FMI Agent

Anne Ursu readings in Minneapolis

2009-06-29T01:51:03Z

The author and former Twins blogger ("Batgirl") has a new children's fantasy book out. Its title is The Immortal Fire, and it's the third in a trilogy with a Greek myth theme. I attended a reading today. The excerpt was amusing, the author gracious. There are two more area readings, one this Tuesday the 30th and the other on July 25.

poetry night with spam

2009-06-20T15:25:08Z

Found this in a spam message. Reminded me of derspatchel's poetry night with emily (currently down, alas).

sheer munch tiff dicer.
mauve scop gnome spore!
ahoy binge skua phase!
chum mauve targe ultra.
hawse fix.
squaw canoe silky die?
hazy hypo munch.
die scop.
coast tusk oared pise?
check silky.
tali pox sheer arc!
grand nitre prose.
arc kirk suit actor!
pox gamp.
hazy weak mutt welch?
weak siege.
sheer pest.
dwell ilex.
brier coast misty skua?
kirk loth.
pox ripe mutt.
actor genet busk depth?
hyp ultra agave actor?
suit gamp hyp kine?

spam with a charity angle

2009-05-27T02:02:12Z

I like the multi-ethnic nature of this one. The author's name does not make me think "A Moldovan."

I'm Sumeena Razzaqi, A Moldovan whose late husband was into Farming and private practice all his life before his death without a child of our own. I made a vow to uplift the down-trodden and the less-privileged individuals as i have passion for persons who cannot help themselves due to physical disability or financial predicament.

Recently diagnosed of a cancer, i decided to donate the sum of $300,000 which was derived from his vast estates and investment in capital market.

Contact my lawyer with this specified email address Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN) Email: redacted and tell him that I have WILLED $300,000 to you by quoting my personal reference number; Law/WoleChambers/Solicitor/SVR/WILL/9834520012, and I will also notify him that I am WILLING that amount to you for a specific purpose.

Remain blessed,
Yours Faithfully,
Mrs. Sumeena Razzaqi

Earth and the comet

2009-05-08T04:33:30Z

(riffing on a link posted quite innocently by meep someplace)

So Earth is traveling through space, minding its own business, until in 1908 this comet flies by and just starts ripping into it. We're talking major natural disaster here: a gigantic explosion, hundreds of square miles of trees leveled, scorched earth everywhere. Earth is left devastated and shaken, particularly due to the unexpected and arbitrary nature of the attack. Earth didn't do anything to provoke this! For a comet to come in out of nowhere and blast away at the Earth like that--that's humiliating, uncalled-for, just plain wrong.

For the next hundred years, the scientists of Earth go into detective mode, trying to piece together exactly what happened. How could Earth get knocked down so badly? Was it the direction it was traveling? Was it the rotation, the orbital eccentricity? Could humanity have done something to deserve this shame that had been visited upon the Earth?

Ultimately the scientists agree on a comprehensive theory that answers these questions (basically, "It was all the comet's fault"). The world then moves on to the next phase of its response: Preparing Earth to defend itself the next time around. Research, development, and activism take place on many fronts:

Long-range ballistic missiles, designed to stop an approaching comet in its tracks.
Smaller warheads, designed to throw an incoming comet off course and redirect its attack at some other unsuspecting planet.

(In fact, a joint statement endorsing these military programs is issued by all major governments; the Nobel Prize committee; Greenpeace; a blue-ribbon panel of ethicists; a conference attended by leaders of the world's fifteen most popular religions; and a coalition of actors, pro athletes, musical artists, and commentators.)

Underground shelters and other recovery measures, inspired by the harsh possibility that maybe comet attacks are inevitable. (These prove to be unpopular.)
Training people to reject the notion of helplessness in the face of comet attacks, to stand as one and fight back against a looming global threat.
Rapid-response early warning systems, so people can band together and do what needs doing upon news of imminent comet approach.
Moment-to-moment situational management training, so those involved in repelling a comet attack will keep their nerve and follow through when the time comes.

In 2045, the same comet comes back, only this time the Earth and its people are ready. As news spreads via the early response network, billions of humans gather quickly at preselected meeting sites. With watches synchronized, technicians at each site turn on sophisticated recording equipment at the agreed-upon hour. The equipment is linked to a central station that will consolidate radio wave data from multiple sources, convert that data into a single signal, amplify that signal, and then send out that signal into the path of the incoming comet.

Finally, on cue, the people of Earth speak, sending a single message of unity and defiance into the cosmos; and they say, "Fuck you, comet, fuck you."

spam with an appeal to philosophy, emotion

2009-05-07T18:13:11Z

From: Arnulfo Yazzie
Subject: Fill your life with meaning! Try Viagra!

awkward euphemisms caught in spam filter

2009-05-04T12:36:44Z

Today's crop of spam subject headers includes:

ascent your darling couch adventures
Logical answer for bed flaccidity
Doping for your porksword!
Step on the arousal glory way

linkdump: education, mp3, zooming slideshows, cute actresses, endangered TV show

2009-05-02T03:53:38Z

One professor writes an op-ed in The NY Times, decrying the state of higher education (specifically graduate education) and calling for sweeping changes. Another professor responds with a piece in The New Republic, picking apart the first professor's arguments. Dunno what to make of this discussion, myself. The Times writer's list of suggestions seems pretty glib to me, but I do think the typical American college/university as a whole (to the extent that there's a "typical" one) has evolved into an extremely strange and flawed institution with conflicting priorities. Some change is needed; I have to think that change in one form or another is coming, if only because of economic pressures.
thinkindie.com is a new online music store. A startribune.com blogger has a post in which he claims that ThinkIndie's mp3 bitrate of 320 kbps is superior to all those ~~sucka mc's~~ standard mp3's out there. I wonder: Just how high-quality does your audio equipment have to be in order to hear a difference? Does anyone reading this have some experience to report?
Via meep on Twitter: Prezi, "the zooming editor for stunning presentations." At first glance, it's like PowerPoint but with some new features that, gimmicky though they may be, remind the viewer of how stale and two-dimensional the Microsoft product has become. Also, the mini-infomercial on the homepage has the following things going for it:
- A narrator with an unidentified accent and a sexy voice
- Special effects that look impressive and endearingly low-budget at the same time
Also via Twitter, for Joss Whedon fans: Alyson Hannigan (@alydenisof) and Felicia Day (@feliciaday) take a rather fetching snapshot together.
Better Off Ted is a sitcom about life at a technology company with cutting-edge research and questionable ethics. It's one of those self-consciously quirky shows, but it's so good-natured that it works. At least for me. And now they're threatening to cancel it. Join the "Save Better Off Ted" group if you're on Facebook and so inclined.

Windosill

2009-05-01T19:58:26Z

N.B. Horvath reviews the short, quirky art/puzzle game.

Undone (The Sweater Song)-Batman (2000's movie version) crossover fan dialogue

2009-05-01T14:36:46Z

GUY AT SHOW: Hey bra'! How we doin', man?

Cut to BATMAN in costume. He stands rigidly at attention, staring back at GUY AT SHOW. There is a long pause.

BATMAN (in his raspy voice): I'm fine.
GUY AT SHOW: It's been a while man, life's so rad! [Pause] This band's my favorite man, don't ya love 'em?

BATMAN flinches slightly, as if shaken by some bad news. He says nothing.

GUY AT SHOW: Aw man, you want a beer?

BATMAN hesitates, evidently struggling with a great dilemma. Finally and with great reluctance, he nods his head Yes.

GUY AT SHOW: Aw man, this is the best. I'm so glad we're all back together and stuff. This is great, man.

BATMAN leans against a wall. For a moment he looks overwhelmed, defeated, crushed. Then he stands up straight once again. An unshakable inner resolve has reasserted itself.

GUY AT SHOW: Hey, did you know about the party after the show? Aw man, it's gonna be the best. I'm so stoked. Take it easy bra'!

Cut to an adjacent rooftop. BATMAN jumps out through a window onto the roof, then climbs into a waiting helicopter. The helicopter takes off and flies away into the night.

Moon (2009, dir. Duncan Jones) -- a spoiler-free review

2009-04-28T04:10:57Z

Saw this as part of the Mpls-St Paul International Film Festival. I liked this movie quite a bit. Sam Rockwell is fantastic as an astronaut on a lunar base with only a HAL-like computer (voiced by Kevin Spacey) for a companion. It's comparable to 2001, Solaris (the Soderbergh one, anyway), and various lesser-known "space mission gone awry" genre flicks, but it has a certain freshness to it. It gets points for telling a thought-provoking story without clobbering the viewer over the head with a Message.

Side note: I didn't guess the plot twists in advance (dang!), but at least I was able to understand those twists, more or less, as they happened (phew!). On the other hand, it wasn't until I read some other reviews afterward that I understood certain character development aspects in the movie.

a cool-sounding headline: "'Quiet Sun' baffling astronomers"

2009-04-21T06:22:53Z

Thus saith news.bbc.co.uk. Excerpt:

Last year, it was expected that [the sun] would have been hotting up after a quiet spell. But instead it hit a 50-year year low in solar wind pressure, a 55-year low in radio emissions, and a 100-year low in sunspot activity.

According to Prof Louise Hara of University College London, it is unclear why this is happening or when the Sun is likely to become more active again.

The article goes on to quote an expert telling us, No, this does not mean that the sun will have any mitigating impact on global warming. All the same, I expect that global warming skeptics from Glenn Beck to former basketball great Kevin McHale would treat this finding as evidence in support of their views.

And now my train of thought leads me to the question: What if those skeptics prove to be essentially right? What if it turns out that the evidence for global warming has a benign explanation (be it solar activity or something else) and that our coastlines, our food chain, our truly priceless endangered species and ecosystems are in fact unthreatened by climate change? My answer, without irony, is: That would be wonderful. Not entirely wonderful, mind you -- I imagine a harmful backlash against all of science in this scenario -- but imagine being free of the cilmate change bugaboo! Imagine that our very way of life is not systematically wrecking the environment! (Edited to add: At least not for this reason, anyway.)

Anyway: It's an interesting article. I know now what the Maunder minimum is.

Nine lines about four and a half oracles

2009-03-19T04:59:03Z

A pendant inspired a poem, which inspired a meme. I did a riff on it, with much help from Wikipedia.

Nine Lines About Four and a Half Oracles
Pythia spoke gibberish; she
"Caught the vapors," Biz might say.
Akashwani told a man
His nephew would do him away.

Nechung helps the Dalai Lama
Govern, via prophecy.
Tenma tells him, "Building a
Mandala? That's OK by me."

Some viewed Alan Greenspan as ... well, you know.
Nine lines about four and a half oracles.

mini-rant about a psychology experiment and interpretations

2009-03-03T07:42:35Z

So I was listening to Fresh Air this evening. Terry Gross was interviewing science journalist Jonah Lehrer, author of a new book called How We Decide. It's about how decisions get processed in our brains. In the Fresh Air interview, Lehrer discussed the neurotransmitter dopamine, which appears to play an extremely important and complicated role in our brains. From my (extreme outsider) perspective, the topic in general sounded fascinating. But there was one moment in the interview that rubbed me the wrong way and made me (perhaps unfairly) wonder whether the book is worth picking up.

While discussing the stress of making complex decisions, Lehrer described an experiment in which two groups of people had to memorize some numbers. One group had to memorize two-digit numbers; the other, seven-digit numbers. After the experiment, the participants went off to a break room, where they were offered a choice of a healthy snack (fruit salad, I think) or an unhealthy snack (I think it was rich chocolate cake). Apparently the two-digit group chose the healthy snacks far more often, while the seven-digit group greatly preferred the cake. Lehrer's interpretation of that result went something like this: The seven-digit group had had to spend so much attention memorizing numbers that it lacked the willpower to resist the cake.

Mind you, I have a terrible sweet tooth, so I'm biased...but I was, like, Hunh? Lehrer's explanation sounded facile and frankly a little smug to me. If this one experiment was part of a larger body of evidence for the type of conclusion he was offering, then he didn't present it that way at that point in the interview. Again, my perspective is from the outside...I know nothing...but I wonder about an alternative hypothesis, namely that there's something in sugar that boosts complicated thinking in the short term. Not that it's healthy, mind you...but I've occasionally noticed my concentration improving for a little bit, especially on difficult mental tasks, after I eat some sugary snack. There could be other alternative explanations as well.

Pointing out others' inconsistencies in political discussions considered harmful ...

2009-03-01T21:10:51Z

...or at least a good deal more complicated than is often acknowledged.

Not that I've worked out this sort of thing in depth, but: It seems that all kinds of people bash their opponents for inconsistency (or, worse, hypocrisy), and I suspect that they often do so unfairly.

I was reminded of this because of recent headlines like, Louisiana to seek New Orleans-Baton Rouge passenger rail line from federal stimulus pot that [its governor Bobby] Jindal called wasteful. The line of reasoning goes something like: If the Louisiana governor was so seriously against the federal stimulus, then he would have stood by his principles and turned down that money. But I think this is unfair to Jindal and to other conservative governors. Jindal could argue that while he was against the stimulus bill, the reality is that that bill passed and became law, and it's too late to do anything about that. Given the circumstances, Jindal wants to be sure that his state gets its fair share of the money.

The problem I'm seeing here reminds me of a different, yet not entirely unrelated, set of problems: Something seems wrong to me when pro-meat industry people say, "So-and-so opposes the meat industry...but they eat meat themselves!"; or when people who oppose intervention to improve international labor conditions say, "Look at those people who say we should boycott the products of sweatshop labor. Some of them are wearing clothes that came from sweatshops themselves!" Likewise when people who think global warming is a hoax say, "Al Gore flies in a private jet!"

As I've said in the past, one could make an analogy with a society of serial killers, in which a supporter of the status quo says: "A lot of these people who say that serial killing is wrong, are themselves serial killers!"

Mind you, I'm not saying that anyone on any side of those real-life issues is definitely right or wrong; rather, I'm suggesting that what one believes about the rightness of an issue can have a complicated relationship with how one acts on it under a given set of circumstances.

spam subject line du jour: "Be indefatigable and major"

2009-03-01T15:50:02Z

Unfortunately, I was unable to see what one had to do to gain those character traits. I would have had to download images from the mail server. But I did like the subject header.

Not an idol, but a hero nonetheless

2009-02-28T03:31:53Z

My favorite unsuccessful American Idol audition was given by George Ramirez, an 18-year-old physics student from Tallahassee. The footage of his audition is at once funny, sad, and inspirational. I especially like the ending interview, in which George and host Ryan Seacrest both look extremely perplexed.

RYAN: We'll see you?
GEORGE: I mean...what?
RYAN: We'll see you?
GEORGE: I mean...definitely. Why not?
RYAN: Perfect. Sounds like a good idea.
GEORGE: Probably not here, but you'll see me around.
RYAN: Cool.
GEORGE: Yeah.
GEORGE walks off.
RYAN: We'll see you there.

George must have been really disappointed with how it turned out, but at the same time he exudes a kind of goofy optimism that I imagine will see him through.

Two contrasting reviews (with spoilers) of the Watchmen graphic novel...

2009-02-18T19:16:25Z

... each by published authors. Again: Here be spoilers.

Adam Cadre loved it.
Catherynne Valente saw some serious flaws.

The movie version comes out later this year.

Trying to wrap my head around religion, again

2009-02-12T07:57:46Z

tongodeon has an interesting post about the idea of consilience, in which "many independent lines of evidence" describe some phenomenon in a consistent way, producing a body of evidence (for evolution or, say, that the Battle of Hastings occurred) that is greater than the sum of its parts. With some reluctance, I'm following my train of thought toward religion once again, from a different angle. No flames, please! I hope this post is not taken as an attack on anyone's religion. I'm asking what I believe to be tough but fair questions.

Why does anybody choose to hold any one set of specific religious beliefs over all others? Actually, let me refine the question. I'm not asking why people choose one or another set of moral values. Rather, I'm talking about certain religious beliefs about the external physical world we all live in, beliefs in what I can only call supernatural phenomena. In particular, beliefs about questions like: How many gods are there? Do/did miracles happen? Do/did angels literally exist? Is/was there ever an immortal human?

I guess I don't see any "consilience" in any one set of beliefs about the answers to these questions (other than those held by atheists and agnostics). For each religion, my sense -- and I could be wrong -- is that the only evidence you can point to is a small number of sacred texts; traditions like myths and rituals; and the existence of large communities of people who believe in those things. There's no body of evidence that I'm aware of that makes one religion's stance on these phenomena more plausible than another's --- in fact, this is one reason why we don't teach any one religion in public schools.

natecull seems to see more actual evidence, in particular evidence of miracles, in his personal experience. I can't question that experience, but I'm afraid I have to be skeptical, or at least curious about questions like what relationship those miracles had to prayer or to any one particular religion.

In general I don't want to question anyone's personal experience, but I do wonder how people reconcile their religious beliefs about the supernatural with those of other religions.

recent movies

2009-02-06T06:27:19Z

Let's see...I just watched Dark Days (2000, dir. Marc Singer), a documentary about a homeless colony living in railroad tunnels underneath New York City. Suitably fascinating, heartbreaking, heartwarming, bleak and hopeful.

A while back I saw Forgetting Sarah Marshall (2008, dir. somebody-or-other). Nick from Freaks&Geeks gets dumped by Veronica Mars, goes to Hawaii, and meets Jackie from That 70s Show. Had some funny moments (the vampire puppet opera steals the show) but it wasn't my thing. As I recall, it seemed to try and give depth to some of its characters by giving an unsympathetic character a sympathetic scene, or vice versa. I don't think it succeeded, though. I think that if you try to do that and fail, you lose some plot coherency and risk ending up with Just A Bunch Of Stuff That Happened.

Also a while back: Hancock (2008, dir. somebody-or-other). Will Smith as an unlikely superhero. This was enjoyable, in part because it didn't rely on Yet Another Supervillain or take itself so danged seriously.

"Abstinence Clown"

2009-02-03T05:25:11Z

Such an evocative phrase! The guy is being pilloried, predictably and (I think) a little unfairly. It's one thing to oppose abstinence-only education, another thing altogether to oppose any discussion of abstinence (which is how some of the clown-bashing reads, to me anyway).

Slightly off-topic, but there ought to be an "abstinence clown" variant on the shaggy dog story about the verbally abusive clown.

Reflecting on history

2009-01-27T15:21:48Z

Wishing you and yours a happy Livejournal Rabbit Hole Day.

"President Rice." Still makes me tear up. Of course, the liberals are all ambivalent. I guess they'd have had an easier time of it if McCain had gotten over his burnout from 2000 and been elected President. As it is, they're saying that Condoleezza's supporters are a mindless "army" and (even worse) that the corporate media is blindly worshiping her. Sorry, liberals: you should realize that the media would rightly celebrate the first African-American President and the first female President, regardless of which political party she belonged to.

Even without the historical significance, I'm just happy that the nightmare Gore years are over with. His "war on pollution" ended up being a war on credibility, which can only leave us unprotected against the growing terrorist threat. Thank goodness the new President is saying all the right things about finding common ground. Perhaps liberals will come around and realize that fighting terror won't be easy.

Weblog: Two links with psychology in them, albeit very different types

2009-01-26T15:22:05Z

tablesaw on communicating, with a fascinating discussion of certain metaphors. The context is an evidently controversial discussion of writing and cultural appropriation, but it's interesting on its own in any case. Excerpt:
The conduit metaphor has three components that work together (expressed here by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson in Metaphors We Live By):
1. Ideas (or meanings) are objects.
2. Linguistic expressions are containers.
3. Communication is sending.
tablesaw goes on to discuss flaws with this analogy and to suggest a different way of thinking about communication.

markm notices an unintended optical illusion on the fivethirtyeight.com website.

LJ access intermittent...

2009-01-25T03:44:32Z

...while my computers are down.

Pete Seeger and friends in DC

2009-01-19T14:18:55Z

By way of pegkerr. Brought a tear to my eye and a shiver to my spine. The President-Elect appears for just a moment, around 3:31.

This will be a big week.

On Vox: LOLAndre

2009-01-17T17:03:04Z

Lolandre

Originally posted on fmi-agent.vox.com