On Algorithms and Other Matters

al gore rhythm

glo-glo-glo-global

glo-glo-glo-global

warming..................

..................harming

warming..................

..................harming


ice cap .... melting
ice cap .... melting


Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden, says, "Some small areas in the Antarctic Peninsula have broken up recently, just like it has done back in time."

But Karlen states that the 'mass balance' of Antarctica is positive - more snow is accumulating than melting off. As a result, there is an increase in the 'calving' of icebergs as the ice dome of Antarctica is growing and flowing to the oceans.

you gotta get the rhythm
.... get the al gore rhythm



hotter
hotter
ho-ho-ho-ho
hotter

CO2-2-2-2
makin' us hotter
makin' us totter

to the edge --- of gettin' hotter

global, no bull

Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson says, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years. On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"

you gotta get the rhythm
.... get the al gore rhythm



scientists .... experts
some of them agree

worldwide disaster
just you wait and see

models
mo-mo-mo-models

on the screen, all predict
a deeper, warmer sea

Tom Harris, Ottawa Director of High Park Group, writes "hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. 'Climate experts' is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore's 'majority of scientists' think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.

Even among that fraction, many focus their studies on the impacts of climate change; biologists, for example, who study everything from insects to polar bears to poison ivy. "While many are highly skilled researchers, they generally do not have special knowledge about the causes of global climate change," explains former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball. "They usually can tell us only about the effects of changes in the local environment where they conduct their studies."

you gotta get the rhythm
.... get the al gore rhythm

Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives this assessment: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."

you gotta get in rhythm
you gotta get in rhythm
you gotta get in rhythm
with the al gore rhythm

or do you?

Algorithm:
An algorithm is a procedure (a finite set of well-defined instructions) for accomplishing some task which, given an initial state, will terminate in a defined end-state. The computational complexity and efficient implementation of the algorithm are important in computing, and this depends on suitable data structures.

Elements of this were reprinted without permission from a news article found on the internet.

More On (moron?) Idol

Do you know what a blog is?

In all actuality, it is a form of self-aggrandizement.

The blogger assumes that he/she is interesting enough to read, that folks will read, so the blogger continues to.. ahhh, blog. (I know it's a shortened version of weblog, but it's still an odd word).

Blogs are for people who like to hear themselves talk. The bloggers that is.

American Idol this week. Down to 12.

Brandon sang "You Can't Hurry Love." He forgot some of the words in a fairly obvious manner. The judges panned it. I didn't think it was as bad as they made it out to be, but I don't think he stands a chance of making it to the end.

Melinda. Whew! She gave me chills listening to and watching her. Her start wasn't particularly strong - she seemed tentative with it. But she built on it and got into the performer role quickly. She emotes as well if not better than anyone else in the show and she knows how to phrase. I didn't know the song she sang, probably wouldn't even like it in its original incarnation. As an artist, however, Melinda was able to create something grand with it.

Chris Sligh sang "Endless Love." He contemporized it, and I think Randy was right when he compared it to a Coldplay sound. The judges hated it, thought he should have stayed traditional with it. I find it odd that they continually harp on people to make a song stand out, to make it their own, but when it happens, they aren't so supportive. I disagree with them. I thought it added an interest factor that the original couldn't create. Gotta remember, it was a duet with Lionel Ritchie back in the early 80s and typical, sort of sappy love song, in my opinion. Speaking of contemporizing, Blake Lewis did the same with "You Keep Me Hanging On." Judges said pretty much the same thing as with Chris. I was glad to see Blake didn't beatbox this one. I don't think it was a performance worthy of the top spot, but still strong enough to keep him around for a while longer.

It occurs to me that Blake's and Chris' renditions of their songs probably make good concert fare, but maybe not good CD listening. I liked the light visuals that went along with their performances. Had I simply heard just the audios, I may have wondered who butchered the songs.

Gina did "Love Child." Good song choice. I just don't think she commands a stage well and seemed rather small during the performance. It was difficult to differentiate her from the background music at times.

Sanjaya, "Ain't No Mountain High Enough." Randy said it was unlistenable. That about sums it up.

Haley sang "Missing You." She looked hot hot hot tonight. Unfortunately, her singing was not not not. Her vocals were just ok and she forgot some words.

Phil sang "Yes, I Will." His delivery is good; he has a strong voice. I thought he was much better tonight than last week. But he's a bit scary to look at.

Lakisha, strong performance with "God Bless the Child." Her advancing is a given, though I have to say I didn't particularly like the song she did. However, it seemed like a good choice for her, especially since it was a Billie Holiday piece. Very fitting.

Stephanie sang "Love Hangover." She does well, has stage presence. I don't think she belonged in the category of Melinda this week, but she'll hang for a while. She has a Beyonce thing going for her which is utterly foreign to me, but seems to connect well with a younger crowd.

Chris Richardson did "The Boss." Do you know who Chris is? He is this seasons' Elliot Yamin. He does an above average job, seems quite likable. I don't care for the tonal quality of his voice as I didnt' much care for Elliot's as well. I would find it torturous to try and listen to an entire CD of his music.

Jordin Sparks capped it all off with "If We Hold On Together." Fantastic voice, great presentation and all from a 17 year old. I think Randy was quite right when he said she moved into the Melinda/Lakisha category tonight.

I won't predict who will be booted this week, though the following have to be susceptible: Sanjaya, Haley, Brandon, possibly Gina, except she's the token rocker this year, so she'll probably stick around a while longer. Phil and Chris Richardson can't be far behind those.

The Sky is Fallling

Here we go again.

Remember Chicken Little?

Last year there was one fellow who kept NOT getting voted off Idol to the point where many were scratching their heads and wondering. Then one week he did get the boot and everyone sighed as the universe righted itself.

Same thing is happening this year.

Kevin Covais, Chicken Little, nicknamed so due to his similarity with a cartoon character of the same name (I always thought he looked birdlike anyway, as if he was going to peck the inside of the TV screen at any time), went beyond where he was expected to go in the competition.

Everyone blamed it on the blue-haired crowd, you know, those 70 and 80 year old ladies sitting there exclaiming, "What a wonderful young man!" as they dip melba toast into their tea. And then others mentioned the prepubescent girl segment who would stand at the edge of the stage and toss their underoos at him.

I think it's something else though.

Last year, the youth segment was represented by Paris Bennett, who could sing, and Kevin Covais, who wasn't so fun to watch.

This year, it's Jordin Sparks, who has the voice and lungs to blast it out, and Sanjaya Malakar, who isn't so fun to watch.

See the comparison?

Makes one wonder, doesn't it?

From the "I Really Need to Get a Life" File

Another week, another couple hours of life spent watching American Idol.

I frankly think the guys should pack it in. They are through. They are toast. There's not a one of them who can keep up with the top girls. Hey, just keepin' it real, dog.

Let's see, I missed Jordin, started with Sabrina. I like her. I think she reminds me of an old flame, except for the nose. Gina hammered it pretty hard, though I agree w/Simon that she needs to find a more melodic type rock style, perhaps some Pat Benatar?

Haley seems nice, but I thought she should have gone last week. A lot of people like Stephanie. She just doesn't do it for me though.

The train wreck known as Antonella would be pitiful if she wasn't so funny. She really seems to think that she is good for some reason. Votefortheworst - time for y'all to let go of her, imo.

That leaves Lakisha and Melinda. Lakisha is good. Melinda is a complete package, though. She has the pipes, the stage presence, the vocal talent. I think she should be declared the winner right now. However, I think she needs to stop looking so delightfully surprised and on the verge of tears with the compliments. She needs to realize that she has the stuff... or, in actuality, she is the stuff.

This is not to say she should become cocky. Just comfortable and confident.

Like when she sings.

More Idol Banter

If I ever labored under the illusion that a reality show was reality, then last night cured me of it. I have never watched a full season of American Idol before. In fact, last year was the first time I ever watched it at all, and there I came in, initially, during the semi-finals. You know, the night Chris Daughtry sang Hemorrhage by Fuel.

I've always prided myself on staying away from the 'reality' fare that makes up TV. For instance, I've never watched Survivor or any of its offshoots. Overall I don't even watch that much TV. But I took to Idol last year with a bit more passion than is normal for me, to the extent where I would talk about it at work the next day.

That's big.

That places it in the league of baseball or football games.

I know there is a site on the internet called votefortheworst.com that compels its readers to vote now and vote often to keep the less-than-able performers on as long as possible, ostensibly to discredit the show. They may have an effect on the voting - I just don't know.

Sanjaya should have been voted off last night, not AJ.

Antonella should have been one of the bottom two as well.

I'm not squishy, and I don't really care if it's cruel or not to keep Sanjaya or Antonella on any longer. Entertainment is a huge money-making business. It will eat whatever it can to stay alive. There has to be knowledge of this going in. It's economic Darwinism at its best.

So I will look at it from the point of view of me.

I simply don't want to hear them any more. I'm done with seeing if they can make it happen. After two tries in the semis, it's obvious to me they can't.

Yet, they are still here.

Something is not right about this show.

Not right.

And not reality.

Some Idol Thoughts (how's that for original?!)

The winner of American Idol this year will be.....

one of the women!

That's the early consensus between me, myself and I.

There are 4 guys who stand out in my opinion. They would be: Chris Sligh, Blake Lewis, Sundance Head and Sanjaya Malakar. I include Sanjaya in this group, but it's not a positive inclusion. Sanjaya probably appeals to all the little groupie girls who watch Idol, not to mention the pedophiles as well. He is effeminate and his stage presence/persona doesn't really project the way it needs to go the long haul. He is like the Bobby (Peter?) Brady look-alike from last year.

Sundance did a good job with Mustang Sally last night, and he is probably the stronger of the two between him and the other pumpkin contestant - Chris Sligh. Both have good voices and seem comfortable with what they do well, but let's be honest. Triple X size singers don't usually make it to the finals.

That leaves Blake Lewis. His beat box/scat portion of the song last night was interesting, added some spice to it. However, if he relies on that throughout the competition, he's gone. The novelty will wear off, and it will all seem silly. What is he without it? That remains to be seen.

I like Phil Stacey, but I'm afraid he's a mite too common.

As for the women, Lakisha Jones, Melinda Doolittle and Sabrina Sloan are the competition. I think the winner will come out of those three.

They all have great voices, energy and passion in their singing, though I have to say I thought Lakisha came across as a bit manic and weird in some of it last week.

It will be interesting to see how they present tonight.

Write it Down

I had an idea for a glob-entry, pardon me, that should say blog. Well.... perhaps... Anyway, I had an idea. It was going to be clever, witty, enlightening - full of wisdom. It was going to rock, put this blog on the map, shake your world and whatever other silly cliches one can come up with.

I had an idea.

Unfortunately, I forgot what it was. I was moving when it struck me. Busy, in motion, trying to go from A to B, etc. No time to flesh it out, no time to pound it onto paper.

I should've jotted a few notes.

That way I could've jostled a few memories the next morning when I had time.

I had an idea. I 've had ideas in the past. They're all gone. You think I would have learned by now.

On Online Poetry Sites

I have belonged to poets.com, bulldogpoetryworkshop.com, thepoetstree.com, and I currently belong to poetsinkwell.com and worldofpoets.com. Even with all this, I don't think I've really scratched the surface of the poetry sites available on the internet.

These sites allow you to post your work for others to read and review. In exchange, you are expected to read and review other people's works. It was an eye-opening process when I first started to do this, now it's mostly just amusing.

The first site I joined was poets.com. It is one of many sites owned by poetry.com which makes its money by publishing anthologies of contest winners (which is virtually everyone who submits) and selling them to the winners at $50 a pop. In other words, it's a vanity press with a twist.

Poets.com is a workshop of sorts where one pays a subscription fee to be a member. You can join for one month, three months or a year with the longer terms being gradually less expensive than the shorter when averaged per month. When I first joined poets.com, it was with the hopes of finding experienced, published poets who would be able to provide me feedback in this endeavor I had started. What a surprise when I went into the site as a paid member to see literally hundreds of Poet Laureates gracing the site.

In fact, I saw too many, which made me suspicious.

But I was willing to accept the possibility that a poetry site with as focused a name as poets.com might have a wealth of poetic knowledge and wisdom at its service, so I started looking at the works of the 'masters' there.

I read some work that I thought was mediocre and accepted the fact that not every piece written is a work of art. But as I plowed through the mediocrity and ran into absolutely hideous 'poetry', I began to realize that these erstwhile Laureates were not, in fact, Laureates at all. They were merely people who had been reviewed enough by others to receive the fairy tale title of Poet Laureate.

I learned the game quickly enough to become a Laureate myself, and a Judge Advocate as well (the reviewer's rank). It was just a matter of running the numbers. Just keep reviewing and getting reviewed and the ranks build up. This was not a game of substance, simply one of ego stroking.

You see, many of the folks that attained ranking on the site actually thought they were the equivalent of true Poet Laureates (not that all of them are that great). I read many a bio that sounded like Academy Award winners giving their acceptance speeches. It was always good for a chuckle.

Be warned, however, that a review leaning toward the negative could bring out the wrath of these people. "How dare you judge my work!", "You don't know anything about poetry!" and so on. That, too, was good for a chuckle as well.

The saving grace of this site was that I was able to find really good writers. They tended to be the quieter ones; there only for the writing and reading and reviewing. They didn't care for the titles or the silliness. I found excellent crafters of thought, metaphor, humor, in many styles, and I was always glad to call them friend. I still have the email addresses of some of them.

I am still involved with sites like this, though I left poets.com after their site redesign. Many from that site left as well, and I've run into them all across the spectrum. What I have concluded from my experiences is this...

1. These sites are really online communities, no more, no less. The flickr.com site is similar, only it deals with photographs instead of poems. Youtube is similar, but video-oriented. They are all communities with people meeting each other and interacting. The focus of the community is only a vehicle to draw like minded people together.

2. These sites are community-oriented, but they pander to ego as well, with the ability to build up points, tag favorites, award silly meaningless awards and such. There is a virtual plethora of people with no talent who consider themselves experts because enough people have stroked them for so long for whatever reason. The dynamics of it all are fascinating.

3. In every arena, you can find competence and true artistry. Sometimes it just takes some time and looking.

These sites can be enjoyable if one approaches them with the right attitude. In my opinion, the best way to do it is with a strong sense of humor and a willingness not to take any of it too seriously. Lord knows, too many get sucked into the fantasy of it all, and they feed off it. They should be pitied.

The Dixie Twits

First, I'd like to say that I'm not a country music fan. With the exception of a limited few of the artists, I really can't stand the genre. So I have no consumer dog in this quarrel.

Second, I'd like to say that the reluctance or refusal of a radio station to play any of their music is not running afoul of the first amendment which reads: Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. When and if Congress does that, that becomes censorship which is clearly unConstitutional.

The right of any person to say whatever they want does not by law or implication obligate 1. anyone to listen to that person, or 2. anyone to agree with that person. Nor does it require the recipient of the free speech to idly stand by without having the ability or option of practicing their right to protest whatever the speaker said in the first place. Make sense?

If a radio station, or TV station, or website refuses to allow content on their medium based upon any views or philosophies they or their market deems to be unacceptable, they have that right. The media has purchased the license to broadcast or publish the material they want.

I had an email debate with someone about this recently, and he asked if I thought this was being narrow-minded. It is not narrow-minded. What is narrow-minded is being forced to accept and tolerate any view without the opportunity to provide a counter position. When Hollywood stars, music celebrities or even special interest groups make political statements, it appears that the politically-correct thing to do is embrace those statements as something wonderful and uniquely American. Unfortunately, these attitudes are squelching free speech little by little, making it available only to a select few.

If you like the Dixie Chicks and want to continue to buy their music, go fot it. If you have decided that perhaps their opinion causes you to want to boycott them with your wallet, go for it.

All debates are swiftly becoming too one-sided. The global warming debate is a fine example of that. So is the Dixie Twits issue.

A Novel Update

Well, I've broken the 20,000 word barrier, and I'm thinking that this is going far too slow. I recently read an article on the internet about another writer who does 100,000 words in a month. I've never heard of this person, but apparently it's what she does full time. I figure even if I did 1000 words per day, every day, that would only be 30,000 words in a month, and I'd still be looking at a bit over 3 months to get it done.

If you do the math, it will frustrate you no end. But I've always wondered how Tom Clancy and Stephen King managed to crank out book after book after book.

Here's the thing, though. I have over 20,000 words now. But I have no idea if they are GOOD words or not. I think they are, but I'm biased obviously.

The 100K words/month lady also suggested outlining as much of the plot as possible. I can understand that but a lot of my story unfolds as I work it.

Maybe I should stick to my day job, eh?

John Edwards for President? No.

I don't care where John Edwards lives. I don't care what kind of house he owns or car he drives. And I actually think I can agree with him that, yes, there are people who have and people who don't have.

I don't care about any of the things I mentioned because they aren't relevant to me. However, I still find a wonderful irony in it all. It's really no different from those who stump for the environment while driving huge SUVs. Or those rich, celebrated folks who hold parties with little to no food to symbolize the plight of the homeless.

Whenever the haves try to show simpatico with the have nots, they invariably fail. They come across as looking like hypocrites. The only way they are able to pull it off is when they actually start doing something material for their causes (does Gates and Buffet come to mind?) rather than just talking about it in front of a camera.

Is John Edwards doing something for his "cause?" (and I say that with great cynicism). My guess is that he thinks running for President is the material action. But if he was truly smart and wily like a trial lawyer, he would realize that he'll never be elected President. And not because he built a big house.

A Sort of Diary Entry

What to do. My book writing has come to a halt, not by choice, but by choices. I have joined a poetry site in an effort to promote my first book. Now I find a good part of my writing time used for that site, and I have actually written a couple poems - something I haven't done in a month. So it would seem to be: work on a book or work on promoting the first book, for with everything else in life that needs to be done there isn't much time for both.