Who remembers 1998?  Who remembers what happened in 1998?  Anybody remember the Good Friday talks?  No.  The beginning of the Pokemon craze that exists to this day?  No.  The beginning of the last season of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine?  No.  Brazil getting their asses handed to them by France 3-0 in the World Cup Finals?  No.  How about the launch of a device called the MPMan F10?  No.  Well, all you iPod and Zune users should be thankful for it.  The MPMan F10 was the first commercially sold MP3 player.  Released several months before the Diamond Rio PMP300, it had 32 MB of memory.  32 MB, was enough to hold eight to ten songs (back then the ability to alter the bit rate wasn't quite improved yet).  It linked to a computer via a serial port (no such thing as USB for PC's back then).

When it was first released, I actually considered buying one.  That is until the Diamond released the Rio.  I considered buying that one as well.  However, before I could gather together the $250 (that was a lot back then for a college freshman) needed to make a purchase; Diamond got sued by the RIAA.  Though the battle was short lived, it put a damper on my desire to own one.  What did I do instead?  I bought a MiniDisc Player.  Man was I stupid.  I should have bought the Rio. 

Well, let's wish the MP3 player a Happy Birthday.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1955054/Star-Wars-wedding-out-of-this-world.html

Is it just me or are all the really whacked out Star Wars nuts from the UK?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,355268,00.html

I don't know weather to find this story sad or funny.  I'm leaning towards sad.  Well, the Brits are kinda nuts.

Another 149,600,000 miles down.

Just got back from watching "Iron Man."  I was very impressed.  This is one of the better comic book based movies I have seen.  More to come later.

*EDIT*

Now that I am somewhat rested and had time to digest the movie, I will be going into more of a commentary and review.  If you haven't seen the movie yet, you can ignore this post since I will most likely have spoilers.

I was a little skeptical when I heard that Robert Downey, Jr. had been cast as Tony Stark.  If you are old enough to remember, you would know that in the 90's he had a very prominent drug problem.  he was convicted and ordered to rehab several times.  Apparently he became clean and sober in 2001, and began a slow comeback.  However, I believe that Downey's redemption in real life allowed him to portray Tony Stark in the original light.  If you were a fan of the comic books or followed the comic books to any extent you would know that Stark goes through a process of introspection and redemption.  There is depth to the character of Tony Stark, that is difficult grasp.  He is that genius that knows he's smarter than everybody else, and goes out of his way to make sure everybody knows it.  In other words, the genius asshole.  However, through a life changing event and the interaction with another scientist, Yinsen, Stark is sobered to the reality of his life's work as a weapons developer.  Needless to say I really like the development of the character in this movie.  It almost falls in line with the original comic, much more so that the over comic book based movies. 

The design of the suit was incredible.  I liked the fact that Jon Favreau, the director, went into the detail that he did.  The comic book depicts the suit as being smooth and easy to slip on.  However, in the movie a lot of thought went into how it looked and how the suit was worn.  The suit was made to have control surfaces much like an aircraft.  This would make sense since the suit was meant to fly.  Multivariable-control surfaces is a technology that is currently being explored and developed for maned and unmanned aerial vehicles.  The way the suit was put on using a machine just seemed more plausible then slipping into it like a set of clothes.  The weapons systems that were portrayed are all realistic.  They have either been developed or based on designs in development.  For example the Jericho missile is based on a design for a tactical short range anti-armor/antipersonnel missile.  The targeting AI that is portrayed in the suit is also something that is in development.  Much of the technology that was portrayed in the film is realistic and feasible.  I really appreciated that.  Another fun thing to do is pay attention to the communication screens and look for the company logos.

The story line was great.  It was a good introduction to the characters of Tony Stark/Iron Man.  The introduction of the other principle characters was subtle, but done well enough that even the uninitiated could see and understand the relationships.  I relly like the story development.  I just hope they don't muck it up in the sequels like they did with multiple other comic book movies.  One note, wait untill after the credits, and you will see a really neat teaser. 

Bottom line, a good movie, well worth going to see again.

photos courtesey: Julia Di Sieno/Animal Rescue Team

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,353420,00.html

Aparently this hawk's last meal went down (literally) fighting.  Let this be a lesson folks, not matter how bad it gets you can always get the last blow in.

10 PRINT "Happy Birthday"

20 GOTO 10

Forty-four years ago today a new kind of progarming language was run for the first time.  That language was Beginner's All-purpose Symbolic Instruction Code or BASIC.  This was one of the first languages I learned.  I remember having fun with this running looping programs, and other fun things.  But, alas we have gone towards object oriented and visual programing. 

This was originally part of my previous post.  However, as you can see I was a little long to be second fiddle to a rather short rant.  I’m sure many of you will be able to relate to this…

I found this article.  I know there are many of you who laughed at me for using game theory in relationship planning.  Admit it; I know you were laughing so hard you had a hernia.  This is a very good article with some good insight.  However, it has made me realize my approach was somewhat flawed.  I realized that I did not take into account that nothing is really my choice.  I have to look at the situation from a whole different angle.  Although, to some degree I do have a choice, as in which available female that is transmitting the message of being open.  Alas, according to the article that is the only choice we as males have.  Since, it is up to the female to either choose to accept the approach or reject it.  The article uses the example of proposal, but I think it can apply to my application.  The only issue I am having is wondering if posing the question will result in an affirmative or negative response.  (But, that's a whole new game tree in itself)  However, I do have to wonder; are those women that are still single into their late 30's just indecisive or do they know better than their younger counterparts?  Are those women in their 20's just decisive and pick the best men, or do they just appeal more as being less maintenance (I use maintenance for a lack of a better term). 

I would argue that they are a little bit of both.  Most men will avoid women that require a lot of maintenance.  And therefore those women who are such in their 20's, while may be sending the signal of being available, may not be as decisive when choosing to say yes to a man.  They question his potential and perceive that there may be potentially better specimens (I apologize for making this sound scientific, but I am a social scientist).  So they make the choice to reject.  And continue to do so with other men who approach.  She may be the first women that men will approach, but her rejection will only free them to go after lower maintenance models.  Eventually, it will become apparent that she is not decisive and men will be less inclined to perceive her as sending a signal.  Therefore, she will just get older and continue to question why.  Whereas the more decisive, lower maintenance women will not question if there is a better specimen.  They will accept the approach, and then make a running evaluation during the relationship.  This allows them to either accept or reject the flaws and shortcomings of the man.  If they reject him because of the flaws and shortcomings then they just wait for the next man to come along.  The rejected man then goes and licks his (emotional) wounds and searches for the next women sending signals.

Furthermore, if they do choose to accept the man for all his flaws and shortcomings it is more indicative of her willingness to adjust (or some men will consider it a desire to fix something, but that is a post in itself).  This is where game theory plays in.  Once the woman has indicated that she has accepted the man for who he is, it is up to the man to decide weather he is willing to continue on or go look for a better model.  More than likely, the man will continue on.  These two decisions have a lot of cost-benefit calculations associated with them.  Of course there is a game tree involved, how complex it is depends on how many variables are perceived on both sides.  However, I am digressing quite a bit here from my original thoughts; although, all this is related. 

Now, being a man in my late 20’s going into my 30’s soon (you can define soon any way you want) I look around and wonder, am I that low on the tier or is it that I am not picking up on the signals of availability?  I see my contemporaries getting into relationships and getting married.  How are they different from me?  Or maybe this theory can be applied to men as well.  What if we as men are too indecisive or too dense to perceive the signals being sent to us?  And because of that we fail to approach women and get left behind by the more decisive and perceptive men.  I would argue that this may be the case.  (Although, there are those vain enough to say that there are no women who are worthwhile to approach.) 

On the other hand when I look around and see those women who are in their 30’s and not yet married nor in relationships; I wonder why?  Are they the ones who are indecisive or higher maintenance or both?  Or maybe it’s because they are more subtle in the signals they transmit?  If they are being indecisive, I have to ask why?  Do they truly believe that someone better will come around?  Maybe I’m trying to add too much theory and psychology to this whole thing.

Following you will find some diagrams.  These are my game trees that I have developed.  I replaced the woman’s name with a pseudonym.  I choose to use Juliet form Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet.   So, there is no need to try and read into the name.  I was going to scan my hand written notes but realized how messy and poor my handwriting is.  Therefore, I have painstakingly replicated them on the computer. Game Tree A shows the initial maneuvering.  I have this much thought out so far.  However, I am having difficulty determining payouts.  I may have to simplify the payouts to jus -1, 0, and 1.  Those will come into play when I begin to calculate the Nash equilibrium. 

Game Tree B, shows the second stage of the game.  This is somewhat more complex, and the unknown outcome is what throws off the entire calculation.  Here, it is difficult to determine what the payout will be.  Furthermore, for the most part we both are playing a somewhat simultaneous game, yet the moves are sequential.  We are also using imprecise and unequal information.  Therefore, the game becomes even more complex.  We will not know the others move until it has been made.

I suppose I’m still at the point of figuring out what is worth winning.  In order for all my calculations to be worthwhile, I need to determine if the prize at the end is worth the time and effort.  Right now, I’m thinking that the time and effort are worth it.  However, the only problem is determining if I am receiving the right signal.

I over-simplified the game theory here, so please don’t get upset if I am somewhat off in my line of thought.  But, if there some game theorists out there any suggestions will be very helpful.

Monday, the start to another work/school week.  Recall this post.  What can I say, this past week has been somewhat tiring.  And the next several weeks will be even more tiring.  Just need to get two papers done and all will be over...for the time being.  However, I have other stuff to talk about.

I came across this article from Australia.  Apparently the city of Monash, a suburb of Melbourne, has hired a company to look at people's garbage to ensure they are recycling.  My first reaction is of surprise.  Cities are willing to pay to have people look at garbage?  However thinking about this, I have to say that it is a bad idea.  Although the workers are not permitted to rummage through the garbage, what is to stop them from doing so?  I'm sure Australians have a junk mail problem and receive credit card offers much like we do here in the States.  What's to stop a "bin police" worker to steal the identity from the trash?  That is the major concern I have.  I don't see something like this happening in the States, but you never know some Communist bastion of a city may choose to do something similar.  However, you may have noticed that I didn't say; "I woulda put a cap in the guy goin' through ma garbage!"  I say this because, essentially when you place the garbage on the sidewalk (footpath to the Aussies), you are disposing of it and it is no longer yours.  And since the are on the street and not on your property, engagement with force is not permissable (i.e. you can't shoot them!).

I had another article I wanted to talk about, but the amount that I am writing had made it apparent that I need a whole separate post.  Also, I think it is much more...interesting.

Time Magazine has hit a new low.  I became sick to my stomach when I read this article and saw this picture.

WTF?  How can you be so insulting?  This is a slap in the face of every Marine that landed on the beaches of Iwo Jima.  Not only that, it is a desecration of the sacrifices of those Marines that gave their lives on Iwo Jima.  What the hell were those idiots at Time thinking? 

 “I think since I’ve been back at the magazine, I have felt that one of the things that’s needed in journalism is that you have to have a point of view about things.  You can’t always just say ‘on the one hand, on the other’ and you decide. People trust us to make decisions. We’re experts in what we do. So I thought, you know what, if we really feel strongly about something let's just say so.”  -Richard Stengel,  Time Magazine managing editor

Oh, really Mr Stengel?  Is this your way of saying that Time Magazine shits on the sacrifice of the Marines that took Iwo Jima?  Is it your way of saying that the World War II was a made up fiction that is of questionable existence that global warming is?  Or, maybe this is your way of giving the Marines and military that you despise with utter loathing the finger. 

I'll leave you all with this...

Let's not insult the memories of: Sgt. Michael Strank, Cpl. Harlon H. Block, Pfc. Franklin R. Sousley, Pfc. Rene A. Gagnon, Pfc. Ira Hayes, and PhM. 2/c John H. Bradley, USN