Have you ever seen someone eating Ramen Noodles and thought to yourself, damn, that looks tasty! Wish I knew how to make them. *sad face*
Well now you can! With 1 easy payment of 2 and a half minutes of your time! Just click on the button below to get started, watch to the end, and you will be making Ramen Noodles in no time!
I made this video for my CE 399 final video project. Yes the beginning is a weird grayscale, but it's not before I uploaded to youtube, so it's their problem, not mine.
EDIT (4-26-11):
The videos were graded half by instructor and half by peers, and the video that was graded the best in each section won a small prize. Those winners were announced today and ours won! I am now the proud owner of a very nice thermos with Purdue University emblazoned on the side.
Monday, April 25, 2011
Saturday, April 23, 2011
5 Common Design Creativity Blockages, and How To Fix
I was working on homework for Intro to Systems Design today. It's what I like to call an administrator course, one which looks good on paper and makes the administration feel happy, without really being useful to students. The first question on the homework really demonstrates that. It goes:
Discuss 5 common blockages to design creativity and what steps can be taken to reduce their effect.
I'd like to share my first answer, which I was convinced not to actually submit by the fact that my grade is hovering between two letters at the moment:
Political Opposition: Fix the ballets and elect someone who will support your project.
Lack of Sleep: Coffee and Red Bull.
Environmental Concerns: Burn down the entire forest ... then there's nothing left to be concerned about.
Outdated Regulations: Talk to the county regulator, and if he doesn't prove cooperative, see above "Political Opposition", above.
US Patent Law: Bomb the US Patent Office, while simultaneously hacking their data center.
Discuss 5 common blockages to design creativity and what steps can be taken to reduce their effect.
I'd like to share my first answer, which I was convinced not to actually submit by the fact that my grade is hovering between two letters at the moment:
Political Opposition: Fix the ballets and elect someone who will support your project.
Lack of Sleep: Coffee and Red Bull.
Environmental Concerns: Burn down the entire forest ... then there's nothing left to be concerned about.
Outdated Regulations: Talk to the county regulator, and if he doesn't prove cooperative, see above "Political Opposition", above.
US Patent Law: Bomb the US Patent Office, while simultaneously hacking their data center.
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Don't Judge a Book By It's Cover
I was walking home today from McDonalds, and I happened to pass by one of the bars that cluster near campus. I wasn't really paying attention because I was thinking intensely about a conversation I'd had a few minutes before (which may be the topic of another post, if I can sort out my thoughts). I ended up walking right on the edge of the sidewalk, a few inches away from the storefronts. Just as I was about to pass a door, it opened and two biker-looking men stepped out. Big, grizzly, each covered in tattoos. I couldn't really go around because there was the wall to my left and the door in front, and they were then exiting towards me, on my right. I waited for a few moments and to my surprise, on noticed me standing there and realized that the door had blocked me because of his exit. I Immediately looked chagrined and said, "sh**, I'm sorry man! Didn't mean ta' cut ya' off!". He then pushed the door closed quickly so that I could get going again faster.
It wasn't anything terribly significant, but it just made my day, because it was courteous when the guy didn't need to be. So thank you, random biker!
It wasn't anything terribly significant, but it just made my day, because it was courteous when the guy didn't need to be. So thank you, random biker!
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Starwars, Star Trek, Why Must We Fight?
I watched Fanboys the other day, and I enjoyed it. The one thing that frustrated me was the animosity between "Lucas Hounds" and "Trekkies". Why can I not be a fan of both?
I friend sent me this today, and I felt the need to pass it on.
I friend sent me this today, and I felt the need to pass it on.
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Zombie Bunnies!!!
Easter is fast approaching, that time that I celebrate the death and resurrection of Jusus, and of course look forward to dieing some eggs and eating some candy. And what better candy could there be than an Easter Bunny. It's cute and fluffy and ..... dead?!?
Looks like we've got an outbreak on out hands. The only thing we can do is buckle down and start biting off their heads.
ThinkGeek
Looks like we've got an outbreak on out hands. The only thing we can do is buckle down and start biting off their heads.
ThinkGeek
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Chick Fil-A and Indiana University
I got an email from Change.org today, asking me to sign a petition to remove Chick Fil-A from the campus of Indiana University.
By using Government, in the form of the University administration, to ban a business, we open the door to thought control. The majority is fickle, and by giving the majority the power to legislate what is right and wrong, we set a dangerous precedent. This petition, if successful, will do just that. We will be punishing the owners of Chick Fil-A because they think homosexuality is wrong. Their opinion I don't agree with. But they should be allowed to have it, without being threatened by the government. If we allow suppression of dissent, we are no longer free.
Petition Source
Students at Indiana University South Bend (IUSB) are standing up and challenging the presence of Chick-fil-A on campus, spreading the word that Chick-fil-A has given more than $1.1 million to support anti-gay organizations that oppose marriage equality and promote “curing” gay people through discredited “conversion therapy.”I don't support the organizations that Chick Fil-A has been contributing to. In fact I actively oppose them, going so far a to donate money to organizations on the opposite end, and going to equal-rights protests. I'm also a fan of boycotting as a method to express disapproval to companies, because you are under no ethical obligation to do business with a company. What I don't support though, is this petition.
There’s just one problem. IUSB’s Chancellor, Una Mae Reck, is refusing to act. Despite overwhelming support from students and faculty to remove Chick-fil-A’s food from campus, Reck has ignored student resolutions, ignored faculty senate resolutions, and even abruptly walked out of a meeting where student leaders were waiting to discuss the issue.
By using Government, in the form of the University administration, to ban a business, we open the door to thought control. The majority is fickle, and by giving the majority the power to legislate what is right and wrong, we set a dangerous precedent. This petition, if successful, will do just that. We will be punishing the owners of Chick Fil-A because they think homosexuality is wrong. Their opinion I don't agree with. But they should be allowed to have it, without being threatened by the government. If we allow suppression of dissent, we are no longer free.
Petition Source
Friday, April 8, 2011
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Season's Life
| Winter's cold, iron hold, Passes fast, Doesn't last. Spring's new life, toiling strife, Passes fast, Doesn't last. Summer's heat, win your seat, Passes fast, Doesn't last. Autumn's dark, final mark, Passes fast, Doesn't last. |  |
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Koran Burning
In Florida several days ago, a small Christian church burned a Koran. Following that, large protests erupted across the middle east. One protest in northern Afghanistan ended with the mob overrunning a UN complex, killing and beheading, leaving 11 dead.
World leaders have begun condemning the violence, which is good. However, at the same time, they began to condemn the Koran burning, some going so far as to say that the Pastor responsible for it was to blame for the violence.
In America, we are guaranteed freedom of speech by the Constitution. That means freedom to make fun of people or things, and freedom to disrespect. A book is a physical object, and a piece of property. Assuming the Pastor acquired the Koran legally, then he is allowed to burn it. The pastor is in no way responsible for the deaths of the UN workers. Zero, nada, nothing. The people responsible for their deaths are the people that killed them.
Let me draw a parallel. Imagine an elementary school playground. The playground bully (Muslim extremists) decides one say that the slide is his and his alone. However, another child (Christian pastor in Florida) wants to slide. The bully tells the child not to, threatening violence if he does. The child refuses to stop, and the bully pulls out a knife and kills him. Now the teacher (Obama) comes and says, that killing is wrong! But, the child shouldn't have defied the boy in the first place! They are both equally wrong!
What we have here is the exact same situation, on a larger scale. America is afraid to say anything bad about Islam, because Muslim extremists threaten to hurt us if we do. Examples of this are: Draw Muhammad Day: canceled because the girl got numerous death threats. Muhammad on South Park: censored because Comedy Central got death threats. Now this latest fiasco. This time, he went ahead and did it. He defied them, actually disrespected Islam! Like any bully, the Muslim extremists in Afghanistan couldn't let their bluff be called, so they stormed a UN complex and beheaded people. (Note, though the crowd was 20,000 people, the city it took place in has a population of 375,000, which means that only 5% of the people were involved. I am not blaming Muslims in general, just the extremists among them who think violence is acceptable).
The US's response should be a swift execution of the people responsible. But instead, while we do condemn the bully with words, we equally condemn the ... person who stood up to the bully? Whaaaattt?
Edit:
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the action of burning a holy book is a good thing. It's not, in fact it's a jerk move. However, by condemning it, Obama is setting a double standard. He doesn't condemn people who burn Bibles, does he? And condemning both at the same time implies they are the two extremes (true) and both equally bad (not true). Killing people is far worse than burning a book.
World leaders have begun condemning the violence, which is good. However, at the same time, they began to condemn the Koran burning, some going so far as to say that the Pastor responsible for it was to blame for the violence.
In America, we are guaranteed freedom of speech by the Constitution. That means freedom to make fun of people or things, and freedom to disrespect. A book is a physical object, and a piece of property. Assuming the Pastor acquired the Koran legally, then he is allowed to burn it. The pastor is in no way responsible for the deaths of the UN workers. Zero, nada, nothing. The people responsible for their deaths are the people that killed them.
Let me draw a parallel. Imagine an elementary school playground. The playground bully (Muslim extremists) decides one say that the slide is his and his alone. However, another child (Christian pastor in Florida) wants to slide. The bully tells the child not to, threatening violence if he does. The child refuses to stop, and the bully pulls out a knife and kills him. Now the teacher (Obama) comes and says, that killing is wrong! But, the child shouldn't have defied the boy in the first place! They are both equally wrong!
What we have here is the exact same situation, on a larger scale. America is afraid to say anything bad about Islam, because Muslim extremists threaten to hurt us if we do. Examples of this are: Draw Muhammad Day: canceled because the girl got numerous death threats. Muhammad on South Park: censored because Comedy Central got death threats. Now this latest fiasco. This time, he went ahead and did it. He defied them, actually disrespected Islam! Like any bully, the Muslim extremists in Afghanistan couldn't let their bluff be called, so they stormed a UN complex and beheaded people. (Note, though the crowd was 20,000 people, the city it took place in has a population of 375,000, which means that only 5% of the people were involved. I am not blaming Muslims in general, just the extremists among them who think violence is acceptable).
The US's response should be a swift execution of the people responsible. But instead, while we do condemn the bully with words, we equally condemn the ... person who stood up to the bully? Whaaaattt?
Edit:
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the action of burning a holy book is a good thing. It's not, in fact it's a jerk move. However, by condemning it, Obama is setting a double standard. He doesn't condemn people who burn Bibles, does he? And condemning both at the same time implies they are the two extremes (true) and both equally bad (not true). Killing people is far worse than burning a book.
Sunday, April 3, 2011
Britain's Government Dictating Beliefs
I just read about a situation in Britain. Short summary, a foster-parent couple was trying to adopt a child, and it was blocked because they hold anti-gay views, and said that they would teach them to any child they raised. [Source] Google News it for confirmation, this was one of the more neutral articles I could find.
It's a pretty gray area, there are good arguments on both sides. We are violating the parent's right to teach their children, and there has to be a good reason. Would you want the Grand Dragon of the KKK teaching a foster child? I'd hope you say no. Would you want one of Hitler's top echelon as a foster parent? No. The question really is, where do we draw the line? Does their belief that homosexuality is wrong constitute enough of a danger that we have to intervene? That is what's important in this case. The court obviously thinks so.
When I read about it, my first reaction was, damn right. I'm a strong proponent of equal rights, and so teaching that homosexuality is wrong is something I disagree with. However, after a moment of actually thinking about it, I realized how wrong that reaction was. It's NOT wrong because it's anti-Christian. It's wrong because it's anti-anything. This opens the door to government dictating what beliefs and opinions are correct .. thought control, basically. That is a VERY dangerous thing.
Also,I have to wonder why Christian groups (which have been the loudest ones protesting) are crying foul. I can understand civil libertarians protesting this. But NOM is right now protesting Virginia's new foster care law, which states that parents can't be chosen based on sexual orientation, because it'll make it easier for gay couples to adopt. We can't have it both ways, allowed to say that people can't be parents because they are gay, but can be if they are anti-gay.
Though I disagree with this couple's beliefs, letting the State decide what opinions and beliefs people are allowed to have is much more dangerous than the indoctrination of one child, and so this ruling is wrong.
It's a pretty gray area, there are good arguments on both sides. We are violating the parent's right to teach their children, and there has to be a good reason. Would you want the Grand Dragon of the KKK teaching a foster child? I'd hope you say no. Would you want one of Hitler's top echelon as a foster parent? No. The question really is, where do we draw the line? Does their belief that homosexuality is wrong constitute enough of a danger that we have to intervene? That is what's important in this case. The court obviously thinks so.
When I read about it, my first reaction was, damn right. I'm a strong proponent of equal rights, and so teaching that homosexuality is wrong is something I disagree with. However, after a moment of actually thinking about it, I realized how wrong that reaction was. It's NOT wrong because it's anti-Christian. It's wrong because it's anti-anything. This opens the door to government dictating what beliefs and opinions are correct .. thought control, basically. That is a VERY dangerous thing.
Also,I have to wonder why Christian groups (which have been the loudest ones protesting) are crying foul. I can understand civil libertarians protesting this. But NOM is right now protesting Virginia's new foster care law, which states that parents can't be chosen based on sexual orientation, because it'll make it easier for gay couples to adopt. We can't have it both ways, allowed to say that people can't be parents because they are gay, but can be if they are anti-gay.
Though I disagree with this couple's beliefs, letting the State decide what opinions and beliefs people are allowed to have is much more dangerous than the indoctrination of one child, and so this ruling is wrong.
Friday, April 1, 2011
Narrow Blog
I've been asked a few times, 'why is your blog so narrow? There are so many templates now, why not choose a wider one'. The answer is accessibility. Sure my blog is narrow when you are viewing on a computer who's screen has been set to huge resolutions. On a computer with traditional 1024 by 768 though, it fills up almost the entire screen, with a bit less than an inch on either side.
I keep the narrow width because it's better to have it too small than too large. At least the whole page is visible. If it appears too large, the user must horizontally scroll, which is a pet peeve of mine. And if you find it too small, you can just hit Ctrl+. (Firefox should even save your preference for this specific site, so others will not be zoomed but when you come here, it will be)
I keep the narrow width because it's better to have it too small than too large. At least the whole page is visible. If it appears too large, the user must horizontally scroll, which is a pet peeve of mine. And if you find it too small, you can just hit Ctrl+. (Firefox should even save your preference for this specific site, so others will not be zoomed but when you come here, it will be)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
