Portal™ and physics: Why do I care?
So, StumbleUpon has produced another rant-worthy gem for me today.
"Why do you bother being bothered by these things, Matt?" I hear you wondering. "Why not just let stupid people be stupid?"
"Well, frankly," I say in response, "because I am bothered by stupidity. And I reserve the right to be bothered by it. We wouldn't have science if nobody had been bothered by stupidity."
Today's rant concerns this page, which I found today through StumbleUpon. It's a blog post concerning some physics problems left open by Valve's Portal. I won't go into the specifics here, so I don't go into a big long clusterfuck like my LAST rant had me doing. Basically, the author explores whether it's possible to answer these problems in a way that allows portals to exist within physics as we understand it.
What I'm really driving at here concerns not the entry, but the comments. The blog post was written at least a year ago; long, certainly, before it was discovered by StumbleUpon. The earliest comments, accordingly, are of the ilk that are equally interested in the question. Scroll down further, though-- chronologically after the page was Stumbled-- and you get a lot of stuff like this:
"Dude, why cant u just play the game and enjoy the fact that ITS JUT A GAME. god. games arent supposed to be real. if they were real, that would mean that they were educational[...]" [sic]
And this, in the StumbleUpon review page:
"They might as well discuss the physics of Pac-Man. What is he doing? Floating through space? Flying? Does he have legs? Why doesn't he get fat from all that eating? What does a ghost monster taste like? Does Pinky taste better than Clyde?
Unless you think you can invent a portal device, this is a waste of time..."
Well, exCUUUUUUUSE ME.
The answer, of course, is this: Of course Portal is just a game. But unlike Pac-Man, it at least makes an attempt to fit itself into real-world physics, and a damn good one at that. So what if the author of the post wants to discuss its implications? Clearly this subject doesn't interest you-- so go away and let the nerds have their fun.
Oh, and just because a blog talks about physics doesn't mean it's all got to be practical. He's not writing up a lab experiment funded by taxpayer's money or anything. He's just... dare I say it... blogging. Blogs don't have to be either practical or vapid; there's plenty of space in between. So what if he doesn't want to use his blog to discuss the latest internet memes, or the girl he fucked last night. Should that matter to you?
And speaking of that subject, this comment, if possible, perplexes me even more:
"Go outside. Get laid."
What.
This attitude seems to pervade a lot of people's perception of geekery in general, and it annoys me, so this is the perfect opportunity for me to rant about it.
What are you even talking about.
This bugs me like fingernails on chalkboard, every time I hear a comment like "Dude, you need to get laid." What about sex is it that suddenly makes someone suddenly lose interest in everything that isn't sex or money*? Do people honestly think it does? Even if they don't mean it literally, this is, on some level, the sentiment they're expressing.
I can only imagine what it is you blog about. News flash: sex is not the only fruit.
I'd love to see the look on this guy's face if the author of that post responded saying, "Thanks, but I already did that today. Twice."
The base line of reasoning here seems to be that geeks don't get any, and if they did, they wouldn't be geeks. Thanks, but there are plenty of geeks out there that will tell you different, from personal experience.
TL;DR version: If I want to be interested in whether or not the Aperture Science Handheld Portal Device completely shatters the first law of thermodynamics, I damn well have that right. So go back to your... sex, or whatever it is you do with your free time, you empty shell of a man, you.
(*Oh, excuse my narrow-mindedness, they're not ONLY interested in sex and money. They're also interested in violence, explosions, alcohol, guns, and cars. My bad.)
"Why do you bother being bothered by these things, Matt?" I hear you wondering. "Why not just let stupid people be stupid?"
"Well, frankly," I say in response, "because I am bothered by stupidity. And I reserve the right to be bothered by it. We wouldn't have science if nobody had been bothered by stupidity."
Today's rant concerns this page, which I found today through StumbleUpon. It's a blog post concerning some physics problems left open by Valve's Portal. I won't go into the specifics here, so I don't go into a big long clusterfuck like my LAST rant had me doing. Basically, the author explores whether it's possible to answer these problems in a way that allows portals to exist within physics as we understand it.
What I'm really driving at here concerns not the entry, but the comments. The blog post was written at least a year ago; long, certainly, before it was discovered by StumbleUpon. The earliest comments, accordingly, are of the ilk that are equally interested in the question. Scroll down further, though-- chronologically after the page was Stumbled-- and you get a lot of stuff like this:
"Dude, why cant u just play the game and enjoy the fact that ITS JUT A GAME. god. games arent supposed to be real. if they were real, that would mean that they were educational[...]" [sic]
And this, in the StumbleUpon review page:
"They might as well discuss the physics of Pac-Man. What is he doing? Floating through space? Flying? Does he have legs? Why doesn't he get fat from all that eating? What does a ghost monster taste like? Does Pinky taste better than Clyde?
Unless you think you can invent a portal device, this is a waste of time..."
Well, exCUUUUUUUSE ME.
The answer, of course, is this: Of course Portal is just a game. But unlike Pac-Man, it at least makes an attempt to fit itself into real-world physics, and a damn good one at that. So what if the author of the post wants to discuss its implications? Clearly this subject doesn't interest you-- so go away and let the nerds have their fun.
Oh, and just because a blog talks about physics doesn't mean it's all got to be practical. He's not writing up a lab experiment funded by taxpayer's money or anything. He's just... dare I say it... blogging. Blogs don't have to be either practical or vapid; there's plenty of space in between. So what if he doesn't want to use his blog to discuss the latest internet memes, or the girl he fucked last night. Should that matter to you?
And speaking of that subject, this comment, if possible, perplexes me even more:
"Go outside. Get laid."
What.
This attitude seems to pervade a lot of people's perception of geekery in general, and it annoys me, so this is the perfect opportunity for me to rant about it.
What are you even talking about.
This bugs me like fingernails on chalkboard, every time I hear a comment like "Dude, you need to get laid." What about sex is it that suddenly makes someone suddenly lose interest in everything that isn't sex or money*? Do people honestly think it does? Even if they don't mean it literally, this is, on some level, the sentiment they're expressing.
I can only imagine what it is you blog about. News flash: sex is not the only fruit.
I'd love to see the look on this guy's face if the author of that post responded saying, "Thanks, but I already did that today. Twice."
The base line of reasoning here seems to be that geeks don't get any, and if they did, they wouldn't be geeks. Thanks, but there are plenty of geeks out there that will tell you different, from personal experience.
TL;DR version: If I want to be interested in whether or not the Aperture Science Handheld Portal Device completely shatters the first law of thermodynamics, I damn well have that right. So go back to your... sex, or whatever it is you do with your free time, you empty shell of a man, you.
(*Oh, excuse my narrow-mindedness, they're not ONLY interested in sex and money. They're also interested in violence, explosions, alcohol, guns, and cars. My bad.)