People are Stupid: An Ongoing Series

Cracked.com linked me to an article on pictures of the end of the rainbow…complete with comments of people who have not only seen the end of the rainbow, but in some cases STOOD in it.  Yes, people.  Apparently you can stand in a rainbow.

Look, I know there are a lot of things in nature that many of us don’t understand.  So let me clarify.  Rainbows are created from light refracted off of rain or other moisture in the air.  To put it simply: “A rainbow does not actually exist at a particular location in the sky. Its apparent position depends on the observer’s location and the position of the sun.”  What this means is that the position of a rainbow is different for every person in every position.  When you move, the rainbow moves.

This means you cannot possibly reach the end of the rainbow, let alone stand in it.  Theoritically, I suppose someone could stand in the end of your rainbow, and vice versa.  Also, I suppose it’s possible to see the “end” in the distance.  But a rainbow does not actually exist in any particular space.  It’s refracted light.  Go look up characteristics of light.  So when you move closer to a rainbow, it moves away.  I DON’T KNOW HOW ELSE TO FURTHER EXPLAIN IT, PEOPLE!!!

Look, skim the article yourself, and then browse the comments.  I’ve included some of my favorites, in hopes of making you as simultaneously entertained and disappointed in humanity as I am.

NOTE: The following comments may cause nausea, vomiting, disgust, laughter, increased pride and any number of additional made-up side effects.

John Wilkinson says:

February 11, 2009 at 11:42 pm

This is great. My sister, mom and I saw this sight back in the 80’s in our yard in Oklahoma. After a rain there was a rainbow right on the ground in the dead center of our yard. We couldn’t believe it. You could see all the colors on the dead grass in the yard. Yes it did look golden at the end. We ran out and stood in it and looked up into the bands. It was the neatest thing I’d ever seen or probably ever will. The colors are so blinding and intense. We would look directly up into the rainbow and move our eyes though the colors and look at them. I have told this story many times, and would have been more convincing if I’d said a UFO was in my yard, cause no one has ever believed me until now when my wife saw this on FARK. If I’d had a working camera then, my story would have been more convincing. I was nearly laughed out of college classes when I mentioned having seen the end of a rainbow. I guess if you live long enough, you can be vindicated. Love the picture thank you so much from the bottom of my heart. John Wilkinson

 

Gary Robbins, science writer-editor says:

April 14, 2009 at 7:17 am

Yesterday’s pretty colors in the sky were caused by iridescence. However, it is not impossible for a real rainbow to touch the ground. We published images of a rainbow touching the ground in north Orange County earlier this year.

 

Francis says:

April 14, 2009 at 8:09 am

Uh, no. The “rainbow” isn’t touching anything unless you’re saying that light is “touching” the ground. As has been said, the visual phenomenon is simply the light being reflected back into your eye as a prism.

 

ohn says:

April 14, 2009 at 11:23 am

Are you saying that you, a nobody complaining about a photo of a rainbow on the Internet, is smarter than an actual science person who knows something about science?

I don’t think so.

buzz killer says:

April 14, 2009 at 8:23 am

Rainbows are created when light is reflected off of water at 40 to 42 degrees.

All rainbows are circular. and therefore none actually have an “end”.

Gary Robbins, science writer-editor says:

April 14, 2009 at 8:37 am

Actually, rainbows do have an end. As noted in earlier post, we have photographic proof, and we checked it three ways to Sunday with meteorologists.

come on says:

April 14, 2009 at 11:57 am

science writer-editor? If I drew a cube on a peice of paper, would that be photographic proof that my drawing was three dimensional?? there is no such thing as photographic proof when discussing an Optical Illusion… go back to science class man

Nattie says:

April 14, 2009 at 2:19 pm

“Rainbows are created when light is reflected off of water at 40 to 42 degrees.

All rainbows are circular. and therefore none actually have an “end”.

Exactly.

Can we just establish now that a rainbow is NOT a physical structure?

Thrice blessed says:

April 14, 2009 at 7:17 pm

Three times I have been in the end of a rainbow. In South Carolina, from a street about 3 miles from home, I saw a rainbow and told the kids it looked like the end was in our yard. As we drove home, the perspective changed but the top of each hill seem to still put the rainbow in our home area. As we drove down our street I could see the end of the rainbow in our yard. I raced to park and get the kids out of the van and we danced in the awesome light. The air was sparkling gold and so bright it hurt to keep our eyes open. You could step out of the light, then back in. It was sprinkling Altogether that rainbow probably lasted about 15 minutes. I cannot remember the details of the second encounter, but the third was very early one summer morning at our home in Missouri. Again it was sprinkling. I step outside and was in that unbelievable light. It took a few seconds to place where I had seen this before , but when I realized it had been the rainbows, I looked and found that I was at the bottom of the arc. Sometimes that gold is worth all the golden metal in the world to my memories. No one believes these stories. I guess I was lucky but more than likely many people have been at the end of a rainbow but did not know it because they had not seen it from a distance and approached.

Barry Gibbons, science writer-editor says:

April 14, 2009 at 1:12 pm

All of this is completely true. I once saw this phenomenon myself. Believe it or not, rainbows do touch the ground. I proved this to my colleagues by riding my unicorn directly up to the base of the rainbow then galloping gallantly skyward on top of the beautiful iridescent bridge of happiness. once I reached the other side where the rainbow touched the ground I danced in the beautiful light while skittles rained upon me. The most amazing thing about it all was, when I looked directly into the light of the rainbow, I saw Jesus and Frank Sinatra playing shuffleboard.

If Michael Bay directed Apocalypto…

10,000 B.C. was crap.

Oh, you say you liked it? Have you seen Apocalypto? Did you like that, too? Seriously?

Here’s the only reason you should want to see 10,000 B.C.

Here’s the problem: they’re essentially the same movie. I say “essentially” because I’m not POSITIVE as to how both these movies made it to the big screen without someone raising the same question that I’m about to raise.

Did someone get their hands on an early script for Apocalypto and say, “Hey, we can do this in a different time period and no one will know?” Or did they actually see the film when it came out in 2006 and throw together 10,000 B.C. in two years flat? Seriously, if the special effects budget for this movie wasn’t so large, doing it in under 2 years wouldn’t be that far-fetched.

I know this is all a bunch of heresay, but see both movies in the order they came out and tell me you don’t see it. Let me see if I can break it down without spoilers.

They’re both big budget special effects movies based in the not-too-recent past.

They are both based around a protagonist who has some sort of trial that brings him up from nothing to a highly respected leadership position in his tribe. Guess what this trial involves. Hunting. In both movies.

They both have a storyline centered around this protagonist being separated from his love, resulting in him chasing her for the majority of the film.

They both have the same types of characters. Now any film geek like myself may feel the urge to point out that movies tend to have certain formulas they follow, and that character types commonly follow certain patterns in certain types of movies. To these people, I say this: the same characters died in both movies. That was the dead give away. Shut your face.

Also, the climactic fight scene toward the end of each movie was by far the best part of each film. Very entertaining, until the fight ended, wherein each film returned to crap until the credits rolled. In fact, 10,000 B.C.’s ending was so bad, I almost rewound it because I couldn’t believe my eyes.

Now don’t get me wrong. I did actually enjoy Apocalypto at times. It had it’s moments. Also, I’m sure 10,000 B.C. looked awesome on the big screen (Camilla Belle, yeow!). But after seeing both movies, I can honestly say I was dumbfounded.

If you don’t believe, check out these quotes I found after writing all this by simply googling “Apocalypto and 10,000 BC”:

Boy- did this suck! I guess Roland Emmerich must have really liked APOCALYPTO- because he’s just remade it! Seriously- if you take APOCALYPTO, replace the Myans with cavemen, take out all the violence and make the characters speak English- you’ve got 10,000 B.C.

If Apocalypto was directed by Michael Bay, I think we’d get something like 10,000 B.C.

10,000 B.C. is Apocalypto if it had been made by Uwe Boll.

The last two quotes are my favorite. I don’t often say don’t even waste your time renting a movie, but if you’ve seen Apocalypto, don’t see 10,000 B.C. Your time could be better spent by making me breakfast. Have a good morning.

generic clever blog title

This is a formal (albeit short) apology for neglecting my blog in the recent months.  I have become very busy and worn out, both with work and with life in general.  This isn’t really much of an explanation, though, because I really enjoy writing in my blog, and I find it therapeutic, even if it’s just to dish on movies or videogames.  Still, attaching some sort of explanation, however incomplete, feels like the natural thing to do.

Nonetheless, in the past two weeks, I’ve gotten a handful of inquiries about where my blog went.  This got me kinda excited.  So tonight I guarantee at least one blog.  Hopefully more.  We’ll see.

<3

Could John McClane Beat Up Tyler Durden?

I am a huge fan of the Die Hard franchise.  I suppose this doesn’t say much, considering I’m a contemporary American man who generally enjoys most gratuitous displays of masculinity.  But in a world where men are quickly becoming sissies (or “girly men” as Arnold would put it), I find solace in Bruce Willis.

Thank you Bruce, for all the violence and pain you inflict upon your enemies, whilst simultaneously taunting them in original and colorful ways.

I was reading cracked.com today (aa I so often do), and I happened upon this little nugget of joy.
5 Awesome Movies Ruined By Last-Minute Changes
It was a very good article.  I have seen all 5 movies, but not every possible ending to each.  And still, I agree with almost every point they made, spefically the one about the fourth Die Hard film.

You know what I’m talking about.  The PG-13 rating on this one.  It’s old news, but it still stings me.  Although the special effects, violence, and overall adrenaline in this film are stepped up (I wouldn’t expect anything less from a Die Hard sequel), a true fan of the series sees the obvious flaws.  There are only two major flaws, but they are big enough to throw a tantrum over.

The first is the blood.  They actually digitally removed blood from this film.  This reminds me of Total Recall, where they cut scenes and dulled colors (specifically blood) to get it an R rating.  This is back in 1990 when a PG-13 rating was actually acceptable for kids 13 and older, and didn’t mean you could get away with saying the F word once.  I’m sorry, but I think you’re missing the point of a Die Hard film?  There are three ingredients.  Bruce Willis, punchy one-liners, and as much blood as you can cram into 130 minutes.  Which brings me to my next point.

Punchy one-liners.  Does this movie have them?  Yes.  Most definitely.  But if you’re waiting for McClane’s catch phrase (and if you haven’t heard already), they PG-13′d it up.  And I mean 1990 standards.  No F word.  Don’t get me wrong.  I’m not an advocate for gratuitous cursing.  But it’s just not Die Hard without Willis’ signature line.  They make a solid effort to cover it up, but it’s not enough.

Final conclusion: you’re missing 2 out of 3 ingredients, guys!  But that’s ok!  Live Free or Die Hard is out on DVD now, and guess what.  It’s uncut.  That means (according to cracked.com):

“The unrated DVD release of the film contains numerous scenes that were removed from the theatrical cut. McClane gets to say his favorite phrase, and more graphic and visceral action scenes replaced the embarrassingly neutered material.”

Yippee Ki Yay.

Some other interesting details:

On listverse’s Top 10 Bada** Movie Characters, McClane is listed at number 5.

McClane’s son (who hasn’t appeared in a Die Hard film since the first) was originally going to be in the fourth film, played by Justin Timberlake.  I wonder how that would’ve turned out.

Boondocks Saints 2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This from Wikipedia:

“Troy Duffy, posted a video on his YouTube account on March 17th, 2008 (in possible accordance with the holiday St. Patrick’s Day) which detailed that the sequel has been given a green light by Sony and is set to have the entire cast return with the exception of Willem Dafoe. This film will begin shooting summer of 2008 according to Duffy.^[27] The clip was taken down from YouTube shortly after it was uploaded, but remains on other accounts.”

Feel free to Google or YouTube “Boondock Saints 2″ if you’re skeptical.

Indy’s Back (And Not Much Worse For Wear)

The next big buzz in this summer’s lineup is the new Indiana Jones film. There seems to be this huge hubbub about it, and understandably so. After all, Raiders of the Lost Ark was one of the best action films of all time, in my (and many others’) opinions. And the other Indy films certainly didn’t disappoint.

As if Harrison Ford’s spectacular role as Han Solo wasn’t enough to forever shape our opinion of him.

Still, I must admit (for the first time), that I haven’t really been all that excited to see this movie. After Iron Man, going to the opening of Indy seems like staying after the headliner to see the opening act (remember, I’m a huge superhero geek). It was so good that I can’t really be excited about another movie for awhile. Other reasons why I was hesitant about this movie:

* George Lucas’ other recent sequels (ahem) failed miserably, albeit not unexpectedly.
* Sean Connery will not be making a return as Indy’s father. Sadly, he is now retired. The world is a much less exciting place.
* There is a rumor going around that Shia LeBouf is going to be the new Indy (Ford is almost 66), which borders on blasphemy. Even if there’s some truth to it, to suggest that Ford will retire as Indy is one of those things you just don’t say, not even in a whisper.

Despite all this, I have recently become excited about this movie. Here are the main reasons why:

* Spielberg is involved. Almost everything this guy touches is gold, especially Indy, which involves a collaboration between Lucas, Spielberg, and Ford. What a team, assuming Lucas doesn’t ruin it with his new ideas, which he almost did in the early stages.
* Karen Allen is back as Marion (Raiders of the Lost Ark), which is just awesome.
* LeBouf, despite what I said earlier, is a great actor. Check out Even Stevens, Holes, I, Robot. Now you might be thinking, “Indy is an action franchise, not a comedy.” Check out Constantine, or more importantly, Transformers. LeBouf has a sort of dry demeanor that seems to supply exactly the right type of humor to make an awesome action movie even more entertaining (so did Downey, Jr. in Iron Man!).

* The stunts. This is the reason to see this movie. Although they’ve kept this film under wraps until it debuts at the Cannes Festival on May 18, some people have seen it.

“It’s the same vibe, the same feel. They didn’t miss a beat,” Flanery (he played young Indy in the show) said of “Crystal Skull.” “People are going to love it. It’s what everybody’s been waiting for.”

“We did it sort of old-school-style,” Ford said. “Certainly, there is a fair amount of CGI that will be used, enhancing a lot of what we did, but generally not in the action area. It will enhance some of the physical sets. In the action area, it was pretty much done for real.”

Did you read that? Ford is closing in on 66 years old (64 when filming) and he’s still doing his own stunts!!!

From Imdb.com:

To reprise his role as the legendary explorer Indiana Jones, the 64-year-old Harrison Ford spent three hours a day at the gym, and subsisted on a high-protein diet of fish and vegetables, thus building his body into a condition where he could perform his own stunts (he always kept himself fit anyway, as he hoped to complete all the five Indiana Jones films that were originally planned in the 1980s). Steven Spielberg later stated he was so impressed with Ford’s form that he could not tell the difference between the shoots for the third and fourth films.

That’s it. I’m all out. I could probably go on, but I got even more excited just typing up this post. And if you aren’t excited by now, there’s no hope for you. Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. May 22.

Some cool trivia (no spoilers til at least May 18 )

revamp

I’ve been kicking around the idea of turning this into an entertainment and movie blog, since 1) it’s more fun for me to write about stuff like that, 2) people generally seem to enjoy it more, and 3) it gets more hits.

Funny thing, I had been checking my stats to see what traffic is like, and I seem to be getting 30-40 hits per day on my Wolverine post from people googling “wolverine.”  After letting curiosity get the better of me, I finally discovered that one of the photos I posted on that entry is the 5th hit on google images.  Thought that was pretty sweet.

Anyways, don’t be surprised if there is a change in format sometime in the next couple weeks.

ugly

I’ve been trying to think of a way to post on a specific issue I’ve been dealing with, but without hurting a couple peoples’ feelings.

The issue is about how I look and feel.

I’ve felt progressively fatter and uglier in the past six months or so. Maybe I’ve gotten uglier, and I am fairly certain I’ve gotten fatter, but being true doesn’t make it any easier to deal with.

I’ve been running, exercising, and making a solid attempt to eat more healthy (which isn’t so easy, with the very limited budget I’m working with), and I haven’t really noticed a difference.

I bought a scale recently, and have been using it regularly. Sometimes my weight drops, which makes me happy, but I don’t notice a difference in my appearance. However, when it goes up, I definitely notice.

I know this is something that a large portion of America deals with. We all have misgivings about our looks, and it’s much more noticeable when we gain weight than when we lose it, especially psychologically. Still, recently I have found myself preoccupied many many times every single day with how ugly I must look. I’ve never been so concerned with my appearance before. Just ask my family. We used to get into arguments, because I wanted to buy all my clothes at Wal-Mart to save money, despite how I looked in them. And yet lately, I’ve found myself having to try on more than one outfit before I feel comfortable leaving my apartment.

When did this happen?

I always tell people to dress for how they look, not how they want to look. Not that I’m not an advocate of motivating yourself to slim down, but I don’t believe that making yourself look unattractive is an effective way to do this.

I say this because I realized a week or two ago that I don’t want to go down to Fresno/Clovis as much as I used to. This could be because of my falling out with Nicole. Or because I’m too tired all the time from work. Or because I’ve been so busy that I need more alone time. But I realized last time I was there that I don’t feel nearly as insecure about the way I look anywhere on Earth as I do when I’m in town.

I don’t really know where I’m going with this. I do know I’m exercising (and trying to eat right). And that is hard enough. I actively seek out and request advice almost daily on exercise and diet techniques. This is what helps me. Telling me to change outfits, no matter how or why you do it, is not helping. It makes me feel like crap. All the time.

The last time anyone suggested I looked poorly was over two weeks ago, and it still bothers me every single day. I wouldn’t even be going back into town for a couple months if there weren’t 4 birthdays coming up, one of them being my own.

My goal was to weigh 200 pounds by June 1. 34 days left and 12 pounds to go. I think I can still do it, but I have no idea how much running and how little eating that will require.

EDIT:

THE MATH:
NOTE: Math is a very rough estimate. This does not include factors like metabolism or carbohydrates. Numbers are approximated.

1 lb. body fat = 3500 calories
1 mile = 138 calories
34 days to lose 42000 calories (12 lbs. x 3500 calories)
8400 calories per week (1200 per day)
61 miles per week (9 per day)

I’m starting tonight. I will be running/jogging/walking a MINIMUM of 8 miles per day, EVERY DAY, until June 1.

faith and science

Adam posted an excellent blog last week.

On another note, I was in Chicago for 5 days last week. I got to do some merchandise and product training with Ideal and Leviton, which was awesome. I also got to spend a couple days with Pam and Jared, which was even more awesome. We played videogames, watched movies, ate out a lot, and went to downtown Chicago, where we went to an awesome aquarium, went to Navy Pier, went inside the Sears Tower (and promptly left after seeing the price and wait time). Loads of fun. Wish I could say more, but I’m back and work and playing a bit of catch up! More later!

NOTE: Check out a few pics on Pam’s facebook.

Please Pray for My Sister

My mother sent me this email earlier this morning, and I would really appreciate your prayers.

Tylor,
 
Pray for Brooklyn.  She is on her way to the hospital – they think she has an absess behind her tonsils.  I had that once, and they had to lance it and suck out the stuff – yuck.
 
Also, Monday they stuck needles into her wrist to deaden the nerves that were spasming in her hand.  On Wednesday, they stuck a needle in her neck (between her cartroid and windpipe) to deaden the ganglian (sp?) nerve.  Now they are wanting to do surgery to cut these nerves.  She is having a very rough week.  Thank goodness dad will be there tonight.  He is in Dallas tonight. 
Seriously, say a prayer for her.

Love you,
Mother