The Futility Hotline
Friday, January 30, 2004
|
New and Improved Ways to Injure Yourself in the Name of Fitness
It's the evolution of fitness equipment! Burn calories by the bucket load!
Well, that's what the commercial said. But personally, I think this thing called the TreadClimber looks like a good way to really blow out a limb. I mean really, to take a Stairmaster and replace the stairs with two small treadmills? You're just asking for some broken furniture and a large hospital bill.
Saturday, January 24, 2004
I Don't Really Agree With Him, Do I?
So Dubya wants to give the space program a shot in the arm, eh? When I first heard this news, I was somewhat aghast. Not because I have something against NASA. Far from it. Take in consideration that I am an engineer by trade (read: geek) and you'll realize that anything remotely Star Trek-y is way cool by me. No...I was aghast because on some level, I was actually in agreement with a position that Dubya took.
Needless to say, I had to think about this a little more. This is what I came up with.
I am highly in support of the space program. Not just because of the cool factor, but because of the side effects that such an endeavor creates. In order to meet the goal of space flight and extraterrestrial landings, brand new technologies are dreamed up that eventually find their way to everyday life and enhance it. Lightweight and durable materials, new computational and signal processing methods which have now evolved into today's PCs, wireless technologies and digital media...all these things have roots in the space program because of the research done to achieve the tasks necessary.
That type of research that is the first thing eliminated from cost conscious corporations when Wall Street takes a slight dip. Left up to so called "hi-tech" companies that are ruled by the whims of stock analysts, the effort to push the envelope gives way very quickly to the effort to cut corners to save $0.01 per part. Any major grants to the space program would ease the restrictions on engineers and scientists to advance technology as we know it faster than any suit in an ivory tower would allow.
But ironically, the decision to launch such a highly intellectual journey appears to start with a dimwit. George W. Bush wouldn't know a Mars Rover from a Mars bar. From the moment he began his presidential campaign, I, like many others, was convinced that he isn't the brightest bulb in the light socket. But he certainly has enough political controllers, er, "advisors" to let him know when he needs to jump on something. And the success of the Mars Rover looked like a real good opportunity to do smooching up to the public. Politically, it's a nice touch. Take an amazing technological breakthrough, mix in a little American can-do spirit, toss in a little appeal to the curious, exploratory nature of humans and channel a little bit of JFK's vow to put a man on the moon. It's a good springboard to do a little bit of campaigning to push his re-election bid. The "plan" that's been served up for this is so open-ended and long term that it can't really be evaluated, but seems to sound pretty good at first glance that maybe...just maybe...you'd want to keep him in office to allow him to get the ball rolling.
Naaaaahh.
Thursday, January 22, 2004
Thought for the Day
If you believe Michael Jackson when he says he never molested a child, remember that he is also on record as saying he did not have plastic surgery.
Friday, January 09, 2004
Original Aspect Ratio
I have a quandary. A moral dilemma, you might say.
The reason I have it is because I really like my movies. I'm pretty anal-retentive about owning DVDs, not so much regarding my tastes (I definitely have some questionable titles, but I got them for free as far as you know.) but in the quality, condition and presentation. However, despite some people's best intentions, they are not as serious about their movie collecting as I am.
So my dilemma is this: How do I accept a DVD as a gift when I am given the full-frame edition, not the widescreen one?
OK, it's seemingly meaningless in the grand scheme of things. And I realize it seems a tad bit ungrateful. But being given a film on DVD in full frame is slightly annoying.
You, dear reader, probably know this. After all, if you're reading this site, you must be of above average intelligence. Therefore, you know that a movie in full-frame is 90% of the time a movie with the sides cut off. The other 10% of the time it's a movie where you're allowed to see a top and a bottom that the director did not intend for you to see (in which case, if you like that idea, I hope you enjoy seeing the shadow of the overhead boom microphone and that it ruins the illusion of the film for you).
But there are those of you that cry, "Goddamn it, Jon...I have a 48" TV and those stupid black bars are reducing the functionality of the screen that I paid good money for." Well frankly, if that's how you feel, then you just make sure that you keep your movie collection full of pseudo TV movie of the weeks like "Pretty Woman," "My Best Friend's Wedding," and "Miss Congeniality." Because I don't want you defiling the quality of the home theatre presentations of "The Lord of the Rings," "X2," or any of the Indiana Jones films that demand to be shown in all of their glory, not just the middle third of the overall video.
Oh and by the way, I can't exchange the DVD that started this tirade. I already opened it not knowing it was full frame, and I never did get a gift receipt with it. Besides, it wasn't that great of a movie anyway.
