For less
recent
fare,
consult the
archives
at left.

Missile Happy

Hey, have you ever been to the Sutro estate and baths? They’re way over near you, on the water. That’s where we were the other day. It’s absolutely amazing — the stone staircases and the pathways in the park (where the estate used to be), and the view out over the ocean and the lower part of the city… It’s like something out of a dream. Or Myst.

There’s this high platform where a couple of buildings used to stand; there are a couple of winding paths up to it — and there’s this one very narrow, steep stone staircase cut into the hillside, leading down and away. That staircase is perhaps my favorite thing on Earth.

The ruins of the baths are fascinating as well — really, the ruination of all of this is part of the appeal; imagining the way things once were, and trying to decipher why things are as they are now. There’s a neat, really long cave that ends in some slippery and dangerous rocks; seems like a great place for a murder.

Actually, there’s kind of an Edward Gorey overtone to the whole place. It feels timeless and mysterious, and there’s weirdly little graffiti or vandalism or trash. Only a few scraps here and there. Maybe it’s well-policed. I guess it would have to be.

I kept thinking how interesting it would be to grow up in a place like this where, after school or on a weekend, a kid could pay whatever a youth fare is on the MUNI — seventy-five cents, maybe — and ride out to a place like this, and just sit, and read or draw or explore or think. It’s like a whole other world — and it makes me wonder what else I’ve been missing around here.

(October 24th, 2006 @ 9:11pm)



6 responses

opinions

He has the right to voice an opinion. Your response was unnecessarily rude. Please refrain from such “snarkasm” in future, ok?

Thing is, simply voicing an opinion isn’t terribly constructive either. It’s not an issue of whether this person has the right to or not; it’s an issue of whether doing so adds to the discussion.

Okay, so it’s “naff”. Fair enough. Point is, simply declaring it so doesn’t say anything particularly meaningful. Now if this assertion were paired with an explanation for why it’s naff (whether insightful or bizarre), then hey — there’s a point for discussion. Someone here might have a chance of learning something, or having an interesting thought, however trivial.

On its own, though, raw opinion is pretty rude itself. It takes up space, demands attention to itself, and gives nothing in return. It is a vacuum of communication, crying “I” at the heart of the world. Beyond that, it’s uncomfortably prevalent around here. Thus the snippy response; it gets tiresome. Perhaps unwarranted in this circumstance, of course; I’m just slowly getting irritated.

(October 19th, 2006 @ 12:10pm)



No response?

Draining Away

What was the first game to implement a life bar (compared with hit points or other measures of non-one-hit kills)?

(October 6th, 2006 @ 10:29am)



24 responses

It’s alive!

So I’m reading about Gothic architecture — and for all its ornamentation, it actually is pretty logical in its development.

The main ingredient in all Gothic architecture is the pointed arch — a construction that, besides its visual appeal, has some practical aspects in that it allows for a bunch more weight than would normally be bearable, by directing much of the above force outward to its vertical elements. This allows for the very tall, narrow, usually rectangular open spaces typical of Gothic structures. Of course, since the walls are bearing so much weight, chopping such great holes in them for the giant windows typical of the period (and indeed necessary to light such massive structures) — pointed-arch windowframes or not — requires extra support, to keep the structures from crumpling. Thus, the flying buttress — those weird sinewy diagonal bits that you often see outside great Gothic halls, propping them up from the outside.

To keep the buttresses tied up, and weigh down the end that isn’t directly supporting something, they are often capped with a pinnacle — thus all the weird pointy peaks, to accentuate the pointy arches (and therefore pointy roofs) and the sinewy buttresses and the huge windows. The odd, skeletal, sort of grim feeling that this architecture gives off is mostly a side effect of an organic sequence of ideas, that all work together to form a solid, workable structure of a certain interior dimension within certain real estate limitations.

As for Neo-Gothicism… well, that was just the Romantics being all breathless and sentimental. As a result, it’s not always so practical.

(October 4th, 2006 @ 4:52am)



No response?

2 + 3 = Jackson 5

This is pretty much my take on the situation as well: although Jackson’s got a lot going, most of it’s in more of a detached, advisory role. The other things he owns rights to, and intends to directly direct — well, nobody’s screaming up his butt to get them finished; they’re just hobby material. If anything, he’s gone on record saying that he has no intent to rush them as he’s been dissatisfied with some of his recent scripts.

It is kind of bizarre that nobody’s even contacted him, though. Whether that’s from assumption that of course he’ll do it, or from hesitation for dealing with someone as controlling as Jackson unless they really have to (since MGM seems to have its own ideas about what it wants), or simply a dumb political move — like opening up a job position, even though you know who you want, just to drive home the point that nobody’s indispensible — I dunno! I’m guessing a little of each, which doesn’t strike me as the best way to do business.

Then there’s the issue of how unenthusiastic Jackson sounds, though I imagine part of that is again political caginess. Seem too eager, and you’re setting yourself up to be taken advantage of — especially given how it feels like MGM and New Line are sort of taking his involvement for granted.

Anyway. I like Jackson’s ideas; they’re exactly what I was thinking about, a couple of years ago. Click here.

(October 2nd, 2006 @ 7:52pm)



8 responses
back