Leonard Likes this [chat]!
Saturday, April 14, 2012
Thursday, April 12, 2012
Part of the appeal of Diablo 2 was the ability to maximize farming efficiency by focusing upon a few bosses who could be killed repeatedly with consistent strategies. Instead of wandering around aimlessly for hours killing random mobs, players would focus upon killing Baal in the most efficient way possible, then starting a new game, then killing Baal again, over and over until the sun came up.
Apparently the devs for Diablo 3 were all, “Fuck efficiency! We hate baal runs.”
So, not so much with those anymore. Now we get an entire difficulty of max level bosses, with unique armor tiers for each difficulty level.
It’s a very heterosexual decision, that reeks of male-on-female sexuality.
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Ozzie Guillen, a baseball guy, made some favorable comments about Fidel Castro:
“I love Fidel Castro.” Time reported Guillen as saying in the article. “I respect Fidel Castro, you know why? A lot of people have wanted to kill Fidel Castro for the last 60 years, but that motherf****r is still here.”
He has been suspended for five games, after his expression of adoration for the Cuban leader pissed off Florida's Cuban community.
This evening on Hardball, Francis Suarez, chairman of the Miami city commission, spoke out about Guillen's comments saying, "It's about the most insulting and incendiary thing someone can say to this community." Suarez said further, "It's basically the worst thing that can be said in this community."
Now, regardless of your feelings for Fidel Castro, I think we can all agree that Suarez was going too far in his condemnation. Saying, "I love Castro" isn't the most appealing thing to Cubans, but is it really the "most insulting" thing he could have said to the Cuban community? Is that really the "worst thing" he could have uttered?
I contend that it is not.
To put Guillen's comments in perspective, let's consider the following comments he could have made about Cubans:
What happens when a Cuban gets a flat tire? He drowns.
What is the Cuban national anthem? Row row row your boat.
Cuban knock knock joke:
Homeowner: Whose there?
Homeowner: Yes, can I help you?
Cuban: ... qué?
Homeowner: I'm sorry. You knocked on my door. Do you want something?
Homeowner: Um, are you looking for work?
A Cuban walks into a bar. The bartender says, "Get the Fuck outta here u penniless filthy Cuban!"
Why were Adam and Eve like Cubans? Because their only food was fruit, they had no money, and they thought they lived in paradise
A Cuban was stumbling about in a bus station. He had tears running down his face, snot dripping from his nose, and crying like he was in terrible pain. A concerned female employee walked up to him and asked, "Sir, what is wrong? Are you homesick for Mexico?" The Cuban replied, "No, I'm from Cuba." She then said, "Are you homesick for Cuba?" The Cuban replied by letting out a miserable, blubbering cry through his increasing tears. The woman moved closer to comfort him saying, "Sir? What is wrong?" The Cuban finally replied, "I've lost my luggage. The cork fell out of my wine bottle!" And then he raped her, because Cubans are drunken rapists.
How to tell if you're Cuban: You have been in the U.S. for 10 years and still don't speak English.
Why are Cubans worse than Niggers? We brought Niggers here to do the work we didn't want to do, and they actually did it. Cubans floated over here like rats and they won't even lift their lazy fucking asses to contribute!
How many Cubans does it take to put down a toilet seat? No one knows; it's never been done.
Why was Ricky Ricardo the best Cuban? He at least looked white on television.
Now THAT is some insulting shit! "I love Fidel Castro" seems damned respectful in hindsight, doesn't it, Francis?
Which is a really girly name, by the way.
I have a question about Art. Andrew understands art. So, my hope is that he can explain something regarding this painting:
I'm reading Gödel, Escher, Bach. It contains an image of M.C. Escher's Waterfall. After staring at the picture for a while, I got online to read about it. According to the wikipedia page, the waterfall has the structure of a Penrose Triangle. The optical illusion results from its Penrosian structure.
But then I start reading about Penrose triangles and I notice a key difference that is bugging me: For Penrose objects, each line segment is only partially visible; in Escher's Waterfall, the water is always visible.
Let me explain what I mean. Take this Penrose Triangle:
Suppose we label it as having a left side, a right side, and a bottom side.
Grey appears on the Left and Right sides, but not Bottom.
Black appears on the Left and Bottom sides, but not Right.
White appears on the Right and Bottom sides, but not the Left.
This pattern seems to hold for the other Penrose objects. On the Penrose Octagon, for example, pink is only visible on the bottom right portion of the figure. But in Escher's waterfall, the water side is always visible.
So, I'm confused as to why the internet says that Escher's waterfall is similar in nature to Penrose objects, but differs from them in this respect.
I can understand the relation between Escher and Penrose in the case of Penrose Stairs, since Escher's painting and the Penrose stairs look the same. But in the case of the Waterfall, it seems to have a different quality than the Penrose triangle since one of the sides is always visible.
My suspicion is that it has to do with the point at which the waterfall meets the waterwheel. If we label the water we see in those little troughs as the "top" of the water, then at the point of the waterwheel there would have to be a transition from our seeing the top of the water to the bottom of the water. The strip of water has to flip over at that point, so to speak.
But if that's the illusion, then it's a Möbius strip, rather than a Penrose object.
So, why have the art scholars of wikipedia labeled this as a Penrosian Waterfall, rather than a Möbius Waterfall?
Monday, April 9, 2012
The fetus fetishing fucks are at it again.
On page eight of the proposed amendment to H.B. 2036, lawmakers lay out the “gestational age” of the child to be “calculated from the first day of the last menstrual period of the pregnant woman,” and from there, outlaws abortion “if the probable gestational age of [the] unborn child has been determined to be at least twenty weeks.”
That's right. In Arizona, a fetus legally begins to gestate before it is a zygote.
Now, if you support this bill, I realize that you are incapable of thought. But if you can think? Then think about this: You are a woman. Your menstrual period begins. According to this Arizona law, your future child has now begun gestating.
Or, well, that's not quite correct.
If, after your menstrual period, an egg is released that becomes fertilized and, so, a zygote, and that zygote attaches to begin gestating, then its gestation period already legally began prior to its being a zygote, when your period started. But, if an egg is released, and it is not fertilized, then its gestation period did not begin prior to its being a zygote, since it never became a zygote.
If an egg never becomes a zygote, then it never was a zygote.
If an egg becomes a zygote, then it already was a zygote when your last period started.
This is Schrödinger's fetus.
One might ask how Arizona legislators are capable of thinking these thoughts. Perhaps this quote can offer some insight:
"I would like to listen to the 50 million-plus children that have been aborted and killed since Roe v. Wade,'' Senator Steve Smith says."I would like to listen to what they think of this bill.''
I'll give you a moment to consider what possible problems exist in that thought. For members of the Arizona Legislatur who support this bill? He's an image of a dancing squirrel:
Alright. Those of you who thought, "Unborn babies don't think." win a prize.
The problem is that for these people, these fetus fetishing fucks, unborn babies do think; they do have opinions. Because unborn babies are floating around with Heavenly Father or Jesus or God or whatever bullshit they believe. Unborn babies are considerable things who have opinions, thoughts, and feel ways about stuff despite the fact that, well, they fucking don't.
Practically, this law is aimed at decreasing the amount of time during which pregnancies are legal. It's another step towards limiting the rights of women in favor of protecting the non-lives of unborn fetuses. More than that, though, this is a step towards creating a situation within which all women are considered to be pregnant after their periods:
“Considering that it’s anti-choice nuts we’re talking about, it’s safe to assume that they’d simply prefer a situation where all women of reproductive age are considered to be pregnant, on the grounds that they could be two weeks from now,” RH Reality Check’s Amanda Marcotte adds in a recently-penned editorial.
So, if you're a woman of reproductive age in Arizona? After this bill passes you're in for quite a treat! Think about it. Once your period starts, your potential child has begun gestating regardless of whether or not you fuck anyone.
We'll toss this bill atop the pile of reasons why women who vote for Republicans are exhibinting a very special kind of self-loathing.
"Take my rights away! I don't want control over my own body!!! TREAT ME LIKE A BABY OVEN!"