Are You Smarter than a 10 Year Old?

I've deliberately avoided watching this show for a while, knowing it would be drivel from the title. But. My wife finds it amusing to watch idiots be idiots, and sat me down to watch an episode with her on the weekend. I made it almost 5 minutes into the show before I had to change the channel in rage. It took me almost 15 minutes to calm down enough to see what I was watching.

Why? As if it's not enough that the format itself is tedious and infantile, and that the contestants seem to be hand-picked for their ability to make a mountain out of a shitpile, they also let incorrect answers through as correct!

5 + 3 x 0 = ?

5. Not a moment's hesitation on my part. The contestant gets 15. Not really surprising; she's a 30-something hairdresser, and has a receptionist to count the takings each day. The child gets 0. An understandable mistake, but a mistake nonetheless, right? Wrong!

"You should have trusted the 10-year-old" Noel simpers. "She's right."

WHAT. THE. FUCK?!

And the maths education of children across the nation takes a hit as they gleefully inform their teachers over the subsequent years that all the fundamental rules of arithmetic are subordinate to the magic phrase, "Anything multiplied by zero is zero."

*click*

Am I smarter than a 10 year old? Apparently. And definitely Noel Edmond. And his adult producers too. And so are you!

What I Learned on our Trip to Amsterdam

• My mind is clearly too enamoured of this reality to allow me to play in any other, to the point of anchoring me to my body with intense bouts of nausea every time I try to leave.
• Cyclists can be a real nuisance when they have complete right of way over all other traffic, even pedestrians.
• Market forces making a cup of coffee more expensive than a marijuana joint - completely understandable, and yet still bemusing.
• Buying vodka is a matter of asking for stock to be retrieved from a secret stash; this gives drinking spirits in Amsterdam the illicit thrill that harder drugs lack.
• A gorgeous hotel room can make all the difference.
• I gained an even greater respect and appreciation for the non-smoking laws in the UK after breathing in cigarette exhaust almost everywhere we went.

I had a lovely time, but I see no reason to ever go back. Maybe Brian Aldiss had it right when he had his elderly archaeologist Daniel Potts remark in Super-State, "Travel does not broaden anyone's mind. It merely confirms one's prejudices." I would like to believe otherwise, but then I look up at my list and wonder.

Not quite a nightmare, but...

I just woke up from a dream in which I was learning to deep-throat thick, long cock! The physical sensation of getting just so far and then having to wait for the muscles in the throat and jaw to relax to allow the final push was startlingly real. I'm a little afraid of going back to sleep now.

The truly strange thing is that I woke up with a rather sore throat and jaw, which of course begs the question; did my sore throat provide the impetus for the dream, in the same manner as the ringing of an alarm clock can be transmuted into the tolling of a bell or a fire klaxon, or did the dream itself give rise to a conscious psychosomatic response? I'm leaning towards the latter, if only because as I'm coming fully awake, the pain is receding.

I love odd experiences like this, truth be told; not the cock-sucking, per se, but clear reminders that our perception of reality is far more fluid than we like to believe. It's both exciting and a little scary, but mostly fascinating.

*stops rambling now*

Tim Burton's Sweeney Todd

Something to fend off the post-Xmas blues:



Released in the UK January 8th...

Fireworks display at Alexandra Palace

Guy Fawkes' seems to have fully made the transition to Fireworks Night. There was no Guy, there was no Bonfire - ending the Bonfire Night incarnation of the event - but what fireworks! The display ran for over 20 minutes, easily 10 longer than the distant flares over Battersea Park, visible from our superb elevated position on the south side of Allie Pallie. Although still images can never fully carry the impact of the shocking bursts of light and thuds of sonic booms that make huge fireworks displays such a delight, I'll try to share a little of the wonder with you anyway:

click through for larger images, m'kay?

That's the second night this weekend I've had sore cheeks from grinning too long, after the James Thierree wonderland Friday night:



*satisfied sigh*

Milk the system!

Any company foolish enough to offer silly sums of money for the ostensibly impossible is ripe for a little exploitation. That this particular scheme seems to benefit someone in need is almost secondary. Almost. Take a look for yourself...

P.S. If you do decide to lend your support, it's dead simple to add the download link to your homepage list, so that you don't have to remember to do it every day. It'll kick in every time you load your browser!

compliments of egadfly:
And if you don't know about multiple home pages:

For Firefox: Lifehacker: How To Set Up Multiple Home Pages In Firefox

For Internet Explorer: why use it? Well, if you insist: IE7 Multiple Home Pages

Flickr Toys

Ah, the fun to be had at BigHugeLabs:









The original version of that last picture almost didn't make it into my Flickr album at all, but the frame saves it.

Surreal Estate

Full marks to Foxtons for ingenuity in advertising.

Free the rice, for the rice wishes to be free

This is so much FUN! I managed a peak word level of 47 before I ran out of time and had to return to work, but the score really didn't matter. What amused me most was seeing just how many words I knew without realising I knew them. In many cases, I simply chose the synonym that felt right, and it was. Some deep brain connectivity going on there.

Feast your eyes and ears

I imagine this must be quite an audiovisual treat live:





Welcome to Blue Man Group.

Just off Avenue Q

Corridor Q
Originally uploaded by sinplicity.

I must have had my camera eyes in this weekend, because I kept wanting to take photos of everything I saw. Just as well I never had a decent camera with me, else I might never have got home.

This is one of my very very few successful phone camera snaps, which came out exactly as it looked to the eye; a rare thing indeed.

*likes bright yellow a LOT*

Little demons that flutter in our ears

this mind dump brought to you compliments of a response to a lj-Polyamory post

Is it true that we have no obligation to anyone for our actions? I can think of at least 3 obvious exceptions to the statement in general (those to whom we've extended a contractual obligation e.g. married or legal partners, employers; those with whom we have a familial obligation e.g. our children and, to a lesser degree, our parents and siblings; those to whom we owe fiscal obligations e.g. creditors, service staff) and I'm fairly sure there are more, so I've narrowed it down to the topic under discussion:

Is it true that we have no obligation to anyone for the lovers we take?

I can see why this would be an attractive proposition. The current culture of human rights espousal in Western culture tells us that we have almost limitless rights to self-expression. Surely who we take into our beds falls into this category? If I want to sleep with you, then I have the right to do so, and anyone who says otherwise is trying to curtail a fundamental human right, and is therefore in the wrong. Why would I apologise for my actions to such a person. I am right.

There is no sarcasm or irony intended in that examination. I was trying to follow a logical path of argument stemming from the initial proposition, and it would seem that limitless rights of self-expression might just result in a complete lack of obligation for one's actions.

So why am I having such a problem with the concept?

Mostly, I think, because I believe that there is one obligation that I always owe, irrespective of how many others I might choose to accept, and that is my obligation to myself. I need to like the person I am in order to live with myself. I don't know that I could like someone who behaves, with full knowledge of the circumstances, in a way that is almost certain to cause pain to someone somewhere, even if there is no deliberate intention to cause pain or the person who will be hurting is not a friend. Just because our village is now so large that we don't know everyone in it doesn't make it okay to hurt someone in that village in a way that, up until the last few hundred years or so, would have been inescapable and unignorable. Not for me, anyway.

When I do cause unavoidable pain - and causing pain or offence is unavoidable as long as people can hold different opinions - I will always apologise for causing pain, even if I feel my actions are justified.

Maybe that's it; maybe that's where the logical dissonance arises. You say, "I would NEVER apologize to someone for who I had sex with", but I don't think that's what people are saying. I think they're saying, "Apologise for causing pain." Acknowledge that a wrong was perpetrated, and that unnecessary pain resulted, and go from there.

*doffs Logical hat, and unwillingly dons Opinion hat, handing out pinches of salt to be used as necessary*

I do think that it's a little naive to simply absolve yourself of any obligation to a dishonest lover's monogamous partner. I believe that the responsibility in any relationship lies equally with all participants. So, when you're sleeping with a monogamous individual who is cheating on a partner, and you do so in full knowledge of the fact, you are equally to blame for the transgression of the existing contract of trust. I know this is a judgmental statement, and I know we're supposed to be supportive and understanding of one another, given that we're all flying in the face of current social norms, but...

Every monogamous person who cheats on their partner with someone requires someone to participate in the act. If the cheating occurs without that participant being aware of the person's monogamous status, the word for that participant is 'victim', and no-one would ever hold a victim accountable for the acts committed against them. When the participant knows about the monogamy, and goes ahead anyway... well, alcoholics coined a word for 'those cunning, compulsive and malevolent compatriots we eagerly allow to drag us along to our willful destruction'¹ - enablers.

So the real question you need to ask yourself is, "Am I okay with being an enabler?" and not, "Do I apologise for who I have sex with?" The answer is, of course, still up to you - who the hell knows what's 'right' and 'wrong' anyway? - but answering it may give you a different perspective to your current view, and new perspectives are always handy!

*rips Opinion hat off and flings it savagely into the closet to resume gathering dust*

For the record, I HATE finding myself on the same side of the fence as the Moral Majority. It almost always means I'm looking at something the wrong way.

*waits eagerly for someone to help me back across*

¹Although alcoholics may have given us the concept of 'enablers', it is actually The Enablers who provided the quote. I am not implying any connection between the two.

I'm poly; where's the problem?

I see something like this, and I'm reminded just why I prefer my way to society's.

Nightmares and Dreamscapes

The photos taken at the party on Saturday are up on Flickr, under a Family and Friends filter, for reasons obvious to attendees. If you aren't able to see them, and wish to, please let me know.

You should see the barrage of stupid questions

Anyone who has ever worked as a store attendant/video rental jockey/nameless peon of some sort will appreciate the Acts of Gord. For example,

"I said it was stolen. I don't owe you anything! My mom said that when a game is stolen that I don't have to pay for it."

This actually happens, those of who who've never been clerks. Swear to Gord. Oh, and sheer perfectitude:

The Gord often wonders why people threaten to never come back after they've been told never to return.

Nods knowingly, and wonders why more employers don't do this:

"I'd like to drop off a resume."

"Sure."

"What are you doing?"

"I'm marking it."

He failed.

Book alerts

Month after month of looking for a copy of Atrocity Archives, and now I discover it was republished back at the beginning of the month! Needless to say, I bought me one, and pre-ordered The Jennifer Morgue while I was at it. Also, to my great delight, the final book in the Watches Trilogy caught my eye while I was comparing high street prices at Waterstones, so it will be mine also. Be advised, fellow readers.

The intrinsic problem with web apps

Is it just me, or is Facebook completely down at the moment? And there I was, wanting to share this with the Facebook community (because the irony is just too delectable) and learning an important lesson instead. I wanted to mock, not to learn! The unjustity of it all!

(3 minutes of angst and irritation later, and it's back. Another lesson learned.)

Two rights can make a wrong

It's funny how, sometimes, you can be completely right about something, and completely wrong at the same time. Take, for example, a heated discussion about the age of sexual maturity. It's a rather tricky topic, since different cultures have markedly different opinions on the matter. The one unassailable fact, though, would seem to be - for women at least - that menarche signifies the body's readiness to bear children. It would seem to follow, then, that any postponement of sexual congress is a consequence of societal constraints and very little else. After all, girls were married off at a terribly young age in most Western cultures as recently as a century ago (and still are in some African and Eastern cultures) and that seems to have done no real harm, right?

Well, as I realised on doing some further reading, that argument doesn't hold much water, for the simple reason that the age of menarche back then was substantially later than it is now; a relatively mature 17 instead of the almost juvenile 13 of today's youngsters. So arranging the marriage of your pubescent daughter didn't mean the same thing that it does now, and explains why - in spite of physical indications to the contrary - that the contemporary legal age of consent (and quite coscionably the social age of sexual maturity) is kept artificially high. How high is still a matter of open debate, but the argument for keeping it above the current physical age of puberty is sitting a little easier with me.

Spoiled for choice

Maybe all that hentai has shifted my arousal instincts, because I found this (NSFW!) appealing on every level, with not the slightest tinge of horror or disgust.

Scamming a scammer

A little project has been the source of much mirth, merriment and mockery for the last week. I'm almost sad to see it come to an end.