Saturday, July 18, 2009

I Haven't Been This _____ Since I [chat]

Fuck you. Family Guy is funny.

Thursday, July 16, 2009

Maddow v. Buchanan

Insanely Twisted Shadow Planet: Trailer

Paget Brewster: The Perfect Woman

She is crazy perfect.

Wednesday, July 15, 2009

Trillian Unknown Code 27 Fix

The fix for the "Unknown Code 27" error in Trillian when trying to connect to ICQ can be found here. Scroll down to the attachment. Download and replace the aim.dll file in the Trillian plugin folder.

Half-Blood Prince: Pre-Viewing Review

The local theatre was sold out for the midnight showing of Half-Blood Prince. So, instead of watching the new movie I watched Prisoner of Azkaban and Order of the Phoenix tonight. Based upon those movies this is my review of Half-Blood Prince which, again, I have not seen.


If you want to make a movie based on a book? The process is easy; the process is the opposite of difficult. You want to know what to do? Ok, here are the simple, easy-to-follow, retard with down syndrome instructions:

1) Open the book to page 1.
2) Have your set director replicate what is described on page 1.
3) Have Daniel Radcliffe say what Harry says on page 1.

Seriously. Turning a book into a movie is the opposite of difficult. There is, in no way, cause to have consternation over this process. The entire fucking movie is already laid out for you in the god damned book. The book gives you all of the dialog, ever. The book gives you all of the descriptions of all of the scenes, ever. The book gives your actors direction, your set directors a description of what they have to create, your director an indication of what he has to direct. It's as if, imagine this, it's as if you already have the book form...and then you can take this script and fucking make a god damned movie using it.

I know, right? It's cake. It's easier than cake. It's Lindsay Lohan on a bender pre-baked cake. It's the simplest god damned fucking thing on the planet.

1) Take the fucking book.
2) Make what the book fucking says appear in the god damned movie.

And I know what you're going to say; I fucking god damned know what you will say: "But people won't sit still for as long as that sort of movie would run."


Christ damn it's not as if you're turning War and Peace into a movie. It's Harry fucking Potter. Everyone and their retarded niece has read it, twice.

You take the book.
You replicate what is in the book.
You make millions of dollars.

Fucking. Simple.

Good lighting, though. Damned good lighting. Props to the lighting guy.

Tuesday, July 14, 2009

MTG 2010 Rule Changes

Magic: The Gathering - 2010 Rule Changes: Source

1) Simultaneous Mulligans
Mulligans will now officially be handled simultaneously. This will significantly cut down on time spent shuffling before each tournament game.

2) Terminology Changes
2A) Battlefield
2B) Cast, Play, and Activate
2C) Exile
2D) Beginning of the End Step
This Is Fucking Awesome

3) Mana Pools and Mana Burn
3A) Mana Pools Emptying
Mana pools now empty at the end of each step and phase, which means mana can no longer be floated from the upkeep to the draw step, nor from the declare attackers step to the declare blockers step of combat.
This Is Fucking Horseshit

3B) Mana Burn Eliminated
Mana burn is eliminated as a game concept. Mana left unspent at the end of steps or phases will simply vanish, with no accompanying loss of life.
This Is Fucking Awesome/Horseshit

4) Token Ownership
We are matching most players' expectation by changing the rule such that the owner of a token is, in fact, the player under whose control it entered the battlefield.

5) Combat Damage No Longer Uses the Stack
As soon as damage is assigned in the combat damage step, it is dealt. There is no time to cast spells and activate abilities in between; the last time to do so prior to damage being dealt is during the declare blockers step.
This Is Fucking Horseshit

6) Deathtouch
First, deathtouch is becoming a static ability. Creatures dealt damage by a source with deathtouch will be destroyed as a state-based effect at the same time lethal damage would kill them.

7) Lifelink
Lifelink, like deathtouch, is turning into a static ability. If a source with lifelink deals damage, its controller gains that much life as that damage is being dealt.

Monday, July 13, 2009

But if we started dating...

We're so perfect as friends, you know? I can tell you anything, and you know you can always come to me anytime you need to hear me bitch about work or how ugly I feel. You wouldn't want to ruin a friendship like that just so you could be my boyfriend, and have me look at you with desire and longing in my eyes, if only once—would you? Of course not. Well, if we started dating, it would only complicate this wonderful setup I've got going here.

It's just…you're like my best friend, and I would hate for something you desperately want to change that. I mean, sure, we could go on some dates, maybe mess around a little and finally validate the six years you've spent languishing in this platonic nightmare, but then what? How could we ever go back to the way we were, where I take advantage of your clear attraction to me so I can have someone at my beck and call? That part of our friendship means so much to me.

It's so true.

Seether ruins Careless Whisper

I enjoy Wham! just as much as the next guy. So when I heard Seether's cover of 'Careless Whisper' I thought, "Hey, I like Wham! so I can appreciate this." That is, until I came to a shocking realization; Seether fans now like 'Careless Whisper'...and they think it is a Seether song. Which is not terrible...

Until you watch THIS.

Seether Fans
Throwing the Horns
To Careless Whisper

You don't fucking do that in civilized society, ok? You don't's...christ, it's George Michael for fuck's sake. And this guy is never gonna dance again.

Ok? It's not that he might dance again. It's not as if there is a possibility that in the future he will dance again. No. He's never gonna dance again. His guilty feet have got NO rhythm. Not some rhythm, not an approximation of rhythm. No fucking rhythm. And, sure, it's easy to pretend. But he knows, he fucking knows, god damn it, that you're not a fool.

You don't fucking throw the horns to that. This man is baring his soul; he is never gonna dance again. Show some respect!

Sunday, July 12, 2009

Kings: Javelin


Sense Perceptions or Definitions

So when thinking about my question from ITT we locate truth I started to get caught up in concepts of truth, empiricism and rationalism, various takes on arguments and meaning, and a wealth of other bullshit topics. I would like to be able to filter off the bullshit, however, and simplify the conversation to be easily understood and approachable.

So I think I have, perhaps, the simplest way of asking my truth question. Here we go:

The sole proof for the existence of X is a definition.
The sole proof for the existence of Y is a sensory perception.

Is the existence of X or Y more likely? Why?

Here is where this came from:
I like Spinoza. The problem people have with Spinoza is that in The Ethics Spinoza argues from first principles, definitions and axioms, to get propositions. So when Spinoza writes "God, or substance, consisting of infinite attributes, of which each expresses eternal and infinite essentiality, necessarily exists." people will commonly reply "Great. But that does not mean that god exists." despite the fact that Spinoza has provided a coherent, consistent series of definitions and axioms which support his claim.

In a seemingly unrelated conversation people who like the coherence theory of truth will state that truth is found in coherence of ideas and states of reality. So, the statement "the cat is on the mat" is true if the cat is on the mat. How do we know if the cat is on the mat? We fucking look.

But wait. Spinoza's argument for the existence of god is supported by definitions and axioms. A common person's argument for the existence of a cat is supported by sensory perceptions. Where Spinoza has his definitions a common person has visual sensory perception, tactile sensory perception, olfactory sensory perception, gustatory sensory perception, and auditory sensory perception.

So where one may raise the criticism "Definitions do not prove that God exists" I think it sensible to raise the criticism "Sensory Perceptions do not prove that cat exists."

What makes a definition weaker than a sensory perception? At this point the only answer to this question I can think of is "preference". But if the entire enterprise of human experience is supported by "facts" and "truths" which are, themselves, supported by little more than preference...well, fuck.