Posted on
by

Well, it appears that Google Analytics has finally begun to track Dymersion. Here’s some interesting first-week stats I’ve found:

Search Terms
Well, nothing too outrageous, but here’s a couple I found interesting: camera poses (2 visitors), profiling (1 visitor), and humorous independence day speeches (1 visitor). Camera poses are obviously my entries about Molly. Seems that someone read my entry about racial profiling in airports. Then there’s the first one, which obviously relates to my Independence Day 2006 series. How someone got to my site while trying to find speeches that are funny is beyond me.

Sources of Traffic
Well, nothing here was all too surprising. Most were direct, all of which were probably me…turns out the filter I had in Analytics wasn’t working. So, I’ve updated it for my real IP. It’ll stop everyone in the house from being counted, but I’m not too worried about that, since they probably don’t visit, anyway. Most visits were from invisionpower.com, which is not surprising, especially if many are me. A couple were from my school’s Facebook site, though with the revelation of the unworking filter, maybe not so good.

It’s a little easier to determine which visits are not mine when I view them from a geographical perspective…seven visits from the UK, probably some of the people at invisionpower.com, five from Canada, again, probably from invisionpower.com or Invisionize, and even a couple from India and Thailand of all places.

Analytics also tracks the ISP people hail from…35 from Cox Communications are probably all mine, there’s also a healthy number from Comast, AOL, and SBC. But, here’s the interesting part…a couple visits were from the U.S. House of Representatives Info Systems department, and from NASA. You guys working on the job? 😉

Any way, just a quick update. As the site goes on, I intend to keep an eye, and see where people are coming from, and why they might be coming here. To all those who have visited Dymersion, thank you! And thank you for fully reinforcing my faith in the site. Feel free to comment!

Posted on
by

Well, thought I might chime in on the whole “What is the definition of a planet?” debate. I know what I’m about to say here is going to be highly controversial, so please bear with me.

I’m a bit appalled about this uproar over defining the characteristics of a planet. It seems to me, that in an effort to save Pluto’s status as a planet, the International Astronomical Union has come up with the strangest definition:

A planet is a celestial body that (a) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (b) is in orbit around a star, and is neither a star nor a satellite of a planet.

Say what? Does that mean that every round rock, gas, or iceball out there that orbits the sun is now a planet? That could be just the case. Under the definition, recently discovered 2003 UB313, Ceres (formerly a very spherical astroid) and Charon (formerly Pluto’s own moon) now become planets. Had enough? Well, perhaps not the IAU, either. There’s more…rocks like Sedna, 2005_FY9, and even what I’d consider the least likely of the top candidates, 2003_EL61, could also be considered planets sometimes in the future.

Maybe I’m missing something here, but Pluto has always been a mystery to me, ever since I learned the names of the planets. Why is this icy rock with a very thin atmosphere considered a planet? Because it’s round and goes around the sun? Well, so does the moon (which also has a very thin atmosphere), but under the new definition, we’re still considering it a moon. So, I’m sure some of you might say, “Ok, but it’s spherical in nature, has gravity, and all that. It can’t be just an astroid or something else.” Fine, fair enough, you got me. So, what does all this tell me? Failed planet. Something that was going to potenitally form into a planet or a moon, but something happened where either a true atmosphere never formed, or it was blown away millions of years ago.

Would it not be simpler to define a planet this way? Well, at first glance, this might scrub Pluto off the list, along with the other rocks being considered, but not necessarily. What about two categories, so we’re not kidding anybody: Major Planet and Failed Planet. Group all the gaseous-type planets (like the big 8) in the first group. Then put all the rocks that have a spherical (none of this oblong stuff) that are rock or rock and partially ice into the second group. You could even further divide the two groups if you want. Here’s two of my proposed defintions. The first would be highly controversial (because of Pluto), and the second not so much:

1. A planet is a celestial body that (a) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, (b) is in orbit around a star, and is neither a star nor a satellite of a planet, and (c) has an atmosphere thicker than [arbitrary number here].

2. A planet is a celestial body that (a) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a spherical or bulged spherical shape, and (b) is in orbit around a star, and is neither a star nor a satellite of a planet. A planet shall be classifed into Major Planets or those that possess an atmosphere thicker than [number], and Failed Planets or those that do not possess an atmosphere or possess and atmosphere thinner than [number].

There, two definitions that might work. The first obviously gets rid of anything without an true atmosphere, and the second keeps Pluto and any astroid field and Kuiper Belt object that comes our way, but further clarifies how they’re labelled. Both kinds could also be Plutons, a planet that takes more than 200 Earth years to orbit the sun, and has a highly elliptical orbit.

I don’t know, it’s just always been hard for me to see Pluto as a planet in the first place (other than the fact the textbooks said so), and all this seems merely to be a compromise between those who’d like to see Pluto stay and those who’d like it gone. Is Pluto or these other considered objects a planet? Only you can decide. On a last note, I will boycott whoever supports the promotion of things like 2003_EL61 to a planet. That is a weird shaped rock, NOT a planet. I mean, look at its satellites. Those are not anywhere near spherical. At least Pluto/Charon, and 2003 UB313 have spherical moons.

Posted on
by

Ever since the story broke on the existance of unwarrented wire tapping, there have been a variety of opinions on the subject, from outright disgust that the government would spy on Americans (and those who might like to use it for less than ethical purposes) to those who say that the program is essential for nation security and the War on Terror.

So, when the story broke today that a Detroit judge rules thd unwarranted version as illegal, I was quite happy. I’m all for using technology to root out and eliminate terrorists threats, and I’ve never had a problem with the War on Terror in principle, because it’s a good principle. However, the ability to wiretap anywhere for any or no reason is not a good thing. We are a country of law and due process, and everybody should respect that, including the President. I do understand that the wiretapping is for overseas calls to suspected terrorists, but I don’t think the oft-used excuse of “they’re not U.S. citizens, anyway,” is a pile of crap, to put it bluntly. We call ourselves democratic, and a free nations, so we must show a good example.

Now, what to do if this becomes illegal permanently? Well, easy answer, and it’s only four letters: FISA! There is a court set up specifically for this kind of thing, and FISA is it. Worried about national security? Well, no worries when the court is secret, so that nobody will ever see what the warrants are about. So, what’s the problem? Intelligence officals, and others, have said that procuring a warrant takes too long, especially when terrorists move fast. Well, fine then. Do your wiretapping, but you still have to submit a warrant at some point. On O’Reilly a few days ago, an interviewee suggested this very thing, that you can do your wiretapping, but you have submit the warrant request later. She didn’t get into specifics, though. So, I say no more than two weeks from the time of the wiretap should the warrant request be made.

I mean, come on, about what is the government really worrying? According to the Wikipedia article on the FISA Court, five out of 18,765 warrants were rejected. Five! So, I think the government having to get a warrant (just like everyone else in security) can only be a good thing. It creates record of action (even if classified), and stops what I see as a dangerous precedent. While I don’t agree with all depictions of the President as some evil tyrannical authoritarian, that’s not to say a furute President won’t be. If this precedent stays through the next Presidents, what is to stop a future chief executive from claiming terrorism as justification for spying with warrants, while really using it to spy on a political opponent. Spying has happened before (Nixon, anyone?), and I don’t doubt it’ll happen again. So…review. Getting useful information on terrorists is good, but warrentless wiretaps are bad. Solution? Wiretap, then submit your request within two weeks, because really, it’s bound to be accepted, anyway.

Posted on
by

Bill O’Reilly had White House Press Secretary Tony Snow on the O’Reilly Factor today. They got to talking about all sorts of issues, from the foiled terror plot, to issues in Iraq. Toward the end of the interview, O’Reilly asked Mr. Snow if he saw the Sunni-Shiite conflict as a civil war. Mr. Snow said no because nobody was trying to cecede from Iraq.

Now, this entry is not to debate whether or not there is a civil war going on in Iraq. I just want to present the facts. Webster’s Dictionary defines “civil war” as:

a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country

However, Webster is not the only source that uses this definition. The Oxford Dictionary also uses pretty much the same definition.

a war between citizens of the same country.

If that wasn’t enough proof, Wikipedia explains things with a similar definition, though it gets more into the subject. However, as I know Wikipedia can be sometimes inaccurate, I looked at some other sources, both of which back up Wikipedia’s explanation.

Yes, a civil war can happen when a section of a country tries ceceding, like in our own Civil War. However, as is clearly shown by three sources, and two of them pretty trustworthy sources, that is not the only form a civil war can take. What is it called when multiple groups of people from the same country start a nationally emcompassing war, if not a civil war? I sure can’t think of a term.

I’ll now use a phrase Mr. O’Reilly often likes to use, or at least a paraphrase if it turns out I don’t get it completely correct. Mr. Snow:
Get your facts straight, sir.

Posted on
by

As I’m sure everyone knows, today the UK foiled a terror plot. I’m happy about this. It’s good to know that safety is still the number one priority, even if it is going to cause a few inconveniences to travellers (and inevitably a traveller somewhere screwed because they were too afraid to bring a carry-on as to not go through extra searching, and then having their luggage lost).

However, in this atmosphere of increased anxiety, it’s likely to bring out some of the racist attitude in the best of us. So, I took issue when I saw the following post made on a forum I frequent:

I don’t want to sound racist, but I’ve noticed how all passengers are being checked at airports; wouldn’t it be best to only check those who match the description of this terrorist attack – Muslim, Middle East origin? I know it’s a very grey thing to say and I will get criticised for writing that, but it’s more sensible?

First of all, what the hell? It’s exactly this kind of attitude that led to increased discrimination against those of Middle Eastern origin and Muslims alike after 9/11. So, this guy wants them to go through this kind of thing again? I mean, lets be honest here. The airports, the FAA, and whatever the UK’s version of the FAA is, can deny it all they want, but I know that Middle Eastern people will be subject to increased scrutiny today and probably for some time after today. Maybe they’ll even be instructed to act in this way. However, to suggest that they be checked extra just because of their origins, is an absolute appalling attitude to have.

I mean, there is apparently increased evidence that Al-Queda is involved in this one. Who do you think they’re going to recruit for this mission? Well, someone of Middle Eastern origin is an obvious answer, but they’re not the only kind of people who have fought for terrorists. Ah, lets see, John Walker Lindh, you know, the American Taliban? The higher up of Al Queda are going to be thinking about this kind of thing, and knowing what kind of discrimination Middle Eastern people have gone through over the past few years. So, who’s to say they won’t try and recruit a white person who is disgruntled with their country? You can’t really tell who it’s going to be, so everybody should be subject to increased searches, not just a certain group of people.

Well, I had to respond, and make it as snarky as possible, so here it is:

And while we’re at, lets stop all black people, because clearly they’re the only ones committing crimes. Oh, and lets lock up the South American Hispanic looking people too, those commies!

Posted on
by

When I created Dymersion, I wanted a place where I could do more than just rant about the latest political topic, or what was happening in the world. I wanted the website to also be a hub of all my creative works. Somewhere where I could express myself in the area I think I do best (besides video): writing.

Well, I’m to announce that in the next week, I’ll be presenting a new department for the site: Dymersion Creative. This will be a blog, set up much like this one, where I can place all the works I consider to be creative in nature. The first of these works is a sort of experiment I’ve always wanted to try. No more about it quite yet, but I’ll fill in all the details when I introduce it. I quite like the idea, and I hope it pans out.

Goodnight, and happy celebrating to all those who won their primaries.

Posted on
by

Well, ladies and gents, it’s all over. While there are still a couple percent of precincts that need to report in, Joe Lieberman has conceded defeat to Ned Lamont, 52% to 48%. It’s not over yet, though. This was only the primary, the general election hasn’t even happened yet, though you might be fooled by watching the aftermath tonight, which looked eerily like that of after-election coverage.

So, where do I stand? Still undecided. However, I do stand by what I said in an earlier entry about Lamont. Although I like his opinons about the war and health care, he needs to show me more before I will decide to vote for him. In general, now that the primary is over, he needs to step back from the war and talk about some other things. Posing Lieberman as pro-war, pro-Bush did him well for the primary, but I don’t think this strategy will work for the general election. Here he not only has to sway Democrats, but Republicans and Independents, too. I think Lamont needs to present himself as more than the one-issue candidate in which he has sometimes been described. He should tell people where he stands elsewhere, and what he’ll do for Connecticut. The healthcare issue is a start, but he needs to show why Connecticut voters, all the Connecticut voters (not just Democrats) should elect him, or I think he’ll loose the general election. Staying the course he’s been going in will not help him come November.

So, where did Lieberman go wrong? Well, most analysts seem to be in agreement that Lamont held many small communities, and that Lieberman would have to count on the cities. I heard a lot about the primary hinging on Waterbury, which he must have lost in the end.

Click the link below for my analysis on the DeStefano-Malloy race…
Continue reading →

Posted on
by

Well, this certainly is something. Mally and DeStafano are pretty close right now: 50.43% to 49.57%. Other results I’ve seen are 50% to 50%, but I’m guessing they’re rounding down and up respectively. I just saw this on the news, so I’m not sure, but I believe that any race within half a percent is subject to a run-off primary. The governor race is getting really close, so a run-off is not out of the question. Though, I somehow doubt we’d see another great turnout like today, so maybe it’s better for both candidates that this get decided tonight.

Back to Lamon-Lieberman, Lamont is still keeping a fair lead with 51.88 to Lieberman’s 48.12%, but the gap continues to grow smaller, and I think it is likely to continue to do so as the final results come in.

And, it may be early to call any primary, but the precincts having reported are pretty high, so I’m going to call one now: The Republican primary for U.S. House CT District 1. MacLean is a clear win here. He’s got 62% of the vote to Masullo’s 38%. She would need a miracle to win this one.

I’ll have a primary wrap up (or at least as wrapped up as I can be without staying up ridiculously late) a little later.

Posted on
by

Well, the results are coming in. In the Senate, Lamont currently has the lead, with about 54%, to Lieberman’s 46%. However, since the results have started being reported, I noticed that as the percentages go up, the gap between the candidates comes down. It could end up being a very close race, only 38% of the precincts have reported thus far.

In the governor race, DeStefano is putting up a fair lead with 52%, though that race is already pretty close. I think this race will remain close.

Another race that is close to my heart, since it involves my Congressional district, is that of the Republican primary, the winner going on to face John Larson. Scott MacLean has a strong lead, with 61% of the vote. However, it is far to early to tell who will win. I predict that MacLean will stay pretty strong, though.

Another update later.