YOU WA SHOCK

A ton of Fist of the North Star episodes, courtesy FUNimation, here.  Season 2 is here.

Titles

Let's play a game. Say you're out with a couple you've never met before.  Knowing nothing else, what mental conception do you build if told that the guy is:
1) a boyfriend?
2) a husband?
3) a father?

Your interaction with this person will change in subtle and not-so-subtle ways based on that sole piece of information, all other things held constant: these titles are shorthand for different sets of conceptions and biases. We as human beings are very adept at finding patterns and assembling them in ways that indicate reliable outcomes; titles and their associated connotations are just one example.

Some people embrace those suggested differences, since titles imply and therefore confer status. A "father" is more mature and responsible as the steward of a life, just as a "husband" is more trustworthy and more permanent than a "boyfriend." Of those, which one would you make dead baby jokes to (supposing you were inclined)?   

A title implies a certain set of experiences, which in turn imply certain personality traits or qualities that are either causes or effects of those experiences (i.e., you choose to become a father because you're a responsible person, or you've become responsible because you've had the experience of being a father).  In either case, the implied traits or qualities are there and tied causally to the implied experiences.  All of this is captured in that title.

That's a hell of a lot of assumption flowing from a single word.

I don't believe in the use of titles because of this associated baggage. I am no different as a father than as a husband than as a boyfriend; I want a conception of me to be built on my own merits rather than what is suggested by a title. A title is something that alters your conception of a person without any other input from that person: titles are stereotypes.   

This is one of the major reasons that I didn't have a wedding. I don't believe in celebrating the illusory change from "boyfriend" to "husband:" marriage is essentially a modification of legal status. As the divorce rate shows, wedded status is no real promise of committment: your love is its own bond that exists independent of its recognition of anyone beyond the persons involved. So yes, it's BS to treat people who are obviously committed to each other any differently than those who are "blessed" by the state. A bond is its own example; "husband" and "wife" are empty terms in the absence of that bond.

This is also my way of saying that nothing has been confered upon me now that I am a father. Yes, I am now on a path that will engender a different set of experiences than if I was "merely" in a committed relationship... or for that matter, single. It is messed up to assume you can capture those sets of experiences in a single word; it's worse to assign personal judgements based on those assumed experiences. People who don't have kids or who are single in their old age are looked down upon, as if one set of experiences is superior to any other. Some people buy into that and let their titles define them. I reject that.

I consistently got a lot of, "oh, what's up there, dad?" I'm not sure if this was some kind of conversational crutch (Hey, I am stating the obvious in an attempt at humor!) or whether it's some kind of subconcious reinforcement (either for my benefit, or the speaker's) of the idea that hey, my "status" has changed .   This indicates the need for people to update their mental map based on events (okay, X Y and Z have happened, therefore, my impressions and expectations of you have changed).  Being conscious of the events themselves is fine, but I really take issue with the idea that the events somehow influence your conception or handling of the person (that is, that they would cause you to assume traits or qualities about that person).  

People have asked me what's changed now that I'm a father, kind of a loaded question in that they expect something radiant and flowing about how life has come into focus in a way unimaginable to those not having had this experience.  Instead I usually say I look at a lot more poop.  Titles are not proof positive of magical, fundamental change.  I think most people would agree that magical, fundamental change is always something that's attributed to you rather than experienced by you as you move through the stations of your life.  Think about the times people have said, "you're a graduate now!" "you're married now!" "you're a father now!" "you're retired now!".  When you get to those points, it's not as if someone's flipped a switch and suddenly magic has occurred; you're the same person before and after you "acquire" that title.  So, if our own experience shows that the mundane hides beneath the mantle of these assumption-laden titles, why are we so unable to resist applying those illusions to other people?

Rave review for "The Story About Ping"

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

9,019 of 9,321 people found the following review helpful: 5.0 out of 5 stars Ping! I love that duck!, January 25, 2000 By  John E. Fracisco (El Segundo, CA USA) - See all my reviews This review is from: The Story about Ping (Viking Kestrel picture books) (Hardcover) PING! The magic duck! Using deft allegory, the authors have provided an insightful and intuitive explanation of one of Unix's most venerable networking utilities. Even more stunning is that they were clearly working with a very early beta of the program, as their book first appeared in 1933, years (decades!) before the operating system and network infrastructure were finalized. The book describes networking in terms even a child could understand, choosing to anthropomorphize the underlying packet structure. The ping packet is described as a duck, who, with other packets (more ducks), spends a certain period of time on the host machine (the wise-eyed boat). At the same time each day (I suspect this is scheduled under cron), the little packets (ducks) exit the host (boat) by way of a bridge (a bridge). From the bridge, the packets travel onto the internet (here embodied by the Yangtze River). The title character -- er, packet, is called Ping. Ping meanders around the river before being received by another host (another boat). He spends a brief time on the other boat, but eventually returns to his original host machine (the wise-eyed boat) somewhat the worse for wear. If you need a good, high-level overview of the ping utility, this is the book. I can't recommend it for most managers, as the technical aspects may be too overwhelming and the basic concepts too daunting. Problems With This Book As good as it is, The Story About Ping is not without its faults. There is no index, and though the ping(8) man pages cover the command line options well enough, some review of them seems to be in order. Likewise, in a book solely about Ping, I would have expected a more detailed overview of the ICMP packet structure. But even with these problems, The Story About Ping has earned a place on my bookshelf, right between Stevens' Advanced Programming in the Unix Environment, and my dog-eared copy of Dante's seminal work on MS Windows, Inferno. Who can read that passage on the Windows API ("Obscure, profound it was, and nebulous, So that by fixing on its depths my sight -- Nothing whatever I discerned therein."), without shaking their head with deep understanding. But I digress.

Shinjuku

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vP4BJVmjZq4

I am intentionally not embedding this so you can go to Youtube and watch it in HD, fullscreen.

Artist's website:  http://www.samuelcockedey.com.

Cheap vodka

From the NY times:

By government definition, vodka is supposed to be a neutral alcohol without distinctive character, aroma, taste or color, and some believe that the differences among vodkas are so subtle that only connoisseurs can distinguish them.

But a marketing genius and liquor baron named Sidney Frank decided in 1996 that with the right story line and marketing panache, Americans would buy steeply priced vodka. He came up with a refined name, Grey Goose, and a sleek bottle.

Most important, Mr. Frank, now deceased, decided to charge $30 for a bottle of Grey Goose, nearly twice as much as the most popular imported vodka, Absolut. It was a phenomenal success, so much so that in 2004 Mr. Frank sold Grey Goose for $2 billion to Bacardi.

And yet several impartial taste tests have found that the cost of a bottle of vodka doesn’t necessarily translate into better taste.

In 2004, Slate magazine crowned a Polish vodka, Chopin, as the best; it cost the same as Grey Goose, which it described as unremarkable. The next year, a panel at The New York Times determined that Smirnoff, at $13 a bottle, was better than its pricier rivals.

Oh snap.

From Slashfood:

Given that it is the most popular vodka in the world, Smirnoff hardly qualifies as a lesser-known tipple. Still, at $14 for a fifth, it is quite cheap, yet it has a clean, pleasant flavor and is a first-rate mixer. Best of all, it was James Bond's spirit of choice, a fact that the company has used for promotional purposes for over forty years.

While these plebian vodkas are great for most purposes, they come up a little short when a vodka snob comes to visit. For that reason, it's not a bad idea to have a bottle of Luksusowa lying around. A smooth, triple-distilled Polish potato vodka with a great flavor and a proud heritage, Luksusowa should be clean enough to silence even your most obnoxious premium vodka snob. Best of all, it costs about $10 a fifth and, while not as nice as Chopin, is a credible vodka that you should feel perfectly comfortable serving.

Upshot:  I will no longer be buying expensive vodka.  Also, I guess I won't ever need a Gray Kangaroo.

Verizon

I know Verizon's probably just as bad as any other cell phone carrier, but I still couldn't help putting this in my response to their customer satisfaction survey.

-----------------------

Question:  What is the most important thing Verizon Wireless could do to offer you a better wireless experience?

1) Change your backwards, greed-driven corporate attitude of "if it has value, we should be charging for it." This has resulted in your phones having their innate features handicapped (connectivity to your PC, ringtone generation, and GPS come to mind), with being charged exorbitant fees for ringtones and text messaging, and us being forced to use substandard Verizon applications. This arrangement is total bullshit, and as soon as an open-source-friendly alternative comes along that doesn't cripple your phone or charge you needlessly (hint: Google and Android), you will go the way of Ma Bell. I can't wait for that day.

2) Drop CDMA. The rest of the world uses GSM: why are you using CDMA?

3) Stop charging for text messaging. Text messages piggyback existing idle communication between the phone and the tower, so sending one or one billion texts has absolutely no impact on the service you provide. Your requisite text plans are a ripoff, and you know it.

4) If I buy a phone, I expect to use that phone with the features with which it is designed; I can't tell you how disappointing and frustrating it is to find that familiar phone interfaces (LG and Nokia's were my favorites) are replaced by your handicapped, ugly Verizon OS. What is the point of buying any different brand of phone if its own OS and all its features are intentionally homogenized and crippled?

So, unless you can change the broke-ass way you do business, I really don't have any other suggestions.

This is my new favorite thing

via Japanator:  the Japanese Ronald McDonald / Gigyas mashup. 

Holy shit.

This is deep on many levels

I love beartato.

1) Lack of an opinion is as suitable as opinion in the absence of fact; actually, it is preferable.
2) The afterlife is something that is impossible to verify and therefore could be anything or nothing.
3) Value judgments, especially those rooted in the subjective, are bullshit.
4) Honestly is exploitable by the wrong people.

Bookmarklets

From lifehacker:  bookmarklets as a replacement for browser add-ons.  

Bookmarklets are links that provide complex functionality (taking screenshots, creating short URLs, posting to social networking sites, etc).  Unlike browser add-ons, they work in any version of any browser, and don't require modification of the browser itself.  

THIS IS GOOD SHIT, PEOPLE

UPDATE! 

Here's another good one:  Quietube
Use this bookmarklet to nix everything but the video on a youtube page.  It's also configurable so you can set a plain white or black background.

New name, same great taste

I officially took my wife's last name as my own.   

To say the least, it's been a fascinating social experiment to observe peoples' reactions and assumptions about this.  

Popular objections (these are direct quotes):

• That's just not what you do!  What about tradition??
• What will your male friends say?  That's such a wussy thing to do! 
• Now we have to change all our paperwork!
  
• Every one of your family members are hurt and upset!  I'm glad your grandfather isn't alive to see this!

Popular assumptions:

• My wife made me do it.  I have no spine and no free will.
• I hate and resent my family.
• I am an attention-seeking contrarian.

This warms my heart.  :D   

So, why am I taking my wife's name?  Because I'm opting out of a glaring double-standard.  Because no one does it, and there's no reason not to.  

So far, no one has been able to give me an objection more cohesive than "it's just how things are done."  I think that anyone with half a brain will agree that that is an extremely stupid reason to do anything.  I don't believe in doing things without a good reason; that doesn't stop with the things that you and I and everyone else does as a functioning member of society.  Some things we do because they make sense, but there's no way in hell I'm going to do something merely because it's expected.

I've been told that "my name is one of honor, that it's my birthright, and that I'm throwing it away."  Uh, and my wife's name isn't?  She and her offspring should get my name because what, she has a vagina?

Try this little thought experiment:  if my wife is not diminished, dishonored, or willfully hurtful when she abandons her name to take her husband's, why is the reverse true?  People have a visceral, emotional response to the idea of a man taking his wife's name.   I don't know why that idea is so threatening to people.

All this being said, no, it's no more fair and equitable for me to take my wife's name than it is for her to take mine.   Just as I don't see any reason for her to drop her name because we're married, I don't see any reason for me to drop mine.   But I think there's an important point to be made about how people feel about the idea, and I'm willing to use my own life and experience to demonstrate it.  

So yes, I'm making a point.  No, I don't hate my family, and no, I'm not even doing it for my wife (at least, not in the way you assume).   I'm doing it for you, ladies.   There's no reason why you shouldn't be represented in your families; you have your own name and birthright, and your children have as much right to it as to their fathers.  There's no reason for you to be Mrs. Joe Shit the Rag Man--unless, of course, you buy into the biblical idea of subservience to your husband (in which case that's probably the least of the issues with your worldview).  

So, while we're beyond such anachronistic sexism in this culture, we really aren't quite yet.  I'm sure conservative thought deems ideas like this destructive and antithetical to the fabric of good, common society.   If that's the case, then yes, this is my small way of ripping the system.

GOODBYE FACEBOOK

Until the next flash-in-the-pan social networking site.

FRANK HAS ANOTHER BUN IN THE OVEN

DIFFERENT BUN, DIFFERENT OVEN

Previously...

eWaste

One of the best ways to help the environment is to buy less shit.   

One problem is the embodied energy used to make it in the first place.  Another problem is where it all eventually goes when you've decided to pitch it. 

Here's a story about one such place:

STALK-O-TRON

http://www.123people.com

Aggregates a bunch of different sources. 

Hamster on a piano eating popcorn

About your sagging pants

Sway: Our next question comes from Eric out of Huntington Beach, California: "There are numerous cultures and subcultures in the United States today. Powers-that-be set statutes with monetary penalty on how people wear their clothes. Do you find it intrusive on civil liberties to create such ordinances?" And you know I got 'locks.

Obama: I wasn't going to pass a law, man. You look tight.

Sway: I know people have piercings, tattoos. Eric, in particular, is talking about a ban on sagging pants. Do feel like people should be penalized?

Obama: Here is my attitude: I think people passing a law against people wearing sagging pants is a waste of time. We should be focused on creating jobs, improving our schools, health care, dealing with the war in Iraq, and anybody, any public official, that is worrying about sagging pants probably needs to spend some time focusing on real problems out there. Having said that, brothers should pull up their pants. You are walking by your mother, your grandmother, your underwear is showing. What's wrong with that? Come on. There are some issues that we face, that you don't have to pass a law, but that doesn't mean folks can't have some sense and some respect for other people and, you know, some people might not want to see your underwear — I'm one of them.

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1598409/20081102/story.jhtml

Blue

Even Loudoun went blue.