Category Archives: bad karma

On stroller blocking as an Olympic sport

Posted on by

Call them whatever you want–useful, weird, bulky, broken–but baby strollers are going to be a new Olympic sport at the next games in Brazil in 2016. Just like bobsledding, there are different modalities, but all have to do with how well the driver of the stroller can block a sidewalk, a supermarket aisle, a street, an escalator, there will be different landscapes in which the stroller athlete will have to successfully block anyone from getting past them. The Olympic committee hasn’t finalized the rules yet, but some of the different modalities will be mother, baby, and dog, or mother, baby, and grandmother. They are also planning modalities which include other siblings, multiple family members, and fallen toys. Strollers will be categorized by cost, construction, width, and size of tires. All team members will have to be from the same country. There will be a special modality for colapsable strollers, people who eat ice cream, and mothers who cannot stop talking on their cell phones. Crying babies in the rain will occur on the final day of competition, featuring cross mother-in-laws, lost fathers, a dog pooping, the police, and multiple neighbors of varying sizes. There will be a special modality in which the parents carry the child and push an empty stroller while they both talk on their cell phones, the dog pees on grandma, and the older sibling skins her/his knee while rollerskating. Stroller blocking is not for the weak of heart, and all participants must where helmets (and men must wear hard cups). The sport has been criticized in the past for its overt violence.

On stroller blocking as an Olympic sport

Posted on by

Call them whatever you want–useful, weird, bulky, broken–but baby strollers are going to be a new Olympic sport at the next games in Brazil in 2016. Just like bobsledding, there are different modalities, but all have to do with how well the driver of the stroller can block a sidewalk, a supermarket aisle, a street, an escalator, there will be different landscapes in which the stroller athlete will have to successfully block anyone from getting past them. The Olympic committee hasn’t finalized the rules yet, but some of the different modalities will be mother, baby, and dog, or mother, baby, and grandmother. They are also planning modalities which include other siblings, multiple family members, and fallen toys. Strollers will be categorized by cost, construction, width, and size of tires. All team members will have to be from the same country. There will be a special modality for colapsable strollers, people who eat ice cream, and mothers who cannot stop talking on their cell phones. Crying babies in the rain will occur on the final day of competition, featuring cross mother-in-laws, lost fathers, a dog pooping, the police, and multiple neighbors of varying sizes. There will be a special modality in which the parents carry the child and push an empty stroller while they both talk on their cell phones, the dog pees on grandma, and the older sibling skins her/his knee while rollerskating. Stroller blocking is not for the weak of heart, and all participants must where helmets (and men must wear hard cups). The sport has been criticized in the past for its overt violence.

On a sore neck

Posted on by

You ever get a sore neck that makes turning your head just about impossible? Whenever anyone speaks to you, or you hear a strange noise, or you turn to get a plate out of the cupboard, your neck just stops working–the swivel is broken and you feel about a hundred years old. You have to turn your whole body to see just normal stuff. I pulled a small muscles in my shoulder about two weeks ago, and I’ve been having a lot of fun since. First, driving is impossible. Second, any time you have to turn around, your neck is having second thoughts about the whole operation. Third, no matter what you do for a pillow, sleeping and lying down are new adventures in pain. You have to turn your whole body to see what’s behind you, and it looks so unnatural. Instantly, everyone is asking, “What’s wrong with your neck?” as if you didn’t know there was a problem. It seems, too, that just about the time it starts feeling better, you fall asleep sitting up in some strange position, and it continues to hurt like the devil every time you need to turn your head. You don’t dare look behind you because if you do you risk snapping your head clean off. Yes, you can take some “pain relievers” but they only solve the problem temporarily because it always comes back. A sore neck reduces you from functioning human being to orthopedic nightmare that can barely move, and all the while you feel like the oxidized version of the tin man from the Wizard of Oz. My kingdom for an oilcan.

On a sore neck

Posted on by

You ever get a sore neck that makes turning your head just about impossible? Whenever anyone speaks to you, or you hear a strange noise, or you turn to get a plate out of the cupboard, your neck just stops working–the swivel is broken and you feel about a hundred years old. You have to turn your whole body to see just normal stuff. I pulled a small muscles in my shoulder about two weeks ago, and I’ve been having a lot of fun since. First, driving is impossible. Second, any time you have to turn around, your neck is having second thoughts about the whole operation. Third, no matter what you do for a pillow, sleeping and lying down are new adventures in pain. You have to turn your whole body to see what’s behind you, and it looks so unnatural. Instantly, everyone is asking, “What’s wrong with your neck?” as if you didn’t know there was a problem. It seems, too, that just about the time it starts feeling better, you fall asleep sitting up in some strange position, and it continues to hurt like the devil every time you need to turn your head. You don’t dare look behind you because if you do you risk snapping your head clean off. Yes, you can take some “pain relievers” but they only solve the problem temporarily because it always comes back. A sore neck reduces you from functioning human being to orthopedic nightmare that can barely move, and all the while you feel like the oxidized version of the tin man from the Wizard of Oz. My kingdom for an oilcan.

On staying home

Posted on by

You really can’t be hip and stay home. Yet, there are times when staying home is not a bad idea, and being hip has is not always what it cracks up to be. Sometimes, the best thing you can do for yourself is heat up a cup of coffee, pull on a sweatshirt, open a book, turn off the television, and read something new. Sometimes you just need to get out of the street and enjoy a little solitude, a comfy sofa, a warm blanket. Yes, you can spend a lot time and money going to the latest clubs or restaurants, bars or whatever, but in the end, what do you really have? All experiences are fleeting and ephemeral and our constant drive to consume everything is driving us all mad. There has to be a point when, just to maintain your sanity, you need to stay home and make your own coffee (and not pay some exorbitant price for it). Of course, you won’t be famous for staying home. Nobody will know your name if you stay home, but then, do you want people to know your name, necessarily? If you stay home, you might get some much needed sleep. You might write a letter or read a book (made of paper). You might talk to your family. You might cook a meal–something healthy? If you stay home, you don’t have to put up with strange or odd people that don’t have your best interests in mind. If you stay at home one night, you might feel pretty good the next day.

On staying home

Posted on by

You really can’t be hip and stay home. Yet, there are times when staying home is not a bad idea, and being hip has is not always what it cracks up to be. Sometimes, the best thing you can do for yourself is heat up a cup of coffee, pull on a sweatshirt, open a book, turn off the television, and read something new. Sometimes you just need to get out of the street and enjoy a little solitude, a comfy sofa, a warm blanket. Yes, you can spend a lot time and money going to the latest clubs or restaurants, bars or whatever, but in the end, what do you really have? All experiences are fleeting and ephemeral and our constant drive to consume everything is driving us all mad. There has to be a point when, just to maintain your sanity, you need to stay home and make your own coffee (and not pay some exorbitant price for it). Of course, you won’t be famous for staying home. Nobody will know your name if you stay home, but then, do you want people to know your name, necessarily? If you stay home, you might get some much needed sleep. You might write a letter or read a book (made of paper). You might talk to your family. You might cook a meal–something healthy? If you stay home, you don’t have to put up with strange or odd people that don’t have your best interests in mind. If you stay at home one night, you might feel pretty good the next day.

On soda pop

Posted on by

I used to drink soda or pop when I was a kid. You know, sugary water with lots of bubbles and some sort of flavor profile–sweet, very sweet. Then my teeth started to get lots of cavities and I gave it up. Even when I got to college, I would limit my intake of sodas to one a month. I lost my taste for lots of sugar and caffeine, and I never went back. I know why people drink soda–sugar and caffeine–but what happens if nobody needs either of those things? Sure, people drink soda as a refreshing experience that slakes their thirst and cools their brow, but water does the same thing. Not that it worries me that people drink soda, but it does seem super unhealthy to drink gallons and gallons of the stuff. Some people will drink a cola or two to start the day, others will have one at lunch or on break, still others will drink a giant litre or two with a couple of burgers and a bunch of fries–tons of carbohydrates, more sugar than a body really needs, and more caffeine than anyone needs. If you look at the actual food value of soda, it’s almost non-existent except for the sugar, and we all get too much of that anyway. Soda is really just a question of good marketing of a sugary food product. Perhaps a splash of cola once in awhile with a bunch of ice and other things to modify the flavor (lemon?) isn’t so bad, but living off of the stuff on a daily basis has got to be bad for a person. Nevertheless, far be it from me to tell anyone else how to live their life.

On soda pop

Posted on by

I used to drink soda or pop when I was a kid. You know, sugary water with lots of bubbles and some sort of flavor profile–sweet, very sweet. Then my teeth started to get lots of cavities and I gave it up. Even when I got to college, I would limit my intake of sodas to one a month. I lost my taste for lots of sugar and caffeine, and I never went back. I know why people drink soda–sugar and caffeine–but what happens if nobody needs either of those things? Sure, people drink soda as a refreshing experience that slakes their thirst and cools their brow, but water does the same thing. Not that it worries me that people drink soda, but it does seem super unhealthy to drink gallons and gallons of the stuff. Some people will drink a cola or two to start the day, others will have one at lunch or on break, still others will drink a giant litre or two with a couple of burgers and a bunch of fries–tons of carbohydrates, more sugar than a body really needs, and more caffeine than anyone needs. If you look at the actual food value of soda, it’s almost non-existent except for the sugar, and we all get too much of that anyway. Soda is really just a question of good marketing of a sugary food product. Perhaps a splash of cola once in awhile with a bunch of ice and other things to modify the flavor (lemon?) isn’t so bad, but living off of the stuff on a daily basis has got to be bad for a person. Nevertheless, far be it from me to tell anyone else how to live their life.

On Fermat’s Last Theorem (Conjecture)

Posted on by

Fermat, a French mathematician of the late 17th century, came up with a conjecture that baffled other mathematicians for three and half centuries until Andrew Wiles published a proof in the mid-nineties. Most of you are familiar from high school geometry with the Pythagorean theorem, that the sum of two integers squared may be equal to another integer squared: a2 + b2 = c2, but Fermat imagined a more general problem for integers where an + bn ≠ cn where n>2: Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et generaliter nullam in infinitum ultra quadratum potestatem in duos eiusdem nominis fas est dividere cuius rei demonstrationem mirabilem sane detexi. Hanc marginis exiguitas non caperet. That last bit is the mystery—that the margin was too small for his proof. Many mathematicians believe he did not have a proof, but all the same, he did throw down the gauntlet by making the conjecture. He just wrote the conjecture, that an + bn = cn, is not possible. Wiles’ proof is so complex and convoluted, however, that you have to be a brilliant mathematician to even begin to understand his arguments. For as simple as the Pythagorean theorem looks, Fermat’s conjecture is inversely complex, and complex in ways that not even a great mathematician can dream. The conjecture looks simple, but the answer seems to be one of the most complex ever proved in the history of mathematics. The proof, almost as elusive as the Holy Grail, is unintelligible to the average lay person, and difficult for even the gifted. What kind of mind does it take to fathom the dark and profound reaches of Fermat’s conjecture? This conjecture, according to a French academy of math, has the dubious honor of having the highest number of incorrect proofs written about it. In other words, many mathematicians have tried to conquer the proof, but died ignominiously on the battlefield without having succeeded. That fact that Wiles did his work in secret suggests that even he thought the little problem might be paradoxically unsolvable—a no-win scenario, as it were, and a career-ending catastrophe. That there is, after all, a solution to Fermat’s last theorem is of little consolation to all of that failure. (Sorry mathematicians,formatting limitations don’t allow for the little raised numbers in the equations.)

On Fermat’s Last Theorem (Conjecture)

Posted on by

Fermat, a French mathematician of the late 17th century, came up with a conjecture that baffled other mathematicians for three and half centuries until Andrew Wiles published a proof in the mid-nineties. Most of you are familiar from high school geometry with the Pythagorean theorem, that the sum of two integers squared may be equal to another integer squared: a2 + b2 = c2, but Fermat imagined a more general problem for integers where an + bn ≠ cn where n>2: Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et generaliter nullam in infinitum ultra quadratum potestatem in duos eiusdem nominis fas est dividere cuius rei demonstrationem mirabilem sane detexi. Hanc marginis exiguitas non caperet. That last bit is the mystery—that the margin was too small for his proof. Many mathematicians believe he did not have a proof, but all the same, he did throw down the gauntlet by making the conjecture. He just wrote the conjecture, that an + bn = cn, is not possible. Wiles’ proof is so complex and convoluted, however, that you have to be a brilliant mathematician to even begin to understand his arguments. For as simple as the Pythagorean theorem looks, Fermat’s conjecture is inversely complex, and complex in ways that not even a great mathematician can dream. The conjecture looks simple, but the answer seems to be one of the most complex ever proved in the history of mathematics. The proof, almost as elusive as the Holy Grail, is unintelligible to the average lay person, and difficult for even the gifted. What kind of mind does it take to fathom the dark and profound reaches of Fermat’s conjecture? This conjecture, according to a French academy of math, has the dubious honor of having the highest number of incorrect proofs written about it. In other words, many mathematicians have tried to conquer the proof, but died ignominiously on the battlefield without having succeeded. That fact that Wiles did his work in secret suggests that even he thought the little problem might be paradoxically unsolvable—a no-win scenario, as it were, and a career-ending catastrophe. That there is, after all, a solution to Fermat’s last theorem is of little consolation to all of that failure. (Sorry mathematicians,formatting limitations don’t allow for the little raised numbers in the equations.)