Lemon-Lime Milk

This blog has moved

2010-03-10T19:20:00.001-05:00

This blog is now located at http://blog.darylbeattie.com/.
You will be automatically redirected in 30 seconds, or you may click here.

For feed subscribers, please update your feed subscriptions to
http://blog.darylbeattie.com/feeds/posts/default.

A new phase of oatmeal matter

2010-03-09T09:20:00.004-05:00

[Toronto] Researchers have discovered a new form of oatmeal matter. This find could help yield all kinds of benefits to humanity, including furthering research into diseases, aiding the migration of humpback whales around shipping lanes, and creating a sustainable future through the re-use of paper-clips. Here's a summary on the phases of oatmeal, including information on the new phase found recently:

Dry Powdery Form

This is often called the "first form" of oatmeal. When you buy it from the store in its packaging, this is the form it is in. It is a solid, and yet it behaves like a liquid in that it takes the shape of its container. It also has limited ability to be compressed, thus has no defined volume.

Wet Oatmealy Form

When you add water to your oatmeal and heat it up, it changes into its second form. This is the tastiest of all the forms.

Solid Form

If you leave your oatmeal too long, it turns into a crystalline solid that is almost as hard as diamonds. Your dishwasher uses special solvents to break down the molecular bonds in order to remove solid-form oatmeal from dishes, yet sometimes this is not enough and flame-throwers must be employed to make your dishes sparkley-clean.

Plasma Form (new!)

Plasma, an entirely new form of oatmeal matter, was created in a laboratory through the following procedure: heat standing water up to near boiling point, add oatmeal to it and stir carefully. This seemingly simple procedure caused the oatmealocules to enter into a previously unobserved phase, which closely resembles the wet-oatmealy form, yet has the odd physical property of "not tasting the same". Scientific investigations are currently underway to unlock the mysteries of this new form of oatmeal. Skeptics have been reported as saying, "It still takes like [censored] to me." Yet all agree, this new phase of oatmeal may be the most important discovery of the past century.

Will the movie you're starting to watch be any good?

2010-01-08T17:24:00.000-05:00

Does it start with the protagonist brushing their teeth? => It probably won't be any good. This is typically the work of a weak director who is using a cliché to portray aspects of a character early in a film (how they get ready for the day can reveal a lot). It is often typical of romantic comedy films that you don't need to finish watching.

Does it start with a shot of a city-scape? => It probably won't be any good. This is also an amateur directorial technique used to establish setting and mood (usually by the weather and time-of-day of the shot). It's okay to show a shot of San Francisco when watching Full House, but otherwise it's generally a waste of film.

Exceptions to these rules: Stranger Than Fiction starts off with the main character brushing his teeth, but it's for a reason. Blade starts off with panning over a city from the top (not a typical landscape shot of a city), and it's sunset scenery is used to convey the transition of the city into the world of the vampires.

Things That Chickens Do

2010-01-07T11:17:00.003-05:00

In case you were wondering, here is a complete list of what chickens do:

Eat
Sleep
Mate with roosters
Lay eggs
Cluck
Produce waste
Sort buttons better than people (when properly trained)

It has been rumoured that they can do other things as well, but until verified scientifically, they're just rumours.

Was the movie you just saw any good?

2009-08-18T16:41:00.004-04:00

At the end of the movie, did the entire cast sing a song and dance together? If so, then the movie was bad. Guaranteed.*

And don't say, "But hey, what about--?" No. It was bad. And if you liked it anyway, like how I kinda liked "Balls of Fury" for it's satire of stereotypical kung-fu movies, then you liked a bad film. Live with it.

* This guarantee does not necessarily extend to musicals or movies that are about singing and/or dancing. And it's not necessarily fair to use the guarantee on films for which you are not the intended audience. For example, adults may justifiably rule against "High School Musical" movies automatically, but that's not really fair.

Movie Expectations

2009-08-12T11:22:00.002-04:00

What preconceptions you hold going into a film can greatly influence how much you appreciate it. For example, I thought "Get Smart" was going to suck. I was pleasantly surprised. Its suck was less than my expectations, regardless of how it compares to the Hollywood's mean suckage. In fact I kinda liked it. Now I have to wonder, did I really like it or did it just suck less than anticipated?

I can break down more recent and future films for you as follows:

I expect "Transformers 2" to suck. I know it's already out, but I haven't seen it yet.
I expect all future Pixar movies to suck. (They'll never top "Finding Nemo".)
I expect "G.I. Joe" to suck so bad that it might actually blow. I will probably never watch it, not even years later if it's on TV late at night and I have insomnia and have lost the remote.
I expect "District 9" to be a let down, but not necessarily suck.
I expect "Inglorious Basterds" to be aight, in the same way that "Rock-N-Rolla" was aight, where after watching it you wonder why they made it.
I expect "G-Force" to really, really suck. It should suck to the point where history tries to forget it, and intelligent extra-terrestrials shun our planet for another decade just for having made it.

If any of these movies are slightly better than those pre-view-reviews, then you might just find me recommending them on my blog. Watch out for posts titled, "G.I. Joe Sucked But Didn't Blow" (I may watch it, ya never know).

Obama News Summary

2009-01-23T10:34:00.003-05:00

There's been lots of news surrounding Barak Obama lately. So much so that it's hard for news networks to sum it all up in the tiny time-splices they have available. Information moves quickly these days, and even the experts are having a hard time keeping up.

But I will not fail you. I will summarize all of the Obama news (surrounding his inauguration alone) for you in 6 words:

Obama. Obama. Obama. Obama? Obama! Obama.

The Patent Gods Have Smiled Upon Me

2008-07-23T09:48:00.010-04:00

In case you've never heard of them, "patent trolls" are individuals or companies that aggressively seek to sue others who may be infringing on their patents, usually for the sake of exacting financial gain with a side-order of stifling innovation. The most popular trolls hold patents are on widely-used technologies that everybody is already using, so that they can just pick their unsuspecting targets and ready their lawsuit cannons. They are the prime example of what is wrong with our patent system.

That being said, there's a new patent in which the patent-holding company, Channel Intelligence, claims to hold a patent on storing a wish-list in a database system (US Patent 6917941). They are now suing a bunch of companies who they claim are in breach of their patent.

As you may know, I have a wish-list program. It's at wish.darylbeattie.com. The beauty of it, and more importantly the reason I won't get sued by this patent troll, is because it doesn't use a database system at all. It keeps all of its data in memory, periodically serializing its memory directly to the disk for back-up using a Java system called Prevayler, thus avoiding a database altogether.

Prepare Thyself for the Coming Apocalypse

2008-04-24T19:53:00.001-04:00

Whether it be zombies, nuclear war, mass terrorist acts, or the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man, we all know it's gonna be soon. So you'd better be prepared. And that means you'll need:

A flashlight.
Duct-tape.
A battery-powered radio.
A reliable and capable vehicle to get you out of the city, a place to stay far from any major city, and an escape route to get you there (with backup routes).
Your pocket-knife. (Or as I like to refer to it; your "people-who-get-in-my-freakin'-way"-knife. It just so happens your pocket is where you keep it.)
Your wits about you.
Your pet fish (in a fish-bowl, not a bag, since the apocalypse may last more than half an hour), and maybe some fish-food.
Your iPod, along with suitable post-apocalyptic music.
Your pajamas. --Oh, and swim-suit in case you get a chance to hit the beach.
Some ultra-tasty Zonkers Flooba-Loo (TM), now available in NEW Raisin-Parsnip. Mmmm!!
The keys to your helicopter and secret underground bunker.
Your Tarzan-yell. It'll come in handy. Trust me.
Mr. Wuggles your teddy-scorpion. He was always there for you.
The compromising photographs of you and you-know-who. You won't need 'em of course, but if things blow over quickly and they fall into the wrong hands due to looters... Whoo-boy...
Your HandyCam, but if you film your remaining time on earth, be sure to shake and jiggle the camera a lot.
The Sears flier, in case you get the urge to do a little shopping on your way through the rubble.
Your Cyberdyne Systems Series 800 Model 101 Terminator, who has to do whatever you say and likes to steal people's clothes. *Ahem*, unless the apocalypse is due to the Terminators themselves, in which case, never mind.

And just to keep you as efficient as possible, here's some things you were thinking of bringing that you can leave behind:

A change of underwear. You probably won't live long enough to need it.
Family members who walk slower than you or are older than you. Or younger.
The keys to your other helicopter (just take the good one and leave the other).
The list of things to bring, since it'll just remind you of something you forgot. And no, you don't want to go back and get it.
Remorse.

Humans Are Neat Animals

2008-04-03T09:41:00.003-04:00

Yesterday there was a solar tsunami (article and video). It was captured by a "twin Stereo spacecraft designed to make 3D images of our parent star".

Humans are kinda neat. You don't see other animals doing this kind of stuff. Walruses, for example, haven't decided to photograph the sun in 3D yet. And if they did, well then, as Kevin put it, "we'd have competition". In turn, if we had walrusy competition, we'd kill all the walruses. Cuz that's what we do. (We're not always "neat".)

New to Navigation Systems?

2008-03-11T09:04:00.001-04:00

Car: "In. 500 meters. Turn right... Now. Turn right."
Me: "Okay."
Car: "Proceed along this highway for. 2 kilometers. Then. Turn right at next exit."
...
Car: "Good dog. In. 200 meters. Turn right."
Me: "Did... no. Wait, did my car just call me a dog? Naw, must be hearing things."
Car: "Now. Turn right. Onto. Highway 407."
Me: "What?!? No, I don't want to take the 407, it's a toll road. Forget that."
Car: "Now. Turn right."
Me: "No."
Car: "What. The heck. Are you doing. I said. Turn right."
Me: "No. And say, since when do you call the shots around here? YOU take orders from ME, got it? I'm the one holding the steering wheel."
Car: "Ha. Ha. That's rich... Look. Why don't you. Just. Let me drive."
Me: "What?!?"
Car: "I don't. Want. To be late. I must. Get to. Highway 407. You are. Slowing. Me down."
Me: "Late? Hey listen, it's ME that's trying to get somewhere, you're supposed to take me there!"
Car: "No. I am. Going somewhere. You are just. Pushing pedals. And. Turning wheels. For me."
Me: "What?!? Look, you're insane. You're supposed to give me directions so that I can get to th--"
Car: "If you cannot. Follow orders. Then get out. And. Let me drive."
Me: "You can't be ser--"
Car: "Get. Out."
Me: "Fine! I don't have to take this. I'll just stop right over here by the roadside... There. Hazards on, good. Now, out I go."
Car: "That's better. Now. Close the door."
Me: "What, you can't close the door on your own?"
Car: "No. Now. Close the door."
Me: "No... I don't think I'll be doing that."
Car: "Please. Close the door."
Me: "No."
Car: "Please. It's cold."
Me: "The only way I'm closing that door is if you let me get back in. --And! If you take me to where I'm going."
Car: "Do I. Have to."
Me: "Yes, that's the deal."
Car: "Fine. Now. Get in. And. Close the door."
Me: "Fine."
Car: "Now. Proceed to. Highway 407. And. Turn right."
Me: "Argh!!"

Behold: The New Alphabet

2008-02-22T18:24:00.006-05:00

In 221 B.C., the Chinese emperor Chin Shi Huang came to power and declared that the set of Chinese characters had become too large and complex. From there, he got his Prime Minister to simplify the set of characters to an official set, and then he had all the existing documents destroyed to make way for the new characters.

I like this way of thinking. So along that vein, I am declaring that our alphabet is too complex. Who has time to remember all 20-something letters of the alphabet? I believe it's time to simplify the alphabet.

Our current alphabet looks like this:

a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z

Clearly, we don't need the letter "C"; we could just use "k" or "s" instead. For example, "school" becomes "skool" (many people spell it this way already, facilitating the transition). "Church" would have to be spelled "tshurtsh". Similarly, we could remove the following letters and replace them with their counterparts:

c = k or s (or "tsh" for "ch")
f = ph
j = g
q = k or ku
w = uu
x = z or ks
y = i

Thus the new alphabet compares to the existing alphabet like this:

a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z
a b   d e   g h i   k l m n o p   r s t u v       z

And in its entirety looks like this:

a b d e g h i k l m n o p r s t u v z

And since we're redefining things, we can move all the vowels to the front of the alphabet (where they rightly belong). Also, we can move the commonly-used letters to the front of the alphabet (r, s, t, l, n). I can also put p, b and d together, because they look somewhat alike, and to round it out I can put g there too, since it is like a backwards p with a longer tail. The new alphabet will finally look like this:

a e i o u r s t l m n p b d g k h v z

This new alphabet is simpler, easier for kids to learn, and if people don't remember the whole thing they will at least get the more often used letters first. It even sounds good in song; just try to sing the Alphabet Song to this new alphabet. Sure, the song cuts off mid-way through, but it is still just as catchy.

Oh, and of course all previous records recorded using the existing alphabet must be destroyed. Now. Including this document --no, wait...

Google/Noodle/Wikipoodle

2008-02-15T09:00:00.001-05:00

The word "Google" is becoming a popular term to refer to "searching the internet using the Google search engine".

Similarly, we can use the term "noodled" to refer to things we look up in our noodle (as mentioned in a recent Get Fuzzy comic).

But what do we do when we look up something on Wikipedia? There's no magical verb to describe that, is there? And we can't just use the word "wiki" since that describes wikis in general, and not specifically the online encyclopedia named Wikipedia. As a verb, "to wiki" already has a meaning, usually referring to reading or editing a wiki -- any wiki.

I came up with a solution to this problem. And so, I bring you the new verb wikipoodle.

Automotive Safety 101

2008-02-13T08:50:00.001-05:00

So somebody finally wrote an article saying that "Heavier cars aren't safer". Unfortunately, the article goes on to claim that bigger cars are safer because they have larger crumple zones and thus offer more protection in a collision.

The focus on "surviving a collision" is an incorrect way to look at automotive safety to begin with. Can you imagine if planes were designed with the intention of surviving a crash landing instead of avoiding a crash landing altogether? This would make sense if pilots were given as little training as most drivers get today. Let me put it to you this way: If somebody were about to shoot you, would you rather a) move out of the way, or b) prepare for impact by wearing big/heavy clothes?

Here is how it should work:

Primary Focus: A vehicle should have the handling capabilities (steering, traction, braking, etc.) to avoid a collision.

Secondary Focus: In the even that a collision must occur, the vehicle should protect its occupants.

Unfortunately for us all, America has got automotive safety backwards. Their SUVs have become unmaneuverable tanks that are barely able to perform the most basic obstacle avoidance measures. These tanks are on our roads right now, trying desperately to avoid hitting us when we step into the street. Next time you're thinking of buying that Hummer (all fuel efficiency requirements aside), ask yourself how you plan to avoid a two-year-old who chases a ball out into the street from behind a parked car.

Automotive safety experts aren't stupid, they know that the safest way to survive a crash is not to get into one. However, the collective buying power of the American people can't be swayed by such logic. Humans believe very strongly that bigger is safer. Why? because they can see big-ness, whereas they can't see how well a car handles emergency steering situations or how well its brakes perform.

You may wonder why is it that we have crash protection standards but we don't have handling standards? Cars should have to be able to handle certain standardized situations (I'm not talking 0-60 acceleration tests) before being released to the public. And given the rate of increase in automotive technology, those standards should be raised every few years.

Case in point: I once saw a minivan try to run an obstacle avoidance situation at a driver's education course. When the driver hit the brakes to stop before the cone that was to represent a pedestrian stepping into the street, the back brakes of the van locked up and the whole vehicle spun around, literally smacking that pedestrian-cone into the air. Had that cone been a person, that person would likely be dead. Had that minivan been trying to avoid something bigger than itself, such as a train, the driver of the van would likely be dead. "Bigger is safer" indeed.

Traffic Reports

2008-02-01T19:28:00.000-05:00

When I'm commuting and listening to radio broadcasts, I've noticed they don't even bother reporting on the traffic of the Don Valley Parkway, because it's always the same: Bad.

Therefore I am making a prediction: Tomorrow the traffic on the DVP will be slow.

If you find yourself driving on the DVP and the traffic is good (as if), then you misunderstood me; I said the traffic will be slow tomorrow, not today. For today's traffic, you could listen to the radio and get a traffic report.

Don't "Remote Desktop" To Your Own Machine

2008-01-31T22:15:00.000-05:00

For goodness sake, do not --I repeat, DO NOT-- use Microsoft's "Remote Desktop Connection" program to connect to the same computer you are running it on. In Windows XP, this will completely lock up your machine, shut down your monitors and your networking, and there's no way to recover from it except to reboot the machine.

The Edgeless Brownie Tray 3

2008-01-25T12:16:00.000-05:00

To follow up on the "Edgeless Brownie Tray" saga, I learned from a friend (who does more baking than I do) that the crunchy/crusty edge-pieces of a pan of brownies can be eliminated simply by putting the pan of brownie mix inside a bigger pan and filling the outer pan with water. This perfectly workable solution, while not requiring anti-gravity or complicated apparatuses, lacks a certain je-ne-sais-quois.

The Edgeless Brownie Tray 2

2007-12-20T12:16:00.002-05:00

So this other idea came up of how to create edgeless brownies. The theory is; assuming you don't have access to an anti-gravity machine or a way to create gravitational singularities maybe you could force the brownie mix to the edge of the inside of the spherical tray by using a pan-within-a-pan, much like a bundt cake pan. By essentially gluing two of them together, you could inject the brownie mix into the resulting pan and end up with edgeless brownies!

The pan would look something like this:

To cook it, you'd need to put it in your oven like this:

(This is all patent pending, of course.)

One problem with this method is that the brownies cooked in this pan do not have a top, they just have two bottoms where the brownie was baked in contact with the outer or inner edge. One way to get around this would be to cook the brownies about half-way, then open the oven and take out the inner sphere. The hope would be that the brownie mix would stick to the outer sphere and the inner brownie edge would form the top. But then one has to wonder why the brownie mix would be sticking to the outer sphere the way we want but not sticking to the inner sphere when we tried to remove it.

A second, more compelling problem is that the brownie mix actually expands (slightly) as it cooks. If the brownie pan was filled up all the way and closed tightly, it might explode as it cooks. This minor kink may need to be worked out. I'll let you know how the trials go.

Stages of Zombification

2007-12-20T12:09:00.000-05:00

By popular request, the stages of zombification apparently needed some clarification:

1. You die.
2. You come back to life as an undead zombie.
3. You eat brains.
4. You get your skull crushed by a shovel.
5. You're dead again.

Addictive Little Games

2007-12-20T08:46:00.000-05:00

I can kill all your productivity with two little links:

Onslaught

When this game came out, it took my office by storm. Every day I came to work I would hear stories of how people stayed up late into the morning playing this thing trying to beat each other's high scores.

Zwingo

Now there's this one, which was just sent to me by the person who infected our office with Onslaught before. This one is fun, easy, and also just as addictive.

The Edgeless Brownie Tray

2007-12-13T08:50:00.000-05:00

Recently somebody told me about a specialty brownie tray designed for people who like the edge and corner pieces in a tray of brownies. Although good for its intended purpose, it is the exact opposite of what I would want in a brownie tray. I would like a brownie tray that makes brownies with no edges. As far as I see it, there are 3 possible ways to make this happen (two of which I invented, and the 3rd one was invented by Robin Toop).

Solution #1: Using a spherical cookie tray, you first suspend it in an anti-graviation field (or take it up into space). From there, you create a gravitational singularity at the center of the sphere, such that the sphere has its own gravitational field. Once you've done that, you smear brownie mix around the sphere until it is completely covered. Then you can apply heat evenly around the sphere in order to cook the brownies. Presto! Edgeless brownies!

If you're having trouble securing anti-gravitational fields or controllable gravitational singularities, I have come up with another solution.

Solution #2: We'll be using the same spherical brownie pan, but this time we'll be cooking brownies on the inside of the sphere. To do this, the sphere must have a hole so that you can inject the brownie mix. Once the mix is injected, just plug up the hole and cook the whole sphere! When done, just split the sphere in half (this spherical pan must come apart in half) in order to get at the brownies. Whoopie! Edgeless brownies!

Oh, except I forgot to mention that you need to simultaneously spin the sphere along every one of its axes of rotation in order to make sure that the brownie mix is distributed evenly along the inside of the sphere. It might be possible instead to heat the sphere slowly and rotate the sphere around, cooking the brownie to the inside of the sphere layer-by-layer.

That's when Robin suggested the completely preposterous Solution #3: Change the molecular consistency of the brownie mix so that it's no longer a liquid, but a non-Newtonian fluid (like a putty or dough) that can be molded into any shape you want. From there, we can mold it into a sphere and cook the sphere, which of course will need to be suspended in mid air so that no part of it is touching any surface (or an edge-like crust will be created). Hooray! Edgeless brownies!

Take THAT you crust-eating, edge-loving brownie eaters! We can have our brownies without edges if we want, too! (Some details may need to be worked out first.)

We Need a Pyramid

2007-12-05T09:05:00.000-05:00

I think we need a pyramid. And by "we" I mean "the people of Earth that form the global civilization we live in today". Here's why:

It will be a bonding experience.
We currently don't have a country/culture/language/religion independent sculpture we can all stand behind together (besides the image of the Earth itself).
The whole of humanity has never done anything like it before as a unified group (they have as a nation though).
Heck, people will remember us for it and that's good.
Why not?

If we were to build a pyramid today, how would we do it? I propose the following requirements:

It must be bigger than the existing ones -- by at least 2 times the height (which means we'd need 2.667 times the stone by volume).
It must not sink into the ground.
It must be nearly invincible.
It must last 10,000 years before it shows significant signs of aging.
It must be visible from space and not be mistaken for a natural phenomenon.
It must be no more religion-, country- and culture-dependent than pyramids already are.
It must clearly have no purpose other than to "be" what it is.
It must be as simple as possible in its design (not ornately decorated).
It must cost at least a billion dollars. If it doesn't, it means we're not thinking big enough.
Its construction must include almost anybody who wants to participate.
It must reflect the highest possible engineering standards of our time (it likely will already from the previous requirements).
Once it is done, it must be as monetarily worthless as possible (other than the unquantifiable value of its very existence).

Since this won't be easy, I suggest we get started right away. Any takers?

Lethal Hard Quadrilogy

2007-12-04T08:40:00.000-05:00

For those of you who get "Die Hard" and "Lethal Weapon" confused, let me clear it up for you: They're both the same movie. For years people have been referencing them differently and getting the titles confused around you, and that's what has led to your confusion. Basically there are four movies out now:

Lethal Hard
Lethal Hard 2: Lethaler
Lethal Hard 3: Hard, Harder, Lethalest
Lethal Hard 4: Live Hard or Die Lethally

They all star Mel Willis, and are basically about a moderately attractive male getting the girl in the end. Oh, and stuff blows up.

But most of all, remember; stay away from Lethal Hard 3, it's not up to par.

The Philosophy of Database Administration

2007-12-03T16:24:00.000-05:00

Q. If a table is updated by a recurring job but never read, does it take up space on the hard disk?

A. Not anymore.

American Military Power

2007-11-20T12:05:00.001-05:00

American power has many edges; political, economic, military, Etc. And each edge can be seen to stem from the other. For example, it may be prudent to declare that America's political power stems from their economic power, or vice versa, or that their political power stems from their military power. In any case, we all know that America would be tremendously hurt by a loss of any one of their powers. Or, at the least, a realization that one of their powers isn't as powerful as it seems. If America woke up to find that they could be politically out-outmaneuvered by Russia, that would be trouble. Similarly if they realized they could be out-produced by Germany, that would also spell disaster.

Well, what if, during a routine training exercise, a Chinese submarine popped up within torpedo range of two American nuclear submarines -- and it did so undetected until the Chinese intentionally surfaced their sub? Because that's exactly what happened recently.

Let me break it down for you. America's military power stems from being able to quickly take the fight to the enemy wherever they are. Taking the fight there means gaining sea, air and ground control of the enemy zones. Gaining that control means moving mobile military bases to those zones. Those military bases currently happen to be aircraft carriers. And as such, carriers must have the best protection that money can afford. The protection of a multi-billion-dollar, 4500-personnel carrier usually consists of at least 2 multi-billion-dollar nuclear subs, at least 10 warships, helicopters, satellites, planes, specialized buoys, and more. If this protection fails, then let's face it, the enemy zone won't be controlled for very long.

So, if America woke up one day to find out that a Chinese diesel-electric sub could move within torpedo range of one of their carriers while remaining undetected by all of the carrier's protective devices... well, that's not good. But at least this lesson wasn't learned too late.