November 13, 2007
Nerding for Economic Justice
Via Game|Life, I just learned of a charity video game. It's fairly simple; the game's a vocabulary quiz, and for every question you get right ten grains of rice are donated to the UN to feed the poor in underdeveloped nations. It's like a walkathon, but with words. The site itself donates the rice, which it pays for through sponsorships from Time Life, Apple, and other companies. The game can be found here.
. . .Of course, this game isn't really a viable solution to world hunger. It's a nice way to waste otherwise unproductive time, but the amount of time and effort you put in is far out of proportion to the amount of good you get out of it. I just spent about 30 minutes answering the 100 questions required to get to 1000 grains of rice. 1000 grains of rice is equivalent to about 1 cup. There are about 2 1/2 cups of rice per pound. You can get, at retail, a five pound sack of rice for $6. That translates to half an hour of work for 48 cents-worth of rice. Of course, it does add up over a lot of people, and chances are the 48 cents of rice I caused to be donated is more than I would have donated myself in the absence of this game. It does help, and it's important to spread awareness about global poverty issues.
Posted by Zach at 11:28 AM | Comments (0)
November 06, 2007
Food History
One of the most simple, yet fun, websites I've ever seen: Food Timeline. A history of when certain foods were first cultivated and consumed and when various recipes were first invented. I'm having the most fun so far starting at the end and seeing what are relatively recent dishes. Pasta Primavera and Tiramisu, for example, are both products of the 1970s. Share and enjoy!
Posted by Zach at 02:36 AM | Comments (0)
September 12, 2007
Good Vibrations
Via Game|Life, Impossible-to-find synaesthesia shooter classic Rez is coming to XBox Live Arcade. No word yet on whether you will be able to buy an XBox 360 version of the Rez vibrator.
Posted by Zach at 11:36 AM | Comments (0)
January 27, 2007
PETA Bread
I have to agree with Jill of Feministe on this: Speaking as a vegan, PETA makes me want to eat a hamburger. Out of spite.
Posted by Zach at 03:51 AM | Comments (0)
September 08, 2006
Somewhere Else to Send my Resume...
The Law Firm of Payne & Fears.
Posted by Zach at 12:43 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
August 31, 2006
Book-on-Book Action
Hot Library Smut. Not Hot Librarian Smut. I'm a fan of the Real Gabinete Portugues De Leitura in Rio de Janeiro, the Handelingenkamer Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal in The Hague, and the Trinity College Library in Dublin.
No American libraries in their list, sadly.
Posted by Zach at 03:21 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
August 07, 2006
Turn Around, Bright Eyes
This is making the rounds in certain blog circles, so I figured I'd pass it along: A cover of Total Eclipse of the Heart made by Hurra Torpedo, a Norwegian band that uses kitchen implements, and the destruction of same, as the percussion. I might be a bit late to the party on this, as they apparently were already a Big Internet Thing early last year. Still, if you missed it then, here it is in all its weird, Nordic glory.
Posted by Zach at 12:11 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
June 10, 2006
Il Cavaliere della Rosa
Nothing new or interesting to report, just thought I'd post the strikingly fun image from the cover of the Deutsche Grammophon recording of the orchestra music from Richard Strauss's cross-dressing comic opera, Der Rosenkavalier (The Knight of the Rose).
Posted by Zach at 11:54 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
June 03, 2006
Girls and Gaming
Just thought I'd point out this article, which does an excellent job of skewering every "Girls and Gaming" article you'll find on the internet and in video gaming publications.
Posted by Zach at 02:26 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
May 07, 2006
Explodier
It probably speaks poorly of my preservation instincts that watching this video makes me really, really, really want to get my hands on some Thermite. I imagine the NYPD and the New York City Parks Department would not look too kindly on explosive experiments in Morningside Park. This assumes that I would not blow myself up in the process of playing with Thermite.
Posted by Zach at 02:24 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
May 06, 2006
Safe Sex
Just wanted to share a fun safe sex ad. It's quite fun and cute, but definitely not work safe. It's a video for a French safe sex campaign, and it's aimed at gay men. It does play on sterotypes for laughs (as does its heterosexual counterpart), but it's so much better than the sort of overly-earnest safe sex ads we get in the US (and, of course, the pre-marital-sex-makes-you-go-blind sexual education favored by some) that I'm willing to give it a pass.
Posted by Zach at 01:32 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
May 02, 2006
Objectification
For those interested, Amanda at Pandagon is pulling a prank today. It's designed as a response to the annoying tendency by men of a certain nature, particularly prevalent on the internet, to disregard substantive arguments made by women and instead focus on how attractive or unattractive the woman is. The impetus for the prank was a slashdot post linking to an article by a woman on the subject of gaming. Roughly 90% of the comments completely ignored the substance of the article and instead focused on the sexual desirability, or lack thereof, of the author. It should be noted that the article had nothing to say about gender or sex and gaming, nor did it make any explicit or implicit mention of the author's gender; the only aspect of the article that indicated femaleness was the author's name in the by-line and her photo. The slasdot commentary included both dismissive comments (to the effect of "why should I care what she says? She isn't hot.") and comments that attempted to be supportive in a nonetheless objectifying way (posts that said "Don't listen to him! You're plenty hot!" while still ignoring what the article said).
Amanda has gotten sick of the way that women on the internet (and in real life too, obviously) are often treated as sex objects first and human beings with opinions second. She's even more sick of people who make objectifying comments without realizing that they're being dismissive.
Hence the prank: She's selected a male blogger of a fairly attractive nature who is 1. highly invested in his masculinity, and 2. generally dismissive of female bloggers. Today she has guided her posters, and anyone who shows up, to a post on his site with very few comments thus far. The mission is to leave comments that entirely ignore the substance of the post and instead focus entirely on the blogger's relative merits as a physical specimen. All are welcome, and encouraged: straight, gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered, and comments can be positive or negative, so long as they aren't substantive.
Posted by Zach at 09:02 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
April 19, 2006
Tee Hee!
This is shamelessly stolen from Atrios. In re: the resignation of White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan and the search for his replacement:
CNN's John Roberts on how the job of White House press secretary would be described in a job listing:"Be willing to take it full in the face every day."
Random White House Press Secretary Fact: Nixon's Press Secretary during Watergate, Ronald Ziegler, started his professional career as one of those tour boat guides telling transparently not-funny jokes on the embarrassingly racist and imperialist Jungle Cruise at Disneyland. And he ended it feeding transparently not-true stories to the American people for the embarassingly racist and imperialist Nixon Administration. Zing!
Posted by Zach at 11:55 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
April 11, 2006
Speech Codes
We just finished our really brief segment on Free Speech in Constitutional Law. It lasted roughly one lecture. This isn't because Free Speech isn't important, nor because there's not a lot to say about it (our professor claims, with some justification, that it's the most complicated area of constitutional jurisprudence). It's just that first year Constitutional Law is structured to give a general survey of constitutional decision-making, and Free Speech apparently isn't illustrative enough of the broad principles that the course focuses on.
The upshot of this is that we just read a small number of baseline cases, then the professor gave us a bunch of examples that he ran through in order to give a sense of the various facets of First Amendment jurisprudence. I thought it was a fun exercise. I don't think you need a lot of specialist knowledge to reason about the examples, plus they're on subjects most people have opinions about, so I thought I'd post the professor's examples here and see what people thought.
A few baseline legal principles: First, the general idea is that government is allowed to regulate speech in order to prevent imminent harm. More nebulously, the Court tends to decide whether a regulation is constitutional by balancing the free speech right on one side against the government's interest on the other side. If the government's interest doesn't warrant the offense to free speech, it's unconstitutional. Second, the First Amendment is believed to apply especially strongly to political speech, so speech with political ends gets extra weight in the balancing test. Finally, the Court tends to look harshly on regulations of the content of speech, but is more lenient with regulations of the time, place, and manner of speech.
With that taken care of, here's my professor's e-mail:
"For our discussion, please think about the following cases. In each case, if you think that government may prohibit or punish the relevant actor, ask yourself whether that is because: a) the actor has not engaged in “speech,”; b) the actor has engaged in speech but the government regulation is not targeted at the message of that speech; c) the government has targeted the message but it has done so in a narrowly tailored way that advances a compelling interest; or d) none of the above.
1) Gang leader GL says to his henchmen “Kill the leader of our rival gang,” which henchmen then do. GL is prosecuted for murder.
2) Anti-war activist tells anti-war protestors: “You are better than cannon fodder. Do not submit to the draft.” The speech occurs during wartime when there is a military draft. Activist is prosecuted for
conspiring to cause disloyalty, mutiny, and refusal of duty in the military forces.
3) During wartime, anti-war protestors display signs reading: “No blood for oil. Bring home our troops.” Protestors are prosecuted for conspiring to cause disloyalty, mutiny, and refusal of duty in the military forces.
4) Organizers of an anti-war rally want to congregate outside city hall at the conclusion of a march. The city authorities tell them that they cannot use the city streets or the square outside of city hall for the
protest march or rally because of traffic and congestion issues. The city authorities offer no viable alternative venue. The protestors sue, seeking the right to march and rally.
5) Same facts as 4 except that the city authorities offer an alternative route and rally location that the protestors consider substantially less convenient and appropriate. The protestors sue, seeking the right to march and rally where their expression will have the greatest impact.
6) A city prohibits the use of “sound trucks,” which ride the streets blaring amplified messages. The prohibition is applied to a candidate for mayor.
7) Upon receiving a grade of B+ in torts, law student says to professor: “I’m going to break your kneecaps if you don’t raise my grade to an A-.” Student is prosecuted for extortion. Variation: Suppose the statement is not conditional but simply a threat: “You prevented me from being a Kent
scholar. Now I’m going to make you feel my pain.” Student is prosecuted for assault.
8) Ku Klux Klan member burns a cross on his own lawn, which is clearly visible to his neighbors, an African-American family that has recently moved into the neighborhood. Klan member is prosecuted under a state law making it a crime “to display a symbol of hatred, such as but not limited to a burning cross or a swastika so as to intimidate persons on the basis of animus based on race, national origin, ethnicity, or religion.”
9) Anti-war protestor is prosecuted for burning a U.S. flag at an anti-war rally, under a statute prohibiting “the intentional desecration of the U.S. flag.”
10) Movie theater owner is prosecuted for running a pornographic film for paying customers over the age of 18.
11) City passes zoning law prohibiting all commercial establishments involving “adult entertainment” (defined as pornography) in residential neighborhoods. Theater owner sues to prevent the city from forcing him to relocate.
12) Adult is prosecuted for possession of “obscene materials” in his home.
13) Adult is prosecuted for possession of “child pornography” in his home. Child pornography is defined by statute as any visual depiction of naked minors.
14) State prohibits “snuff” films.
15) Administrative fine is issued to company for “false advertising” where tv ad states that the product will “permanently cure baldness” but clinical evidence indicates this is false.
16) Administrative fine is issued to company for “false advertising” where tv ad suggests that consumption of soft drink will attract good-looking people.
17) Federal law places limits on amount of money that individuals may contribute to campaigns of candidates for federal office.
18) Federal law places limits on amount of money that candidates for federal office may spend on their campaigns.
19) State law forbids discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation by “public accommodations,” defined to include certain membership organizations that utilize public facilities, including the Boy Scouts.
Boy Scouts claim that the requirement violates their right of “expressive association” insofar as it requires them to admit openly gay members.
20) Federal law criminalizes donations to certain listed “terrorist organizations,” even where the donation is made for peaceful purposes (such as food or health aid) to an organization on the list.
21) School district requires all children to say the Pledge of Allegiance at the beginning of each day.
22) Federal law forbids health care providers that receive federal funds from answering patient questions in a way that might direct patients to abortion providers."
So, what do you think? For each of these examples, Constitutional or not? Why? Don't feel obligated to give an answer to all of them, but if one or two seem interesting, I'd like to hear comments.
Posted by Zach at 01:26 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
April 10, 2006
Kingdom of Loving
Hey, do you get off on the odd juxtaposition of Disney and Final Fantasy found in Square-Enix's Kingdom Hearts? Well, now you can get off on it in a far more literal way. Suddenly Sora's key-blade makes a lot more sense.
Posted by Zach at 10:56 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
March 03, 2006
Why Don't You Cut Some More?
Former Congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham, whom I voted against in the first ever election I got to vote in, has been sentenced to 8 years in prison. Considering how popular the Dukester was in his day, I kinda doubt his seat is ever going to a Democrat; that region of San Diego is pretty exclusively servicepeople and their families. It's a very conservative area. But at least now the greater North County region won't be represented by such a clownishly corrupt congressman. Maybe. Or maybe the state GOP will pull another blowhard out of its hat.
It's astounding how California's Republican Party manages to do so poorly when the national Republicans are doing so well. You'd think they'd learn how to compete, like Republicans do here in the Northeast and like Democrats do in the South. But no, they keep investing political capital in unlikeable far-right conservatives and eccentric dot-com billionaire libertarians. Yes, I know the governor's a Republican right now, but that's only because he got to bypass a primary. Does anyone honestly think that, if given the opportunity, the California GOP wouldn't have traded Schwarzenegger in for some magic beans?
This is a really dorky thing to say, but California's goofball politics are one of the reasons I wanted to get out of the state. Between the initiative system, the Republicans' incompetence, the Democrats' corruption, the unworkable Prop 13 taxation system, the hamtied budget process, and a strict term limit system that ensures that noone involved in elective state government has the time to learn to do their job well, it seemed like the whole thing was heading in a very bad direction. I've calmed down a bit now, but I'm still cautious about the Golden State. I'd lay better-than-even odds that there's going to be a massive fiscal and governmental crisis the next time there's an economic downturn. I'd prefer not to go back until at least something on the above list gets fixed. Preferrably the initiative system, but I'd settle for just deep sixing Prop 13.
Posted by Zach at 11:27 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack