blogfaced.com

this award goes to the battery which receives the most cursing on finding out that a particular electronic device requires it. for example, on opening up the back of one of those huge boomboxes from 80’s to see how to make it portable so you can blast “walk like an egyptian” while riding the bus to school, you see it requires D batteries. your response, (if you’re normal and were born after 1970, in this case your response would probably be negative), directly correlates to how annoying the battery is.

obviously D batteries suck because with their size/weight it’s like powering your boombax for 45min with 4 redbulls. but, they are not the most annoying battery to need in a bind…

so, without further ado, the most annoying battery award goes to…THE 9 VOLT. it’s a pretty small battery, and powers small things like RC remotes and other things that have stupid LED lights on them. that being said i don’t know why the manufacturers design the devices for AA or AAA use. when was the last time you’ve seen a 9-volt? all i know is that when something’s not working and i find out it’s because it needs a new 9-volt battery i am pissed. requiring batteries is already annoying, and now i’ve got to find a 9-volt? SHIT.

thank god for smoke detectors. which also doesn’t make sense to me. why make a smoke detector use rare and stupid batteries instead of ones that are more commonly found around the house? that’ll probably all change when someone’s place burns down while they’re on a day long trip to home depot or batteries plus with the dead 9-volt, trying to convince the store help that they do still exist, and they need one NOW. i’d say the only redeeming quality of the 9-volt is convincing someone to press the end to their tongue to see if the battery is dead or not. and obviously you tell them it’s dead, but it’s really not.

and just for thoroughness, the scale of battery annoyingness goes 9-VOLT > D > C >> AAA > A.

with all the media frenzy that has been surrounding jessica simpson and dallas cowboys “qb-1″ tony romo, and the speculated impact it has had on the cowboy’s finishing the season on par with seasons 2-4 of the OC, i thought i’d just set the record straight by making this statement: dating a super hot celebrity does not affect your performance. well, at least not athletic performance. in fact, if anything, it may actually raise your game because you’re just so pumped all the time. while i may not be offering anything new by saying this, i’m setting it up to disprove another misnomer: namely that tony romo is the next hotness at quarterback.

to prove my first point, i cite the following athlete-hot celebrity couples:

1) tiger woods + elin nordegren. yes, even golfers can score supermodels. maybe not in high school (check), or even in college (check check), but i think if you win enough major tournaments, they’ll start to pay attention. the point here is that you don’t see tiger letting up at all in his career. they started porking in 2001, which as i recall, is one of the most dominating years in all of golf history…by tiger woods.

2) tony parker + eva longoria. she’s really hot. and he’s french even. argh, this one really hurts, i don’t even like tony parker. but seriously, the spurs have won 3 nba titles since he’s been there. and he donates tickets and stuff to underpriveleged youth.

3) tom brady + [insert incredibly hot supermodel not caring if they’re pregnant]. completely, completely, unaffected. this guy is not human in amount of hot girlfriends he scores, and how often he scores, on and off the field. he’s won superbowls with ‘the replacements’ as a supporting cast and is pretty much the only quarterback besides the cast of friday night lights where if you google image search him, you get more glamour pics than football pics. he’s the derek jeter of football, but upgraded to fix all the douchey bugs.

4) joe dimaggio + marylin monroe. just to throw it back a bit for the older demographic readership. nothing needs to be said about how sweet dimaggio was, nor how hot monroe was (good enough for jfk, baby!).

i could list several more examples, like lance armstrong and cheryl crow. but you get my point: despite having super hot celebrity girlfriends, these guys continue to dominate their sport. by that logic, we must only infer that tony romo really, really sucks, and jessica simpson’s hotness had nothing to do with how crappy he plays. if romo was sweet, dating jessica simpson would not faze him at all. he’s an a-list fraud. i mean, he’s from wisconsin. those guys can’t hang with celebs. especially if you look like the actor that played champ from anchorman:

as such, i predict a romo-simpson breakup in the near future (yes, i know i’m not omnipotent if i successfully predict a celebrity breakup). i mean after reading this, jessica just might realize that propagating romo-DNA just isn’t the best way to go.

i’m a huge fan of those real men of genius budweiser commercials. almost to the point where i turn everyone i see into a commercial, at least in my head. if this blog had any musical talent or capability, all posts would be done in real men of genius format, like today’s:

brackets denote lyrics of backup singer guy (hey that would be a perfect real men of genius parody! mr.-real-men-of-genius-backup-singer-guy!)

bud light presents, real men of genius [real men of genius]

today we salute you, mr. clueless-walk-too-slow-in-front-of-me-on-a- narrow-sidewalk guy. [mr. clueless-walk-too-slow-in-front- of-me-on-a-narrow-sidewalk guy!]

while most people walk down streets with a destination in mind, you prefer to walk with nothing in mind [i think i saw a blue jay!]

you saunter along like you’re navigating the gates at a u2 concert, except there’s nobody in front of you. [yeah bono!]

and please, make that slightly off-balance move to left…if timed right, someone may be able to pass you without going off-road [muddy shoes suck!]

so crack open an ice cold budweiser mr. clueless-walk-too-slow-in-front-of- me-on-a-narrow-sidewalk guy, because why sit down at a coffee shop and stare, when you can do it while in someone’s way.

while driving on the 101 the other day i was thinking about just how ridiculous a carpool lane is, especially on a five-lane highway. if ALL five lanes are crowded enough during rush hour, statistically there will also be enough carpoolers to crowd the carpool lane. so, if you’re driving down a five-lane highway, and it has a carpool lane, you’re pretty much just fucked. might as well get a heliocopter.

so you get ONE LANE all to yourself. woo hoo. to get there, you only have to cut across four lanes, and then to exit, cut back across. but don’t worry, because during high traffic times, getting to this exclusive and faster moving lane, and then exiting, should be no problem. and probably not cause any road rage nor increase risk of accidents between cars containing more people in non-airbag equipped seats. whatsoever.

and what about when everyone starts carpooling?

you want to fix traffic? make some non-retarded onramps that allow you to reach a speed higher than 25mph before merging with 65mph traffic. or maybe an off-ramp that doesn’t merge into the onramp, and, unless you’re lucky enough to not get killed and make it to nearest gas station to check your pants, forces you back onto the interstate.

oh - and i saw a minivan in the carpool lane, with a mom and like three kids. am i allowed to call technical bullshit on this? carpooling implies that those in your car had the option to drive, but chose not too. little junior stuffing his face with ice cream in the front seat while his sister is brushing her doll’s hair in the back really had no choice. it’s no different than me driving with two dogs, two pizzas, or two dead bodies. but i didn’t really care because my lane was moving faster anyway.

for some reason, i’ve been on a global warming “kick” recently, so here’s hopefully the last bit of agenda i need to let out. i mean, thanks to al gore, not only is everyone able to surf the internet, but the world is now taking complete control of its destiny. ever since “an inconvenient keynote presentation” people are refraining from using paper or plastic at the supermarkets, drinking water out of pottery, and trading in their suv’s for skateboards. right. and when i make my millions, i’m going to fly around in a private paper airplane (recycled, of course).

one of the mega indicators that we are supposedly f*cked is the melting of the polar ice caps. glaciers, greenland, antarctica, etc. anywhere there should be snow and ice. where as i’m more concerned about my gin and tonic getting diluted, there are people out there just going NUTS over the melting of a polar ice cap. like R.E.M. nuts. basically implying that our lives will turn into a real life waterworld. we’ve already tolerated one waterworld, and i guess most people think we can’t stomach the reality spinoff.

but the truth is that once the caps melt, the coasts have readjusted, we’ll all go back to normal, just with slightly less real estate. so, maybe to avoid decades of complaining, worrying, and paranoia, we might as well just melt them ourselves quickly with a special laser satellite or giant hair dryer. i mean, once they’re all melted, the ocean level can’t get any higher, so we’d never have to worry about it anymore. we could issue a 5yr warning so all coastal residents would have a chance to move inside the new, future coastline and scramble from their islands.

imagine how many people this would shut up, and how many protesting hippies/lobbyists would actually have to get jobs because they’d have nothing to complain about. they might even start wearing deodorant. we could focus energies on much more useful agendas. yes, it might get a little warmer, but people are flipping out over a 1 degree increase in 100 years. come on. suck it up and put on a tank top. we’ll be ok. besides, while the average global temp might have gone up a few degrees over the last century, the average temp inside a building has probably gone down by like 10 degrees over the same span. cheers to AC.

and yes, i know that like 90% of the world’s fresh water is in the ice in antarctica. but it seems to me that we’re doing pretty well with the other 10%. last time i checked, i didn’t have to run a hose to the south pole to operate my slip ‘n’ slide. plus, technology already allows us to desalinate ocean water for drinking. but, if we controllably melt antarctica, etc., we might be able to also control what happens to the melted ice (ie. freshwater) - instead of watching it slowly drip away.

so let’s all just chillax and come up with some new summer cocktail recipes.

roosevelt. martin luther king jr. manela. dalai lama. mother teresa. jimmy carter. AL GORE. which one of those does not belong? (hint: all the names but one are in lowercase).

i can’t believe the nobel commitee awarded the peace prize to al gore…and it’s obvious they can’t believe it either, because they felt so guilty they also acknowledged the UN just so people like me wouldn’t flip out too much. maybe they just felt bad for him after the 2000 election.

but i think the real issue here is not so much that al gore won, but why bringing climate change awareness and global warming crap to the forefront of political issues warrants a peace prize. i mean prizes in the past have been awarded for actually DOING GOOD to the world: negotiating ends of wars, peace treaties, advocating issues that actually changed society for the better, devotion to bettering the world, etc. the effects and consequences of these efforts were realized and could be praised/observed by all.

so global warming awareness? al gore is advocating something that has yet to prove its worth, and probably will never end up doing so because some meteor in 50 years will end up wasting all of us AND our hybrid cars. even the hippies and their bicycles made from recycled aluminum foil will go down. yep, good work al. now, if he got the world’s scientists to unite together to solve the problem of when the next meteor will hit the earth, and they fixed it (armageddon style)? that, my hippie friend, is worthy of a prize.

global warming is not new. and there are some folk even still arguing about whether or not it exists, so Big Al couldn’t have done THAT good of a job. research is developing alternative energies because of depletion of natural resources, not to reduce emissions. so i don’t see how al gore’s movie is going to save the world. and if i wanted to be a true liberal, i could say that al gore is only bringing global warming awareness to the portion of society that is wealthy enough to afford to go to movies. now THAT is not in the best interest of the world. what about all those random tribes in africa discharging aerosols? they may never know…

email is ruining conversational focus. it’s making exchanges look like this:

“hey, did you get my email about going to the game this weekend?”
“oh yeah, the game - yeah we should go to the game this weekend”
“well duh, but did you get the email?”
“yeah, i got the email”
“why didn’t you tell me you got the email?”
“what i have to tell you when i get your emails?”
“yes”
“so you don’t care about whether or not i am going to the game, just as long as your email works”
“yeah, pretty much”

this is slightly better:

“are you interested in the game this weekend?”
“oh, you mean per your email?”
“what you want to talk about fucking email now or the game?”
“ok, ok. well when’s the game?”
“dude, just check your email”

optimal:

“dude. game this weekend, we’re going”
“nice. i’m there”
“i love you, man”
“i love you, too, bro”

i have somewhat successfully moved the blog to this url. i will be working on restoring the theme to be less “hey look at another wordpress blog”-y. in addition, i am also working on my annual post.

i just got this awesome “widget” (small program for the mac that does not assist in picking up girls) for my desktop called “google fight.” essentially, besides bringing my maturity level down a few notches and wasting my time, this widget is quite useful when used correctly. basically, you enter two search terms in two separate queries and for each term, google returns a bar graph representation of how many pages or hits that search would return if you were to actually google it. you could easily just independently google the terms, yes, but this is much more dramatic. especially since the bars “grow” as the search engine combs the net, adding the much-needed suspense element to my life.

of course, i am now using “google fight” to come up with useless knowledge that i can drop on ANYONE at ANYTIME, as well as answer those tough questions from my loyal readers…

ROUND 1

finally, the longstanding debate can be substantiated!

however, i’m more of a christina aguilera fan. some small manipulation gives:

ROUND 2

on to more important, serious matters. allow me to dazzle you with my political and worldly prowess, as i hear globalization is the new hottness:

that’s funny - the u.s. was winning a week ago last time i checked. more troops must be deployed!

ROUND 3

go science…actually i’m suprised there’s even this much on intelligent design. just goes to show you how much CRAP there is out there on the net (sans this site, of course).

ROUND 4

*sigh* now, i can rest in peace.

i figure i need to post this quickly before it becomes old news. this is tough for me, actually keeping up on current events, but i’m having trouble getting over how ridiculous the tour de france is getting…got, whatever.

i barely followed the tour de france when lance armstrong was riding, and he was actually exciting to watch. when he left, there would maybe be a REMOTE possibility that i was going to click the cycling link on espn.com - mostly to see who of the next top riders might win now that lance is gone. but then THEY got busted for doping. c’mon! NOW, we’re forced to watch essentially amateur hour on wheels. i’d rather watch curling or or the NASA channel.

so, if we want to restore cycling to it’s competitive nature and watch the fans return in forgiveness, there’s only one thing left to do - MAKE DOPING MANDATORY. i’m not talking about just legalizing it for use so it becomes a choice of the athlete - you’ll still get those boring guys with morals that will refuse to dope and then whine about how they are true athletes and at least their you-know-what is the same size - well we don’t need them.

i’m talking about drug tests before races to MAKE SURE that the cylclist has done everything in his power to crush the competition. that he has AT LEAST a red blood cell count of a brontasaurus, and that his testosterone:epitestosterone ratio is about 100x that of the combined audience at a taping of “the man show” or ivan drago from rocky IV.

why throw out all this good science and research that went into making someone superhuman? i mean, if we put things in perspective here, if you were drinking gatorade in the 50’s that was doping. “well i would have won the race, but i choose not to use any electrolyte-replacing-enchancing liquids, like my competitors.” well get the net. EVERYBODY’s doing it now. and my guess is that 30 years from now, there’s going to be cereals like “EP-O’s” or steroids in powerade.

SO - imagine the outcome - the best cyclist will win, just like before, but they’ll be averaging about 50mph over the entire 2,000 mile race. the race may actually last 1.5 weeks instead of 3 weeks. the sprints to the finish line will start 30 miles back instead of 30yds. there will be guaranteed roid…er, road rage.

now THAT’s worth watching.

i’m so pumped up about this thinking about its application to ALL sports, i’ve decided to compose a poem:

800ft homeruns, two minute miles,
90yd field goals just makes me smile.
let’s liven up sports, they’re getting quite dull,
i mean there’s poker on tv doesn’t that say anything about how real sports are maintaining the people’s interest?