Okay, I really don't get this comic. It's too geeky and D&D-insidey even for me.

But geeks like VonKreedon are into it, and he tells me that Steven den Beste is a fan. So who am I to argue?

If Lord of the Rings photo-funnies discussing the aarcane rules of Attacks of Opportunity in D&D are your idea of fun, check it out.

Posted by: Ace at 09:57 AM | Comments (17)
Post contains 71 words, total size 1 kb.

From the WaPo.

A just-barely-fresh rating of 60% from Rotten Tomatoes, which isn't so bad when you consider this film is 1) very politically incorrect, 2) apparently graphically violent to the point of being nearly NC-17, and 3) directed by the despised Mel Gibson.

Here's another one, from the Seattle P-I, of all places:

For all its excesses, it's an absorbing, disturbing, savagely beautiful "trip" movie, and an extraordinary -- perhaps even outrageous -- personal vision of the one A-list filmmaker who truly deserves the adjective "maverick."

...

To say that the movie is over the top is a vast understatement. Gibson creates a world of almost unimaginable cruelty, brutality and inhumanity, and Jaguar Paw's journey is filled with more cliffhanger situations than "The Perils of Pauline."

Indeed, the movie's world is so extreme that it's almost ludicrous. And yet, through Gibson's bravura feat of epic filmmaking, it's also so bizarrely alien, so visually stunning, so interesting in every frame that it's totally hypnotic.

"Apocalypto" is also a movie with a disturbing psychological impact. Like the better films of Stanley Kubrick and David Lean, it takes us on a unique odyssey through a big slice of history and leaves us with an uneasiness that is difficult to sort out.

...

But this is not at all apparent from the movie. What is apparent is that the movie is an all-out attack on tribal culture, which Hollywood has idealized throughout its history and made a fetish in the era of political correctness.

I'm not sure how conscious this is on Gibson's part. It's likely not a position he has carefully thought out. In many ways, this is the work of an angry, unstable, self-destructive artist guided by pure instinct: a Modigliani or Van Gogh painting on a $100 million canvas.

But his movie definitely is telling us that tribal sensibility, which films like "Dances With Wolves" celebrate so nostalgically, actually is primitive and backward; and its resurgence in Africa and the Middle East is causing all the problems in our world.

Maybe I will see it after all.

Posted by: Ace at 09:34 AM | Comments (69)
Post contains 353 words, total size 2 kb.

Of the three men that met at the Milennium Hotel Bar, one is dead from Polonium, and two are sick with radiation poisoning. Prof. Scaramella was contaminated, too, but maybe just by exposure to Litvinenko.

A second Russian businessman who met murdered ex-spy Alexander Litvinenko on the day he fell ill is now sick from radiation poisoning, local media quoted medical sources as saying on Friday.

Andrei Lugovoy has damage to vital organs consistent with exposure to dangerous levels of radiation, Interfax news agency reported, the same condition that killed Kremlin critic Litvinenko in London on November 23.

Lugovoy's business partner Dmitry Kovtun is also in hospital and Mario Scaramella, an Italian contact of Litvinenko, has undergone treatment in London for the effects of contamination.

There have been contradictory reports about Kovtun. Some said he was in critical condition but a lawyer who was in touch with his representatives told Reuters those reports were wrong.

Posted by: Ace at 09:25 AM | Comments (15)
Post contains 169 words, total size 1 kb.

The prevailng theory is that smell is chemical -- molecules have different shapes that fit into smell-receptors, triggering them if the stimulus "key" fits the receptor "key."

But a new theory suggests smell is largely atomic. Or subatomic, really.

But Turin argued that smell doesn't seem to fit this picture very well. Molecules that look almost identical can smell very different — such as alcohols, which smell like spirits, and thiols, which smell like rotten eggs. And molecules with very different structures can smell similar.

Most strikingly, some molecules can smell different — to animals, if not necessarily to humans — simply because they contain different isotopes (atoms that are chemically identical but have a different mass).

Turin's explanation for these smelly facts invokes the idea that the smell signal in olfactory receptor proteins is triggered not by an odour molecule's shape, but by its vibrations, which can enourage an electron to jump between two parts of the receptor in a quantum-mechanical process called tunnelling. This electron movement could initiate the smell signal being sent to the brain.

This would explain why isotopes can smell different: their vibration frequencies are changed if the atoms are heavier. Turin's mechanism, says Marshall Stoneham of the UCL team, is more like swipe-card identification than a key fitting a lock.

New euphemism for flatulance: Splitting atoms... with my ass.

Posted by: Ace at 09:22 AM | Comments (15)
Post contains 239 words, total size 2 kb.

Good piece by Bryan at Hot Air.

Baker's law firm, by the way, represents the Saudis against the 9/11 families who sued for their complicity in the murders.

Posted by: Ace at 09:08 AM | Comments (8)
Post contains 34 words, total size 1 kb.

Gotta Know suggests I read AJ Strata for the theory that Litvinenko and his various confederates were involved in smuggling Polonium to make a trigger for a Russian suitcase nuke. I've mentioned that, and linked the Canada Free Press article about it, but I don't buy it.

Here's Strata:

I believe Kovtun and Litvinenko are the two prime vectors who were present at the incident in the Hotel room at the Millenium Hotel which appears to be a large, accidental contamination. They in turn trailed Polonium and infected secondary people like Scaramella and possibly Lugovoi. As time passed from the initial incident (which had to happen prior to the meeting with Scaramella) then potency of the trail detoriated.

Gotta Know says that's a "better fit" to the facts than the poisoning theory. I strongly disagree.

Apart from the fact that I just don't believe it in my gut, here's a more analytical objection.

Polonium is an alpha-emitter. Alpha particles can be blocked by paper, clothing, even just a person's skin. That's why such a toxin is usually only dangerous when ingested.

Now, if you're smuggling this, you will have it safely stored inside a case that does not permit the emission of alpha particles to the outside word. Lead lined. Hell, even a wooden box should do the trick.

How many times would the box have to be opened -- exposing the environment to radiation -- in the smuggled-trigger theory?

Either once or twice, tops, in London. The man who was ultimately going to have to make the trigger would obviously need to open the box. And, maybe, a courier would have to open it, to test it, and make sure he's actually getting Polonium rather than some fakey "radioactive material."

Why, then, are there so many traces throughout London? Litvinenko, if he accidentally poisoned himself, may have transferred some of it to some locations, of course.

But why are there traces of it in Lugovoy's hotel rooms? Why did he keep on opening the box, exposing the rooms to radiation? Why would he do such a thing, if he were just a courier trying to deliver a package?

EC notes that you can only transfer traces by direct contact, not simply by opening the box. So this theory has Lugovoy frequently handling the toxic material... to what end? Did he think it was Silly Putty?

It makes sense that he'd have traces of the material in his hotel room he had to handle the stuff, say, to put it into an eyedropper to poison a drink, or to poison a pack of cigarettes that could later be swapped for Litvinenko's own.

But why would he open it unless he had such a reason to open it?

And why on earth are the highest levels of radiation -- and an entire staff at the bar -- found in the Milennium hotel bar? Is this the sort of place one opens up a case of radioactive material for testing? Wouldn't someone do that in a less public place?

If this were a transfer of Polonium to people intending to make a trigger out of it, wouldn't they have met and opened the box (if at all) in a house or hotel room?

What kind of spycraft is it to open the thing in a hotel bar? Were they also planning on building the trigger right there over salsa chips and Mojitos?

Not buying it. The greatest level of exposure just happens to be at a place where people drink, eat, and smoke -- i.e., a perfect place for intentional poisoning -- and where there are a lot of other people around -- i.e., a very bad place to go opening up boxes containing nuclear material.

Unless someone can postulate a good reason this exchange -- with the box open, radioactive material spilling all over the joint -- went down in such an uncontrolled public venue, I just can't see the sense of the nuclear smuggling theory.

PS: If Litvinenko knew he's suffered a "Whoopsie!" in handling the nuclear material at a bar, why didn't he tip his doctors off to that, when they might, possibly, have saved him? Why did he wait, and wait, and wait, and wait until they finally, improbably, hit upon the mystery toxin, just as he was on the edge of death?

Posted by: Ace at 07:56 AM | Comments (32)
Post contains 737 words, total size 4 kb.

Kind of cute. With a picture of your head, you can make yourself into a funky dancing elf as a Christmas e-card.

Posted by: Ace at 07:23 AM | Comments (9)
Post contains 28 words, total size 1 kb.

Jobless claims down:

The number of newly laid off workers filing claims for unemployment benefits dropped last week by the largest amount in six months, relieving worries about a big jump in claims in the previous week.

The total number of claims filed last week fell to 324,000, a decline of 34,000 from the previous week, the Labor Department reported Thursday. That represented the biggest one-week drop since the first week in June.

The decrease was in line with expectations of economists, who believed that an unexpectedly large jump of 35,000 claims the previous week was an aberration.

Here's something. I saw this yesterday but didn't get around to posting it. It's unambiguously good news, right? So I searched on Google for it. You know what their top headline on this unambiguously good news is?

Jobless claims down nationally, but up in Indiana

Emphasis added. The story about the national numbers is a small link beneath the headline.

Apparently any time there's a state which lags in an economic indicator, Google will highlight that over the much-more positive national figures.

GNP Rockets By 8.4%, But Phil Dickey of Tulsa, Oklahoma Still Can't Afford That SonarShark Fish-Finder He's Had His Eye On Since February

Meanwhile, 132,000 jobs were added, which doesn't sound like a lot, but it beats forecasts.

And will probably be revised up later, of course. As the previous months' numbers were:

The department revised down the number of jobs created in October to 79,000 from a previously reported 92,000 but it said that, in September, a robust 203,000 jobs were created instead of 148,000 as it had reported previously.

That 79,000 adjusted figure for October is still higher than the first estimate, so it has been revised upwards, too. It's just been revised downwards from its last revision upwards.

Unemployment ticked up to 4.5% from 4.4%.

Google's headline? Which fact should be stressed?

Take a wild guess.

No, don't bother.

US unemployment rate creeps up to 4.5%

Another Google headline:

Bonds: Notes flat as jobless claims remain high

Seriously -- the biggest fall in six months, but the headline? They "remain high."

Another headline just below that emphasizes the negative even of the fall in jobless claims. After all, an expanding economy isn't good for those holding T-bills:

Treasurys hit by drop in jobless claims

I'm not cherry-picking. This is Google's way of reporting the economic news.

Gee, I wonder what party they vote for.

Haven't they got the message that Nancy Pelosi's victory means a New Age of Freedom From Want?

Posted by: Ace at 06:55 AM | Comments (28)
Post contains 446 words, total size 3 kb.

To caveat it, as he does, there are funny women, just not as many of them as men.

To caveat it again, I'm not sure Christopher Hitchens is well-qualified to opine on the topic of humor. He's ascerbic, dry, witty... and I know I've chuckled at something he's said at some point... but actually funny? I don't know. He wonders if Dorothy Parker was ever really funny (a good point), but the same question may be asked of himself. He's funny in the way Parker was funny -- witty, cutting, etc., but rarely giggle-yourself-stupid funny.

Anyway, here's the meat of his theory:

Substitute the term "self-defecation" (which I actually heard being used inadvertently once) and almost all men will laugh right away, if only to pass the time. Probe a little deeper, though, and you will see what Nietzsche meant when he described a witticism as an epitaph on the death of a feeling. Male humor prefers the laugh to be at someone's expense, and understands that life is quite possibly a joke to begin with—and often a joke in extremely poor taste. Humor is part of the armor-plate with which to resist what is already farcical enough. (Perhaps not by coincidence, battered as they are by motherfucking nature, men tend to refer to life itself as a bitch.) Whereas women, bless their tender hearts, would prefer that life be fair, and even sweet, rather than the sordid mess it actually is. Jokes about calamitous visits to the doctor or the shrink or the bathroom, or the venting of sexual frustration on furry domestic animals, are a male province. It must have been a man who originated the phrase "funny like a heart attack." In all the millions of cartoons that feature a patient listening glum-faced to a physician ("There's no cure. There isn't even a race for a cure"), do you remember even one where the patient is a woman? I thought as much.

...

The plain fact is that the physical structure of the human being is a joke in itself: a flat, crude, unanswerable disproof of any nonsense about "intelligent design." The reproductive and eliminating functions (the closeness of which is the origin of all obscenity) were obviously wired together in hell by some subcommittee that was giggling cruelly as it went about its work. ("Think they'd wear this? Well, they're gonna have to.") The resulting confusion is the source of perhaps 50 percent of all humor. Filth. That's what the customers want, as we occasional stand-up performers all know. Filth, and plenty of it. Filth in lavish, heaping quantities. And there's another principle that helps exclude the fair sex. "Men obviously like gross stuff," says Fran Lebowitz. "Why? Because it's childish." Keep your eye on that last word. Women's appetite for talk about that fine product known as Depend is limited. So is their relish for gags about premature ejaculation. ("Premature for whom?" as a friend of mine indignantly demands to know.)

A lot of it probably has to do with social rewards in early development. Boys are rewarded more for being clownish by both sexes, whereas women are less rewarded by both. Really funny stuff is often trangressive, or self-deprecating, and girls may pay too high a penalty for being transgressive or self-deprecating in the social system.

But a big thing is, as he says, the idea most women have that humor should be elevated. Although the more elevated forms of humor can be funny, they're often "smiling nod" funny, and not belly-laugh funny. I don't think I know too many women who appreciated the genius of Beavis and Butthead. (Although that could have something to do with the fact that the characters were idiotic, mysogynistic, degenerate losers. Rich, handsome men are frequently thought by women to be funny, even when they're not -- they're just rich and handsome. And Beavis and Butthead were a scream, but women may just have been too repulsed to enjoy them.)

On the dirty-joke thing: I was thinking that before I read Hitchens writing it. Although I think that men aren't so crude in joking as adults, nor women so elevated. But I do think that kids learn the template of humor from the dirty joke. You learn the basics of joke structure from dirty jokes as a kid, then apply that to other things later. That's what I was getting at with the "trangressive" thing -- it could be that girls are less willing to indulge in dirty joking at a young age, and so are less facile with the basic template of the joke.

Who knows. I just know that compos mentis crapping his pants at his daughter's soccer game is some pretty funny shit.

Posted by: Ace at 06:39 AM | Comments (101)
Post contains 802 words, total size 5 kb.

Good news -- he's happy-talking the report but ignoring the parts that are giving Tim Russert fossilized wood (agate boners, for those interested in paleontology).

President Bush moved quickly on Thursday to distance himself from the central recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group: pulling back all combat brigades over the next 15 months and direct talks with Iran and Syria.

One day after the independent panel rocked Washington with its bleak assessment of conditions in Iraq, Mr. Bush met at the White House with his closest ally in the war, Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain. The president said afterward that the United States needs “a new approach” in Iraq and that he would ‘’seriously consider” the report, but was unlikely to accept all of its recommendations.

At the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, the co-chairmen of the panel, James A. Baker III and Lee H. Hamilton, called on Congress to exert pressure on Mr. Bush to accept the report in its entirety. Mr. Baker told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the White House should not treat the report “like a fruit salad,” while Mr. Hamilton complained that Congress had been ‘’extremely timid” in overseeing the war.

Oh, eat me, hacks. It's a bunch of nonsense. Half of what you recommend is already being done, the other half of the recommendations have tried to be done, unsuccessfully so far, and the other other half is just fruitbat crazy.

So, Jonah Goldberg is right: Bush likes the report, because what he reads when he sees it is "stay the course."

Posted by: Ace at 06:15 AM | Comments (25)
Post contains 303 words, total size 2 kb.