Saturday, July 12, 2008

testing something out. check side of page

Added a shout box, for shits and giggles

Thursday, July 10, 2008

Monday, July 7, 2008

Wednesday, July 2, 2008

37... shit man

Michael Turner: 1971-2008

Thought most of us would not know this man. The moment they reads this Mike and Will will do a double take then swear profusely!

Tuesday, July 1, 2008


Conversations on the weekend turned to cricket.
Many people are like... ok... how the fuck is it played?
So heres the Baseball players translation. (using 60 over limit)

Base ball if it was cricket
Instead of innings you just let the home team go to bat for as many outs as it would take for them to finish 9 innings. Then do the same for the Away team. Most runs when all the 2 teams allotted outs are up determines winner

Each team has 60 overs. Each over is 6 pitches (so 6x60 = 360 pitches). When your overs are... over you switch. Each hit can beworth up to 1+ runs. You hit ball, you run to far end = run. If you can make it back before the ball returns you get as many runs as you can run. If you hit it to the rope at the outside of the park your awarded 4 automatically, if you hit it over the rope you get 6.
Wickets/outs (if your looking for a baseball analogy)
Each team has 11 players (or 11 wickets). They go to bat in sequence against the Bowler (usually best to worst). You are out 2 ways. The ball hits the wicket (or would hit the wicket), or you are caught out. If the ball knocks over the wicket (odd thing behind the batter) your out. If you miss the ball with your bat and the ref thinks the ball would have hit the wicket if it hadn't bounced of your leg.... your out. If you hit the ball and before it hits the ground again someone catches it... your out. Each out is called a Wicket. Once out you leave and go get a drink, next up on the roster takes your place. If a team is knocked down to only 1 wicket left and it still has overs left. They forfeit all remaining overs and are out. (so you can push them out before their alloted overs are up)

Thats it. Thats cricket in a nut shell.

Theres lots of small fiddle bits, and techniques, but if you walk in on a match you can with the above get the gist of whats going on.

Now this is limited 60 overs. When you hear of cricket matches going for days. Its unlimited overs. You play until all your players are out. That (if your bats men are really good, can take days)

So knowing this, you can be aware of just how fucking stupendous it is to watch a bowler Knock out 4 batters in 4 bowls in a worldcup final. We are talking a game where each batter is expected to get the team 30-50+ points. and for 4 batters they got FUCK ALL (he also nearly took out 5 by 1.5"). The cafeteria at work was going insane. Imagine a packed Italian bar, and italy score not once, not twice , not three times but 4 times in 30 seconds. the place would be a fucking insane asylum.

Misssster. Cosmos

So i started watching Carl Sagans Cosmos.. and i' not sure I can go any farther... it took me 2 episodes to realize it, but the guy sounds like Agent smith from the Matrix.

Though he does answer a good question to throw a wrench at creationists that use that stupid (and over used) tornado in a junkyard making a car bit. Berkley in just about 2 hours through controlled experimentation with the Gases present at the beginning of our world have created massive amounts of basic Nucleic acid... 2 hours! and the planet had 2 billion years to go at it.

I personally subscribe to Darwin's and Robert J. Gould's beliefs on the matter. "Life began and progressed through the evolution and Natural Selection through a means that we may call chance". Gould and Darwin (though poor Darwin's words are largely forgotten in hyperbole) stress heavily the "That we may call chance" part.
The universe looks like a massive ball of happenings that occur in such marvelous randomness that we may attribute to pure and simple % or in musings of the divine hand of a god or maker. Which side of the argument you are on rest solely upon "what you may call faith".

A nit pick that irked me in Cosmos was during his second episode (nothing wrong with the show, just what he's saying). A while back I read a article about evolution that went far and beyond the lengths of its purpose to hammer home a point about a common mistake in many evolutionary speeches. The speech may be correct, but wrong at the same time. May people say (or subscribe to) the saying that a fish learn to crawl onto land. (fish example is just one of the examples).
This is technically right, and wrong! Yes the fish did learn to crawl onto land, but! Only because of a genetic defect, that the one time it was washed up onto shore, its new flaw allowed it to survive. Then once surviving it used this to breed more in a safer means, thus preserving the trait.
To say a fish learned to crawl onto land and thus began to live on land starts down a very slippery slope to Lamarikism (a theory of evolutionary thinking that has been totally thumped, but keeps coming back like a retarded B-movie zombie).
Lamarkism can more easily be summed up with this simple story.
  • Leafs are high
  • giraffe grows long neck to reach leafs
  • Longer neck, means giraffe survives to breed more giraffe
Wrong! Darwin would be rolling over in his grave. its supposed to go.
  • Random horse has long neck
  • Reaches higher leaves
  • More abundant food means him and his genetic offspring survive more.
  • Through progressive breedings his trait is passed on thus creating the breed of giraffes.
Lamark the dork mister screwed up evolutionary thinking even today. I ran smack dab into it at work a year ago with a co-worker who thought just like example 1.

If Lamarikism is true then All men would have 20 foot penis's and all women would be D cups blonds with sultry voices.
Wish as hard as you want to be able to touch the top of the basketball rim, and spoon feeding your children that dream, does not mean in 7 generations you will have the ultimate basketball player!

If I claw my eyes out and the eyes of my son, and the eyes of my sons, son... do you think in 9 generations they will have no eyes? No they will have normal eyes, and think we are a bunch of fucking loonies!

Evolution does not work like that.

Simple sense to us.... but there are people out there with half a brain, and they go Bahhhhhhh allot.

Not saying Cosmos got it wrong, he just walks on the line that that article I mentioned warned about. You have to say clearly to one side, or Lamarikism will creep back like a bad fungus.

Still... Sagans speech patterns of sounding like Agent Smith is kinda creepy. I'd have to claw my eyes out if he in the last episode puts on a set of shades and looks at me. "We are just a virus on the earth, Mr. Watcher!"

Think about my decendents... we'd have no eyes!