All this foofoorah over 2012 is pure crap. There's nothing special about the Mayan Great Cycle ending in 2012. It's already done so 12 times before.
The Mayan calendar has several cycles of varying lengths. So does ours. We call them "weeks", "months", and "years".
Theirs also had some very long ones, including the longest, the Great Cycle, a little over 4000 years long.
2012 will be the end of 13th Great Cycle since the creation of the universe (according to the Mayan mythology).
All it is is the calendar resetting to zero. Just like ours does every year.
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Saturday, December 26, 2009
Sherlock Holmes is Not an Action Hero
I'm one of those "fanbois" who've read all the Holmes stories. Multiple times. And I'm not going to be going to see this.
I have tried and tried and tried, and I just cannot wrap my mind around Holmes as an action hero. Sure, he knew "Baritsu" (actually Bartitsu), but he was NOT a physical hero.
Of course, no one but Holmes fans will care, but so be it.
I have tried and tried and tried, and I just cannot wrap my mind around Holmes as an action hero. Sure, he knew "Baritsu" (actually Bartitsu), but he was NOT a physical hero.
Of course, no one but Holmes fans will care, but so be it.
Avatar -- Go see it
I saw it yesterday (Thanksgiving and Christmas Day are THE best movie days of the year). I enjoyed it thoroughly, except for one glaring technical error.
The Story is good, and given the indigenes abilities, is believable. The CGI is awesome, and bodes well for the future of Sci-Fi movies. The 3D worked VERY well, there was no 3D for the sake of 3D, and the only "Comin' at ya!" was appropriate for the scene. (I also came out with much less of a headache than I normally get from 3D movies.)
I think the ending was overly optimistic, though, and I expect the bad guys will be back, with more force.
Be warned, though, that if you're an archer, too, then the way the natives fire their bows is going to give you hives. Accept it, dismiss it, and enjoy the rest of the movie.
4 stars
Technical explanation for those who care:
When you use a finger draw, the bowstring rolls off your fingers as you release it. Because the fingers are normally on the opposite side from the arrow, this rolling pulls the arrow against the bow, and just keeps it in line.
If you were to draw the way the Na'Vi do, with your fingers on the same side of the bow as the arrow, that rolling will pull the tip of the arrow away from the bow, and screw up your shot every time.
Cameron showed the Na'Vi extending a finger along the arrow, probably to make up for that, but you wouldn't do that twice! you'd get friction burns from the shaft of the arrow and the fletchings, and quickly start moving your finger farther out, and there goes your aim.
It's another example of the "I don't care if it's realistic, it looks cool!" attitude towards the audience.
The Story is good, and given the indigenes abilities, is believable. The CGI is awesome, and bodes well for the future of Sci-Fi movies. The 3D worked VERY well, there was no 3D for the sake of 3D, and the only "Comin' at ya!" was appropriate for the scene. (I also came out with much less of a headache than I normally get from 3D movies.)
I think the ending was overly optimistic, though, and I expect the bad guys will be back, with more force.
Be warned, though, that if you're an archer, too, then the way the natives fire their bows is going to give you hives. Accept it, dismiss it, and enjoy the rest of the movie.
4 stars
Technical explanation for those who care:
When you use a finger draw, the bowstring rolls off your fingers as you release it. Because the fingers are normally on the opposite side from the arrow, this rolling pulls the arrow against the bow, and just keeps it in line.
If you were to draw the way the Na'Vi do, with your fingers on the same side of the bow as the arrow, that rolling will pull the tip of the arrow away from the bow, and screw up your shot every time.
Cameron showed the Na'Vi extending a finger along the arrow, probably to make up for that, but you wouldn't do that twice! you'd get friction burns from the shaft of the arrow and the fletchings, and quickly start moving your finger farther out, and there goes your aim.
It's another example of the "I don't care if it's realistic, it looks cool!" attitude towards the audience.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Wood splitting
All you folks who split your own wood every year should get a chuckle out of this:
It's been a few years since I used anything but a fakelog (Duraflame, etc.) in my fireplace. This year I decided to get one of those bundles of actual wood and have a real wood fire again.
I used to do this in the past, and I had a gas starter in the fireplace then, or I'd just use a bunch of newspaper to get the fire going.
But this fireplace doesn't have the gas connection, and I haven't subscribed to a newspaper in years. The first attempt was a total disaster. I [i]know[/i] you need kindling to get the large wood burning, and you need some kind of tinder to get the kindling going, but I tried it anyway.
Needless to say, that didn't work too well. But I did learn a few things about what [i]doesn't[/i] work.
"No problem," I said to myself, "I'll just split a couple of the pieces down into kindling, and split the large pieces into two or more to make it a more manageable fire."
Man, I forgot how much [i]work[/i] splitting wood is! Even just little quarter- and eighth-log pieces!
But I now have a stack of nice, wrist-thick pieces, another stack of finger- and thumb-thick pieces, and a whole bunch of chips and splits for kindling. Since my fires are more decorative than functional, that will do me just fine.
It's been a few years since I used anything but a fakelog (Duraflame, etc.) in my fireplace. This year I decided to get one of those bundles of actual wood and have a real wood fire again.
I used to do this in the past, and I had a gas starter in the fireplace then, or I'd just use a bunch of newspaper to get the fire going.
But this fireplace doesn't have the gas connection, and I haven't subscribed to a newspaper in years. The first attempt was a total disaster. I [i]know[/i] you need kindling to get the large wood burning, and you need some kind of tinder to get the kindling going, but I tried it anyway.
Needless to say, that didn't work too well. But I did learn a few things about what [i]doesn't[/i] work.
"No problem," I said to myself, "I'll just split a couple of the pieces down into kindling, and split the large pieces into two or more to make it a more manageable fire."
Man, I forgot how much [i]work[/i] splitting wood is! Even just little quarter- and eighth-log pieces!
But I now have a stack of nice, wrist-thick pieces, another stack of finger- and thumb-thick pieces, and a whole bunch of chips and splits for kindling. Since my fires are more decorative than functional, that will do me just fine.
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Disabling Child-resistant Caps
I hate child-resistant caps. I live alone, I have no kids, nor do I ever have other peoples' kids in my home. So I have no hesitation about disabling them, leaving the container easier to open.
The most common ones, the "Press Down While Turning" kind, are the easiest. They consist of two pieces, an inner and an outer. Cut off the outer cap by whatever means works for you, and voila!, you have a normal cap.
The second most common one I run into is the "Squeeze Here While Turning". This one has two "lugs" inside the cap that engage two "ears" on the neck of the bottle. Cut off the "ears" (I usually use a pair of toenail clippers) and you're done!
Now, don't be stupid with this. You are disabling a valid safety measure. If you have small children in your home, whether they're yours or someone else's, I wouldn't advise doing this unless you take the kind of precautions we did before "Child-Resistant" packaging: keep potentially dangerous products secured and/or out of the reach of small children. But if you don't, there's no good reason for you to put up with the hassle.
If you do this, YOU are responsible for any outcome from it. So don't be stupid, okay?
The most common ones, the "Press Down While Turning" kind, are the easiest. They consist of two pieces, an inner and an outer. Cut off the outer cap by whatever means works for you, and voila!, you have a normal cap.
The second most common one I run into is the "Squeeze Here While Turning". This one has two "lugs" inside the cap that engage two "ears" on the neck of the bottle. Cut off the "ears" (I usually use a pair of toenail clippers) and you're done!
Now, don't be stupid with this. You are disabling a valid safety measure. If you have small children in your home, whether they're yours or someone else's, I wouldn't advise doing this unless you take the kind of precautions we did before "Child-Resistant" packaging: keep potentially dangerous products secured and/or out of the reach of small children. But if you don't, there's no good reason for you to put up with the hassle.
If you do this, YOU are responsible for any outcome from it. So don't be stupid, okay?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
