Grundy's Box of Soap

Celebrity Sorrow

2008-06-24T20:43:00.000-07:00

This past weekend drag racer Scott Kalitta was killed in a violent racing accident. The crash marked the first time I can remember networks televising and re-televising an event in which someone died. The fire and explosion were spectacular enough to be the product of a big-budget hollywood movie, which leads me to believe they chose to air the footage in distaste for the sake of ratings. My wife is of the opinion that the networks' desicion reflects the YouTubing of the world. It was going to be available no matter what.
My wife took the news emotionally. She has met Scott Kalitta before while out at the races and has followed his career along with many other racers since she was a little girl. Still, I used to think it was very unusual to shed tears over a celebrity. Afterall, she didn't know him on a personal level and he didn't know her at all.
I've also known people to get choked up over the passing of bigger celebrities. When Princes Diana died, the few people I knew hailing from England where very saddened.
I said I used to not understand crying over a celebrity because I do understand now. I had my own experience when one of the hosts of a weekley audio podcast passed away. The Skeptics Guide to the Universe is a weekly round table dissucusion about science and skeptisim that lost Perry DeAngelis, who I still miss from the show today. When he died I felt the void and the loss in the other hosts voices. I didn't cry, but my mind wondered to that show and that loss for quite a time after. If Jack Nicholson died tomorrow I would miss never seeing another of his films, but I wouldn't feel any personal loss like I did with Perry.
I think the two major elements that contribute to an emotional response to a public figure is the figure dying before his or her time (which is of course sad no matter who it is) and a personal connection to the celebrity. The English had that with Diana. My wife had that with Kalitta. She is a fan of a sport that many people don't follow and feels a connection to the drag racing family she visits, if just through a TV, every weekend. I likewise feel the same with the Skeptical family of my weekly show.
Rest in piece Scott Kalitta, Princess Diana, and Perry DeAngelis; you will be missed, even by those you may have never met.

Living in a Material World...or a Digital World?

2008-04-21T15:18:00.000-07:00

In the movie The Matrix, we explore the possibility that we are human batteries living in a simulation. This of course is an absurd fantasy. It is much more likely that we are not human at all.
Our own technology is quickly advancing to a point in which we can run a simulation so complex that it is virtually indistinguishable from reality. Take video games as a crude example. We have an expansive 3-D world inhabited by models, bots, and avatars exhibiting limited artificial intelligence. A human player may interact with this world or merely observe it.
According to Moore's Law, our computing power doubles every two years. This exponential growth opens up the idea that it wouldn't be long before the AI becomes human-like and the simulations perfectly realistic. There is some debate whether Moore's law will continue into the future as the idea of quantum computing is explored. However, even if our progress slows, it will still progress.
What's all this have to do with The Matrix? I'm saying that there is a possibility that we are living in it, but not as humans jacked into the machine, but as the machine itself. We could be the artificial intelligence in a digital world.
This wild theory can also be applied to some of the wild science we are experiencing—both on the very large and very small scale. Many scientists now believe that the universe is like a sheet of space-time shaped into a sphere or a donut. One of the implications of this is that a ship could fly through space in one direction and eventually end up where it started. This is how many simulated worlds work. If you move past the edge of the game map, you end up on the other side.
As far as the very small, we have quantum physics. Early findings seem to show that the activity of particles behave differently depending on whether or not the scientists observe them. It can even be said the they don't exist until observed. Remember the old saying "if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?" It's kind of like that. It is also like a game that only needs to call up the areas of the simulation that the human player is interacting with.
I'm not going to say I believe this is the case, but I do find it more likely than, say, aliens visiting. As we understand the universe, no ET could travel the distance to earth within any realistic lifespan. The need for faster-than-light travel, extremely long life spans, cryogenics, and extreme alien motivation; are all more unlikely than what we are already on track to accomplish. If our world is not a simulation, it is likely that we will one day create a simulation with AI that do not realize they are not "real." In fact, the both could be true, allowing for a simulation with a simulation.

My head just exploded.

The Real Imaginary Justice League

2008-04-16T15:33:00.000-07:00

I'm going to nerd out more than usual for a moment to address the age-old fanboy question "who would win?" Batman? Superman? Spiderman?
Every fight needs ground rules. My imaginary battle royal will be among DC comics main Justice League characters: Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, Martian Manhunter and the Flash. The characters motivation for fighting amongst friends is important, so I am giving one. Lets say that Braniac has altered their perception of each other so that they see each other as aggressive threats to the planet.
Fight!
Superman, Flash, Woman Woman and Martian Manhunter are all capable at moving—and more importantly thinking—many times faster than ordinary humans. Any one of them could take Green Lantern's ring away and knock out Batman in the first second of battle, and if they were serious about the fight, they would. Martian Manhunter would probably phase out and turn invisible to avoid a surprise attack. Flash is faster than the others, but not enough so to overcome. Superman can move fast enough to get close to him and use his heat vision to get him off his feet. By then Wonder Woman would have the jump on Superman, but it wouldn't matter. Martian Manhunter would telepathically shut down their minds ability to continue the battle.
This is a likely scenario, it could easily not turn out this way. However, I do stand by a couple things. First, Batman and Green Lantern would be the first to go. And either Superman or Martian Manhunter would be victorious, depending on whether or not Superman could use heat vision before being telepathically attacked.
The writers of comics want to keep things interesting, so when a story calls for having characters of vastly different power levels at odds, they find a way to write in a close fight. Batman can compete with Superman because of a kryptonite ring, or the element of surprise, or clever planning. Writers win the battles, and not the actual merit and abilities of fictional characters. Just feel confident that whichever character that is in the right will eventually overcome. After all, the good guy always wins.

My Top 75 Favorite Movies

2008-03-22T19:42:00.000-07:00

The Godfather
Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back
The Godfather, Part II
Raiders of the Lost Ark
The Silence of the Lambs
Jaws
It's a Wonderful Life
Dead Poets Society
Lord of the Rings Trilogy
Unforgiven
Hook
Star Wars: Return of the Jedi
Batman
The Departed
Minority Report
Jurassic Park
The Fugitive
The Matrix
Star Wars: A New Hope
Fight Club
Seven
The Shawshank Redemption
Pulp Fiction
Ghostbusters
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
Full Metal Jacket
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade
Batman Begins
Casino Royal
Airplane!
The Princess Bride
Signs
Terminator 2
Men in Black
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
The Bourne Ultimatum
Superman II
Groundhog Day
The Usual Suspects
Gangs of New York
Gladiator
Office Space
Goldfinger
The Sixth Sense
The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
The Incredibles
Back to the Future
Princess Mononoke
As Good as it Gets
Casino
The Wizard of Oz
Batman Returns
Billy Madison
Battle Royal
Fantasia
Acnchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy
Blade Runner
Apocalypse Now
Tombstone
Planet of the Apes
The Wedding Singer
Who Framed Rodger Rabbit?
Collateral
Good Morning Vietnam
Blade Runner
Snatch
2001: A Space Odyssey
L.A. Confidential
Memento
Close Encounters of the Third Kind
Braveheart
The 40-Year-Old Virgin
Mr. Smith Goes to Washington
From Dusk 'Til Dawn
Rear Window

LOST Theory of Time

2008-02-16T08:16:00.000-08:00

As of the third episode of season four, "The Economist", I believe the nature of the island has become more clear. My new theory explains the following along with other time distortions involving the island:

Why Richard Albert seeming doesn't age
Why Daniel Faraday's payload arrives over 30 minutes late
Why Walt is disproportionately older then when he left

The short version of my theory is this: time moves more slowly on the island then it does off the island. A few characters (such as George Minkowski and Demond David Hume) are named after scientists who worked with time and Einstein's theory of relativity. One of the ideas in relativity is that time can move slower to someone traveling relative to someone staying still. For example, if I took a flight around the world I would be slightly younger relative to someone who didn't take the flight. The difference in the resulting age isn't measurable, but if I could travel longer at speeds approaching the speed of light, it would be. Some of the Others know about this to some degree, like Aldo who was reading A Brief History of Time. Faraday is starting to realize it, beginning with his observation that the light on the island "didn't scatter right," which it wouldn't if the island moves with the light.

When the payload arrives 30 minutes late, it doesn't mean the island is 30 minutes behind the rest of the world, it means the team that just arrived is 30 minutes behind the rest of the world. The Oceanic survivors are considerably further behind and Desmond and Rousseau are further still. So when the Oceanic Six leave the island, they may be returning to a world that is much further from the date of the crash then they expect and their flashforwards may be very forward. This also explains why Walt is older even though he hasn't been off the island that long. While he was off, much more time has passed for him. Albert barely ages because he rarely leaves the island, Ben has aged more because he must have left the island regularly through his life--as seen with all his passports and worldly currency from "The Economist."

A theory add-on is as follows. It is possible that from the island you can access different times depending on the direction you leave. Ben gave Michael special directions to leave the island with a certain baring, Faraday gave Lapidus similar directions. What if leaving with another baring took you to another time? That would explain why these different organizations (Hanso, Dharma, whoever the team works for) want control of the island. It also puts the Priest and the Ring lady that influnced Desmond's path to the island as Others, and can include Richard and/or Ben as possible time travelers. It also can help explain why the old polar bear skeleton is found, the strange history of the island with the Black Rock and the giant statue, and the Adam and Eve skeleton found on the island.

With this theory in mind, Ben and the others are the "good guys." They are doing whatever is necessary to keep the island from falling into the wrong hands. If the power of time was abused it would alter histories, cause paradoxes, and end the world. Sayid would help Ben if he finally understands this, and Jack would want to return to the island if he felt the world he returned to was altered for the worse.

Poker Gods: A post from HellsColdDay.com

2008-01-24T19:23:00.000-08:00

The following is a post from HellsColdDay.com

No one can deny that luck is an important factor in every player’s success from day to day. A daily player who assessed his profits for the year, can accurately chalk up his winnings to skill, but the guy who wins the World Series of Poker, although skillful to some degree, had a very lucky day.

Oh can we live with this? We must accept that we are not masters of our own fate. We have to look at our bad beats and know that it everything happens for a reason. Winning that hand was not part of the Poker Gods master plan. When your full house loses to a straight flush on the river, take comfort in the fact that you were predestined to lose. What the Poker Gods giveth, they taketh away.

I use the allusion of a higher power governing gambling so that I can sleep at night after that two-outer hits against me, but I know that deep down, they are a fair Poker Gods. I may never get as lucky as some yahoos I play against, but that is because I don’t put myself in a position to need to hit my only out. But I do occasionally have luck on my side, and I know that I don’t dwell on my good fortune as long as I obsess on the bad. It is human nature, and it is what makes us always feel like the underdog.

So I put my faith in the Gods and accept their judgment. For I am but a man, and cannot alter the river’s course.

2007-12-25T09:46:00.000-08:00

Merry Christmas!

Don't send a lame Holiday eCard. Try JibJab Sendables!

Hell's Cold Day, a new poker blog

2007-11-25T18:05:00.000-08:00

I know I don't post to his blog but about twice a month, but I'm starting a new one. In contrast to this blog's randomness, my new blog focuses on poker and only poker.

Hell's Cold Day is for the common card playing audience, meaning it will not talk about the games with huge buy-ins and the strategy that accompanies them. The play can be quite different. What it takes to win a $10 tournament or .10/.20 cent blind games is different than what it takes to win $100 minimum buy-ins.

I will share my experience and observations of others based on both on-line and real world play. I'm no pro, but you need not worry I know how to improve your game. For a reference on my skill in low-limit games, long-term records show I make about $10/hr.

If that sounds like you cup of tea, check out Hell's Cold Day. If not, I'm still here.

The Death of Superman made me love comics

2007-11-21T12:49:00.000-08:00

DC Comics recently released an animated remake of their classic comic book series detailing the death and return of Superman. The animated feature, Superman/Doomsday, is a different take on the original and I recommend you watch it. As far as action goes, it is far better than the recent live action film, Superman Returns. If you have watched it, I recommend you read the original story.

The first comic book I ever read featured Superman's beaten corpse laid out on the streets of Metropolis on the cover. It was the first issue of A Funeral for a Friend, a story addressing the aftermath of Superman's fight with Doomsday. The battle ended in mutual death. Funny enough, I didn't read the actual fight until more than a year later. I also didn't stay with the funeral books for the whole storyline.

The story that really ignited my interest was the following Reign of the Supermen story arc. It was a very long epic told over four Superman titles detailing the four different Supermen who appeared after Superman's death. They were the "Cyborg Superman," the "Man of Steel," "Superboy," and "Superman, the Last Son of Krypton." I am not going to spoil it, because if you ever have thought yourself a fan of Superman, you need to read it. Looking back I now am amazed that the first 50 or more issues of Superman books that made me love the character, didn't even include the real Superman.

In response to overly positive iPhone reviews compared to the iPod Touch.

2007-10-24T14:22:00.000-07:00

Steve Jobs says the iPhone is the best iPod ever, but he's lying. Jobs wants to push the iPhone because he gets a cut from at&t, understandable. I, however, don't want to do business with at&t-- and that is reason #1 to opt for the iPod Touch.

The Touch has the same awesome interface as the iPhone and twice the memory for the price. The draws are there, and so are the drawbacks. It doesn't replace a phone, it doesn't have internal speakers, and you can't use internet anywhere that doesn't connect to a wifi network... I like my current phone (first time in my life I can say that), I think playing sounds from you personal media device in public is rude, and I almost never need the internet unless I am around wifi (besides the at&t data network is so slow I couldn't bear using it anyway).

If you need a new phone and are already with at&t, get the iPhone if you are in the market for one. But, remember the phone is only as good as the network. I'm happy with my iPod Touch.

Free Poker!

2007-10-17T14:58:00.000-07:00

For those of you that didn't know, on-line gaming (gambling) was made illegal in the US not long ago when the law was slipped into some off-topic legislation by Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) and his counterpart Rick Boucher (D-VA). By the way, don't vote for them. I have since quit playing on-line even though some poker rooms still accept US money. I'm posting now because of a new development.

The European Union wants upwards of 100 billion dollars compensation for violating international trade acts by the illegalization of on-line gaming. Makes sense for them since most on-line poker rooms are in Europe or otherwise abroad. I say good for them.

What the US should do to make it right is to free us from this prohibition and let Las Vegas open up on-line poker rooms of their own. Hell, tax it it you have to. When you European Union gives you lemons, make lemonade.

That is all.

Join the 3rd Party Revolution

2007-08-24T16:43:00.000-07:00

I talk to friends and coworkers about the usual stuff-- the weather, what's on TV, politics... and it got me thinking. Many people are Republicans because they don't want to be Democrats, Democrats because they don't want to be Republicans. I know some that would vote Libertarian, but think they would just be throwing their vote away. In almost all cases, people don't agree with most of their own party's politics. A friend of mine is almost the ideal Democrat, but is against abortion so votes Republican. Another would literally need a party formed around them to be happy.

I know not everyone can be completely happy with the wide range of issues a party deals with, but they could be happier.

There's my rational. Now a little background on me: First, I've never been into politics. I was always the last to enter a political conversation and the first to leave. I consider myself moderate. I do vote, but never criticize people who don't. This is why I think I can start the ball rolling at Politicl. Politicl.com is my new website to form a community around a new political party.

The internet is allowing us to connect in ways we never have before. Look at the power of social networks. MySpace and Facebook have a user base so populous that it is easy for me to believe that Politicl can grow to a number of supporters beyond the current third parties in a matter of years. Strong enough that by the presidential election of 2012, we will have candidate of our own in position to truly compete and defeat the big two parties of today.

Politicl.com is currently closed. Comment here if you like the idea and I'll let you know when it's running again.

The Ad-supported Cellphone

2007-08-09T14:45:00.000-07:00

Now that everyone has had a chance to play with Apple's take of cellphones, who wants to see what Google can do? I believe Google is on that path.

Recently Google has acquired a variety of interesting cell and VoIP companies including GrandCentral.com, a start-up I mentioned in a previous post. Most importantly, they are taking part in the auction for the analog spectrum now open from television's switch to digital. They, or a major cell company most likely, will be purchasing the spectrum for over ten billion dollars. The winner would be in position to offer cell coverage cheaper than ever... or as expensive as ever while taking a much bigger profit.

If Google wins this I believe they will enter the cellular arena with an ad-supported phone. A phone that would involve either a free or cheap monthly plan as a trade off for ad placement. I could see ad placement taking advantage of the phone's built in GPS so the advertisments would be localized. Google knows a device you carry with you and listen to constantly is very valuable of real estate.

Even if Google is trying to take over the world, I hope this victory will be theirs. Cell companies as they are now take advantage of their customers to no end. They either need to be put out of business or change their business model.

Grundy On Poker: Part 1

2007-07-30T06:42:00.000-07:00

I know a lot of poker players who are able play the game well enough to profit in the long run, but don't. It isn't because they're calculating the odds wrong or even misreading the opponents, it is because of their lack of discipline.

Playing a friendly game once a month for low stakes is one thing, but to make a living from the game is another. It's because playing at your best in the short game is far easier than stretching that amount of focus over a day-long tournament, a week-long tournament, or a multiple year-long professional poker career.

Next time you have a string of bad beats, and you will if you haven't already, stick to your game. You can do everything right and still loose in the short-run, but in the long-run the best player will be known. It takes patience, focus, and a little humility to stay off the tilt that will loose the day.

I leave you with a passage from Robert Service's poem "Carry On!"

It’s easy to fight when everything’s right,
And you’re mad with thrill and the glory;
It’s easy to cheer when victory’s near,
And wallow in fields that are gory.
It’s a different song when everything’s wrong,
When you’re feeling infernally mortal;
When it’s ten against one, and hope there is none,
Buck up, little soldier, and chortle.

The Superman Debate

2007-06-20T20:23:00.000-07:00

Today marks my first posting in response to another posting, in this case The Lars lastest episode. For those of you who don't listen to podcasts, I'm not going to try to convince you. For those who do, check out the Dharmalars on iTunes for movie reviews, discussion on the TV show Lost and (infuriating) debates on pop culture icons.

Most that know me personally know that my favorite fictional character is Superman. People have seen my wallet marked with the S-shield as well as a dog tag hanging on my computer supporting the Christopher Reeve foundation. This post allows me to both answer the question "why do I like Superman" and defend Ben of the Lars' stance on the "awesomness of Superman."

I don't like Superman for his powers or his status. He's not as cool of a character as Batman or Spawn or members of the X-Men. He's my favorite because of what he stands for. Ralph, the Lars counterpart to Ben, made the argument that Superman is irrelevant because he cannot relate to him. In his stories, Superman saves lives without taking credit because he cannot let the world know who he really is, Clark Kent, without endangering everyone he cares about. Superman restrains power enough to vaporize someone with a glance with his oath to never take a life. He has enough power to take the world and reshape it, but knows it's not his place. Absolute power never corrupts him. With greater power comes greater responsibility. You're right, Ralph, no one can relate to him-- that's why he's the best.

Atheists may Consider Gambling on Heaven

2007-06-10T11:19:00.000-07:00

I've been thinking of the devout believers in my life. As far as religion goes, I know more devote Christians in my life then other religions, so I will be referring to them as my example.

Many people who do not frequent church or take part in organized religion, and even some who do, are often annoyed when a friend works to hard in an attempt to convert you. I suppose you can relate, after all who are they to tell you what to believe. However, if they are truly your friend and believe in their heart that if you don't convert to their beliefs that you will certainly go to hell, then what kind of friend would they be if they didn't spend every waking hour preaching to you the gospel.

What I'm saying is that I at least understand their motivation. It is a mission of charity based on deep faith. What I didn't understand is the same devotion from an atheist. I think of atheism as a lack of belief in any god. I don't think anything is wrong with that, but why do they need to convert anyone? Religion should not matter to them because it has no influence on their life. I didn't want this posting to sound one-sided so I researched all possible motivatations for speading doubt in other peoples faith in god. The main reason that made sense to me was that most of the wars and bloodshed throughout human history have been grounded in two opposing beliefs in a higher power and widely adapted atheism would put an end to these holy wars. Also I can see that certain religions can slow scientific progress.

After realizing this, I can see their point. Ending widespread violence is a very good reason, but I doubt atheism would herald in world peace. And even if it could, it may be too big a price to pay. For those who have faith, it brings so much fulfillment to their life that they would never give it up, and are willing to give their lives for it. I think I understand atheism, and as a "man of science" I can emphasize with their doubts in Christianity, but for now I will leave you with an argument for faith based on a principle of mathematics- probability. Blaise Pascal, a mathematician from the 1600's, said: if you believe in god and there is a god, then you can go to heaven; if you believe in god and there is no god then it doesn't matter; if you don't believe in god and there is a god, you risk going to hell; and if you don't believe in god and there is no god, then it doesn't really matter. The possible gain from belief is so much greater than the possible gain from unbelief, christianity was the bet that gave the highest gain. This is what is referred to as Pascal's wager.

Telephones aren't just for telephones anymore.

2007-05-30T11:49:00.000-07:00

On my mission to register my handle on every new Web 2.0 site, I've been coming across a trend of online telephony gimicks-- a couple of which I really like.

This post is to recommend these services, I'm not going to go into what VoIP or voice over internet protocol means, but if you've heard of Vontage or Skype you already know it's out there. I will just say that if you want a very cheap telephone line, look into Skype.

That aside, you don't need VoIP for these services. The first site is Jangl.com and it allows you to leave a callback number (or callback link) on your website, myspace page, email signature, classified ad or anywhere you want, which isn't you real number. You keep your pivacy and can discontinue the number for each or all callers who contact you through the service at will.

Jott.com I like even more. First you set up a number for you to call Jott. Then you can have it read your address book so that you can "jott" anyone with an email address. The voice regonition is great. I call the service, it replies "Who do you want to jott?" and I say the name of anyone in my address book and it prompts me to speak my message. Next thing you know, the recipent has your spoken message as text in their email. You can also jott yourself reminders.

Both those services are free. Y'know what else is free these days? 411! You don't ever pay for 411 information again, under the condition of listening to advertisements. Two services I've found do this now: 1-800-FREE-411 and 1-800-GOOG-411, a Google service. Both work well, and both have sponsors. Sponsors equal ads.

I may post more on these services in the future because they are always growing. GrandCentral.com caught my eye just yesterday for example. As for now, you're on your own.

"I want to believe" or "Is life unique to Earth"

2007-05-26T06:50:00.000-07:00

Lately I have been interested in life outside of earth. I don't know if it is because of reading one to many crazy Lost theories or zoning out to the Astronomy Cast postcast, but I've been wondering...

Put aside the fact that I saw a UFO years ago, I don't believe aliens have been spotted by humans. However, I have always believed that extraterrestrial life must exist in a universe this big. In fact, a lot of otherworldly intelligence must be out there, right? Law of averages and all. But then why haven't humans seen them if the galaxy is teeming with life?

I'm obviously not the first person to wonder. The Fermi paradox is the name of the contradiction between high estimates of the probability of the existence of alien life and the lack of evidence for or contact with such civilizations. (Thanks Wikipedia.) Mr. Fermi asked the question and a Frank Drake attempted to answer it.

The Drake equation I find very interesting. It multiplies the factors deemed necessary for our contact with ET, unfortunatly we can only estimate the values of these factors. The factors to consider are the rate of star formation in our galaxy the fraction of those stars that have planets, the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets, the fraction of the previous that actually go on to develop life at some point, the fraction of the previous that actually go on to develop intelligent life, the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space, and the length of time such civilizations release detectable signals into space. Estimates for these fractions range from .0001 to 10,0000 depending on who you ask.

From what I know now, I doubt we will find intelligent life in a long long time if ever, because I think earth is very unique. Earth is a prime breeding ground for life, the likes of which we have yet to see on any other planet. I am not only basing this on the presence of water and atmosphere, or the ideal distance from the sun. The type of sun matters too. Most stars are not like the sun. A star needs at least as much metal in it to support life as we know it. Also, earth is lucky to have Jupiter where it is positioned in our solar system. Without it, the meteors and a asteroids that now are pulled into its gravity would collide with earth on a fairly regular basis.

Thinking back through what we know of our biological history, life almost didn't arise many times over; and then, almost didn't evolve. If the dinosaurs never died off, humans would not be here. As for hoping aliens could develop as far as we have or further, we have to look at history as well. Our civilization as been crippled in the past (fall of Rome) as well as nearly destroyed (nuclear war.) What's to say alien cultures would be as lucky to avoid these growing pains?

My conclusion is this: I now believe that life may be out there, but rare enough for civilizations to never cross paths. Which may very well be a good thing.

PRS not the same as drawing straws

2007-04-21T07:46:00.000-07:00

I hate it when people use paper, rock, scissors to make a random choice-- when it is the equivalent to drawing straws. On more than one occasion I have been with a friend facing some situation in which one of us had to do something neither of us wanted to. How to decide who falls victim to the unfortunate act? Flip a coin? Draw straws? No, paper, rock scissors always comes up. Now depending how badly I want to get out of said situation, and how fair I want to be to the other person, I will agree or disagree to this. If I agree, I turn what should be a random choice into a definite outcome, and I take away from the skill game of paper, rock, scissors.

What do I mean by this? I mean I will not lose. I know my friends well enough that I will win every two-out-of-three games of paper, rock, scissors along with most one-shots. I know this because it is not a game of chance, it is a game of skill.

Poker comes to mind, a game of skill that involves chance. A good player will profit over a bad player certainly in time, but the element of luck can't guarantee a win for the good player in any one game. Paper, rock, scissors is even less so. It doesn't involve cards or dice or fate, just what you know of the other person. It requires even more of a "read" than poker does.

So here's a tip to improve your game. Until you get very good at predicting what your opponent will throw, focus on predicting what he will not throw. For instance, if he or she just threw rock and you know he wouldn't use it twice in a row, you should throw paper. That way you are safe, and have a 50/50 chance of winning the round.

It's the Social Network Hoedown!

2007-04-15T12:37:00.000-07:00

There is a lot out there for social networkites. MySpace is still the leader in number of users, but I'm here to tell you about lesser known, but perhaps better options.

Everyone who would ever consider joining a social network at least knows of Facebook by now. Students have known about it and used it for the longest as it was originally open only to them. Now it's public and has enough users that Yahoo reportedly offered over a billion dollars for the site. The amazing thing is the offer was turned down. I suppose the Facebook founders are holding out for two billion, but I doubt that Facebook will become any more relevent than it is today-- meaning the next offer will no doubt be less.

The social networkites are fickle, you see. And new networks are popping up better than MySpace and Facebook. I just started toying with Virb.com, which has more in common with MySpace but is a whole lot prettier. It allows customizing the HTML and CSS code to make pages look like high-quality web 2.0 sites. Though even without the customization, pages look better than 90% of MySpace profiles.

A little outside the box are sites like Twitter and Jaiku, which are less profile page oriented. Twitter is more like the status option of facebook, or an away message. It is microblogging that answers the question "what are you doing right now?" Actually Twitter's creator was also the guy behind Blogger before Google bought it out. If you want to see how people use Twitter, try out twittervision.com.

Jaiku is different still, it displays your web presence. Visitors can see messages you add, similar to Twitter's microblogging, as well as feeds from other sites you use across the internet. My Jaiku page displays bookmarks to my favorite sites as I add them through del.ici.ous, as well as photos added to Flickr, and new postings to this very blog.

So now you know. Go check them out and be my friend!

Why must God rest?

2007-04-10T15:55:00.000-07:00

I clocked in 4 hours of church this Easter weekend and one of the readings that came up was from Genesis, which got me thinking. God is generally accepted as an all-powerful-omnipotent-being... so why did he need to rest on Sunday? Now we must assume this is symbolic, after all there wasn't a calender at the begining of time, much less one like today's. I would go further to say that most of the Bible is symbolic, meaning not literal, especially the Old Testament.

Adam and Eve then, literal or sympolic? If symbolic then all those "theories" of evolution could be true. I am more of a science-minded guy, so I know that the evidence of evolution makes it more then just a theory. And if Adam and Eve was just a moralty story, that means original sin is most likely not the case. That means there is a major crack in most Christian religions.

I'm not trying to disprove Christianity. I, for one, believe most of the new testament to be literal, which is not easy to do considering the miracles preformed thoughout go against science as well. It is just easier for me to accept the version of God portrayed here, then the God of the old testament that often went against his own commandments.