tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-124876112024-03-13T00:02:23.374-06:00Signs of insanityThat boy's crazy. Put him in one of them crazy-buckets.Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10876775111703252840noreply@blogger.comBlogger306125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12487611.post-15459525834179119052023-05-22T18:55:00.005-06:002023-05-22T19:04:49.968-06:00This was not supposed to be a stream-of-conciousness rantWhen I decided to make a new post here, I did actually have a thesis in mind. However, while planning it I thought of several side-topics that I felt were just as important.
So I gave up and just started typing. So, beware of wildly unpredictable topic shifts. Also, this is going to be an "As I understand things/My opinion" rant, so I probably (<em>probably</em>) won't be looking up formal definitions of things.
</br></br>
Anyway:</br> I recently read a statement along the lines of "The Scientific Method is the only way to really know anything." I've seen this sort of thing before and have a couple of issues with it.
</br></br>
One: I don't think the scientific method is deserving of capitalization as if it's some kind of special "thing" in it's own right (Ha! quotations for emphasis!) It's just a process that is important to critical thinking.
</br></br>
Two: The statement isn't actually true. There is really only one way to know something with 100% certainty: valid mathematical or logical proof ("valid" here includes that the initial axioms are true, which should lead to a chain of proofs all the way back to first principles <em>AND</em> that the proof has been verified/error-checked). Everything else is about how confident you can be that what you <em>believe</em> is correct.
</br>
Note: "Confidence" here is not about personal confidence. For example: you may be 100% confident that there are thousands of spiders crawling all over you, but there is always the possibility that you are hallucinating.
</br>
Also note: "I am not hallucinating" is an unspoken axiom for basically all observations and may not be true, which is why independent verification/duplication of results is necessary.
</br>
The other thing about the statement is that it is an over-simplification. There's more to it. Specifically: the accuracy of your measurements. The quote "Messen is wissen [to measure is to know]" is attributed to Georg Ohm; other people (including Lord Kelvin of absoulte zero temperature fame) have said very similar things. And it is mostly true. If you can't measure a thing, you can't know anything about it (not even that it really exists). But that knowledge only extends as far as the accuracy of the measurements. Which is why people bringing up statements from many (sometimes hundreds of) years ago bugs the shit out of me. I am an instrumentation tech. I will always ask "How much error is in that measurement?"
</br></br>
On to a related topic:
</br>
I also often see the statement "You can't prove a negative" (usually from people explaining why something's existence is astronomically unlikely. People who are defending that thing's existance usually phrase it "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence").
</br>
Both are oversimplified. "It is not currently raining here." is a pretty obvious falsification of the first (with the "not hallucinating" caveat. Come on, be reasonable). "When I look in front of me, I do not see a person standing there. Therefore, there is not a person standing in front of me." is a good falsification of the second (again, be reasonable).
</br>
This may seem like nitpicking. Of course both are referring to a thing that can't be observed/measured. But those statements almost never specify that, and are presented as absolute truths. The actual statement should be "If you can't measure a thing, you can't say anything about its existance." If you say "There is wifi here." I can't say you are right or wrong if I don't have a smartphone (or some other wifi capable device or a signal strength meter) because I can't measure the signal without one. But keep in mind that indirect measurements can also be made. Things that exist have consequences on things around them. Making predictions (we're back on the scientific method) about things that can't directly be observed is asking "If this hypothesis is true, what would that mean for or do to the things around it?" If the answer is "nothing" then that thing might as well not exist.
</br></br>
Which brings up atheism vs theism
</br></br>
If you insist on a whimsical entity that hides all evidence of its own existence, then I'm going to ask you to disprove the Invisible Pink Unicorn, Russell's Teapot, and Last Thursdayism.
If you are specifically xian, I'm going to ask you: What changed? What happened to "as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be"?
</br></br>
You know what? I'm not gonna go off on this again. All I'm going to say about religion is this: They can't all be right. But they certainly can all be wrong.
</br></br>
Later,Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10876775111703252840noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12487611.post-85572663222642455162022-08-21T15:42:00.012-06:002022-08-21T16:57:39.680-06:00More Soup<p> I made some Tom Kha Gai today.<br /><br />Being me, I couldn't find a recipe that looked quite right, so I cobbled several togather.<br />It came out pretty good. The only changes I'd make are: more chilis, more curry paste, more lime juice, add some salt.<br /><br />So here's my recipe for Tom Kha Gai:<br /><br />Ingredients:<br /> 4T coconut oil, divided<br /> 1 med. onion, roughly chopped, divided<br /> 3 cloves garlic, chopped<br /> several Thai chilis, halved (more or less depending on desired spiciness)<br /> 3 ¼-inch slices galangal or ginger<br /> 1 stalk lemongrass, crushed with the flat a knife and cut into 2-inch pieces<br /> 2 teaspoons red Thai curry paste (more or less depending on desired spiciness)<br /> 1 32 oz box + 1 14.5 oz can chicken stock<br /> 4-5 kaffir lime leaves<br /> 2 13.5 oz cans coconut milk<br /> 1-2 lb chicken thighs, sliced<br /> 2 c white mushrooms, quartered<br /> 1 red bell peper, chopped<br /> 1 c halved cherry tomatoed<br /> 1/4 head cabbage, roughly chopped<br /> 3T fish sauce (more or less to taste)<br /> 1/4 c lime juice (more or less to taste)<br /><br />Process:<br /> Heat 2T oil in a saucepan (large enough to hold the chicken stock easily). Add 1/2 of the onion, the garlic, the chilis, the galangal (or ginger), the lemongrass, and the curry paste.<br /> Saute until the onions soften (around 5 minutes). Add the chicken stock. Bring to a boil, then reduce to a simmer. Add the kaffir lime leaves. Simmer uncovered for 45 minutes (or so).<br /><br /> Strain broth and discard solids (I strained it into another pot to simplify things). Add the coconut milk, chicken, mushrooms, and cherry tomatoes. Bring to boil again, then reduce to a simmer. Simmer uncovered until the chicken is fully cooked.<br /> In the meantime, heat the remaining oil and saute the other 1/2 onion and the bell pepper until the onions are translucent (around 10 minutes). Add to the stock. <br /><br /> Once the chicken is cooked, add the cabbage, fish sauce, and lime juice. Continue to simmer until cabbage reaches desired softness.<br /><br /> Serve hot.<br /><br />I didn't have any garnish, but cilanto and sliced green onion are popular.<br /><br />Later,</p>Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10876775111703252840noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12487611.post-21058145255765952542018-07-25T11:01:00.000-06:002018-07-25T15:54:56.099-06:00Girls' Last TourOkay, I want to get this out of the way immediately:</br>
<big><b>THIS ANIME WILL MAKE YOU SAD!</b></big></br>
Seriously. It should have a legally required warning. If it doesn't make you sad, then you are a monster and I do not want to know you.</br></br>
It is also one of the best things I have seen in a long, long time. Not just anime. Anything.</br></br>
It is available on Amazon Prime Video (link in title). This is the synopsis:</br> "In a future where most of humanity has perished, two young girls explore the ruins of civilization looking for food and fuel."</br>
That's the entire plot. By all rights, I should think this was boring as hell, but it never was. Even watching it the second time, when I knew exactly what was coming.</br></br>
The two protagonists, Chito and Yuuri, are immediately engaging, just driving through the dark, barely talking. That, combined with the weird abandoned-industrial setting, had me invested in the story from the get-go.</br></br>
Chito (Chi) is thoughtful and bookish (also easily irritated by Yuuri). The (very) occasional flashbacks and dream sequences are from her PoV. She keeps a journal, even though she knows no one will ever read it.</br>
Yuuri (Yuu) is living on Zen time (there is only today and there never will be anything except today). Sometimes she briefly wonders about the past, but never more than as idle curiosity. Same with the future, but even more so. She can barely read or write, but isn't dumb.</br>
Both of them are well aware of their situation. Neither seems deeply bothered by it.</br></br>
There are some nice, touching moments. There are some really funny moments. There are some brief existential discussions. But it's still just these two (mostly - they do meet some other people) driving around aimlessly (they went into the factory in the first episode on Yuu's whim). Their only destination is "higher" (it's a <a href="https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LayeredMetropolis">Layered City</a>) , and even the search for food/fuel doesn't seem that urgent to them, although they are always aware of their limited supplies (and of what happens if they run out).</br></br>
There is a lot more to say about it (and really, no one is going to read this - spoilers aren't an issue), but I don't want to go deep into specifics right now.</br></br>
If you don't mind a sad story, this is a good one that I cannot recommend strongly enough.</br></br>
Later,</br></br>
UPDATE: One sort-of negative thing: I'm not sure my issue with heights counts as even mild acrophobia, but oh-someone's-god did the third and eighth episodes set it off.Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10876775111703252840noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12487611.post-53962801124442503492015-10-15T15:42:00.002-06:002016-06-19T17:45:22.413-06:00river math problemSo a few days ago, my attention was brought to <a href="http://www.iflscience.com/editors-blog/math-question-baffled-scottish-teens">this article</a>. It's a very straight-forward minimization problem. The crocodile/zebra spin is just fluff, the equation that needs minimized is given to the student. Find the derivative and evaluate it at zero. I can't imagine this being "too hard" for anyone who has taken Calculus 1.<br />
<br />
I got to thinking about it, and decided to try to find a general solution. So I needed to set up the original equation. That wasn't too hard. Given width of the river, W; the distance along the bank to the target, L; and the relevant velocities (swimming, V<sub>s</sub>; running, V<sub>r</sub>; and flow speed, V<sub>f</sub> (not considered in the given formula, but what the hell) the relationship is pretty easy to find. I decided to make it a function of the angle at which the crocodile swims (in my set up 0° is directly across the river, and the angle increases clockwise).<br />
<br />
So: total time is the sum of swimming time and running time. Swimming time is easy. It is the distance across the river (at the given angle) divided by the swimming speed. Running time is a little trickier, but it works out to the absolute value of the horizontal distance to the target minus the horizontal distance covered by the swimming angle, plus drift distance. Drift distance is swimming time times flow speed. So, the total time as a function of angle is:<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgq2z_0cDoj4I_OkAQ9Mv8hsUDdzfjBO1ENEwNi5uEGL1XDZHJHzPT65JF21cRAZ4eXSpNO0xp9NQViTJVs69GZrhUmLthNLhw3QLsnPSJx8WVWXCrwOQPu1djLD6nBBSwocBBu/s1600/total+time.png" imageanchor="1" ><img border="0" height="50" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgq2z_0cDoj4I_OkAQ9Mv8hsUDdzfjBO1ENEwNi5uEGL1XDZHJHzPT65JF21cRAZ4eXSpNO0xp9NQViTJVs69GZrhUmLthNLhw3QLsnPSJx8WVWXCrwOQPu1djLD6nBBSwocBBu/s400/total+time.png" width="400" /></a><br />
Taking the derivative and minimizing gives:<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjuifKah_TKKU9E5-q-eSTZSNpA-C_5JTEKY2n_sVqVHMCm0vzdK6cCzPQUiuGPnQRJVYOiakDiiwnmiF7SnSWbBQtmRdB3bN-K7rOqDhc_sNO1mK-vtihbyUsNYtpBIxylHUiw/s1600/derivative.png" imageanchor="1" ><img border="0" height="50" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjuifKah_TKKU9E5-q-eSTZSNpA-C_5JTEKY2n_sVqVHMCm0vzdK6cCzPQUiuGPnQRJVYOiakDiiwnmiF7SnSWbBQtmRdB3bN-K7rOqDhc_sNO1mK-vtihbyUsNYtpBIxylHUiw/s200/derivative.png" width="123" /></a><br />
Check it out. It looks like the W and L don't matter. Just the ratio of velocities. But if the swimming speed is higher than the running speed plus flow speed, the result is meaningless. It turns out that even if it is close, the angle it gives is ridiculous. It isn't obvious from any of this but the function has a <del>discontinuity</del> cusp where <br />tan(θ) = L/W, and the minimization will only work to that point. <br />
<br />
I was having a hard time showing this on paper, so I did what I always do in these situations: I wrote a program to do it for me. I used the browser-based Python interpreter at <a href="http://www.codeskulptor.org/">CodeSkulptor</a><br />
<br />
<del>Here it is.</del> <a href="#final">Use this one.</a> Feel free to play with it.(The last I knew, CodeSkulptor doesn't work right in IE) You can change the distances and velocities. Note that negative W, V<sub>r</sub>, and V<sub>s</sub> are nonsense. The program can't handle negative L. Negative V<sub>f</sub> is fine, though.<br />
<br />
Here's a screen shot of the solution to the original problem:<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiWdbWFVd1pKVDkVPG_KTDKklfPwFUCZGBdRU8RKa5nftqY-anxB8mASFALrG5UWa0bIUgSVHvB3vZqfle7zfm_Pr7k4BCocSlwooXReQaYHKeBANJOieSbe5_wLOgfE6DKIBNR/s1600/original+problem.png" imageanchor="1" ><img border="0" height="220" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiWdbWFVd1pKVDkVPG_KTDKklfPwFUCZGBdRU8RKa5nftqY-anxB8mASFALrG5UWa0bIUgSVHvB3vZqfle7zfm_Pr7k4BCocSlwooXReQaYHKeBANJOieSbe5_wLOgfE6DKIBNR/s400/original+problem.png" width="400" /></a><br />
<br />
Here's a screenshot of one of the weird results.<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjCGp8y4mAbKVGWxC48Rw2o2rTDKut79KJY-_9q-eMjB_QFxmYIx-Ir77bq3lhLkYrxAmJWfdOJ-VH4rWHi8eY5e-1-cF_Prb-fn4577lWdBk7G-b3KjtdctsFIYuOEIc8wFtqq/s1600/weird+result.png" imageanchor="1" ><img border="0" height="221" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjCGp8y4mAbKVGWxC48Rw2o2rTDKut79KJY-_9q-eMjB_QFxmYIx-Ir77bq3lhLkYrxAmJWfdOJ-VH4rWHi8eY5e-1-cF_Prb-fn4577lWdBk7G-b3KjtdctsFIYuOEIc8wFtqq/s400/weird+result.png" width="400" /></a><br />
<br />
(FIX: there was a bug in my drift calculation when I took that. The minimum time will never have the crocodile landing upstream of the target. It is fixed in the final version)<br />
<br />
Later,<br />
<br />
UPDATE: I changed the color scheme for better contrast, and fiddled with the scale and offset to show that the <del>discontinuity</del> cusp is still there in the original problem<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjl2FCdoxGVI8Wvzs-riaWyubMvpC0Tj5QiNt1t4Id7O8getn8jwOWBRLAaDdjpddMB2YAkH9vWhLcDktbYY7W11BiALvezNg4OvJWQc5wo6-Zww4bxeitf-yVkqsiS_pTlaBMV/s1600/final.png" imageanchor="1" ><img border="0" height="221" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjl2FCdoxGVI8Wvzs-riaWyubMvpC0Tj5QiNt1t4Id7O8getn8jwOWBRLAaDdjpddMB2YAkH9vWhLcDktbYY7W11BiALvezNg4OvJWQc5wo6-Zww4bxeitf-yVkqsiS_pTlaBMV/s400/final.png" width="400" /></a><br />
<br />
The <del>discontinuity</del> cusp is at θ = atan(L/W) if there is no drift. Adding drift changes the angle at which the crocodile would swim directly to the target. That is where the run time calculation (the absolute value term in the total time equation) is zero. I'm not sure I can simplify it to a relationship. I can see that V<sub>r</sub> divides out, and the angle depends on W, L, V<sub>s</sub>, and V<sub>f</sub>. Maybe I'll work on it more this weekend.<br />
<br />
Later,<br />
<br />
UPDATE #2: Okay, I worked out the relationship that determines the angle where the <del>discontinuity</del> cusp is. It is a horribly messy quadratic:<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_z0nq1vJQes7eybOu3JLmlU1rGXQ4wdeA0mi2IdRMvnXouf4NPKvW3VgVnOL5-l0PmA5XKLBvu0IvcKDmUDFJx_xmPEhSiWjlQ-TMCHGDXIjDEndyxOs3-tG1zglcK__3EPG8/s1600/discontinuity.png" imageanchor="1" ><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_z0nq1vJQes7eybOu3JLmlU1rGXQ4wdeA0mi2IdRMvnXouf4NPKvW3VgVnOL5-l0PmA5XKLBvu0IvcKDmUDFJx_xmPEhSiWjlQ-TMCHGDXIjDEndyxOs3-tG1zglcK__3EPG8/s400/discontinuity.png" /></a>
<br />
The quadratic formula technically has '+ or -', but the '-' case can be discounted because that result is outside of the range the problem makes sense for, [0°,90°). If flow speed (V<sub>f</sub>) is zero, this simplifies to cos(θ) = W/√<span style="text-decoration: overline">W²+L²</span>, which equates to tan(θ) = (L/W).<br />
<br />
Aside from the initial minimization that made me aware of the <del>discontinuity</del> cusp , this has all been algebra and trigonometry. Messy, sure, but not actually hard.<br />
<br />
So <del>here</del> <a href="#final">Use this one.</a> is the final version of my program. Here is a screenshot of the original problem, showing the location of the <del>discontinuity</del> cusp:<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhx-HCmluhc3wSjykMHkxr6LVbbfTwj0Yr1XoL1WefUjuBHWj2XQ4w9EswxoRT1JqR9mJnECdftJn0SfQNwbNhasyDOZmSoHj27tgZFfnk3SS5bawBZKdIAxzT-nLp4gPt1emc1/s1600/final.png" imageanchor="1" ><img border="0" height="221" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhx-HCmluhc3wSjykMHkxr6LVbbfTwj0Yr1XoL1WefUjuBHWj2XQ4w9EswxoRT1JqR9mJnECdftJn0SfQNwbNhasyDOZmSoHj27tgZFfnk3SS5bawBZKdIAxzT-nLp4gPt1emc1/s400/final.png" style="cursor: move;" width="400" /></a><br />
Later,<br />
<br />
UPDATE #(Again? WTF?): It occurred to me that I was using "discontinuity" wrong. The function is not discontinuous, it is continuous but not differentiable at the cusp. So, I have corrected the post.<br /><br />
Note to self: Do not use Blogger's "compose" mode. It adds a ton of weird, unnecessary html to the post.<br />
<br />
Later,<br />
<br />
UPDATE #(Seriously, what the hell is wrong with you?): I couldn't help thinking about the cases where the minimization doesn't apply. It really isn't that mysterious. As V<sub>s</sub> approaches (or equals) V<sub>r</sub>+V<sub>f</sub>, the resulting θ would be beyond the cusp. which means that it doesn't apply. The total time function follows a different curve to the right and left of the cusp. There is actually a discontinuity in the curve. 1/cos(θ) → infinity as θ → 90°. Of course, the cusp usually comes before you get close to the discontinuity, so the minimum time will always be between 0° and the cusp. Well, if the flow speed is high, the cusp calculation can be outside the (-90°, 90°) range. but in that case the function is differentiable across that entire range, and the minimization applies. This got me wondering why my program didn't work for L < 0. It should have been obvious. I was only evaluating the equation for θ in [0°, 90°). If L < 0, θ < 0°. Once I fixed that to (-90°, 90°), I had to put an absolute value on the cos(θ) in the swim time evaluation (even if the angle at which the crocodile swims across the river is negative, the time it takes is still positive). I changed my graphics to reflect the change. So, once again, here is <del>the actual, final version</del> <a href="#final">Use this one</a>.<br />
And the obligatory screenshot:<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjTBKX1Pmx8KBbukRrmUXPi5HfiecEHDtgpA2u7G3QvnZ-LZE6XyBqQBBJ0MUMF0CbkjVKhB03I9h5qahb_Ux1KYJNVBWgrHszNjqB_RHZLbX7Lr4lL6yriFsOYZpiLbq0-XY6K/s1600/real-actual-final.png" imageanchor="1" ><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjTBKX1Pmx8KBbukRrmUXPi5HfiecEHDtgpA2u7G3QvnZ-LZE6XyBqQBBJ0MUMF0CbkjVKhB03I9h5qahb_Ux1KYJNVBWgrHszNjqB_RHZLbX7Lr4lL6yriFsOYZpiLbq0-XY6K/s400/real-actual-final.png" /></a><br />
Later,<br /><br />
<a name="final"></a>UPDATE #(Holy Shit! You're still on about this?): I couldn't stop fiddling with the program. I added Try-Except statements to the input handlers so that entering bad values wouldn't crash the program. Try it. I also made some corrections to the graph display. So <a href="http://www.codeskulptor.org/#user40_3ArC9nHtFx4oeDf.py">here is the latest 'final' version</a>.<br />
And a screenshot:<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi7f7gTVTll0yDUL23Zs-7Fj9BGMoptwqfCWsmWIYYnjM6SYewyaxxN5bucX6zh3RBzzcy1Au4DT6Aa3sDt72HTOqD9opoID3tZamT4h8DYSmESZibrcHOCHV54y1x8TilD0wSy/s1600/latest+final.png" imageanchor="1" ><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi7f7gTVTll0yDUL23Zs-7Fj9BGMoptwqfCWsmWIYYnjM6SYewyaxxN5bucX6zh3RBzzcy1Au4DT6Aa3sDt72HTOqD9opoID3tZamT4h8DYSmESZibrcHOCHV54y1x8TilD0wSy/s400/latest+final.png" /></a><br />
Later,Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10876775111703252840noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12487611.post-33708245346999457222015-08-23T13:06:00.000-06:002015-11-01T11:18:34.554-07:00Cherry MarshamallowsThis is the sort of thing that happens when I get bored:<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgZA0TDIH7mivnNRgDju_6-WRTXyePz87NWdodyJRgFlVkozVseCp1BT8vTH_9CjUcqcA8Tvd65KwVH26OYErjgXZ31eaV7rAvj3Ceig3pp8egozxcr8sPT5dT1By38uJpLJSS5/s1600/IMAG0043.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="181" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgZA0TDIH7mivnNRgDju_6-WRTXyePz87NWdodyJRgFlVkozVseCp1BT8vTH_9CjUcqcA8Tvd65KwVH26OYErjgXZ31eaV7rAvj3Ceig3pp8egozxcr8sPT5dT1By38uJpLJSS5/s320/IMAG0043.jpg" width="320" /></a><br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The pink mess in the bowl is a previous batch that I left too close to a hot oven, and melted into a gooey pile. Jac suggests making Rice Krispy treats with it. I'll probably do that.<br />
<br />
The plate on the right has the finished marshmallows from the second batch. They are dusted in powdered sugar to keep them from sticking together. They are actually purple, as can be seen on the exposed half-marshmallow. These are awesome in hot chocolate or s'mores.<br />
<br />
The plate on the left has the Frankensteinian remnants, and a few salvaged pieces from the first batch, dipped in chocolate.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The reason the first batch is pink, and the second purple is a change in the recipe. The original recipe called for cherry extract and a few drops of red food coloring. I used the last of my cherry extract making it. When I decided to make another batch, I went to the store to get more, but there wasn't any. So I got cherry juice and substituted it for the water in the original. I wasn't sure it would work, but I'm pretty happy with the results. Next time I'll add some extract, too, though. The cherry flavor is pretty subtle with just the juice.<br />
<br />
So here's my (revised) recipe for Cherry Marshmallows.<br />
<br />
Equipment:<br />
Electric mixer</div>
<div>
Whisk</div>
<div>
Rubber scraper<br />
Heavy-bottomed 2-qt saucepan</div>
<div>
Candy thermometer<br />
Medium mixing bowl (I prefer one with straight sides)</div>
<div>
Small microwave-safe bowl</div>
<div>
Baking dish (I used an 11"x7" brownie pan)</div>
<div>
Cling wrap</div>
<div>
Chef's knife</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Ingredients:</div>
<div>
2 lg. egg whites, at room temperature</div>
<div>
1 c. cherry juice (I used black-cherry juice, I think that's why they're purple)</div>
<div>
3 envelopes unflavored gelatin</div>
<div>
2 c. granulated sugar</div>
<div>
1/2 c. light corn syrup</div>
<div>
1/4 t. salt<br />
1 t. cherry extract (or more for a stronger flavor)</div>
<div>
powdered sugar</div>
<div>
non-stick spray</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Process:</div>
<div>
Line the baking dish with cling wrap and spray with non-stick spray.<br />
Mix gelatin and 1/2 c cherry juice in microwave safe bowl and set aside.</div>
<div>
Put egg whites in mixing bowl and set aside.</div>
<div>
Mix remaining 1/2 c juice, granulated sugar, corn syrup, and salt in saucepan.</div>
<div>
Heat on med-high. Stir until sugar is dissolved. Insert thermometer.</div>
<div>
Heat to 260°F. Note - when it starts to boil, it will make a mess if the saucepan is</div>
<div>
too small.</div>
<div>
Watch the thermometer. When the sugar mixture gets to about 240°F, start </div>
<div>
beating the egg whites.</div>
<div>
They should form stiff peaks about the time the sugar gets to 260°. <br />
Microwave gelatin on high for 20 seconds. Stir to fully liquefy.</div>
<div>
Whisk gelatin into sugar mixture. Note - this will cause a lot of steam. Be careful.</div>
<div>
Slowly pour sugar/gelatin mixture into egg whites while beating on low. Not too</div>
<div>
slowly, if the sugar cools it will harden.</div>
<div>
Add cherry extract and gradually increase speed to med-high.<br />
Beat until very thick and glossy, 8 to 10 minutes.</div>
<div>
Pour into prepared dish. Let sit at least 8 hours to allow gelatin to set.</div>
<div>
Dust (liberally) a cutting board with powdered sugar. Flip marshmallow onto</div>
<div>
board and remove pan and cling wrap. Dust marshmallow with powdered sugar.</div>
<div>
Cut into strips (then cubes) with chef's knife. Dust knife with powdered sugar as it</div>
<div>
gets sticky. And it will. </div>
<div>
Dust cubes with powdered sugar, then brush off excess.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Later, </div>
Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10876775111703252840noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12487611.post-32507584312047169302015-05-16T20:00:00.000-06:002015-05-16T20:00:36.939-06:00Quote buttonA long time ago, shortly after I added the "new quote" button on my random quote generator, Tom said it would be better to have the button above the quote so that it didn't move every time the quote length changed. I didn't really care, so I never bothered. Until just now. <br /><br />
Later,Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10876775111703252840noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12487611.post-88384992770596601362015-03-14T18:14:00.000-06:002015-03-14T18:14:09.109-06:00Happy Pi Day! Key Lime editionPreheat oven to 350°F<br />
<br />
Crust:
<br />
1+1/4 c. graham cracker crumbs<br />
2 T. sugar<br />
1/3 c. melted butter (unsalted)<br />
<br />
mix together and press into pie plate.<br />
bake 10 minutes, let cool<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjape7gUgb2WgFl_anJ5ppPWDJuvMItC8Fxlg5jfP7D4jQF4gM5EoW9kzrAz-pDOc0vqvrtJDBHw8iA3oqtZQgPctJUs6OJmj-Clj9HDwhEPCw7E_OjjY2ZjrnKUjgoNf2ZSh8n/s1600/20150314_120453.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjape7gUgb2WgFl_anJ5ppPWDJuvMItC8Fxlg5jfP7D4jQF4gM5EoW9kzrAz-pDOc0vqvrtJDBHw8iA3oqtZQgPctJUs6OJmj-Clj9HDwhEPCw7E_OjjY2ZjrnKUjgoNf2ZSh8n/s1600/20150314_120453.jpg" height="180" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
Filling:<br />
3 egg yolks<br />
1+1/2 t. freshly grated key lime zest<br />
1 can (12oz) sweetened condensed milk<br />
2/3 c. freshly squeezed key lime juice<br />
<br />
Beat yolks and zest on high for 5 min<br />
Add condensed milk and continue to beat 4 more minutes<br />
Reduce speed to minimum. Slowly pour in lime juice. Stop when just combined<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh0OnDkpVtZK7O-SiXeEg1CQmag7dZvRjpF1ZMv1aKfke9oK2RdxGskYMA9fV0i2ZUmD3ztPpOkGiGirkDmwXNGyi_AYytygviGwtP7MlEII5wz1uvEHf8HI3NrATQc6DXJiZIg/s1600/20150314_121446.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh0OnDkpVtZK7O-SiXeEg1CQmag7dZvRjpF1ZMv1aKfke9oK2RdxGskYMA9fV0i2ZUmD3ztPpOkGiGirkDmwXNGyi_AYytygviGwtP7MlEII5wz1uvEHf8HI3NrATQc6DXJiZIg/s1600/20150314_121446.jpg" height="180" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
Pour filling into pie shell. Bake 10 minutes.<br />
(if, like me, you made the shell too deep, and there isn't enough filling, make another batch, pour that into shell (pour any excess filling into a ramekin for a key-lime custard). Bake another 10 minutes. )<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhJpS_kC8H2Qr3YfpXmwU14Joa8MXFnCwEi5SZWkRUa7dmw2eaEoeFedvqNm9O7Sz37cAh8ce-D0SKSeC5yjc96LLuorsf3UDaIByn3MmtWiuzwbpTn3yknkLWuabmyQa5Oo58R/s1600/20150314_132943.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhJpS_kC8H2Qr3YfpXmwU14Joa8MXFnCwEi5SZWkRUa7dmw2eaEoeFedvqNm9O7Sz37cAh8ce-D0SKSeC5yjc96LLuorsf3UDaIByn3MmtWiuzwbpTn3yknkLWuabmyQa5Oo58R/s1600/20150314_132943.jpg" height="180" width="320" /></a></div>
Later,Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10876775111703252840noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12487611.post-78844500799150424532014-04-06T16:35:00.000-06:002014-04-06T16:53:53.223-06:00Manhattan clam chowderI felt like making some Manhattan clam chowder for lunch, but I didn't want a lot of leftovers, so I cut the recipe back to make two servings.<br />
<br />
I made an incredibly fortuitous mistake. I wasn't paying attention at the store (big surprise) and grabbed a can of diced tomatoes with habaneros instead of plain. <br />
<br />
It was awesomely spicy.<br />
<br />
So, for posterity, here's my recipe for Manhattan clam chowder<br />
<br />
Manhattan clam chowder<br />
- 2 fairly big servings. (You could reasonably call this 3 servings, 4 would be<br />
pushing it)<br />
<br />
2 strips thick sliced bacon<br />
1/4 c onion, chopped<br />
1/4 c red bell pepper, chopped<br />
1/4 c carrots, chopped<br />
1/4 c celery chopped<br />
2 cloves garlic, chopped or pressed<br />
1 T Italian seasoning (just oregano would probably be fine)<br />
1/4 c dry white wine (I use Chardonnay)<br />
1/2 c clam juice<br />
1 T fish sauce (you might need to visit an Asian market for this)<br />
1 bay leaf<br />
1 small potato, cubed (about 1/2 c)<br />
1 can (10 oz) diced tomatoes with habaneros (do not drain)<br />
1 can (6.5 oz) chopped clams in clam juice (do not drain)<br />
salt and pepper to taste<br />
fresh parsley, chopped<br />
<br />
Fry bacon in heavy skillet until crisp. Remove, drain, and crumble.<br />
Add onions, bell pepper, carrots, and celery to bacon fat. Reduce heat to low,<br />
cover, and cook until tender (about five minutes)<br />
Turn heat to medium, add garlic and Italian seasoning. Sauté about 2 minutes<br />
Add wine and cook, stirring occasionally, until liquid is reduced about half<br />
Transfer to a 2 qt saucepan, add clam juice, fish sauce, bay leaf, potatoes, and<br />
tomatoes.<br />
Bring to a simmer, reduce heat to low, cover and let simmer for 30 min.<br />
Add clams and bacon, continue to simmer for about 10 more minutes.<br />
Add salt and pepper to taste.<br />
Garnish with parsley and serve.<br />
<br />
I ended up eating both servings.<br />
Later,Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10876775111703252840noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12487611.post-66251886376449958212013-07-19T20:35:00.000-06:002013-07-19T21:09:46.039-06:00Today's rant:Okay. Listen to this:
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/bOcjQbRTqO8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<br/><br/>
That's "Hail to the Geek" by Deaf Pedestrians. Funny song. Here's the problem: There is one verse that applies to me. And they get it way wrong.
<blockquote>I play Dungeons and Dragons<br/>
I got a 13<sup>th</sup> level halfling fighter-thief<br/>
Got seven hit die on the backstab<br/>
Sometimes you know it's good to be a geek.</blockquote>
"Fighter-thief" and "backstab" indicate that he's playing 1<sup>st</sup> or 2<sup>nd</sup> edition AD&D.
But backstab was a damage multiplier. A 13<sup>th</sup> level thief would have a backstab multiplier of x5. When Wizards of the Coast acquired D&D and released 3<sup>rd</sup> edition, "Thief" became "Rogue", "backstab" became "sneak attack", and the damage multiplier became extra dice.<br/><br/>
But it get's worse.<br/><br/>
1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> edition were kind of vague on multiclassing, but even so, the classes were treated separately and most DM's just made players split xp between classes, which, given the different xp requirements (thieves gained levels much faster than any other class), normally resulted in a staggered advancement. "13<sup>th</sup> level fighter-thief" is pretty much meaningless. In 3<sup>rd</sup> edition all classes used the same xp table for level progression, and the concepts of character level and class level were specified. So "13<sup>th</sup> level fighter/rogue" would indicate a character level of thirteen, but says nothing about the level of each class. The character would be listed as (for example) a "3/10 fighter/rogue" instead. However, given the "Got seven hit die on the backstab" line, the character would need 13 rogue levels to have a sneak attack of +7d6, and would have no fighter levels.<br/><br/>
Which brings me to my last point:<br/><br/>
"Die" is singular. "Dice" is plural. No D&D geek would say "seven hit die", and many might become violent upon hearing it. "Seven hit dice" is correct.<br/><br/>
As Jac said once: "You're going to have to try a lot harder than that if you want to be a geek at this table."<br/><br/>
Later, Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10876775111703252840noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12487611.post-77596814049816466062012-08-25T14:22:00.000-06:002013-09-15T19:02:37.177-06:00RPG Test (from Dragon Magazine, December 1987)I used to subscribe to <i>Dragon</i>, back in the mid-80s. I do remember this test.
<pre>
Take this exam and join the adventuring horde!
Dragon Magazine DECEMBER 1987<br/>by Lawrence R. Raimonda
Times are hard, and adventures promising wealth and fame are few and far
between. How can you make sure that you are right for the adventurer's life? How?
It's easy! Here at the Greyhawk Institute for Adventurous Neophyte Training, we
have come up with the sure-fire solution: the Superior Personality Under
Development course. That's right! Personality is the key to conquest! It's the
real reason one fighter is chosen over the other when adventuring groups are
formed. Are you too sophisticated for hack-n-slash? Do friends call you "stupid"
as a compliment? Do rabid orcish marauders think of you as being too aggressive?
No problem!
At the Greyhawk Institute for Adventurous Neophyte Training, we'll put you
through an intense program of classroom instruction and on-the-job training. Also,
at no extra cost, you will receive our Superior Personality Under Development
study guide. Just take a few minutes and fill out the following application. You
can't afford to pass this opportunity by!
1. You've just arrived in a new town. You immediately:
a. sigh in relief.
b. find the nearest tavern.
c. strip down to your underwear.
d. do all of the above, to start with.<BR>
2. Wizards are:
a. snappy dressers.
b. valuable allies.
c. awful darn cute.
d. awful darn cute on the end of a spear.<BR>
3. What's the best way to test for trapdoors?
a. With eyes shut.
b. Make the half-ogre go first.
c. Jump up and down a lot.
d. Burn the place to the ground.<BR>
4. It's late at night, the moon is full, and you notice that your partner is turning
hairy. What do you do?
a. Compliment him on his coiffure.
b. Whip out the scissors and wolves-bane.
c. Check your pack for doggie chow.
d. Join him.<BR>
5. A portable hole:
a. a day keeps the ogre away.
b. comes in handy in the king's treasury.
c. What?
d. holds a lot of beer<BR>
6. Given the choice, you'd rather have:
a. Lint-free chain mail.
b. 1,000,000 gold pieces.
c. A chocolate-chip cookie.
d. A sword and a major land war.<BR>
7. Describe a hill giant.
a. A large, smelly Muppet.
b. Big, hairy, ugly, and strong.
c. Your last blind date.
d. All of the above.<BR>
8. You are in a cave when your torch goes out. You:
a. scream.
b. cannot see.
c. hit your head.
d. throw the torch away and continue on ahead.<BR>
9. Your deity tells you to walk on hot coals. You promptly:
a. practice shouting"Ouch! Ouch! Ouch!"
b. get a new deity.
c. invite your friends to a cook-out.
d. attack him.<BR>
10. You find out that the ship you are on is manned by vicious, savage buccaneers.
You:
a. double-check the travel brochure.
b. swim for shore.
c. taunt them.
d. join them.<BR>
11. What makes your mouth water?
a. Vichyssoise.
b. A leg of mutton and a jug of mead.
c. A burger and fries.
d. A dead brontosaurus.<BR>
12. What is a bard?
a. A sophisticated, wandering musician.
b. My DM doesn't allow them.
c. A piece of lumber.
d. The hair on your face.<BR>
13. What scares you the most?
a. Gross, icky, crawly things.
b. A tribe of bloodthirsty primitives on your doorstep.
c. An umber hulk in leotards.
d. Mom.<BR>
14. Which would you take as your share of the loot?
a. Gems and jewelry.
b. A treasure map.
c. A wooden nickel.
d. The loot.<BR>
15. Someone in your party is a thief. It's probably:
a. that mysterious, cloaked stranger.
b. the dwarf with his hand in your pocket.
c. your horse.
d. all of the above.
[e. You -- added for accuracy in my case]<BR>
16. You are trapped by a cave-in. You immediately:
a. scream again.
b. try to dig your way out.
c. choose the best position to be found in.
d. kill the fool who knocked over the support beam.<BR>
17. Your favorite choice for a pet would be:
a. a gerbil.
b. a war dog.
c. a dung beetle.
d. a mammoth.<BR>
18. How can you detect for evil alignment among your henchmen?
a. Look for bad penmanship.
b. Cast a spell.
c. Flip a coin.
d. Use torture.<BR>
19. What is the first thing you should say when you spot a bugbear?
a. "So, how does my leg taste?"
b. "Don't come any closer! I've got a sword! "
c. "Nice ears"
d. "Yo! Ugly! Let's party!"<BR>
20. If there's anything you hate, it's:
a. mismatched armor.
b. being drawn and quartered.
c. the letter"c."
d. not got long to live.<BR>
21. Witches:
a. make great gingerbread.
b. aren't allowed in my DM's campaign either.
c. Where?
d. don't wear underwear.<BR>
22. There's nothing more exciting than:
a. the full moon at midnight.
b. the thrill of victory.
c. answering this question.
d. hand-to-hand combat with a thousand cannibals.<BR>
23. What heals all wounds?
a. Thyme.
b. Time.
c. Tyme.
d. A week in a harem.<BR>
24. Select a title for yourself.
a. Gerard the Thoughtful.
b. Lars the Mighty.
c. Fred.
d. The Terror of Morovia.<BR>
25. Keep an eye on your fellow traveler. He might be:
a. a barbarian.
b. a thief.
c. a Democrat.
d. Demogorgon.<BR>
26. A princess is trapped in a dragon's cave. You should:
a. ask someone to help her out.
b. rescue the princess.
c. rescue the dragon.
d. rob them both.<BR>
27. What's the most important thing about making camp?
a. Keep the marshmallows in a clean, dry place.
b. Keep the fire low and post guards.
c. Have appropriate party games.
d. Have the others do all the work.<BR>
28. The best kind of partner is one with:
a. a warm personality.
b. a good sword-arm.
c. a game of checkers.
d. a keg of ale.<BR>
29. If you had to choose one of four doors before you, which would it be?
a. The door out.
b. The treasure-room door.
c. That one.
d. The booby-trapped door.<BR>
30. In matters of life and death, you should:
a. choose life.
b. avoid death.
c. dress warmly.
d. Loot and kill and pillage and burn.<BR>
31. You find the thief who stole your horse, money bag, and provisions. You then:
a. count from 1 to 10 before speaking.
b. demand your belongings back, or else.
c. give him the rest of your things.
d. turn him into lasagne.<BR>
32. Before you'd ever abandon your friends, you'd rather:
a. kiss a goat.
b. slap a sunburned frost giant on the back.
c. get permission first.
d. get all of their money first.<BR>
33. "Halt!" means:
a. "Surrender! "
b. "Stop! "
c. "Hello! "
d. "Attack!"<BR>
34. If asked what your price is for a dirty adventuring job, what do you say?
a. "Lunch at the Bulette Cafe."
b. "The going rate."
c. "I'll pay anything!"
d. "How much have you got? Your family, then how much have they got? Mmm.
Got any sisters?"<BR>
35. You find yourself alone and unarmed in a cave with 100 hungry carnivorous
apes. What is your next move?
a. Hide.
b. Hide.
c. Hide.
d. Fight.<BR>
36. You must never forget:
a. to clean up afterward.
b. your spells.
c. the . . . the, uh . . . uh . . .
d. to check for treasure.<BR>
37. The best way to handle a poisonous spider is:
a. from afar.
b. with a glove.
c. by blackmail.
d. with a hammer of thunderbolts.<BR>
38. An ogre invites you to dinner. You should:
a. check his references.
b. decline.
c. accept.
d. show up wearing your best ogreslayer<BR>
39. You find a dwarf chained in a cell. He says that he'll lead you to lots
of treasure if you release him. You should:
a. think about it.
b. insist that he reveal the whereabouts of the treasure first.
c. attack.
d. release him.<BR>
40. There is a disguised dragon in the room. It must be:
a. the terrier in love with your leg.
b. the cow breathing fire.
c. disguised.
d. ready to die.<BR>
41. Your castle has been overrun by hobgoblins. You've been fighting and running
from them all day, and have finally managed to hide from them. Then, your
henchman knocks over a vase. You then:
a. soil your pants.
b. grit your teeth and ready your weapon.
c. fix the vase.
d. throw the henchman out into the hall.<BR>
42. You are trapped in a 10' x 10' room, and the walls are closing in. What do
you do?
a. Yell for help.
b. Use a dagger to jam a wall.
c. Leave.
d. Wait for the hangover to pass.<BR>
43. What's the best way to catch a golem?
a. Set out a saucer of milk.
b. Dig a humongously deep pit.
c. Is that a disease?
d. Wrestle him down and hog-tie him.<BR>
44. What's a good sign that you've had too much to drink?
a. The room is spinning.
b. A wench is leaving the room with your money and your clothes, and you are
smiling.
c. You're out of milk.
d. Your boots are covered with your dinner.<BR>
45. What's a druid good for?
a. Flower arrangments.
b. Nature spells.
c. Beats me.
d. Calling forest creatures for target practice.<BR>
46. If you were told that a treasure lay in a hole in the wall, would you stick
your hand inside?
a. No.
b. Maybe.
c. Inside what?
d. Yes.<BR>
47. How strong are you?
a. Not very.
b. Above average.
c. Not very; just had a bath.
d. Damn strong.<BR>
48. Do you think there should be rights for orcs?
a. Yes.
b. No.
c. Maybe.
d. Sure: rights, lefts, right crosses, left jabs, right uppercuts....<BR>
49. Describe a daring deed.
a. Inviting a goblin to a tupperware party.
b. Facing a tribal chieftain in single combat.
c. Housebreaking a hell hound.
d. Leaping off a burning battlement into a crocodile-infested moat in front
of an army of orcish archers.<BR>
50. What is the best thing you can say about skeletons?
a. They make great tap dancers.
b. They don't have many hit points.
c. They don't eat much.
d. Some of my best friends are skeletons.<BR>
"In just seven days, I can make a man out of you, unless of course you're a
woman, which might make this all rather problematic."
-- Rogar of Mooria, GIANT faculty member, Evaluation
If you answered 30 or more questions with the same letter, then it is likely that
you fall into a particular category of adventuring types. These are listed below:
Type A: You're perhaps a little too civilized for most adventuring groups, but not
beyond hope. You are certainly in need of personality development before being
considered ready for any serious undertaking. Practice going without bathing for
short periods of time, grimacing in a mirror, and not fainting at the sight of blood.
Type B: You're probably referred to as dependable," "practical," "an OK guy," etc.
There is not much wrong with you, and you should do well in the adventuring life.
We recommend that you take our accelerated S.P.U.D. program.
Type C: My, my. We are having a rough day, aren't we? This exam was probably
tiring, but take a few minutes to rest and relax. When you're feeling better,
take out all of your money and mail it to us, right away. That's right: every
copper piece. Good, good. We're proud of you.
Type D: Well, it appears that you have probably done more than your share of
adventuring, and there's not much more we can add to your training. In fact,
if you have some free time, we'd like you to join our teaching staff. Sure,
others may call you a bloodthirsty maniac, but hey, who cares? We'll give you a
portable hole full of beer and a major land war. Where can you beat that?
You're darn right.
Remember: Time is limited! Join the ranks of the G.I.A.N.T. graduates, and stand
tall! Get out your crystal ball and call today for your first class! Sorcerers are
standing by. <br/>
Later,</pre>Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10876775111703252840noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12487611.post-86327530379676669852012-06-09T16:57:00.000-06:002012-06-09T17:34:56.088-06:00PrometheusOkay, in this review of <i>Prometheus</i>:<br />
<div style="font-size: 12px; width: 650px;">
<embed allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" bgcolor="#000000" flashvars="config=http://www.themis-media.com/videos/config/5917-b9fb0dc90940d262627057c9fd3a8bc8.js%3Fplayer_version%3D2.5%26embed%3D1" height="240" pluginspage="http://www.adobe.com/go/getflashplayer" quality="high" src="http://cdn2.themis-media.com/media/global/movies/player/flowplayer.commercial-3.2.7.swf" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="400" wmode="opaque"></embed></div>
MovieBob expresses some minor disappointments, but declares the movie to be pretty good overall. Since none of his issues with the movie mean anything at all to me, I decided to catch a matinee this afternoon.<br />
<br />
Have you ever seen a movie that was almost good? That you would have liked, except for a few seemingly minor details that just killed your enthusiasm? <i>Prometheus</i> was like that for me. So I'm going to vent here. Don't be surprised if I ramble.<br />
<br />
Let me start with this: MovieBob discusses the extent to which this is a preqel to <i>Alien</i>. Whatever. This is <i>totally </i>a prequel to <i>Alien</i>. It's almost a damn remake. And like the <i>Star Wars</i> prequels, there are continuity issues by the end of the movie, which are kind of irritating.<br />
<br />
Supposedly smart people doing stupid things. (These people were selected for a deep space mission requiring two years in cryosleep, one way. Presumably, they've been vetted for expertise, as well as the ability to cope with extremely stressful situations.) Like, not taking any kind of weapon when going to investigate an alien planet (this is kind of the "I'll be safe, I have a flashlight" trope that most horror movies use to make the characters helpless). Or this: It is noted early on that Vickers (Charlize Theron) stays in luxurious quarters that are actually a lifepod, completely separable from the rest of the ship. Towards the end, when things are going to hell, she needs to abandon ship, so she runs to the standard, coffin-sized escape pods; where she has to hurriedly don an environment suit before climbing into the pod. Her quarters/lifepod are shown to detach from the ship about ten seconds <i>before</i> her escape pod launches. So why didn't she just run to her quarters and buckle into a seat? After all, that sort of thing is explicitly given as the reason she set it up that way in the first place. And why in the hell-of-being-cut-to-pieces is the medical pod <b><i>in her quarters</i></b>(!) programmed exclusively for male patients? (Seriously, why would any medical pod be?)<br />
<br />
This next one is actually a big issue for me. There is a scene where a small lifeform is left alone for a time (a few hours in this case). When we next see it, it is huge. However, it is clear that there was no source of food for it during that time. So where did all that mass come from? I sort of have the same issue with comic-book characters like the Hulk, except that in the comic-book genre it is easier to accept, because willing acceptance of super powers is necessary. Hulk's sudden mass increase is no more unbelievable than Cyclops' laser-eyes or any other character's power. And, for all its (oh, so many) flaws, the first Hulk movie tried to address the issue. At one point the military was able to track the Hulk by looking for sudden temperature drops as he absorbed the ambient energy around him. (I said "tried"). It's just part of the genre. But <i>Prometheus (</i>like <i>Alien</i>, <i>Species</i>, and every other sci-fi/horror movie that uses this) is supposed to have at least a nodding acquaintance with physics.<br />
<br />
Finally, though I can't say it was intentional, my first thought on seeing the titular ship was "It looks suspiciously like <i>Serenity</i> on steroids."<br />
<br />
So yeah. <i>Almost</i> good, but overall not worth it. I kind of want my two hours back.<br />
<br />
Later,<br />
<br />Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10876775111703252840noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12487611.post-42585332968807007702012-02-25T21:46:00.000-07:002012-06-09T17:25:48.273-06:00BrowniesSo I decided I wanted to make brownies. But I wanted to try something different. Here's what I did:<br />
<br />
Preheat oven to 350 degrees.<br />
<br />
In a double boiler*, I combined a can of Mtn Dew: Code Red, 4 oz. bittersweet chocolate, one stick of butter and half a teaspoon of vanilla. I whisked it occasionally, but mostly just let it go while I prepared the rest.<br />
<br />
In a mixing bowl, I combined one and a third cup flour, a quarter teaspoon salt, a quarter teaspoon baking soda, and 1 cup of sugar (I would have cut this in half or even left it out, if I'd been thinking. The Code Red has plenty of sugar already).<br />
<br />
I separated out two egg yolks.<br />
<br />
Now I poured the Code Red mixture into the dry ingredients, and beat with an electric mixer (scraping the sides with a spatula), then added the egg yolks while still beating. I also added a quarter cup of walnut pieces and some maraschino cherries I chopped. <br />
<br />
I poured the batter into a greased brownie pan, and baked for 25 minutes.<br />
<br />
As you can see, It came out more cake-like than brownie-like.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg9vDAsN6FE6uXPS0KtgGPbvBaNis1TVjAb2-vjhyXjnuPpsQ9oP4BtvkasE2O-U-v9UVx55LO2R0OQdFcB10f0hVgHVq8I6E8_Xjsg0JMrbkyhYPvkrNkpTUZfL-cSB96RC9y6/s1600/IMG_0002.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg9vDAsN6FE6uXPS0KtgGPbvBaNis1TVjAb2-vjhyXjnuPpsQ9oP4BtvkasE2O-U-v9UVx55LO2R0OQdFcB10f0hVgHVq8I6E8_Xjsg0JMrbkyhYPvkrNkpTUZfL-cSB96RC9y6/s320/IMG_0002.JPG" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
Still, with a scoop of vanilla ice cream and a drizzle of chocolate sauce, it was really good
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj4GswpHdlFpC8wgK7gJigWn8FoX5Oa3AsAxG9Q9cDgh78IpSapXt1Muba0RCz8weyiQ2HL9MnI6ISFLnz6gXKFemlOrqvyD1ns8KfpW-XKXAukn5HursZomkNL07b_QXVu3xh5/s1600/IMG_0003.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj4GswpHdlFpC8wgK7gJigWn8FoX5Oa3AsAxG9Q9cDgh78IpSapXt1Muba0RCz8weyiQ2HL9MnI6ISFLnz6gXKFemlOrqvyD1ns8KfpW-XKXAukn5HursZomkNL07b_QXVu3xh5/s320/IMG_0003.JPG" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
It even wasn't over-sweet like I'd feared it would be. I'm calling this a success.
<br />
<br />
Later,<br />
<br />
* My double boiler is a 1 qt saucepan and a 2 qt saucepan. Figure it out.Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10876775111703252840noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12487611.post-58270409713355773022011-12-31T14:02:00.001-07:002011-12-31T14:04:12.545-07:00Today's episode of "Things that irritate me."Okay, here's another thing that irritates me (is this a sign of getting old?):<br />
<br />
Arrogant, iconoclastic jackasses who think their personal taste in music (or books, movies, whatever) is objectively correct and anyone who disagrees is simply wrong. These jerks seem to be positively eager to express their disdain and contempt. Bonus irritation if they also feel the need to expound at length on exactly why you are wrong.<br />
<br />
Later,Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10876775111703252840noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12487611.post-8785790449136226392011-11-05T20:41:00.023-06:002011-11-06T21:10:18.507-07:00Mouse TrapSo I wrote this little applet. If you move the mouse into the gray panel, then press and hold the left button, you will not be able to move the mouse out of the panel until you release the button. It also leaves a trail, and tracks the location of the mouse cursor while it is being dragged around in the panel.<br />
<br />
This uses Java's Robot class, which can take control of the keyboard and mouse. This is a big security risk, so, even though I promise that this applet does nothing malicious (or anything more than I've described for that matter), unless you know and/or trust me, do not give the applet permission to run.<br />
<br />
<applet archive="http://sites.google.com/site/johnmarley/files/test-applet/AppletTest.jar" code="marley.john.applettest.TestApplet" height="200" width="420"></applet><br />
<br />
If you don't give it permission, it will still track the mouse when dragged around in the panel, but it won't trap it there. <br />
<br />
Later,Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10876775111703252840noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12487611.post-46310358604601894122011-05-20T22:36:00.002-06:002011-05-20T22:47:01.832-06:00Well that's a question answeredSometimes I get email for a Prof. John Marley (or Dr. John Marley). It hasn't happened in a while. I usually just mark it spam and delete it. Today however, the body of the email included the address it was meant to go to. <br />
<br />
johnmarley@gmail.com<br />
<br />
That isn't me.<br />
<br />
My email address is john.marley@gmail.com<br />
<br />
So I did a search on the mistaken address. What I found is that there is a doctor in Australia named John E. Marley, whose email address is prof.johnmarley@gmail.com.<br />
<br />
So if someone leaves the "prof." off, gmail probably finds my address before his as a best guess. I suppose I'll forward the mail I received today to him.<br />
<br />
Later,Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10876775111703252840noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12487611.post-86629598062896690732011-04-08T19:48:00.004-06:002011-04-09T09:16:56.590-06:00I can't watch lecture videos.I can't watch certain types of videos. <br />
<br />
Specifically lecture or debate videos in which the scene is just people talking (and using slides as visual aids).<br />
<br />
For instance, I have been trying to watch videos of last night's debate between Sam Harris and William Lane Craig. I am really, really interested in this debate. But I just can't follow it. I would be different if I was actually there, but not a lot. I hated lectures in college, too. I usually skipped them. (I'd go to the class website for reading/homework assignments, and to recitations or office hours to ask questions).<br />
<br />
But sticking to my problem with videos.<br />
<br />
If the speaker has an accent or a monotonic voice, mumbles, speaks too quickly or too slowly then I will tune out, no matter how hard I try to follow. The same goes for a poor quality audio recording. If there is an audience, the mic often picks up that noise, too, and drowns out the speaker. If the speaker sounds like someone else, I will be too distracted to follow along. (I can't listen to either Isaac Asimov or Richard Feynman. They both have an accent that reminds me too much of Billy Crystal.) <br />
<br />
There's no possible interaction either. If I don't understand something, I can't say "Please repeat that." I have to back up the video and listen again. And it will be exactly the same each time. So I may have to listen several times to work out what is being said. <br />
<br />
Then there are too many distractions on my end to list. <br />
<br />
I don't have the same problem with studio produced and edited videos or shows. I have no problem with Mythbusters or videos like <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc">this one</a>, because they are designed to be engaging. Just watching someone talk is boring, no matter how interested I am in the subject matter.<br />
<br />
So I try to find transcripts if I can. Failing that I have to rely on reviews and summaries. Which sucks, because if the reviewer gets it wrong, so do I.<br />
<br />
Later,Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10876775111703252840noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12487611.post-39324174956762858382011-03-13T23:58:00.003-06:002011-03-14T00:00:13.153-06:00WeirdSo, I'm sitting here doing some net-surfing. I see what seems to be a shadow of something moving on the wall. But when I turn my head to get a better look, there's no shadow. "Weird" I think, and turn back to the computer. The moving shadow returns immediately. Gone when I look. There. Gone. There. Gone. "But that's mad," I think (in Simon Jones' voice). Eventually I realize that it isn't a shadow. It's a reflection in my glasses. When I move my head to look where the "shadow" seems to be, the object is no longer reflected.<br />
<br />
I'm pretty tired (going to bed soon). <br />
<br />
Later,Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10876775111703252840noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12487611.post-83816231424297603542011-03-13T23:13:00.001-06:002011-03-13T23:38:56.111-06:00The Wise Man's FearI just finished <i>The Wise Man's Fear: The Kingkiller Chronicle: Day 2</i> by Patrick Rothfuss. It was an excellent follow-up to <i>The Name of the Wind</i>. <br />
<br />
I am going to make one prediction. Ambrose Jakis will be the king Kvothe eventually kills. <br />
<br />
In the first book, Ambrose is well over a dozen steps from the throne. Early in this one, it is mentioned in passing that several people in line ahead of him were killed in a shipwreck, putting him at a dozen. Much later it is mentioned in passing that the crown prince has been killed in a duel, moving Ambrose that much closer.<br />
<br />
Given that Ambrose is thoroughly vile, and he and Kvothe share a mutual hatred, it isn't hard to imagine Ambrose taking the throne and doing something for which Kvothe feels he needs to die.<br />
<br />
Later,Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10876775111703252840noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12487611.post-73681971769774544232011-02-18T20:31:00.012-07:002011-02-19T16:58:55.954-07:00Remember this guy?Any PSU alums who attended the University Park campus will fondly</sarcasm> remember the Willard Preacher. It turns out he has <a href="http://www.thewillardpreacher.com/" rel="nofollow">a website!</a> Yes, it is every bit as bad as you probably expect. <br />
<br />
Here's a tidbit on atheism from the "Musings" section, topic "Atheism":<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<blockquote><div align="center">Introduction</div><br />
The best evidences[sic] for the existence of God proceed from human nature. The way man naturally thinks and acts consistently points to something akin to the Christian God. <br />
<blockquote class="nest">Really? Why? You'd better back that up later. Also, the plural of 'evidence' is 'evidence'. You do your thing on a college campus?</blockquote>On the contrary there are no evidences for atheism. The atheist can try and give alternative explanations for the arguments given for God, but he cannot put forth any positive evidences[sic] of this own. <br />
<blockquote class="nest">Atheism requires no evidence. It is the default until <i>you</i> produce <i>your</i> evidence.</blockquote>In what follows we will consider whether human nature, as it has always been, is more consistent with a world in which there is no God, or one in which there is a God consistent with Christianity.<br />
<blockquote class="nest">Okay, let's go.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<div align="center">Man has Always Believed</div><blockquote class="nest"><div align="center">So what?</div></blockquote><br />
As far back as we have written records man has always believed in God, Gods, and/or the supernatural. There is no evidence that man has evolved these beliefs. By all accounts it seems to be inherent in him. <br />
<blockquote class="nest">What is inherent in humanity is a tendency to make shit up to fill gaps in knowledge. The scientific method (the only reliable tool for gaining accurate knowledge about reality) is a pretty recent development.</blockquote>Most atheists will acknowledge that as far as written records are concerned man has always believed.<br />
<blockquote class="nest">Yes, humans throughout history have believed all kinds of nonsense. You do realize that xianity is barely 2000 years old, right?</blockquote>They may say that man evolved such beliefs before he learned to write, and so we have no record of such an evolution, but it is impossible to discuss non-evidence. Some atheists will claim that we can glean evidences from the remnants of pre-historic man, but such evidence would be speculative and fragmentary at best, and so for our purposes would come under the category of non-evidence.<br />
<blockquote class="nest">Once again, atheism does not require evidence. It is the default until <i>you</i> produce <i>your</i> evidence.</blockquote><br />
The atheist will also say that before man could understand certain natural objects or events such as the sun, moon, eclipses, lightning etc. he explained them by resorting to the supernatural. This may be true, but it doesn't explain why man, being a product of atheistic evolution, found it so natural and easy to believe in the supernatural. <br />
<blockquote class="nest"><a href="http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Skinner/Pigeon/">B.F Skinner</a> would like to have a word with you. So would <a href="http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/276/1654/31.full">these two</a>.</blockquote>The question that the atheist must try and honestly answer is whether it would it be more natural for man to believe in God in an atheistic world or in an theistic one.<br />
<blockquote class="nest">It doesn't matter. Belief (easy or not) does not make your god real. Clapping won't bring Tinkerbell back to life. So far you've just produced empty rhetoric, no evidence.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<div align="center">Objective Morals</div><blockquote class="nest"><div align="center">this should be good...</div></blockquote><br />
Man has always had what I would call objective morals. In other words, he has always pointed away from himself to someone else and declared him to be morally right or wrong. <br />
<blockquote class="nest">Not the commonly accepted definition, but as long as you stick to it, okay.</blockquote>Subjective morality would be to declare that something would be right or wrong for oneself but not necessarily for someone else. <br />
<blockquote class="nest">Again, not the commonly accepted definition, but as long as you stick to it, okay.</blockquote>Morals become objective when one declares morality for others in addition to oneself.<br />
<blockquote class="nest">Sure, that follows from your definitions</blockquote>As soon as we do this we are assuming an inviolable law to which we are all subjected.<br />
<blockquote class="nest">Does not follow. Replace 'assuming' with 'agreeing on' and get rid of 'inviolable'. Anyway, when did laws come into it? I thought we were talking about morality.</blockquote>Only God could provide such a law.<br />
<blockquote class="nest">Also wrong. Laws are made by anyone with the power to enforce them, and may or may not be considered moral by those subject to them.</blockquote><br />
A knowledgeable atheist will agree that in a godless world there are no objective morals,<br />
<blockquote class="nest">I think most would be fine going by the definition above. Have you changed your definition without telling us?</blockquote>but he will claim that man evolved such an idea in order to best survive.<br />
<blockquote class="nest">Humans evolved as a social animal, that is where morals come from, though I think it's more conditioning than evolved instinct. However the idea of objective morality is not a direct product of that.</blockquote>Why man would need to act as if there is a God in order to best survive in an atheistic world is a question for which I have never heard a good answer. <br />
<blockquote class="nest"><i>Need</i> to? I doubt it, but see the links above. Or google "evolution of superstition".</blockquote>In any case there is no evidence that man evolved such an idea. As far as we have written records man has always thought this way. For an atheist to counter this he has to once again go back to the non-evidence of pre-history.<br />
<blockquote class="nest">Again, <i>you</i> need to provide the evidence. Default position, remember? You still haven't shown any evidence that your god exists. Is this entire thing going to boil down to "You can't prove God doesn't exist, therefore God."?</blockquote><br />
When confronted with the idea that God is the only possible authority for objective morality some atheists will claim that society is an alternative authority. <br />
<blockquote class="nest">Sure.</blockquote>The problem is, if one takes society as his moral authority, then he must be willing to submit to whatever morals his society declares. <br />
<blockquote class="nest">Or leave (many do), or work to change society (many do), or just take the consequences (many do)</blockquote>If he does not, then morals go back to being subjective. <br />
<blockquote class="nest">Your definition of subjective was "right/wrong for me, but I can't say for anyone else". What you have just claimed is not the same. You seem to be shifting your definitions here. Better be careful.</blockquote>When an atheist is asked whether, if he had lived in Nazi Germany he would have accepted the slaughter of the Jews as being morally acceptable, or if he would have accepted the enslavement of black Africans in 19th century America, he invariably answers no.<br />
<blockquote class="nest">Because your hypothetical atheist is conditioned to modern (American, I assume) society. An atheist conditioned in societies that accept those things may well have agreed.</blockquote>Obviously then society is not a violable option from which to obtain objective morals.<br />
<blockquote class="nest">Not obviously at all. You haven't provided any evidence, just failed arguments.</blockquote><br />
If the atheist is not willing to accept the moral authority of society the only authority left is the individual, but if the individual is his own authority then there is no objective morality. Once again all morality becomes subjective.<br />
<blockquote class="nest">Such an individual is a sociopath. And, society does have means to enforce its authority.</blockquote><br />
Some atheists contend that there is no such thing as objective morality because different societies have different morals, and there is no particular moral which is accepted by all peoples. Whether or not this is true is debatable, but irrelevant to the present argument. <br />
<blockquote class="nest">I agree.</blockquote>When we are talking about objective morality we are only speaking of man's seemingly natural propensity to declare something to be right or wrong, not only for himself, but also for others. For the sake of this argument the particular moral is irrelevant, as we are dealing with man's general tendency not with his specific choice.<br />
<blockquote class="nest">Yes, and you still haven't given any evidence that your god is necessary for this.</blockquote><br />
All of this, by the way, is consistent with Christianity which says that man was created by God who declares rights and wrongs for all of mankind. <br />
<blockquote class="nest">It is also consistent with all other religions with similar claims. That really means nothing.</blockquote>As a result we all have an intuitive sense that there are objective morals, but since we are fallen, estranged from God, and on our own, we often times disagree as to what those morals should be.<br />
<blockquote class="nest">Myths are made up to explain things, so I would kind of expect the situation being explained to be real.</blockquote>This is exactly what is seen in the world in which we live, and exactly what Christianity would predict that we should see.<br />
<blockquote class="nest">See my last comment.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<div align="center">Life Has Meaning</div><blockquote class="nest"><div align="center">this should be good...</div></blockquote><br />
As far back as we have written records man has always believed that life has meaning over and above merely meeting his biological needs.<br />
<blockquote class="nest">What humans have historically believed is not evidence. Humans have been wrong about a lot of things for a long time.</blockquote>It can be anything from loving God, to helping others, to enjoying himself, conquering the world etc. <br />
<blockquote class="nest">Interestingly, none of those require that your god actually exist.</blockquote>As with objective morals the specific meaning does not matter. We are simply concerned here with man's propensity to believe that life does have meaning.<br />
<blockquote class="nest">Then I think you are just waffling. If gods (especially yours) exist, the meaning of life isn't a general, feel good idea. It would be very specific</blockquote><br />
Animals seem to be content to follow their instincts while fulfilling their biological needs. <br />
<blockquote class="nest">Are you a pet psychic? Anyone who works with (or closely observes) animals (mostly mammals and birds) will tell you this isn't true.</blockquote>Man on the other hand acts as if life has meaning over and above these instinctual drives.<br />
<blockquote class="nest">Highly developed brain</blockquote>But life can only have meaning if an intelligent being gives it such.<br />
<blockquote class="nest">A highly developed brain will do that</blockquote>If there is no intelligent being at our origin, which I guess in this case would be the Big Bang, or maybe the formation of the first cell, then there can be no inherent meaning to life.<br />
<blockquote class="nest">Where did this "inherent meaning" crap come from. You were saying humans tend to <i>believe</i> their lives have meaning. Oh yeah, bait-and-switch is a staple of xian argument</blockquote><br />
Man as an intelligent being can and does give meaning to his life, in fact, it seems to be natural for him to do so.<br />
<blockquote class="nest">Yeah. Humans give their own lives meaning. This doesn't seem to support your thesis</blockquote>The question the atheist must answer is why, if man's life is inherently meaningless, does he naturally find the need to give it meaning? He will most likely say that it evolved in man to help him to better survive.<br />
<blockquote class="nest">We all need a reason to get out of bed in the morning</blockquote>But once again he must ask himself why man must act as if there is a God to best survive in a godless world.<br />
<blockquote class="nest">I call shenanigans. Giving your life meaning is not "acting as if there is a God". That would be following the specific meaning your god is supposed to have given. (But you weren't going to talk about specific meaning. Ahh, xian bait-and-switch, again.)</blockquote><br />
If on the one hand there is a God, then life has meaning and man would naturally act as such, and this is exactly what he does.<br />
<blockquote class="nest">No. There would be a specific meaning and your imaginary psycho would be smiting anyone who didn't toe the line left and right, which is exactly what <i>doesn't</i> happen</blockquote>On the other hand if there is no God, man should be perfectly content to live a meaningless life in a meaningless world, and he has never been able to do this.<br />
<blockquote class="nest">How do you reach that conclusion? Just saying it doesn't make it true.</blockquote><br />
<br />
<div align="center">Free Will</div><blockquote class="nest"><div align="center">nnnggghhh...</div></blockquote><br />
In an atheistic world all thoughts would be produced by the interaction of the mind with the environment. <br />
<blockquote class="nest">Yep</blockquote>There would be no mechanism, such as, an independent soul to supersede this interaction and come up with independent thoughts. <br />
<blockquote class="nest">Yep.</blockquote>All of our actions would be mapped out for us by which thought produced by this interaction presents itself to the mind in the most favorable light.<br />
<blockquote class="nest">Pretty much.</blockquote><br />
So despite virtually all human beings for all of history believing that we make independently free choices on a daily basis, the atheist must believe that this is all an illusion. <br />
<blockquote class="nest">ARGH! <b>What humans have historically believed is not evidence.</b> And yes, it is an illusion.</blockquote>He must believe that we only think that we have free will. In reality we are merely the unwitting slaves of the mind/environment interaction. <br />
<blockquote class="nest">Yep. That amazingly complicated interaction.</blockquote>Such a belief is depressing, and does not explain man's natural sense that his thoughts are independent and free.<br />
<blockquote class="nest">Says you. I'm cool with it. And what part of 'illusion' don't you get?</blockquote><br />
<br />
<div align="center">The Idea of God</div><blockquote class="nest"><div align="center">I can already see that there will be no evidence in this</div></blockquote><br />
As stated above all thoughts in an atheistic world are produced by the mind interacting with its environment. <br />
<blockquote class="nest">Yep</blockquote>An interesting question therefore arises. How does the interaction of an atheistic mind with an atheistic environment produce theistic thoughts?<br />
<blockquote class="nest">Links above. or google. Your question has been answered.</blockquote><br />
An atheist will generally respond to this question by stringing a few thoughts together to show how by simply reasoning on the basis of what he sees around him he can come up with the concept of God. <br />
<blockquote class="nest">Sure</blockquote>The problem with such a counter argument is that he cannot show that this is an atheistic world. <br />
<blockquote class="nest">Don't have to. Default position.</blockquote>Therefore he cannot show that his reasoning is the result of an atheistic mind interacting with an atheistic environment. It very well could be that this is a theistic world and his ease in stringing together thoughts that lead to God is because God has created us to easily do so.<br />
<blockquote class="nest">Sweet! We're livin' in the God-Matrix!</blockquote><br />
What the atheist has to do is to come up with a mechanism in an imaginary atheistic world to free him from the natural course of an atheistic mind interacting with an atheistic environment naturally producing atheistic thoughts. <br />
<blockquote class="nest">Can I get bleu cheese on that word salad?</blockquote>If the atheist says that it is impossible to imagine such a world, then isn't he saying that the only world possible to imagine is one in which the idea of God is easily attained? <br />
<blockquote class="nest">I can imagine pretty much anything. You have totally lost me. What were we talking about?</blockquote>If this is the case, then once again the atheist must honestly ask himself whether the easily attainable idea of God would be more likely in a theistic world or in an atheistic one.<br />
<blockquote class="nest">Still no evidence, just obfuscating nonsense</blockquote><br />
<br />
<div align="center">The Desire to Live Forever</div><blockquote class="nest"><div align="center">This is getting old</div></blockquote><br />
If this were an atheistic world there would be no eternal life.<br />
<blockquote class="nest">You are implying that there is. Show me.</blockquote>All life would be mortal. <br />
<blockquote class="nest">It sure looks that way</blockquote>If mortality were our natural state, one would think that we would be comfortable with it, but we are not.<br />
<blockquote class="nest">Why? A desire to live a long as possible is clearly a selectable trait. And some of us are comfortable with the idea.</blockquote><br />
Why is it that in all other aspects of life man lives according to his nature and seems to be content to do so? When we are hungry we eat, when we are tired we rest or sleep, but we struggle with the idea of death. <br />
<blockquote class="nest">When we are hungry, we want to eat. When we are tired, we want to sleep. We typically only want to die when we are suicidal. Guess what usually happens then?</blockquote>We see it as an unwelcome intrusion just as Christianity says that it is.<br />
<blockquote class="nest">Myth = Made up explanation for real situation = No connection with reality</blockquote><br />
Christian theology says that we were created to live forever, but because of sin we are subjected to corruption and death. <br />
<blockquote class="nest">Saying something does not make it true.</blockquote>This not only explains why we have a strong desire to live forever, but it also explains why we see death as such a tragedy. <br />
<blockquote class="nest">Myth = Made up explanation for real situation = No connection with reality</blockquote>It seems to me that once again Christianity does a better job in explaining human nature as it has always been then does atheism.<br />
<blockquote class="nest">Not really. I seem to remember you saying something about evidence...?</blockquote><br />
<br />
<div align="center">Conclusion</div><blockquote class="nest"><div align="center"><i>Finally</i></div></blockquote><br />
In the preceding paragraphs we have considered two models - an atheistic world and a Christian world. <br />
<blockquote class="nest">Well, kinda-sorta-but-not-really.</blockquote>We have looked at human nature in the way it has always been for as long as we have written records. <br />
<blockquote class="nest">Yeah, kind of a waste of time, that.</blockquote>It seems to be clear that we as humans act in our day-to-day lives, even when we are not thinking about it, as if there is a God,<br />
<blockquote class="nest">Maybe you do, but even if that were true, it wouldn't need your god to actually exist.</blockquote>and we thrive best in the world in which we live when we do so.<br />
<blockquote class="nest">I don't see that you've shown that, and again...</blockquote>The atheist finds himself in the unenviable position of trying to explain why man must act as if there is a God to best survive in a world in which there is no God. <br />
<blockquote class="nest">Only in your imagination</blockquote>Our job as Christians is much easier. The reason why we as human beings have always acted consistently with the idea that God exists is because he does.<br />
<blockquote class="nest">Does not logically follow. Argument failed.</blockquote></blockquote><br />
So, a lot of bait-and-switch (or goal-post shifting, if you prefer), a lot of unsupported assertions, a little obfuscation, and a heaping helping of bad logic.<br />
<br />
No actual evidence. Quelle surprise.<br />
<br />
Oh yeah. Even if this line of argument wasn't total bullplop, he still needs to demonstrate why it has to be the xian god, and not any of the thousands of others humans have made up over the millenia.<br />
<br />
The only good thing I can say about this is that at least he seem to understand the use of whitespace.<br />
<br />
Later,Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10876775111703252840noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12487611.post-15977047527949080262010-10-23T21:27:00.001-06:002010-10-23T21:45:40.761-06:00In memoriam, Benoit Mandelbrot (20 November 1924 – 14 October 2010)Dammit. <br />
<br />
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/gEw8xpb1aRA?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/gEw8xpb1aRA?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object><br />
<br />
Later,Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10876775111703252840noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12487611.post-33015925613267162962010-07-23T03:34:00.003-06:002010-07-25T11:22:39.194-06:00Quasi-Final version of Sudoku SolverThis is going to be the last update to my sudoku solver for a while.<br />
<br />
<applet archive="http://sites.google.com/site/johnmarley/files/sudokusolverv2/SudokuSolver.jar" code="SudokuSolver.class" height="420" width="320"></applet><br />
<br />
So here's the rundown:<br />
<br />
1) I changed the way the dialog to set values works. To reset a box to null, press the button for the current value again. The GUI will not let you set a box to an illegal value.<br />
<br />
2) Guessing works. Boxes solved without guessing are filled blue. If it can't finish the puzzle, the solver will ask if it can start guessing. The boxes set after guessing are filled red. <br />
<br />
3) Trying to guess on a sudoku without a unique solution will cause the solver to enter an infinite loop. Refresh the browser to end.<br />
<br />
4) Added a reset button.<br />
<br />
I may add advanced techniques later, to get it to solve further before needing to guess, but I'm kind of losing interest now, so we'll see.<br />
<br />
Later,Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10876775111703252840noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12487611.post-29632809943750312102010-07-22T22:35:00.004-06:002010-10-30T19:48:09.614-06:00Blog stuffI don't think the hide-post-thingy I have been using likes blogger's latest revisions. But blogger added their own jump break stuff, so I changed over to that. I really liked the one I had been using, though.<br />
<br />
Later,Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10876775111703252840noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12487611.post-22376261712535991182010-07-08T21:44:00.039-06:002010-07-24T09:43:38.972-06:00Sudoku Solver<s>I think</s> I've learned enough Java <s>to try</s> to write a Sudoku solving applet.<br />
<br />
The first step in running the solver will be setting the board. Click on a box to set it's value <s>(right now, each click increments the value, later I might use a dialog to pick the value, but this is good enough for now)</s> <br />
<br />
UPDATE: I added a dialog to set a box value. <br />
<br />
UPDATE2: It was a hell of a fight, but I managed to get the GUI to look pretty much how I want. I ended up having to draw the heavy dividing lines manually, so they don't quite re-size right. <br />
<br />
UPDATE 3: Added functionality.<br />
<br />
UPDATE 4: Changed the look a bit. The boxes now change color when manually set. Adding the advanced techniques is tougher than I thought. I may take some time. After hitting the "Solve" button, the dialog function changes. Instead of setting the box value, it allows you to change the restricted values (blue means value is restricted).<br />
<br />
<s>this is just the GUI. the "Solve" button does nothing yet.</s><br />
The applet goes as far as it can with the <u>very basic algorithm</u> it uses. <br />
It successfully solved the NYT <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/ref/crosswords/sudoku/easy.html">Easy</a> and <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/ref/crosswords/sudoku/medium.html">Medium</a> Sudokus for July 15, 2010.<br />
It wasn't able to completely solve the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/ref/crosswords/sudoku/hard.html">Difficult</a> one, but I have ideas for more advanced techniques to add, so it shouldn't be long. YAY!!!<br />
<br />
Note: it doesn't error check (yet). If you enter an impossible sudoku, it will still try to solve it.<br />
<br />
<b>*** Removed. See <a href="http://jmarley42.blogspot.com/2010/07/quasi-final-version-of-sudoku-solver.html">post dated 7/23/2010</a> for sudoku solver applet. ***</b><br />
<br />
"I am so smart! S-M-R-T... I mean S-M-A-R-T!"<br />
</Homer><br />
<br />
Praise me! PRAISE ME!<br />
</GIR><br />
<br />
Later,Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10876775111703252840noreply@blogger.com16tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12487611.post-62992525199794336212010-07-08T18:41:00.002-06:002010-07-08T18:44:46.676-06:00Some sidebar clean-upSeveral bloggers at ScienceBlogs have left due to the kerfluffle about the PepsiCo blog (Which I really don't get, especially since the PepsiCo blog is gone now anyway. But it's their decision, and I'm cool with that.)<br /><br />Some of those that left I read regularly. I have updated the links to the ones that I still follow, and have taken the opportunity to remove the ones I really don't anymore.<br /><br />Later,Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10876775111703252840noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12487611.post-38941184653677626462010-07-07T18:47:00.013-06:002010-07-15T23:19:08.465-06:00Thoughts on why you can't logically disprove god to a theist.Consider this:<br /><br />given some real, non-zero value, a<br /><pre> a = b<br /> a*b = b<sup>2</sup><br /> a*b-a<sup>2</sup> = b<sup>2</sup>-a<sup>2</sup><br />a*(b-a) = (b-a)*(b+a)<br /> a = b+a</pre><br />This is obviously wrong. You don't even need to understand the algebra to see that it's wrong. If a is not zero, and a equals b, then a cannot equal a+b. The argument is nonsense. Identity is not a conclusion. It is an axiom. It is foundational to mathematics.<br /><br />As far as theists are concerned, the same thing applies to their god. If your logic leads to the conclusion that their god doesn't exist, then, to theists, there is obviously something wrong with your logic; even if they can't say what that is, exactly. For them, their god is an axiom, foundational to reality. Only when a theist is able to reject that premise as false can they be reasoned with.<br /><br />That is why I stick to "Evidence or STFU" when someone challenges my atheism.<br /><br />Later,Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10876775111703252840noreply@blogger.com4