
author 
topic: Coincidence? I wonder. 
jross3

post #1
on April 1, 2005  2:44 PM PST


Not long ago I changed the way I rent series anime. In the past, I would spread each series around my entire queue (or the top half or twothirds as it got bigger) and would watch several series at a time. It worked fine, but a lot of the time older series would drift down the queue rather than up due to new titles being added all the time. It was slightly impractical, so now I keep series mostly in one block with only a few other discs inside it, with a little overlap between each series. It's a good system (but now whenever I see a new series I want to start, either what I'm watching now gets bumped back or I have to wait a good, long while before I can start it ;(
Something odd that I noticed just recently: I'm just beginning to finish off the Cardcaptor Sakura series, but each day I get movies sent to me, I get one CCS disc and the rest are from something else (most notably Ranma 1/2, which comes after CCS but has been in my queue several months longer... is that a possible explanation?). Is it just a fluke of availability, or does GC have a nifty system that can manage series in this way? Either way is fine, really; I try and keep the movies coming and going, so I'm not missing much; if it's a system it's working out well for me. But if not... it's interesting. Fate is managing my queue better than I can :) 

jross3

post #2
on April 1, 2005  2:54 PM PST


(actually, Ranma 1/2 comes after not only CCS, but also after You're Under Arrest and most of Trouble Chocolate. They've been on there for almost a year, though, I'm sure, so I suppose I should move them up just to get rid of them.....) 

hamano

post #3
on April 1, 2005  3:24 PM PST


Ha ha, good April Fools joke, jross! I almost believed you! 

jross3

post #4
on April 1, 2005  3:44 PM PST


> On April 1, 2005  3:24 PM PST hamano wrote: >  > Ha ha, good April Fools joke, jross! I almost believed you! > 
oh yeah, it's that day.... true story, but hmm... damn, I didn't plan anything to get back at you for last time. Well, consider yourself warned for next year, mister! 

woozy

post #5
on April 1, 2005  5:33 PM PST


> On April 1, 2005  3:44 PM PST jross3 wrote: >  > > On April 1, 2005  3:24 PM PST hamano wrote: > >  > > Ha ha, good April Fools joke, jross! I almost believed you! > >  > > oh yeah, it's that day.... true story, but hmm... damn, I didn't plan anything to get back at you for last time. Well, consider yourself warned for next year, mister! > 
What happened last year? I was toying with the idea that I'd make an announcement about how I just found out my novel "The Famous Women of Oz" had been optioned for a movie or about how my sister's 1989 documentary "Can Collecting in Manhattan" had after 16 years of playing the circuit in Cuba has been nominated for a prestigous award award in Norway.
Actually "Can Collecting in Manhattan" *did* get praise in Cuba and my sister was invited to present it and met with Fidel... and then, well, as they say the rest isn't history.


jross3

post #6
on April 1, 2005  5:39 PM PST


> On April 1, 2005  5:33 PM PST woozy wrote: >  > > On April 1, 2005  3:44 PM PST jross3 wrote: > >  > > > On April 1, 2005  3:24 PM PST hamano wrote: > > >  > > > Ha ha, good April Fools joke, jross! I almost believed you! > > >  > > > > oh yeah, it's that day.... true story, but hmm... damn, I didn't plan anything to get back at you for last time. Well, consider yourself warned for next year, mister! > >  > > What happened last year?
Hamano convinced me that clicking on the mines would assure my high score. I had my doubts, but for a few days I was clicking, clicking, and clicking on those darn mines hoping for a breakthrough. 'course, soon after that, I set him on fire, so maybe we're even after all.... 

jross3


woozy

post #8
on April 1, 2005  6:42 PM PST


> On April 1, 2005  5:46 PM PST jross3 wrote: >  > > On April 1, 2005  5:39 PM PST jross3 wrote: > > ...I set him on fire... > > and this is the thread I did it in. You ever gonna do another Totoro Time, H? Lots of new faces to talk to. > > 
Yeesh, was that an entire year ago?


SonjaBlue

post #9
on April 1, 2005  10:47 PM PST


jross3 wrote:
>...You ever gonna do another Totoro Time, H?<
It was unfortunate that I had a prior engagement that preempted a guest spot last time.
Whatever happened to that...show? Was it cancelled? 

jross3

post #10
on April 1, 2005  10:53 PM PST


> On April 1, 2005  10:47 PM PST SonjaBlue wrote: >  > jross3 wrote: > > >...You ever gonna do another Totoro Time, H?< > > It was unfortunate that I had a prior engagement that preempted a guest spot last time. > > Whatever happened to that...show? Was it cancelled? > 
The way things were going at the end, the set probably didn't survive. But by now Totoro's hair would surely have grown back, and the set can always be rebuilt.... 

SonjaBlue

post #11
on April 1, 2005  11:01 PM PST


jross3 wrote:
> The way things were going at the end, the set probably didn't survive. But by now Totoro's hair would surely have grown back, and the set can always be rebuilt....<
Is that how it ended? I would just hate to think that the novelty had worn off.
If he cannot be convinced to come out of retirement, perhaps a new host(ess) can be found?
I assure you I had nothing to do with the events that had transpired. ;) 

woozy

post #12
on April 2, 2005  12:36 AM PST


> On April 1, 2005  11:01 PM PST SonjaBlue wrote: >  > jross3 wrote:
> > I assure you I had nothing to do with the events that had transpired. ;) > 
I wouldn't think arson and large animal training were your style. I must admit I'd like to see you in the spotlight.
And I must confess to mildly missing the days when I viewed hamano in another light.


Bowwow

post #13
on April 2, 2005  1:16 PM PST


> On April 2, 2005  12:36 AM PST woozy wrote: > 
> > I wouldn't think arson and large animal training were your style. I must admit I'd like to see you in the spotlight. > > And I must confess to mildly missing the days when I viewed hamano in another light. > > > 
a red light?


jross3

post #14
on April 2, 2005  1:18 PM PST


If I may comment on the original topic for a moment, I just got the last three CCS discs shipped to me (so there's no system, I guess). It's still bizarre, because that's exactly what I wanted to happen; that way I can see the last two series discs at once, and then the second movie. Did GC know that? I certainly didn't mention it here! I must have the blessings of the Queue Fairy! 

Bowwow

post #15
on April 2, 2005  1:39 PM PST


> On April 2, 2005  1:18 PM PST jross3 wrote: >  > If I may comment on the original topic for a moment, I just got the last three CCS discs shipped to me (so there's no system, I guess). It's still bizarre, because that's exactly what I wanted to happen; that way I can see the last two series discs at once, and then the second movie. Did GC know that? I certainly didn't mention it here! I must have the blessings of the Queue Fairy! > 
I guess I am confused. I have never received DVD's from GreenCine in any order other than how I have wanted them. The worst that has ever happened is that one time, the second disc in a series was red forever and I just couldnt wait so I went and rented it from my local video store. I am blessed by the queue fairy too. :)


woozy

post #16
on April 2, 2005  10:57 PM PST


> > And I must confess to mildly missing the days when I viewed hamano in another light. > > > > > >  > > a red light? >
If I were as mean and as nasty a piece of work as hamano claims he thinks I am I'd say "No, a green light! VROOM! VROOM!" but actually no. There as a time I admired hamano and liked hamano. It was only when when he starting misinterpreting comments as negative and *then* beligerantly going to great lengths to reject apologies, explanations, compliments, peace offerings, that it really was a lot easier and consistant for me to simply dislike him. Which is too bad cause I don't really like disliking people.
Which, by the way, reminds me that I bought a book today called "Calculus for Cats" and there's a section called "A brief Aside Why Poets Don't Do Calculus" which reminded me of hamano:
Some people like things to be precisely accurate. If you say, "I'll be home at 6," these folks do not think 7:30 is close enough. If they are either your mother or your wife, they may not even think 6:30 is close enough.
Most mathematicians think of themselves as being this kind of person; they love the precision of math. But calculus has some imprecision built right into it [1] and they feel guilty about it. Rather than just say that some of our answers will be a tiny bit off, but that this infinitesimal error[2] doesn't matter for out purposes, they want to convince you their extremely close approximation is so close to the truth that it's not a lie. They want to prove to you that .99999... is exactly the same thing as 1, for example[3]. They won't feel so bad about living this lie if they can convince you to join them in it. Of course those of us with English Lit backgrounds don't understand their guilt. We say "my love is a rose" with little provacation, regardless of how roselike our love is, and we think "to be or not to be" is actually a question. We won't make you send weeks doing problems to convince you that our love actually is a rose, and we don't really feel bad about it. But then, we never pretended that poetry was based on cosistency and precision. In math class, you must come to agree that .99999... actually is identical to 1, and until you wear that saddle peacefully, they won't let you roam the pastures alone.[4].
[1] Actually, I'm a little offended by this statement. Calculus does not have impression built in. It's just that defined and discovered a trancindental that so subtle and elusive, and so difficult to come to terms with that it is much easier and not far off the mark (and more fun) to think that Calculus, as the mathematics of change, is all about the looseygoosey jiggle jaggle of sliding down the inpressision wiggle bug of the existent infinitesimal.
[2] You see, there it is in a nutshell: "infinitesimal". To the untrained I that word is a paridox. It means, "so small as to have no measurable value". But everything has a measurable value. So to have no measurable value is to be nothing. But nothing isn't "infitesimal"; nothing is not existant at all. Soooo, it's easy to conclude ... if Calculus is the math of the "infinitesimal" that means you just making reeeeealllly teeny fintite changes that are verrrrry close to nothing but are really something. Thats easy to understand and it works. But the infinitesimal is really the limit of finite measures as they go to zero and *that* is a whole nother animal. It's just really hard to wrap your mind around this and keep it there and then the midterms are coming up and....
But actually there is a precision but it takes a near religious conversion to get it. I find this comment "this infinitesimel error doesn't matter" to be like Bartram saying "[Joan] is talking to her imaginary friend, 'God'".
[3] See .99999... is exactly 1. It's just that .99999... and 1 are not what you think they are. You think .99999... means starting at .9 and going 9/10s of the way to one each step and doing that step an infinite number of times so that the further you go you get infinitely close to 1 but never actually get there. And you think 1 is these granite clearly defined precise value. Admit it, you think that. Well, those aren't what 1{1} and .99999... aren't what you think they mean.{2} [4] It's a bit like a religuous order. You'll get wrong answer and can't go forward if you don't pay lip service, put you'll never get religion if you don't fake it first. So we hold your hand so you don't get lost.
{1} Actually the integer 1 is exactly what you think it is. But the real number 1 is something else entirely. This something else entirely turns out to be exactly the same thing but is something else entirely. This is like hamano is something else entirely from "Maochan's husband" even though they are the same people. Or how James Alger, decent influential filmmaker and great family man, is something else enterly from that nasty director who faked the lemmings whom I sincerly hope is in a very uncomfortable place. Mmm, maybe mathematicians are the ones who are comfortable with the "imprecise" duality of reality and poets are the ones who require the "precise" requirement that if things are equal they most be the same. If 3 + 2 equals 5 equals the number of months until September they most all be the same. (In april 3 + 2 = 5 > 4. In may, will 3 + 2 = 5 =4 because then it will only be four months to september?)
{2} Before decimals were invented and we had to make do with numbers, fractions, and funny symbols, we always knew there were numbers that just couldn't be expressed; numbers such as the square root of two, pi, and the logrhythmic base. We knew we could get experimentally close by honing in with fractions that get closer and closer but we knew this would never actually work. Decimals were just a short hand but we knew no decimal would ever actually equal pi, or square rot of two, or the logrhythmic bass. But we also knew these numbers *did* have precise and exact values. This was a *serious* problem. It doesn't seem like one now because we have grown to accept that we can get as precise "as we need" and we can have "infinite decimals" and we accept it so readily we don't care that if you think about it, it doesn't make any sense. Sooooo .99999.... doesn't actually mean "keep going closer and closer to 1 forever" because that doesn't make any sense. That's not a value! That's just an instruction to go until you get tired!
Here's what it actually means. A French Mathematician/Lawyer named Diedekind invented a concept of the "diedekind cut". And it goes like this: Since we can't actually express the number the square root of two with integers, fractions, or (finite) decimals, no integer, fraction, or (finite) decimals can actually equal the square root of two. So every integer, fraction, or (finite) decimal is either bigger than the square root of two, or smaller than the square root of two. We'll put all the ones smaller in one set called A and all the ones bigger in a set called B. No we know we can get as close to the square root of two as we want and we know we can get as close as we want under and we can get as close as we want over. So we can pick numbers out of set A that get as close to the square root of two and we can pick numbers out of B that get as close to the square root of two as we want. We'll call this pair of sets a "cut" and we'll call this cut "THE SQUARE ROOT OF TWO". Now heres the beauty of it: We can do this type of cut for every one of these inexpressible numbers and the cut will be diferent. The "cut" called "PI" which is the set, A', of all integers, fractions, and (finite) decimals smaller than pi, and, B', all the intergers, fractions, and (finite) decimals bigger than pi; this cut "PI" is different and unique pair of sets. Here's the real beauty of it. We can do these "cuts" for integers, fractions, and (finite) decimals too. And here's the real, real beauty of it: These cuts work *exactly* like the numbers they represent and *now* we have figured out how to express these inexpressible numbers and this is the invention of the "Real" numbers.
Okay, I hear the big "HUH?" and "why the hell should we care" and "don't you mathematicians have better things to do". But here's the the thing. The cut "ONE" has two sets A~ and B~. Neither has 1 in it. A~ has all the integers fractions and finite decimals less than 1. B~ has all the integers, fractions and finite decimals greater than 1. So A~ has .9 and .99 and .999 and .9999 and so on (there's no such thing as .99999...) and B~ has 1.1 and 1.01 and 1.001 and 1.0001 and so on (there's no such thing as 1.000000...... either). No one is the *only* cut were one side has .9 and .99 and .999 and .9999 and so on but absolutely no 1.1 or 1.01 or 1.001 or 1.0001 or so on. So it is *okay* to invent the idea of an "infinite decimal" where .9999... means the cut that contains .9 and .99 and so on in one set but nothing higher. That cut is "ONE" and it represent 1. So .9999... isn't an "approximation" close to . It has a precise and exact meaning and it's value *is* 1.A
A and the reason that it is useful to have infinite decimals is so we can say things like pi = 3.1415926... to mean the cut "PI" has a set A' which contains everything less than pi so it contains 3 and 3.1 and 3.14 and 3.1415 and so on and a set B' which contains 4 and 3.2 and 3.15 and 3.142 and 3.1416 and 3.141593 and so on. This means pi *is* 3.1415926... rather than an approximation. Of course this is a very subtle and very confusing explanation and its just as easy to say 3.1415926... is a decimal "that goes on forever". But this leads to things like .9999.... = 1. (which aren't nescessary but pi = 3.1415926... *is*).


woozy

post #17
on April 2, 2005  11:21 PM PST


Good lord! My spelling in the above is even worse than usual.
> > [1] Actually, I'm a little offended by this statement. Calculus does not have that impression built in. It's just that it has defined and discovered a transendental method that is so subtle and elusive, and so difficult to come to terms with, that it is much easier ... to think that Calculus, ..., is all about the looseygoosey jiggle jaggle of sliding down the imprecision wiggle bug of the existent infinitesimal. > > [2] ...To the untrained eye that word is a paradox. ... nothing is not existent at all. Soooo, it's easy to conclude ... if Calculus is the math of the "infinitesimal" that means you are just making reeeeealllly teeny fintite changes that are verrrrry close to nothing but are really something. > > [3] See .99999... is exactly 1. It's just that .99999... and 1 are not what you think they are. You think .99999... means starting at .9 and going 9/10s of the way to one each step, and doing that step an infinite number of times, so that the further you go you get infinitely close to 1 but never actually get there. And you think 1 is this granite clearly defined precise value. Admit it, you think that. Well, those aren't what 1{1} and .99999... are{2} > [4] ... You'll get wrong answers and won't be able to go forward if you don't pay lip service, but you'll never get religion if you don't fake it first. >


Bowwow

post #18
on April 3, 2005  4:15 AM PDT


So? What does all that have to do with how GreenCine sends our movies out? Maybe they use some complicated math formula!! 

woozy

post #19
on April 3, 2005  9:05 AM PDT


> On April 3, 2005  4:15 AM PDT Bowwow wrote: >  > So? What does all that have to do with how GreenCine sends our movies out? Maybe they use some complicated math formula!! > 
Oh, got nothing to do with GC and sending disc. But has a lot to do with me and the Hamster not getting along as well as we ought to. I like the idea of one set of people (mathematicians) having a set of rules that they assume are important and that they feel any communication must be made in terms of the rules and they go to great lengths to apply comunication to the rules, while another set of people (poets) don't care about the rules and are clueless about why anyone would go to any lengths at all to apply them.
And you got to admit "Calculus for Cats" is a funny title.


Bowwow

post #20
on April 3, 2005  10:36 AM PDT


> On April 3, 2005  9:05 AM PDT woozy wrote:
> > Oh, got nothing to do with GC and sending disc. But has a lot to do with me and the Hamster not getting along as well as we ought to. I like the idea of one set of people (mathematicians) having a set of rules that they assume are important and that they feel any communication must be made in terms of the rules and they go to great lengths to apply comunication to the rules, while another set of people (poets) don't care about the rules and are clueless about why anyone would go to any lengths at all to apply them. > > And you got to admit "Calculus for Cats" is a funny title. > > > 
OH...ok. I think styles of communication are interesting too.
"Calculus for Cats" is a funny title. It makes me wonder if buying it could be considered cat abuse ;)


