I've been told I need a new hobby. This, to me, seems absurd when the old hobbies are all still perfectly viable.
Here is a primitive first attempt at stop motion animation.
You will note that "walking up to the camera" looks significantly less impressive than "getting up on his hind legs and roaring." I suspect that is because his small feet made incrementally moving him difficult (as soon as he was on fewer than three feet, he started slipping all over the place). Here he is with the addition of bottle cap feet. (That's right: the theorist just did an experiment. Don't worry. I won't include any error bars.)
Well... that's better.... but it's not good. The point is to be able to tell a story (involving monsters!) with this, and, at this point, I think the discontinuous nature of the motion is still too distracting to make that feasible. Suspending him from two pieces of fishing wire (as I have) may not be the best way to hold him steady against gravity between frames. I'll need to think some more about this.
Special thanks to Tim, who taught me that there is nothing you cannot do with a hot glue gun.
Sunday, February 6, 2011
Saturday, October 30, 2010
"There's an old saying in Tennessee (I know it's in Texas; it's probably in Tennessee)..."
I believe I have said this before, but it bears repeating: the principal way you know I'm a liberal is not that I believe that we need to stop calling it "gay marriage" ("the right to not have the government pick your spouse" seems more to the point), or that "taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society" (wait! that was a Republican Supreme Court nominee/Justice; time's arrow man....weird). No, you know I'm a liberal because I don't actually believe anything until either Jon Stewart or Ira Glass whispers it soothingly into my ear.
This week's "This American Life" is fascinating (yes: I keep that sentence on hand and cut and paste it to this blog every other entry). It tells two stories of people fed up with their political parties. It should come as no surprise that the "Democrats are stupid" story is much more forgiving than the "Republicans are stupid" story. Democrats are stupid because they don't know how to run campaigns. Republicans are stupid because... I wonder.
The Republican half of the episode focuses on Tea Partiers in Michigan and their quest to restore "conservative values" (the theme of this post is that I don't know what those are) to the GOP. I've never really taken the Tea Party seriously. That may actually be a trenchant piece of self-reflection, since it was barely 3 years ago that I could be seen waving a sign accusing the President of the United States of being a fascist. I like to think that I've grown since then. Listening to the interviewed Tea Partiers (I will resist the urge to abbreviate that TPers for the rest of the post, though it would be pretty high-larious), one contradictory idea slowly became clear in my mind. These are people who are as mad at George W. Bush as I am, but have reacted exactly opposite. We both agree (I think) that the end result of the Bush Presidency was somewhat less than desirable. We disagree why. The Tea Partiers claim that the Republican party drove this country into a ditch because they "broke with conservative values" and that the party, therefore, needs a quick shot of new blood. I claim that the Republican party drove this country into a ditch because they exemplified conservative values and that conservatism, therefore, needs to be tarred, feathered, and run out of Washington, D.C. on a rail.
My question for all you Tea Partiers out there (yeah, right; Tea Partiers read my blog) is this: in what way were the Bush years not a conservative wet-dream?
Judeo-Christian ethics were codified (remember stem cells and the aforementioned marriage rights?).
Environmental concerns had to ride in the back middle seat of the free market's station wagon.
Taxes were slashed (as we marched into not one, but two wars; I'm going to break with my half-assed attempt to remain civil here and state my belief that our grandparents, who went without stockings because nylon was needed to send paratroopers into Nazi-occupied France, are particularly ashamed of us on this front).
Missile Defense installations were funded.
Boom! Recession!
Am I missing something? How is the reaction to this that we need more conservatism in American politics?
This week's "This American Life" is fascinating (yes: I keep that sentence on hand and cut and paste it to this blog every other entry). It tells two stories of people fed up with their political parties. It should come as no surprise that the "Democrats are stupid" story is much more forgiving than the "Republicans are stupid" story. Democrats are stupid because they don't know how to run campaigns. Republicans are stupid because... I wonder.
The Republican half of the episode focuses on Tea Partiers in Michigan and their quest to restore "conservative values" (the theme of this post is that I don't know what those are) to the GOP. I've never really taken the Tea Party seriously. That may actually be a trenchant piece of self-reflection, since it was barely 3 years ago that I could be seen waving a sign accusing the President of the United States of being a fascist. I like to think that I've grown since then. Listening to the interviewed Tea Partiers (I will resist the urge to abbreviate that TPers for the rest of the post, though it would be pretty high-larious), one contradictory idea slowly became clear in my mind. These are people who are as mad at George W. Bush as I am, but have reacted exactly opposite. We both agree (I think) that the end result of the Bush Presidency was somewhat less than desirable. We disagree why. The Tea Partiers claim that the Republican party drove this country into a ditch because they "broke with conservative values" and that the party, therefore, needs a quick shot of new blood. I claim that the Republican party drove this country into a ditch because they exemplified conservative values and that conservatism, therefore, needs to be tarred, feathered, and run out of Washington, D.C. on a rail.
My question for all you Tea Partiers out there (yeah, right; Tea Partiers read my blog) is this: in what way were the Bush years not a conservative wet-dream?
Judeo-Christian ethics were codified (remember stem cells and the aforementioned marriage rights?).
Environmental concerns had to ride in the back middle seat of the free market's station wagon.
Taxes were slashed (as we marched into not one, but two wars; I'm going to break with my half-assed attempt to remain civil here and state my belief that our grandparents, who went without stockings because nylon was needed to send paratroopers into Nazi-occupied France, are particularly ashamed of us on this front).
Missile Defense installations were funded.
Boom! Recession!
Am I missing something? How is the reaction to this that we need more conservatism in American politics?
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
...but it is often true...?
Late in the 2008 campaign and even early into his administration, there was a lot of talk comparing Obama to Spock. By "a lot" I mean that there was any at all. On "Wait, wait, don't tell me," Leonard Nimoy recounted the tale of how, during one of his convention appearances, a candidate for high public office stepped out of the crowd and flashed him the Vulcan hand sign; "[the candidate] was not John McCain". I think there was also a Newsweek cover.... The chatter was driven by the perception that Obama was/is rational to the point of aggravation (his logic can be most annoying), even though, "he only knows how to give pretty speeches," seemed to be an equally popular criticism.
I think I just found another parallel.
I love Star Trek (for those who didn't know that: "Hi, my name is Scott; who are you?"). I love Star Trek so much that I define it only to include television episodes that were aired between [fall 1966:spring 1969, fall 1988:spring 1994] and movies featuring Leonard Nimoy that have even numbers in their titles (though, it has recently been brought to my attention that Captain Kirk is climbing a mountain). None of those are typos. The dates are chosen very carefully. That is how much I love Star Trek.
Were it my decision, I would reserve a special place in movie hell for Abrams Trek.
My problems with the most recent Star Trek movie are many (no one but William Shatner should ever be allowed to scream: "I am Captain Kirk!" and be taken semi-seriously). Today, the villain stands out in my mind. For those of you who haven't seen the movie (DON'T), the villain is a Romulan from the future bent on destroying Vulcan. Why is he bent on destroying Vulcan? (Because he's in love; you didn't click on the link, did you? you should really click on the link). He is bent on destroying Vulcan because, in the future, Spock failed to save the Romulan homeworld from falling into an artificial black hole. Spock did not make the black hole; Vulcans did not make the black hole; but, because Spock (having already saved the galaxy from Klingon-Federation war, a giant space Amoeba, THE Doomsday Machine, whale-loving hippie goofs....) failed this once in his heroics, every Vulcan everywhere had to be punished. No Melville was spouted in the pursuit of this vendetta.
Oh yeah, I was talking about Obama. I haven't heard anyone claim that he or the Democrats caused this recession. Most of the academics (read: people who make a living trying to understand the economy through the intellectual lens that helped us invent computers and wipe-out smallpox) I've heard seem to believe that recent government action actually helped prevent the recession from becoming a depression. Nevertheless, voters seem bent on punishing the blue team this November, not because they hurt us (like the other guys probably actually did), but because they couldn't save us... enough.
Maybe the president should stop stumping and start figuring out how to slip his katra into John Boehner's coffee.
I think I just found another parallel.
I love Star Trek (for those who didn't know that: "Hi, my name is Scott; who are you?"). I love Star Trek so much that I define it only to include television episodes that were aired between [fall 1966:spring 1969, fall 1988:spring 1994] and movies featuring Leonard Nimoy that have even numbers in their titles (though, it has recently been brought to my attention that Captain Kirk is climbing a mountain). None of those are typos. The dates are chosen very carefully. That is how much I love Star Trek.
Were it my decision, I would reserve a special place in movie hell for Abrams Trek.
My problems with the most recent Star Trek movie are many (no one but William Shatner should ever be allowed to scream: "I am Captain Kirk!" and be taken semi-seriously). Today, the villain stands out in my mind. For those of you who haven't seen the movie (DON'T), the villain is a Romulan from the future bent on destroying Vulcan. Why is he bent on destroying Vulcan? (Because he's in love; you didn't click on the link, did you? you should really click on the link). He is bent on destroying Vulcan because, in the future, Spock failed to save the Romulan homeworld from falling into an artificial black hole. Spock did not make the black hole; Vulcans did not make the black hole; but, because Spock (having already saved the galaxy from Klingon-Federation war, a giant space Amoeba, THE Doomsday Machine, whale-loving hippie goofs....) failed this once in his heroics, every Vulcan everywhere had to be punished. No Melville was spouted in the pursuit of this vendetta.
Oh yeah, I was talking about Obama. I haven't heard anyone claim that he or the Democrats caused this recession. Most of the academics (read: people who make a living trying to understand the economy through the intellectual lens that helped us invent computers and wipe-out smallpox) I've heard seem to believe that recent government action actually helped prevent the recession from becoming a depression. Nevertheless, voters seem bent on punishing the blue team this November, not because they hurt us (like the other guys probably actually did), but because they couldn't save us... enough.
Maybe the president should stop stumping and start figuring out how to slip his katra into John Boehner's coffee.
Sunday, June 13, 2010
long overdue apology
In the dead of a New England winter, sometimes you have to run indoors. That's not always a bad thing. Sometimes the girls' track team ends up training alongside you. Of course, sometimes, so does the men's lacrosse team. As I recall, it was usually the latter that left a wafting trail of cologne whenever they passed you (or you passed them). Few things will undermine my respect for you as an athlete quite like putting on cologne before your workout. Until today.
Apparently, Calvin Klein's "Obsession for Men" attracts large jungle cats (I wonder if anyone has bothered to do a study ascertaining whether or not it attracts human females of any size... probably not an important question).
Few things will amplify my respect for you as an athlete quite like putting on cologne before your workout so that you can achieve your maximum heart rate fleeing a jaguar.
[If I were actually as geeky as I make myself out to be, I would have titled this post: "Beware of the Leopard." Let's pretend I did that.]
Apparently, Calvin Klein's "Obsession for Men" attracts large jungle cats (I wonder if anyone has bothered to do a study ascertaining whether or not it attracts human females of any size... probably not an important question).
Few things will amplify my respect for you as an athlete quite like putting on cologne before your workout so that you can achieve your maximum heart rate fleeing a jaguar.
[If I were actually as geeky as I make myself out to be, I would have titled this post: "Beware of the Leopard." Let's pretend I did that.]
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Churchill's worst form of government
It sometimes scares me how much I rely on Jon Stewart to tell me what I think about the world. Then I remember that, left to my own devices, I would devolve into a rabid partisan cyborg principally interested in advancing the cause of the Blue Team, and I resume my indolent consumption of Daily Show analysis. That being said, I found the "Meet Me at Camera 3" bit from the June 8 episode troubling. In a nutshell, Stewart took the Administration to task for failing to act decisively on, really, anything (the oil hemorrhage, financial regulation, health care, closing Guantanamo) and rather hiding behind the excuse that "it's complicated." The bit was funny, which I'm sure was the point*, but it's a good excuse for me to resume talking about something that's been bothering me. These problems are complicated. The oil is hemorrhaging a mile underwater. We either have the technology to do something about that or we don't, and I'm pretty sure the only member of the administration with a Nobel Prize in a physical science (Energy Secretary Steven Chu) is, in fact, on the case. Why are we angry at a man (Obama) we elected to craft and execute our laws for not also being an engineering genius on par with the late great never Montgomery Scott?
[*Hi, for those of you who haven't met me, my irony detector is broken, so this all may sound rather silly.]
I can't remember exactly when or why, but a few years ago, I heard a piece on NPR about history of the idea of a "dictator." The expert being interviewed claimed that, in the early 20th century (I believe in the aftermath of the Great Depression), people (or at least newspaper editorial boards) were crying out for someone to step in and be a dictator. The blatantly obvious failings of society appeared to be symptoms of bureaucratic gridlock and nothing breaks gridlock better than, I'm going to say it, a capital-D Decider (man, that felt good). I sometimes get the feeling that liberals (where I'm using that term to encompass everyone who voted against John McCain) want that now. They don't understand why merely electing Barack Obama did not solve all of the institutionalized problems that have been gradually overwhelming our government and culture for the past 20 (30, 40....) years. Yes, the situation with the oil is awful. It's not going to stop being awful anytime soon, nor will it stop when BP finds the technological silver bullet to stop this particular instance of oil gushing all over the place. As this Slate piece argues, as long as there are people buying oil, there will be people and critters dying from it somewhere (much in the same way that we will never win the War on Drugs as long as there are people willing to buy cocaine). We will never have meaningful universal health care as long as we are not willing to universally pay for it (you know, through taxes). Financial reform won't happen until we as a society realize that the absurd prosperity of the housing bubble was absurd, unstable, and to be avoided at all costs. Guantanamo won't close (though it does seem unconscionable that the Commander and Chief can't or won't just order this one) until Americans stop treating terrorism like it's the number one killer of people between ages 1 and 1,000,000 (a good friend once pointed out to me that Americans think they can live precisely this long given the proper application of national security and medical technology).
I guess what I'm saying is, "we are the generation who bought more shoes and we get what we deserve."**
As near as I can tell, we'd all better find the right dictator or become teachers.
[**No, I hadn't heard the song before writing this post, but I've seen the quotation as the signature line to enough emails and, out of context, it seemed appropriate.]
[*Hi, for those of you who haven't met me, my irony detector is broken, so this all may sound rather silly.]
I can't remember exactly when or why, but a few years ago, I heard a piece on NPR about history of the idea of a "dictator." The expert being interviewed claimed that, in the early 20th century (I believe in the aftermath of the Great Depression), people (or at least newspaper editorial boards) were crying out for someone to step in and be a dictator. The blatantly obvious failings of society appeared to be symptoms of bureaucratic gridlock and nothing breaks gridlock better than, I'm going to say it, a capital-D Decider (man, that felt good). I sometimes get the feeling that liberals (where I'm using that term to encompass everyone who voted against John McCain) want that now. They don't understand why merely electing Barack Obama did not solve all of the institutionalized problems that have been gradually overwhelming our government and culture for the past 20 (30, 40....) years. Yes, the situation with the oil is awful. It's not going to stop being awful anytime soon, nor will it stop when BP finds the technological silver bullet to stop this particular instance of oil gushing all over the place. As this Slate piece argues, as long as there are people buying oil, there will be people and critters dying from it somewhere (much in the same way that we will never win the War on Drugs as long as there are people willing to buy cocaine). We will never have meaningful universal health care as long as we are not willing to universally pay for it (you know, through taxes). Financial reform won't happen until we as a society realize that the absurd prosperity of the housing bubble was absurd, unstable, and to be avoided at all costs. Guantanamo won't close (though it does seem unconscionable that the Commander and Chief can't or won't just order this one) until Americans stop treating terrorism like it's the number one killer of people between ages 1 and 1,000,000 (a good friend once pointed out to me that Americans think they can live precisely this long given the proper application of national security and medical technology).
I guess what I'm saying is, "we are the generation who bought more shoes and we get what we deserve."**
As near as I can tell, we'd all better find the right dictator or become teachers.
[**No, I hadn't heard the song before writing this post, but I've seen the quotation as the signature line to enough emails and, out of context, it seemed appropriate.]
Be prepared
Last Friday, the Institute threw a farewell party for me and some of the visiting postdocs. We won't start leaving until next week, but everyone else already has. The Berkeley faculty are starting to trickle out and, I think, by next week even some of the Korean faculty will be vacating for slightly cooler climes, at least for a month or so (when I took this job, my grandfather, who'd been stationed here during the war, promised two things: "It'll be colder than hell in the winter and hotter than hell in the summer;" he wasn't wrong). Like all good parties, this one featured cake. Like all great parties, it actually featured two (pie doesn't seem to be a phenomenon here, so I've had to renormalize the scale). The first cake arrived as a solitary piece delivered to my office. This is what I was given to eat it.
"Big deal," you say, "it's a spoon." Oh, non, mon ami. Look again....
That's right: it's a spoon with a detachable plastic toothpick built into the handle.
The second cake was shared by all in the atrium. This one appeared as a whole cake with three candles (one for each of the imminently departing postdocs). The cake was laid out. The candles were firmly placed. How are we going to light them? Bam! Using the matches hidden in the secret compartment in the handle of the disposable plastic cake server.
Sir Baden Powell just had an orgasm.
For those of you confused by the pink elephant in this post: yes, I am leaving Korea. Yes, it is for good. My official return date is July 15. The reasons shouldn't be surprising to anyone. I'm not really designed for living in a place that I don't consider home. I've flown back to Seattle twice already in the last month: once for my ex-girlfriend's birthday. Once for a good dear friend's wedding. One more time and Al Gore is going to hunt me down with a baseball bat.
If I had principles, I would change the title of this blog, but I really like the title of this blog.
For those of you confused by the other pink elephant in this post: it is what it sounds like.
"Big deal," you say, "it's a spoon." Oh, non, mon ami. Look again....
That's right: it's a spoon with a detachable plastic toothpick built into the handle.
The second cake was shared by all in the atrium. This one appeared as a whole cake with three candles (one for each of the imminently departing postdocs). The cake was laid out. The candles were firmly placed. How are we going to light them? Bam! Using the matches hidden in the secret compartment in the handle of the disposable plastic cake server.
Sir Baden Powell just had an orgasm.
For those of you confused by the pink elephant in this post: yes, I am leaving Korea. Yes, it is for good. My official return date is July 15. The reasons shouldn't be surprising to anyone. I'm not really designed for living in a place that I don't consider home. I've flown back to Seattle twice already in the last month: once for my ex-girlfriend's birthday. Once for a good dear friend's wedding. One more time and Al Gore is going to hunt me down with a baseball bat.
If I had principles, I would change the title of this blog, but I really like the title of this blog.
For those of you confused by the other pink elephant in this post: it is what it sounds like.
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
I'm just saying
From nytimes.com:
"The new laws range from an Arizona ban on coverage of abortion in the state employees’ health plan to a ban in Nebraska on all abortions after 20 weeks, on the grounds that the fetus at that stage can feel pain."
You know what else can feel pain?
Cows.
(It may be problematic that my first reaction wasn't actually to answer that question "pregnant women.")
"The new laws range from an Arizona ban on coverage of abortion in the state employees’ health plan to a ban in Nebraska on all abortions after 20 weeks, on the grounds that the fetus at that stage can feel pain."
You know what else can feel pain?
Cows.
(It may be problematic that my first reaction wasn't actually to answer that question "pregnant women.")
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)