Planet Xdroop

xdroop: Survived Monday. Wait, today is Wednesday.

Well, that was awful, wasn't it? Hopefully this kick in the nuts will clear the dreams of Stanley Cup glory from anyone's eyes. It's over, ok? Just... over.

What is there to say? One of the worst teams in hockey comes to town against allegedly one of the better ones and we can't beat them. Bluntly the Leafs were just plain better, and the bounces didn't go Ottawa's way. Again. Several good chances; several failures to seal the deal.

At least Carkner kept his brains enough to avoid getting pounded again. I don't understand why he does it -- Ottawa loses every time.

And it is pathetic that the rink sounded more like Maple Leaf Gardens than the home of the Ottawa Senators. Not that the Senators did much worth cheering for tonight, but the crowd was definitely behind Toronto.

FACEBOOK
I just don’t understand it.
Submitted by: dunno source via deMotivational Builder

MORE FACEBOOK FAILS @ FAILBOOKING.

James Allen has an article where aerodynamicist Frank Dernie makes the case for reducing mechanical grip, not aerodynamic grip.

His view of the problem:

[...] that the “overtaking problem in F1″ is not the aero, but the mechanical grip from the tyres and the lack of mistakes made by drivers on gearshifts due to semi automatic gearboxes.

His ideas as a solution:

• Manual gearboxes. If you miss a change, the car behind gets a chance.
• Rock-hard, spec, no-change tires. If the tire is required to do a full race distance, it will have to be rock hard. It won't degrade as much, but since it has to last it won't be as grippy either. This has a knock-on effect that since the tires are not degrading, fewer marbles are getting created and there's less rubber bedded in to the racing line. Both effects reduce the penalty for driving off-line.
• Less effective brakes. Longer braking zones give drivers more chances to get in front and more chances to make mistakes.
• Single lap qualifying (my hero!). Drivers get one chance to set a qualifying time. Naturally, some will make mistakes, meaning you'll have "faster" cars mixed in with "slower" cars, a situation which can lead to passing opportunities.

Interesting ideas.

xdroop: 'Useless laws weaken necessary laws.' -- Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu

xdroop: and both sons have strep throat. Boo.

xdroop: survived another weekend of being sick. Tomorrow I get to decide if I go to work or fall down dead... assuming I can find a difference.

Back in August of last year I said I was worried about the racing in 2010. The fact of the matter is that the cars just are not built to follow each other closely enough to effect passes -- witness Hamilton's efforts to pass Rosberg, despite having a car capable of going a half- to a full second faster per lap than the Mercedes, he couldn't get on terms to make the pass and had to do the business in the pits. The combination of the double-diffuser development with the intricate changes made to the front wings on the cars mean the following car just isn't as efficient as the car in front is.

I also noticed that there seemed to be a lot more flip-ups and aerodynamic "things" hanging on the cars than there were last year.

Even the "extra" action brought on by the new teams retiring at an increased rate did little to improve the show, although Senna's HRT car made it almost half way through the event, which is a decent enough amount for what was effectively its third day of running.

And while Ferrari had an almost perfect weekend -- missing out only on the pole position as an accomplishment -- one is left to wonder if their slow reeling in of Vettel was due to Ferrari pace or Red Bull exhaust issues slowly manifesting themselves.

I also have to comment on the graphics shown through the event -- a lot of the time it was difficult for me to understand what they were trying to tell me. I guess putting everything in stylishly slanted boxes is the coming thing.

One race is not enough to condemn an entire season, even if there are rumors about hastily amending the rules to make a second pit stop mandatory. Artificially trying to manufacturer more "show" is always going to result in silliness.

One just hopes that the FIA resists the urge to continue the silliness that was a hallmark of the Mosley years.

xdroop: is steaming slightly. Oh wait, thats the fever. Never mind then. Look: rabbits!

xdroop: Just got a login prompt. But I am out of time for today.

xdroop: 2 hours in: first boot! Now the software configuration stage. Starting to regret not bringing a lunch.

rands: The phrase “I don’t have time for” should never be said: http://j.mp/cSEOGM

xdroop: .s/tall/sert/

xdroop: 90 minutes later, it is time to install disk 2!

xdroop: is watching a HP/UX 11iv23 install. This is so slow it brings back bad memories. Welcome to 1996! Faster please!

I’ve got another column up at Simple Talk: Sysadmin today. It’s called Unteachable Disaster Recovery Techniques.

This is a true story, and it happened last week. I felt so strongly about it that I wrote the entire entry in one sitting.

Please give it a read through, and remember to rate it using the stars! Thanks!

xdroop: Welcome to Firedrill Friday!

(Still sick. You don't care. I know. Moving on.)

I have to admit I don't care much about the current controversy of head-shots in checking. I think there should be some kind of reasonable protection, but since physical contact is part of the game, any rule must take that into account.

But as a side effect of this discussion, Quisp at SBNation pointed out something interesting: there is already a rule which covers this situation.

43.1 Charging - A minor or major penalty shall be imposed on a player or goalkeeper who skates or jumps into, or charges an opponent in any manner.

Charging shall mean the actions of a player or goalkeeper who, as a result of distance traveled, shall violently check an opponent in any manner. A "charge" may be the result of a check into the boards, into the goal frame or in open ice.

Quisp rightly points out that this makes absolutely no sense, because any check, and most physical contact, would be covered by this rule. And that's why it isn't called.

(It also begs the question -- when charging is called, exactly what is it that is being called? Is this the two-step rule?)

So finally I start to understand why the officials, both on-ice and off, "interpret" the rule book rather than just calling it: the rule book is inconsistent with the game, both as-played and as we would want it played.

I don't think that rules should be written around injury; Quisp's suggested replacement rule for 54.1 imposes penalties on plays which result in injury. This is a game for big boys, and it is fast. Guys will get hurt on some of them, that's the nature of game. I think the rules should be written around intent. That is, if someone intentionally attempts to injure another player, successful or not, that's at least a double-minor and a rapidly escalating number of games suspended.

If you don't like head-shots, then write the rule that says head-shots are not permitted the same way that knee-on-knee hits are not permitted.

But the bottom line is that the NHL rule book obviously needs more than a little tuning; this can't be the only rule which if called as-written would totally change the way the game is played.

xdroop: is at that point in the sickness where reality's texture is different.

It's Thursday, and I'm still get up, coming down with the sickness. So no thoughtful essays from moi.

However, I must stress to every one of my artist-style pals that this is perhaps one of the finest articles I wish I'd ever written. I think the overall premise ("I think The Karate Kid ruined the modern world") is a little off, but the sentiment here? Perfectly spot-on for most of us mundane people struggling to be beautiful. (And it's done by the author of "John Dies At The End," which I've been meaning to read for months now.)

So read this today: Fuck the Karate Kid.