| Stale Posts |
October 6, 2008
Watch Their Tongue
A young man asked a horse trader what he wanted for a mare.
“I’ll take a hundred and a half for her,” the trader said. “But she don’t look so good.”
They haggled a bit and, finally, the new owner went off with his purchase. He was back again the next day and pretty riled up.
“What’s the matter with that horse,” he demanded. “She ran me right off the road.”
“Been blind for a year,” the horse trader admitted. “Told you that she didn’t look so good.”
October 5, 2008
![](javascript:img_win("http://writch.com/pix/skull.gif");)
The Social Security Administration Says So:
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/babynames
Most Popular Names of the 2000s
Male Female
Rank Name Number % Name Number %
1 Jacob 229,074 1.3560 Emily 190,310 1.1794
2 Michael 210,004 1.2431 Madison 160,383 0.9939
3 Joshua 194,109 1.1491 Emma 144,005 0.8924
4 Matthew 187,202 1.1082 Hannah 137,991 0.8551
5 Andrew 170,142 1.0072 Olivia 121,015 0.7499
6 Christopher 169,001 1.0004 Abigail 121,008 0.7499
7 Daniel 166,258 0.9842 Ashley 115,478 0.7156
8 Joseph 162,339 0.9610 Samantha 113,034 0.7005
9 Ethan 161,240 0.9545 Alexis 110,690 0.6860
10 William 157,339 0.9314 Elizabeth 109,754 0.6802
Most Popular Names of the 1990s
Male Female
Rank Name Number % Name Number %
1 Michael 462,085 2.2506 Jessica 302,962 1.5436
2 Christopher 361,250 1.7595 Ashley 301,702 1.5372
3 Matthew 351,477 1.7119 Emily 237,133 1.2082
4 Joshua 328,955 1.6022 Sarah 224,000 1.1413
5 Jacob 298,016 1.4515 Samantha 223,913 1.1408
6 Nicholas 275,222 1.3405 Amanda 190,901 0.9726
7 Andrew 272,600 1.3277 Brittany 190,779 0.9720
8 Daniel 271,734 1.3235 Elizabeth 172,383 0.8783
9 Tyler 262,218 1.2771 Taylor 168,977 0.8609
10 Joseph 260,365 1.2681 Megan 160,312 0.8168
Most Popular Names of the 1980s
Male Female
Rank Name Number % Name Number %
1 Michael 663,039 3.4515 Jessica 469,226 2.5449
2 Christopher 555,618 2.8923 Jennifer 440,667 2.3900
3 Matthew 458,568 2.3871 Amanda 369,563 2.0044
4 Joshua 396,279 2.0628 Ashley 352,019 1.9092
5 David 383,184 1.9947 Sarah 272,337 1.4770
6 James 356,103 1.8537 Stephanie 218,024 1.1825
7 Daniel 345,074 1.7963 Melissa 217,821 1.1814
8 Robert 321,381 1.6730 Nicole 210,380 1.1410
9 John 320,718 1.6695 Elizabeth 198,775 1.0781
10 Joseph 299,071 1.5568 Heather 191,778 1.0401
Most Popular Names of the 1970s
Male Female
Rank Name Number % Name Number %
1 Michael 707,020 4.1373 Jennifer 581,551 3.5347
2 Christopher 475,936 2.7850 Amy 268,950 1.6347
3 Jason 462,464 2.7062 Melissa 253,210 1.5390
4 David 445,496 2.6069 Michelle 249,036 1.5136
5 James 444,584 2.6016 Kimberly 229,042 1.3921
6 John 402,397 2.3547 Lisa 228,586 1.3894
7 Robert 397,107 2.3238 Angela 225,145 1.3684
8 Brian 322,562 1.8875 Heather 203,857 1.2390
9 William 283,333 1.6580 Stephanie 160,396 0.9749
10 Matthew 277,619 1.6245 Nicole 144,586 0.8788
Most Popular Names of the 1960s
Male Female
Rank Name Number % Name Number %
1 Michael 832,944 4.2483 Lisa 496,886 2.6297
2 David 733,843 3.7428 Mary 355,207 1.8799
3 John 713,319 3.6381 Susan 287,616 1.5222
4 James 684,707 3.4922 Karen 285,992 1.5136
5 Robert 650,687 3.3187 Kimberly 259,036 1.3709
6 Mark 441,353 2.2510 Patricia 231,116 1.2232
7 William 421,433 2.1494 Linda 225,420 1.1930
8 Richard 373,874 1.9069 Donna 213,445 1.1296
9 Thomas 327,049 1.6680 Michelle 208,217 1.1020
10 Jeffrey 301,985 1.5402 Cynthia 196,580 1.0404
Most Popular Names of the 1950s
Male Female
Rank Name Number % Name Number %
1 James 842,589 4.1112 Mary 625,304 3.1700
2 Michael 836,501 4.0815 Linda 564,004 2.8593
3 Robert 829,318 4.0464 Patricia 459,404 2.3290
4 John 796,820 3.8879 Susan 437,565 2.2183
5 David 768,986 3.7521 Deborah 430,326 2.1816
6 William 590,448 2.8809 Barbara 345,539 1.7517
7 Richard 534,711 2.6090 Debra 341,182 1.7296
8 Thomas 453,793 2.2142 Karen 332,365 1.6849
9 Mark 382,170 1.8647 Nancy 286,662 1.4533
10 Charles 360,621 1.7596 Donna 270,254 1.3701
October 4, 2008
Venus Ordering Arms From Vulcan
Via Mad Anthony
It came around before, but given the recent topic (of judging a people by the actions of a few) I thought it was terribly germane. This is a drunk Jew in Israel giving shit to some Xians:
"You and your fucking Jesus can kiss my ass, OK?"
"We killed Jesus. We're proud of it."
"We're gonna kill you, and the Palestinians, too."
"This is my land, and my house. God gave it to me. Fuck you."
Can't judge a people by an individual, though.
On the other hand, there DO seem to be a whole bunch of jerks just like this one gathered near him.
How space works
As a resident of psycho-space, I feel that I need to let the rest of you folks in on this (again). The scientists will still take time, since there's not any real 'math' to speak of here, just logic.
You have all been in an elevator, one would hope. When you change your inertia, there's a feeling that we all get (heavier/lighter, depending on direction).
You are feeling 'moving through space'.
It's a thing.
You are stuck inside it.
And you can certainly detect this.
Anyway, what's happening when you move 'up' through it is merely the reverse of what's happening all the time (it's moving 'down' through you).
The question is, "where's it going?"
The answer is, inside the atoms.
Each bit of mass is like a tiny black hole. Now in the case of the shortsighted, they refer to these things as 'curving' space, but in essence, it's 'consuming' space (curving it out of existence is still space disappearing).
In fact, there are items that prove this 'disappearance' of space in their theories. They are called 'gravitational lenses' (more on them later).
So, you have (posited) that each hadron (proton or neutron) is somehow a tiny black hole. It's (in their view) curving space, in mine, consuming it.
Whenever you watch a surface wave being caught in the disappearance of the media you have the potential for a 'vortex'. Light (electromagnetism) is a surface wave (not like a sound wave, but like a water wave). Now, the concept of a three-dimensional surface is well past most people's imagination (mine included) but we'll work within our own bounds for now.
You've all seen the 'curved space' pix on various TV shows. I'm going the same direction, except I see it as a vortex similar to what happens in a sink or tub.
And there's a surface tension to the media which comes into play.
A hadron on it's own, in it's most relaxed state, has one of the elements of the vortex quite a bit from the center (it's still the 'center' but space there is a bit odd).
If it's subjected to enough 'gravity' (if enough other hadrons are near it and it's fighting for space to eat with them) the fourth element may end up stuck in the 'middle' with the other three (these are essentially four sides of a tetrahedron—the basic 3D shape).
That's a proton becoming a neutron (it's electron is stuck inside). Given the opportunity (and correct alignments, and free space to eat), the fourth side will return to the lower energy state of 'charge' (becoming an 'electron' again).
If hadrons experience charge, they prefer that they all line up, if possible, so as to allow the consumption of space to flow regularly through the hadron field. In some arrangements, this extends to the macro world (magnetism). Essentially, all the 'electrons' line up to be one giant electron.
Hadrons don't really care what direction or speed they are going, but they retain the direction and speed (they ARE direction and speed) in their vortices (each one being 'spun up' as it were by the addition of 'energy', and then staying that way.
At root, the reason they 'stay' is because they are sucking space (and holding onto it by doing so). When their direction/speed is altered, this is them sucking more in one direction than others.
On the macro level, the question is 'what is space' and 'where does it come from'.
One gets the most curious set of givens if one merely assumes continuous creation of space over spacetime (regular rate of replenishment as a 'background' noise).
One is that, at the edges of perception, it's black, not white (an infinite universe that you can see to the 'edge' is white). This is because between us and infinity, there is a whole lot of nothing just simply disappearing.
The other is that at the edges of this blackness, there will be places where (due to 'gravitational lensing') one gets a fisheye view of a whole bunch more stuff, but all compacted down to a dot.
Another thing is that the black 'edge' will appear to be receding (since there is more space appearing between us and it). It will look like the universe is expanding, but it's merely an illusion. And it will look REALLY hot just before it goes black, because as it gets 'further away' it appears to be 'receding' faster and faster (more space being created between us the further away from us we get in every direction).
And of course, if you stick little hadrons together into something big enough for US to experience in the macro world, it will appear to be a GIANT hadron (a black hole, proper), since that's the ONLY thing you could stick them together and get.
I think I just effectively described:
Gravity (hadrons suck)
The strong force (hadrons stick together if stuck forcefully and regularly).
The weak force (hadrons stuck together as above unstick if the regularity is disturbed)
Electromagnetism (hadrons want to line up so as to suck space most efficiently)
The 'big bang' (an illusion caused by the destruction of all space past a given point by the mass within it, and the apparent recession of this illusion due to the continuous creation of new space in the area between us and the 'edge')
Quasars (fisheye views of more stuff)
I didn't have to use any math, because it's really not necessary (but I'd love to see the formulas, which I'm sure would be elegant).
The math will describe the surface tension of the fluid space.
It will define how the 'bubble' extends past the center to the electron, and how that electron becomes the fourth plane of the neutron, and why when that final level of surface tension is broached, they merge into a singularity.
In addition, it will explain how this alteration in surface tension is communicated through waves on this surface.
In short, it will explain mass, and time (and why time ONLY can go forward). It will also explain how 'anti-matter' is still 'matter' in every sense of the idea except basic orientation (kinda like sinks on the north and south hemispheres), and why there can't be any such thing as 'anti-matter' really (the kind of thing which when combined with its opposite results in total conversion to energy).
The Higgs Boson they are searching for at CERN (offline till next year) is only going to explain mass (at least, that's what they are hoping for).
All that money, and they still won't be able to say why time flows.
It's easy, though (and it's GOT to be right, since it's a pun).
Existence sucks.
But it never blows.
Can't Find My own Writings!!!
Geez, having multiple cyber-personalities is just weird. I can't remember where I posted what anymore. I could have sworn I stayed up half the first night typing this in on MySpace (wrote it on the plane to Dallas).
Here it is, again:
Low Manhattanville
(if the tune isn't obvious, don't attempt this at home)
Livin' off t-notes
Watchin' Wall Street close
And the economy starting to roil
Tradin' six figures,
Now mine what was yours
You fixate on terrorists fighting for oil (now).
Wasted away again in low Manhattanville,
Searchin' for those lost buyers of stock.
Some people say that there's a party to blame
But I know, it's the whole damn lot.
Don't know the reason,
Guess it's the season
Maquiladoras are still a great deal
And they're real beauties,
No tariffs or duties
And workers show up for just a hot meal
Chorus
Blew out my flip-flop
Seeing my stock drop
Nothing to save me but taxpayer cash
Bet here are the facts dear,
I'll buy Goldman Sachs here
And you'll have the faith in the market, not fear.
Chorus
| Stale Posts |