Blog For Free!
Archives
Home
2008 April
2008 January
2007 December
2007 November
2007 October
2007 September
2007 August
2007 July
2007 June
2007 May
2007 April
2007 March
2007 February
2007 January
2006 December
2006 November
2006 October
2006 September
2006 August
2006 July
2006 June
2006 May
2006 April
2006 March
2006 February
2005 October
2005 September
2005 August
2005 July
2005 June
2005 May
2005 April
2005 March
2005 February
2005 January
2004 December
2004 November
2004 October
2004 September
2004 August
2004 July
tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images
Sponsored
Blog
| Of Hockey and Other Things |
| 07.29.05 (1:05 pm) [edit] |
|
Haven't had a chance to review the rules changes for the NHL's 2005-06 season. Here they are, for you few hockey fans out there. Rink Dimensions 1) The blue lines (the two lines on either side of the red center line) will be moved closer to center ice to decrease the length of the neutral zone (the area between the blue lines at the middle of the rink) from 54 feet ot 50 feet. This will will increase the length of the offensive zone (the area from each blue line to the end boards, behind the goal) by two feet. This should give teams more room to operate on power plays. I like this change since power plays are probably the most exciting or tense moments in a game. 2) The goal lines will be moved two feet closer to the endboards, two feet closer. This will reduce the area behind the goal and give teams more leeway when trying to clear the puck out of the zone but aviod an icing call. It will also give better shot angles from the area in front of the net. I'm not so crazy about this change, mainly because it decreases the playable area behind the net. It will give ofensive players less room to maneuver, and make it easier for defensive players to clog up that area on power plays. I'm betting this is going to virtually eliminate wrap around goals. Most teams will usually position a player behind the net on power plays to help pass the puck around and catch the defense on their heels. This will make passing from behind the net more difficult. "Tag Up" rule reinstated. In 1986, the tag up rule was discontinued. If a player was in the offensive zone before the puck arrived, an "offsides" call was automatic. With the tag-up rule, the player can be offsides. If the puck enters the offensive zone before the puck, he can return to the blue line and "touch" it to participate in the play (i.e. handle the puck) without a stoppage of play. I'm undecided on this change. It seems like it will increase the flow of the game, but it seems like it will make it easier for teams to dump the puck out of their own zone. Icing A team called for icing will not be allowed a line change (substitute players) until after the resulting face-off. I like this change. No, I LOVE this change. If a team had some tired players and hadn't been able to clear their zone for a line change, they could take an icing call and sub some fresh players. Now they're out of luck, they'll either have to clear the zone legally, or keep playing with tired players. Good change. Goaltenders 1) The size of Goaltender pads and uniforms will be reduced to give them less "area" to defend with. I like this change. It will increase goals through the mythical 5-hole, which seem to have disappeared in recent years. I don't think changing the size of the blocker and glove are going to make much of a difference, though. 2) When behind the net, Goaltenders will only be allowed to play the puck in a trapezoid shaped are immediately behind the goal. I don't like this rule, especially considering the NHL says they are trying to increase the "flow" of the game. Your goalkeeper is one of the most important puck handlers on the team. Goalies a lot of times can set up scoring chances by catching the other team in a shift change and pushing the puck out to a teammate. This will also decrease the goaltender's willingness to come out an play the puck in front of the net. What happen's when the goalie misjudges the speed of the puck and realizes he can't play it before it crosses the crease? He's left himself out of position to defend the goal and has to leave the puck. Officiating Emphasis 1) There will now be "Zero Tolerance" on Interference, Hooking, Holding, etc. I don't like this. Define "Zero Tolerance." One referee's definition of what is Holding may not be the same as another's. If defensemen are going to be scared of touching an offensive player for fear of a penalty call, we might as well set up the defensemen like the players on those little hockey games at Chucky Cheese and give the offense free reign. 2) Goaltender's will be called for a penalty if they freeze the puck (trap the puck under a their body, causing a stop in play. "unnecessarily." I don't like this one. Define "Unnecesary." If a goaltender is freezing the puck, you better believe HE thinks its necessary. Why else would he risk a face-off in his own zone? (This is what happens after freezing the puck.) Overtime Games will no longer end in ties. If the game is tied at the end of regulation, a five-minute overtime period will be played. (Don't know if teams will skate with one less man like in past years.) If the game is still tied at the end of OT, each team will get three shots, similar to penalty shots. If the game is STILL tied after the six shots are taken, the teams will begin a sudden death series of penalty shots until a team comes out on top. I don't know if playoff games will end this way as well, or if teams will just play regular hockey for OT. I DON'T like this change. I REALLY don't like it. First, what is so wrong with a tie? If two teams have played so evenly that the score is tied, why shouldn't it end in a tie? I don't have a problem with the 5 minute overtime, followed by the three shots, but that ought to be the end of it. Also, I don't really believe the rules should change for the playoffs. I'd hate to see a series decided on a one-on-one penalty shot against a tired goaltender. But I also don't think the way OT games are decided should change from the regular season to the playoffs. Well, there are the big changes. There were also some changes regarding fighting and player suspensions and fines. Anything that reduces the fighting is a good thing in my book. Nothing breaks up the flow of a game more than a damn fight. |
| Space Shuttle |
| 07.28.05 (8:40 am) [edit] |
|
Well, It's another FAILURE in a long line of FAILURES for the NASA program. We got the Shuttle back into space, and it ran into the same problem that doomed Columbia. This is unbelievable. The fleet was grounded to fix the problem that destroyed Columbia and it crew, and the same exact problem hits Discovery. This not a month after NASA's successful Deep Impact, where they managed to smash a probe into the surface of a comet. This is akin to hitting a BB with a bullet. DID YOU KNOW: Originally the foam used to insulate the fuel tank contained freon. In 1997, under pressure from environmental groups, NASA switched to freon free foam. The newer foam was found to be more brittle under extreme temperatures, and under testing this foam destroyed 11 times as many heat shield tiles as the freon foam. In other words, it was not the best thing to be using on the shuttle. NASA kept using it any way. Hey, we don't want to accelerate the greenhouse effect, do we? Here's an article from 2003 about the new foam Look, I'm a firm believer in acceptable risk. Chuck Yeager knew he was risking his life when he strapped himself into the X-1 for the first time. Alan Shepard knw he was risking his life when he strapped himself into Freedom 7. The crew of STS-114 knew they were risking their lives when they strapped themselves into Discovery on Tuesday. These were all acceptable risks. No one said adventure and achievement were easy. If Lewis and Clark had turned back at the first sign of hardship, someone else would have done it. NASA built 5 shuttles capable of spaceflight. Two of them are gone, one more is in danger. It's time to retire the shuttle fleet and, dare I say, put space exploration in the hands of private enterprise. I believe the Federal Goverment exists to serve one purpose, to provide services that the citizens and states are not capable of providing for themselves. National defense? Check. Interstate roadways? Check. Back in the 1950's, 60's, and 70's, there was no way that private enterprise would have been able to attempt space flight. Today, the story is different. Burt Rutan's SpaceShipOne proved that private companies can get their on their own. Several companies are working on their own private spacecraft. NASA currently operates on over $15 billion a year. What have we got to show for it over the last few years? A destroyed shuttle, and bunch of Mars missions that resulted in nothing but some pictures and more than one destroyed spacecraft, a shuttle crew that has to be worried sick about coming back, and one successful mission to a comet? Rutan put is SpaceShipOne into space for far cheaper than the federal government could have. Granted, they did have the knowledge we've gained from previous NASA missions, but I guarantee you that if you had put NASA and Rutan's company side by side and gave them the directive "Build a craft capable of carrying three people into space," Rutan would have gotten it done faster and cheaper than NASA. You want to see progress in space exploration? Put it in the hands of private individuals who don't have the endless resources of American taxpayers to rely on. Getting rid of NASA wouldn't be a problem, all the people that currently work at NASA (who aren't untalented bureaucrats) would be able to find employment at the numerous private companies that would fill the void left by the agency. I'm not saying that NASA is a waste, but it has served its purpose. |
| RIP Mr. Scott |
| 07.20.05 (8:14 am) [edit] |
|
James Doohan, better known to Star Trek fans as Lt. Commander Montgomery Scott, ("Scotty" to his friends) passed away today at the age of 85. Many people are familiar with Mr. Doohan as an actor on Star Trek. Few people, however, know that Doohan served with the Canadian Armed Forces (he was a native-born Canadian). He landed at Normandy on D-Day, and was wounded in the leg and hand, even loosing a finger. For the rest of World War 2, he served as an observer in the Canadian Air Force. Doonhan appeared in over 4000 radio programs, 400 television shows, and over 100 films. For a while, he was known as Canada's busiest actor. He was a very gifted actor, and will be missed. Mr. Scott, Energize! |
| Mary Jo Kopechne |
| 07.19.05 (2:13 pm) [edit] |
|
I almost forgot to mention that yesterday was the anniversary of Mary Jo Kopechne's death. Well, yesterday was the anniversary of the day that fat slug, Ted Kennedy left Mary Jo Kopechne to die in the back seat of his car, which was submerged under water. For those of you who don't know what happened at Chappaquidick, here's the story in a nutshell: On the night of July 18, 1969, one Senator Edward Kennedy and his passenger, Mary Jo Kopechne, were driving down a dark road. Tragically the car ran off a bridge, flipped over and landed on its top. Kennedy managed to escape, but Kopechne remained trapped inside. The accident happened between 11:00 pm and 1:00 am that night. The accident wasn't discovered until around 9:00 am the next morning, Kennedy did not report that he was the driver of the vehicle until an hour later. Kennedy states that he didn't report the accident because he was in a "state of shock." Kopechne's body was recovered in a position that indicated she was breathing air from a pocket trapped in the rear footwell of the overturned car. This meant that if Kennedy had reported the accident immediately, she might have survived. These are the FACTS. Unfortunately there is much that is not known about this case. The website, Y Ted K has an excellent write up of eyewitness accounts to what really happened. What is reported on this site indicates that there was a deliberate attempt on Kennedy's part to deceive, inveigle, and obfuscate (thank you, Chris Carter) in order to avoid any direct blame for the accident. So what can you do? Well, every year around the anniversary of Mary Jo Kopechne's death, I send the honorable Senator Edward Kennedy an e-mail on his handy dandy Official US Senate Contact Form reminding him that I'll never forget. |
| Grand Theft Auto is bad for your health. |
| 07.15.05 (9:25 am) [edit] |
|
Videogames and our children! So, Hillary Clinton has decided to jump on the "videogames causes violence in our children" bandwagon. Apparently there is some sort of mod called "Hot Coffee" that you can use to access certain sexually explicit scenes in the game "Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas." Game hackers say the content is available on the original game content. Rockstar Games, the game's publisher, says that the modifications are not present on the game and are the creation of some modders. Senator Clinton stated "The disturbing material in Grand Theft Auto and other games like it is stealing the innocence of our children and it's making the difficult job of being a parent even harder. I am announcing these measures today because I believe that the ability of our children to access pornographic and outrageously violent material on video games rated for adults is spiralling out of control." What I don't get is that the videogaming industry came up with the ESRB rating board to make it EASIER for parents to monitor what kind of games their kids are playing. See that big "M" stamped on the cover of GTA: San Andreas? That means for "MATURE" players only. It isn't a game your fucking kids should be playing. Clinton wants to protect us from the scourge of morally corrupt game developers. But we really don't need protection from them. In a free market, they should be free to publish any type of game they want. It's up to us to buy or not to buy. An idiot parent that is so ignorant that their kids are playing ANY of the GTA games, these people should have their video game systems seized and should be sterilized so they can't breed and raise more idiots. And I'll say this, if YOU allow YOUR kid to play a game rated "M," YOU are an idiot, too. And yes, YOU should be sterilized to to spare the rest of the world your idiot offspring. All this REALLY is is a ploy for the honorable Senator to convince the idiot masses that she is a conservative. You see, despite what she says, she is planning to run for President in 2008. She's going to start going to church and finding JEE-zus, and bitching about all the movie and game companies that create violent media for our children. In 2003, she had a newfound sense against illegal immigrants. She's called for the Army to boost its strength by 80,000 soldiers over 4 years. She wants to fine retailers who sell rated "M" or "AO" games to children $5,000. She's going to try and convince the sheep that she's not a liberal. There are a lot of people out there who think its the Religiously Right Republicans who are out to censor movies and videogames. While this may be true for SOME Republicans, let me remind you...it was Al Gore's (D-TN) wife Tipper who forced music companies to put the "PARENTAL ADVISORY" symbol on album. It was Joe Lieberman's (D-CT) shennanigans that caused the video game industry to come up with the ESRB (which was a pretty good move as it has kept the Imperial Federal Government off their backs for the most part.) Now it's Hillary Clinton's (D-NY) posturing that has put violent video games back in the news. |
| Fantastic 4 |
| 07.13.05 (6:53 am) [edit] |
|
So, the latest comic-book movie adaptation, Fantastic 4, has been soundly denounced by critics. "Lack of depth." "The acting isn't much to write home about." "...the script and storytelling just don't hold their own with some of the recent comic book releases to come out of Hollywood." "As a comic book fan, this movie was a disappointment and probably one of the few comic-book-related movies that I have no desire to see again." So what was it? What was the thing that made this movie become Hollywood's savior? Why is this movie the one that got Hollywood out of its slump? Well, here's a couple of reasons: [image]heavyarms_13559681 43.jpg[/image] A a few more: [image]heavyarms_11094099 49.jpg[/image] Here's a damn good reason: [image]heavyarms_42915005 5.jpg[/image] Seriously, are movie critics unfamiliar with the formula? (Hot Chick + Blue Spandex) x Special Effects = SUCCESS! Of course, the hotness of the chick exponentially affects the amount of success. Also, the costume must be spandex, not vinyl (see "Catwoman.") Also, the hot chick must be prominent in the movie, not just a background character (see Batgirl, "Batman & Robin.") I for one think that it would be a good idea if Jessica Alba dons a blue spandex outfit in one or two movies a year. She's really hot. NOTE TO MY FEMALE READERS: I respect you, I really do. It's just that sometimes men are pigs. Hey, if your REALLY hot, I bet you'd be a hit in blue spandex, too. |
| Hollywood Sucks? Ummm...yep |
| 07.07.05 (6:20 am) [edit] |
|
So, Hollywood “thinks” they’re in trouble. Box office receipts are down, and movies aren’t making as much money as they used to (or as much as the Hollywood bigwigs think they should, at least)…and they can’t seem to figure out why. This weekend, the Angry White Male staff went to see Batman Begins. Our viewing experience led us here at Angry White Male (and by “us,” I mean “I”) to hit upon a few theories on why Hollywood is in trouble this summer. 1) Originality. Take a look at the top 10 movies from the weekend. 1. "War of the Worlds," $77.6 million. Yes, its apparently pretty good, though I haven’t seen it, so I don’t know if its “Independence Day” good or “Indiana Jones” good. But it’s a remake…of a remake. There was the surprisingly-good-for-195 0’s-science-fiction film from 1953, but there is also the 112 year old book. Now, apparently THIS film stays closer to the book than the first film, but it is not an original idea. How many “aliens attack the earth” films has Hollywood done? 2. "Batman Begins," $18.7 million. This was a good movie. BUT...this is the FIFTH film in the franchise, not an original by any stretch. 3. "Mr. and Mrs. Smith," $12.7 million. This one is at least appears to be original, with the two main characters as super-agents of some sort, both unaware of the other’s occupation. However, True Lies sort of did this once. Points to this one for attempting something different. 4. "Bewitched," $10.8 million. Remake of a TV series. 5. "Herbie: Fully Loaded," $10.5 million. Remake of a 1966 movie. There were 5 or 6 Herbie movies already. Points for starring Lindsey Lohan. I’d buy THAT for a dollar. 6. "Madagascar," $7 million. NEWSFLASH! CG animated film about a quirky group of characters in a hilarious “fish-out-of-water” story. Just like Toy Story, A Bug’s Life, Shrek, Antz, Monsters, Inc.; etc. This is starting to become a cliché. I like CG films, Toy Story was groundbreaking, and Monsters, Inc. was funny. But, let’s come up with something original. How about a film told from the antagonist’s point of view. Maybe one aimed at a more adult audience (not porn, you pervert!) The Japanese do it. (Animated porn as well as animated films aimed at adults, see the classic Akira, or Jin-Roh) 7. "Rebound," $6 million. Hmmm. Man with personal problems must take charge of a team of kids. Said team of kids is awful, but man turns team around to become champions. Just like Bad News Bears (which, BTW, is being REMADE), just like Mighty Ducks, blah, blah, blah. Once, just once, I’d like to see a film about a team of kids who suck and never win. They bust their ass, and still, they never win. THERE’s a good lesson for the kids. It isn’t about the winning, its about the trying. 8. "Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith," $5 million. EXCELLENT movie. Also the SIXTH movie in the franchise. Blasters, ships, light sabers, the Force, just like the other five. Hardly original. 9. "The Longest Yard," $3.5 million. Remake. 10. "George Romero's Land of the Dead," $3.2 million. Night of the Living DEAD, Dawn of the DEAD, Day of the DEAD, Land of the DEAD. I’ve never understood the zombie movies genre, but I’m surprised it isn’t DEAD. Romero’s Dawn of the Dead (1985) was remade last year. This one isn’t a remake, but it is 5th or 6th in this series. So there we are, the weekend’s top 10 movies. Of the 10, 7 are either remakes or are movies from an already established series. This leaves us 3 films, Madagascar, Rebound, and Mr. and Mrs. Smith. Rebound might as well be a remake, and Madagascar features the tried and true formula used by just about every other CG movie from the last 10 years. 1 out of 10 movies that could be considered wholly original. Is it Hollywood’s fault that we are forced to sit through recycled left-overs? No, we don’t have to buy tickets to them. We have conditioned the film industry to stick with tried and true and “proven” film formulas because this is only type of crap most of us will go see. Truly original movies like Donnie Darko are usually flops at the box office. We get our remakes of Starsky and Hutch, Dukes of Hazard, Charlie’s Angels, The Manchurian Candidate, The Flight of the Phoenix, Herbie, Ocean’s Twelve (a sequel to a remake), The Honeymooners, Planet of the Apes, on and on. I’m waiting for the movie remake of CHiP's and The A-Team. I know those will come around much sooner that Hollywood starts to make some decent ORIGINAL films again. 2) Cost. I usually go to matinee features to get a decent price, but I’m still dropping 10 bucks for two tickets. Back when I used to go to the movies on dates in high school, (which was just 10 years ago), that was how much I paid for a night feature. Ticket prices have almost doubled in 10 years, but the product hasn’t gotten any better. So you drop 20 bucks for two tickets, then you’ve got to drop some coin on your food and drink. I purchased a small popcorn and a medium drink for my wife when we saw Episode III…seven dollars. For a dollar more, we could have eaten at Whataburger. There’s no reason why you should have to pay as much for a light snack inside the theater as you do for a meal outside. This is just from the perspective of a couple. Think about families. Movies used to be an affordable family event. My mom, dad, brother, sister and I used to go to the movies once a month. Tickets for 5 people back in 1994 would run you about $25 bucks, not too bad. Tickets at my local Tinseltown today for five people would be around $45 bucks. Most families aren’t willing to spend that kind of cash for a measly 90 minutes of entertainment (since when did movies stop running 2 hours?), especially when you have to deal with... 3) Other people. I’ll be honest. The MAIN reason I don’t go to movies nowadays, I don’t want to have to deal with other people. Its not that I don’t like sitting close to people, modern theaters have done a great job in implementing stadium seating, so you don’t have to worry about that jackass that comes in and sits down right in front of you. Its that you have to deal with the noise generated by 75 other people while watching a movie. We went to go see Batman this weekend. First there was the woman who talked through the previews (all 30 minutes of them), and then kept on talking right throught the beginning of the movie. I kept looking over my shoulder at her (which is the movie etiquette way to ask a person to be quiet without disturbing others), this didn’t work. Finally, the gentleman sitting in front of her turned around and said ‘Would you be quiet back there?” She got the hint and shut up. So no one else talked during the movie, but I still had to listen to two hours of popcorn munching, drink slurping, and candy unwrapping. I don’t have to put up with that at home. Which is good, because modern home movie viewing has gotten so good with the advent of... 4) Home Theaters. Be honest, you either have a sweet home theater set up, or you wish you did. You can buy TVs that are designed to show movies in widescreen format, and sound systems that sound better than the one at your local Cineplex. You can buy the movie on DVD for cheaper than you could to take your wife and two kids to see it. You get all those cool extras and documentaries to go with it, plus, you get to KEEP it and watch it over and over. You can pause the movie and get up to go pee. You can buy two 2-liter Cokes at the supermarket for less than one large drink at the theater. You can buy a whole BOX of microwave popcorn for the price of a large theater popcorn. Really, the only reason to go see a movie AT the theaters now is so that you won’t miss out on conversation at the water cooler, because everything else can be done better and cheaper in the comfort of your own home. |
WARNING!!
May contain prejudiced, offensive, right-wing, sexist, homophobic, redneck, or other generally offensive language. Not suitable for children under the age of 3. If you are easily offended, like to point out grammatical or spelling errors, or are just generally disagreeable, go away.
LINKS
Addicted to Plastic - my toy collecting blog, also useless
Well, That's Just Prime! My weekly web comic, updated promptly on Friday-ish
Nealz Nuze
The MullBlog
Radio Gawds
Chuck Norris CAN divide by zero