Recently in Random Thoughts Category

My new iPhone comes out of the box with the all-awesome, all-knowing Google Maps, which immediately prompted me to try and figure out how far Bay and I run, how much I walk to and from work every day, and other useless bits of trivia.

Once I started doing that, I figured I might as well compile a list of the daily exercise that I'm getting, and try and determine what my caloric requirements are. Why? I don't know, just because.

Here is my daily activity:

• Walk to and from work/downtown



Distance: 1.3 kms, each way
Calories burned: 65 calories, each way
Daily Average: 2.6 kms, 130 calories


• Climb up two flights of stairs



Amount: 4 times a day
Duration: 1 minute
Calories burned: 11 calories, each time
Daily Average: 8 flights of stairs, 88 calories


• Squash



Amount: 4 times a week
Duration: 1 hour
Calories burned: 1034 calories, each time
Daily Average: 591 calories


• Jogging



Amount: 1 time a week
Duration: 30 minutes (4.5 km)
Calories burned: 450 calories
Daily Average: 64 calories


• Biking



Amount: 1 time a week
Duration: 10 minutes (5 km)
Calories burned: 125 calories
Daily Average: 18 calories


• Weight lifting



Amount: 4 times a week
Duration: 20 minutes
Calories burned: 86 calories, each time
Daily Average: 49 calories

So, the grand total appears to be that on a daily average, I'm burning 940 calories each day of the week, when I average everything I'm doing for the week. Based on my at rest calorie burn rate of 2280, I need to eat an average of 3220 calories a day. I suspect I must be getting somewhere close to that figure, because although my weight rises and falls on a daily basis, it's usually fluctuating around the same point of 185-195 pounds.

That, is an attention-grabbing title.

I'm often mildly disappointed with our education system, because it fails to teach a lot of the scientific literacy that is needed in order to understand some of the concepts that science is discovering today, and to appreciate just how cool some of this stuff is. Today, we're talking about light, the speed at which it travels, and the closest thing to a time machine we'll ever actually see.

Let's start with the speed of light. Light is a funny thing. Einstein realized, and then proved scientifically that no matter how fast you're travelling, no matter which direction you are moving in, you will always measure light as moving away from you at 300,000 km/s. This speed is referred to with the constant c. This is counter-intuitive to the way we humans think. Let's say I'm standing still, and my friend Davey runs by me. Let's say I measure that he is moving away from me at 10 km/h. Now, in scenario two, I'm running at 5 km/h in the same direction as Davey. When he passes me and starts to move away from me, I will measure him as moving away from me at 5 km/h, rather than the previous 10. This is because I am moving foward at 5 km/h myself, rather than standing still.

Here comes the counter-intuitive bit - in both of those situations, if a beam of light travels past me and starts to move away, I will always measure it as travelling away from me at c (300,000 km/s). Interestingly, the scientific experiements and evidence collected also shows that this is the theoretical speed limit of the universe. As far as we can tell, nothing can travel faster than this speed.

Okay, we're past the first bit of math.

Let's get into the time travel I alluded to in the title. Because of the rate of speed at which light travels, most of us think of it as travelling instantaneously. That is to say, you turn on your desk lamp, and the light doesn't travel to light up your desk, it's just there. This is a convenient way to think about light on a day-to-day basis, our daily lives do not involve interacting over distances greater than 300,000 km. However, once we start to talk about the stars in the sky, things get a little bit different.

The thing about stars in the sky is that they are very, very far away from us. Sirius, one of our closest neighbours in the galaxy, is about 9 light years away from us. Light years can be a bit of a confusing term, because they contain two concepts: distance and time. A light year means this: The distance that light can travel in one year. So, even though the name includes a notion of time, a light-year is always really a distance measurement, and one light-year will always take one year for light to move that distance.

What this means is that if Sirius the star were to suddenly dissapear from the universe and stop producing light (this is highly implausible, but will work as an example), it would take us nine years before we had any idea that this had occurred. The coolest thing about this is that when we look up and see the star Sirius in our night sky, we are actually seeing it as it looked nine years ago. Remember, it takes nine years for the star's light to reach us.

So, we've got the speed of light down, and we've talked about Sirius. Let's take things up to the next level and talk about stars that are much further away from us. Astronomers these days have some incredible tools at their disposable. The Hubble space telescope is able to look at stars that are billions of light years away. This is incredibly far, but not only that, it means that we are looking back at light that was created and sent on its heavenly journey billions of years ago. This is the most incredible part, and the most difficult for many people to wrap their head around. The further away from us that astronomers are looking, the further back in time they are seeing the state of the universe.

Perhaps some ascii art to help clarify?

1. (Sirius) * ---light travels 9 light-years---> * (Earth)

2. (Starry McOldey) * ---light travels 10 billion light-years---> * (Earth)

The most important thing to remember here is that once light has been emitted from a star, it doesn't matter what happens to the source of the light - the light itself will continue to travel on its path, eventually reaching us.

I've got two helpful analogies too! Think of a really powerful sprinkler: the sprinkler shoots out a blast of water, and then changes its position and shoots a second blast of water. The first blast of water is still travelling in the original direction, regardless of the fact that the sprinkler has now changed its orientation. Analogy number two - imagine two cities that are separated by 1000 km. The first city sends out a messenger to the second city, and it takes him two weeks to get there. By the time the messenger arrives in the second city, the information he's bringing with him is two weeks older. For the sake of this analogy, you can think of light as acting like a messenger from a star (though a messenger that has done an insane amount of steroids).

So, I, and possibly you, think this is pretty cool. By looking into deep, deep space, scientists are able to see the universe as it was when it was very young (most astronomers, through scientific evidence, place the age of the universe to be roughly 13.7 billion years old). They aren't really traveling back in time, but they are able to see a universe from an earlier time.

Interesting stuff right? No? Whatever. If you like reading about this kind of thing, you should check out the Bad Astronomy Blog. Phil Plait, a widely-known astronomer in skeptic circles, runs the blog and mixes things up with the latest cool astronomy news, reviews of bad movies using bad science (his review of The Core is pretty good), and skepticism regarding things like the Moon Landing Hoax. Worth a browse!

Just stumbled across this cool site showing photos of an abandoned Russian village:

http://englishrussia.com/?p=1784#more-1784

I find this kind of stuff fascinating - it's like a little pocket that got frozen in time, but without Jean-Claude Van Damne to travel back and right the wrong that was committed there.

This has been a really good weekend, and I've done nothing but play squash, do chores, practice dancing, and sit down on the carpet and play Magic the Nerding with friends. Bay and I are ever more busy with wedding preparations, so it feels good to be able to spend a day to sit down and hammer many of those details down. I've done a bunch of other boring shit as well, none of which makes for interesting blogging, as I'm discovering reading back through this paragraph..

I had a good dance session with Steve and Graham this Sunday morning, and that got me revved up and ready to go for the rest of the weekend. Most of the footage that we captured this time around was really dull. Watching someone practice variations of one particular technique over and over is lame, and all watching that really accomplishes is letting people understand that dancing, like anything, requires time and effort to improve upon.

However, Graham has been missing in action from the dancefloor for the past millennium or so, so it's good to see him come out and throw down some moves with us. I'll be editing some footage tonight or during the week, and hopefully I'll have something worthy of putting up by the time the beer festival rolls around (after which I will be completely out of commission until Christmas-ish).

One of the things that is on my "to-do" list now is to go through this blog and give it a little re-vitalization. This sort of thing takes a while for me to actually work up the energy to tackle, but there's one thing in particular that has been nagging me - the archived entries.

When I first started blogging, it was me writing for a very select audience. I passed the esoteric link (at the time, http://fresh.ath.cx/~adam/blog) around to my small group of my friends, and then just continued to write. If people checked it out, that was cool, but I mostly wrote because I made myself laugh. If you go back and look over the old entries, you can pick up on this. Lots of the jokes are sophomoric (that means low-brow, pretty much), but they had enough of my own angle to them that re-reading many of them still gets me giggling. (Can guys get away with giggling, or do we need to chortle?)

Whenever I say something that is meant to be funny, the one rule I abide by is that it makes me laugh. If no one else laughs, then that makes for a slightly awkward situation, but I can't second-guess the way every person I talk to is going to react to me, or the kind of sense of humour that they have. The only thing I can rely on is that I make myself laugh, and, apparently, a lot of other people agree with what I find humorous.

Anyhow, there are a lot of people out there with a great sense of humour, but far more out there with a sense of humour that competes with that of a carrot. I'm not worried about the people with a sense of humour. They may (or may not) go back through my archives, laugh at a couple of entries that I've written, turn their nose up at points when it gets crude, and understand what I was doing. However, the carrots are not so easy to deal with.

My cat literally just spilled beer across my whole computer desk.. So long thirty minutes spent cleaning.. If this cat wasn't so damn cute I would teach him the hard way how to correctly execute the move called cat suplex of doom.

Anyhow, the carrots - those guys (and girls) are the reason that I can't just leave everything wide in the open.

The thing is, I've left my archives fully accesible for the entirety of my blog's existence. I'm not ashamed of how I used to be, who I am currently, nor who I will be as I continue to grow. I'm proud of who I am, and I can look back on the highs and lows of my past years and think "Hey, if it all lead to where I am now, I must have been doing some things right" (as I clean beer off of my computer desk and notice that my printer now prints in "Sticky", rather than "Portrait" or "Landscape" modes).

I like leaving my archives there because they give me, as well as other people, an opportunity to look back and see how I've changed, grown, and, perhaps most importantly, stayed the same. Acting like the past didn't happen, or didn't shape who we are now is a guaranteed way to ensure that we minimize the wisdom that we can gain as we age. I'm all about gaining wisdom (seriously, I would be an awesome paladin or cleric - anyone need some buffs?).

But the carrots.. Damn those carrots! One day, I'll be applying for a job, and one of those damn carrots will think "Hey, maybe I'll Google this joker and see what comes up". They find my site, look through a couple of the archives, and decide that Korglied War Robots isn't the right fit for me.

Anyhow, the best compromise that I can think of is to relegate the archives off to a link. If people want to go back and look through them, I don't want to stop that. Like I said, I think it's important to acknowledge our past and what we've become - however, by moving this off to a separate link, it at least requires a little bit of effort to track them down, and maybe in doing so, they get a chance to read about the person that I currently am.

And I guess this brings me back to one of the main reasons I keep incessantly spouting off into the digital web-a-tron - it keeps reminding me that I'm learning. Squash, dancing, reading, marriage, friendships - these are all things that I do first and foremost because they help me learn and develop. In practicing each of these things, I gain wisdom and knowledge, and better myself as a person. But, in the process of learning, there are peaks and troughs, and sometimes, those troughs are pretty damn deep. Having a reference to look back upon is a good way for me to re-calibrate myself and go "Wow, I'm a fricking genius."

Oh shit, I just spilled beer again...

I talk a lot.

Whenever I find myself with groups of people, it is the conversation that is holding my interst more than anything else (well, hopefuly - it's gotta be an awkward group if I'm not paying attention to the conversation).

People participate in conversations on all different levels. Some people are talking because they have a deep underlying need to feel a part of the group. Some people are talking because they want to express themselves and receive recognition. Sometimes there's someone that is just hanging on for dear life and doesn't want to come off sounding stupid. Some people take it as an opportunity to entertain, and there's overlap across all of these motivations.

Conversation is a weird thing. Most of us just take it for granted that we are a social species. Some people are terrified of talking to strangers, some people love it. Conversation and interaction is such an integral part of our daily existence that we rarely take the time to think about it.

As I start to take a deeper glance into the many parts of my daily life, I notice more and more the underlying details that have been invisble to me up until this point. There is such a thing as a good conversation, and, conversely, bad conversations.

What makes a conversation good? Balance, comfortability, the right touch of levity, and a hodgepodge of other things. People that are charismatic are generally very good at making other people feel comfortable around them. There are many ways to accomplish this - using people's names is a good way to establish immediate rapport with someone, while using someone's name too much is a way of making them feel uncomfortable (think about a conversation with one of your friends... how often do you use their name? Hearing your own name too many times almost feels like a breach of intimacy).

Laughing genuinely at a joke someone has made is another way to make people feel at ease - and again, doing it too much makes people feel uncomfortable. You lose the feeling of genuinity, and have moved beyond the realm of flattery to contrivance. People love to be flattered, but no one likes feeling that they're being humoured or patronized.

It's always a fine line, and the more people you have involved in a conversation, the easier it is for that line to get crossed. Everyone has different comfort zones, and it's the responsibility of everyone in the conversation to do their part to avoid stepping on anyone else's toes.

We're getting to the heart of the matter, and after only 6-7 paragraphs. My english teacher would be so proud.

Like I said, everyone participates on a different level. Some people are completely oblivious to the effect that their words have on other people. Some people can tell when they've said something wrong, but don't see the warning signs leading into it.

I'm at the far end of the scale. I think too much, and about everything. I think about minor details, and I love doing that because it constantly presents new opportunities to learn. However, this is a double-edged battle-axe that cuts both ways (it's got a very nice handle too). The more time you spend thinking and analyzing something, the better you get at understanding how it operates, and the patterns that are inherent to it (and believe me, there are patterns in everything, I saw it in a movie called A Beautiful Mind). Seeing the patterns and flow of a conversation almost forces upon me the need to help it along.

It's kind of like the paradigm of ignorant bliss. Adam and Eve had not eaten from the tree of knowledge, and had no awareness of their own shame (shame is bible code for penis and vagenis). Once they'd eaten that delicious brainfruit, they became aware of their nudity (and Adam had a rather embarassing erection at the time as well, making things even worse) and felt the need to hide it. They could no longer remain blissfully ignorant, because they now possessned the knowledge and awareness of their situation.

Being aware of the nuances of a conversation, and seeing the path that it takes has removed my ability to remain blissfully ignorant. Going through school, I had a poor understanding of how conversations worked. I was awkward, I made people feel uncomfortable (until I got to know them better), and I didn't understand what I was doing wrong. Next came a time when I had figured out how to talk to people, but didn't understand the deeper levels of a conversation, and so I was as close to true blissful ignorance as I could be - I could talk to people, but didn't need to worry too much about the line.

But as time has passed, it's become more and more apparent, and now it is impossible for me to participate in a conversation without helping steer it. Some people will hate hearing this. "That's so manipulative! That's not how people should interact". Mmmm, this is the first thing people often think when they hear about this kind of thing. It's a knee-jerk reaction.

The reason this makes sense to me comes from my stint at university. Whenever I would get put into a group project, I'd be sitting with at least four strangers working towards a common goal. Almost every project that I ever got done succesfully was the result of myself or someone else picking up the reins of leadership. I'm not stroking my ego here, or fooling myself into believing that I'll be the next manager at KFC (those guys get free chicken!), it just means that I saw the need for some kind of leadership and stepped into that role. Conversations are no different than this. Many of you may never realize it, but there is a tug back and forth in every conversation, and just like a project, it's ultimately about a group of people achieving a common goal (the goal in a conversation is much less tangible than a project, being simply to enjoy company, reach an agreement, discuss something, or meet any of the other goals I mentioned at the start).

Someone talented at steering a conversation will be able to identify the goals that everyone involved has, and make an effort to have them all met. It's a constant dance, weaving the conversation subtly and delicately to ensure that everyone gets their fair share, and everyone gets the chance to express their opinion. I enjoy playing that role, but it can get to be a bit trying without a break from it.

This is the conundrum I'm faced with. Like I said, I like talking to people. I'm very social by nature, and verbal conversations are one of favorite mediums for interaction. But, conversation can be tiring. Steering the direction and paying attention to each nuance can wear you down over time. We need time to recharge, and that's why we have good friends. We can hang out with these people and let the conversation flow much more of its own momentum, because we're much more familiar with each other's comfort zone (I can make fun of my friend Graham's cellphone ringtone, but not his shitty beard).

Ah, you're thinking "well, or just don't do that". No... nonono.. remember, I can no longer remain blissfully ignorant, and think back to our analogy; How well is a project going to go if I were just to say "Ahh, I'll just let the reins slide this one time"? It's going to suck horse, and I know that. I could just let things crash and burn, but then, someone's going to need to pick up the reins to fix up the wreckage. I prefer preventative solutions to curative ones.

People sometimes look at me with confusion when I tell them I don't want to have to spend the evening being "on". "Well, just don't be". I can't!

The people that don't understand this end up thinking I'm aloof, or a snob, or some other cute label. I understand, they're just trying to protect themselves and react defensively to their own hurt feelings.

Next time you find yourself in a conversation with a group of people, take a moment to think about it, and to look for the patterns. They're there. Just remember that once you've seen them, you can't go back.

Update: My friend Davin pointed out that my CAPTCHA (that's basically the code that I have people enter whenever they want to write a comment) was not working, and was preventing anyone from comments. This has been fixed, and I expect a deluge of penis enlargement spam comments to follow closely at the heels.

My friends know that I'm pretty difficult to please.. Talking to me about movies and TV shows is annoying, because I know what I like, I'm very particular, and I'm not willing to tolerate poor plots, predictable humour, and cheesy actors. In short, I'm what some people call "A prick".

That's alright though, I'm comfortable with who I am. The other thing that most of my friends know about me is that humour plays an integral part in who I am, and is something I'm constantly trying to learn more about. I appreciate humour in all of its forms, from arrogant and preachy humour (South Park), to sophistocated humour (Dustin Diamond), to random humour (Danger Bay, third season). Haha! I threw in humour in that list. Huzzah.

I consider myself open-minded about how the gestalt of humour is carried out, as long as it is well done and funny. I hate things that aren't funny but act like they are. I hate things that substitute any of the following for genuine humour: Shock-value, swearing, violence, stupidity, outrageousness, nudity, pop-culture references, randomness, and a bunch of other things.

All of the items on that list can be used within genuine humour, but taking them on their own, without understanding why something is funny, and simply assuming that something will be funny just because you used the word "poo" is annoying and stupid.

It has been a while since I've seen a good chunk of quality TV shows that really made me laugh, and I thought to myself that it's hard to just find a good show - I rely mostly on recommendations. That being said, I'm going to write here about TV shows that I really like that almost slipped past my radar.

Trailer Park Boys

What is it: Trailer Park Boys (TPB) is a mockumentary about life in Sunnyvale Trailer Park in Halifax, Nova Scotia ("The best fucking trailer park in the whole goddamn world", according to Ricky, one of the shows characters). The show follows the exploits of Ricky (Incredibly stupid, great at getting out of trouble, blissfully ignorant of just about everything), Julian (Seedy and devious, the brains of the operation, has moments of redemption), Bubbles (Sharpest man in the park, has awesome glasses, the moral balance of the show) and their day to day life in the park.

Why it's funny: Stupidity done well, great actors, nearly unbearable to watch.

1. Stupidity done well

I dismissed this show at first. See, stupidity done well is really funny. However, accomplishing this is a real rarity. There's already too much unintentional stupidity on TV already. If you don't believe me, turn on your TV at any time during the day, and change the channel to UPN. Did you do it? Good, you just lost the ability to do math. That's how powerful the wave of stupidity is that beams out of your TV from UPN. I saw that TPB made stupidity a central theme of the show's comedy, and avoided it.

Good stupidity has to be believable and outrageous, at the same time. It is both totally predictable and totally unpredictable, and when it's captured properly, it's almost too much to watch. This is written perfectly in the show.

2. Great actors

You know what I hate? When the description for a character on a show falls into something like this:

"Ricky is the perfect mental case. An idiot that is both blissfully ignorant of his shortcomings and mildly aware of them at the same time, his crazy schemes are always getting him into trouble"

Crazy schemes? Nooooo! Crazy schemes are horrible right? They're easy to see coming, they're unbelievable, they're annoying. Well, that's a pretty good description of Ricky, one of the three main characters on the show. And he's hilarious. This is partially due to the strength of the writing, but also by how believable the actor playing Ricky is. I'm actually told by my friend Dave that Ricky and Julian are real life trailer park people, but I haven't been able to confirm this, other than the fact that the actors are never seen in public out of character.

3. Nearly unbearable to watch

I like shows that are hard to watch. It's almost like a challenge in my brain between suffering through the disgust and appreciating it for what it is. TPB is constantly walking the line between unbearable and hilarious, and it's like the constant feeling of freefall. Again, thanks to the writing and the actors, things never break into the realm of pure disbelief - it's just pulled off too well.

Curb Your Enthusiasm

What is it: Curb Your Enthusiasm (CYE) is a show about Larry David's life after making Seinfeld. He's now a multimillionaire, but his outlook on life and attitude haven't changed a fraction, and he treats people and expects to be treated exactly the same as before he made his wealth.

Why it's funny: Larry David, the casting, no scripted dialogue

1. Larry David

Another personal hero of mine - Larry David understands and articulate comedy better than anyone else I've seen talk about it. I appreciate Jerry Seinfeld very much, but it's Larry David's edge that I think made Seinfeld a truly great show (plus a lot of other things that I'll talk about some other time). Larry David plays a charicature of himself on the show, and is incredibly believable. He's someone that tries to have an open mind, but will snap it shut as soon as things start to get difficult, or he passes judgement.

Most of Larry's problems seem to be a direct result of his own interpretation of the golden rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto yourself, except when it's difficult or you're irritated with them". Jason Alexader's Seinfeld character George, (who was based on Larry David in real life) is vividly apparent in many of the Larry's actions, and equally as difficult to watch at times.

2. The casting

So, by now we know how important I think believability is for humour. The easier it is for me to believe in something, the easier it is for me to buy into it, and the funnier it is when it's a ridiculous situation. Anyone can come up with a ridiculous situation like "Two rappers in outer space flying around". Making it believable is the hard part.

A good deal of humour comes from the casting of a show. You want actors that are believable in their roles (A good example of how to completely rape this rule is to look at the casting done for Scooby Doo (Now with 4 different varieties of Freddy Prinze Jr!)), and you need them to be able to pull off the timing and lines that are written for them. There's a two way relationship between the actors and the writers - the writers have to understand the actor and the character as a pair, and write lines for them that meet in the middle of this divide. The actors have to understand the writer has written and see why it's funny - if they're not good at this, their timing will be off, and what may have been hilarious on paper will be dead air on the show.

CYE has a bit of an exception to this rule, due to the fact that no dialogue in it is scripted (which we'll get into in a sec), but the casting is still spot on, and the actors do an incredible job with their dialogue. Since that is all improvised, casting the right people for the right roles is even more important.

3. No scripted dialogue

People always ask how a show could even exist without a script. CYE has a script, it just doesn't contain dialogue. There's a general idea of what points need to be coneyed in each scene, as well as what needs to get done, but that's it. All of the dialogue is improvised by the cast.

This in itself has an intrinsic value to me, just because I really appreciate that kind of talent and ability. Beyond that though, the need for translating a writer's words into something funny on the show is removed - the actors (who are all hired because they are very talented, funny people) understand what funny is, and are free to directly make use of that talent.

Unscripted dialogue has a tendency to lend a much more realistic feel to a show as well. The reaction you get from an actor to a given line that they have studied and are anticipating is much different than the one you get from a line that was just improvised. Chuckles and laughs break out of the mouths of the actors, and this makes the dialogue feel much more believable (which makes sense, since it's a far closer model of how we all have conversations).

Mr. Show.

What is it: Mr. Show is the sketch comedy written by David Cross and Bob Odenkirk (a long with a few other people I think). David Cross is a personal hero of mine - he's very intelligent, he does his own thing, he's very funny, and he's willing to speak his opinion.

Why it's funny:

1. Very good timing

When I was a kid, I always read about comedians, and what the elements were to comedy that make something funny. Timing was always mentioned, but I never fully understood what this meant. Shows like Mr. Show have taught me what this is. Timing is a critical component of being funny. Waiting an extra three seconds can be the difference between really good laughs, or a dead joke floating in the water.

Mr. Show's timing is impeccable - unlike every other sketch comedy show I've ever seen (seriously, not once have I seen a show emerge unscathed from this), none of the skits in Mr. Show go too long. Saturday Night Live is notorious for this - you've gotten the joke, you see where it's going, there's nothing more to do, except that SNL lets the skit run on for another three minutes. Oh, I get it, now they're still trapped on a deserted island, and they're still going crazy, you're just showing me more of that. Haha!.

For the best and most clear example of timing I've seen, watch David Cross on Arrested Development. In the pilot episode, there's a scene of dialog between him and Jason Bateman where Jason says something to David along the lines of "Maybe you can go as a pirate" (jokingly), to which David pauses and finally replies with "I hadn't packed for that". The timing on this is perfect - David Cross is a pro!

2. Excellent writing

This kind of pairs with the previous item, though timing relies a lot on the delivery of the actors, whereas writing is done statically before the show. Regardless, Mr. Show had a great writing staff. Every episode meanders in ways that are completely unexpected, and it's a constant surprise seeing which direction they are taking it. The best example I can think of is a sketch where the Dalai Lhama and his monks have to defeat the Fat Kid camp from across the lake in the 51st summer olympiad. The events? A two man baloon race (1 point for the victor), a bike race (1 point for the victor) and the freestyle rap-off (100 points to the victor). Booyah! You can't go wrong with a setup like that. Then to top it off, the fat kid's have hired a ringer to enter for them named "Professor Murder".

If you need more than this to convince you that you should watch this show, you won't like it, or you won't get it, or both - it's not worth watching if the above situation doesn't sound funny to you.

3. Very fluid

Mr. Show use transitions from one skit to the next, and does it seamlessly. The result is a much smoother show, and lets you stay absorbed in the show and its humour. When you break a scene, you give the viewer time to think about what they just watched and that removes them from the mindset of humour (remember, disecting humour makes it less funny).

The greatest show of all time, Arrested Development is not on here, along with a few other favorites, but these bad boys take a while to write, so they'll be included in a later update.

I put together a bunch of dance footage of things I've been toying around with last night, and will be writing about that as soon as I finish editing the clips and writing the entry. Things I'm covering this time are subtle movements, progress on my gliding, a few other things I'm working on, and a breakdown and critique of a new marionette walk I'm working on - should be pretty good.

What happens when you take a really good movie like Snatch, and you remove the wit of Guy Ritchie? A blog entry by me.

I've been waiting for Graham to bring me in a CD containing L4YERCAKE, but I get fed up waiting, so I just went and rented the movie myself. Below is my thoughts.

So what is L4YERCAKE? On the front, it's another movie like Snatch. It's gritty. It's witty. It's got underworld. It has stone cold characters that are able to spew witty lines whilst facing the barrel of their nemesis' gun.

That's what the cover of the DVD will tell you. You want to know what it is really? Putty's sex move in Seinfeld after Jerry forbids him from using his own move. It's an assload of fanfare, and nothing else.

L4YERCAKE sucks on so many levels that it's difficult to articulate them all, but I'm going to try, and part of the reason for that is that it's the first time I've been motivated enough to actually write in my blog. Turns out that anger and bile are stronger motivators than happiness and my cat's latest antic.

Anyhow, starting from the beginning, let's dissect L4YERCAKE. It starts out strong - it's got a keen soundtrack, and scenes set just like you'd expect from a really well-thought out Guy Ritchie movie. For some background, I think Guy Ritchie, when he puts his head to something, is brilliant. If you didn't like Snatch, I don't care about your opinion, and I think you suck. If you did, then you know exactly what I'm talking about. L4YERCAKE starts out giving you exactly what you want. Then it blows its shitty premature wad and leaves you wondering what the hell is happening. The main character is as stone-faced and calm as Turkish is from Snatch, but without any of the charisma or humour. The director of L4YERCAKE has totally missed the fact that Jason Statham's character from Snatch has personality. He has wit. His totally ice-berg-like stillness belies an intelligent, calculating, devious, and charismatic character. The main character of L4YERCAKE (I can't even remember his name, he's so non-descript) does none of this.

You get to see a load of actors, all of which you kind of remember from previous films, none of which dazzled you - you get Soap from Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels you get that crazy guy from Mean Machine that set the bomb in Danny Mean's locker, and a bunch of other actors you couldn't really give a shit about, because none of them have ever really done anything to make you sit up and take notice. Acting beside these guys, you've got a bunch of people that you'd swear you've seen in other movies, because they're styled directly from the characters that Guy Ritchie has thought up. Did you like Brick Top? Me too! He was calm. He had the worst teeth I've seen in ever, and he seemed to take pride in that. He'd smash your teeth out and feed you to pigs! What's not to like? Surprise surprise, there's a guy in this movie that fills the same roll, except he has none of the class that Alan Ford brings, and his teeth are fine.

What if we add three more actors that simultaneously try to fill the same role? Droopy, wrinkly faces, none of which impart the same singular menacing quality that Alan Ford does? That's right, NOTHING. This is the difference between a great actor and an actor that you hired for beer money. Delivering lines without showing emotion isn't as easy as most of these director's seem to think it is. Wes Craven and whoever dropped this steaming deuce onto a DVD haven't figured this out. There's a difference between the look on someone's face when you film a bad actor staring straight ahead and when you film a good actor doing the same thing.

Sometimes these actors do things that we're meant to believe are gritty, like hitting someone in the head with a hammer, but they do it with such a level of nonchalance that it's absolutely impossible to believe that it's anything but an actor playing his role. That really seems to be the main failing point of this movie - there is literally no point throughout the movie where it's possible to feel that any of the events are actually real. The dialogue is polished to the point of being contrived, as are every single action the characters carry out. Everything about this movie is contrived, and that's the opposite of what you want to see in a movie like this. Worst yet, when it's not contrived, it's ridiculous. How about dialogue like this: "How do I know you're not wearing a wire?" "Well, I'm not" "Well, I guess we'll have to trust each other". WTF?? Search that bitch! You've got a huge gun and bodyguards! You don't have to trust him.

It makes me mad that a lot of people will try and rationalize the things that suck about this movie, and mad that the producers of this movie thought they could blatantly rip off Guy Ritchie's original directing and sell it to the public succesfully. It makes me even angrier knowing that the producer's are right, because for every person like me, there's at least ten that thought this movie was dark, gritty, and daring. Screw them, I hate those people.

Here's the most important point of this movie. People that watch it and tell you they liked it will typically fall into one of two camps. They either thought the movie was all around great, or they thought the shooting and cinematography was great. I put cinematography into quotes, because I hate that word, and because it seems to be the latest easy way for someone to sound like they have good taste (Oh my god, it had the best cinematography. Also, I hate Bush! I'm smart right?). However, a good movie, cinematography does not make. L4YERCAKE does have excellent cinematography. It's well shot, uses excellent angles and effects. It even almost generates feelings of suspense using the right camera shots, and imparts qualities of distance, proximity and franticity (is that a word?). That doesn't make this movie good. This doesn't even make the movie worth watching once.

If you like dark, gritty, underworld movies, do yourself a favour and avoid L4YERCAKE like that weird bird flu - go and watch Boondock Saints, Snatch, and Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels. Rent Memento, Following, and Snow Falling on Cedars, and see what good cinematography mixed with good acting can actually produce. This movie is both boring and polished at the same time - the best analogy I can think of is Ocean's Twelve - if you get off watching actor's on screen that look pretty and spout lines with a cardboard technique matching that of the dialogue in A Life Aquatic, this is the movie for you. If not, spend the next ten weeks practicing the cyclone spin-kick, and then use it on people that tell you they liked this movie.

What with the Pope's death and everything, there's been a huge in-rush of religious based writings on the web. I have this weird obsession with a specific type of religious belief, and that is over-the-top evangelical (and in my opinion, typically hypocritical) christianity. Good examples of this sort of religious belief can be found on sites like Way of the Master (starring Kirk Cameron!), and at Jack Chick's inadvertently hilarious comics.

It's my own personal belief that if something as incredibly complicated, beautiful and unthinkingly vast as the universe was in fact set in motion by an intelligent (though not necessarily benevolent) creator, he surely couldn't be as petty and narrow-minded as these types of beliefs make him out to be.

If you read through some of those Chick tracts, you'll see he's even got a few comics that make points like this one: "Live as good a life as you like - if you don't welcome Jesus into your heart before you die, you're still going to hell". I just find it impossible to believe that an entity capable of creating our faculties of logic, reasoning and humour would then turn around and insist that we discard our use of them in favour of blind worship. Surely someone giving me the ability to be skeptical would want me to make use of that gift.

I choose not to believe in the type of god that this these types of beliefs are selling because I find him to be sadistic, malicious, narrow-minded, and unintelligent - not only that, but I think it's an insult to any being capable of this level of creation to be thought of in that light. My intelligence and reasoning refuses to let me believe that somethign fitting that description could be responsible for everything that I see around me. Above all that, it just seems so naive and ignorant to turn to people and say "Although there are literally thousands of interpretations out there, we're the only ones who have gotten it right, and if you don't follow our way, you will surely burn in hell for eternity".

In any case, I don't normally talk about my own belief's and spirtuality on here, for a number of reasons:

• Most people probably don't care


• It has a tendency to generate conflict


• I believe in practicing tolerance of other people's beliefs


• Most importantly - I don't like it when other people push their beliefs on me, and try to avoid doing the same thing

The last point may be moot, since this is my own blog, so I can pretty much say whatever the hell I want. Oh well.

So, cruising the net last night, looking for a new dose of crazy fundamentalist christianism, I came across some parodies of the Jack Chick tracts. Some of them sucked, some of them were hilarious, but I thought that this one writer made some really good points when posting about his own beliefs, and so I blatantly took it from his site and posted it here:

I believe the people that push their religion in others' faces go against the actual teachings and example of Jesus. This makes them hypocrites of their own faith.

It's not the sinners, the homosexuals, or the New Agers fault we're going to "hell in a handbasket". It is the fault of each and every one of us. Those who point fingers, those who condemn, and those who ignore it all – and everyone in between. It is all of us. It is our problem and only "we" can fix it. Together.

Some of the facts that the author points out may or may not be accurate (I don't know if Jesus did or didn't preach the old testament), but that's beside the point - I think that the author really has it spot on in his belief that the literal interpretation isn't what is important. God may be a divine being, or it may simply be an abstract principle, but either way it helps represent a set of principles and values that we should try and live our lives by. Regardless of what the ultimate outcome is, and whether god is a he, she, magnificent goat-lord, or mathematical formula describing the unified theory of the universe, we should still be trying to make the most of the opportunity we are given when we enter this world.

That's all for now, other than that I should clarify that I'm not trying to pick on Christianity here - any religion (or doctrine of any sort) taken to extreme is a negative thing, in my opinion - it's just a lot easier to find this kind of material on Christianity because of how widespread it has become, and because it's the dominant western religion.

By the way, if you want to see some of my favorite Chick Tracts, I highly recommend Dark Dungeons (get out while you still can!), and The Sissy (great for truckers and bikers!). Very funny stuff.

I was just informed that I gained four gold pieces by CHaN! I'm so happy. I'm going to spend those to buy a twenty-sided dice. Any dungeon master worth his weight in geldings is never without his twenty-sided dice. If you got that reference, you're an extremely cool person.

I'm biding time at work, trying to determine what mysterious problem I'm up against at work is all about. The application we've developed works like a charm on every server here at our office, but the government servers really don't seem to want to cooperate with us. I'd geek out and explain it more thoroughly, but no one really cares, and neither do I.

While you wait for me to say something more interesting, look at this (click for a bigger picture):