badexample.new.mu.nu

September 30, 2005

SERENITY

(guaranteed 100% spoiler-free)

Saw it today.

Excellent.

But I'm curious to know how well it will work for people who haven't seen the series. There are a number of lines in the movie that are particularly meaningful only because I know everything about the characters. They'd be either a little or a lot flatter if I didn't own the DVD's of season one.

On the flip side, one of the things I like about Joss Whedon's work is his ability to put things in his stories that take me completely by surprise. Plenty of that in the movie, and I'm glad I avoided all the reviews on various blogs. Frankly, I wish I could've avoided seeing all the previews, too. Having heard the words beforehand took the edge off some of the best lines.

Damned irritating, that.

Ah well, I'm still happy.

And one thing Beloved Wife TNT pointed out - most movies contain one (or usually several) stupid, pointless scenes that do nothing to advance the plot or develop character.

This one doesn't.

It's all shiny. Start to finish.

And at the finish... the audience applauded. Don't see THAT very often.

By the way, make sure you stick through the entire credits because the Firefly theme song is the last thing they play.

Posted by: Harvey at 07:17 PM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 216 words, total size 1 kb.

1 I haven't seen the series and the blog reviews I'm seeing are like yours... very good but not giving anything away. One thing I've always hated about trailers is that they seem to take all the best bits of the movie (sometimes the only things worth watching) and put them all out there... So, I avoid trailers whenever possible. Glad to hear you liked it though.

Posted by: Teresa at September 30, 2005 07:26 PM (qm5ss)

2 I cannot wait to see the movie! I bought the series on DVD out of boredom one weekend. And didn't get off the couch until I finished watching the whole kit and kaboodle! Unfortunately I have to wait to see Serenity when it comes out on DVD as I leave for Korea on Sunday.

Posted by: Irishpixie at September 30, 2005 09:05 PM (u6TMp)

3 I love how in the third 'scene', right about where you'd expect the official opening of the movie to begin - you know, a gloried special effects shot - paired up with the theme song and credits... and instead Mr. Whedon breaks the reverence of traditional movie openings and lets loose the buffer panel. I knew from then on that this was going to be a fun ride. That and I kept wondering who if anyone would survive this movie.

Posted by: gamongrel at September 30, 2005 10:40 PM (whxln)

4 Just saw it, loved it, but I'm going to violently kick Joss Whedon in the dick if I ever meet him in person and I'm sure you goram know why. Fuck!!

Posted by: Graumagus at September 30, 2005 10:45 PM (+MqAR)

5 I'm with Grau on this one. I just got back from the film (and a bar visit afterwards)and there were a few surprises there that were a bit dissappointing... however well portrayed. I contend that when Serenity was "Dressed Out" was one of the coolest scenes ever. Completely unnexpected, yet totally satisfying. I hope that Joss does more with this universe.

Posted by: Johnny - Oh at September 30, 2005 11:16 PM (aPsUA)

6 The CSM and I were going to wait until the DVD came out because we can't stand going to the theater, but hell's bells -- I'm off to Fandango this morning for our tickets this afternoon. I'll just have to kill any rugrat that ruins it for me.

Posted by: Jo at October 01, 2005 04:53 AM (TDzJM)

7 I found an unexpected side benefit of this movie as well. By reading the reviews off Yahoo I now have a list of movie reviewers I can completely ignore in the future. The vast majority of reviewers gave it very high ratings, but a few of the reviews seem like they were written by people who either didn't even see the film or who are on the payroll of Universal Picture's competition (Kyle Smith of the New York Post and Claudia Puig of USA today obviously wouldn't know a good film if it bit them in the ass).

Posted by: Graumagus at October 01, 2005 10:20 AM (UYR/w)

8 I liked it a lot and I never watched the series. But yeah, I was a litle dissapointed that all of the best lines were in the trailer. and Grau, I don't trust movie reviewers anyway at anytime. Not after 21 Grams and Open Water and Bowling for Columbine.

Posted by: Chuck at October 01, 2005 06:29 PM (JXgKx)

9 Not ALL of the best lines... I was not greatly impressed with the review at IMDB today. t'were griping about the 'Creole' they speak. 500 years into the future and you don't expect the gorram language to change? The educated folk - Tam, River, Inara, Book even Wash - spoke perfect modern English. The rest were more working folk and not likely formally educated. What do you expect? And in some folk's defense, it's not a traditional movie with lots of glory shots for transitions between scenes. Instead of cutting plot and dialogue, they chose to focus on the story and the people. Too much of hollywood ignores plot and people for special effects and glorious cinematography. Liked it just as much tonight. So did the 100 or so people who watched it with me this afternoon.

Posted by: gamongrel at October 01, 2005 07:16 PM (kn7Jd)

10 I saw the movie. I've seen it twice: once at the preview and once with friends. One friend was a fan, the other friend had never seen the show. They both enjoyed it. What lines do you believe only fans of the show would understand?

Posted by: oregano at October 02, 2005 09:40 AM (I3nGF)

11 Oregano - Not necessarily that ONLY fans would understand, but it's a whole lot better if you're completely familiar with the frustrated relationship between Kaylee & Simon. Not to mention between Mal & Inara. Shepherd Book's character is only barely developed. Ditto Inara And outside of being horny, there's not much to tell you who Kaylee is. Also helps to know that the last time Kaylee tried to fire a gun, she froze up & couldn't pull the trigger. Puts some extra zing in the part where she puts on her Rambo face. Finally, unless you've seen the series, you won't understand the plastic dinosaurs on Wash's control panel. From what I've heard, this doesn't keep anyone from enjoying the movie, I'm just saying there's a payoff to be had from watching the series first.

Posted by: Harvey at October 02, 2005 10:18 AM (ubhj8)

12 Darn. We left as soon as they started rolling the credits. That was probably the best part. I wasn't very happy with it. I think if I had never seen the series I would have liked it.

Posted by: Lynn S at October 02, 2005 11:46 AM (/oT2u)

13 FWIW, I went with 2 other people, one of whom had never seen a single episode. He loved it. I'm usually excessively critical about movies that I should like(i.e, I griped a bit about the first LOTR movie because I had just finished re-reading the book), so I was expecting to be disappointed. But I was happy to be disappointed in my expectations. The movie was better than I imagined. Very, very shiny film. Much like Kaylee, by the way.

Posted by: physics geek at October 02, 2005 10:23 PM (Xvrs7)

14 Lynn - what didn't you like? Other than offing Wash & Book, I thought the movie did a good job of keeping the feel of the series. Although now that I think about it, that's not really out of character for the show :-)

Posted by: Harvey at October 03, 2005 07:16 AM (ubhj8)

15 My wife hasn't seen more then an episode of firefly and she loved it.

Posted by: Contagion at October 03, 2005 07:17 AM (Q5WxB)

16 I guess it was mostly the two deaths. I was enjoying it up until that point but even as I was enjoying it I kept thinking, "this isn't right." Mostly it was right I guess but it didn't feel quite right. I posted my review this morning. Sorry to be such a sourpuss.

Posted by: Lynn S at October 03, 2005 01:41 PM (2oRRW)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

LOOKING FOR INSPIRATION FOR YOUR BLOG NAME?

Let's say you want to name a blog but can't think of anything cool. Here are three options:

Random blog name generator

Random band name generator (refresh for a new set of names)

The Word Constructor

They probably won't hand you the answer on a silver platter, but they'll likely spark your creativity if you toy with them for a while.

Hmmm... "Naked Thoughts"...

Posted by: Harvey at 10:14 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 78 words, total size 1 kb.

PROBLEM SOLVING

Lynn of Reflections in D Minor examines some ways to think like a genius, and asks the obvious question on this one:

"Look at problems in many different ways, and find new perspectives that no one else has taken (or no one else has publicized!)"
Uh... okay. How do you do that?

The answer is simple... stare at the problem until an idea pops into your head. Dismiss it because it's trite and unoriginal.

Repeat as often and for as many hours as necessary until something original hits you.

Normally I don't have to do this for more than 3 or 4 hours max before something clicks, although sometimes - if I'm very lucky - it only takes a few minutes.

You probably think I'm kidding, but it's actually how I manage to do most of my assignment-based humor pieces for the Alliance & the IMAO podcast.

It's a crude, brute-force technique, but it DOES work.

Sucks the life right out of ya, though.

By the way, if you think the jokes that I post are bad, you should see the ones that never made it out of my skull.

Posted by: Harvey at 10:10 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 194 words, total size 1 kb.

ROTTEN LITTLE BRATS

That's right, everyone's favorite Bad Uncle (that's me) will be hosting the Karnival of the Kidz again next week, teaching the little curtain-climbers some bad habits & sending them home to annoy their parents.

Deadline for entry is midnight on Sunday and I'll be posting it Monday morning, or whenever the wicked hangover I plan on having goes away, whichever comes first.

Email a link to karnival.kidz-at-gmail.com

Or just make it easy on yourself and use Ferdy's All-Purpose Carnival Submission Form.

Either way, would you tell those little... uh... darlings... to keep it down?

Posted by: Harvey at 09:59 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 100 words, total size 1 kb.

HOW TO ARGUE WITHOUT FIGHTING

A reader e-mailed me recently and mentioned that, while she had a strong opinion on my current debate with Ogre about the origins of the universe, she was worried that if she posted on it or left a comment, she'd start getting hatemail.

A not-invalid concern.

However, in my experience, I've found that you usually don't need to worry about hatemail as long as you keep your posts confined to ideas and don't make snarky personal comments about another blogger.

Don't get me wrong - I have NO problem with laying out blazing-hot personal invective. But, personally, I reserve that for public figures who are used to that sort of thing and who dismiss me as being a bitter old crank. When it comes to discussing ideas with a "person of blog", though, remember that your name-calling WILL get back to him - maybe through Technorati, or referer logs, or trackback, or an e-mail from a friend - and you WILL have to answer for your cheap shots.

Don't take them unless you're prepared to either defend them or apologize.

For example, in this post arguing about the Iraq war, I called someone a "pecker-head". This personal insult was unprovoked, and when I was called on it, I admitted that I was wrong and apologized for it.

Lesson learned - NEVER initiate name-calling when arguing with another blogger.

Nevertheless, there will be times when you decide to take the plunge and discuss with a fellow blogger a contentious issue about which you feel strongly. This CAN be done without degenerating into a schoolyard shouting-match if you remember one simple rule:

DON'T USE THE "S" WORD

Which in this case is "stupid".

It's fine to call an idea wrong, unworkable, ill-advised, impractical, speculative, or unfeasible - but the minute you call it "stupid", you've just implied that the person you're arguing with is ALSO stupid for holding that idea.

Same goes for any synonyms.

After that, it's the downward spiral of Godwin's Law, and someone is going to get called a Nazi.

So my advice is - stick with the issue

State your position, then state your reasons for believing as you do. If you can't explain your reasons clearly, consult Google or Wikipedia to find some better-written argumentation to support your point and link that.

When reading someone's contentious response, you may feel the need to use the "S" word. Keep in mind that your fellow blogger is NOT stupid. They have very likely put SOME thought into their position, but simply failed to explain of what that thought consisted. ASK them to explain their reasoning. Given enough probing, you may well discover that there ARE reasons why an otherwise intelligent person might accept a notion that you consider wrong. Once you have those reasons, THEN you can debate whether they're sufficient to support the conclusion.

You CAN have a civilized discussion on a hard topic. It just takes a little patience.

For further tangentially related thoughts, see also my posts on:

Rhetoric

and

Trolls

Posted by: Harvey at 09:46 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 515 words, total size 4 kb.

TODAY'S LOVE NOTE

(Introduction)

You are the hot air balloon. You are the one floating among the clouds with the world below, details insignificant, astounding beauty enveloping you. I am the one reaching for you with my feet well grounded. And, as I reach, when I touch you... For just that second, I loose the ground and fly. And the flight is worth the agony of reaching.

[to which I added]

(thanks for making me stretch from time to time :-)

(CAUTION: Romantics beware - comments may contain naughtiness)

[Like the Love Notes? Get the e-book]

Posted by: Harvey at 09:40 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 88 words, total size 1 kb.

TODAY'S GRAFFITI CURRENCY

(click to enlarge)

[The magic dollar: each time someone spends it, please write name on back margin]
[(no names on back margin)]

After passing the dollar around the House floor, Tom DeLay became acutely aware of the fact that he didn't have a single friend left in Washington.

Posted by: Harvey at 09:38 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 35 words, total size 1 kb.

September 29, 2005

MEN DON'T NOTICE

Bloggranddaughter ArmyWifeToddlerMom is fussing about her weight & her body shape, so I thought I'd try to cheer her up by explaining how men look at women.

When we initially spot a woman, we give her a quick scan, head-to-toe (usually consisting of hair, eyes, lips, boobs, hips & legs), making mental notes of which parts are good and which parts are... REALLY good.

Then we completely ignore the merely good parts and spend our time rotating between staring at the various REALLY good parts.

Once we've got the short list & the rotation pattern, those merely good parts are completely invisible.

You could have an ass the size of Montana. We don't care. We're too busy alternating between wondering what it'd be like to kiss those lips and fantasizing about going face-first into that cleavage you're showing off.

Seriously. If you've got ONE good feature for a man to lock eyes on, you're beautiful.

Of course, MY problem is that my eye muscles are always exhausted, because - being married to TNT - my rotation pattern contains about 300 stops...

Posted by: Harvey at 05:00 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 187 words, total size 1 kb.

SMART FINANCE QUESTIONS

As analyzed by blogdaughter Teresa of Technicalities.

I really hate that Teresa habitually writes such comprehensive and well-thought-out posts, because it means I don't link her because I have nothing to add.

She probably thinks I don't love her anymore... which isn't true - she's still daddy's favorite.

However, there IS a little left to say this time:

6. YouÂ’re not tempted to invest in something because of a hot tip you get from a friend or relative.
Do people really get hot tips from others? I never have.

Once. From a good friend who I considered market savvy. I looked at the company's financials, and they seemed sound enough. I was interested because they had an audacious plan for launching a nationwide towing service to compete with AAA. If it worked, I'd make a fortune.

Didn't work. It's currently worth about 15% of what I paid for it. Oops.

Then about 5 years ago I bought some Motorola stock because I heard they were going to start licensing their technology, which I thought would make them some money. The stock price is just now topping what I paid for it. Oops.

Since then, I've become more of a no-load, index-mirroring, mutual fund kind of guy.

9. You owe nothing on the vehicle you drive.
Currently - no we don't. Although with the prices of vehicles today - it's nearly impossible to buy outright unless you get a piece of junk. So, get the smallest loan time you can get - and pay off as quickly as possible if you are unable to pay outright.

I disagree with Teresa's assessment on this. I buy sub-$2000 cars every time and drive them until they're not worth fixing anymore. They're usually rusty-fendered, but mechanically reliable. My theory being that - in the long run - I'm better off buying five $2000 cars than one $10,000 car.

Then again, I consider my car nothing more than a way to get from here to there, so how it looks isn't important to me.

11. When hearing that the S&P 500 Index just hit an all-time high, you are not inclined to call your broker with a buy order.
Don't have a broker - don't want one either... but I still wouldn't do it even if I could - it makes no sense to buy at the all-time high!

I wouldn't say NO sense. What makes no sense is never buying in at all, because you're too worried that you'll be buying at an all-time high. You can't really time the market, so just buy whenever. It'll hit a new record high eventually, and then you'll feel smart.

Other than that, Teresa pretty much says everything that needs to be said.

Again :-)

Posted by: Harvey at 04:27 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 464 words, total size 3 kb.

1 LOL - it's blog daddy linking to me!!! You got stock tips? Really I never have - ever. I guess people don't think I'll listen to them... clever people. *grin* A couple of things - about the car issue... as you are noting it depends on what you want to do with the car. If you have a family and you are concerned about safety... etc - then a $2000 car won't cut it (not to mention you may need a vehicle that's a bit larger like a minivan and they generally cost more because of size). Also, if you need the car to be very reliable - a junker won't do it for you because of the constant possibility of breakdown. I know your way works for you (you've been doing it for a long time *grin*) but for those who want or need newer cars... the price is a consideration - and unlike most types who preach no car loans - they aren't always evil and wicked - but they must be done carefully. And the last one... I read it as - you only buy something because someone tells you it's at an all time high and that's the only time you buy or mostly when you buy. The best way from all I've heard is to invest in good mutual funds - a set amount every month regardless of whether it's high or low at the moment. Just keep an eye on the funds to be sure they aren't failing!

Posted by: Teresa at September 29, 2005 04:42 PM (qm5ss)

2 That's why I go for index funds nowadays. They'll never beat the market average, but they'll never be lower, either. It's a good compromise. And you're right about the "set amount per month" advice. About car break-downs - I normally only buy Hondas with standard transmissions. Those things go forever and don't break down. You just have to replace the parts that you expect to wear out eventually anyway (clutch, brakes, exhaust, belts, etc). However, there DOES come a time when enough things wear out at the same time that it's time to get a different car. And the reason I can get away with it is that I've always owned at least one "spare" vehicle so that I have something to drive while one's in the shop. Personally, I think EVERY couple should have 3 cars - his, hers, and "just in case" :-)

Posted by: Harvey at September 29, 2005 09:51 PM (ubhj8)

3 Dude... you can buy all knids of nice vehicles for $5000 and less... I have two now... I got lucky both times - both are mechanically sound, very minor scratches, and for some odd reason, both are maroon ans was my last car that I traded a TV for and put $600 into making it run... fuck a bunch of high dollar car payments ...

Posted by: Madfish Willie at September 30, 2005 07:42 PM (YFiLK)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

GEEK OPINIONS NEEDED

Blogdaughter Machelle of Quality Weenie needs some computer advice:

We are in the market for a new computer. Our desktop is running Windoz 95, and was one of the first computers with a Pentium 2 in it. Yes it's old, hence the need for a new one.
We also have a laptop and use that one 5 times as much as the desktop.
What I was wondering was are todays laptops just as good and functional as a desktop? Can you do just as much on both? Play video games on both? What about memory capacity?
What I was thinking is that it maybe more functional for us to get another laptop instead of a desktop.

I've never owned a laptop, so I'm not qualified to chime in.

So, anyone who does (or has) owned both a laptop & desktop, cough up your two cents.

Posted by: Harvey at 03:14 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 151 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Harvey, please pass this along to Machelle: Yes, laptops are as functional and dynamic as a desktop. But you pay through the nose for that power and convenience. DH and I have been without a desktop system since the turn of the millenium and we haven't missed one, although we have paid more for the laptops than we would have for a desktop system. We have a Fujitsu that I've never had a problem with for 5 years and a Dell that lost its motherboard 4 months out of the warranty. Grrrr. Dealing with that last week. My 2 cemts: If you buy a laptop, DO NOT go with a compaq, HP, or IBM thinkpad. Compaq and HP are not swappable and you can't upgrade them. UNC has been requiring Thinkpads for freshmen and med students for several years now, and I have seen a lot of their HDs crap out. I've had good experiences with my Fujitsu and with Sony Vaios and with our Dell until it just DIED. Two tips: Buy with a credit card,if you have the cash to pay it off. Many credit card companies (most Visa and MC and Amex) will automatically double the initial standard warranty on items you purchase with the card, but check with your company first. Second, if you can, utilize a special buying program (as Dell has for government, student, and school employee purchases). This frequently will get you a better deal on software, processor speed, and memory in your purchase. It also pays off in the long run if you need to call technical support because you get dropped into a smaller call queue. And in the case of the Dell, we never had to deal with Indian tech support because everyone in their Educational Program support office is in the US. Hope that helps, Machelle. Good luck, and check the prices. There are some good deals out there.

Posted by: caltechgirl at September 29, 2005 03:36 PM (Eb5t4)

2 It probably wouldn't hurt to add the fact that my sisters brother in law builds computers for a living and will build us one cheaply.

Posted by: Machelle at September 29, 2005 03:50 PM (ZAyoW)

3 Desktops usually have bigger memories (I saw an ad for a 140 gig desktop, next to an 80 gig laptop, both for less than $1000), and are usually faster. But once you're talking about the difference between 1.5 gigahertz and 2.5 gigahertz, and the capacity to store X-hundred thousand songs/ebooks versus X-1 hundred thousand songs/ebooks, there's no real perceptible difference. If you want to play video games on a laptop, you'd better buy a USB mouse as well. I don't see how anyone could play a game like Quake with a touchpad. Sound might be an issue: desktops still have much better sound systems, which you'd have to pay alot more to get on a laptop (maybe even separately). Nowadays due to Moore's (pbuh) Law, there are few differences.

Posted by: Tom at September 30, 2005 12:05 AM (l7wD9)

4 I posted over at Machelle's site also, but I have to agree with Caltechgirl, if you can afford a Fujitsu, get one. But that is out of most people and companies's budget or what they are willing to spend.

Posted by: Amy at September 30, 2005 05:05 AM (8Rqqf)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

MEANWHILE AT ALLIANCE HQ

Filthy Lie Assignment Reminder: How would Instapundit be different if Evil Glenn were a woman? due by 11pm EDT Friday, September 30th. Late entries must be accompanied by a lame excuse.

Wednesday Linky Stuff

Precision Guided Humor Round-up: New Secretary General

New Precision Guided Humor Assignment: What should you bring with you to protest an anti-war rally?

Posted by: Harvey at 10:04 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 65 words, total size 1 kb.

AND THE NEXT SECRETARY GENERAL OF THE UN IS...

(A Precision Guided Humor Assignment cross-posted from IMAO)

Ya just GOTTA figure that - sooner or later - that corrupt, embezzling weasel Kofi Annan will get perp-walked out of the UN building.

Which means they'll have to pick a new Secretary General.

Never hurts to start planning ahead. Bush didn't, and now he's got.... what... seven Supreme Court vacancies to fill?... and he's nominated John Roberts for all of them.

Lack of planning, man... just sad.

Fortunately, I'm on top of things with the UNSG. Here's my short list:

* Bambi! He will save us from Godzilla! He... aw CRAP!

* The SON of Bambi! HE will save us from Godzilla!

* Jesse Jackson - He knows how to unite the many-colored peoples of the world into one happy rainbow. Just like Skittles!

* Mmmm... Skittles...

* Bill Gates - If anyone opposes his mighty will, he can make their computer cr

* Hmmm... must've accidentally opposed Bill Gates.

* An Inanimate Carbon Rod - He's already proved his worth by thwarting the plans of the evil insect overlords.

* Frank J. - The moon will finally get the nuking it so richly deserves.

* Jacques Chirac - Then we'd be able to ignore the UN *and* the French at the same time, thus increasing America's disdainfulness quotient.

* SarahK - She'll make the UN pretty by riddling it with bullets.

All have their virtues, but you KNOW who I just have to give the nod to:

* John Bolton

Posted by: Harvey at 08:52 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 268 words, total size 2 kb.

CRAZED BUREAUCRACY OR QUEST FOR HEALTHY BABIES?

You may have seen the BBC News story about the hospital in West Yorkshire that instituted a "no cooing over babies" policy. The subheading on the story makes it sound like the place has been commandeered by foamy-mouthed baby-rights advocates:

A West Yorkshire hospital has banned visitors from cooing at new-born babies over fears their human rights are being breached and to reduce infection.

I think the BBC news version is slanted a bit to make the hospital look more unreasonable than it is.

The local coverage in the Halifax Courier is a little more in-depth and offers a better collection of quotes from those involved, making it look more like the hospital was primarily concerned with the confidentiality interests of the mothers than anything else.

This tidbit from the Telegraph seems to support that:

Staff there had given visitors a card with a message purporting to come from a newborn baby. "I am small and precious so treat me with privacy and respect," the baby said. "My parents ask you to treat my personal space with consideration."

Still, I'm left to wonder exactly what led to this situation? Were there a lot of mums complaining about people asking questions? Perhaps a rash of unwed mothers who didn't want to discuss how the baby came about?

On the other hand, I can't for the life of me come up with a single sane reason for the "What makes you think I want to be looked at?" sign.

Speaking of not-quite-sane, I find this line from the Telegraph story... odd...:

It is ironic that the hospital seems to have used the Human Rights Act to justify an apparently rigid and unfeeling policy[...]

Why is the word "seems" in there? Was the reporter too lazy to call to find out the reason for the "no cooing" policy?

Overall I suspect the papers may be making WAY too much out of one statement from the hospital's Neonatal Manager, Debbie Lawson: "Cooing should be a thing of the past because these are little people with the same rights as you or me"

Notice that she doesn't specify which particular right she's talking about. Let's see if the FULL quote (from the Halifax Courier link) sheds any light:

"We know people have good intentions and most people cannot resist cooing over new babies but we need to respect the child. Cooing should be a thing of the past because these are little people with the same rights as you or me.
"We often get visitors wandering over to peer into cots but people sometimes touch or talk about the baby like they would if they were examining tins in a supermarket and that should not happen."

Sounds slightly less nuts that way, doesn't it? I can understand being upset about people acting with inappropriate casualness toward a stranger's child.

Anyway, setting aside the one out-of-context quote you'll see everywhere, I honestly suspect that the reason for this rule MAY be related to the fact that the UK government has taken an increased interest in tracking hospital infection rates.

Whichever it is, I'm just a little disappointed in the lack of dilligence exhibited by the press on this one.

[Hat tip to bloggranddaughter ArmyWifeToddlerMom for the pointer to the BBC story]

Posted by: Harvey at 08:42 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 547 words, total size 4 kb.

1 I'm trying to figure out why the manager of a Neonatal unit is talking about "rights" when she should be telling visitors to keep their hands and germs to themselves! Secondly I'm wondering where in the world these babies are at that the general public can come in and wander amongst them... Every nursery I've seen in the US is behind glass - and babies in rooms are with their mothers. Do they have big open wards of new mothers with babies at their side and then tons of visitors? That's a stupid thing to do! I wouldn't be a bit surprised in that case to find that both babies AND mothers have high infection rates. Both of them are pretty vulnerable at that time (no matter how "natural" the process!!!)

Posted by: Teresa at September 29, 2005 02:03 PM (qm5ss)

2 It's hard to find details on this story. I might have to nudge Sally & Alex.

Posted by: Harvey at September 29, 2005 09:37 PM (ubhj8)

3 I think it's just random lunacy. Like when that women suggested that failed exams should be described as "deferred success". I can tell you that maternity wards are very heavily protected with security doors etc.. As for infection rates, I frequently see hospital workers picking up their children from school wearing their hospital uniforms. My Dad knows someone who died of MRSA, and whenever he sees a nurse, or someone in the street, he takes them to task about it.

Posted by: Sally at September 30, 2005 06:36 AM (T/9Zp)

4 For those who (like me) don't know what MRSA is: "The organism Staphylococcus aureus is found on many individuals skin and seems to cause no major problems. However if it gets inside the body, for instance under the skin or into the lungs, it can cause important infections such as boils or pneumonia. Individuals who carry this organism are usually totally healthy, have no problems whatever and are considered simply to be carriers of the organism. The term MRSA or methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus is used to describe those examples of this organism that are resistant to commonly used antibiotics. Methicillin was an antibiotic used many years ago to treat patients with Staphylococcus aureus infections. It is now no longer used except as a means of identifying this particular type of antibiotic resistance."

Posted by: Harvey at September 30, 2005 10:13 AM (ubhj8)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

TODAY'S LOVE NOTE

(Introduction)

Wherever I am right now, I'd rather be standing behind you, kissing your neck.

Love,

Harv

[NOTE: I actually wrote this one myself]

(CAUTION: Romantics beware - comments may contain naughtiness)

[Like the Love Notes? Get the e-book]

Posted by: Harvey at 07:20 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 31 words, total size 1 kb.

TODAY'S GRAFFITI CURRENCY

(click to enlarge)

[If you get this dollar, please return to www.dollar dot.com or C.Y. Butts]

You can send a dollar bill over the internet?

Wow! Is there anything Gmail CAN'T do?

Posted by: Harvey at 07:12 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 25 words, total size 1 kb.

September 28, 2005

ATTENTION BUCKNELL UNIVERSITY

"Hunting terrorists"

Assholes.

Posted by: Harvey at 09:29 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 9 words, total size 1 kb.

PERSPECTIVES ON THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE

Thinking about what Ogre said regarding the "fine tuning" of physical constants in the universe being evidence of intelligent design, I think we're having a difference of perspective.

Ogre imagines himself in a pre-universe lawn chair, watching God drawing up plans for a universe capable of sustaining human life.

Me? I come at it quite differently.

I start with the fact that the time is now, the universe exists, and I'm in it. Then I use what I know about the universe as it is to look backwards towards the beginning of time.

Trouble is, there's a wall that I can't see past.

If I remember my Hawking correctly, the physical constants on which I'm basing my mental time-travel assumed their current properties at 3x10^-14 seconds after the Big Bang. Before that, they were... different... and there's no way of knowing - under current theory - HOW they were different.

So my vision is limited. Any pronouncements by me of what things were like before that would be speculation of the "guess what's in the mystery box" sort.

Ogre says it's God.

Me? I'm not even sure there IS a box.

Anyway, if such guesswork intrigues you, here's an interesting (if somewhat dry and acronym-laden) essay on it.

Posted by: Harvey at 07:57 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 222 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Now, now, I never said it was God, did I? I just said it was an intelligent design. For all I know it was Horton placing stuff in a dandelion -- I'm just saying it doesn't appear to be random chance, and simply has to be on purpose.

Posted by: Ogre at September 28, 2005 07:36 AM (/k+l4)

2 P.S. Nice Bucs logo over there...

Posted by: Ogre at September 28, 2005 07:38 AM (/k+l4)

3 Ogre - no, you didn't say God. But you would if I asked, right? :-) As for the Bucs... yeah, well... there's a REASON it's called "gambling" :-)

Posted by: Harvey at September 28, 2005 08:21 AM (ubhj8)

4 My favourite use of the anthropic principle was made by Fred Hoyle. Hoyle had been studying the nucleosynthetic formation of heavier elements through stellar fusion, but couldn't find a way that C-12 could be formed. Just as Gamow had gone through, there looked like no way to explain the existence of any element heavier than helium. There seemed two ways, both impossible, of carbon-12 being created: 1)the fusion of three helium-4 atoms into a carbon-12 atom, or 2)the fusion of two helium-4's into a beryllium-8, and then a fusion of the Be-8 with a He-4 into C-12. The first is impossible because there could not be enough energy at impact for fusion. The second is impossible because the result predicted is heavier than carbon-12. There seemed no way to explain how Carbon came into existence, and thus no way to explain any of the heavier elements. Hoyle solved the problem thus: A. Fred Hoyle exists in the universe. B. Fred Hoyle is a carbon-based lifeform. C. Therefore Carbon exists in the universe. D. Therefore there must be a way of creating carbon. E. The only way to create carbon must involve an exact excited (and via e=mc^2, heavier) state which is attainable through fusion. F. Therefore there must exist this exact excited state of carbon. In short, "he is partly made from the c-12 nucleus, so the correct excited state of carbon must exist, or otherwise neither c-12 nor Fred Hoyle would exist." (Simon Singh's "Big Bang") In the end, Hoyle calculated that the excited state would have to be 7.65 MeV's above the normal state, and this was found to exist by Willy Fowler at the Kellog Radiation Lab within a brief time. As far as I know, this was the only use of the anthropic principle which yielded empirically falsifiable results (Martin Rees' "Just Six Numbers," though brilliant it, as Harvey states, does not tell us enough to test)

Posted by: Tom at September 28, 2005 09:28 AM (iinH5)

5 You never know. I might believe that earth was created by aliens...but Horton sounds much more friendly, doesn't he?

Posted by: Ogre at September 28, 2005 02:47 PM (/k+l4)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

HEY! ANDREW SULLIVAN WAS RIGHT!

(cross-posted from IMAO)

HOW CAN YOU TELL ...: ... when a political ideology has become the equivalent of a religion? When it attempts to indoctrinate 4 - 8 year olds.

Damn straight!

earth book for kids.jpg

Oh... wait... that's not the book he's talking about.

Posted by: Harvey at 07:16 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 51 words, total size 1 kb.

TODAY'S LOVE NOTE

(Introduction)

If I gave you flowers as often as I thought of you, the world would be covered in roses.

(CAUTION: Romantics beware - comments may contain naughtiness)

[Like the Love Notes? Get the e-book]

Posted by: Harvey at 07:04 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 34 words, total size 1 kb.

TODAY'S GRAFFITI CURRENCY

(click to enlarge)

[(rubber stamp: I Grew Hemp)]

Eh. It's cheaper than gasoline...

Posted by: Harvey at 07:03 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 14 words, total size 1 kb.

89kb generated in CPU 0.0281, elapsed 0.1668 seconds.
84 queries taking 0.1497 seconds, 293 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

Search Thingy

Monthly Traffic

Pages: 134013
Files: 42
Bytes: 533.0M
CPU Time: 32:26
Queries: 3323203

Content

Posts: 6169
Comments: 19525

Feeds

September 30, 2005

September 29, 2005

September 28, 2005

Search Thingy

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives

Blogroll

Monthly Traffic

Content

Feeds