:: The UberPlexer ::

URLinfo

[::..archive..::]
03/01/2003 - 03/31/2003 04/01/2003 - 04/30/2003 05/01/2003 - 05/31/2003 06/01/2003 - 06/30/2003 07/01/2003 - 07/31/2003 08/01/2003 - 08/31/2003 09/01/2003 - 09/30/2003 10/01/2003 - 10/31/2003 11/01/2003 - 11/30/2003 12/01/2003 - 12/31/2003 01/01/2004 - 01/31/2004 02/01/2004 - 02/29/2004 03/01/2004 - 03/31/2004 04/01/2004 - 04/30/2004 05/01/2004 - 05/31/2004 06/01/2004 - 06/30/2004 07/01/2004 - 07/31/2004 08/01/2004 - 08/31/2004 09/01/2004 - 09/30/2004

:: Sunday, March 30, 2003 ::

Baseball, finally.

Later.
:: Matthew 7:11 PM [+]    ::
...

CPK update. Terr yaked, but it wasn't too graphic as he kept it in a garbage can. Which also means that he didn't hit any Deephers. But have no fear, despite all the milk he was still able to have a couple beers afterwards.

Later.


:: Matthew 5:35 PM [+]    ::
...

Reasons why the UberPlex makes sense as a term:

1. Uber in the sense of being better: This apartment, "The UberPlex," is much better than "The Plex," which I don't think had even one 90 degree angle.

2. Uber in the sense of being higher or over: "The UberPlex" is on the third floor, "The Plex" was the basement and first floor, therefore we are at a higher elevation here.

The thing to remember is that "The Plex," is the one and only.

Later.
:: Matthew 6:17 PM [+]    ::
...

CPK is tonight. Terrence is going to be in it. His "talent" is to drink a gallon of milk in 5 minutes. Apparently this is impossible to do because your body starts to reject all of the lactose. These dudes have some commentary on it. It's described almost like a drug overdose.

There are a couple other places that refer to a common bet being "drink a gallon of milk in an hour."

It will be interesting to see Terr puke tonight. I think he got the order switched so that he drinks all the milk before formal wear or something like that. In any case, if anyone wants to see some puking (and doesn't want to spend gobs of money at a bar), come by CPK at 8 pm.

Later.
:: Matthew 6:13 PM [+]    ::
...

So my big elgooG screen shot isn't going to happen. It was shut down temporarily while looking for mirror sites to cut down on bandwidth. Damn, damn, damn.

In the meantime, check out the cockeyed.com and alltooflat.com websites. "How much is inside..." from cockeyed.com is a good read for the burgeoning engineer. Later.

:: Matthew 4:27 PM [+]    ::
...

"The UberPlex" makes perfect sense. Later.

:: Matthew 7:42 AM [+]    ::
...

Yeah, so this is pretty cool. Don't forget to type into the text box backwards as well. I put together a mirror font, but forgot to install it on this computer. Hopefully tomorrow I'll have a screen shot with mirrored text as well. Later.

:: Matthew 11:39 PM [+]    ::
...

Everyone should read The US Constitution. Though what is the reason for Amendment XXVII? "No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened." It doesn't really seem to make any sense, or at least doesn't seem worthy of a whole damn amendment. It was adopted in 1992.

OK, a little looking uncovered the fact that the amendment eliminates the possibility of a "pay grab" by incumbents (basically retroactivelly giving themselves a raise).

Here's some detailing of this practice,

"In 1789 the compensation for our Senators and Representatives was fixed at $6 for each day's attendance; in 1815 at $1500 a year, in 1817 at $8 a day; in 1855 at $3000 a year; in 1865 at $5000; in 1871 at $7500; in 1874 it was made $5000; in 1907, $7500; in 1925, $10,000; and now in 1996 it is fixed at $125,000 per year."

"Madison thought it an 'indecent thing' that congressmen should be empowered by the Constitution to fix their salaries. After the advance of 1815 many of the members of the House were defeated for reelection. The advance of March 3, 1873, affecting the President, the Congress, the Cabinet, the Supreme Court, and some other departments, made on the last day of Grant's first term and operating retroactively 'during the term for which he shall have been elected' was denounced by the country as a 'salary grab.' On January 20, 1874, it was repealed to all "except the President of the United States and the Justices of the Supreme Court" whose salaries the Constitution forbids Congress to reduce."

Two things about this, one is that $125k isn't too bad. The other is that the Amendment was adopted in 1992, just a scant 100+ years after it was a big problem.

This page asserts that The Homeland Security Bill is a "pay grab." But this William Safire article puts it all in perspective. Scary.

You should also read John Scalzi, a big proponent of First Amendment rights. That's all for now, later.

:: Matthew 11:27 PM [+]    ::
...

In an attempt to actually do this:

The word of the month is "burlesque." So, I went out to breakfast the other day with a sound engineer, a church organist and a stripper (sounds like the beginning of a good joke). The topic of conversation was the rejuvenation of burlesque in America, and its extent beyond NYC. I was nursing my hangover with a bloody mary, so I didn't catch all of the points, but it was interesting, nonetheless. So for all of you who have been meaning to learn more about burlesque, here's the definiton:

Main Entry: bur·lesque

Pronunciation: (")b&r-'lesk

Function: noun

Etymology: burlesque, adjective, comic, droll, from French, from Italian burlesco, from burla joke, from Spanish

Date: 1667

1 : a literary or dramatic work that seeks to ridicule by means of grotesque exaggeration or comic imitation

2 : mockery usually by caricature

3 : theatrical entertainment of a broadly humorous often earthy character consisting of short turns, comic skits, and sometimes striptease acts

It seems from what I've been reading, that burlesque was popular in the late 1800's to the early 1900's. Around 1920, NYC cracked down on burlesque shows because they were becoming more and more raunchy (read: strippers!). In 1937, Mayor LaGuardia shut them down completely. This caused most performers to transition into radio, film and television. This in turn, slowed the business in the greater US as well.

Burlesque shows were a combination of shows and comedy. A good example of the comedy from burlesque shows is Abbot and Costello's "Who's On First" routine. Here's another:

Man at Desk: (picks up phone) Hello, Cohen, Cohen, Cohen and Cohen.

Caller: Let me speak to Mr. Cohen.

Man at Desk: He's dead these six years. We keep his name on the door out of respect.

Caller: Then let me speak to Mr. Cohen.

Man: He's on vacation.

Caller: (Exasperated) Well then, let me speak to Mr. Cohen.

Man: He's out to lunch.

Caller: (Yells) Then let me speak to Mr. Cohen!

Man: Speaking.

At the very least, I think that's hilarious. "So a guy walks into a psychiatrist's office wearing nothing but cellophane underwear..."

To get back to original point of this, and tie in the stripper, organist and sound engineer, it was my impression at breakfast that burlesque is back on the rise. However, they spoke of burlesque as more of an "imaginative sexuality," as opposed to the graphical sexual content that is easy to come by today. Apparently, explicit sexual images, stories, etc. started popping up around the 1960's. (What did people do from 1940 to 1960?!) Would you rather be shown tits and ass over and over again or use your imagination? That's only a slightly rhetorical question; I would like to know what you think. I would argue that there is a limit to the amount of explicit sexual information that one can handle before they become somewhat blase about it. Further, this may be what helps lead people into bondage, s&m, etc., trying to be interested again - and which aren't necessarily "bad" things.

In burlesque shows, "nothing obscene or vulgar was allowed – the point was to spoof and (to a limited extent) titillate.."

I'll write more about this later, but I need to finish up some work. Subjects to touch upon: undressing people with your eyes, imagination and the tie into creativity (and why chicks dig creativity), more research, why this is not an earth shattering line of reason and why none of this applies to me. Later.

:: Matthew 3:40 PM [+]    ::
...

This is my first post. The blog is an attempt to learn who to write better. I'm sure that you will quickly learn that there are no posts of any interest and that I will update very infrequently. I feel rather like an ass setting this up because usually I just make fun of people who do this.

Later.

:: Matthew 1:02 PM [+]    ::
...