Thursday, March 31, 2016

gosh it's just like an episode of CSI

When the video for the first round of the SuperBro of the World (SERIOUS!) ends up more over-produced than the 2d Duran Duran album, you know you're MAINSTREAM BRO!  It's like traveling to Monaco, full boat, on the company card!

*****************

Overheard thanks to my trusty drone flying around Corral, Chile:

--This year we are the Spokesman for the Industry.  Our videos have to focus on lifestyle, exotic locations, enviable views, interesting locals, rare food items, indigenous flora/fauna, and of course, the bikes.  The lust objects themselves!

--Right.  Totally agree.  It's not about racing or riding skill, it's about being in enviable locations riding bikes you can only dream of riding.

--Exactly.  Can't agree more.

--Product placement, then.

--Lots of product.

--But subtle.  And with Euro music in the background.

--Right.  Again, totally agree.  Should feel like you're on vacation at a club at 3 AM on the French Riviera.  I mean, who ever gets to do that?

--On the money.  Bang on the money.  Give that man a cigar.

******************

Instead of 20 mins of Hollywood, I'd take 4 mins of RAW.

Rather than an airbrushed version of a model who's had 4 different facial re-making surgeries already, I'll take the natural woman.

But thanks for trying to drag me up your social ladder.  I appreciate your thoughtful ways, how you make me feel guilty for not liking the fancy version.  Quite sly.

Wednesday, March 30, 2016

everything recycled, even if not green, but especially when green is part of the bargain

I'm predicting/guessing AC Newman listened to this song (and its album) many, many times in the period during or just prior to writing or thinking about songs, lyrics, tunes for Mass Romantic and Electric Version.



AC Newman using Neko Case on those two listed New Pornographers albums resembles Anton Fier using Syd Straw on the two Golden Palominos albums Visions of Excess and Blast of Silence.

The ways Syd Straw colored the two GP albums?  Hey it's right there again, with Neko Case on the two NP albums.

************************

A lot of the music made in the early and mid 1980s got screwed by idiotic money-chasing record labels who hired "producers" to square-peg-into-round-hole whatever band was available to the $-grubber "band manager" or "promoter" with contacts to someone at some record label.  And to lesser degree, by bands being immature and unwilling to believe their own sound ideas were worth following.   But mostly, because it was so often done against artists' wills, we can blame the record labels and the other vampires who do not create anything themselves, but instead make money by taking others' creations and then repackaging those creations.

In the 1980s, what did record label idiots do to fuck with and perhaps even destroy the vibrant musical talent offered to them?

They were like Ron Bailey at the Silent T, and couldn't leave anything in its natural state, and had to create synthetic reality.

Therefore:  synthesizers were over-used and, for reasons I'll never understand, were treated through filters that killed everything below mid-range.  So the music was thin, shrill, tinny, and without any solid foundation.

Some bands managed to avoid getting tainted by the money-grubbing producers and record label promoters, and/or by lack of self-respect leading to following whatever seems like a popular trend of the moment, sonics/vibe wise, in whatever musical niche one occupies.  

These two GP albums are among the handful created in that decade which don't sound squashed like a bug, or like they're being rendered through a kazoo chorus.  I can see why Newman would want to emulate either of them, but especially the Blast of Silence one.  Visions of Excess was a bit too grindy, dour and visceral for an upbeat and only slightly sarcastic pop band like New Pornographers.


-- Karl Franz Ochstradt, who thinks you should own this album.

Sunday, March 27, 2016

scottish











this one isn't McGinley or Teenage Fanclub but it belongs anyway




--Karl Franz Ochstradt, and may all your 6-strings be fuzzy and distorted

Saturday, March 26, 2016

more technobabble

Prior mumble focused on "shin to win" and "be on the balls of your feet," and now arrives that concept's cousin for more ...uh... inquiry as to why things get mis-communicated and then turn into mantras of wrongness.

Here's where the buck-toothed cousin arrives at the upscale dinner party:

Maybe I should have phrased the question like this... "Technically speaking, why should one's hips be over their feet in the bottom third of a turn?"

The father's sister's son reveals his prominent beaver-biters with this: hips over feet.

***************

The origins here again are similar to those with "get on the balls of your feet."  You'd tell someone "hips over feet" if they habitually sit back and lever their turns with the swing of their big behonkus (as my brother would have said it in jr high).

Once again, it's a matter of addressing symptom rather than cause.  So, really:  why is this skier using his/her ass-pelvis-femurs-spine consortium to create turns (or at least ski-torquing/ski-braking forces) when it should be starting down at the feet with everything else happening to remain in balance, with the greatest economy possible.**

Ideally such a skier should be projecting the core down the intended line, and not using the hips/ass as a move-initiator or gravity-resistor.

Once again the skier needs to ratchet way back on slope difficulty and learn to move with the skis rather than defending against their movement.  That's the only way to un-make the hip/ass bias in the skier who gets told, "hips over feet."  And the advice "hips over feet" might be a useful cue, as long as it's understood as a cue for getting the core moving in the ways it should be moving.  But it's easily misunderstood as a mandate to have an artificial position of literal hips-over-feet-ness.

***************

Let Bob Barnes show why he's the guru.

Why do you need to believe anyone? Whenever I lead an instructor clinic, or a lesson, one of the first things I tell the participants is that they must not believe anything I tell them. Question it, challenge it, test it, and only then will you begin to understand and learn. Plus, of course, I could be wrong. (I thought I was wrong once, but I was mistaken....) But they must likewise not believe that anything I tell them is wrong, either, without questioning and testing it. (It just might be right!) Furthermore, they must not believe anything anyone else has told them. And they must question even what they themselves already believe. If you learn and believe what I tell you, you'll gain "knowledge" (but how will you know if it's right?). Only when you question it will you gain understanding. With understanding, you won't need to remember the "right answer." There will be no need to believe me, or anyone else, anymore!

Question everything. Question even--and perhaps especially--your own beliefs. Believing and understanding live on opposite ends of a spectrum--if you understand, you don't need to believe, and we only have to "believe" things we don't understand. In everything in life, we have the choice between questioning and believing--that is, between questioning and not questioning. It's your choice.

This may sound cynical, but it is far from it. It's really just being scientific--seeking evidence, and being open to evidence that is contrary to what I thought was true. It is amazing to me how often many people--including experienced instructors and race coaches--will see an image or watch a skier clearly demonstrating something that runs counter to their belief system, and yet somehow refuse to believe their eyes. They see what they look for, and turn a blind eye to contrary evidence. As CGeib often says, "believing is seeing"--there is no limit to how much our belief systems can color our perception. Even more interesting to me is that the higher the level of accomplishment, the more difficult it often becomes to "see." Questioning means opening your eyes!

The topic of this thread--fore-aft movements and managing fore-aft pressure--includes some of the the least-questioned and deepest-seated bits of conventional wisdom in all of skiing. You must be forward--it's one of the sacred canons of skiing. It's doctrine, it's dogma, and the mere thought of questioning it is out of the question, ... right? Well, in my opinion, the more something is unquestioned, the more it should be questioned. And when you take a good, hard, questioning, scientifically skeptical look at these issues, I believe (!) you'll find that a whole lot of the dogma is just, plain, wrong! (But please, don't believe me.) Why is there so much confusion about fore-aft movements? Simple--because so few people question it! Although really, I suggest that the problem is not so much confusion as ignorance. Confusion requires thought--questioning, letting "contrary evidence" in to challenge your belief system. When you believe without question, you are never confused. Confusion is not such a bad thing, really, is it? Ignorance is blissfully simple and clear. Learning requires the will to embrace a little confusion!

So how do you know who to believe, you ask? You don't need to believe anyone. Once you understand something, you won't need anyone else to tell you whether it's right or not. Mahatma Gandhi said, "Truth is by nature self-evident. As soon as you remove the cobwebs of ignorance that surround it, it shines clear."

Question everything--especially me. I'm probably wrong. But you'll never know until you question!

You should own a copy of this if you find technobabble interesting.

And to clear up the way you have been thinking about forward-ness, in the context of skiing at least, just read Bob Barnes' later post in that same thread, here.



______________________

** Though Nigel West Dickens and the cosmotarians may like to say I don't understand economics, I assure you that when it comes to efficiency in athletic movements, in conceptual logic, in reasoning, in argument, in rhetoric, in mechanical operation of a device or group of people (factory) -- I know economy and efficiency very well.  And I don't think many economists actually do, as their eye tends to resemble a bean-counter's.

Tuesday, March 22, 2016

confection

The way an international terror event happens right when the infotainment media are starting to feel pinched on which POTUS candidate should be distinguished enough to gain the White House?

Yep.  That's sweet.

An event that justifies all the negative developments since nynah leaven is exactly what's needed to help pitch the 2016 POTUS race in just the right tones and terms.

Like drinking Karo syrup.

I think nothing fits better than this:




-- Paul Behrer, who has enough fillings in his mouth already, thanks very much.

Saturday, March 19, 2016

kudos, jonny e

It's brilliant, getting the internet's biggest ego to review skis for you.  Nobody skis as well, hucks as huge/often, amazes the ladies as consistently, or uses bragging on the internet to recover from a messy divorce as handily as Brian Lindahl, who is so badass that nobody can make a ski burly enough for his ubermensch self.

I'd say Lindahl is the Donald Trump of skiing, but that's really a dim comparison, since Trump actually might become POTUS, whereas little Briney-o'-the-Creep can't show a similar popularity behind him.  Though I'm sure in an Ego War, it could be fought down to the very last breath drawn from each oversized cranium.

--Harold Caidagh, who never tries to prove his own chops by telling us what his parents did

Friday, March 18, 2016

if you're crispy, it's because you were burned

Mr Sartwell's dilemma gives me deja vu when I look at the saga of GRH v UNSF/Caidagh as portrayed in the links to the right ---->

...meaning, those under the heading

pay-PAH! git yo' pay-PAH!

One might say there was a good reason I worked up that yarn-ball. Like, uh, it was an actual direction our society was taking, not just something a stupid reactionary idiot such as myself imagined because he's paranoid about the stupidity of SJW/SWPL "progress" mandates and bright lines extant in our society today.

Foolish, functionally blind progressives, leftists, Democrats, liberals:  you all have been cheering for this sort of crap.

*******************

Maybe the most insipid thing in the Sartwell case as it's developing is the mental illness accusation, but I have to say it's consistent with SJW/progressive/liberal/leftist tactics as I've experienced them both in-person and in the ethereal internet/cloud environment.

You might even say that's one of the driving forces behind this blog:  mockery of that absurd mental illness of solipsistic narcissism which drives the narcissistic solipsist to accuse anyone who isn't Politically Correct and label them with the "mentally ill" tag.

If you want to know why people are "inexplicably" rushing to support The Donald, here's your reason in large part.  Right here.  Meaning, what's happening to Mr Sartwell.

Meanwhile, good leftist/progressive/liberal Democrats, congratulations on intolerance.  Well done.

no clue

Verdant Welkum misses the point here.

As a legal matter --interpretation of statutes applicable to wilderness designation in the USA-- mountain bikes are not expressly prohibited in wilderness.

The whole problem centers around "mechanized" prohibition, and not "mountain bike" prohibition.

If we are literal, "mechanized" means anything mechanical.

Does the legislative history prove "mechanized" meant "mountain bike"?

No.

US Forest Service interprets the term "mechanized" as excluding MTBs.

That's why we are in this situation.

Strangely, mechanical ski bindings, mechanical horse saddle/bit/bridle fastening, mechanical cooking stoves, mechanical backpack fasteners/cinches, zippers on clothing (which are mechanical), shoelaces, belts and suspenders -- these are not seen as "mechanical" such that they enable "mechanized" transportation within wilderness.

Why do you think that is?

*****************

We might hope Ted Stroll & Co at STC are on top of this, but I'm not convinced. I see STC functioning like Sierra Club did in its early days, and just as likely to end up shilling for the ideas and values originally meant as targets for dissection and redefining.

I'm not persuaded they'll follow the right path, Stroll is a CA state employee who works as a deferential-to-govt-authority research attorney for CA Supreme Court.

I believe STC will preserve the status quo while pretending to work to change it, just like IMBA has done.

Thursday, March 17, 2016

but I insisted on the quinoa and kale platter, you stupid waiter!



The message I take away from Ofucker's SCOTUS nomination: FUCK YOU AND YOUR ANTI-KABUKI, peasants, EAT FUCKING KABUKI! and fucking like it.


Once again, Chalupa delivers his prescience on politics.

Here's how it goes:

2012, Chalupa:

1) Republican? Y or N
2) If Y, HATE IT, IT'S WRONG, THEY'RE TRYING TO TAKE US BACK TO THE 1300s
3) If N, BOO-YAH! KICKIN' ASS & TAKIN' NAMES!

2016, Chalupa:

1) Republican? Y or N
2) If Y, HATE IT, IT'S WRONG, THEY'RE TRYING TO TAKE US BACK TO THE 1300s
3) If N, BOO-YAH! KICKIN' ASS & TAKIN' NAMES!

now this may seem the same, but it's actually different, as a new chapter exists:

4) Okay, Democrat, BOO-YAH!, etc. But: Connection to Obama? Y or N
5) If Y, HATE IT, IT'S WRONG, THEY'RE TRYING TO TAKE US BACK TO THE 1300s
6) If N, BOO-YAH! KICKIN' ASS & TAKIN' NAMES!

See how different? No? Well, I don't either.

But apparently, it's the Obamapostasy at work.

MUST HAVE TRUE LEFTIST ON SCOTUS!

Yeah, every single issue in human existence is about Winning Team, isn't it Chalupa?  And your team always is the Winner, right?  Like your Obama support, your Clinton support, your Gore support, your Dukakis support, your blah blah blah blah blah Depressed Lifelong Leftist Who Thinks It's About Right vs Left and Thinks It's Always Necessary to Be On the Left.

Let's hope he never drives in America.  That anglophilic, wish-I-was-more-upscale (hey Tarzie, hey Greenwald, hey Simulated Beavers, hey every single leftist who struggles with identity and self-worth issues!) need to be always on the left is fine in the UK and its satellites, but American roads put you in the right lane when you move forward.  Head-ons are likely if you move forward in the left lane.

It may help Chalupa to try to learn a little bit about the history of SCOTUS opinions -- but then, without a legal education background, I'm not sure he will be able to make heads or tails of the opinions themselves, let alone put them into context.

But why would someone need a legal background to understand a (in comparison to Ideal World, needlessly) complex body of principles, bendy-contorty semi-rules, and lines of thinking?  Not when he's the Reference Librarian!

If Glenn Greenwald didn't need experience in Constitutional litigation to claim Constitutional Lawyer status, neither does Chalupa.

If Barack Obama can claim to be a law professor because someone did him a solid and gave him a semester stand-in job designed to bolster his CV rather than reflect and draw upon his expertise, Chalupa can pretend he knows SCOTUS matters intimately and in a polylaminar fashion.

technobabble

I know most of the 4 or 5 people who read this blog are so damned good at skiing they think improvement, or trying to improve, is for lesser humans.  Each of you would enjoy laughing at instructor-speak or coach-chatter.  "Hah, I just click in and go, never think about anything, I've been Best Skier at my home ski area since I was 2, why would I have any reason to think about ski technique?"

I understand.  It's a burden being at the top of Maslow's hierarchy in everything you do, and having to spend an entire life there since you hit that apex around age 2 or 3.  Most people work their whole lives at something to get somewhere in the middle of Abe's pyramid.

But for the occasional person who arrives here by accident or because someone somewhere told you, "go read that insane reactionary asshole, see who he's trying to boss around with his caveman views today," maybe you're curious about skiing technique because you're not one of those Born Masters.

If that's the case, you could do far, far worse than to read posts by username Metaphor_ at EpicSki.

This post is a perfect example of his pithy, neutral and wise observations on one of the commonest mistakes people make when talking or thinking about "expert skiing" -- which I put in quotes because it'd be a level of pseudo-expertise the person's inhabiting if he or she is following the thinking that Metaphor_ kindly and wisely corrects in the post.

Ultra-focus on "shin to win" or "stay on the balls of your feet" usually comes from someone who hasn't experienced great skiing through either vehicle.  Usually it's being said by someone who is repeating what he/she heard somewhere else and, maybe, what he/she has been trying to do when self-teaching skiing.

The emphasis on power point @ rear of arch = priceless, bullseye, etc.  If you're on the balls of your feet, you're the same as the MTB rider who is descending in that endo-prone, imbalanced position with body momentum capable of tipping over or rotating around a point somewhere ahead of the front axle.

Wednesday, March 16, 2016

wahn baiwee, Silent T "science editor," has no reply





I have no idea who that guy pictured is, nor whether that was his commentary put adjacent to the picture, but this isn't about "expertise" nor comparing CVs for merit-based honoring/rejection of a posted thesis.

Is that statement in any way true?  Does it resonate in any way with you?

If wahn baiwee wants to demonstrate he knows anything at all on the subjects where he pontificates, I'd like to see him respond to the image/thesis above, as well as to this.

But it's delusional to think wahn baiwee has enough integrity to do so.  He's much more likely to see the linked book was published by the Sierra Club, and assume that Wendell Berry is merely a liberal polemicist.  That's the sort of depth of understanding and wisdom I've come to expect from wahn baiwee, who is quite the con artist.


-- Karl Franz Ochstradt, who knew more in 7th grade about science than wahn baiwee knows presently at 60-something rings on his anti-Druidic trunk.

bipartisan -- but maybe a little ashamed about it

Here in Mountain Lifestyle Valhalla of the Moment, you can find anywhere you turn or look a progressive Democrat who thinks the stupid redneck reactionary misogynist conservatard Repthuglican cis-het-patriarchal homophobes that lived here** when Mr/Ms/Mrs/Zs Pwogwell moved to MLVotM should just pack up and get the fuck outta here, because MLVotM is now for US PROGRESSIVES, so get the fuck out!

I hear this sentiment expressed passive-aggressively most frequently, but sometimes a he/she/ze will say it outright, when he/she/ze thinks everyone in earshot agrees that POOR WHITE PEOPLE WHO DRIVE OLD VEHICLES, HUNT WITH GUNS FOR SUBSISTENCE, AND MIGHT NOT VOTE DEMOCRAT 24/7/365 SHOULD GET THE FUCK OUTTA MLVotM!

*********************

It may surprise my many Progressive friends and acquaintances to learn that a Leading Neocon Journal of Spoon-Fed Opinions -- particularly, National Review -- is in full agreement.

[Kevin] Williamson, a long-time critic of The Donald, essentially agrees that he doesn’t support any policies or rhetoric directly tailored to the working-class — particularly about jobs being taken by outsourcing and immigration — because it would be wrong to do so.

“It is immoral because it perpetuates a lie: that the white working class that finds itself attracted to Trump has been victimized by outside forces,” the NR roving correspondent writes. “[N]obody did this to them. They failed themselves.”

He then goes on to state that all the ills associated with downscale whites are a result of that class’s inherent depravity.

“If you spend time in hardscrabble, white upstate New York, or eastern Kentucky, or my own native West Texas, and you take an honest look at the welfare dependency, the drug and alcohol addiction, the family anarchy—which is to say, the whelping of human children with all the respect and wisdom of a stray dog—you will come to an awful realization. It wasn’t Beijing. It wasn’t even Washington, as bad as Washington can be. It wasn’t immigrants from Mexico, excessive and problematic as our current immigration levels are. It wasn’t any of that,” Williamson state.

He then goes on to make the conclusion that it’s great these communities are dying out because they have a warped morality and are a dead weight on the economy.

“The truth about these dysfunctional, downscale communities is that they deserve to die. Economically, they are negative assets. Morally, they are indefensible,” the conservative writer says. “The white American under-class is in thrall to a vicious, selfish culture whose main products are misery and used heroin needles. Donald Trump’s speeches make them feel good. So does OxyContin. What they need isn’t analgesics, literal or political. They need real opportunity, which means that they need real change, which means that they need U-Haul. If you want to live, get out of Garbutt [a blue-collar town in New York].”

Good job, Progressives. You are as reactionary as your hated Mortal Enemies, the Repthuglicans. You have no tolerance, but insist that everyone should be tolerant.

Funny how that Kevvy-Wevvy Wiw-yum-sin needs so badly to distance himself from the Shanty Irish. Poor guy. Such insecurity, he reminds me of Chalupa.  He also sounds a lot like Jim Kunstler with that Jew-in-the-Catskills attitude of hating the "white trash."

Hey, maybe if I call myself and my forebears "poor white trash," I can earn Progressive and other kinds of fake karma for social capital purposes?

______________________________

**  ...and have lived here, for several generations preceding the Progressive's immigration.



--Paul Behrer, with a crimson neck on a cis-het body.

Tuesday, March 15, 2016

it's all about Elmer Fudd and his dweems of pwogwess in wabbit hunting

Dr. Jill Stein ‏@DrJillStein

You don't have to go that far back, the DNC installed a kill switch to prevent true progressives after McGovern got the nomination in '72.

True progressives, eh?

Let us pause to reflect upon the essential quality of being true to progress.  That, literally, would be our True Progressive.

Presently America is regressive and reactionary, a cis-het-patriarchal hegemonic exercise in backward time-travel, right?  The very opposite of progress, right?

If so -- what then is progress?  What would be Jill Stein's definition of progress?  How different is it from Marxkopf Sandinista's definition or understanding?

*************

Is the True Progressive anything like a Foursquare Pentecostal Christian?

or like an Orthodox Jew?

What, exactly, is a "true progressive"? Is it this?

Is it someone who listens to NPR, watches PBS, believes in the Prius and in genetic engineering to prevent people from being anything less than perfect in appearance and corporal health?

Is it someone who thinks the Donkey Squad should make Central Authority bigger and more powerful, to render ease of correction efforts aimed toward non-progressives, to make it simpler to homogenize everyone as a True Progressive?

*************

Jill Stein is that person who tries the 60% Vanilla, 40% Chocolate "vanilla" and claims it's the most vanilla-y vanilla ever concocted.  That 10% difference from even-steven chocanilla/vanocolate, she's divining the importance there?

I'm gonna re-tweet this now, re-blog it at Corrente, and write a poem on graph paper dollied with tempera stains to drive the point home.

America's main problem:  "fake progressives" pushing "fake progress."

Support Jill Stein for REAL progresss!

Also -- please!  Support Chalupa the Sociopolitical Uberlord and Supragenius for his pithy wise insights on American political wrangling.

He had his Obamapostasy, so you know he's the Ultimate Seer.


--Hawuld Caidagh, whose experience in hunting and fishing probably exceeds Dr Stein's by orders of magnitude

no. no applause.

Monday, March 14, 2016

the reason people died at 35 some 500 yrs ago was because they ate what existed, rather than what was modified by "scientists"

Wahn Baiwee continues rubbing his rooster online, still eager to merge with a computer and live forever like someone from a shitty Robert Sawyer scifi "novel."

It's sad, isn't it, when someone believes himself a science professor on the basis of what he has learned from aggressive new bioproducts entrepreneurs?  Real science is what money chases, not what is.  Nothing outside what makes a profit is real.  If you grow an edible plant from a seed placed in soil and given water & light, and do not tamper with the seed nor the growing plant in any way, are you risking your Eternal Life if you commence to eating that plant's produce rather than waiting for Monsanto to "improve upon" the plant by making it produce uniform fruits which may not taste like much but look like they belong in Ruth's Chris advertisements sitting comfortably next to a thick slab of 100% USDA Prime bovine muscle tissue?

How artificial is Wahn's actual life?  When he thinks of having sex, is it with a robotic penis inserted into a robotic _________ (gosh, maybe he's a gay futurist, better not say "vagina" here), controlled through a vector which manages and monitors the Wahn Baiwee avatar's holographic body and all of its lightshow parts?


--Harold Caidagh, still waiting to learn what the Silent T "science editor" knows about that topic on which he's the editor.

but if we do that, we can't run our shell game!

Not gonna do it.

If we did that, it would put attention back on white collar crime/criminals, who presently sail smoothly and never get turtled, and never commit protocol breaches of the type that force them to do 360s on marks or DQ them from the race.

How many people follow big sailing racing anyway?  You think ESPN gets their highest web-view click counts and telecast view tallies when the wind-riders are scooting across water?

***************

I'd like to feel some burning, somewhere besides my piss canal anyway, but white collar crime isn't captured in Citizens United nor properly reined-in by blaming corporate.  Lots of well-dressed criminals make money however they can, however the scene requires or enables.  It can be done without corporate forms, and often is.

Let's assume we abolish both Citizens United and the corporate form.

What happens then?

Re Citizens United abolished/vacated/vitiated -- NOTHING.  See Buckley v Valeo.

Re business w/o corporate form -- Same old operators pursue profits in other business formats.  Formal change without substantive difference.

So it seems the only burning one might feel is when one takes a whiz, even if we follow Herr Marxkopf's whims on fixing America.

I think I'd rather pee freely.




















--Paul Behrer, still amused at what passes for well-educated, well-informed and/or knowledgeable in your world.


Sunday, March 13, 2016

slowest falling dominos ever

Remember those glycerine/water/food color things people used to make, slow-motion oceans?  I knew people who had them in lucite rectangular boxes, on little tilting platforms.  I'm pretty sure there was a commercial mini-boom in these things during the early-mid 70s at places like Spencer's Gifts etc.

Everything moved slowly within, like the name suggested.

***************

Dominos usually fall pretty steadily & quickly once a domino pattern has been set in motion with the first little tipping.

But apparently there's a way to slow-motion-ocean the domino pattern.

I think this guy must have serious paint-by-numbers skills, the kind that let him follow domino pattern directions/blueprints accurately.  I'd bet that on those old blacken-the-oval exam answer sheets, his were always perfectly oval, perfectly filled in to consistent shade.

A kind of military respect for the chain of command helps one make such patterns picture-perfect, I suppose.


--Paul Behrer, thinking this sort of thing is irrelevant to those who need everything brand new -- right now, and 5 seconds from now, too.

no game should require you to actually involve yourself in the action

That's what I thought was the outlook of the people who designed L.A. Noire, and now I can say it applies equally to Max Payne 3.

I think the folks who made the original Max Payne and its follow-up would/should be confused as to how this 3d version resembles the first two. The central character's name and background are the same, the voice actor the same, but otherwise he's not the same guy and his aim has grown so much worse that successive headshots merely annoy the enemy like a gnat's buzzing. That's locked headshots I'm talking about, reticle center noggin, should cause a pumpkin blast but instead it causes the enemy to improve his aim and kill you with one shot while you've already pasted his cranium with what should Swiss cheese that topknot but instead leaves it untouched.

Then there's the way WORDS keep FLASHING on the screen to remind you that a PLOT is supposedly developing in 3 word BITES FLASHING ON THE SCREEN.

Is that what their focus group of 13 year old children told them would keep them glued to the controller?

Playing Rockstar games is like "reading" a book on tape/CD/.mp3.

Seems to me this game was all about Rockstar's project group leads taking a sex vacation in Rio de Janeiro, and writing it off as "research" for the game.

Thursday, March 10, 2016

it's in the water



or maybe it's just in the winter, the cold, the snow

muddy



You can hear a bit of where it came from:



And some other fools who lack proper Silent T entrepreneurial spirit even sang about the turbid bluesy groove here:


Wednesday, March 9, 2016

dregs

Some time back, Charles Davis used to think this blog was operated by people who wanted little Charlie to hang around with flirtations, because little Charlie wanted to "hook up" with the authors here, believing them to blog for the purpose of sexual partner finding.

We satirized Charlie, and the handful of others who followed similar paths, when we let Priscilla Houle-Eaton interrogate our compatriot Mr Caidagh.

PBH: Let me try a different approach. Mister Caidagh, I notice that several of your entries reference gay men. Are you gay yourself?

HC: No. I mean, not if you are referring to my sexual tastes and habits. If you revert 100 years and mean "gay" is the same as "happy," there are times in my day when I feel happy. But they have nothing to do with sexual desires aimed at sex with men.

PBH: So your constant references to gay men are not your way of seeking a mate or sex partner who is a gay man?

HC: What?

PBH: In my experience, bloggers use their blogs to find a mate.

HC: What?

PBH: When I say "mate" I don't mean someone to marry. I mean a sex partner.

HC: What?

PBH: So your blog is not designed to entice and court potential sex partners?

HC: Jesus. (laughing) You're serious here, aren't you?

PBH: Quite serious.

HC: Well excuse me for laughing at you. I think using a blog to find sex partners is a pathetic way to go about things.

PBH: So you've never used a blog for mate-finding?

HC: No. Maybe you have, but I haven't.

Since he failed to find his "partner" through flirtations he left here, little Charlie moved on, trying to impress us with new footholds in the e-publishing world. He began chirping in the 140char beakful quantity on Nervous Birds, and told everyone he was getting published everywhere for his massive exposes of the evils of capitalism. He was shaping himself up as the heir to Chomsky.

His biggest coup of his career has to be getting published by "Tom Feeley" at Eissy Aitch.  In the classic little Charlie style, he wrings his hands until bloody with highly emotive fear-mongering and both eyes looking backward over both shoulders at all times, hearing footsteps behind him whenever he's awake, and while asleep his psyche entertains itself by taking metaphoric rides on darkly colored female horses who have minds of their own.

Poor little Charlie, reduced to masturbating in public like Pee Wee Herman.


-- Collectively written by K.F. Ochstradt, H.M. Lohmann and P. Behrer; lazy approval for publication by C. Redweld.

cast the line, rich. over there. right by the exotic rare aquatic plants.

According to the Silent T, which devolves reportage to The Oregonian, Rich Kastelein / Chris Floyd was completely mistaken about the Oregon Standoff and who was in the wrong.

Gosh, what will Grandma Sheila say?  And how will Phylter chastise those who dare to disagree with her Granniness?  What will Duwayne Josephssssssson ramble on about, tying things into Detroit and placing ultimate blame on the UK royalty?


--Karl Franz Ochstradt, who can't wait to see what "Tom Feeley" runs on this.

xtc jr

oh canada! ...again

The first time I ventured north of the border for MTB riding, I was impressed by the general ruggedness of the terrain, the trails in that landscape, and the people riding them.  Nervous Nellies they definitely were not.

Sadly, as goes America, so goes Canada -- despite the many attempts at building and preserving a myth of superior progressiveness in Canadian culture -- and thus, in the intervening years, Canadians have become a bunch of Lion Country Safari/Walt Disney/Thomas Kincaid trifocalists.

They have done this even though below the border, down here in Post Nynah Leaven world, there were ginned-up reasons for the wussification:  terrrrrrisssssss!  Be afwayd NOW of the eeeeeeevul terrrrissssss!

*************

Canadians, did planes fly into Toronto, Regina, Calgary, Vancouver buildings and did your PM tell you it was that event that should make you fear everyday life and begin suspecting your neighbors of domestic terrorist sympathy and/or treasonous imaginings?

What explains your wussification during the time elapsed since the ninth month of two thousand one?

You were once known for your rugged trails, now you are known for "flow trails" that "make the sport more accessible."

You would once build the craziest things, no fear of liability exposures for yourself, and for good reason -- your riders did not automatically think their falls and injuries were the fault of anyone but themselves.

You had no problems with "if you can't ride it, walk it until you have raised your game."

What happened?

**************

This happened.

Tuesday, March 8, 2016

having run out of ways to praise Bernie Sanders, our Mr Gillespie finds himself aimless

Silent T, via Nick Gillespie:

[P]ro-wrestling legend [Hulk Hogan (real name Terry Bollea)] comes across as something of a mental patient, claiming that he is constantly engaging in elaborate identity switches between the "character" Hogan and the private citizen Bollea—and that the press should respect his privacy whenever he feels like it.

You mean like when the Silent T writers adopt fake personae to comment after their own essay at the Silent T?

Or when they maintain numerous sock puppets around the internet, to provoke, taunt, denigrate or put down others who don't share the puppeteer's peculiar solipsist cosmotarian Free Weed and Free Gay Sex Club Memberships! views?

Has Gillespie lost sight of the fact that all of pro wrestling is about fakery, and blurring the lines between what appears and what is?

What's next? Gillespie is going to complain about the "drugginess" of Black Sabbath's Sweet Leaf, or the "cynicism" of George Carlin?

I guess this is Nick, trying for ironical humor.

But failing, as always.

If Hogan is Bollea's creation, I think it's up to Bollea to say when a public act is in character. Man, I'd hate to see Gillespie tackling the issue of Andy Kaufman's various personalities and where Andy began and, for example, Latka Gravas began. Doesn't Nick ever get outside the bubble he lives in? Doesn't he realize that average entertainment consumers frequently confuse the actor and the part played? Is Nick Gillespie serious when he writes idiotic things, or is that "Nick Gillespie, reason.com columnist, whose work has no bearing on the opinions of Nick Gillespie, Male Feminist-Metrosexual Bernie Sanders Fan" wrote it? Will that be his defense when the Silent T is sued for some idiocy Nick wrote?

you're not ready for prime time, player!

The "ski industry" has spent the past 5 years telling "skiers"** that they should be doing "sidecountry" if not "backcountry" skiing.  Their reason for doing this isn't because "the sport will die" if it doesn't happen.  Their reason for doing this is simple:  it sells gear.

The question of whether the gear sales are appropriate?  Please.  Let's not allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good.  And sales always are good!

*************

You don't have to be anything in order to venture outside in the winter.  Go where you like do what you like be what you like.  All fine.  Yes, all fine.  As long as you are dressed adequately, stay dry, don't dehydrate and don't bonk because you failed to eat, or eat properly.

*************

If you played pickup basketball with neighborhood friends in 7th grade after-school activities, do you think that equips you to play with or against any present-day collegiate basketball team that is within the last 24 teams in the NCAA finals?

Do you think getting your driver's license from your state's bureaucratic entity has prepared you for racing Formula One or Grand Prix cars?

*************

Just now I read an entry at EpicSki, a/k/a "GapicSki" in the lingo of TGR and newschoolers, asking what AT boot should one choose.  Here it is:
I'm trying to decide between the Maestrale or the Maestrale RS. Both feel comfortable when I try them on. Here is a bit about me:

5'6, 150# male

Never backcountry skied before. This will be my first foray into it.

Regarding resort skiing, I have been an intermediate, recently transitioning into advanced skier, finally starting to ski black diamond runs, but not doing amazing at it yet.

I imagine myself using the boots in both resorts and backcountry, maybe 70/30

The Maestrale has a stiffness rating of 100, and the Maestrale RS has a stiffness rating of 120.

In sum, I need to decide to go with the stiffer RS boot, or the softer Maestrale.

Any tips? Let me know if more specific info would be helpful in this decision, cheers.

I don't have the temerity to wade into Epic's terrain and offer my experience on the Qs, given the gruel that passes for discussion at that locale. Humor is nearly forbidden and criticism isn't allowed unless you have a PSIA Lv III Alpine, and/or Examiner, and/or Demo Team qualification.

Also, the general theme is "grow the sport," so you can't talk candidly to anyone whose self-image is far too grandiose for the manner of questions and statements he or she has presented.

So I'll respond here as a general observation of skier cluelessness-hubris-arrogance.

***************

Our friend "treejay" says he's an intermediate who is "just starting" on the more difficult terrain at his chosen regular alpine ski area.

If you intend to go ski ungroomed terrain, "intermediate" is not the skill level you should possess.

"Intermediate" skiers still struggle with perfectly (sic) groomed runs of mediocre pitch, with almost no variation in fall line (shifting fall line bias, and/or multiple fall lines).

Groomed ski runs on commercial ski hills are nothing like what you ski in/on when you venture into any terrain that wasn't logged and terraformed for commercial skiing. 

What the "ski industry" has persuaded via marketing is this:  "backcountry" and "sidecountry" offer virgin "pow" for the meek and undeveloped skier to "slay" like a sponsored skier who competes in Extreme Skiing comps.

What the "ski industry" has glossed over is the level of skiing skill development needed to ski ungroomed irregular unpredictable snow conditions. 

**************

A common joke among experienced MTB riders relates to the "roadie," or road bicyclist, who is extremely fit from road training/racing, but who cannot manage bike handling on a mountain bike cross-country course.  All that fitness and saddle time, but still looks awkward and afraid when the bike is on soil rather than pavement, roots rather than asphalt, ruts instead of level concrete.

This is a perfect analogy for lift-served skiing on groomed runs that were logged and terraformed particularly to provide a regulated, smooth surface of snow.  Predictable, in other words.

Ungroomed snow is the opposite of predictable.

The skier who is a groomer bandit at Mt Trashmore is like the roadie who hasn't spent enough time handling off-road situations to be comfortable there.  The roadie's fundamentals are limited to bike dynamics in a mostly static situation -- on pavement.

So it helps to have a pretty well established set of skiing skills (fundamental movements) before you venture into ungroomed snow.  You can venture off the groomed run at any point in your skiing, on your first day even, on your first run even.

Whether you do it with grace and stability, and are able to keep yourself safe -- that's entirely down to your skills, your fundamental movements.

If you're an intermediate who is only now able to muster the courage to try black diamond runs, I'd say take that $$ you have saved for your AT gear, and invest it in your skiing abilities.

When you are happy on any black diamond run, icy or perfect 8" new snow, moguls or trees or multiple fall lines, then go do some off-piste skiing at a commercial ski hill where there is plentiful off-piste skiing.  If that goes well, then get that AT setup.  At that point, your questions have merit.

If you go off-piste as an unsteady intermediate, your skiing movements are going to be defensive, which will take you backward in development as a skier.  It will take that much longer to improve as a skier, because the regressions will have caused habits that are extremely hard to break.

So, "treejay," shelve that idea for a couple of seasons.  Get yourself a good set of lessons, coaching, etc.  Go to a race camp, a freestyle camp, an off-piste clinic.  Double down on the groomer mileage until you ski almost automatically.  Then go backcountry.

Meanwhile, nordic gear is pretty good for solitude in the snow.  As are snowshoes.


_______________________

** Here, a "skier" is anyone inclined to buy a piece of ski gear, regardless of their background, abilities, or intentions regarding actual use of the gear bought.  You might just be someone who has long harbored the fantasy of doing the exotic, luxurious thing of having "a ski vacation."  It might be you imagine yourself Papa Hemingway (Kanye West, whomever) in Sun Valley, hobnobbing with the wealthy and celebrated clientele.  Whether you ever have skied before, will ski at least on one occasion, or will ski a second time or more, that's completely irrelevant.  Can we close the deal, or not?  We take all major credit cards and are working on bitcoin!

dead people speak

Have compassion for everyone you meet, even if they don't want it. What seems conceit, bad manners, or cynicism is always a sign of things no ears have heard, no eyes have seen. You do not know what wars are going on down there where the spirit meets the bone.
Miller Williams

Tuesday, March 1, 2016

bavitzin', not kibbutzin'

Aesop Rock, again:

Now we the American working population
Hate the fact that eight hours a day
Is wasted on chasing the dream of someone that isn't us
And we may not hate our jobs
But we hate jobs in general
That don't have to do with fighting our own causes
We the American working population
Hate the nine-to-five day-in day-out
When we'd rather be supporting ourselves
By being paid to perfect the pastimes
That we have harbored based solely on the fact
That it makes us smile if it sounds dope

excerpt from 9-5ers Anthem, found on Labor Days.

This is why "labor statistics" and economists touting "jobs growth" is irrelevant.

It's not the jobs themselves that matter, unless you only define life through what your income lets you buy.

Hey, maybe that's all economists care about? Gosh, how could that be?

Could it be that economists themselves only value themselves and their lives by counting their accoutrements and gewgaws and gadgets and trinkets and festoonery distributed generously throughout their home, their workspace, their motor vehicles?

and we go DOOT! DOOT DOOT!

Raymond Doot again shows he doesn't know jurisprudence, even if he knows how to entice greed-heads who don't know anything about jurisprudence themselves.

***************

When an appellate court declines review, it is not a statement about the opinion from which the appellant took an appeal.  It is not a review of the opinion nor an approval of its reasoning or conclusions.

It may be as simple as this:  the issue(s) and decision below might be one(s) that SCOTUS would hear if the setting were different.  Sensational Smiles might not be the best case in which to clarify the issue(s) under review.  There may be more cases filtering up to SCOTUS which present the issue(s) in a more easily resolved/clarified manner.

There may be other issues, like procedural SNAFUs, in the underlying case.  Maybe the litigants' appellate papers weren't up to snuff.  They may have failed to comply with standard SCOTUS filing requirements.  They may have formatted everything correctly, but failed to accurately present the issues.

Many reasons why SCOTUS would decline appellate review.  None of them is the same as accepting the appeal, and affirming the court below along with any part of its decision.

***************

The Silent T has so much smugness covering up so much ignorance and wrongness.

Maybe Raymond Doot will get a job teaching jurisprudence at George Mason U.  That would be sweet.