  There are several things wrong with this.  I have experienced several times where I was looking for a song and the artist doesn't have a YouTube channel or the song isn't posted.  Eventually I find one audio-only copy and there is nothing but thanks in the comments for finally posting that song.  This is great, but more often than not I'm too late and the audio is muted or the video is completely gone.  If these record companies are too lazy to upload a song sought after by so many users, they why are you punishing someone for doing you the favour of uploading it for you?  At least do us the courtesy of uploading the song on your channel, you already know by the millions of views that people want to hear that song.  Do you not want whatever amount of money that would make you on YouTube?

I will agree that the videos that post the song along with a link to a free download had legitimate reasons for being removed.  But I myself was once banned for the one time occurrence of posting songs from a Muse album that had been released.  I had purchased the album on its release day and posted the songs for people to hear who hadn't bought it or in areas that it was still unreleased.  I asked through annotations what people thought of the album and I had my inbox flooded with comments saying they couldn't wait to pick up the album.  These songs were not online at the time and as a fan of the band I was helping to spread their music to the world.  Apparently, record companies hate free advertising and banned my account (even though you supposedly have 3 strikes).  Further to the point of free advertising, once record companies do upload their songs or music videos, most disable embedding.  Okay, so you're completed against someone else uploading a video for you, I can be fine with that.  But now you've uploaded the song and to help share this song and support the artist, hundreds of people would like to embed the video on their blogs, personal websites, profiles on whatever social network, etc.  What reason could you have for this?  Almost every embedded video I watch, I end up following back to the original page on YouTube.  Even if I don't try to do this, the normal clicking the video to pause instead links to the video page.  For greedy companies they are for some unknown reason against others helping them make money.  YouTube needs to put record companies in their place.  Fair use under United States law says it is not infringement to use a works for comment or criticism.  At least all the videos I posted had questions asking what people thought and had discussions in the comments.  I was not making any commercial gains from uploading these videos and only helped increase the potential market value (maybe even only by one album sale).  I don't know what record companies' problem is.  The internet is well established and people already download music, so if they're not going to make there music easily available, everyone will just download it.  Why waste $20 on an album or the few dollars on iTunes for a song when I can download and try the songs risk free?  Turns out the album sucks, just delete it knowing you didn't get suckered into paying money to find that out.

I think I've complained long enough, just search WMG on YouTube.  There is an abundance of video expressing their distaste for the situation out there.

3D Thinking

Besides the technical complaints against 3D, such as whether filming is done in 3D or converted in post production, I think there is one major reason why some people don't enjoy 3D movies.  They say it is a marketing gimmick or fad and yet there are those who see the merit and quality of 3D.  The reason why some people do not appreciate 3D technology is that they think in 2D.  It is a reflex for them to think in 2D, so it should be possible over time to have them gain an appreciation for 3D.

I'm not for or against 3D, I like a good movie in 3D but don't like movies made for the sake of using 3D technology.  When you think about it, it starts to make sense.  Ask people to draw a box and many will draw a square, and often the opposite occurs (people referring to a square as a box).  Recently, I was offered a dessert.  They asked me, "would you like a square?"  These squares were different, some crumbled pastry and some fudge.  But they were not square, they were cubes.  In the same way that Rice Krispie squares are rectangular prisms.  It seems as though our minds have been conditioned to react in 2D.  Some might argue that Rice Krispie cubes don't have "the ring" to it.  But say these were initial branded cubes instead of squares way back in the 1920s at their inception.  After 90 years of calling them cubes, squares would sound out of the ordinary.  I've seen other examples pointed out to people (even myself sometimes), where an object is called a shape but wasn't that shape.  Similar to how many people call tissues Kleenex, thinking in two dimensions has been normal for so long, after a while we don't realize the error in what we say (or think).  The only question left is if the harsh critics of the 3D boom can think in 3D.  Obviously this is difficult to test and James Cameron is the only true 3D thinker who could perform such a study.