My favorite toys as a kid were...

My favorite toys as a child were... (you may select more than one)

Slinky

Jacks

Hula Hoop

Ouija Board

Pogo Stick

Silly Putty

Simon

Rubik's Cube

Blocks

Tinker Toys

Pong or Atari console

My Bike!

Dolls

My Skateboard or Skates

Child's Oven

Yo-Yo

Play-Dough

Legos

Erector Set

Others (tell us in the comments!)

Here's the deal.

More like just a request, since you've no obligation to even view my blog, much less negotiate terms.

Seems like people hit the polls pretty consistently and other easy, prepackaged food items on my blog (save empath, who comments on almost everything :), but rarely utter a peep about the more serious, or prosaic, stuff. Like my article just written about how technology has not really enabled artists to be more free.

I'll continue to throw in polls, quizzes, pictures, videos, and fun stuff, if people will realize that little essays, philosophy, poems, and lyrics is what truly interests ME. You're under no obligation of course, but it makes me very happy to see intelligent comments in reply to something I've thought out and written down here, not just the pop-culture stuff that so many blogs feature.

Just asking, if you could, to consider the deeper arts.

Much of it's my fault for not reviewing books and movies, a sort of intellectual middleground, as I promised I would. I shall try to focus on that, and other ways of drawing people into more serious discussions.

Cheers.

Ancient culture curveball... no gods involved.

What is your favorite ancient culture to learn about, if you have one?

Sumerians

Egyptians

Greeks

Romans

Chinese

Maya

Israelites

Persians

Aboriginals

None or other than above

Ruminations on art and tech.

The computer has not yet empowered people with artistic vision but who are challenged by technique to break out and express themselves. To thin that wall between what is imagined and what is presented.

It merely allows different forms of expression, and comes with its own set of barriers and learning curves. Perhaps this is indigenous, inexorable. But I don't think so. I think there are those:

With little artistic vision or ambition.
With moderate to great vision but who lack technique.
True masters of both.

The true masters will find a way in any culture, with any tools, in any setting. We have seen it from times primordial and now lost. The first kind of people are not to be scorned, they are who they are and shouldn't be judged.

It's the middle kind of people computers seemed to promise to liberate to some degree. If you could take away the element of manual dexterity, the knowledge of mixing pigments, maybe that rare person's vision could come through as he or she sees it internally.

Sadly, it's not turned out that way. Sure, photos are manipulated, 3D objects are created in wireframe and covered with textures and maps, music is synthesized to make sounds never before heard, even industrial design is changed by 6-axis controllers and 3D 'printers.'

But the barrier to entry is still there. The interface, the techniques of these new technologies is very challenging, and still requires lots of practice and some initial genetic ability. As I said, it could be that such things are inseparable - part and parcel of art. The beauty is in the final product, but also in the journey.

It's not made writing prose or poetry or lyrics any easier, nor can retouching tools save an uninspired photo, nor 'natural' painting tools make paintings which look natural, nor can, still, the man or woman who has a sudden vision easily turn that into something which others can experience.

Technology has added more tools, more possible outcomes, more things to practice, and perhaps made the variety of media richer. It's not as though it's killed traditional art in the least. People still work clay with their hands for the feeling of it, and smelt swords, and arrange words and speak before crowds.

I guess the frustration is (and may always be, but I don't think so), that unless you take up the noble but distinct art of technique and/or technical knowledge, an intuitive transfer of what you see or hear or feel in your head and heart still cannot be easily made flesh, so to speak.

I know I struggle with a lack of technique in drawing, painting, photography, sculpting, making music, singing, conveying ineffable feelings through verbal imagery, and crafting stories, and it's frustrating because there is so much there, awaiting only simple, intuitive UIs and tools to allow me to release them in all their horror and heavenly beauty.

Unofficial video.

A poll about polls... and other things.

What would you like to see most in the short-term? (All of these are planned at some point). You can select multiple answers but please limit these to those that interest you the most!

A quiz about ancient mythology.

A poll about your favorite music over the years.

A quiz about your knowledge of food.

A poll about the ways you use technology.

A series of essays on the basics of science.

A series of essays on the basics of mysticism.

Book, film, and software reviews.

Tips and tricks for Windows XP and the Internet (general)

Getting started in digital photography.

About the net's role in tracing one's geneaology.

Your favorite toys as a kid.

Your favorite activities and lifestyle now.

An introduction to the great English-speaking poets.

The latest science news and strange and funny stories from the web.

Other

Please Specify:

Snakes are cool... to a point.

Biggest snake that ever existed (so far as is known).

Meanwhile, Dinos are getting kicked in the nads this week.

What a lovely thing science is. Always full of surprises!

This looks scary as all hell.

Can't wait to see it!

Heh, cool.

Smartest guy ever? I think so.

“We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.”

Albert Einstein

Bullet-time again. Trying to break 0.100 :(

http://www.bullettimereaction.com/

Sweet!

Builders of Stonehenge Found

I'm surprised this passed me by as I usually scan the science news pretty thoroughly. Plus, I've seen Andrew Fitzpatrick in several documentaries talking about various structures in Wales and whatnot, but I didn't know he was in on a big story about Stonehenge.

Anyway, cool.

Sticking with the Nordic theme...

Here is a funny, yet right on the mark, article about Icelanders:
http://www.thestar.com/travel/adventure/article/693099

Here's a crazy video by Röyksopp

What Else Is There? from Röyksopp on Vimeo.

Here is Karin Dreijer of Fever Ray. =)

Here is your author.

Here are some cute kitties.

Hey, Dr. Hadley is the hottest girl in the world!

According to men's magazine Maxim, that is, which releases its "Hot 100" every year. To quote:

Olivia Wilde Tops Maxim Hot 100 List

"Maxim’s annual Hot 100 list came out earlier today with a surprising top finish for “House M.D.” and “Alpha Dog” star Olivia Wilde. Surprising not because she’s not attractive (far from!), but rather because she’s not as well known as some of the other ranking ladies. Ladies such as — personal favorites — Scarlett Johansson (#34) or Beyonce (#54). Still, hard to complain with Maxim’s choice as Ms. Wilde is quite the catch."

Here is another pic from the 2009 Emmys.


Here is the full list, by the way:
100. Deanna Russo
99. Melissa Rycroft
98. Rebecca Mader
97. Marisa Tomei
96. Olivia Munn
95. Padma Lakshmi
94. Yvonne Strahovski
93. Michelle Obama (huh?)
92. Joanna Krupa
91. Chelsea Handler
90. Roselyn Sanchez
89. Jamie Chung
88. Diane Kruger
87. Summer Glau
86. Ali Campoverdi
85. Michelle Trachtenberg
84. Minka Kelly
83. Whitney Port
82. Emma Watson
81. Heidi Montag
80. Jamie Gunns
79. Jaime King
78. Danica Patrick
77. Stacy Keibler
76. Cameron Richardson
75. Tricia Helfer
74. Amanda Bynes
73. Ashley Tisdale
72. Camilla Belle
71. Gabrielle Union
70. Maria Menounos
69. Jennifer Morrison
68. Ashley Greene
67. Emmy Rossum
66. Emma Stone
65. Amanda Righetti
64. Diora Baird
63. Milla Jovovich
62. Heidi Klum
61. Dania Ramirez
60. Carrie Underwood
59. Ana Ivanovic
58. Miranda Kerr
57. Audrina Patridge
56. Amber Heard
55. Christina Milian
54. Rachel Bilson
53. Kim Kardashian
52. Beyoncé
51. Sienna Miller
50. Taylor Swift
49. Freida Pinto
48. Arielle Kebbel
47. Katie Cassidy
46. Nicole Scherzinger
45. Fergie
44. Avril Lavigne
43. Elisha Cuthbert
42. Nikki Reed
41. Nadine Velazquez
40. Lily Allen
39. Anna Faris
38. Charlize Theron
37. Cameron Diaz
36. Hayden Panettiere
35. Anna Kournikova
34. Scarlett Johansson
33. Blake Lively
32. Ciara
31. Hilary Duff
30. Penélope Cruz
29. Zoe Saldana
28. Danneel Harris
27. Vanessa Hudgens
26. Angelina Jolie
25. Julianne Hough
24. Eva Mendes
23. Lindsay Lohan (yuck)
22. Kate Beckinsale
21. AnnaLynne McCord
20. Moon Bloodgood
19. Chan Marshall
18. Marisa Miller
17. Britney Spears
16. Gina Carano
15. Katy Perry
14. Christina Aguilera
13. Jessica Alba
12. Leighton Meester
11. Jessica Biel
10. Jennifer Love Hewitt
9. Jordana Brewster
8. Rihanna
7. Adriana Lima
6. Eliza Dushku
5. Mila Kunis
4. Malin Akerman
3. Bar Refaeli
2. Megan Fox
1. Olivia Wilde

On my own top 100, I'd probably keep 1, 2, 4, 5, 13, 19, 22, 26, 34, 38, 39, 43, 51, 59, 63, 72, and 96, though definitely not in that order. Maybe a few others.

Just goes to show, not everyone is right. I mean, everyone has different tastes. That's what I meant.

This is a trip.

Here's the good old Mercator Projection of the Earth. No big deal.

Now if the countries are resized according to their relative populations, look what happens (click for bigger pic).

Whoa!

I think India needs about a zillion boxes of condoms dropped on them. Also, Indonesia, Japan, China (though their growth has stalled because of their 1-child policy), Mexico, and some African countries.

To see more fascinating population maps, including one of each country, visit these links:

The main site
Select a country by clicking on it
The Daily Mail's writeup

Yahoo! Answers.

Check out Yahoo! Answers, a great community resource for asking questions and receiving HUMAN answers, which range the gamut from nonsensical to truly helpful. It fills a niche that pure AI-driven inquiry results can't hope to match at the present, though you must use your brain in order to sort the wheat from the chaff (which you should always be doing in life anyways).

It's fun too, both to ask esoteric questions and to answer questions about subjects in which you are particularly knowledgeable. Good job, Yahoo. I like it!

http://answers.yahoo.com

LOL! Google is cool.

Go to the normal Google search page and type in "Google Chuck Norris"

Haha. As big as they are, Google still has an impish sense of humor.

Weird...

I'm in a GREAT mood tonight!!

Alexander the Great's Empire.

A lot has been said about Alexander of Macedon and his conquests. What's amazing to me is how tiny Macedonia is compared to his conquered area, a conquest all done within his brief lifetime (he died aged 32, 4 years younger than I am!). First he had to conquer the rest of Greece, no mean feat. Then he decided as the ruler of all of Greece to exact revenge on Darius of Persia, a huge empire with about 10 times the population of all of the Greek city-states combined, because in his forefathers' time Darius' direct ancestor Xerxes had burned Athens to the ground and humiliated the proud Greeks. So he defeated Darius directly on the battlefield against typically 3-1 odds or worse, using superior tactics, and caused the great Persian king to flee from battle. This he repeated again, and soon he had Darius on the run back to Persepolis, his capital, which was adorned with treasures and a palace the likes of which even Alexander, schooled by Aristotle in Athens, had never seen. He pillaged Persepolis, burnt it to the ground as revenge for Athens, and erected a new temple for himself, taking on Darius' wives for his own as a final insult. Darius was forced to flee into the desert with a handful of bodyguards and was stabbed to death by one of them, probably for cowardice or maybe simply for his jewelry. And so the proud Persian empire and unbroken dynasty of kings, which had been certainly the largest and most formidable in the Western world since the decline of Pharaonic Egypt and until the rise of Rome some few hundred years later, was toppled in a few short years by a tiny neighbor with a brilliant general-king.

And he didn't stop there. There seemed to be some restless demon inside him which would not let him stay content and enjoy palace life. He drove on inexplicably, conquering the nations we now call Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kazakhstan, Armenia, The Levant, Egypt (where he established the new capital of Alexandria, where Cleopatra would one day rule and which became the center of learning in the ancient world), and parts of India and Mongolia - with brief incursions into the monsoon country of southeast Asia and the steppes of central Asia (having already taken what is modern Iraq and Iran within a couple years). The United States today, with all its military power, could probably not accomplish this, certainly not in the time frame that Alexander did. Granted, there were much smaller populations all round the world in those days, and no nukes, so vast tracts of land could be taken without too much opposition, if you cut off the head of the snake (the leader) who controlled them. It was a matter of picking key battles, and Alexander is said to have never lost a battle in his life. Something drove this man to conquer almost the entire known world at that time (as opposed to the "unknown world," which I suppose means China didn't know its own country existed!), and rule over the largest empire the world would see until Ghengis Khan (although the Mongols really just terrorized all of Asia and never built much on their own, so it's hard to consider them an "empire"). Certainly in land terms it was larger than Rome would ever be, though as soon as Alexander died, and having failed to produce an heir, his empire would be divided into four pieces ruled by his favorite generals, and even these would eventually either splinter further, or slowly lose their Greek character and return to ways much the same as they were before the conquest (such as the Seleucid Empire, which the Jews would later revolt against in Judea).

Despite his short lifespan, Alexander had an immense influence on the world. He ushered in what historians call the Hellenistic Age, when maybe one-quarter of the world's people spoke Greek and built architecture and made art in imitation of Greece. Greece had gone from a backwater of infighting city-states to the supreme world power in a matter of years. And long after the empire itself was dissolved, its cultural influence lasted. Saul of Tarsus was a Greek Jew who, after having a seizure (probably), having a vision of Jesus, and renaming himself Paul, became an apostle of the Christ (whom he never actually met), and spread Christianity to the gentiles. Paul was really the driving force (even more so than Peter or James, who wanted to keep the worship of Christ within Jewish Law and Jewish ethnic circles) behind creating the huge religion that exists today, whose followers so little understand the actual history behind who and what they worship. The Vatican really ought to name Paul the first Pope and claim he's buried under their cathedral rather than Peter, who by all accounts was Jewish to the last and wanted nothing to do with gentiles, which of course represent nearly all Christians today.

And the Romans would adopt Greece's art and architecture, their pantheon of deities, their fighting style, and much of their culture when they rose to power, overthrowing their Etruscan oppressors in Italy so they could go on to build another great empire and oppress lots of other people. And in their conversion to Christianity under Constantine, they had the Bible formally put together and written in Greek, although a Hebrew copy also existed which differs somewhat. The Greek and Hebrew Bibles are the oldest forms we have today - not Latin, not Aramaic, certainly not Persian! And all because of a young fair-haired, probably homosexual warmonger named Alexander from the tiny state of Macedonia. History tends to move rather slowly, and rarely do individuals actually change the world, through they may be seen by posterity as the figureheads of a larger movement. But Alexander was one person whom I believe really did alter the course of world events all by himself. Without him things would be quite different. Better or worse? Who knows, but certainly different.

Here is a map of the extent of Alexander's empire whilst he was still alive. It's impossibly small unless you click on it for the full size.

1776 (Two become one)

Now I grow old, desperation stinking from nightmarish states of mind.
Like a little ritual, putting my pills into their resting spots.
It makes me feel old, a happening in yellow, pink, light blue, and... violent.
Psychotropic drugs: hungry like a pale fish, suck the world of all its color.
It makes me feel old, schoolboy reticence, rows and columns of books so comforting.
Lay on my back, dreaming of the past, dream of innocence again.
It makes me feel old, when I talk about it, it's something you can't handle.
Plays on my fears. Like a bear inside a cave, like a brave new underworld of danger.
It makes me feel old, sticky lights, moving walls, dance for hours with foreigners.
Night at the seashore, eyes back, dream-defined, waiting for moonbeams to take me.
It makes me feel old, glitter of the dance ball, blue dress and blue eyes and blue skin.
Now I come to it: see them twining, two become one and split back again.
Like a little death. Un petit mot, saccharine, I'm inside a flower resurrecting.
It makes me feel old, knowing that this spirit washed inside a shell, flowed
Around the beach-head, took its time finding me who was waiting, face up to the sun,
Moving my lips around like blind animals pulled screaming from amniotic bliss.
It makes me so cold, now the razor cleans me up, now the dregs are oozing.
Now I am young again, something in the sun took pity on my restlessness.
The two became one, me and my spirit light, hot and yet so soothing.
Gliding and moving, emissaries from the dark shaft of the ever-present grey
Afterlife where you and I are talking and our eyes reveal to us... everything.

Richard Dawkins almost always makes sense.

I'm not quite as staunch an atheist as he is, in fact I'm quite staunchly agnostic, a position he doesn't care much for, but nonetheless he and I agree 95% of the time on real-world issues.