Finding Fault with Facebook "Friends."

OK, I'm back after a long hiatus. I have been thinking of something to say, anything, and my mind has been uncharacteristically blank (many of you who actually know me may be thinking "uncharacteristically?"). I've decided to write about Facebook Friends.

It's not that I am disappointed by the title or the concept, it's just the same thing I have stated several times and decided to test it. You may consider this a social experiment on the dynamics of digital relationships.

Here's the thing: I have long held that there is a game going on in Facebook. I am not talking (or I should say writing as I am not actually saying anything) about Farmville, Starfleet, Mob Wars or any of the others. I'm talking about the Friends game. It was touched on in an episode of Southpark and I am continuing it. Here's how it's played.

It's a simple game and the rules are comically easy. All you have to do, is add more people to your friends list. (S)He who has the most friends on their Facebook Friends list, wins. There is no prize, just bragging rights.

My theory is that in actuality, Facebook Friends means nothing and this is my thesis and the proof (or disproof) will be contained in the results of the blog. Let me make perfectly clear that I am in no way emotionally harmed by the results of this experiment (except that I know family members won't respond properly and for that, they should be ashamed).

Now, here's where my "Friends" come in. All of you who read this should respond. Not only that you took the time to read this inanity, but I also want you to respond with how many of your "Friends" you actually know and correspond with. This response SHOULD be in Facebook, as that is what the social venue is used for and it is currently on trial. I currently have 32 friends. I know, I lose, I only have 32. What a sad sick little man (I have no-one's pity).

See you in the funny pages and I'll try to write more often.

Peace up

Charles

Gott spielt verful nicht mit dem universum. A. E.

Men Can't Be Raped

I know, no alliteration. It's getting hard to come up with them, so . . .

Anyway, here is the problem I'm talking about. In the news, there are several men that are accusing some pastor of manipulating them into sexual encounters. There has been a great deal about this in the media and two things jumped out at me. One was that the pastor's lawyers claim that it is just a scheme to get money and his congregation believes it almost wholeheartedly. The other (and more disturbing) is the mockery they get from some people wondering how a grown man can be "manipulated" into a sexual encounter. The problem here is that if they were women, people wouldn't be questioning the claim or situation nearly as much.

It seems to me that in today's society (and for a very long time now), men cannot be raped, or in any way abused. People seem to think less of the man that this has happened to, or even think that it never happened because "it CAN'T happen." If a woman is charged with any crime that involves a male accomplish, the lawyers claim that she was manipulated into doing it and people buy it easily. "Oh, the poor dear. She can't make decisions of morality by herself and has to have a man do it." Puh-lease. Also, we cannot be hurt as readily as women by words.

In the seventies, a movie came out that touched on this very subject. It was called The Man Who Cried Rape. In the movie, the man was forced into a sexual relationship at gun point. wee learn later that it wasn't a real gun, but he didn't know that. When he made the claim, it was greeted with scorn and ridicule, as well as claims that he must be gay,, because he had to complain about it. Women would say "now men know what it was like for women in the past." That is no excuse. Other shows dealt with domestic abuse that had the woman physically abusing her family, husband included. Again, met with scorn and ridicule. "How can a big man be beaten up by a woman, the wuss."

It seems that the world thinks all men are aggressive whores who can beat up on anybody and would if needed. They don't consider the fact that A: They may be particular about their choice of sex partners, B: They are faithful to their current partner. C: They do not want to hit anybody, especially a woman. and D: Men are just as human as women and can suffer the same sensitivities and fates, even if we don't want to admit it.

I believe that it is high time for society to look at these claims with a little more credibility. That we should find an accusation by a man every bit as likely and terrible as if a woman made it. Men are not all the imposing, martial sluts that we are made out to be in the media and we can be overpowered, manipulated and cowed, even the largest of us. We are taught (at least I was) that it is wrong to hit or verbally abuse a woman, yet it is OK (and sometimes even funny) for the reverse (see Andy Capp, Beetle Bailey and Blondie). This has to stop.

Peace Up
Charles

Gott spielt nicht verful mit dem Universum. A.E.

Game Review: Mass Effect 2

OK, I know this is a little overdue, but I just thought I'd pop it up here. When it comes to video games, I prefer those with a good story. The same qualifications I have for most of my movie preferences. When I first played Mass Effect, I found it to be a very enjoyable game with a good story, nice game mechanics and great graphics. The fact that the story changes due to your choices and classes (I haven't fully played with that) is a definite plus. Replay of the game was just as good as the first time, as you get to become more powerful and you can play with that "different choices" thing. Yes

Then came Mass Effect 2 and I was, well maybe not "excited" but close enough. Sure enough, the story was excellent and added on to the original. Your character's development didn't really seem to have anything to do with the development of your character in ME1, like Baldur's Gate 2 built on BG1, but other than that, it was good.

Then I met the replay.

I was disappointed.

Not only do they cap the experience at level 30 (which is like 3 levels higher than achievable in the first run through), but you don't get chances to add more weapons like you do in the first run through (unless you buy the downloads online which I have). For instance, there is a place in the game where you get to increase your A: Assault Rifle, B: Your Shotgun or C: your Sniper Rifle. In the first run through I chose the Assault Rifle. I got to keep this new weapon in the replay, but when I got to the place, I did not get the choices again. Which meant that re-playing the game really had no purpose, other than simply to play the game and then you might as well create a new character. They even TELL you that you should replay before importing into ME3. Why? Either I'm missing something or BioWare dropped the ball on this.

Another problem is your "squad." They really have few powers and are bulky to control. They have a bad tendency to run forward practically forcing you to get too close to be effective (at least forcing ME to).

On a side note, I'm currently P**Sed because I have the game on the hardest setting and get get past the fight shortly after the weapons choice thing.

Still, if you like first person shooters and you like to take a little control of the character, the ME line is an excellent line of games. I recommend it, but then I recommend a lot of stupid stuff, so there you go.

Peace up

Charles

Gott spielt nicht verful mit dem Universum. A.E.

The Anus of History or Human History has Hysterically Hammered Humans

Some of you are going to say "but Charles, that's the ANNALS of history." To those people I say "shut up and read the post."



Others of you are going to say "but Charles, that's the ONUS of history." To those people I say "Shut Up And Read The Post."



And then there's the smart one that says "Yep, he got the whole Anus of History thing right." To THOSE people, I say, "SHUT UP AND READ THE BLOODY BLOG ALREADY!!!"



And then there are those that say, "what? No Chocolate. . ."



CHOCOLATE, now please, can we get on to the post?



Thank you. When I say "The Anus of History," I say it that way, because that's what history is. It is the last part of humanity. Yet it creates more toxic waste than the rest of said race. History blows big freekin' farts.



I like to claim that women are the cause of most wars. I would like to apologize to the women and clarify that. Women have been the cause of most wars, that were not caused by History. I'm not misogynistic, I'm just stating a fact that men will do anything for women, most especially kill each other. But this post isn't about women, it's about history.



The Old Testament tells of how Abram and Sarai had no children so Abram knocked up his slave, and then God said "Abandon the slave and your responsibility to the resultant child and have a son by Sarai." Abram did so, changed his name, and skipped out on all the child support. (We are supposed to revere this bum by the bye). The people that he abandoned eventually became the nation of Islam and have hated the Jews ever since, spawning wars. This is the greatest, in-depth example I have, but not the greatest cause. Wars have been fought over "formerly ours" territory, insults my great-great . . . great-great grandfather received from you respective grandfather's goat Elijah. I mean, a simple review of history shows just how much history has had to play on the creation of wars.



The disparagement between India and Pakistan is over a single, insignificant and worthless chunk of land because "it once belonged to {our side}". Incidentally, land is the second greatest cause of wars. World war 2 was (partially) started because the Germans lost WW1 and had to suffer sanctions. Christians have persecuted Jews because of what the leadership of the latter killed the leadership of the former. The argument against the last 2 could be said that it was the ACTION that caused the war, but that would be logically fallacious.



Fighting against an action is a personal thing. We logical people would not go and beat up on the grandson of the bully we knew in elementary school. It also, logically, makes no sense to beat up somebody for something they did 30 years ago, but that can happen. Still, in the latter, you are beating up the perpetrator, not their progeny. Of course, this argument goes against the best selling book of all time. The Old Testament (Current Testament according to the Jews) states that the sins of the fathers shall be visited unto the seventh generation. Or something to that effect. In other words, God is allegedly telling us to fight over history. And we do.



Now, the really Anus part of this is that history changes. I don't mean "our perspective of history changes," I mean it actually changes. When I was growing up, there were certain truths in my life. Gravity pulls things down. I before E except after C. Thomas Edison invented the light bulb. Blacks were treated as second class citizens before the 60's (and later.) The last 2 are history, yet are still "fact." Or are they? There is now coming to light "official and irrefutable documentation" that Edison did not invent half of what I have learned he invented. How is this possible? How is it that these documents can disappear until the people who could possibly refute it are long dead? Plus, if you watch movies and television, they show blacks being treated as full equals in the 20's 30's 40's etc. in an ever increasing amount. Most would tell me "shut up, it's just Hollywood," but it IS a re-write of history. Our children are growing up with these images and thinking WOW, all men have been treated equally throughout history, that's cool! Well, it WOULD be cool if it was true. But it's not.



This is how history gets re-written, through "previously undiscovered" documentation and depictions on the media. If you cannot see the problem with this changing/whitewashing of history, then you have forgotten the credo of "historians." Those who do not study the mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat them. I am afraid that some day (and it may be long after I am dead) we will be in a society where one race/creed/color/religious group is fettered and subjugated to another right here in the good ol' USA, because it "never happened before" and no-one sees the signs that it's happening again. It is my belief and hope that we remember what has been done in the past accurately, yet do not call the the descendants of said history to pay for the errors of their forefathers. Even if history DOES get re-written (and it will again and again) let's not hold one responsible for the actions of his neighbor's uncle's step-daughter-in-law's parakeet.



Peace up



Charles



Gott spielt nicht verful mit dem Universum.

Muslim Mosque Makes Many Miserable

OK, I am going to start expecting y'all to weigh in on my posts, so that we can have a good argument. I'm sure that we have both sides of every fence that reads mine (and if not, I know 3 people that can always argue opposite of anything). I am purposefully NOT stating anything on the "other side" so as to make a valid argument.



Here goes.



In New York, there is a building, 1 block from Ground Zero, that Muslims want to turn in to a mosque. There are several people who do NOT want this to happen. They are right. It is too close to Ground Zero and is an insult to the memory of those who died on 9/11.



Those that want to construct this mosque have no sense of propriety. This seems almost like an invasion: Islam attacks and destroys our buildings, replacing them with their own. Now, I am sure this is not the case, but the implications are too close to that appearance. Can't the Muslims see this? Don't they realize how the families of the victims must feel?



I know that it is from a different faction of Islam (which brings to mind other arguments not mentioned here) that attacked us and that the claim is that Islam is a peaceful religion, but past events and actions indicate an opposition that this claim. Now, it seems they want a mosque to celebrate their victory. Can't they choose a different location for their religious site? They claim it's not a religious site, it's an "education" site. Yeah, right. A Christian education center promotes Christianity, we all know this. No religion builds an education center that's NOT designed to promote and teach about their religion.

It seems to me that after the victims' families complained about the mosque, they would have had enough empathy to say "OK, maybe we are putting it too close. But all they can say is "We need it here because . . ." Why? Why is it so vital that they can't put it someplace else? How many Muslims are living that close to Ground Zero that they need it there? Many people travel a long distance to get to church and even longer to get to (place religion here) learning centers. Just pick a different place. This isn't religious persecution, it's emotional. It's more of a "We don't want you rubbing our noses in it." Whether it is intended or not, that is the way it seems.

So, in conclusion, I feel that the Islam learning center should not be built where it is proposed, not matter what the President says (which adds to the claims that he is secretly a Muslim).

Peace up

Charles

Gott spielt nich verful mit dem Universum. A.E.

Democratic Society vs State.

OK, here's a tricky topic for discussion. In California (again) they are fighting over the gay-marriage thing. Now here's the problem I see and it's becoming an argument topic in my house. It's the fact that the courts can overrule a lawfully elected piece of legislation.

On the one hand: (My argument) This country was founded on the principle (as everyone knows) of rule of the people, by the people and for the people. Since it came from a time in Europe when the common man had no say in the laws and stipends in the country they were living in, Our for-fathers decided that the people could and should help to decide what was best for behaviour. This, of course, created the democratic republic that we now . . . enjoy?

On the other hand: (My wife's argument) This rule of the people at the time was for white, landowners only. A court over ruled that decision giving first, all white men, then black men and then women the right to vote. The court (read state) has the right and obligation to decide what is best for the country in situations where personal rights are involved, particularly because of the "majority rules" situation.

By the first rule, majority decides which is proper. In the California case, the majority decided that gay-marriage is not to be. The majority of the population, in a legally held ballot, decided this. Another case is the situation in New York City concerning the construction of a mosque near ground zero: The majority says NO.

By the second case, because the majority voted negative (in both issues) the personal freedoms of those who believe in the affirmative are being neglected. That, because they are a minority, they have no chance of getting their decisions through and this is Constitutionally unfair.

OK, My argument (I'm sure Loretta will weigh in) is that by letting the courts decide what is legal or not, we are putting the power in the government into the hands of the state. In an admittedly slippery slope situation, this COULD set the precedent for the state to take over, nudging the common man out, leading to a dictatorial state. Some high mucky-muck (like an elected president) could get it into his head and start to dictate what we are to do, say, or even think. OK, not what to think. But the POTENTIAL is there, if we decide to let the state overrule the wants and needs of the majority. We could also have some minority group, such as the KKK, use the precedents (that are already out there, by-the-bye) to get the courts (a minority themselves that have been known to be controlled) to pass certain . . . resolutions, to protect THEIR interests. This latter example is not such a slippery slope as the former.

IF we are to allow the courts to overrule the decisions of the majority, then what is the purpose of having a democratic society. The minority can now begin to rule, pleading rights violations. If that is the case, there is no longer any need to put anything up to a vote. We might as well have our judges decide who joins them on the bench, what laws are what, and who leads this nation.

Time to weigh in, folks.

Preposterous Police Pursuits Pose Peculiar Problems

While watching the news today, I saw yet another California police chase, LA of course.

I think that the best way to plan a bank job in CA is to have someone whose only job is to get the police to chase them. If they keep it going more than 5 minutes (and they don't even have to go that fast, they will have half the police force after them, leaving the bank unattended. This is because California has no problem squandering their resources. Yet they dare to call the rest of the US wastrels.

In this particular chase, a pickup was being chased, at high speed, down I10. In the end I counted 3 choppers and 24+ cars. WHAT!!!! The pickup had a flat tire and eventually stopped. Then started again. Then stopped, the driver got out and backed halfway to the police. The walked (I mean casually walked) back to the pickup, got in and started off again. Apparently 24+ police officers cannot keep 1 man from getting into a damaged car.

I get disgusted whenever I see these chases and am reminded, once again, why I will not live in CA. The CA police are so deficient in their jobs that they need 4 times the normal amount of people to do any particular job. I cannot understand why they could not pull some units in FRONT of the car and block it from continuing on. These officers should be ashamed of themselves.

Then again, it IS California. This is the state that has seen some of the some of most ridiculous things ever. The movies as example. one out of every 20 are good. Not a good sign of intelligence. Then there's the OJ trial. I hold that OJ isn't guilty because he was not proven so, that goes with the rules. But the prosecution SHOULD have been able to prove his guilt, except the fact that they are too inept.

Now, I know that it is probably like this because its "what the people want," but that is the stupid, "activist" people. The ones who try to change the US into a "kinder, gentler nation." Instead, we're changing it to a weaker, dumber nation.

So, I don't want to see any more police chases in LA, unless it's in a movie, where the cops are all gung-ho shoot-em-up, take-no-prisoner cops that actually get things done. The cops in the movies are more effective than the real cops in the very city the movies are filmed, go figure.

Peace up

Charles

Gott spielt nicht verful mit dem Universum. A.E.

Crazy Crickets Crawl Creepily

OK, check it. I know I'm a grown man and should just suck it up, but I hate crickets. In my home, I kill or release all the bugs necessary into the wild, except crickets. I don't like them. I don't like looking at them, thinking about them, or eating them when they're covered in chocolate (yes, even in chocolate), I DON'T LIKE CRICKETS.

It started when I was young and staying at my sisters. My brother Ken and I were in a bedroom that was converted from a garage and there was a 1 inch gap between the floor and the door. Then one night, as we're getting ready for bed, thousands of crickets came pouring through the crack. It was like a horror movie come to life. The crickets were swarming and we were right in their way.

Yes, that is the nature of crickets and they are, relatively, harmless. Crickets are said to bring good luck and their chirping, to most people, is soothing. I don't mind the chirping, except when I'm trying to get to sleep and there are so many it sounds like the are hooked up to a 5 GW amp and pumped straight into my brain, HHREEK HHREEK HREEK. Other than that, when they are outside in their natural element, fine.

But let's face it, crickets in the house are just creepy. They crawl through the drain and pop up in your tub, sink and even toilet (I swear). And they jump, I mean they JUMP. You never know when a cricket is going to lift his massively mutant legs, press them against the floor and jump straight into your mouth. I know that when I die, it's going to be because a mutant Kentucky cricket (and those in Kentucky are mutant, more of this later) is going to jump into my mouth while I'm asleep and strangle me.

Even my cats don't like crickets. At first, the youngest one played with them. It was funny (and comforting knowing the little bug was gonna die) watching her chase, catch, lose, chase rinse and repeat the cricket, but today, there was a cricket in the tub, I put her there and another cricket assaulted her. She ran. I mean, this 7 pound pile of fluffy feline jumped and ran from a 1 oz. cricket. SEE!?! Even she knew that crickets are creepy. AND they were waiting in ambush.

Now, there are lots of types of crickets. There are the cute little things you see on TV that they have in California (it was California crickets when I was young, see above) but there you only see them like, one at at time because they're too creepy in a group. Then there's the eastern cricket (lighter color and overall smaller).

Then there's the Mutant Kentucky Cricket. These things are just freaky. Not only are they smart, they hide and wait until your poor cat or dog goes wandering by and then they attack him like some inner city street gang ("OK, here come da cat, you and legs jump from the left and me and legs [all crickets are known as Legs] gonna jump from the right") but they figure out how to get into your house/apartment when you have bug protection up. They also know just where to be to hit you with the ultimate psychological effect, maybe they're on the ceiling for when you yawn, etc. I think they learn this from cockroaches. They are also built differently from other chrickets. They have these HUGOGIANTAMOUNGOUS rear legs so they can jump across the holler. They probably developed this as a form of selective breeding by the Hatfields to get the McCoys in their sleep (see above) or something.

Also, crickets walk weird. They have this walk that's like left front foot, right front foot, left middle foot, right middle foot kick kick. What are they, in a dance routine? I mean, couldn't God have thought of a better way for them to get around?

In conclusion, I may have made some allusions to this, but I don't like crickets. I'm moving to Arizona, where the worst I have to deal with is scorpions in my shoes.

Ta

Charles

Gott spielt nicht verful mit dem Universum. A.E.

America is Sick and Dying

I know what you are saying (because I know all three of you). One is thinking "Woahh, now that's going too far," while the other is thinking "WHAT?!?! No alteration???" The third is thinking "What, no chocolate? I'm going back to bed."



Let me address the second first. I couldn't think of an alteration.



As to the former, hear me out.



Since the birth of this nation, we have held that the biggest concept is freedom and security. Freedom of speech, religion, press, etc. This nation was founded on those very principles.



Now, we seem to have lost many of those sacred rights and that, along with some other points, have led to a nation that is not as strong as it was as recently as the 1940's. I will admit that my history may be off a little bit. Our government, and its citizens, have slowly stripped away our rights.

For Example: During the recent Bush administration, the President complained about a comment an entertainer made (although the company the entertainer denied it, I believe this is true) and the man lost his job. During the same administration, every American was monitored. Mentions of terrorism, disaffection or even sites visited on the web were tagged for "closer scrutiny." In the interest of security (we were told), the government monitored us for potential seditious activities.

But that's not all. We can not blame the government for all our woes and ailments. After all, WE are the government. There is more in the private sector that is wrong than can ever be accounted for by blaming the government. There is still: Rampant Racism (and anyone who thinks it's just the crackers is . . . well . . . crackers.), hatred, political and/or religious intolerance, paranoia and general apathy. If you will bear with me, I will address each issue.

Racism, it's not just for whites anymore, and never has been. I myself have encountered a great deal of racism in my life. There are blacks (or African Americans or whatever they prefer to be called this decade ((OIIYY that sounds racist))) who hate anyone who isn't black and blacks who hate blacks, there are Hispanics who hate anyone who isn't Hispanic, likewise with Asian and etc. ad nausea. This is strictly divided along race lines. They don't have (or need) a reason for their hatred, there are ample excuses though. Racism breaks away the very bond that should hold this country together. After all, we all come from somewhere that once hated the very neighboring country that our neighbor (or spouse or best friend) came from, but we got over that, because we are all Americans. That's the way I like to look at it (contrary to the appearance of the above statement), that we are all Americans. Period.

Hatred. This is more than hatred on the side of race. It's a hatred of anything that is different. A hatred for someone who makes more money than you or a hatred of someone who believes differently from you. This is a catch all topic.

Intolerance, Political, Religious or otherwise. This is a BIG problem. This one should probably have come first. There are those out there (and I know some personally) that believe that there political/religious beliefs are the only ones worth having. Break it down
Political: Bush was a great president because he was Republican. Obama is trying to take over the US. You don't believe me, I'll spout threats of what WILL come. OR Bush was trying to take over the world and Obama is trying to save it. He is a Saint and deserves deification. Let's get it straight. Bush had his good points and his bad, so does Obama. Dis Obama deserve the Nobel Peace Prize, NO, he hadn't been in long enough to make a difference, but that's judged by a bunch of intellectual idiots. No one can take over the US without our help.
Religious: All the Muslims are evil. They believe is killing everyone who isn't Muslim. I, p[personally, try not to believe that. I have not studied Islam and neither have 99.9% of those who disbelieve it. I do still want a picture of Muhammad to post and I believe the Muslims should respect my feelings that he is not an icon to me and I do not have to follow their religious beliefs.

Paranoia: This goes with the belief that Obama is trying to take over the world. We harbor these fears of the government and tell our children to believe them. We tell our daughters that they are not safe being alone in their house/apartment alone, "they WILL be raped!!!" I have seen the commercial that talks about signal strength EVERYWHERE. It follows a woman through the commercial everywhere EXCEPT in the parking garage. Then she amazingly turns in to a large black man. WHAT???? Or all the commercials for security systems that have girls have their doors busted in, get real. This kind of paranoia leads to the personal isolationism we have throughout our country, which has lead to a fractured citizenry.

Apathy: This is the nail in the coffin. We have all the problems above, but it is our apathy that binds them all together. "I'm not gonna do anything to change this because . . ." Give me a break people. Get out there and vote or be active in politics. Of course, being active is not MY job, it's YOURS. I'm just gonna sit here and write blogs for you to read.


Peace up, Charles

Gott speilt nicht verful mit dem Universum. A.E.

Beautiful Bugatti Belongs on Burrow Blog

I know, title sucks but nyeahh

OK, so I'm watching this show called Top Gear and they introduce me to my new love and I just had to write this down because I can't think of anything else to blog about. It's the Bugatti Veyron.

I don't know if any of you know about this car, but you should. You should.

For the car lovers, it has a 8.0L, W16, Quad Turbocharged, 987 BHP mid mounted engine. All in a car that weighs Kerb weight of 1888Kg. What this all boils down to is a top speed of 253.8 mph in a car that, in my humble opinion, is absolutely gorgeous.

I have been a Lamborghini fan (excluding the Diablo which I didn't care for) since I was a teenager and saw my first Countach. They are sleek, low vehicles with beautiful lines and curves. I will (of course) admit that the speed is a big selling point, but it's the way the car looks that I fell in love with. Not to mention the sound, with cars, you always have to consider the sound.

Then came along the Bugatti. As usual, it was the way it looked that made me go "Oh Baby!" It doesn't look anything like the Lamborghini. A Lamborghini is low and wide and sleek with a sharp nose. The Bugatti looks fatter and rounder (check it out on wikipedia) but it also looks sleeker and, well, better. The measurements stack up as follows: Lamborghini is 81"wide, 44.8" high and 181.5 long, with a 104.9" wheelbase, whereas the Bugatti is 78.1"wide, 45.8" high and 175.7 long, with a 106.7" wheelbase. Somehow, this makes the Bugatti seem smaller, almost like a one-person car.

When they test drove it on Top Gear, they used the Volkswagen test track in Germany that has a 5 mile long stretch of flat, straight road so that Richard Hammond could get it up to its alleged top speed. I don't remember if he actually made it (I know he got very close), but I do remember watching it move and it further convinced me to love the car. They never managed to get the car an to their "test track," where they time various cars and place the times on a board, because Bugatti wouldn't let them. Bummer.

And now the down-sides. As far as I can tell, there is only one (mileage doesn't count because it's a Super Car). The cost. It is somewhere around $1.4million, which is something I am not going to be able to afford in my lifetime. But hey, a man can dream, can't he.

Peace up

Charles

Gott spielt nicht verful mit dem Universum. A.E.

Dumb Digital Delays Demand Dressing Down

In June of 2009, the broadcast companies throughout the United Stated were, by law, supposed to change over entirely to digital. This deadline was broadcast 2 years+ in advance and vociferously (fun word). It is now one year later and the broadcasts, at least in my house and home town, continue to come in analogue.

What Happened?

Millions of people throughout the nation were forced to get boxes and converters or new TVs ("Oh, TVs aren't necessary, they will get coupons for converter boxes") just to continue to be able to watch TV. IT WAS THE LAW!!! A deadline was set. But today, if I want to watch Smallville (which I don't because it's a re-run if it's even running tonight, I have to watch it in analogue which is a very bad way to watch a HD show dumbed down to regular because heaven help the cable companies if they had to provide HD channels at a reasonable price. hhhhhhh (that's supposed to be a release of breath). Anyway, if I want to watch Comedy Central . . . fuzzy Analogue picture. TV Land . . . fuzzy analogue.

Some are saying that there aren't enough boxes produced to cover the nation so these broadcasters are doing analogue as a courtesy. Then, why don't they also have a channel in digital? I mean, it was a deadline and the broadcasters aren't even TRYING to comply. Why aren't there enough boxes. Surely the production lines could produce enough boxes since the boxes WILL be bought. They have to be bought. It can't be cost. If it was, they would illegally hire illegal aliens to do the work. Everyone else does.

In the early 90s, it was determined that the computers of the world had a major flaw and "The end of the world (would) happen in 2000." This set a deadline to fix all the computers in the world. The deadline was met and the world was saved. SO, maybe that's what we need to do to get anything done. Start a panic. Apparently, the government has no authority or power to enforce a deadline, unless it ONLY costs citizens money and NOT corporations.

So, I say "Go ye forth and spread the dreadful news that the end of the world is nigh unless the broadcasters broadcast in digital by the year 2011. Make it scary. Really make people believe it. Also add in cheaper and better fuels and, while you're at it, make it a deadline for me to win the lottery. (Hey, I gotta try)

Word

Charles

Gott spielt nicht verful mit dem Universum A.E.

Car Conspiracies Claim Cataclismic Consumer Costs

OK, I said I would talk about the auto-oil conspiracy, here it is.

I am not a general subscriber to conspiracy theories, but some come along and scream, WHY NOT!!! The auto industry and the oil industry both claim that there is no conspiratorial link between them, but I would like to address some basic questions and let you, my readers (oh how few you are) either agree with me or tell me why I should take a flying leap (besides the obvious , that it would be fun :P to you Charlie :D).

Point one. We have had electrical and steam cars almost as long as we have had gas powered, and in the case of steam, longer. OK, so steam didn't work out. You had to have a coal bin and if they had kept it, it would have raise the cost of coal and a conspiracy between THOSE two countries. But the electric car industry had remained relatively stagnate until just recently.

We have batteries that fit in the palms of our hands and can run sophisticated computers for days, yet we can't get batteries to fit into a car and run it for more than a few hundred miles.On the surface and to me this seems illogical. Why don't we have the battery technology to run automobiles longer?

Point Two: The US government had declared, almost 35 years ago, that the automobile industry must increase fuel efficiency. Yet, still, cars get a paltry 30 MPG average. 30 MPG! That is moronic when you stop to consider cars that, in the past, have had better fuel efficiency than this. Far better. The 1990 - 1993 Geo Metro was a 3 cylinder engine that had sufficient acceleration. OK it wasn't 0-60 in 2.3 more like 10.2but who REALLY need higher. Anyway, the metro's fuel efficiency was 50 MPG. Honestly, 50 MPG is worth a lesser acceleration, when you consider how much time the average person sits and waits for a 80 second window to merge into 10 mph traffic.

Then, in about 1993, Chevrolet bought the Metro and put in a 4-cylinder engine. Somehow, doing this reduced the mileage to 31 MPG. That's a HUGE difference. For an "economy" car to get that mileage should be a crime. And yes, it should be considering the "auto industry should increase fuel efficiency" statement of the Carter Administration. But, I'm still trying to wrap my mind around a 19 MPG loss by just adding a cylinder.

Point 3: As the price of gas went higher, MPG went lower and the Auto Industry manufactured a pushed more vehicles that got lower efficiency. I'm talking about those "Marvelously safe" SUVs, that turned out to not be safe at all. The only thing they had going for them was s**tty fuel economy and big price. It has been a curious phenomenon I have been seeing all my life. As the price of oil has climbed, the fuel economy has declined. Every time.

Point 4: Back to electric cars. We now have a wider choice of electric cars, but they are priced prohibitively high. The Auto industry says it's to offset a low demand. What a great excuse. When you price something so high that only the rich can afford it, and market it to the poor (read low class), the only ones who can afford it (read the high class) won't because it's too low brow for them. Regardless of the fact that I have met more high class people in the low income range than I have in the high income range. (I had to put that second "range" in to avoid a dangling participle.)

So, there are my 4 points. Argue among yourselves. Hitting is allowed, but only if you do it hard and don't hit me.

Peace up

Charles

Gott spielt verful nicht mit dem Universum. A.E.

Avatar

First off let me apologize for no alliteration on the title, it gets hard.

So, I've finally seen Avatar and here is my review.

*********SPOILER ALERT*********SPOILER ALERT*********

First off, I will start by saying I didn't want to see the movie because I had low expectations. All it had going for it in the reviews I read was the effects and the plot seemed rather flimsy.

I have been wrong on many movies and have watched some that I thought would suck and they turned out pretty good. This was NOT one of them. I found it was even worse than my expectations. However, I was wrong on my complaint about a Marine turning against his comrades. Mainly, he wasn't a Marine, he was just a Soldier of Fortune. Private security. Granted I did not finish the movie, I couldn't stand more then about 30 minutes worth.

First, the premise. Humans are on a planet they cannot breathe on and are mining a mineral called "Unobtainium." Really? Unobtainium? How do you obtain Unobtainium and, most importantly, how do you even find it on a jungle world you cannot even breath on and that has creatures you need an armoured battle suit to defend against? Do they just drop companies off on random worlds and say "See if you can find something unobtainable that's worth a s**tload of money?" Come On! Can't they find this stuff on OTHER bodies in the same system that is, after all, composed of the same stuff the planet is?

Next comes the bone structure of the aliens. Their bones are made of "A naturally occurring carbon fiber." How is that done. Okay, I can concede that anything man can make, nature can make, after all, we can make diamonds. Do these aliens, though, drive naturally occurring '57 Chevies? Actually, since they are environmentally aware, it would probably be naturally occurring Toyota Priuses Where does the body get other naturally occurring carbon fiber to grow, from the fruits? That would make the fruits, not only deadly to eat for humans, but also pretty hard, I would think. I know that nothing growing on that world could sustain humans.

Let's talk about the great tacticians that are waging this war of hostile corporate takeover. They have a Colonel who was a veteran and the first day there he loses half his face. So what does he do? He sends out an Avatar with NO knowledge of the flora and fauna and a MG36 that is absolutely and completely USELESS. It couldn't hurt on of the native flies, yet the Na'vi (which is f**ked around "native") can kill these thing with bows made of wood, not bone. I mean, would bone be better in this case? They must have wanted the scientist's avatar dead (which was possibly the case, like I said, I didn't finish the movie).

How about this "Unobtainium." What is it. More importantly, what is it used for, beside 10 million dollars a kilo, which works out to $279,876 an ounce, which would be the approximate value of a rock of crack in their time. I mean, they didn't say what good the stuff is. Is it harder than tempered titanium? Can it be spun super thin for space elevators? Can it cure the common cold? What can it possibly be worth, to force an audience to sit through this?

The FX, I must admit, were very good. I wouldn't say "great" because I didn't see it in HD and what I did see, for the most part, was no better than some other things we've see, like a special on the tropical rain forests. If the real people were computer generated (something I suspect) then yes, that was fantastic. But it, to me, wasn't worth paying $15 to see. That's why I waited until it came out on Netflix. They spent millions of dollars creating their own little world to great detail, kudos there.

Then there is the Avatar. This guy, who helped design the avatars, trained to use it over Lord-knows-how-many years and studies Na'vi culture, language, biology add nausea, dies and is replaced by his brother who is a Marine that apparently has no where near the same intelligence or training. This guy, who has been paralyzed for at least 5 years, is then linked into an alien body and can instantly control every aspect. He also, without training, knows exactly what to wrap around his spear to simulate pitch and create a torch. Then what happens? He meets a Na'vi babe (who most likely ends up being his snuggle cuddle) and before she kills him, the great tree seed stops her. Let me guess, it tells her he's "the prophesied one."

My lovely and wonderful wife wants me to add in the character concepts. Sigourney Weaver is still playing the same role she played in Alien (and just about everything else) The Colonel is a cookie cutter stereotypical bad ass with no ther personality other than "kill it before it even looks in your direction so it doesn't kill you," the character we're supposed to care about is dead before the show even starts, and the main character is the typical brooding-over-the-death-of-my-brother-and-what-life-has-done-to-me character.

So, thee you have it, my review. My son says he'll punch me if this is a bad review, so I get punched. It could have been worse, my wife could have made me sit through the entire movie. Fortunately, she agrees with me on the movie. Y'all be good now, y'hear?

Charles

Gott spielt verful nicht mit dem Universum

Research Reveals Refinery Representative's Reneg on Responsible Reasoning.

OK, this oil spill is getting TOO rediculous. It's been a full month and BP has failed to get it under control. There are several things wrapped up in this.

Cleanup: I've wondered why it is so EXTREMELY difficult as I have not heard word one of pumps. Hasn't anyone thought of getting freighters out there with bog boats and pumps to suck the oil off the surface? It seems to me that you could clean up quite a bit like that. I have tried, but I cannot think of a reason why this would not work. It seems that they are all about "containment" or chemical cleanup, and not thinking simply enough. I also thought that they had this cleanup problem licked back after Exxon Valdese, but no, the oil companies raise their prices (just because they can, not because of any shortage) and keep it instead of investing it in safety technologies. But sucking the oil up is so basic that it should have been the first thing they thought of. I just don't get it.

Also, they drop this big "cap" down onto the leak in an effort to contain it, and they miss te leak. HOW!!??!!?? This is a big bloody leak with an even bigger cap. With the technology we now have in underwater drones, they should have had some down there directing the cap. When they "missed," they should have simple raised it up and slid it in to position. I'm no idiot and I don't see how, or why, they could miss capping this thing off. Unless they wanted to, which brings us to . . .

Money: What with saving the green stuff at the cost of the green and the black (environment and oil), I'm sure BP is skimping on the cost of cleanup. After all, this is going to get expensive. The oil companies are notorious for their greed, after all, that's what oil is all about. It runs our cars, cures our ill and powers our industry. The need of greed is so great that the oil companies and the auto industry work closely together to keep the gasoline in need. This is NOT a conspiracy theory, it is fact (I'll cover this in a later blog). So, the advantage to letting this continue, if there is one, is that the price of oil can go moronically high, justified by the cost of cleanup and the GREAT loss of oil, even though it's only one well, I'm sure it makes up about 99.99% of the oil in the world. Sure, the price of oil is going down, but let's see what the future has to show. Now, without a lead in, I go to the last factor . . .

Terrorism: I'm suure you knew that word would come up. Some of my friends (and family) believe this to be the work of terrorists, whereas others believe that BP will manufacture evidence to claim terrorism, just to get out of the responsibility. I am more prone to believe the latter. If it was a terrorist attack, someone would be taking credit for this and National Security would be having a field day. Of course, now that it is out there (to those few who read this) if evidence of terrorism was brought up, we should be seriously wondering. Unless, of course, your are already in the camp of those who already believe. Of course, in a link to the previous factor, Middle East oil companies will use the disastor to raise their prices to fund more terrorism overseas (and possibly here). They claim it's not being used for that, but I, for some reason, cannot believe that. Ther has been too much correlation between rising oil costs and rising terrorist (or insugency) incidents for me. But hey, maybe on this, I'm being paranoid, like the rest of the nation.

So, there is my take on this debacle (I do love that word. debacle. hehe)

Take care

Charles

Gott spielt verful nicht mit der Universum A.E.

Battlefield Update.

OK, so I finally finished it and I should make one . . . apology? The weapons thereing are pretty much accurate and well used, although I still think the enemy is a little high on the shotguns.

Otherwise I still hold my previous opinion. I still did not see superior graphics as there was an inordinant amount of fog/dust/smoke. The maps still sucked, although the desert was extensive. Bust come on, all those ship wrecks in the middle of a desert in South America?

Not amoung my favorite games. I mean, the traitor was very expected and I would have just totaled out the plane in the first place.

So, there you have it. Y'all have fun.

Charles
Gott spielt verful nicht mit dem Universum A.E.

Bad-lefield Bad Company

OK, so I heard all the hype about Bad Company 2. "It's the greatest game" and "The Graphics are Awesome." I don't get it. Just like Modern Warfare 2, the game did not live up to my expectations. H**l, it didn't even live up to MW2.

To be on the safe side, I rented it. I'm very glad I did. I will probably try to finish it before the rental date is up, but it's not as enjoyable as some other games out there. Here's why.

1: The maps. Most of the new games have maps that are far of field. Maps that are, say, 20Km by 20Km. BC2 has maps that are maybe 1-2Km long and VERY limited on where you can go, that being a 20m wide strip. "You can't go that way, dude, there are mines over there."

2: The Storyline. Once again, we're at war with the Russians. The opening theme isn't too bad, but then it jumps to a world map with a spread of red. Is that supposed to be the area that the Russians have already taken over? If so, how could the US possibly win, it's the only area NOT taken over. And the RUSSIANS??? Can't they think of something more realistic? At least Operation Flashpoint : Dragon Rising pits us against a credible threat (the Chinese).

3: The weapons. Although they provide a large array of weapons, a good many of them are underpowered, such as the SAW weapons, and, of course, the shotguns and pistols are lethal at 1000m but the ARs can't kill over 300 (and forget about killing the bad guys with the same ease they can kill you). I admit I am exagerating a little, but shotguns are use for CLOSE QUARTERS, not long distance and there is a reason that pistols are only issued to HQ officers and pilots, they're just not as powerful as Rifles. Then there are the addons. You can only get stock weapons, not weapons and epuipment suited to you wants/needs i.e. "This AR comes with a red-dot only."

4: To most, this is not an issue, but I don't like the fact that you can only play online if you go PVP. Granted, they have Team PVP, but I don't like PVP. There are too many people out there that do all they can to learn the cheate codes or find other ways to give themselves "the edge." Rainbow Six : Vegas Two and OF:DR seem to be about the only ones that have a system where you can co-operate in the story line. RS:V2 is the only game that you can get bennies and rank up by playing the game or in cooperation with other players.

I am hoping that the gaming industry comes up with a few new games that I can enjoy with my friends, with decent maps and weapons and without having to go up against other players.

Incidentally, the graphics aren't all that much better than any other modern game.

Punishing Pecan Processing People Purposefully.

I heard in the news today that people are boycotting a pecan company because its processing plant is in Arizona. This is because Arizona passed a new immigration law that tells its police to check the documentation of anyone they suspect of being in the country illegally.
Really?
I mean, this one has to be a joke. I mean what kind of idiot thinks that it’s OK to punish a business for the actions of a state government. That’s like punishing the neighbor’s child for something that your boss did. Or am I the only one that sees this?
Now I can understand that the church has set a precedent to this action. After all, the church says that god holds us responsible for the sins of two mythological people (and everyone else that comes afterwards), but that doesn’t mean that it’s the right thing to do. How can you hold a company responsible for something they had nothing to do with?
All this action does is lower the economy of the state (which is the intended purpose) and put people out of work. Families will suffer just because of a political decision. Even if it does lead to removal of this law, there is absolutely no justification for this. The people who formed this ban have absolutely no clue of how this would affect the people who work there. If they do, then they care not one iota for the people who are trying to eke out a living in an economy that is already suffering.
Then again, maybe it’s being organized by a rival pecan processing company.
Come on people, wake up. The only reason to boycott a company is if they are personally doing something reprehensible: for instance, if they could be a proven backer for the bill-that-became-a-law which isn’t reprehensible, but it fits. To punish a company for the actions of the government of the state they are in is ridiculous. If we were to continue this boycott, it opens the door for all the nuts to have a tool for their own usage. I mean why not boycott Dippin’ Dots for being located in Kentucky because there are people growing pot illegally in Kentucky?
This has to be a joke.

Saturday, April 24, 2010
Have We Lost the War On Terror?

I am disgusted and outraged at the person or persons who decided to give in to the extremists threats and censored the April 21 episode of South Park. If we continue to do this, we show that the terrorists are winning. The sensors not only put a censor block over the "Muhammed" character (which I find appropriate to the humor of the show) but they bleeped out every mention of Muhammed's name and the whole final speech.

Now, I am all for respecting peoples religion, but as every one makes jokes about every other religion and religious figure, I don't understand why we should specifically single out any particular religion or figure for special "sacred" attention. What would you do if everyone picked on every religion/figure except ,say, Jesus. People would instantly claim religions intollerance from the Christians. But just because the extremist worship Muhammed, that, somehow, makes him iviolate, just because they threaten violence.

It is my opinion that as many people as can draw well (I wanted to put a picture attached to this post but it would be bad art and show more disrespect than I am willing to stoop to), they should all post their interpretation of what Muhammed looked like. If we had thousands of pictures of Muhammed being displayed, it would be difficult for the extremists to single out any one person for intimidation.

Giving in to these sick, misguided idiots that threaten to enact violence on anyone (especially those who are not Muslim) because they drew a picture or made a statement about or against Islam is just another way in which the terrorists are winning the war on terror. We, the people of America and every other country with "free speech," need to protect or freedom by not giving in and not surrendering to the cowardly demands of those who would stifle our freedoms because they do not coincide with the terrorists' religious (or just hateful) teachings.

I am not Muslim, therefore, I do not feel I have to follow the teaching of Islam or their religious edicts on propriety. I do not worship the idol of Jesus Christ and I do not mind anyone poking fun at Christianity (I do it myself) even though I follow the teachings of Christ. God created man with a sense of humor, so His (that's right, I said "his.") sense of humor must be fantastic. I also make jokes about Jews, Hidus (as much as I know of it) Communists, Capitalists and anyone else I can, all in good, clean fun. (I try my best to make whatever I say inoffensive). Not being Muslim, I feel I do not have to follow their rules, just as I do not follow the Jewish, Hindu and quite a lot of the Christian rules.

In conclusion, let me just say, to all the Muslims out there, Loosen up and back off. Your religion is not the only religion and you cannot make everyone like unto you. To all the Americans (and other free people of the world) I say, toughen up, stand your ground and don't surrender to a group of idiots who follow an insane man. Speak your mind and to hell with those who would curtail your liberty. This also goes for every other infringement on your freedoms such as speaking out against the government. Whe Bill Mahr got fired for speaking out against President Bush 2 (something that was actually his job) it was one of the greatest infringements to the 1st amendment (note that our founding fathers put this as the FIRST amendment) rights. For the benifits of the ignorant, I post it here.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” (copied from wikipedia out of laziness)

Peace up all.

Charles "Gott spielt nicht verful mit dem Universum" A.E.

P.S. I hope I'm not doing something wrong with the quote, I don't know if he ever said it in Deutch.

Have We Lost the War On Terror?

I am disgusted and outraged at the person or persons who decided to give in to the extremists threats and censored the April 21 episode of South Park. If we continue to do this, we show that the terrorists are winning. The sensors not only put a censor block over the "Muhammed" character (which I find appropriate to the humor of the show) but they bleeped out every mention of Muhammed's name and the whole final speech.

Now, I am all for respecting peoples religion, but as every one makes jokes about every other religion and religious figure, I don't understand why we should specifically single out any particular religion or figure for special "sacred" attention. What would you do if everyone picked on every religion/figure except ,say, Jesus. People would instantly claim religions intollerance from the Christians. But just because the extremist worship Muhammed, that, somehow, makes him iviolate, just because they threaten violence.

It is my opinion that as many people as can draw well (I wanted to put a picture attached to this post but it would be bad art and show more disrespect than I am willing to stoop to), they should all post their interpretation of what Muhammed looked like. If we had thousands of pictures of Muhammed being displayed, it would be difficult for the extremists to single out any one person for intimidation.

Giving in to these sick, misguided idiots that threaten to enact violence on anyone (especially those who are not Muslim) because they drew a picture or made a statement about or against Islam is just another way in which the terrorists are winning the war on terror. We, the people of America and every other country with "free speech," need to protect or freedom by not giving in and not surrendering to the cowardly demands of those who would stifle our freedoms because they do not coincide with the terrorists' religious (or just hateful) teachings.

I am not Muslim, therefore, I do not feel I have to follow the teaching of Islam or their religious edicts on propriety. I do not worship the idol of Jesus Christ and I do not mind anyone poking fun at Christianity (I do it myself) even though I follow the teachings of Christ. God created man with a sense of humor, so His (that's right, I said "his.") sense of humor must be fantastic. I also make jokes about Jews, Hidus (as much as I know of it) Communists, Capitalists and anyone else I can, all in good, clean fun. (I try my best to make whatever I say inoffensive). Not being Muslim, I feel I do not have to follow their rules, just as I do not follow the Jewish, Hindu and quite a lot of the Christian rules.

In conclusion, let me just say, to all the Muslims out there, Loosen up and back off. Your religion is not the only religion and you cannot make everyone like unto you. To all the Americans (and other free people of the world) I say, toughen up, stand your ground and don't surrender to a group of idiots who follow an insane man. Speak your mind and to hell with those who would curtail your liberty. This also goes for every other infringement on your freedoms such as speaking out against the government. Whe Bill Mahr got fired for speaking out against President Bush 2 (something that was actually his job) it was one of the greatest infringements to the 1st amendment (note that our founding fathers put this as the FIRST amendment) rights. For the benifits of the ignorant, I post it here.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” (copied from wikipedia out of laziness)

Peace up all.

Charles "Gott spielt nicht verful mit dem Universum" A.E.