Log in

No account? Create an account

The Toybox

people for the conservation of limited amounts of indignation

Previous Entry Share Next Entry
must love jaws
version one, frog love
Must Love Jaws - it's like the greatest romance in history.

This is what happens when svmadelyn lures me in with promises of not boredom. I get to see *this*.


1.) My flist is a terrible place. You have all traumatized me for life. However.

2.) This, if generalized over the male population, has explained two odd recent things.

a.) The guy that came to sit down with me and discuss all the variations of prostate cancer and warning signs the other day with no prompting from me--or actual, you know, eye contact, and

b.) Why my sister has, somehow, managed to talk me into an outing on the lake with two engineers with the terrifying words "you'll enjoy talking to them. They're your kind of people." And I couldn't figure out what on earth that was supposed to mean.

Seriously. I was going for the sandwiches.

I'd like to thank you all for the fact I got through page eighteen of The Elegant Universe wondering if I should take notes for the weekend.

Also, does anyone have the song Cry, Little Sister, or whatever it's called from Lost Boys?

  • 1
Do you want the song from the soundtrack (done by Gerard McMann) or the one by Lost Brothers?

Er, sorry, not by GM but by Sisters of Mercy *facepalms*

It'd help if I could, you know, read my own damned music collection.

The soundtrack I think. God, do you have it? REALLY?

Yup. Gimme a min and I'll up it :)


Is the Sister's of Mercy track (ignore the label). It's not a *fabulous* copy so if you don't like it, lemme know and I'll troll around for a better one. I dled that soundtrack for someone else, who didn't care about quality at the time.

And I'm working on the techno-track. That one is taking forever to go through, for some reason *kicks network*

I love you. You? Right now? Rate right up there with choclate cherry cordial coffee. *hugs you hard*

Nyarg. That took way too long, sorry; I think something's eating up the home bandwith. Anyway :)


That's the techo version by the Lost Brothers, whom I think are Minstry of Something-that's-a-techno-band).

And you are quite welcome. I'm a musicphile. If I don't have it, I'm pretty reliable about finding it :)

Actually, the one on the soundtrack is by Gerard McMann. I've got the soundtrack, so I ripped it and uploaded it to YSI:


I think they're both on it? *stares at playlist* So! Confused!

I think it's the same song. But it's not by Sisters of Mercy.

I ... have no idea why the one I had said sisters of mercy on it.

*throws up hands* I give up. If it's the same song, and therefore the right song, I'll take it no matter what it's called :)

Is email working again? *just sent something*

Also. I will resist mocking you till later.

Okay, it;s got to be your email doign this. . You're double whitelisetd and I am getting yoru email, ,just very late.

*frowns at email* send to seperis at livejournal.

Sent. And it's GOOGLE. I mean... how does that happen?

I loved The Elegant Universe. Although I am apparently very bizarre, because the author kept saying quantum mechanics was completely counter-intuitive and nobody *really* understood it, and it made perfect sense to me.

Oh, oh! The Elegant Universe!

I am apparently very bizarre...

Well, one of the best aspects of the book is how accessible Greene makes quantum mechanics (QM) and other similarly weighty topics. That said, I think what most physicists find counter-intuitive about QM wouldn't necessarily strike a layman as odd. Without a deeper understanding of the theoretical and mathematical complexities, we average readers are left asking "why not?" rather than "why?"—and, in this case, the latter is much more difficult to answer.

AFAIK, like any other sound theory, QM is internally consistent; it's not that you can't make sense of QM if you accept the numerous equations and whatnot as true. The issue, for physicists, is that so much of QM seems totally contrary to our experience and, thus, is very, very hard to conceptualize. If not impossible.

For example, light and wave-particle duality. Light can be described both as an electromagnetic wave and a stream of energetic particles, called photons, but is neither one nor the other. It's easy to say that this is so, and the results of many experiments and calculations support this, but what does it mean? A discrete particle—that is, a point—by definition, cannot be a continuous wave. Or so everybody thought until QM predicted otherwise.

Another example: In QM, electrons are described as probability wavefunctions. The likelihood that the electron will be within some radius of the nucleus is high, but until a measurement is made, there exists a tinny chance that the electron is at the other end of the universe. And still around the nucleus at the same time. Erm, how? And what's so special about some physics grad student fiddling with this or that piece of junk technology that the wavefunction will collapse and the electron... manifest itself?

Then there's quantum entanglement...

So, yeah, I at least agree with Greene that quantum mechanics is mind-boggling. And now back to your regularly scheduled LJ. ^^;;

I'm terribly proud to be one of those on your f-list that has traumatized you. We should get pins or shirts or something with the label "I've traumatized Jenn."

Also, all these mentions of The Elegant Universe feel me with the urge to go read it. *sighs and adds it to her reading list for this summer*

Must Love Jaws

Finally - someone who understands, who senses the visceral subtext of love...

Aka, one good trauma deserves another, eh?

sometimes, jenn you are so oblivious that it makes me want to cry.

  • 1