You can't hide in a commune, but...

Culture is the air we breath, so you need one of these:

Shameless Lego Drive

I love Lego. I love following the instructions and watching as the bits and pieces come together and magically form a monkey or a digger or a monster. I also love just creating whatever out of the pieces available.

There's not a big range of Lego in Hobart. And I need Lego. So here's what I'm going to do. Have a Lego Drive. Post me one or two (or more if you're generous) bits of Lego in an envelope, and then I'll build an ongoing structure/creature of awesomeness from the pieces I receive, and take photos and post updates. How about it?

Thanks!

If you don't know my home address, just email me and I'll tell you. :)

Is the Internet Ephemera?

In my spare time, I draw on Facebook's Graffiti application. It's pretty limited, there's no zooming or cut and pasting or any special effects. You draw with a mouse. So the challenge is to create something with the limited tools avaliable (different size brushes, varying opacities and a palate of colours).

So my graffiti doesn't get lost in the ether, I've decided to post some of my efforts.

But first, here's one Shelley did.



This one summarises my scrabble addiction.



The Sahara, but that could also be a dinosaur. You choose.



This is Alex and Shelley's cat Possum. This is accurate.



This is a scene from a little Surrealist comic I drew, based on the frustration I sometimes have of "where do I put my arms when I am trying to sleep??"






An elephant of surprise. Tracey gets credit for the phrase and alternate meaning.



I drew this one for the font-obsessed graphic designer Luke Nelson.






"I thought it was sparodoriphic, David!"


Another scene from that comic.




My favourite.

Cars cars cars

Firstly, I just saw Jason whoop awesomeness to AwesomePlanet and back. Cos he is King of Awesomeness. Tough, manly, of few words, totally savvy and awesome and kicks it! So good. Bourne trumps Bond any day (even Daniel Craig's incarnation of Bond. Bond is kind of like Dr Who in that respect. There should be scenes where Sean Connery falls off something and then morphs into Roger Moore. By the way, James Bond was based on this guy:

!!!) Anyway, if you don't watch Bourne Ultimatum then.... you're silly.

So, I’m fixin’ to buy a car. At first I was “I don’t care what it looks like so long as it’s reliable, fuel efficient and has low kms”. Now I’m “I don’t care what it looks like so long as it’s reliable, fuel efficient and has low kms and doesn’t look or drive like a truck or isn’t boxy and grannie like James’ car.” I have to consider aesthetics and connotations. For example, while I want a small car, I do not want a Barina.


The kind of girl who drives a Barina I feel alienated from/by.

The kind of girl that drives a Barina has long straightened blonde hair, wears over sized sunnies, a knee length designer trechcoat and pointy toed stiletto knee high boots. She studied commerce/law or journalism, reads Danielle Steele novels and her favourite show is All Saints or Grey’s Anatomy. On the weekends, she hangs out with fashion victim boyfriend or gay best friend at the Quarry, before or after having drinks with her cloned girlfriends.

I do not want to drive a Barina.

Postscript Who knows, maybe you think I’m the kind of girl who would drive a Barina. This would be interesting because it would mean your perception of me would be vastly different to the perception I have of myself…

Bust'n MythBusters

Does anyone read blogs any more? Or does FaceBook have monopoly on everyone's attention?

Now, MythBusters are popular and I must admit I enjoy watching the merry-spirited shenanigans, even if the presenters are a bit daggy. I also love the fact that they set out to test received "wisdom".

BUT

I have to say, they're sloppy scientists. And no, it's because I'm an uptight librarian/teacher type (I'm not) who doesn't like explosions. Explosions, fires that kind of thing - they're fun.

No, their science is actually sloppy. Last night they were debunking two myths. The first "myth" (the Fumanchu Team did this one) was that the Hindenburg disaster should be blamed on the reactive and flammable coating of the zeppelin (now there's a good scrabble word, if you're fortunate enough to get 2 "P"s), not the hydrogen inside. This "myth" is from recent research challenging conventional wisdom that it hydrogen that was the culprit.

Now to test the myth, they made 1/50th scale Hindenburgs: 1) coated in the explosive stuff but not filled with H 2) coated in the same stuff and filled with H and 3) not filled with H and coated in something extra explosive, just for fun.

However, in order to do good science, Team Fumanchu should have made no. 4 and filled it with Hydrogen and coated it with something else. If it didn't burn like the Hindenburg, then you could take the blame (partially) off the Hydrogen. If it did, then the myth would have been debunked.

This is fairly important, since they (you know, them) are considering zeppelins as a viable alternative to fuel guzzling airplanes. We wouldn't want them buy the New Research Myth and create a Hindenburg II.

It's sloppy science because it's not thorough, and the theory Team MythBusters run on just doesn't respect logic. We can't neglect the theoretical side of science, even if it's "just" TV.

Oh, and the Myth was busted.

The other team, Team Racial and Gender Inclusive (TRAGI) tested the myth that in order to escape a crocodile, you should run in a zigzag because crocs can't turn corners.

Now, I know the focus of the show is all on experiment and getting too caught up in the theory isn't fun for TV brains to absorb... but surely anyone can tell that you only need to do a thought experiment* to figure out that the Croc Myth is ridiculous.

Provided that Croc is not on your heels, but a few metres away, he's going to snap you on your first ZIG, since he's not going to be so daft as to follow your zigzag path. And a zigzag motion is going to take you less distance in the Y direction than just running away from Croc in a straight line, so Croc will cover more ground in his pursuit of you.

Myth Busted.

But no TRAGI had to travel all the way from SF to Florida (where crocs live) to test their theory. And the crocs weren't even interested in the bait (dead birds). You'd think they'd try different bait (sausages, gazelle chops, TRAGI). No. None of that.

Sacrificing good science for entertainment. And maybe it's good entertainment if I can get a post out of its stupidity.

* On the topic of thought experiments, I think you can use the concept to provide a good definition of determinism, which I often struggle to articulate.
Determinism: 1) Suppose you are omniscient (about the past, but not the future) and you perform a thought experiment X. You derive result A.
2) You perform experiment X in real life (supposing that X was exactly transferable between mind and real world), and you derive result B.
If you are shocked by this result, that A does not necessarily equal B, then you are a determinist. B must = A, in your world. If this result doesn't bother you, then you are probably not a determinist.
What do you think of this definition?