Wikipedia says "Buyer's remorse" is an emotional condition whereby a person feels "remorse" or regret after a purchase.
I have heard it said that what might happen in today's primaries is a symptom of "buyer's remorse."
I assume this is metaphorical, but what does it mean?
Hopefully, nothing is literally purchased, but votes are cast.
What about the remorse?
Apparently, it's remorse for something that happened in a previous primary, in another state.
So, the voters in one state regret what other voters did in another state?
So, you can regret another person's actions?
I might resent or disapprove of another's acts, or wish they hadn't done them, but I don't regret other people's actions.
Or maybe the entire voting population in the United States of America is thought to be one agent. It votes one way in one set of primaries, and then if the poles in the states of subsequent primaries reflect a different trend, it must be regretting it's previous votes.
Neither of these interpretations make much sense to me, so what are they talking about?!
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Monday, March 3, 2008
Careful care and feeding of the peevs
Gripe #1
I bought a new monitor. It's "wide screen." So, it takes all the images that used to be on my square monitor and stretches them. It's no problem for text, but faces look fat and distorted. And as far as I can tell, there is no way to correct for this. I don't like that.
Gripe #2
Television networks like CNN and ESPN have for years now been keeping banners at the bottom of their screens. I have nothing against this in principle, but those who frame the shots don't seem to take this into account. Sometimes 1/4 or even as much as 1/3 of the picture is cut off on the bottom, and sometimes this doesn't matter, but often it does. A few examples:
9/11 -- the shot is framed to show the World Trade Center tower and the plane flying into it. Only the banner on the bottom blocks the plane, and so all you see is the top of the explosion bursting out from behind the banner.
tennis -- a computer simulation of the path of the ball is shown, supposedly illustrating where the ball hits the court with respect to the line. 1 problem -- the picture is framed so that where the ball hits the court is at the bottom of the screen, which is blocked by a banner.
red carpet coverage -- "Hey look at Jessica Alba, doesn't she look gorgeous in her strapless gown?" I'll admit she looks great, but I can't see her dress at all because it is covered by a banner taking up 1/2 the screen. This also happens on a show called "The Fasion Team," where it's especially suprising that no one pays attention to whether the audience could actually see the clothes they are talking about.
Hey, remember Porky Pig saying "That's All Folks!" inside that circle? They played a clip of that on CNN the other day for some reason. But since Porky was centered on the screen, and there was a banner covering up the bottom 1/3, you could only see the top of his head.
I guess they could take the square image and just stretch it out in the rectangle at the top of the screen. (See Gripe #1.)
I bought a new monitor. It's "wide screen." So, it takes all the images that used to be on my square monitor and stretches them. It's no problem for text, but faces look fat and distorted. And as far as I can tell, there is no way to correct for this. I don't like that.
Gripe #2
Television networks like CNN and ESPN have for years now been keeping banners at the bottom of their screens. I have nothing against this in principle, but those who frame the shots don't seem to take this into account. Sometimes 1/4 or even as much as 1/3 of the picture is cut off on the bottom, and sometimes this doesn't matter, but often it does. A few examples:
9/11 -- the shot is framed to show the World Trade Center tower and the plane flying into it. Only the banner on the bottom blocks the plane, and so all you see is the top of the explosion bursting out from behind the banner.
tennis -- a computer simulation of the path of the ball is shown, supposedly illustrating where the ball hits the court with respect to the line. 1 problem -- the picture is framed so that where the ball hits the court is at the bottom of the screen, which is blocked by a banner.
red carpet coverage -- "Hey look at Jessica Alba, doesn't she look gorgeous in her strapless gown?" I'll admit she looks great, but I can't see her dress at all because it is covered by a banner taking up 1/2 the screen. This also happens on a show called "The Fasion Team," where it's especially suprising that no one pays attention to whether the audience could actually see the clothes they are talking about.
Hey, remember Porky Pig saying "That's All Folks!" inside that circle? They played a clip of that on CNN the other day for some reason. But since Porky was centered on the screen, and there was a banner covering up the bottom 1/3, you could only see the top of his head.
I guess they could take the square image and just stretch it out in the rectangle at the top of the screen. (See Gripe #1.)
Saturday, March 1, 2008
Barack Obama is not a Muslim
Would somebody please say "...but it would be OK if he were"?!!
Or at least admit that if it's not OK, that is a sad fact about the current American political scene?
Any pride I might have felt for my fellow Anglo-Americans who would vote for a black man is diminished by those who regard the implication that he is Muslim as a smear against him.
Hey, at least I live in a country where being black isn't as bad as being Muslim anymore.
Or at least admit that if it's not OK, that is a sad fact about the current American political scene?
Any pride I might have felt for my fellow Anglo-Americans who would vote for a black man is diminished by those who regard the implication that he is Muslim as a smear against him.
Hey, at least I live in a country where being black isn't as bad as being Muslim anymore.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
