As far as we know, it runs great on the latest iPhones, iPads, and iPod Touches.
Elk Murder v.2.2 may be obtained for free in the Apple Store.
2012-12-07
Elk Murder for iOS updated!
As far as we know, it runs great on the latest iPhones, iPads, and iPod Touches.
Elk Murder v.2.2 may be obtained for free in the Apple Store.
Et tu, Fearless Flyer?
Needless to say, I was rather shocked to find an inappropriately apostrophized "it's" on the front page of the latest issue, in the first paragraph of the article titled "Chocolate Gift Bars in Milk or Dark". The full phrase reads "...and even has IT'S own built-in gift tag...".
I know you are better than such amateurish sloppiness and I'm sure the glaring grammatical glitch was merely an honest oversight. I trust your editors will return to their previously excellent standard of attention to detail in future issues.
2012-12-04
Super Elk Murder 2012 for iOS v.2.2 now available!
As with all of our previous updates, we've not only further enhanced / optimized our own code, but also have taken advantage of some significant recent improvements to Adobe's AIR mobile platform.
Version 2.2 of Super Elk Murder 2012 may be obtained from the Apple Store.
2012-11-02
Don't Vote
Please do not vote. Whoever you are, ignore all those people who tell you to do it, and just listen to me: DON'T VOTE.
Voting is a big responsibility. It's a powerful thing, and therefore it's also a dangerous thing. Trivializing our voting privilege with sentiments like "Get out there and vote, it doesn't matter who you vote for, just make your voice heard!" makes me sick to my stomach.
Democracy only works with an informed electorate. (If you're reading this, it probably means you're the sort of person who reads things on the Internet, and I'm preaching to the choir.) Assuming a standard bell curve of informed-ness, 50% of the population is uninformed! Do you really want these people to be shaping government policy? Do you want them taking decision power away from the people (like you!) who care enough to inform themselves? Of course not!
Now, a caveat: I'm not advocating the creation of obstacles to prevent people from voting. Of course the privilege to vote should accompany citizenship regardless of gender, race, religion, class, level of education, whether you drive a car and have a photo ID, or any other such arbitrary nonsense. What I'm saying is, although EVERYBODY has the option to vote, NOT EVERYBODY should choose to exercise it.
Let's face it -- half the population just isn't as smart as the other half. They lack the mental complexity to understand the far-reaching ramifications of major national and global issues. They don't appreciate the complex web of cause-and-effect relationships between governments and economies. And they really can't be bothered to spend any time reading about or otherwise improving their perspective.
These ignorant masses form their opinions because of TV and radio soundbites, oft-repeated platitudes, emotional non-issues, oversimplifications, campaign slogans, which candidate they would rather drink beer with, etc. Such mobocracy demands only bread and circuses -- any ruling elite that provides them, no matter how corrupt, will do.
So PLEASE... if you don't feel like you have a solid understanding of the issues at stake; if you can't make up your mind between two candidates, don't know exactly what they stand for, or don't know who they are; if a ballot issue sounds good, but you haven't done your research on it, DON'T VOTE. A bad opinion is worse than no opinion at all.
And if you really MUST vote, I guess that's fine as long as you vote the same as me.
Voting is a big responsibility. It's a powerful thing, and therefore it's also a dangerous thing. Trivializing our voting privilege with sentiments like "Get out there and vote, it doesn't matter who you vote for, just make your voice heard!" makes me sick to my stomach.
Democracy only works with an informed electorate. (If you're reading this, it probably means you're the sort of person who reads things on the Internet, and I'm preaching to the choir.) Assuming a standard bell curve of informed-ness, 50% of the population is uninformed! Do you really want these people to be shaping government policy? Do you want them taking decision power away from the people (like you!) who care enough to inform themselves? Of course not!
Now, a caveat: I'm not advocating the creation of obstacles to prevent people from voting. Of course the privilege to vote should accompany citizenship regardless of gender, race, religion, class, level of education, whether you drive a car and have a photo ID, or any other such arbitrary nonsense. What I'm saying is, although EVERYBODY has the option to vote, NOT EVERYBODY should choose to exercise it.
Let's face it -- half the population just isn't as smart as the other half. They lack the mental complexity to understand the far-reaching ramifications of major national and global issues. They don't appreciate the complex web of cause-and-effect relationships between governments and economies. And they really can't be bothered to spend any time reading about or otherwise improving their perspective.
These ignorant masses form their opinions because of TV and radio soundbites, oft-repeated platitudes, emotional non-issues, oversimplifications, campaign slogans, which candidate they would rather drink beer with, etc. Such mobocracy demands only bread and circuses -- any ruling elite that provides them, no matter how corrupt, will do.
So PLEASE... if you don't feel like you have a solid understanding of the issues at stake; if you can't make up your mind between two candidates, don't know exactly what they stand for, or don't know who they are; if a ballot issue sounds good, but you haven't done your research on it, DON'T VOTE. A bad opinion is worse than no opinion at all.
And if you really MUST vote, I guess that's fine as long as you vote the same as me.
2012-10-19
On Facebook and Quantum Friendship Cats
I would like to share with you some of my thoughts on the nature of friendship and how it relates to quantum theory.
I believe the widespread adoption of facebook has fundamentally altered the nature of social interaction -- if not for everyone, at least among facebook users. This is not a controversial position.
Readers are hopefully also aware of Shrödinger's cat. The idea is that the theoretical quantum cat, hidden inside of a box, is simultaneously both alive AND dead... until we open the box, look inside, and see for sure that it is either alive OR dead, but not both.
Now, traditionally, friendships were like plants. They waxed with interaction and waned for lack of it, and you didn't really consider people your friends if you hadn't seen or heard from them in years.
But there was a quantum cat aspect also, the idea that our friendships are both form and substance, and thus could be theoretically both alive and dead. Who hasn't reconnected with a long-absent somebody and felt as if the mutual bond was as strong as ever, as if no time had passed and nothing had changed? On the other hand, who hasn't also walked away from such an encounter with the recognition that you had both gone your separate ways and weren't friends anymore except for your common history?
That is to say, we're all willing to believe in potential friendships with people who used to be our friends but we're no longer in touch with -- such people are effectively both friends and not friends, at least until the next time we kick it with them and find out for sure.
Facebook redefines friendship. It removes geographical obstacles; it makes it simpler and easier to keep others informed of our own personal news and thoughts. Most importantly, it caters to our optimism with regard to our various quantum friendship cats -- indeed, facebook assures us, "Yea, though ye be separated by years and miles, YOU ARE STILL FRIENDS!"
With facebook, we need never say goodbye. We can take hundreds or even thousands of friends with us on our life's journey, and all along the way facebook confirms that those quantum friendship cats are alive and doing fine.
But there is a price to be paid -- when it's that much easier to bump into an old acquaintance, if we aren't careful, if we get too personal, facebook can steer us into an examination of what turns out to be a dead friendship, instigating fallings-out that spoil our fond remembrances and forever kill the blissful potential of that unopened friendbox.
The point of all this isn't to assert that post-facebook friendship is better or worse than traditional friendship. I believe facebook is a social mirror of sorts, a lubricant, a facilitator, a catalyst... it has had and continues to have many profound effects, both good and bad.
The question here is: are we happier with potential friendships or actual ones? To put it another way, are we really better off knowing where we stand with people, even when it means replacing the illusion of mutual affection and harmony with the bitter reality of a broken friendship? Or does this, in the end, only serve to make us more lonely?
I believe the widespread adoption of facebook has fundamentally altered the nature of social interaction -- if not for everyone, at least among facebook users. This is not a controversial position.
 |
| Not my image -- source unknown |
Now, traditionally, friendships were like plants. They waxed with interaction and waned for lack of it, and you didn't really consider people your friends if you hadn't seen or heard from them in years.
But there was a quantum cat aspect also, the idea that our friendships are both form and substance, and thus could be theoretically both alive and dead. Who hasn't reconnected with a long-absent somebody and felt as if the mutual bond was as strong as ever, as if no time had passed and nothing had changed? On the other hand, who hasn't also walked away from such an encounter with the recognition that you had both gone your separate ways and weren't friends anymore except for your common history?
That is to say, we're all willing to believe in potential friendships with people who used to be our friends but we're no longer in touch with -- such people are effectively both friends and not friends, at least until the next time we kick it with them and find out for sure.
Facebook redefines friendship. It removes geographical obstacles; it makes it simpler and easier to keep others informed of our own personal news and thoughts. Most importantly, it caters to our optimism with regard to our various quantum friendship cats -- indeed, facebook assures us, "Yea, though ye be separated by years and miles, YOU ARE STILL FRIENDS!"
With facebook, we need never say goodbye. We can take hundreds or even thousands of friends with us on our life's journey, and all along the way facebook confirms that those quantum friendship cats are alive and doing fine.
But there is a price to be paid -- when it's that much easier to bump into an old acquaintance, if we aren't careful, if we get too personal, facebook can steer us into an examination of what turns out to be a dead friendship, instigating fallings-out that spoil our fond remembrances and forever kill the blissful potential of that unopened friendbox.
The point of all this isn't to assert that post-facebook friendship is better or worse than traditional friendship. I believe facebook is a social mirror of sorts, a lubricant, a facilitator, a catalyst... it has had and continues to have many profound effects, both good and bad.
The question here is: are we happier with potential friendships or actual ones? To put it another way, are we really better off knowing where we stand with people, even when it means replacing the illusion of mutual affection and harmony with the bitter reality of a broken friendship? Or does this, in the end, only serve to make us more lonely?
2012-10-11
Remembering Clinton Reeves
 |
For me as a young budding harp player, hearing him play for the first time blew my mind. As the years went by, I worked hard to imitate his style, but then another reunion would roll around, I'd get to listen to him play again, and I'd realize he was still a million times better at it than I could ever be.
He obviously took music seriously and he took the instrument seriously -- and yet there was nothing self-serious about his attitude. He was humble, gracious, and even though I was no more than a bumbling child, he always treated me respectfully as a fellow musician.
Perhaps most importantly of all, he had a true LOVE of music that radiated out when he played. You could see his joy in his smile, and when he played, he shared that joy with all of us.
Clinton Reeves' harp may be silent now, but I know his music will live on in our hearts forever. Take a moment of silence and perhaps you too might just be able to hear him once more as he celebrates joyfully up in Heaven with the angels, by the Grace of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Clint, I look forward to playing with you again some day. Until then, farewell.
~ ~ ~
2012-09-18
Disneyland Blockout Calendar Trick!
QUESTION: If a poor person was going to bring their children to Disneyland, where would be the cheapest place to stay?
ANSWER: There are a zillion hotels surrounding the park, but I'm not really sure if any of them is particularly cheap. You might be able to find a special deal on the internet or something, depending on how much time you're willing to spend searching, how close to the park you need to be, how flexible your family situation is, etc.
Generally speaking, the hotels in the walking vicinity are all going to cost about the same. The thing is, prices vary based on demand, so it's not so much a question of WHERE you stay as WHEN you stay -- that is, weeknights are usually cheaper than weekends, and certain times of year are cheaper than others.
So the question then becomes, How will I know when Disneyland is less crowded? Since Disneyland already "blocks out" the most busy days for season passholders, you can always check the Disneyland Passholder Blockout Calendar to see which days/times of the year are going to be in high demand (and, thus, when the hotels will be at their most expensive).
As a passholder, I appreciate the way these blockout dates are basically Disneyland's way of saying, "Look, you don't want to go on these days anyway -- they'll be super crowded."
ANSWER: There are a zillion hotels surrounding the park, but I'm not really sure if any of them is particularly cheap. You might be able to find a special deal on the internet or something, depending on how much time you're willing to spend searching, how close to the park you need to be, how flexible your family situation is, etc.
Generally speaking, the hotels in the walking vicinity are all going to cost about the same. The thing is, prices vary based on demand, so it's not so much a question of WHERE you stay as WHEN you stay -- that is, weeknights are usually cheaper than weekends, and certain times of year are cheaper than others.
So the question then becomes, How will I know when Disneyland is less crowded? Since Disneyland already "blocks out" the most busy days for season passholders, you can always check the Disneyland Passholder Blockout Calendar to see which days/times of the year are going to be in high demand (and, thus, when the hotels will be at their most expensive).
As a passholder, I appreciate the way these blockout dates are basically Disneyland's way of saying, "Look, you don't want to go on these days anyway -- they'll be super crowded."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)