Viewing all blog posts (Page 9 of 11)
Why time travel is impossible
If one were to extrude the space-time continuum along a fifth dimension, and define existence as the limit at infinity along this dimension, then any time travel would be unstable and would never persist until infinity. Whatever effect a future event had on the past would alter time to prevent the future even from ever taking place (this is along the extruded dimension so that is "possible" to alter time).
Even if the effect is only to displace a few electrons, it will change circumstances ever so slightly. As you proceed along the extruded dimension till infinity, circumstantial changes accumulate until at some point the effect of those changes changes future circumstances enough that the time travel doesn't occur. At that point the discontinuity in space-time collapses.
This thought experiment demonstrates how there could be instabilities in existence. Even if you discount the fifth dimension, the fact remains that the time travel would have to have exactly the effect on the past that produces the circumstances that led to the time travel taking place. If even a small circumstance differs from that that time travel cannot exist. It would be like balancing a perfect ball on the tip of a perfectly sharp needle in a perfect gravitational field, and having it still be there at the end of time. If the ball is 1/googol off center, it'll eventually topple.
So it is possible, though exceedingly unlikely, that time travel could occur. The possibility of a free will in the time loop is almost certain to be enough of a disturbance to prevent the time loop from ever happening.
While I'm on the subject, let me share a pet peeve about portrayal of time travel in movies. For the most part I can't stand time travel in movies. With time travel there's an inherent lack of drama (if at first you don't succeed, you can just go back in time to prevent your own failure). Also, the logical effects of time travel don't lend themselves to escalation or payoff. Moviemakers deal with these difficulties with artificial time travel rules. This allows dramatic tension and explains the effects of time travel, but such rules invariably cause logical inconsistencies.
Logical inconsistencies are not a deal breaker in and of themselves; there's something called suspension of disbelief that moviemakers can expect to a degree from the audience. But when the movie tries to explain these articifial rules, it only creates more and more inconsistencies. The more it tries to exlpain the rules, the more inconsistent it gets, until the story is nothing but a confusing mess, and that pisses me off.
Therefore, here are my rules for creating a time travel movie that doesn't suck:
Here are some movies that handled time travel well.
And now for some movies that didn't do it well.
Minor Python (Programming Language) Complaints
Python is my favorite programming language.
Like all programming languages, it has things I don't like. The thing about Python is, it has a lot fewer things I don't like than other languages. A lot. Even the things I don't like are relatively minor in the end.
So of course I made a page listing what I don't like.
So that's it. (Well, that's all I could think of right now.) All in all, if these are my biggest gripes, it's a pretty good thing. They are really very minor issues compared to other languages.
New Web Host!
If you can see this (and it's sufficiently close to February 2008), then this file is being served on my new web host, Dreamhost.
Dreamhost is now hosting all three of my domains: aerojockey.com, tamperedevidence.com, and virtualfief.com.
My old host, Total Choice Hosting, was a very nice service, and I would highly recommend them to anyone looking to do a basic homepage or small business site. It's great if your site is mostly static pages with maybe a few CGI scripts thrown it, which is what my site was. They were very responsive to issues that would come up. The price was very reasonable.
However, I pretty much outgrew it. It had a few major limitations that eventually cramped my style too much. They did not allow shell access; this was a biggie. Sometimes shell access is indispensible. (I often worked around this by writing CGI shell scripts that I could invoke, but it was terribly inconvenient.) Another limitation was a ban on hosting multiple domains; multiple domains meant multiple accounts. This wasn't an issue when I had only one domain. When I got my second domain it was. I actually had two different accounts with Total Choice Hosting for about a year.
Finally a need arose that Total Choice Hosting couldn't help me with: namely the need to host a Subversion repository. (It's not open source, so I couldn't use Sourceforge or Google Code.) I figured it was time to move on.
What I needed was a fewer limitations, and certain bells and whistles. After reading a bunch of reviews on the Web I came across Dreamhost. Many of the reviews I read for Dreamhost were by web developers who'd moved on from it. They basically said it workable but suboptimal for their highly advanced. Some of them even continued to used Dreamhost for serving static content. I don't need highly advanced stuff, though, so that sounded pretty good to me.
For the price, Dreamhost has a ton of disk space and a ton of bandwidth. (When I saw Dreamhost's claim that they offer 500 GB of storage, I kept looking for an asterisk. The only catch I could discern was that they slam if you go over the limit.) Dreamhost will host an unlimited number of domains for a single account. They allow shell access. They host Subversion repositories. Also, most the tricks I that I used with TotalChoiceHosting (using mod_rewrite, for example), were also supported by Dreamhost.
The downside, that their customer service has a reputation for being not so good, is not really a big deal to me. I think I filed maybe two tickets in 5+ years with Total Choice Hosting. It might be a problem if there were a lot of downtime, but I would guess most people's problems are their own fault. (That's never happened to me, of course.)
Pandas are stupid
Ok, what is the big deal with pandas?
I mean, really. Whenever you go to a zoo that has pandas, people will line up for miles just to get a glimpse of these idiotic evolutionary flukes. What is the big deal? All they do is sit around eating leaves all day. They're probably the most boring mammal on earth aside from koalas.
When I go to the zoo, I want to see animals do something interesting, which most animals manage to do at least slightly. Foraging for ants? Interesting. Pacing around their enclosure looking mean and intimidating? Interesting. Having scaly skin? Interesting. Sniffing things? Not world-shattering, but it's something. Laying around eating leaves? Mind-numbingly boring.
So what is the big freaking deal about pandas? Why do people stand in line for half an hour to see a couple animals do nothing?
While I'm at it, I have a few things to say about the stupid names pandas have. You see, pandas are the property of the People's [sic] Republic [sic] of China, and one condition China reserves when lending them is the right to name any babies they pop out. For example, this little leaf-eater was named Zhen Zhen, which evidently is Chinese for "Precious", and it's a stupid and unnecessary name, even if you disregard the obvious problems it'll cause with Gollum.
Therefore, on behalf of The United States of America, I am declaring jus soli rights to name the panda babies. Henceforth, this panda's real name is Democracy. Officially she'll still be known as Zhen Zhen, of course, in same way that officially Taiwan is a province of China.
Democracy's older brother (who was born in 2003 and is officially called Mei Sheng) is now called Freedom. And Freedom's older sister (1999, Hua Mei) is now called Inalienable Rights.
Major works of literature I've read
Here is a pretty complete list of literature (excluding short stories and poems) that I've read. I tend to go for quality over quantity.
I very much liked these:
I liked these:
These I didn't like too much:
I completely disliked these:
These are the books I've found too boring to finish (so far):
Then there is Shakespeare. I find it too hard to pin down exactly how much I liked most of the plays; it changes all the time. Each one I've read twice was better the second time. The ones I liked, roughly in order:
And the ones I didn't like:
And the ones I found too boring to finish:
An open letter to the Kansas Department of Transportation
Dear Sir or Madam:
I was recently very disappointed to see that your state does not make your official road map available at the rest stops, unlike every other state I've ever driven through. I make it a point to collect road maps from every state I drive through, and was unable to procure a road map from Kansas.
Now, I realize that, with Kansas being a state where the only industry is agriculture, and agriculture being a low profit margin business, your state is trying to avoid unnecessary overhead of supplying maps at the rest stops. This is understandable, especially considering the fact that almost no one ever wants to visit your state, and thus would have no use for a road map of Kansas. In fact, when the shortest path between places people actually want to visit happens unfortunately to fall through the state of Kansas, travellers almost never venture out of sight of the interstate, and no one needs an official road map just to navigate interstates.
So, on the surface, not making road maps available in the rest stops seems like a wise decision. However, I advise you to consider the following benefits of supplying roadmaps at your rest stops.
Kansas is a large state, in the sense that it covers a large quantity of square miles and in no other sense whatsoever. Should a traveller make an unfortunate wrong turn, he or she could get lost and end up miles away from familar roads, and thus be forced to spend unnecessary time in Kansas. Having roadmaps available in rest stop would give such unfortunates a chance to correct their position before any significant psychological damage occurs.
Furthermore, Kansas is one of the Fifty States, and thus the legal equal to every other state (at least on paper). So, unlikely as it might seem to you, there are actually people who want items associated with the state of Kansas (only to complete the collection, of course, and not on account of any merit of Kansas itself).
Finally, it's likely that very few would ever bother to take a roadmap; after all, besides collectors and people prone to getting lost, who would really want one? And while people prone to getting lost are likely to take a map, they're almost certain to return it at the final rest stop, unopened and in mint condition (since there is no reason to actually look at the map unless unfortunate wrong turn occurred). Other than that, you can rest assured no one would take any maps of Kansas. Even thieves wouldn't take them, since thieves prefer to take things that have some value. Therefore, supplying maps to rest stops is pretty much just a one time cost, with a tiny upkeep.
In light of these considerations, I would suggest that there is, in fact, some slight demand for Kansas roadmaps, but not enough to bankrupt the state (which is admittedly a rather small number of maps). Therefore, it should be no problem to provide this common service to the people who would use it.
Why Software Engineering is not Engineering in the classical sense
I recently had some odd experiences with some software engineering firms that made me realize, poignantly, how different software engineering is from engineering in the classical sense (that is, mechanical, civil, elecrtrical, etc.).
(I'm not going to play word politics here and say that software engineers are not engineers . Software engineers can call themselves whatever they want, as far as I'm concerned. But regardless of what you call it, software engineering is not in the same job as mechanical, civil, electrical, etc., engineering.)
Anyways, I recently interviewed for two software positions, one of which I was extremely qualified for technically, the other borderline qualified . I was quite surprised to be rejected for both positions, not because of any lack of technical merit, but apparently because I didn't seem excited enough about the job. Even for the job I was only borderline qualified for, my interviewer's main objection was that he couldn't see any "passion". Coming from a background in engineering in the classical sense, it was inconceivable to me that it would even be a factor.
Now, I know for a fact that, at least in aerospace, many engineers walk around all day with about as much passion as a block of wood, and yet do their jobs just fine. I was one of them myself. But, apparently, software engineering is different. "Passion" or "excitement" is a common requirement for software engineering jobs (that is, unless you work for Microsoft, which is well known to be one of the most emotionless companies there is).
But is outward passion really necessary to do the job? At first glance, it seems that if aerospace engineers can do their job without passion, software engineers should be able to, too.
But first glances can be deceiving.
Compare the subject matter of the two fields. Computer programming has a subtle human warmth to it that classical engineering tasks (say, control theory or truss analysis) lack. There's a level of expressiveness in writing software that is utterly absent in truss analysis, and I believe that this expressiveness attracts passion. In other words, software engineering is inherently passionate. In this respect, it is a lot closer to architecture than engineering.
Whether passion is actually necessary or even helpful for software engineering is not so certain. Personally, I doubt it. Regardless, the fact that software engineering can even generate passion demonstrates what aa different beast it is. Though classical engineering and software engineering are both technical fields, the expressiveness of software leads to crucial differences between the two.
Bottom line is: Engineers in the classical sense don't get excited. Software engineers do. Therefore, software engineers aren't engineers in the classical sense.
Tags: engineering, software_engineering
Last Edited: 30 May 2007, 4:19 PM
Believe it or not, Scrubs is actually a good show
When I first saw Scrubs, I thought it was a stupid show. It seemed to be a bunch stupid characters incapable of making an intelligent decision, the kind of show that makes me cringe and shout at the TV, "It is inhumanly impossible to be that stupid!" Those kinds of show annoy me more than they make me laugh.
In fact, it reminded me a lot of Three's Company. Now, Three's Company probably had the stupidest, fakest, and shallowest characters ever known to man. It would be wrong to call Jack, Janet, and Chrissy one-dimensional caricatures; that would be an insult to one-dimensional caricatures. No, Jack, Janet, and Chrissy (and her replacements) completely lacked any dimension at all. They had no capacity to change or learn or grow. They were inhuman. They were (poorly) preprogrammed androids hopped up on speed, unable to adapt to anything.
The thing that made Three's Company successful was that it consistently kept the laughs coming, in spite of the shallow characters. To be sure, you were laughing at them, not with them. You didn't care much about the characters, because you knew that no matter what happened, nothing would ever change. But laughing at them still counts for something, and on that show, you laughed at them an awful lot. It almost made the cringing worth it. Almost.
Back to Scrubs. When I first saw Scrubs, I got the same impression as I got from Three's Company: these were stupid characters incapable of making an intelligent decision. Only Scrubs was a lot less funny. And if I can hardly sit through Three's Company, I'm certainly not going to sit through something much less funny. Thus, Scrubs went into my "not interested" bin pretty quickly.
Over the past few months, however, I couldn't realistically avoid watching the show without avoiding the telly altogether. These days, it's syndicated on about 50 different channels at any given time of the day. Plus, the blonde on it (Sarah Chalke) is oddly cute. Inevitably, I ended up watching it a few times.
That's when I saw that the stupidity of the characters was all an act. The Scrubs gang really does have a lot of depth; their outward shallowness is only something they project as a defense against a stressful work place. In fact, the way their true character manifests itself is very interesting, and goes a long way toward building sympathy and making the characters believable.
So when someone on Scrubs does something stupid, we don't have to roll our eyes or cringe; they're not acting that way because they're manifestly compelled to always do the absolute stupidest thing possible. We understand why they did it (somewhat). And when something funny happens, the joke is more heartfelt and enjoyable because we can sympathize with the characters.
Needless to say, I am converted. Sure, it's cliched and relies on stereotypes too much (that'll probably date it a few years down the road). But overall, it's really a good show. Although it doesn't hold a candle to some of the great sitcoms of the 70s and early 80s (All in the Family, Good Times), it's probably the consistently funniest non-animated show that's been on TV for at least ten years.
The Real Story Behind the Iliad
A cheap pub in Corinth, on the coast of Greece, BC 876.
About 20 low-ranking Greek warriors, having just made landfall after having sailed back from a war with a small city-state on the coast of Asia Minor. They had names such as Agamemnon, Odysseus, Aias, Menelaus, Nestor, and so on.
A bartender by the name of Calchas.
Three whores named of Helena, Chriseis, and Briseis who sat in the company of the warriors.
A young poet by the name of Homer.
Everyone in the room is drunk off their ass on cheap wine and mead.
[Dings his glass with a spoon.] Friends! I'd like to make a toast in remembrance our departed comrade, Achilles, who fought and died valiantly for us! To Achilles!
To Achilles! [They drink.]
Achilles was the best warrior in the Greek army! He brought down Hector, I tell you!
Hector? Who's that?
Hector! Why, he was leader of the platoon we faced off with. Big scary guy.
You mean Achilles got the platoon leader? No way!
He got the platoon leader, I say! In fact, I'll tell you the whole story. [Downs a cup of mead.] It began about three months into the war when Agamemnon and Achilles got into a little argument over who got to rape this little Trojan girl they captured first. Agamemnon won, and Achilles got real pissed and went to the sick tent for a few hours.
Yeah, Achilles was a good warrior, but you gotta admit, he was also a big priss.
He didn't come out till the boy who used to always tag along with him—what was his name? Patrolcus?—got killed. Meanwhile...
[The story rambles on, including stories such as the time Menelaus grazed the brigade leader's lieutenant Paris with a spear, or the time when someone from behind hurled a spear that wounded this crazy guy who was standing next to Hector.]
...but then he found out about Patrolcus and went berzerk, and flew into battle. He even had body armor.
Oh, shut up, he couldn't afford any body armor.
I think it was probably bandages he got from the sick tent. Probably didn't help him any but it looked awesome. He flew in a rage and killed about five Trojans and stood right there facing Hector. Hector should have layed him flat with a spear but he flat out missed. Then Achilles was on top of him.
Achilles was a lucky guy, eh?
No, not really. Soon after that, that Paris guy came in and stabbed Achilles on the ankle with a spear. Turned into gangrene and he died of it. That's another story, though. Still, better to go out in glory than to die a coward, and if Achilles was anything, he was brave.
And a priss.
[Approaching the group of drunk warriors] Hey guys, that was a really interesting story. Mind if I make an epic poem out of it? I'll give you guys each two drachmas for the rights.
[Look around at each other.] All right! More wine and mead! Woooo!
Um, I'm gonna make a few changes.... [His words are drowned out in the ruckus.]
My family's dogs just woke the neighborhood taunting a possum
In my family, We have this arrangement concerning the dogs. The arrangement is: I do not take care of the dogs. I don't feed em, I don't walk em, I don't put em in and out, etc.
So, a few months ago somehow plans were made such that neither my mom nor my sister would be around to feed their respective dogs for one day. They were talking about leaving the dogs with someone. I told them, don't be ridiculous. It won't kill me to feed them one day. So I fed them. And that was that.
No, of course that wasn't that. We've had this arrangement for about 15 years. I bend to feed the dogs once, and they decide that I'd be perfectly happy to take care of the dogs for two weeks while moving my sister to San Diego. Stupid women don't know the difference between an inch and a mile.
So for two weeks I've experienced the ennui of feeding dogs day after day. And with no one else home to distract them, they are bad and clingy. I can't take a stroll without the small one following me (have to tether him, which is a PITA; they're not allowed inside). They don't even let me walk to my car in peace. And they bark all the time. A couple weeks of this was worn on me. But tonight the demonic beasts went too far.
Anyways, because oft the ennui, I expected that sooner or later I'd forget to feed them. Tonight it happened, and I think I paid for it.
At 3 am I hear them barking like crazy. I figured it'd go away in a couple minutes, but 3:15 it's still going on, strong as ever. So I go down to see what they're barking at (and heard the phone ring as I headed out, obviously a neighbor complaining). The little imp-dog is on the road barking his head off at a possum not much smaller than him. Apparently, the little dog had been circling and charging possum for 15 straight minutes without actually attacking. The big dog was standing in the yard restrained by an electric fence, barking his head off. (My family has long since given up hope that the electric fence will ever keep in the little dog.)
Now, I don't remember when I had my last rabies shot, but it's been awhile, so I don't exactly want to get near the possum. After calling them in expectedly failed, I ran in and got a broom and starting chasing the dogs towards the house with it. The little dog was too quick for me, but he got the hint eventually. The big dog refused to leave until I got him with the handle (which felt really good).
Meanwhile the possum's just being stupid. He wasn't playing dead, because he was gnashing his teeth at the imp-dog. But you'd figure the possum would head for the bushes whenever I chased the imp-dog away, but it just stood there waiting.
Oh well. Once I got them away I fed them (only about 7 hours late) and they're being pretty quiet now. I figure the dogs picked this fight in the first place because they were hungry, so I won't be forgetting again. And after my mom comes home in a couple days, I will never, ever accept this job ever again.
Having been through all this, I just don't get what is so great about dogs that makes people willing to go though all this crap.
Viewing all blog posts (Page 9 of 11)