Tagged by my wonderful wife who was tagged by Kelli. The chain will stop here of course.
6 weird things about me you probably didn't (don't) want to know.
1)I pick my nose.
2)My belly button is a magnet for lint
3)I can't do two things at once. If I'm not looking at you, I'm most likely not listening to you.
4)I turn red when I speak in front of people. I'm not talking about public speaking (like speeches..although it happens then too) but even with a group of friends like in a class.
5)The reason why I hate that guy Carl? Well, it's because he's a jerk. Ask my wife. True Story.
Thursday, November 30, 2006
Sunday, November 19, 2006
A Wii Dilema
For awhile now I've said that I would get a 360 for Christmas/birthday. Part me of still does want the 360. The only problem is that I don't see a lot of games that interest me for it. There's the sports games which I always love, but I don't see anything like Ninja Gaiden or Prince of Persia which are the games that I end up getting now a days. Gears of War sounded promising until I saw the trailer. The graphics are amazing, but chopping people up with a chain saw and having blood splatter over the "camera" just doesn't really do it for me. Guess I'm getting old..
Today Shayna and I stopped at a gamestop and played the Nintendo Wii. They had an offroad game there and we got to play around. It waspretty surprisingly fun. I'm going to wait on both I think until I see games that I really want. I have a feeling that when Halo 3 comes along I'll be ready for a 360...
Today Shayna and I stopped at a gamestop and played the Nintendo Wii. They had an offroad game there and we got to play around. It was
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
Guestbook
I'm trying out a new piece of software called Frappr. It's a guestbook in which you can leave a shoutout, location, and even a picture of yourself. It's located at the bottom of the blog. Take a look and let me know if there are any adverse affect (like pop ups from the dreaded tag board)
Shayna
It's time for a post on my wife.
We both have had very hectic lives of late. Work has been brutal for both of us. I'm trying to get certifications and she's getting a masters PLUS tutoring.
Yesterday I came home from work and she was folding laundry which is my job. She said that she just wanted me to sit down and relax for a while. Today while I was plugging away at work, she sent me an e-card to let me know that she was thinking about me.
It makes me feel really good to know that I have a teammate who will work hard not only on her goals, but also on me. She contantly thinks of ways to improve my life (from relaxing when I get home, to finding new ideas for soy/tofu foods).
I don't think I quite deserve it most of the time, but I sure do appreciate it. I love you.
We both have had very hectic lives of late. Work has been brutal for both of us. I'm trying to get certifications and she's getting a masters PLUS tutoring.
Yesterday I came home from work and she was folding laundry which is my job. She said that she just wanted me to sit down and relax for a while. Today while I was plugging away at work, she sent me an e-card to let me know that she was thinking about me.
It makes me feel really good to know that I have a teammate who will work hard not only on her goals, but also on me. She contantly thinks of ways to improve my life (from relaxing when I get home, to finding new ideas for soy/tofu foods).
I don't think I quite deserve it most of the time, but I sure do appreciate it. I love you.
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Why people should NOT vote
I'm pretty sure this post is going to get some responses. Especially from my in-laws who all feel quite strongly that everyone should vote. They are of course wrong. There are 2 kinds of people..those that should vote, and those that should not.
I really don't have a problem with voting. I think if people want to do it, they should. We shouldn't go and tell everyone they should vote. Like I said before, some people just shouldn't. I really think my biggest problem is how voting is handled.
Every one's vote is equal. That seems like a nice way of handling things. Everyone should have an equal voice to be heard. The reality of course is that's not true. Every one's voice should not be equal. I pay no attention to "the issues" or "the candidates" or if my "socks match". Why should my vote count the same as someone who actually pays attention to those things (especially the socks thing)? Simple, it shouldn't. And telling people to go out to vote, just to vote makes things worse. If more people vote, it makes your vote worth less. If those people are uninformed it makes your vote worth less by that much more.
Let's put it this way. You and 4 of your close personal friends want to go out to dinner. You want to go to restaurant A, and George wants to go to restaurant B. No one else cares but since this is my scenario you force them to vote because it's their duty as your friends (but it doesn't matter what they vote for) Kramer votes for A because it was the first one said. Elaine says she doesn't really care but if she had to choose it would be B. Newman, being difficult throws in Restaurant C.
So should Kramer's, Elaine's, and Newman's vote count as much as yours and George's? They don't even care where they eat! No, the best solution would be for you to tell George that you want to eat at restaurant A so much, that you'd be willing to buy him an appetizer. He says he wants to eat at restaurant B so much that he'd be willing to buy your entire meal.
George gets to eat at his restaurant, you get a free meal, and everyone is happy that everything is resolved.
The founding fathers tried as best they could to fix this with the Electoral College. Most people denounce the ol' college try as antiquated and obsolete. And to an extent it is. But it's better than simple majority rules (which as the above example shows is really quite silly). Their method was a "past the post" style. This essentially means they have to achieve a goal number before they can win.
I've put some thought into this and I think I've found a solution.
Vote Weighting
Vote Weighting relies on not only how much you know about trivial stuff such as issues and candidates and but also how much a vote means to you.
So here is how it would work. You have to pass a test on just knowing who is running and what people are talking about. Score less than a certain percentage (we'll leave that up to a vote in congress) and your vote is worth .5 (that's half of one vote). Pass the test and your vote is worth 1 (congratulations you're informed). This is beneficial in 2 ways. First, if people want to have a full they have to at least know what's going on (instead of going just to pull the party ticket). Second, it prevents people who don't know what's going on to have any impact on the race.
The second part is of course the fun part. This is where you get to determine how much you want your person to be elected. So you want person A to be elected so much that you'd be willing to build houses for people in New Orleans. (I would think that should count for at least 4 votes) Bill wants person B to be elected to much that he's willing to give $1 to everyone(that would be worth maybe 2 votes...after all $1 isn't all that much ) Newman wants Person B to be elected to badly that he's willing to kill himself (which really works out well because do we really want such a fanatic voting in more than one election? I didn't think so either)
There's lots of ways this can go. If your candidate wins, you have to do whatever you pledged. If you lose, you get to see all the great work being done by others (and maybe even get $1..or even finally get rid of Newman)
Me? I'm a .5 vote kind of guy.
I really don't have a problem with voting. I think if people want to do it, they should. We shouldn't go and tell everyone they should vote. Like I said before, some people just shouldn't. I really think my biggest problem is how voting is handled.
Every one's vote is equal. That seems like a nice way of handling things. Everyone should have an equal voice to be heard. The reality of course is that's not true. Every one's voice should not be equal. I pay no attention to "the issues" or "the candidates" or if my "socks match". Why should my vote count the same as someone who actually pays attention to those things (especially the socks thing)? Simple, it shouldn't. And telling people to go out to vote, just to vote makes things worse. If more people vote, it makes your vote worth less. If those people are uninformed it makes your vote worth less by that much more.
Let's put it this way. You and 4 of your close personal friends want to go out to dinner. You want to go to restaurant A, and George wants to go to restaurant B. No one else cares but since this is my scenario you force them to vote because it's their duty as your friends (but it doesn't matter what they vote for) Kramer votes for A because it was the first one said. Elaine says she doesn't really care but if she had to choose it would be B. Newman, being difficult throws in Restaurant C.
So should Kramer's, Elaine's, and Newman's vote count as much as yours and George's? They don't even care where they eat! No, the best solution would be for you to tell George that you want to eat at restaurant A so much, that you'd be willing to buy him an appetizer. He says he wants to eat at restaurant B so much that he'd be willing to buy your entire meal.
George gets to eat at his restaurant, you get a free meal, and everyone is happy that everything is resolved.
The founding fathers tried as best they could to fix this with the Electoral College. Most people denounce the ol' college try as antiquated and obsolete. And to an extent it is. But it's better than simple majority rules (which as the above example shows is really quite silly). Their method was a "past the post" style. This essentially means they have to achieve a goal number before they can win.
I've put some thought into this and I think I've found a solution.
Vote Weighting
Vote Weighting relies on not only how much you know about trivial stuff such as issues and candidates and but also how much a vote means to you.
So here is how it would work. You have to pass a test on just knowing who is running and what people are talking about. Score less than a certain percentage (we'll leave that up to a vote in congress) and your vote is worth .5 (that's half of one vote). Pass the test and your vote is worth 1 (congratulations you're informed). This is beneficial in 2 ways. First, if people want to have a full they have to at least know what's going on (instead of going just to pull the party ticket). Second, it prevents people who don't know what's going on to have any impact on the race.
The second part is of course the fun part. This is where you get to determine how much you want your person to be elected. So you want person A to be elected so much that you'd be willing to build houses for people in New Orleans. (I would think that should count for at least 4 votes) Bill wants person B to be elected to much that he's willing to give $1 to everyone(that would be worth maybe 2 votes...after all $1 isn't all that much ) Newman wants Person B to be elected to badly that he's willing to kill himself (which really works out well because do we really want such a fanatic voting in more than one election? I didn't think so either)
There's lots of ways this can go. If your candidate wins, you have to do whatever you pledged. If you lose, you get to see all the great work being done by others (and maybe even get $1..or even finally get rid of Newman)
Me? I'm a .5 vote kind of guy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
