Facial Recognition Fail

So yes, I use iPhoto to manage my sprawling library of digital images.

iPhoto has a facial recognition feature, which–it is claimed–can automatically recognize faces and build an internal database, so you can (for instance) tell it “Show me a picture of Mom” and it’ll pull up all the photos that have her in them.

I don’t use this feature, though it’s on by default, always searching for faces even though I don’t identify any or give it any names. And sometimes, it seems to have a very…Pablo Picasso sensibility when it comes to recognizing faces. If this is the state of the art, it’s hard to wonder why the TSA has yanked all the automatic facial recognition scanners from the airports it was trialling them in:

Noted without comment: Things in common

No, this isn’t one of mine. I found it floating around elsewhere on the Internettubes, and present it here for your amusement.

Secondary relationships

In polyamorous circles, there are many people who want only “secondary” relationships outside of their existing “primary” relationship.

However, the term “secondary” is confusing and often means different things to different people. In the interests of helping clarify some of that confusion, my friend Edward recently proposed a short questionnaire that might be useful to help get everyone on the same page about what exactly is meant by the term “secondary.” I’ve taken his idea and turned it into a handy 3×5 index card, which you can print out and hand to prospective suitors. You can even download a PDF version of the card here.

Some thoughts on Mountain Dew

On a mailing list I belong to, there have recently been some…skeptical opinions expressed on the value of Mountain Dew, that carbonated yellow liquid joy in a bottle. So I would like to take this opportunity to set the record straight.

Mountain Dew is the nectar of the gods. Every sip is like an orgy for the mouth–a delicious, vaguely citrus, neon yellow orgy with just the right mix of fructose and other, unspecified natural flavors whose exact composition and measurement is an ancient and fiercely-guarded secret passed down for generations by a sect of celibate Shaolin monks whose senses have been honed by a rigorusly Spartan lifestyle until they have reached the pinnacle of human capability. (It is rumored that a master of this sect can, from his small cabin high atop Mount Fuji, tell if a 7-11 in Newark, New Jersey is dispensing Mountain Dew with an improperly calibrated mix of carbonated water and syrup, just by tasting it on the wind.)

The day’s very first hit of Mountain Dew is one of life’s sweetest, most precious treasures. It’s best taken from a one-liter bottle, you see, for at the moment the bottle is opened, some of the carbon dioxide begins to escape. This causes an ongoing and irreversible process by which the carbonic acid formed by the dissolved gas is converted into water and carbon dioxide, altering the pH and therefore the taste of the drink.

The ratios of the volume of liquid in the bottle to the volume of airspace in the bottle determines, in part, the equilibrium point of the reaction, in which carbon dioxide plus water < - > carbonic acid; the taste of the first sip is subtly different in a 12-ounce can, a 20-
ounce bottle, and a liter bottle, as the reaction has a slightly different equilibrium point in each case.

As caffeine delivery systems go, Mountain Dew is unparalleled in the history of humankind’s artifice. If God Himself came down off of Mount Sinai and commanded His people to mainline heroin directly into their eyeballs, it would not be as good as Mountain Dew.

There are other, lesser caffeine delivery systems, of greater or lesser degree of foulness as is their nature; a nice, deep, black tea, strong and lightly sweetened, is good, for example, whereas coffee is nearly as foul as drinking directly from the slag-pits of Mordor with a tar and asphalt chaser. Mountain Dew, though, belongs firmly in a class above all others, where it looks down on other, more pedestrian beverages the way a kind and benevolent madam looks over the girls in her brothel, even the wayward ones who sometimes show up to work late and smelling of coffee. Or the slag-pits of Mordor.

So now you know.

Movie review: Inception

Just got back from watching the new Leonardo DiCaprio movie “Inception.”

Now, normally I like Leonardo DiCaprio movies about as much as I like using rusty razor wire as dental floss, and then following it up by gargling gasoline. While it’s on fire. Plus, the previews made it look like it’d probably end up being visual candy that went nowhere.

But everyone I know who’s seen it raves about it, and so Zaiah and I decided to go see it, Leonardo DiCaprio notwithstanding.

As near as I can tell, the entire point of the movie is a cockwaving fight with Michael Bay, of Transformers fame. In fact, I bet the conversation went something like this:

Michael Bay: I am going to make a movie filled with explosions.
Christopher Nolan: I am going to make a movie filled with explosions.
Michael Bay: I will have car chases in my movie.
Christopher Nolan: I will have car chases in my movie.
Michael Bay: I will have cars that unfold into giant killer robots.
Christopher Nolan: I will have an entire city that folds up into an M. C. Escher piece, with strange and bizarre rules of gravity.
Michael Bay: I will have a hot chick in my movie.
Christopher Nolan: I will have a hot chick in my movie, who is smart, courageous, insightful, strong-willed, and creative.
Michael Bay:
Michael Bay: I will film scenes on location in the Middle East.
Christopher Nolan: I will film on location in Monaco, Japan, Canada, France, and England.
Michael Bay: My movie will be about giant killer robots blowing things up.
Christopher Nolan: My movie will be a surprisingly intelligent, thoughtful introspection on the nature of perception and reality, that also works as a meditation on loss, grief, guilt, and remorse.
Michael Bay:
Michael Bay: I don’t even know what you just said.
Christopher Nolan: I will make a movie that will work on a number of different levels: as a straight-ahead knuckle-biting action-adventure flick, as a study in surrealism, as a character drama, or as a piece on the healing value of catharsis and self-determinism.
Michael Bay: My movie is based on children’s toys.
Christopher Nolan: My movie pays homage to everything from The Matrix to Donnie Darko to the James Bond books, with a nod to the classic cyberpunk notion of corporate multinationals that act like sovereign states and wage wars with their own teams of corporate hit men.
Michael Bay:
Christopher Nolan: And my movie will weave different layers of reality together seamlessly.
Christopher Nolan: Plus, in my movie, the things that happen during the car chase in one reality will affect the things that are happening in the other realities in strange ways.
Christopher Nolan: And I will do it without resorting to any easy storytelling gimmicks.
Michael Bay: Ooh! Easy storytelling gimmicks!
Michael Bay: I will have car chases in my movie!

In light of the ongoing debacle in the Gulf…

…and in honor of the often hysterical BP Cares Twitter feed, I would like to most humbly propose a new logo for British Petroleum. Something that can redefine their brand in this troubled time, and present a more unified corporate action plan to the public.

Franklin’s First Law of Communication

I’m sure most of the folks on my flist are probably at least passingly familiar with Godwin’s Law, which states “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.”

It’s been my observation over the past few years, and particularly over the past few months, that a similar law applies to any conversation about radical honesty within a relationship. I’ve participated in quite a few entirely separate conversations on the subject of communication on entirely different forums with entirely different people, and in nearly every case, someone somewhere has argued against the notion that a person ought to be able to share anything at all with a romantic partner in the same way.

So I’d like to propose a new law, which states: As an online discussion about communication or radical honesty grows longer, the probability that someone will say “Well, you don’t tell your partner every time you take a shit, do you?” approaches 1.

I’d further like to propose a corollary which says that the person making the comment about excretory functions, by making that statement, has demonstrated conclusively that he or she does not understand the value of open communication. Namely, that it’s not about telling your partner every minute detail of your life, it’s about being ABLE to talk to your partner about any subject whatsoever, without the feeling that there are certain topics that you Dare Not Broach for fear of Bad And Dramatic Things.