RavenBlog
Black:  ravenblack.net | me | games | books | email | wishlist | rss
Blogs:  Angryblog | As Above | MonkyBlog | Nightshade | Journals
Blimey:  SomethingAwful | Advice
Archives: Last 4 Days | February2010 | September2009 | August2009 | July2009 | May2009 | April2009 | March2009 | January2009 | December2008 | November2008 | October2008 | September2008 | August2008 | July2008 | June2008 | May2008 | April2008 | March2008 | February2008 | January2008 | December2007 | November2007 | October2007 | September2007 | August2007 | July2007 | June2007 | May2007 | April2007 | March2007 | February2007 | January2007 | December2006 | November2006 | October2006 | September2006 | August2006 | July2006 | June2006 | May2006 | April2006 | March2006 | February2006 | January2006 | November2005 | October2005 | September2005 | August2005 | July2005 | June2005 | May2005 | April2005 | March2005 | February2005 | January2005 | December2004 | November2004 | October2004 | September2004 | August2004 | July2004 | June2004 | May2004 | April2004 | March2004 | February2004 | January2004 | December2003 | November2003 | October2003 | September2003 | August2003 | July2003 | June2003 | May2003 | April2003 | March2003 | February2003 | January2003 | December2002 | November2002 | October2002 | September2002 | August2002 | July2002 | June2002 | May2002 | April2002 | March2002 | February2002 | January2002 | December2001 | November2001 | October2001 | September2001 | August2001 | July2001 | June2001
Projects Status
  Robot-Game: 5%
  Solipsism: 3%
  Snowstorm: 28%


Archive September 2007
Sunday 30 September 2007
It is often amusing to me how people can't comprehend the sort of money that governments spend as if it's water. SomethingAwful says, mock-quoting Hillary Clinton, "I like the idea of giving every baby born in America a $5,000 account that will grow over time. This one I really did say: check out this news link of me saying this crazy shit. By the way, there's about four million kids born in America every year. Vote me."

The implication is (and in the news link too) "how are you going to pay for that?" There are several good replies to that, eg.
1. by example - "about the same way we pay for public schools for those same kids five years later. Only easier." I found figures for per-student per-year public school costs ranging from $7000 to $13500. Of course, the $5000 is in addition to the public school costs, but my point is, it's clearly not a massive ridiculous number, because it is smaller than the annual education cost per child - and that greater cost crops up about ten times per child, not just once.

2. by comparison - "I don't know, maybe we'd just buy eight fewer Virginia-class attack submarines each year?" Wikipedia says one of those costs 2.6 billion dollars. Four million kids at $5000 each is 20 billion dollars. I doubt the US military actually buys 8 such submarines every year, but the point is that 20 billion dollars is not the big potatoes it sounds like, in government spending scale. The defence budget is about 360 billion dollars, the non-defence discretionary budget even larger still. 20 billion is big, but it's not comically "that is ridiculous you can't possibly" big.

3. facetiously - "I'm not, you are, taxpayer!"
So, given that it is perfectly feasible, is it a good idea? I don't know. I like the idea of college education being more easily achievable without the subsequent crippling debt that many Americans suffer from. But why nominally give them the money 18 years early? And then there's the weirdness where the money isn't necessarily going to go for a college education - and, indeed, if it's being given to the 18-year-old as a sudden lump of about $10000, how likely is it to instead be spent on a nice holiday and some drugs? But then I have a dilemma - on the one hand I like the idea of college education being helped along, but on the other hand I'm not sure I approve of people being shoved into college because someone else is paying for it. Also not sure I like the idea of college kids getting free money and other kids not. So maybe the $5000 bond is a good idea - it certainly has fairness. But governments are supposed to be good for society - is a $10000 stepping stone (easily frittered on a big party) going to be as beneficial to society as a $10000 college grant? I'm not sure, I could see it going either way actually. I think the biggest problem with the $5000 bond idea is that idiots will mistake it for a reason to have kids.

On the subject of spending huge amounts of money on things that may not be a good idea, Richard Garriott is an awesome crazy bastard. His house comprises most of the things I have always wanted in a house, including secret passages, underwater tunnel, rotating room, suits of armour and the oddly specific recent addition to the things I want, a cave-bear skull. The sod even did it slightly better than I had envisioned, with magical magnetic locks on the secret passages. And clearly he wasn't restricted by any sort of fire safety laws. But still, no zip-line - I can still go one better, Garriott! He is also building a new structure, tentatively called The Village, seemingly as some sort of hotel thing, about which it is said:
Traps were also included in the original design of the house. The master bedroom is designed to be on a giant elevating platform below a retractable ceiling. When activated, the ceiling will completely open up and the room would elevate to the top level of the house, essentially allowing the inhabitant to literally sleep under the stars. Some guest rooms are also located on a giant rotating platform. When the guests are asleep, the device could activate so that guests would wake up in a different room than they slept in the previous night.
Which, like the cave-bear skull, is an oddly specific thing from my "things I would someday like" list. Furthermore, he owns a russian shuttle that is still on the moon, and in 2008 he is intending on going into space. I bet, like me, he wants to someday live in a moonbase. Good luck you literal lunatic, leave me a trail of breadcrumbs to follow. [21:27] [4 comments]


Friday 28 September 2007
Amusing seen things.

A very large TJ HUGHES neon sign, at night, partially defunct so that the only lit part is a gigantic "HUG".

A removal-graffitied sign on a restaurant window, "20%  STUDENT  DISCOUNT  -  APPL ES  WEEKDAYS  ONLY".

A subversive license-plate, if only we were in China; "MAO4GNU". [19:31] [2 comments]


Monday 24 September 2007
Another of those late-night phone-dating ads that is presumably unintentionally offensive:
"Text WORD to NUMBER. It's probably the best party invitation you'll ever get."
Brilliant. [10:42] [0 comments]


Friday 21 September 2007
An ad that just amused me with a doubletake.
Did you know that more and more people are chatting and dating using their mobile phones? And now you can too - it's that easy. Text bla to a number.
It took me a moment to realise what this had just said. I think they probably really intended those last two clauses to be in the other order. And yes, there really was the emphasis on 'that' which makes it funny. [17:52] [0 comments]


Wednesday 19 September 2007
Asda, targetting their customer-base (at least in these parts), have their own variant of Love Hearts, featuring, instead of the usual sappy or occasionally nonsensical slogans, such gems as "whatever", "respect", "bothered", "minging" and "mint". The tragedy is, they have named these "Whatevers" rather than the much more apt and catchy "Chav Hearts".

In a largely unrelated vein, does anyone know of a cheapish digital camera which has a built-in USB-charged battery that manages to last a few months if the camera is off, and ideally manages to still function at all after a few months, unlike the one I have? I want a small camera that can stay in my pocket, for taking quick snapshots of amusing or aesthetic things I see. Both times I have tried to acquire such a device, when it comes to actually taking a picture the battery is dead. (One of them wasn't even USB-charged, it would just slowly drain any battery left in it even when switched off.) Anyone? [07:56] [10 comments]


Thursday 13 September 2007
I got a new laptop. It is from Rock Direct rather than one of the big name-brands. I believe it is, at heart, a Sager based system. I had heard good things about these, and early experience bears it out. The screen is lovely, the machine runs quiet and cool. Even after playing Bioshock on it for hours it barely breaks into bothering to turn the fan onto high - unlike the previous high-end (of four years ago) Dell, which ran at 60-70°C when idle, and would swiftly go to 82°C in gaming conditions (at which point it would slow the chips down to prevent melting - not the preferred way to deal with heat, really).

The 8700M graphics chip unfortunately is showing signs of doing the same thing the 4200Go did - not using NVidia's integrated drivers, and not getting driver updates. A third-party hacked driver was required for Bioshock, but hopefully that will be reasonably good for anything in the near future.

For specophiles, it is 2GHz dual-core Intel, 2GB, 100GB 7200rpm, 8700M w/512MB, 1920x1200 17". And Vista.

On the subject of Vista, what's up with this in the license agreement?
You may allow up to 5 other devices to access the software installed on the licensed device to use File Services, Print Services, Internet Information Services and Internet Connection Sharing and Telephony Services.
(or for Vista Premium or Vista Ultimate, replace 5 with 10)
What's up with limiting network access to print services? Why would you do that?
Also, is "you may allow up to" accepted weird binding legalese for "you may not allow more than", or is the license agreement actually failing to restrict you at all, as its wording taken literally fails? There is no corresponding paragraph denying you the option to allow more than 5, there is only this paragraph explicitly allowing you up to 5.

This post brought to you by boring nerdiness, and by the fact that if you give a crap about Bioshock you've already read at least five reviews, and probably even if you don't give a crap. [14:29] [5 comments]


Tuesday 11 September 2007
I got some LED lightbulbs the other day. They are a one-watt lightbulb. I'd rather have had three-watt, but those ones only exist in spotlight shape and a silly fitting, it seems. Anyway, the brilliant thing about the one-watt lightbulb is that when it's lighting my bedroom, and the TV is on, the lightbulb doesn't seem to have any effect on the amount of light in the room, it still looks pretty dark. The difference is, with the light on I can read, and without I can't. There is just something strange about LED light, that makes its illumination still appear dark. I think it might be that the colour of the light resembles the sort of light used in film to indicate that we are watching things in darkness.

Anyway, I recommend them for any other Morlocks who get a headache after being in a lit room for any length of time. Especially Morlocks who would like to use energy-saving lightbulbs for the few times they want light, but have discovered that "energy-saving" is actually earthspeak for "light-sabre shoved in your eyesocket". In terms of causing pain, LED bulbs are to normal bulbs as normal bulbs are to energy-saving bulbs (at equivalent brightness).

Oh, also a very strange thing - after an LED bulb is turned off, it continues to glow slightly for at least an hour. Not enough to illuminate anything else, just enough to make it clearly visible in the dark. I don't know whether this is a facet of the bulbs, or if it's to do with the wiring of my house leaking a small amount of current when switches are 'off'. I suppose this could be tested with a standing lamp and the mighty power of unplugging. [06:35] [3 comments]