Wednesday, November 24, 2010

Motorola Droid: The M does it again!

Motorola started it all, and for years it was pretty much THE name in cell phones...

Then everyone started making them, Motorola fell a bit behind and got lost in the shuffle. But then along came a Droid, and it all changed. The Motorola Droid was born.

I'm not going to review the phone per say, there are about 100,000 reviews of this phone out there. And it's now an older phone, so pretty much I'm just posting up about what I think of the phone in general. The first thing about this phone is it's quite large. It's not for those that like smaller phones, and not being a flip phone it's not the greatest purse phone either. That large screen is just begging to be scratched or broke in a loose bag or even a pocket with change or keys. 

That's a good lead in to talk about the screen. In a! It's stunning. I'm sure there are better screens, but to be honest, I don't think it could matter much. Video, pictures, and everything else is as good as any computer monitor or TV I've seen. My only complaint might be the touch screen, it's.... different. You can't calibrate it, and it seems to me the screen is a bit off. It can be tricky sometimes, it often selects the item before and after the one you want. It can be annoying sometimes, but it's not terrible. It's also a little difficult to judge the correct pressure to use then working with the touch screen. Often it takes a bit more pressure then I think it should, even after 5 months using the phone.

The Android market is awesome, and pretty much every app works well with the Droid. The great thing about the Android market is that just about everything you could ever want ,you can find for free, or for just a couple of bucks at the worse. I have hundreds of apps currently, I think about 180-190 or so. I would say about the only down fall is once you get about 4-5 months into using the phone, you've got all the most popular apps... then it's just a bit of a hunt to find interesting new apps.

If your not a fan of charging your phone, or you want to use it for long periods of time and you can't have it plugged in....then this isn't the phone for you. I'm lucky to get a 10 hours without a charge. Even if not used, like overnight, still lucky to get 12 hours. Course if you turn off auto sync and GPS and what not I'm sure it would last much longer, but why have all the toys turned off? Many apps use the GPS and it's just much easier to leave it on. And auto sync? Once again, why turn it off? So I don't get great battery life, but to be honest it doesn't bother me. It's a small price to pay. 

The sound is pretty good on both the external speaker and the headphone jacks. Android doesn't give you much adjustably built in, but the stock sound is pretty darn decent. The built in players are OK, but there are many, many players to meet pretty much any need in you could image. Video is good as long as the source is good. The camera is pretty decent, video is better then average. I would have liked a bit better camera, but I'm not gonna complain too much, does it's job. 

It does reset from time to time. The keyboards are a bit iffy. The portrait keyboard is far to small, however the landscape one is ok. The slide out keyboard is really not bad at all, but now that I've gotten used to the auto-correct and complete I can't use the slider as well. Most of those features are parts of android, so not just specific to the Droid, but the slide out keyboard is. It's not perfect, but it's nice if you use it enough to get used to it. 

All in all I really like the phone, the call quality is ok, but you don't get a smart phone for calling, calling is an after thought. It an do some really amazing things, but I just want to cover the phone in a general way, not a specific review like the hundreds you can find everywhere. 

Monday, November 22, 2010

TopGear on History Channel, about time!

I caught the first TopGear show last night and it was pretty good. I think it might take awhile for the guys to hit their stride, but it's nice to see they are trying to get this show started on our side of the pond. It's been on the BBC since 1977!

The first episode pits a Dodge Viper up against a Cobra Attack Helicopter. The object? Take a 10 mile drive and try not to get blown up by the Cobra! 3 missile locks and you were out (used the army war game system). The Viper lost on the 3rd lock at 160 MPH on the runway at the finish. Pretty amazing stuff really.

The second part was just putting a top of the line Viper through their test track they will use for the rest of the show. They have a "masked driver" just called The Sting that drives all the cars on the test track. You never see his face and never hear his voice. I've read that is because they don't always use the same guy, but the concept is it's always the same guy to keep the test consistent. So if he's hidden, who's to know?? LOL

Buzz Aldrin came on the show, they talked a bit about his cars. And he test drove the POS they have for the stars to drive around the track. That was kinda cool.

Then they pitted 3 Lamborghini's against each other. The idea was to see how fast each could go through the standing mile. Came in at 173, 175, 180. Those were pretty cool.

Oh, and Tanner on the show??? He's a professional stunt driver. He is also a World Renowned Drift Racer (he did the Drifting stunts in Tokyo Drift for example). Why is that cool? Well, because the stuff he does is F'n AWESOME!!!! And this isn't a movie, he's doing this in real time, with real cars, and no camera tricks or CGI. Pretty wild to watch.

It's not gonna win any Emmy's, but it was fun!

TopGear website
Cobra Attack Helicopter
Buzz the Space Cadet

Monday, November 15, 2010

Movie Night: AVATAR

So I was watching Avatar again last night. Me and the wife had gone and seen it 3D when it first came out, but to be honest I had walked away feeling I had missed some stuff. In the theater I had distractions, like going to the bathroom (it is almost 3 hours long), getting condiments, dealing with the glasses themselves. As a side point 3D glasses and regular glasses don't mix well, it's very hard to get comfortable with them both on.

Well, we were looking for something to watch before bed and I notice it's on HBO, and I have HBO OnDemand, so I decided to watch it without distractions, and in 2D. And I have to say it was better the 2nd time around. I could pay a bit more attention to the story without all the distractions on and off the screen. You have to admit it might be one of the most beautiful and breathtaking movies of all time. The day scenes are great, but the night ones are amazing, simply amazing. Some of the creatures look a bit fake at night, but if you want to be a purest, they are alien anyway so who's to say what they should look like "real". We know of course they are CG, but when you are creating a alien race, only the imagination of the creator can be used to judge if it was captured correctly or not!

The only real complaint I have about the whole movie is his legs. I just couldn't help but think that the fact he couldn't walk took away from the story as a whole, instead of adding to it. I understand it was most likely a carrot at the start, to get him to take his brothers place. But money would have served as well. The story didn't need the carrot of Jake being able to walk again in an Avatar to get him there. In my world the overall story would have been better served if he had hated the Avatar at first, instead of loving it because it gave him legs.

Then of course you have the scene where the Colonel offers Jake his legs back right now as a reward for his info, all he has to do is go back home. So this may be the only part of the movie where the legs really make sense as a plot device.This is before he knows it's possible to transfer from one body to the other. And it's also before he has gone to the point of no return with the Colonel and the company. Before he declared for the Na'vi so to say.  This scene was somewhat watered down by the fact he wasn't yet choosing legs or the Na'vi. At this point the legs where waiting on him at home, but he decided to stay and try to help relocate the Na'vi peacefully. So his choice right now was legs now, or put it off a couple of weeks and help the people with whom he had lived the last 3 months. He's not choosing sides, all this scene has done is let the audience know he DOES have legs at home waiting. It would have held more power if we knew at this moment Jake was choosing the Na'vi over his new human legs.

However I guess it does serve the purpose of showing that his decisions in the end had nothing to do with the fact he had legs in his Avatar, because he could have walked away (or rolled away in this case) and had legs in his human body as well, But it does reinforce the fact the whole bum legs thing could have been left out altogether. Cause it brings into question if he really loved this world and it's people, or he just loved the fact he could run and jump and move around on his own again. Humans at least, in situations like that, can project their love for one thing on to other things involved in it. It's called projected emotions or transference. So it brings into question all of his reasons, and even his loves. But then again maybe that's also Cameron's intent (he's was the director and creator if you didn't know). Maybe he did that on purpose, just to make those that waded this deep question Jake's motives also. Not like we don't all know there will be at least 2-3 more of these moves, this story is far from done. I could see it going Starwars big, super space opera epic kinda big. If only he can capture the kind of story like he did with this first one.

Now I've had my go at the legs thing, so lets look at the story overall. Did it seem familiar??? It should, there have been hundreds of stories with the same basic plot. Why do we see it so often? Because it's based on true events that American School children grow up hearing about all their lives. It's the story of exactly what we did to the Native Americans starting back in the late 1600's to now. We wanted their land, so we moved them if we could and killed them if we couldn't. In the end we gave them the left over land we didn't want. It wasn't the first time humans had done that, it has been happening all the way back to the oldest reaches of our racial memory, there have always been people who thought themselves stronger and better then others, and wanted what the others had. Often land. So the were moved or killed, whatever was easier.

And the story of Avatar is the same, we come to other world, there are people there, abet alien people. We want what they have, in this case it's something UNDER the land, but it's the same idea. And we go about taking it. If not by reason then by force. The only problem is, we have nothing they want, we have no carrot to entice them with. They are a happy people who want for nothing, everything is provided for them by their world. And in this story at least, the big problem is not only are we destroying the world that takes care of them (on a small scale), but the "mother load" of what we want is directly under their "home tree", or the "building" where all of this tribe involved in the story live.

Now, from the story, tribes number small, about 200 or so natives I would think. I take this from when Jake said he had gathered 15 Tribes, or about 2000 Na'vi. That would be 134 per tribe exactly, but I'm guessing not everyone came. Someone has to stay home and keep things safe, then you have the kids, I didn't see any kids fighting. Then there are those too old to fight. So let's say 200 total in a tribe. I would have to think everyone else who could would have came, it was to stop us from ending their entire way of life.

And lets look at that way of life for a moment. Amazing really. I can't help but think if our world had been more like theirs we would have ended up much the same! They have a connection to their world we simply don't. They CAN talk to animals, and trees, and the world itself. Their world is a big, huge, organic super computer. A big brain if you will. Everything living thing on the world is part of this computer network. In fact when someone dies their memories and a undetermined part of them is "saved" into the computer. In this way they can "talk" with their ancestors. Nothing ever really dies then, just the shell dies, all the electrical stuff inside (brains, soul, whatever) is passed into the computer. This computer network in the movie is named Eywa (tree of life), and is more or less seen as a pagan god by the humans there. But the tree itself, and locations it seems in other places as well, are where the Na'vi can "inerface" with Eywa. Here they can pray, and sometimes it seems Eywa answers. They can also "hear" their ancestors here. But it doesn't seem they can talk with them like they did when alive. It's more abstract then that. The people themselves are gone, it's more a memory of them that is alive. My guess is you can access some of their memories maybe, but not THEM so to say.

The Na'vi themselves don't have a "direct" link all the time with Eywa it seems. Like with everything else they link with, including each other it seems, they link with something much like a "tail" that is wrapped in their hair. At the end of this long braid of hair is a thing that can link with other creatures and plants in their world. Like a permanent biological Eithernet or USB cord. Both females and males have it, but it seems to be involved in more then just linking. In the movie Grace says "Don't play with those too much or you'll go blind". But they link them with animals, and the Tree of Life as well as each other when they "mate" so it seems it is not just a function of reproduction. From the clues the movie gives, I'd say it's used during mating, so it can be sexual, but just so the pair can be more intimate then what we can do. The Link is just used to "bond". Maybe with them you don't have to ask what your partner likes, you would KNOW!! Weird thought huh? Feeling what they are feeling as you feel what they are doing to you also. I bet our population would soar!!

But just can't imagine they would stick their reproductive junk into all their animals and the tree of life too, but I guess only Cameron knows for sure. But if I was guessing, the reproduction happens with other equipment else where, but may need or not need this "link". Also of note, when they were "escorting" Jake under force, they held the knife against this "hair tail cord" thingie and not his throat. I would say cutting it kills the Na'vi.

Another aspect of the movie that isn't talked about directly is the size of the natives, and pretty much everything else. In this movie humans are small fry, shrimp. About half as tall as the Na'vi. We are dwarfed by the scale of this world. It never mentioned if it's a much larger world or not, but the Colonel says at one point that it is low G, so if it's got lower G then earth, it might allow and encourage larger growth. It also explains how even though they are much bigger, they can survive falls from heights by breaking their falls with leaves. However the way people and objects move in the movie it doesn't seem to be much less then earth gravity. Nothing like the moon at least. I wonder if you could be at .5 G if it would be noticeable? The moon is about .166 G and Mars is about .33 G. So if a planet was .5 G would we move noticeably different? Interesting thoughts.

How about the science?  Well, at least here they didn't break the rules too much. We can't cryo freeze anyone yet, and we can't build people from DNA yet either, but we are close enough to say that's very attainable by 2154, when the movie takes place. Also they state it takes 6 years to reach Alpha Centauri when thismovie  takes place. In in real life Alpha Centauri is the closest star system to us. (It's a Trinary star system  it's thought, but we can only see two. The third is found in the math. At worst it's a binary system) And it's only about 4 light years way. (4.37 in fact) so the 5 year 9 month travel time is doable since it's not faster then light and we don't currently know how to go faster then light.

So unless my math is wrong, they would have only been traveling about 76% the speed of light. Still fast at 141,000 Miles Per Second, or 8.4 million Miles Per Minute, or 509 million miles per hour....but it is POSSIBLE, since the comic speed limit SEEMS to be about 670 million miles per hour. (I did all the math on 186,000 MPS, where the real speed of light is 185,282) In 140 years I see this as possible but there is more too it then it seems.

First of all, you can't go from 0 to 141,000 MPS instantly, or even close to instantly unless you want to kill everyone on board, and destroy the ship, so that means at some point to make the 5 year 9 month target the ship must travel faster then 76% the speed of light to make up for acceleration time and deceleration time. And at those kinds of speeds a pebble could destroy a ship, so that would have to be dealt with. I suppose if it was big enough, and the hull thick, enough unless it was something big it might be OK. In Star Trek that big ol' dish on the front of the Enterprise was a deflector dish, and it's design was exactly this, to deflect the small space junk to keep it from destroying the ship. If we could ever do shields like in Star Trek and Starwars that would be another idea.

As a side note, depending on just how fast we COULD go, and how close we COULD come to light speed, the travelers themselves wouldn't lose much time, at least not compared to us. Time slows down for those traveling close to light speed. So what might seem a year to them could seem 12 to us. So lets say the trip is 6 years there and back. And they stay a year. So that 13 years. But they may only age say 4 years the whole trip. Depends on how fast they were going, right at light speed they may not age at all. Course the move doesn't say if it was 5 years 9 months THEIR TIME or OUR TIME. So it could have taken 20 years, but they only aged 5 years 9 months. So who knows. They know the time distortion affects of close to light travel (or any travel), and it works out it seem to be about 1:1300, or one year at 99% light speed is like 1300 years on earth. Or, if a person left earth, traveled at 99% the speed of light for one year and returned to earth, they would have aged 1 year, but 1300 years would have passed on earth....crazy right. It get's even more crazy, but we won't go there today!

So what is really going on with Pandora....who's time frame did the 5 years 9 months pass in? Yeah, it's gets crazy.

The best solution, travel faster then light....LOL

Well, this had gotten long enough, I have more to day but got things to do. But I wanted to share a least some of my thought with you all!

Avatar - Wikipedia
James Cameron

Sunday, November 14, 2010

Kubuntu: A OS Love Story.

Ubuntu is a Linux based operating system. The word Ubuntu means "Humanity". A variation of Ubuntu, that uses a graphical user interface called KDE, is Kubuntu. It means "Towards Humanity". I don't have much experience with other operating systems besides Windows and Kubuntu, but I love me some Kubuntu.

My Linux experience started mostly as a product of my own curiosity. I wanted to see what all the fuss was about. After some Google searches I discovered there were several different favors of Linux to choose from, and one of the "most popular" or most used was Ubuntu. So I downloaded that, it uses an interface called Gnome. I played with it a bit, then downloaded Kubuntu that uses KDE in place of Gnome. Same core OS, just different interface. I liked it better, it was a really breathtaking interface, so stuck with it. Still love the way it looks and how it works.

KDE, it's said, originally stood for Kool Desktop Environment. However as time moved on the project pretty much dropped the idea that KDE itself any longer stood for anything, and now it's considered the name of the project itself, standing on it's own and no longer an acronym. What a Desktop Environment does, in a nutshell, is unify the user experience. It's the place all the visual user interface stuff happens. With windows it's the desktop as a whole, and all the different aspects like the Start menu, task bar, windows, and notification area down by the clock. With later versions of windows it also includes any desktop widgets. 

The KDE Environment is visually related closely to Windows by default, in fact you can set it up to look almost exactly like your favorite version of windows. The advantages? You can also change it to look nothing like anything anyone has ever seen, and it's free verses $100+ for any version of windows. It also allows about a thousand ways to make it much more cool then windows ever was. If you like custom options, you got em. You can change all sorts of ways windows act and look. The entire environment is alive with possibility. And it just plain looks really good. You can easily set up multiple desktops and switch to them in inventive ways. Pretty much if you can dream it, and got some time, you can do it.

The core OS is still Ubuntu, that is based off of Debian, that is based off UNIX if you go back far enough. There are other distributions out there, such as RedHat, Mandriva, Slackware, and SUSE just to name a few. Mostly it's a matter of taste, and in some cases the computer you run it on. Some distro's run only on "top of the line" systems, some others can run on almost nothing (Puppy, Lubuntu).

The best part of Linux and all it's flavors??? It's FREE!!!! There are some distro's where you can pay and get support, but for all intents and purposes it's 100% free. And that's surprising really. There are corporations involved in some or most of the distro's, but mostly they serve in an over-site role, mainly to keep a common focus and to keep things moving towards certain goals.

Linux gains more market share every year. I'm not sure if that's because it's becoming more user friendly, or because the average user has become more computer savvy. I can't lie and say in general it's just as easy to setup and run as Windows in most cases, but it's not much harder. Mostly it's the little things you have to work on, and that happens with windows sometimes too. But because hardware manufactures are much more likely to spend their time and money on drivers for Windows then they are for Linux often it takes more time for new hardware to become stable on Linux distro's. Often the hardware mfg's. don't even bother with drivers, but instead let the developers of the different lines of Linux write their own.

So you could say Linux's biggest problem is that it's not big enough. That is changing slowly, and Linux is becoming more main stream. The Linux hard core fans might not like that, but it's good for the community in general. The more people who use it, the more people who will get involved with it. And the more people who become involved the more people who will work on developing it. Better for all.

Some interesting facts:

Android phones run on a version of Linux developed by Google for phones.

It's estimated the cost to code most versions of Linux today would be in the ballpark 13 or 14 billion. That's just the cost to code it, not including research, testing, etc. Just the base system itself, just the OS, would cost about 1 billion. Linux was written pretty much by volunteers, so the true cost was much closer to 0.

Market share of Linux is more or less holding at %1, but Linux use is growing because the overall USE of computers is growing.

Seem small? MacOS is only at about 5%

Kubuntu Website

Wednesday, November 10, 2010

Late Night Host Main Event!! Rumble Under the Stars!!

It's just never been the same since Johnny left. Oh Johnny how we miss you. The whole late night dog and pony show was created by Johnny Carson, and no one has ever been able to fill his shoes. I remember the last few years of The Tonight Show well, and Joan Rivers was a much better guest host then Jay, but I guess it was still too 1950's then to have a permanent female host. Jay couldn't even hold a candle to Johnny, no one could.

It's a testament to Johnny that he's the only host I've ever seen to HAVE guest host.... The Tonight Show was a machine that had to go on with or without its regular host. In it's day if you were going to become someone you had to do The Tonight Show. Johnny Carson would make or break you. Today if a host needs to be away they just play reruns. Could you imagine Conan guest hosting Letterman?? LOL Think not. I think most host today would be afraid to have a guest host, what if they got better ratings? But Johnny never had to worry about that, no one was going to TAKE the reigns until he GAVE them up.

So look what we have today, Jay and Conan drama. Letterman and his Heir apparent Craig Ferguson. Conan now on TBS with George Lopez. Then there's the other players like Jimmy Kimmel, Jimmy Fallon,Jon Stewart, and Carson Daly. All doing what only Johnny Carson used to do. None with his power, but Jay and Letterman coming out on top of the heap.

I really don't have much love for Jay Leno, you can't hardly make me watch his show. I never liked him even when he guest hosted the Tonight Show, just can't watch his show at all. I liked Conan back in the day ok, when he still had Andy on the show, I found it really, really stupid, but I could watch it. For most of my adult life I really enjoyed David Letterman. However I've started to not enjoy his show in the last few years. I don't know if I've gotten older or he has, but he just doesn't entertain me quite like he used too.

Now George Lopez I've always enjoyed, but like most late show host he did great when he was a comic and had all year to write one hour worth of material. But now having to do 15 minutes a night, 5 days a week, even with writers...Well, he has his moments, but he suffers out there. I do like his interviews, but he seems a little awkward with his guest still. I do like his set, and he draws good guest and good acts.

Conan, well, he's Conan. I have watched his new show, and it's pretty good. I will say TBS has really opened up the purse strings on Conan and Lopez tonight. They have the best sets of all the Hosts, and really do draw some good guest. TBS, owned by Warner Bros. has a lot to do with that I'm sure. On his first show back on later night, over on TBS, he did play with the band (guest band) and he ROCKED. He plays a really good guitar and can sing..who knew? Conan and Lopez seem to be seeing (at least to the public) their two hour block as a late night "power hour". They talk about each other and promote each other. Even do bits together. That's pretty cool. Lopez seems a little star stuck by Conan really, like he knows he's the new guy. But I think it comes off pretty well.

Now my man Craig Ferguson, now HE'S the man. I really do think he's the best of the lot. His monologue isn't just jokes, it's a whole physical/mental/silly comedy act, with a little naughty dirty edge. He ad libs everything, doesn't seem to believe in Q cards or scripting anything. His guest often complain because he rips up the "guest cards" and doesn't follow any plan on the interviews. He flies totally by the seat of his pants and it shows. You can even tell his monologue isn't scripted, he just goes out with a general idea and runs with it. He brings out he dirty worst in his guest. I recently say an actress on his show and she was pretty naughty and a little slutty on his show. The next night she was on Lopez and seemed like a innocent little church girl. Almost seemed like a different actress, she even acted and talked different. It was kind of weird. He cusses like crazy (it's bleeped of course) and so do his guest. His show is just down right real and funny. I think we see the real people on his show. He brings out the real in people....LOL

Of interest, Craig seem heir apparent to take over The Late Show when Dave turns in his desk. Most of the other shows don't have someone working in the wings for the spot. And you got to admit I'm not sure Dave has that many seasons left. He seems to be winding down.

John Stewart is considered a late night host, but for whatever reason I don't really see his show like the others. It's more a skit then a show to me. But he has a good following and I do enjoy him when I watch. He kind of breaks the mold, his show to me is more like a comedy news shows. It's a little TOO political/news orientated to classify as a true late night show to me. But he's is funny!

So, who are the top dogs? Lets go to the numbers...

Currently Dave and Jay have been duking it out, pretty much running neck and neck since he's been back. But Jay has been dropping viewers lately and for the first time at the end of October Dave beat him. Of the "after" shows Craig really comes out on top, beating or tying his competition most of the time. Overall his 1.8 mil total viewers edge out all others, but that isn't always the "target" ages advertisers want. Be even there he pretty much ties it up. Jon Stewart also fits in this mix viewer wise, falling just a tad short. Colbert trails everyone with about 1.2 mil viewers.

Lopez is trailing the established shows, but is still doing well. His show has brought much needed life into TBS's late night viewership. And with him and Conan together it's going to be something for the others to contend with. The landscape of late night is changing with Comedy Central and now TBS in the fray.

Mostly likely the changes will harm Dave the most, Letterman views have a better chance of switching to Conan's show the Leno views do, Dave and Conan have more in common. But you never really know, sometimes there is just no accounting for taste! LOL

Leno's Tonight Show
Dave's Late Show
Craig's Late Late Show
Lopez Tonight
Jimmy Kimmel
Jimmy Fallon
Last Call with Carson Daly
Jon Stewart's Daily Show

Location : Address not available

Monday, November 8, 2010

Size DOES matter.... and science IS religion.

Size is a funny thing, and more than anything else it's based almost entirely on perspective. Small to us is huge to an ant. And whats huge to us is small to the whale. But it goes even deeper, because at the core of things it all breaks down. Our science only truly explains things in our size range, once you get sub atomic, or universal, the numbers start to fall apart.

And that, my friends, is why Science is Religion. I don't care what branch of science you look at, nor what "certain" knowledge you think they have, at some point it distills down to theory, and what is theory but faith? And faith is the basis of religion.

And who knows, maybe 2000 years from now they are going to look at our theories and chuckle about how quaint it was we thought the way we think. Much like we look at the Greeks and their gods, or those that believe the earth was flat.

It comes back around to "The more we know, the more we find out we know nothing!"

Most of us except science as a black and white thing. If they say it's true then it is! But that is far from the truth. It's like if your looking at an ice berg, you can measure what's above the water, you can see it, feel it, taste it and touch it. But let's suspend reality for a moment, and lets say you CAN'T see below the water. So all you can do is guess at what's down there. You can theorize about what's down there, but that's all in the end, just best guesses.

Now let's take this a step closer to our subject. Let's now say you not only can't SEE below the water line, lets say all the rules change below the water line as well. None of the rules you can use to figure out what's what above the water line seem to hold true below. Now one more little step, this ice burg is really big, and there's a skyline as well. And like the water line, you can't see past it, and the rules get funky up there too.

So now we come back to size. You see no mater how small you go or how big you go, you hit a water line or a skyline. As time marches on and we figure more out, the water line gets pushed back, and so does the sky line, but they are always still there, and seem to never really end.

So what does that mean?? The truth of today might later become a loose rule, then be proved incorrect all together. Our current waterline seems to be sub atomic, and our sky line? About 100 million years from the big bang. Course that's just OUR side of the bang, what's on the other? We haven't even gotten to the edge of the universe yet, what's beyond that? What are we going to find once we can see beyond sub atomic? And why do all the rules we have that work fine from the water line to the sky line seem to go out the window once we try to push beyond them?

At least on the big side of things it all seems to work mostly how we think they should. There is still lots of holes in the math, but when you can find planets in the sky just because of how the OTHER planets move and act, well that's getting in the ball park. I think once we go beyond the "edge", that's when the math will go really strange. In sub atomic studies, the math just gets all crazy. Nothing seems to hold true at that level. It's like having to have two sets of books, one for above and one for below, and they don't balance.

They don't even "know" what gravity is, or how it really works. They can prove it's there, they can measure it, and they can math it, but they don't KNOW WHY. There are theories, but still that's all they are...theory....and theory is faith! Look up something you really have an interest in, then follow it down. At some point it stops being fact, and becomes theory. ALL of it, all of everything.

Why does the speed of light never change, no matter how fast you are moving towards the light source or away from from it? I mean really?? Everything else if you move towards it, and it's moving towards you, the perceived closure rate is the two speeds added together. So if you are going 40 and they are going 40, then you closing at 80. But not light (or other EM stuff). With light if you are moving at 185,000 MPS away or towards the source the measured speed of the light is still 186,000 MPS.

And if your in a car traveling light speed, and turn on the lights.....what happens?? LOL

In all other things known to man, the light would come out and be measured at  372,000 MPS, but not light, nope. Well first of all the car COULDN'T travel light speed, since mass can't travel the speed of light. But still...LOL

Oh, and then there is the nice little thing about E=MC2 and the general rule of relativity about mass and why it can't travel the speed of light. How does something GAIN mass the faster it travels. I mean I know I GAIN mass by eating, but by just traveling?? And the theory, the bible of science, says something with mass would become infinitely  massive right as it reached the speed of light, so it could never go the speed of light without infinite energy to propel it. So even in space, with no friction or other resistance, the faster you make something go, the more energy it takes.

So something grows heaver as it goes faster.....oh, and time slows down too. Oh yeah, the Greeks were crazy.... sure.

I'm not by any means saying science is wrong, or that believing in it is wrong. But people view it as a constant, 100% correct view of the world, and that when they hear science says something, they take it as gospel. The problem with that is the same problem with religions in general. People don't questions enough, and it slows the learning down, or stops it completely.

Just saying see it for what it is.

The truth is out there, find it for yourself!

Location : 1411-1599 Prairie Creek Dr, Rogers, AR 72756,

Saturday, November 6, 2010


So all my life I've heard reference to this Doctor Who.... To be honest for most of my life I had assumed him, for some unknown reason, to be a Bond Villain...  Funny right? Over 30 some odd years of these obscure references I had somehow never caught on it was a show. In my own defense when I had heard it mentioned it was in passing, or with an assumption the audience already knew who it was.The Doctor I mean. I had never seen an episode nor ever heard anyone talk about it in any detail...until recently....

Turns out some of my Co-workers are die hard Doctor Who fans, and recently I had overheard some in depth discussions about the show, and I started figuring out he wasn't, in fact, it seems, a Bond Villain after all.  Imagine my surprise to discover he was a time and space traveling mad man....and I had missed this somehow all this time!!!! As soon as I had figured it out, off to my trusty DVR I went, and guess what got added to my list!?!?

Of the revived series I've managed to catch most of Season 4, all of season 5, and now they have started playing Season 1 again from the beginning. I still have yet to see any of Original Seasons 1-26 with the exception of the very fist one from 1963, the black and white "The Unearthly Child". That's not from lack of trying, just a lack of finding. I wasn't too impressed with the acting nor the story, but I suppose if it lasted for 26 more years that it got better.

The revived series is kinda like "The Next Generation" was for Star Trek. The Original Doctor Who ended in 1989, and was revived for a single movie in 1996, then revived for regular serial play again in 2005. The  revived show will be on it's sixth season starting this spring. And I've got to say, it's just about the best show I've seen on TV. It is kind of an acquired taste, the special effects sometimes are a little on the strange side, mostly it seems to me as homage to the original series, but slowly it also seems they are updating, at least they came up with some new more modern Dalek's! LOL Course they still are aliens you would still mostly expect to find in a museum of Science Fiction before finding them on a modern TV show. From what I've seen in pictures of past episodes, most of the humanoid races look much more real in the new series, but the robots...well.... they just don't scream "today" in any way. But that is also a part of the series charm. You do get the feel they are trying to pay homage to a past long gone in television history. A time of bad, BAD special effects! LOL

Ok, to be fair, at times the acting of new characters seem a There are a few exceptions (River Song for example), but you kind of notice the actors seem to make the role theirs over a few episodes. It's like at first they are trying to be what the writers are trying to make them, then they find their pace and then the writers start writing the roles FOR them, the way they see themselves. It starts out like they are wearing someone else's clothes, but are getting a new outfit tailor made as they move along. I've read this is in fact how it's done on set, to a point. There are some general character outlines, but the actors seem to flesh it out as they find the character. None more so then the Doctor himself.

There have to date been 11 Doctors. Really it's quit brilliant, when an actor needs to leave the show, you just simply kill him off, and he "regenerates" into a whole new Doctor, with new body and new personality but all the memories from the previous Doctor's. How better to be able to make a TV show last 31 years and counting??? If the actor for the Doctor leaves, no problem, we can make a new one! If the "companions" of the doctor need to problem there either. The doctors companions come and go about every 1-2 seasons anyway. So in this way the show is always reinventing itself, but keeping the same overall Idea in place. Brilliant! Just brilliant! Would The Next Generation have been the same if Patrick Stewart had left?? I think not, there have only been two captains in Star Trek, well I guess three now if you count the movie, but he's a alternate reality Kirk, so not really new as different. But I guess Star Trek itself is taking a page out of the Doctor Who book and figuring out ways to keep the story going as actors come and go, and as they age as well.

Oh, and the stores....well I can only vouch for the ones I've seen, and I will admit it seems they get better as the series runs, the first ones were a, really. I do like the new doctor though, he's a very interesting doctor. Doctor 9 that is (Season 1). I really liked doctor 10  also, he was the doctor for 3 seasons (seasons 2-4) and left manly to do other things and because he felt "it was time". I also like 11, the current doctor (season 5-?), he is the youngest doctor to date (actor wise). It's not a "true" trend, but overall as the Doctor gets older (character) the actors get younger. It's not 100%, but is a general trend. Wonder if it's on purpose or not?

But back to the stories.... some just really have lesson to teach sometime, like a modern day parable. Now it's nothing new mind you! Nothing we haven't heard before in one way or another. But it IS interesting in some respects, seeing that the main focus of the series is an alien himself, and even though he has a great love for humans, he will sacrifice them for the greater good, or a higher good, if needed. Except for "My favorite Martian",  "Mork & Mindy" , "Alf" and "3rd Rock from the Sun" I can't think of any other series where the focus is mostly on an alien. And those others are all comedy's, while Doctor Who is much more serious even while it is funny. Also the other shows were about aliens stranded on earth, while Doctor Who happens all through time and space.

However it just seems to me somehow, maybe because of being an hour show, or maybe because of something else, it just drives home the moral lesson much stronger and harder then other shows I've watched. Some of the Doctor Who episodes REALLY made me think. I mean REALLY think, sometimes for days. When you really come down too it, we are one hunk of rock, one of 9 at that, spinning around a common yellow sun. In a common galaxy, in a common universe. There are billions and billions and billions of suns, just like ours. And billions of galaxy's just like ours. We are a speck of dust in a unending desert. The only beings that find our existence even the tiniest bit interesting is ourselves. The rest of the entire whole of everything could care less. I guess it's just fun to see what the one being, who knows all the rest of everything, thinks and does when he's chosen to be our champion in the universe. Even if his perspective is written by one of us anyway. LOL

It's fun to think about, and it's fun to watch, and Hell, it's fun to jump around in time too. All these things have been done before, but no one does them quite like the Doctor.