I'm an engineer. A manufacturing engineer. Not a mechanical engineer or an electrical engineer.
I went to see Law Abiding Citizen tonight. The movie was great right up until the end.
Any moron can run out to K-Mart and pick up a car alarm that will go off when you try and move the car. If you bump it even.
The premise of the movie is that a super genius that designed fool proof killing systems for the CIA has his family murdered in a home invasion by a psycho.
The District Attorney makes a deal with the real killer so the accomplice will get the death penalty.
This pisses off the super genius so much that he spends ten years planning his revenge against the system.
When he puts his plan into action he first murders the people who killed his wife and child. Then he goes after all of the lawyers and judges involved.
The guy does all kinds of super genius stuff during the movie.
At the end the DA moves a bomb from city hall to the geniuses lair and the genius blows himself up.
Because he wasn't smart enough to put a simple car alarm system from K-Mart into his bomb.
I could design a box that would set off a siren if you drilled a hole into it, if you made it cold, if you made it hot, if you moved it, if you even came close to it. I can do all this with off the shelf stuff that I can buy at K-Mart. Thermostats. Tire pressure sensors. Car Alarms. All really simple stuff.
I liked this movie right up until the super genius CIA engineer was dumber than the guy who installs car alarms at Best Buy. Then it was super lame.
I give Law Abiding Citizen 5 farts for being disgustingly stupid.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
$119.00 for a wine glass
I like wine. I am no connoisseur. I just enjoy a glass of red wine in the evening after dinner.
I have a couple of decanters I purchased at the Dollar plus store, a fancy corkscrew gadget I purchased at Costco for $10 bucks (they raised the price to $20 last time I saw it), some wine glass I bought at Ikea, this vacuum pump thing with rubber stoppers that really does help keep a bottle of wine for a few days and this gadget called an aerator that really rocks.
All in all I spent less than $100 dollars on my wine gadgetry. My wife figures I over spent, but, she enjoys the taste of wine after I run it through the aerator so she does not mind.
Tonight I went looking at wine glasses. I just wanted to figure out why there are so many different kinds of glasses and how they might make the wine taste differently.
Essentially I think glasses are a bunch of horse crap. Buy a set of wine glasses and enjoy them, but, it is always worth reading.
Reading.
I ain't spending $119.00 on a single wine glass.
I bought a set of 4 Waterford crystal wine glasses for a friend for Christmas. I don't mind spending money on stuff for people.
I just ain't spending $119.00 bucks on wine glasses. I will take a drive to Ikea and buy some different wine glasses and test them out. I have a couple of different style and I will test those.
There is this really kewl thing you can buy at the University of California Davis bookstore called the aroma wheel that I think rocks. It helps you train yourself to identify different flavors in the wine.
There are also some pretty expensive kits of stuff to do the same thing.
I like wine. I don't mind spending $20, maybe even the occasional $30 on a bottle of wine.
$119.00 on a glass. Not this high school drop out. I guess I am just too stupid to spend that much money on something I can buy for a buck or two.
I have a couple of decanters I purchased at the Dollar plus store, a fancy corkscrew gadget I purchased at Costco for $10 bucks (they raised the price to $20 last time I saw it), some wine glass I bought at Ikea, this vacuum pump thing with rubber stoppers that really does help keep a bottle of wine for a few days and this gadget called an aerator that really rocks.
All in all I spent less than $100 dollars on my wine gadgetry. My wife figures I over spent, but, she enjoys the taste of wine after I run it through the aerator so she does not mind.
Tonight I went looking at wine glasses. I just wanted to figure out why there are so many different kinds of glasses and how they might make the wine taste differently.
Essentially I think glasses are a bunch of horse crap. Buy a set of wine glasses and enjoy them, but, it is always worth reading.
Reading.
I ain't spending $119.00 on a single wine glass.
I bought a set of 4 Waterford crystal wine glasses for a friend for Christmas. I don't mind spending money on stuff for people.
I just ain't spending $119.00 bucks on wine glasses. I will take a drive to Ikea and buy some different wine glasses and test them out. I have a couple of different style and I will test those.
There is this really kewl thing you can buy at the University of California Davis bookstore called the aroma wheel that I think rocks. It helps you train yourself to identify different flavors in the wine.
There are also some pretty expensive kits of stuff to do the same thing.
I like wine. I don't mind spending $20, maybe even the occasional $30 on a bottle of wine.
$119.00 on a glass. Not this high school drop out. I guess I am just too stupid to spend that much money on something I can buy for a buck or two.
Persistence
Nothing in the world can take the place of Persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan ?Press On? has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race.
- Calvin Coolidge
The question is always who will be more persistent. Those who persist will succeed.
Is that true?
Essentially yes. The problem occurs when there is a disagreement about the feasibility of the process.
For example, Thomas Edison persisted in his work to find an economical light bulb that would last long enough to be of value and be strong enough to withstand shipment after testing.
Many scientists knew that passing electricity through a material would cause the material to glow.
Finding an economical material that would withstand shipping from the factory to the point of use and would last long enough to be of perceived value to the consumer was the problem.
Thomas Edison did not phrase it exactly like that though. :-)
In the end, it is always obvious that the solution existed.
Along the way you can bet that people argued about IF a material existed that would be both robust enough to ship, give enough light and be inexpensive enough that the consumer would find value in the purchase.
Thomas Edison believed the material existed.
Many other, very intelligent, very educated scientists abandoned the search because they had decided the material did not exist OR because investors decided that finding the material was so expensive that the return on investment would be minimal.
Thomas Edison was right. Thomas Edison's investors were right. The people who argued against "staying the course", persisting, were wrong.
Those who failed to persist lost money. Those who were persisting, BUT, did not discover the "best" material before Thomas Edison did are forgotten.
What if the job really is impossible?
President Bush was a big believer in persistence. The average person does not persist, which is why so few people achieve difficult projects. The average person will quit after trying so much.
Exactly how much is dependent on the person. Some people will try a "lot", some a "little", some will perceive one person's "lot" as a "little" and others perceive the "little" as a "lot".
Getting people to agree on what is possible is difficult. Getting people to agree on what is impossible is much easier.
Bad leaders will always default to impossibilities because so many people believe in the impossible.
Great leaders will tackle impossibilities and make them possible.
It is easier to say "Flying is impossible" than it is to build the first airplane.
I would rather persist in the face of failure than quit and believe in impossibility.
Obama is a quitter who believes in impossibility and he has built his possibilities on deriding those who persist and whom the quitting majority laugh at.
- Calvin Coolidge
The question is always who will be more persistent. Those who persist will succeed.
Is that true?
Essentially yes. The problem occurs when there is a disagreement about the feasibility of the process.
For example, Thomas Edison persisted in his work to find an economical light bulb that would last long enough to be of value and be strong enough to withstand shipment after testing.
Many scientists knew that passing electricity through a material would cause the material to glow.
Finding an economical material that would withstand shipping from the factory to the point of use and would last long enough to be of perceived value to the consumer was the problem.
Thomas Edison did not phrase it exactly like that though. :-)
In the end, it is always obvious that the solution existed.
Along the way you can bet that people argued about IF a material existed that would be both robust enough to ship, give enough light and be inexpensive enough that the consumer would find value in the purchase.
Thomas Edison believed the material existed.
Many other, very intelligent, very educated scientists abandoned the search because they had decided the material did not exist OR because investors decided that finding the material was so expensive that the return on investment would be minimal.
Thomas Edison was right. Thomas Edison's investors were right. The people who argued against "staying the course", persisting, were wrong.
Those who failed to persist lost money. Those who were persisting, BUT, did not discover the "best" material before Thomas Edison did are forgotten.
What if the job really is impossible?
President Bush was a big believer in persistence. The average person does not persist, which is why so few people achieve difficult projects. The average person will quit after trying so much.
Exactly how much is dependent on the person. Some people will try a "lot", some a "little", some will perceive one person's "lot" as a "little" and others perceive the "little" as a "lot".
Getting people to agree on what is possible is difficult. Getting people to agree on what is impossible is much easier.
Bad leaders will always default to impossibilities because so many people believe in the impossible.
Great leaders will tackle impossibilities and make them possible.
It is easier to say "Flying is impossible" than it is to build the first airplane.
I would rather persist in the face of failure than quit and believe in impossibility.
Obama is a quitter who believes in impossibility and he has built his possibilities on deriding those who persist and whom the quitting majority laugh at.
Friday, October 16, 2009
AT&T Sucks
When cell systems were developed industry had to develop a priority system to make sure that first responders and national security (politicians and their significant others) had priority access and could get calls through during peak usage times.
TDMA and original CDMA technologies did have this prioritization technology.
GSM, Iden and current CDMA do use a prioritization technology.
So why does AT&T suck?
Simple, essentially when a different phone company leases use of one phone companies towers the users are both in the same technical priority group.
But AT&T has a problem, 3G networks and the iPhone.
To keep primary customers happy AT&T has resorted to prioritizing their customers over their competitions customers in violation of FCC regulations.
Why?
Because the data connectivity of AT&T customers is clogging the system. If AT&T gives the same priority to T-Mobile that it gives to AT&T the AT&T customers would get a reduced level of service so AT&T prioritizes their customers communications over the competition which means if you are using a non-AT&T system, or even a pay-as-you-go AT&T system, you are hosed when you live in an area where AT&T controls access.
These guys were busted up once for unfair business practices and here we are again, forty years later and the morons are doing the same thing over again with a new technology.
Total morons.
I would watch the news, sooner or later the evidence is going to surface that AT&T is taking advantage of the Priority Access Dialing and the Cellular Priority Access System to improve their profits at consumer expense.
When that hits I would short sell AT&T (long term) and buy stock in competitors since AT&T is headed for another break-up and this second time around time people are going to be so pissed that the name AT&T will probably be outlawed.
You can't fix stupid and morons never learn.
TDMA and original CDMA technologies did have this prioritization technology.
GSM, Iden and current CDMA do use a prioritization technology.
So why does AT&T suck?
Simple, essentially when a different phone company leases use of one phone companies towers the users are both in the same technical priority group.
But AT&T has a problem, 3G networks and the iPhone.
To keep primary customers happy AT&T has resorted to prioritizing their customers over their competitions customers in violation of FCC regulations.
Why?
Because the data connectivity of AT&T customers is clogging the system. If AT&T gives the same priority to T-Mobile that it gives to AT&T the AT&T customers would get a reduced level of service so AT&T prioritizes their customers communications over the competition which means if you are using a non-AT&T system, or even a pay-as-you-go AT&T system, you are hosed when you live in an area where AT&T controls access.
These guys were busted up once for unfair business practices and here we are again, forty years later and the morons are doing the same thing over again with a new technology.
Total morons.
I would watch the news, sooner or later the evidence is going to surface that AT&T is taking advantage of the Priority Access Dialing and the Cellular Priority Access System to improve their profits at consumer expense.
When that hits I would short sell AT&T (long term) and buy stock in competitors since AT&T is headed for another break-up and this second time around time people are going to be so pissed that the name AT&T will probably be outlawed.
You can't fix stupid and morons never learn.
Wednesday, October 07, 2009
Popular authors determining US political policy
As amazing as this sounds the worst of the propaganda distributed to the world is not in the form of news papers, television shows or internet blogs.
The worst is in the form of books.
Many people in this world prize books. Among many there is a reverence for books and the "knowledge" they contain. This is especially true among the pseudo intellectual crowd.
Books like Chariots of the Gods become reference tools for the next generation of pseudo intellectuals building their propagandized non-knowledge.
Today our Commander in Chief is reading tripe about how the military and the military industrial complex plunged us into Vietnam without understanding what the goals were and how to win the war.
This is a common propaganda.
Military commanders do not start wars. Politicians do. If military commanders and business leaders provided influence to engage in the Viet Nam conflict there is no evidence of it.
Essentially the very idea is really the politicians of the age refusing to take responsibility and blaming their problems on some huge mili-wing conspiracy.
Total tripe, but, the uneducated proletariat fall for this tripe and tomorrow they will be using it as a reference tool just as Chariots of the Gods has become a reference.
Sometimes propaganda and stupidity make me physically sick and knowing that Obama could base his policy decisions on a book that makes as much sense as believing the Illuminati are controlling the world financial markets or aliens crew big pictures in the ground is one of those times.
The worst is in the form of books.
Many people in this world prize books. Among many there is a reverence for books and the "knowledge" they contain. This is especially true among the pseudo intellectual crowd.
Books like Chariots of the Gods become reference tools for the next generation of pseudo intellectuals building their propagandized non-knowledge.
Today our Commander in Chief is reading tripe about how the military and the military industrial complex plunged us into Vietnam without understanding what the goals were and how to win the war.
This is a common propaganda.
Military commanders do not start wars. Politicians do. If military commanders and business leaders provided influence to engage in the Viet Nam conflict there is no evidence of it.
Essentially the very idea is really the politicians of the age refusing to take responsibility and blaming their problems on some huge mili-wing conspiracy.
Total tripe, but, the uneducated proletariat fall for this tripe and tomorrow they will be using it as a reference tool just as Chariots of the Gods has become a reference.
Sometimes propaganda and stupidity make me physically sick and knowing that Obama could base his policy decisions on a book that makes as much sense as believing the Illuminati are controlling the world financial markets or aliens crew big pictures in the ground is one of those times.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
