Showing posts with label Stanford. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Stanford. Show all posts

Sunday, August 24, 2014

Top Five Worst Sports Logos (Number 3 Will Destroy Your Sanity and Render You a Hopeless Human Derelict)

About once every six months I make the mistake of clicking on one of those "list" articles that have infected the internet like a severe herpes outbreak (or so I'm told, cough, cough) for the last few years. The outcome is always the same: a plague of advertisements, a list of seven items that must be reloaded twenty-four times to fully read and a general feeling of emptiness and malaise after #7 failed to be amazing, as promised. We all know about this and we can all agree how much this is Not Good. This is not what I'm here to talk about.

When I descended into plugin container hell by clicking in between "celebrity thongs" and a new super steroid that helps actors play their characters better somehow I encountered writing and logic that was so completely awful, devoid of effort and insulting that I feel the need to create a sand-line with my big toe and say "You ain't crossing this, Big Internet." Yes, I'm angry at the low quality of a "click bait" article. No, I am not a crank.

What was offered was the ten worst sports logos. What was delivered was completely bereft of wit, literary skill, and cultural value. I was honestly wishing I'd opted to watch pictures of famous person butt-floss struggle to load thanks to the competition of three dozen flash ads.

Before I ruin this thing worse than 1945 Dresden or today's public schools I'm going to show you how it's supposed to be done. It's very important that a critic establish his or her credentials, after all. Proper accreditation of wise-asses, that's what I'm all about. So here are two logos I personally consider ungood.


Horrible colors. A faddish reference to a forgotten movie (Billy and the Clone-o-saurus, if memory serves). In said movie the "raptors" couldn't even kill vegetarian children, which you would think would be the easy tutorial level and not the final boss. The artist can't decide if the cloned lizard is supposed to be a dopey cartoon or actually intimidating. It's not even properly centered thanks to the tail throwing off the symmetry. Everything about this logo is horrible. It is objectively bad. If you like it, please seek help.


Do I even have to say anything? Well, yeah, that's the point of this. We've got an ethnic stereotype created by an artist who apparently can't tell the difference between Native Americans and Japanese as depicted in World War 2 propaganda posters. It's so inept I'm not sure if it's offensive or just sad. Let's start slapping that all over merchandise and you'll buy it because you're a moron.

That's how you do it. Now let's consider what's raising the big money on heavily monetized web honey traps.


The main argument against this one was it failed to depict "Bills" and instead is a stylized Buffalo. It's also called out for being "boring." I'll concede this one won't win any awards, but you can't really call it an embarrassment like High Chief Tojo or the killer dinosaur that was once defeated by a gymnastics routine. The colors are good, it has a certain minimalist charm and a wad of cash or a depiction of Wild Bill murdering the Cleveland logo would not be much of an upgrade. At worst this one's a C-, but we need a list of ten and putting in actual effort is a waste for something that will be half-read by droolies who will probably be promptly diverted by all those amazing personally-tailored and slow-loading commercials.


Instead of making some obvious corrective dentistry joke the big problem with The Predators logo, we are told, is that no one knows what a saber-tooth tiger looks like. This means the proles will get confused and, I guess, refuse to cheer this Ice Gang. Yes, in the age of information we live in the argument against this one boils down to massive societal ignorance in regards to Ice Age Mega Fauna. Even if you didn't know what a smilodon was, which I doubt is the massive problem the list-maker insists it is, you'd still look at this and think "Hey, that's kind of cool. It's like a tiger with severe overbite issues." Granted the colors and overall presentation aren't exactly top tier, but that's not the argument we get because even the most basic discussion of aesthetics is way too intellectual and what the heck kind of thing is this crazy critter poppin' up on mah sex box?  


After the last debacle I was not expecting the case against Tennessee's logo. The author explains what Titans are, using nice small words thankfully, and then wonders why an awesome Titan wasn't depicted instead of the flaming Tee. I mean, just imagine how righteous that would be! We could have Father Time (Cronos) or Mother Earth (Gaia) on our football helmets! What about Prometheus? Imagine the slammin' halftime show where an eagle will fly down to devour his regenerating liver!

Yes, that was the argument that was made. I'm confused by animals with slightly bigger teeth but I want to see literal representations of Greek Mythology. Consistency, is it too much to ask?


Despite the good colors and solid presentation this one is also dismissed as "boring," followed by a lament that "alcoholism" remains something of a taboo subject for baseball squadron iconography. And let me tell you, your average alcoholic favors 5% American piss-beer and not the bottom shelf hard liquors. So please, Brewers, be more exciting and maybe promote underage drinking. That would be a massive improvement, according to words I struggled to read as pop-ups kept covering them.


We conclude with some more good-ole ignorance. The reviewer thought the "Cardinal" would be a bird, which is something I also thought when I was nine and was first exposed to one of America's most famous universities. The disappointment that it's actually a tree apparently impacted our hack writer as if he found out about Santa or something. I mean, here we were, all fired up for red birds and instead it's a plant. Refund, refund! It's then explained that trees are not intimidating, which having seen "The Happening" I'll readily concede, but I don't think they're trying to scare you. It might, just might, be part of school tradition. I know it's crazy. After all, college mascots and supposed to be nightmares made flesh, like the Ohio State Buckeye or the Maryland Turtle.

There were five more, but my hard drive had caught fire by this point and I think the point has been made. You truly do get what you'll put up with.



Check Out My Books!

Aaron Zehner is the author of "Posts from the Underground," now available in paperback and e-book. Read free excerpts here and here.

His first novel "The Foolchild Invention" is also available in paperback and e-book format. Read free excerpts here and here.

Sunday, April 27, 2014

News You Can't Use: Scientists Have Built an 'Off Switch' for the Brain

One of humanity's most cherished dreams has always been devising a way to turn off the brain. From the development of alcohol and performing trepanning operations with rocks to first person shooters and talking phones the long war against the brain is the scarlet thread running through the human experience. For all these efforts, thought and awareness have proven worthy foes, defeating one new pacification technology after another. However, we may be finally seeing the victory in the long war against consciousness and volitional actions. 

Scientists have developed an “off-switch” for the brain to effectively shut down neural activity using light pulses.

They call it "television." I mean, am I wrong? Haw haw haw.

In 2005, Stanford scientist Karl Deisseroth discovered how to switch individual brain cells on and off by using light in a technique he dubbed 'optogenetics'.

You've got to wonder what sort of childhood produces a man whose life's work is switching off brain cells, but chooses to do it with "optogenetics" instead of, say, "Bud Lite."

However, light-sensitive proteins were efficient at switching cells on but proved less effective at turning them off.

I already know how to turn the damn thing on! I want my mind eraser!" 

Mr Deisseroth’s team has now re-engineered its light-sensitive proteins to switch cells much more adequately than before. His findings are presented in the journal Science.

It's hard to imagine something as amazingly adequate as this technology. I'd go so far as to call it the apotheosis of mediocrity. 

Thomas Insel, director of the National Institute of Mental Health, which funded the study, said this improved “off” switch will help researchers to better understand the brain circuits involved in behavior, thinking and emotion.

The current level of understanding is still limited to ranting about "you humans" and our "stupid minds." 

Also, there's plenty of non-evil applications for this. No, seriously.

We’re excited about this increased light sensitivity of inhibition in part because we think it will greatly enhance work in large-brained organisms like rats and primates.

And by "primates" we mean various "disappearance" cases that we use to test this amazing brain annihilation technology. 

“It creates a powerful tool that allows neuroscientists to apply a brake in any specific circuit with millisecond precision, beyond the power of any existing technology,” Mr Insel explained.

This is not the neurological equivalent of "bro science," he added. 

Stanford University Neurologists battle the "ghoul apocalypse."

This technique could help scientists develop treatments for patients with some brain diseases as it could allow problematic parts of the brain to be switched off with light and tackled with minimal intrusion.

...and let's just shut off those parts that don't properly love Big Brother...

Merab Kokaia, PhD, a professor at Lund University Hospital in Sweden who has used optogenetics to study epilepsy and other conditions praised the research.

Come on everybody, let's praise the research! Yes, I can feel the spirit of materialism moving through you!

These features could be much more useful for behavioral studies in animals but could also become an effective treatment alternative for neurological conditions where drugs do not work, such as some cases of severe epilepsy and other hyper-excitability disorders," he said.

"Just keep looking into the "calm lights" and you'll be a good citizen in no time."


Komment Korner  

Old news. The brain "off" switch is why Democrats exist.

Mine has been turned off for years.

Where can I buy one for my wife.

Why not find the ON button for the majority of sleepwalking Americans?

Those Seljuk race who slayed 1.5 million Armenians ...and still they deny...!and Why...! 


Check Out My Books!

Aaron Zehner is the author of "Posts from the Underground," now available in paperback and e-book. Read a free excerpt here.

His first novel The Foolchild Invention is also available in paperback and e-book format. Read free excerpts here and here.

Wednesday, April 24, 2013

News You Can't Use: 13 Worst Predictions Made on Earth Day, 1970

What better idea for a holiday than something created by a convicted murderer to mourn climate chaos? Yes, climate chaos is, to the best of my knowledge, the new correct term, replacing new ice age, global warming, inconvenient truth, global cooling, climate change, and the sky is falling oh no as the accepted progressive language to communicate the fact that we're destroying the environment. How bad is it? Well, let's look at what 1970 thought, because there's no better source of good ideas than 1970.


In 1970, the first Earth Day was celebrated — okay, “celebrated” doesn’t capture the funereal tone of the event. The events (organized in part by then hippie and now convicted murderer Ira Einhorn) predicted death, destruction and disease unless we did exactly as progressives commanded. Behold the coming apocalypse as predicted on and around Earth Day, 1970:

All right, no need for the smart mouth Mr. CONservative. The predictions can't be that bad, right? I mean, they might have guessed gas would be $4 or that we'd have nuclear disasters or something similar. That all happened. I bet these 1970 tree-huggers will be completely vindicated.

"Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind."  — Harvard biologist George Wald

Remember when civilization ended in 1985? Leave it to the Cambridge diploma-mill to produce this sort of intellectual light-weight, but we've still got some really nice universities, like Stanford, to pick a random example.

"Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years." — Stanford University biologist Paul Ehrlich

You know what? Let's just move on.

You'll fool everyone...until you open your mouth.

"In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution… by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half." — Life magazine

I'm not sure why 1985 was such a favorite for doomsday predictions. I guess 15 years was long enough for people to forget the crazy stuff you printed in a magazine...then that dang internet had to come and ruin everything. Stop holding us responsible for our deeply cynical alarmism!

"At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it's only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable." — Ecologist Kenneth Watt

Now this guy at least thought this through. It's sure to happen...eventually. Just a matter of time. Might be tomorrow, might be a thousand years. Whatever, just get scared and give up your rights so we don't end up in endless darkness with no usable land (I'm assuming he means for farming. We could still stand on it or make a baseball diamond or the like).

"Usable land" is over-rated, my SUV is thirsty!

"By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate… that there won't be any more crude oil. You'll drive up to the pump and say, ‘Fill 'er up, buddy,' and he'll say, ‘I am very sorry, there isn't any.'" — Ecologist Kenneth Watt

The most ridiculous part of this prediction is the idea that there would still be gas station attendants and polite people in 2000. Also, we still have oil, so there's that.

"The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age." — Kenneth Watt

...and you thought I was joking with that "new ice age" wise-assery earlier. 


When you can take an idea like "let's not destroy our planet" and actually make it unsympathetic that's quite an accomplishment. Maybe a more common sense approach and less doom-saying could lead to sensible reforms instituted in a equitable manner. On the other hand, I didn't go to HARVARD!!!!111oneoneone so let's just say if we don't shape up we'll all be dead by 2020, at the latest.

Komment Korner  

And yet, despite being totally wrong about everything he's ever predicted, Paul Ehrlich still has credibility among the Chicken Little Left. 

put the vicks formula 44 bottle down

"if present trends continue" The above caveat is the problem. We have never been able to predict if trends will continue or change. Why would anyone think that temperature trends or other climatic trends would be any different? 

We are pitiful creatures indeed. 


Aaron Zehner's first novel The Foolchild Invention is available in e-book format at Amazon.com and Barnes & Noble.