(no subject)
Oct. 26th, 2011 08:49 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkat1. Anyone know anything about DVR setup tops? Mine keeps having troubles taping random programs. I've rebooted it several times. Probably should just call Time Warner.
2. Discovered today that food coloring, particularly black food coloring will cause your poop to turn green. Doesn't even require that much apparently. So be wary of lucky charms, black frosting, red velvet cake, and blue or green gatoraid, also kool-aid. It's not dangerous, just really funky. Apparently something about level of iron intake?
3. Also discovered that chocolate is not addictive. (Well according to psychologists and experts, bloggers still think it is.)
Another factor that may play a role in chocoholism is the tryptophan found in most forms of chocolate. Tryptophan, most famously found in turkey, but also found in egg, beans, rice, pork, and cheese, is known to balance levels of the mood-boosting neurotransmitter serotonin, leading to chocolate's reputation as an antidepressant. Even the relatively low amounts of tryptophan found in chocolate might have some effect on mood, but it has never been shown to be addictive in any way.
While extremely high consumption of chocolate might lead to a partial, mild addiction, chocoholism is most likely a social construct. Many foods contain mildly psychoactive stimulants with the potential to become addictive in massive amounts. However, the mood-elevating effects of chocolate are self-regulating and do not generally lead to physiological addiction except in extreme circumstances.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1343535/chocoholism_is_chocolate_addiction_pg2.html?cat=5
http://psychcentral.com/lib/2006/does-chocolate-addiction-exist/
http://www.chocolate.org/choclove/
http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/basics/l/aa001109a.htm
Very odd thing - my Google at home finds more reliable info or different info than the one at work - don't know why? Firewalls? PC vs. Mac? Mind boggles.
4. I personally think sugar is my problem. Need to stay away from it. Particularly with all the diabetes that runs in my family. Probably should throw out the frosting and cookie dough in the fridge, shouldn't I? And I was doing so well...
5. Off to watch more Fringe S2 - the deal with Fringe? Once they start concentrating on the serial storyline or plot-line A, and dump the case of the week - the show takes off and is actually really good. It's the monster disease or mad-scientist of the week that bogs it down. Which is the opposite of the X-Files, where the monster of the week and how they bantered and solved it - worked really really well, but the serialized conspiracy story or plot line A - was just dumb and convoluted. LOST - same deal, the character back story of the week was really good, the serial portion stupid. Bones? Ditto. Castle? Yep, pretty much the same deal, the whole thing is murder of the week. But with Fringe - they should just dump the case of the week or focus on it rarely. It has the makings of a really good character driven serial if they'd just commit to it. The Walter/Peter and Olivia story is quite good. This reminds me oddly enough of all of Whedon's tv series, I always thought, who are kidding, Whedon, you suck at anthology and monster of the week - just go do the character driven serial, you know you want to. He's not the only one caught in this dilemma.
I blame networks - and the whole push for episodic tv shows. It's really hard to do a good episodic tv series. You come up with a new and unconnected murder mystery that is resolved neatly every single week, 22 weeks a year and see how well you do. Sooner or later you will hit a brick wall. Did you know that shows like Law & Order and CSI hire writer's assistants whose entire job is just to research real life cases and come up with ideas for the show? (Now that sounds like an interesting entry-level job. If I'd known that existed, I would applied for it years ago.)
Just finished Brown Betty - the Fringe musical? Which was astonishingly good. Granted I'm sucker for this stuff, but trust me this version worked. One of the better episodes. Sort of a Raymond Chandler sci-fi noir meets old time 1950s musical. And told as a wonky children's story by Walter, a somewhat deranged scientist on pot, who has been tasked with baby-sitting the heroine's niece along with his assistant. Actually his assistant was asked to look after the niece, a fellow FBI operative. I've come to the conclusion that musicals in tv shows only work if - they are character specific and either: 1) a dream, 2) story told by one of the characters to another, 3) a weird spell in which everyone spontaneously bursts out in song, 4) someone is insane or in the hospital on serious drugs. Otherwise, they tend to make no sense and are somewhat silly. Note to writers who are not Whedon or Sam Rami, don't try this unless you are doing it through "one" point of view. And it helps if you don't try and write your own songs, or have people sing if they are not singers - unless it's character driven.
Anyhow Fringe's musical take on film noire was actually good. There's a hilarious sight gag about corpses taught to sing Candy Man. Which you sort of have to see to understand. Also it did not matter that people couldn't sing - although they didn't sing enough bars to be able to tell. Also, Lance Reddick can clearly sing as can John Noble.
I swear John Noble is the heart of this series. He's amazing. Although Anna Torv and Joshua Jackson are growing on me.
Okay let's hope my setup works tonight. So far it appears to be. If I could just figure out what is making it all wonky.
2. Discovered today that food coloring, particularly black food coloring will cause your poop to turn green. Doesn't even require that much apparently. So be wary of lucky charms, black frosting, red velvet cake, and blue or green gatoraid, also kool-aid. It's not dangerous, just really funky. Apparently something about level of iron intake?
3. Also discovered that chocolate is not addictive. (Well according to psychologists and experts, bloggers still think it is.)
Another factor that may play a role in chocoholism is the tryptophan found in most forms of chocolate. Tryptophan, most famously found in turkey, but also found in egg, beans, rice, pork, and cheese, is known to balance levels of the mood-boosting neurotransmitter serotonin, leading to chocolate's reputation as an antidepressant. Even the relatively low amounts of tryptophan found in chocolate might have some effect on mood, but it has never been shown to be addictive in any way.
While extremely high consumption of chocolate might lead to a partial, mild addiction, chocoholism is most likely a social construct. Many foods contain mildly psychoactive stimulants with the potential to become addictive in massive amounts. However, the mood-elevating effects of chocolate are self-regulating and do not generally lead to physiological addiction except in extreme circumstances.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1343535/chocoholism_is_chocolate_addiction_pg2.html?cat=5
http://psychcentral.com/lib/2006/does-chocolate-addiction-exist/
http://www.chocolate.org/choclove/
http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/basics/l/aa001109a.htm
Very odd thing - my Google at home finds more reliable info or different info than the one at work - don't know why? Firewalls? PC vs. Mac? Mind boggles.
4. I personally think sugar is my problem. Need to stay away from it. Particularly with all the diabetes that runs in my family. Probably should throw out the frosting and cookie dough in the fridge, shouldn't I? And I was doing so well...
5. Off to watch more Fringe S2 - the deal with Fringe? Once they start concentrating on the serial storyline or plot-line A, and dump the case of the week - the show takes off and is actually really good. It's the monster disease or mad-scientist of the week that bogs it down. Which is the opposite of the X-Files, where the monster of the week and how they bantered and solved it - worked really really well, but the serialized conspiracy story or plot line A - was just dumb and convoluted. LOST - same deal, the character back story of the week was really good, the serial portion stupid. Bones? Ditto. Castle? Yep, pretty much the same deal, the whole thing is murder of the week. But with Fringe - they should just dump the case of the week or focus on it rarely. It has the makings of a really good character driven serial if they'd just commit to it. The Walter/Peter and Olivia story is quite good. This reminds me oddly enough of all of Whedon's tv series, I always thought, who are kidding, Whedon, you suck at anthology and monster of the week - just go do the character driven serial, you know you want to. He's not the only one caught in this dilemma.
I blame networks - and the whole push for episodic tv shows. It's really hard to do a good episodic tv series. You come up with a new and unconnected murder mystery that is resolved neatly every single week, 22 weeks a year and see how well you do. Sooner or later you will hit a brick wall. Did you know that shows like Law & Order and CSI hire writer's assistants whose entire job is just to research real life cases and come up with ideas for the show? (Now that sounds like an interesting entry-level job. If I'd known that existed, I would applied for it years ago.)
Just finished Brown Betty - the Fringe musical? Which was astonishingly good. Granted I'm sucker for this stuff, but trust me this version worked. One of the better episodes. Sort of a Raymond Chandler sci-fi noir meets old time 1950s musical. And told as a wonky children's story by Walter, a somewhat deranged scientist on pot, who has been tasked with baby-sitting the heroine's niece along with his assistant. Actually his assistant was asked to look after the niece, a fellow FBI operative. I've come to the conclusion that musicals in tv shows only work if - they are character specific and either: 1) a dream, 2) story told by one of the characters to another, 3) a weird spell in which everyone spontaneously bursts out in song, 4) someone is insane or in the hospital on serious drugs. Otherwise, they tend to make no sense and are somewhat silly. Note to writers who are not Whedon or Sam Rami, don't try this unless you are doing it through "one" point of view. And it helps if you don't try and write your own songs, or have people sing if they are not singers - unless it's character driven.
Anyhow Fringe's musical take on film noire was actually good. There's a hilarious sight gag about corpses taught to sing Candy Man. Which you sort of have to see to understand. Also it did not matter that people couldn't sing - although they didn't sing enough bars to be able to tell. Also, Lance Reddick can clearly sing as can John Noble.
I swear John Noble is the heart of this series. He's amazing. Although Anna Torv and Joshua Jackson are growing on me.
Okay let's hope my setup works tonight. So far it appears to be. If I could just figure out what is making it all wonky.