Archive
April, 2009 Monthly archive

Read More

That’s an interesting angle to be getting that type of reflection, don’t you think?

Apple-reflection-defies-physics

Read More

Read More


The Lost Tribes of New York City from Carolyn London on Vimeo.

[Via Motionographer]

Read More

Read More

From The Times Online:

This must be the definition of blind rage. This woman was so pissed off that she drove her car into another person’s car after cutting them off, kept the pedal to the metal after ramming, spun her tires until they disintegrated, lit her car on fire from the sparks flying from her metal wheels against the concrete, and, when given the opportunity and warning to get out of the car, told the bystanders to eff off. She remained in her car, fuming (bad pun) until she burnt to death.

It doesn’t sound like she was trying to kill herself. I think she was just really, really pissed. That’s real rage.

Read More

twitter-logo

A couple of weeks ago, I set up the Darkwind Media & Luster Twitter accounts so we could start gathering a following and have yet another outlet to push our news & luster examples. This sparked the idea that I should start using my own Twitter account that has remained dormant since I registered my username a while back.

This is my call for any juicers who have twitter to list their account here (if they wish) so. Feel free to edit the post to keep it tidy.

  • Choofins
  • BLin22
  • kstizzle
  • Colin_Doody
  • bochocki
  • teamasparagus
  • <empty>

Read More

(Skip to ~3:22)

When it comes to gun laws, it’s important to keep things in perspective, otherwise you’ll end up debating someone over what is essentially a non-debatable case for closing gun purchasing loopholes.

Consider, for example, alcohol.  It is illegal for anyone to sell alcohol without a license in the state of Virginia.  If I showed up to a “Liquor Show” in Richmond, and proceeded to sell whiskey out of my trunk without a license, I would be arrested.  Similarly, if I tried to sell whiskey to a minor, I would also be arrested and/or fined, regardless of the status of my liquor license.

Furthermore, some of the things that may deny your application to obtain a liquor license in the state of Virginia are the following:

b. Has been convicted in any court of a felony or any crime or offense involving moral turpitude under the laws of any state, or of the United States; [...]

d. Is not a person of good moral character and repute; [...]

g. Has maintained a noisy, lewd, disorderly or unsanitary establishment;

h. Has demonstrated, either by his police record or by his record as a former licensee of the Board, a lack of respect for law and order; [...]

k. Has the general reputation of drinking alcoholic beverages to excess or is addicted to the use of narcotics;

All of this, just to sell alcohol.  Now, there may actually be people out there that would argue against the existence of licenses for the selling of alcohol, but there wouldn’t be a lot of them.  It’s a fairly common-sense approach to the distribution of a substance that can be abused and cause disorderly conduct, and, ultimately, violence.  Also, it is a requirement in order to effectively regulate the sale of alcohol to only persons over 21 years of age.

Unfortunately, those same people that agree with this straight-forward reasoning would go absolutely apeshit if it were applied to firearms, which is incredibly nonsensical.  The fact that basic regulatory standards would not be applied to the sale of a potentially dangerous weapon is ludicrous.

So, the question becomes: do you want the sale of firearms to be more similar to the sale of a bottle of whiskey, or to the sale of a Snickers bar?

Read More

I mean it.

Just skip to about 20 seconds.


ExciteBots video, Doogie-Calibur HQ from Jamie Kelly on Vimeo.

Read More

John Boehner in an amazingly ridiculous performance on This Week:

What becomes clear after all of this, besides the fact that John Boehner needs some remedial science classes (carcinogen!?!), is that the Republicans have zero policy ideas for climate change.  This really isn’t problem if no one thinks that uncontrolled carbon dioxide emissions are an issue, but a lot of people do.  So the GOP ends up in this weird position of simultaneously proclaiming climate change as a problem, but not doing anything to control carbon emissions.  It’s a strange sort of accommodating approach to two competing interests, and it leads to a completely incoherent policy.

Yet another example of the modern Republican Party:  The Party of No Ideas.

Read More

Someone on Twitter being funny.

Read More

The times they are a changing…

Read More

I definitely recommend reading this article.  President Barack Obama is a genuinely amazing man.  From the NYT.  It’s about the letters he receives.

The ritual offers Mr. Obama a way to move beyond the White House bubble, and occasionally leads to moments when his composure cracks, advisers said. “I remember once he was particularly quiet,” said Mr. Obama’s senior adviser, David Axelrod, “and I asked him what he was thinking about, and he said, ‘These letters just tear you up.’ It was after getting a poignant letter from a struggling family.”

Read More

A beautiful video that depicts the final flight of retired planes. Deserves to be watched in HD.

Read More

A reader writes to Sullivan:

One sticking point I’ve always had with the standard conservative approach to health care is the underlying assumption that it will behave like a free market. Free markets are based on two primary principles – the idea that people have sufficient information to choose the optimal solution and that they can and will delay gratification. Neither idea seems particularly plausible when it comes to health care. [...]

Insurance only works at all because of pooled risk – you pay into a general pool and insurance companies are able to calculate the statistical likelihood that they’ll have to pay out in case of accident. “Accident” is the key word – it’s an event that has some probability of occurring given someone’s history and lifestyle. But it’s a finite, time-limited occurrence that incurs a certain amount of cost. Car insurance, therefore, works. Yes, you pay more if you’re a poor driver or a 16 year-old, but there’s still some statistical probability that these people won’t get into accidents. Health care isn’t like that. If health care insurance companies were only hedging against the likelihood that someone will slip and fall and break an arm, or fall off the ski lift, then the private solution would work fine. Now imagine the following case. To continue with the car insurance analogy, pretend that everyone has one car that cannot be sold. Some people have lemon cars whose brakes fail every week, or have continuous oil leaks, etc. In other words, the insurance company knows that it will have to pay out on the people with lemon cars, not just occasionally, but continuously. There’s absolutely no incentive to insure these people at all. We could, as a society, say well, that’s tough. Only, eventually, we all end up with lemon cars – we’re all going to die one day, and the large majority of us will be sick for some time before that. The only way to insure people with lemon cars is stick them in a large group of average people and calculate the risk for that pool as a whole. This is why employer-provided health care insurance works – the employer has done the risk pooling and the insurance company can’t sift through the employee rolls to weed out anyone with a lemon car. [...]

But, providing tax credits to purchase health care isn’t going to make insurance companies want to provide insurance to people with pre-existing, chronic conditions. There’s no financial incentive, and that’s the primary governing philosophy of any company. Purchasing individual insurance plans, essentially, gives the insurance companies too much information. In the end, I think that the only way for health care to work is to force large enough risk pools such that the cost is spread among many and the only entity with the incentive to do that in the long run is the government. It won’t be perfect, there will inefficiencies, and it will cost a lot, but given the current imperfections, inefficiencies (the U.S. spends more on administrative health care costs than any other civilized nation), and cost, I’m still pretty sure that it be an improvement.

The only way to accept a government-run healthcare system is to recognize that markets can fail, or at the very least, provide perverse incentives.

Right now, I think this concept is completely unfathomable to 30-40% of America, who grew up listening to this.

Read More