Space Mountain Audio

It will be a while before I hear it, but, apparently, as of today, Space Mountain in Orlando has trackside audio.

This brings up the debate between the two Space Mountains, and, frankly, I'm a little concerned here. The lack of audio was actually something I preferred about Space Mountain East. I understand I'm in a minority, but I like the quiet of Space Mountain. It's eerie, it's contemplative and it gives you no indication of where the track is going or where it would be ending. Audio isn't going to stop me from riding, and I'm sure most would love it, I'm just more intrigued than I am excited. Further, trackside audio doesn't seem to offer the same potential as on-board audio. So, of the ideas they've brought over from Anaheim's Space Mountain, they brought the one I was the least interested in and don't seem to have brought it over very well. If everyone likes it (and early reports are they do), okay then.

But count me as one of those who doesn't prefer Disneyland's, even if there are things I'd bring over. I enjoy the single-file, close-to-the track cars. I enjoy having drops. I enjoy having two, distinct tracks. I enjoy having a coaster that is more than just a series of right hand turns. To say nothing of the vastly superior pre and post show in Orlando. Star Tunnel alone is reason for me to love the Orlando version.

Would I like Disneyland's improved projections and light shows at night? Absolutely! Would I like an improved, less-rickety track with banked curves? Probably, if similar ride vehicles could continue to be used. I really like the ideas others have brought up of having a "thrill" coaster and a more traditional-styled coaster under the same roof; there's more than enough room for both.

So, no, Orlando's Space Mountain isn't where I'd like it to be. But neither is Anaheim's, and I reject the notion that one is objectively superior to the other. It's a matter of preference, and, unlike Pirates of the Caribbean or the Tiki Room, I continue to prefer the one in Florida.

Something else cool is this nifty retro-futuristic poster being used to promote the audio. This is sweet.

Some Epic Mickey Artwork I Hadn't Seen Yet

This one's dystopian Tomorrowland, and it's fantastic. Of course, you have Space Mountain in the back, which is cool enough. You've also got Rocket Jets (completely with Oswald logo). And you have three different entryway objects. First is the big Orlando archway, then you've got the World Clock, which once marked the entrance to Tomorrowland in Anaheim, before being replaced by the Astro Orbitor, which is also there.

All sorts of cool.
Sweet.
And here we have both of my attractions together. Good times. Good times indeed.

Sporcle Quiz of the Day

One Word Movie Titles

Don't have much to say, other than this quiz is clever. I got 12 out of 24, and I'm embarrassed by some that I missed.

DTC Blog #1

In "Contemporary Perspectives on Rhetoric," by Foss, Foss and Trap define rhetoric as, "the human use of symbols to communicate (1)." To me, however, communication is impossible without the use of symbols, be they the conscious or otherwise in Foss et. al.'s examples using a heart attack victim, so while I must recognize the authors as more of an authority on the subject than myself, I do struggle to agree with their definition of rhetoric (3). Their definition comes off as merely defining rhetoric as human communication, something they say themselves when they say, "for us, rhetoric is another term for communication (Foss et. al. 4)."

I do not believe in rhetoric as merely being communication. They themselves cite Aristotle's definition of rhetoric as, "the faculty of discovering in the particular case what are the available means of persuasion (Foss et. al. 7)." Aristotle's definition is the same definition I've worked with through my entire schooling life, and, with all due respect to Foss, Foss and Trap, it is the one I continue find the easiest to apply to. I do not believe all communication between humans sets out to persuade by the best means possible; much of it is merely for the joy of interaction or to convey information without need for persuasion or for many other reasons. Further, I believe when others use the term rhetoric with some understanding of the background of the subject, they do not consider it the same as the art of all communication. I believe to make the two terms and arts synonymous is to rob rhetoric of its real meaning, value and applications.

Working with Aristotle's definition (or either, really), rhetoric is something I engage in within the confines of digital cultures on a near-daily basis. Much of my free time is spent in the realm of sports discussions online. In particular, I write for the website SB Nation Dallas-Ft. Worth. In articles such as this one, for example, the entire point is to present an idea to readers in a way that persuades them towards a point of view one believes is the most correct. The available means utilized in this case include appeals to emotion (primarily that fans feel for their team), and, most of all, logic in terms of statistical analysis presented in terms readers can understand and interpret that reflect what I'm trying to convince them of.

Works Cited

1. Foss, Sonja K., Karen A. Foss, and Robert Trapp. Contemporary Perspectives on Rhetoric. Third. Waveland Press, Inc., 1-15. Print.

Sporcle Quiz of the Day: Teams in Common

Both quizzes I've done so far have been sports. Sorry.

Here we have teams in common. You try and figure out what team all three players have played for. And it makes you go in order, which I like.

SPOILERS

I got 16 out of 30. Unsurprisingly, I struggled with the NBA, got no one in the NHL and got almost everyone in the NFL and MLB. I missed the Panthers and Reds players, but only because I ran out of time. I would have gotten them.

The Flyers are the most common that I missed (72.8%). I don't know anything about hockey. The Jaguars (36.1%) are the most missed one that I got. How do more people know Flyers players than Jaguars!? I also got the Nationals, Warriors, Pistons and Braves among those most takers have missed. On the latter three, I'm not sure how they're not obvious. Certainly they've got to be more obvious than "Jarome Iginla, Eric Vail, Gary Suter," none of whom have I ever even heard of.

Must be a lot of hockey fans on Sporcle.

DTC Posts

Hey, anyone who actually has read this already. I'm going to be using this blog to post blog posts for a class I'm in on Digital Diversity. They will be clearly titled and they will be labeled DTC. Feel free to read or skip them, they are basically homework.

Sporcle Quiz of the Day: First QBs

I'm going to try and do a Sporcle quiz every day and post it. Because Sporcle is awesome. I'll put a giant spoiler word before I talk about the quiz so you can avoid my discussion if you want to take it first.

First QBs Taken Since 1983

SPOILER

I think I could have probably aced this with more time. I got 17, but I was typing more when the time ran out. I was working on JaMarcus Russell and missed out on he and the last three seasons because of the time limit.

I blanked on Vinny Testaverde, that's the most embarrassing miss for me. Outside of that, I missed on Everett, Chandler, McGwire, Klinger and Druckenmiller. I probably could have gotten Chandler and Klingler eventually, but that's it.

In a fifteen year span, the Colts took the first quarterback in the draft four times. The fact that they never got a franchise player out of that is astounding. Elway worked out elsewhere, and Chandler and George had good seasons (again, elsewhere), but it took four tries in fifteen seasons to finally get a good QB that stayed in Indy.

Also, there's a Coug on here. Go Cougs.

First Post

This is my first post. I'm not sure if anyone will ever read this, and anyone else reading it is a very small part of the point. But, just in case anyone ever wants to, here's an introduction.

This blog is kind of like a barf bag for my head. I have other blogs, but I'm an associate with others and those blogs have a purpose. They have specific things I need to write about. This one is for all the other stuff I want to write about, either to get it out of my head or to kill time, as it comes to me.

Now here is a list of things I like, and thus things which will probably appear on this blog.

1. Lists.
2. Cooking. In another life, I would have pursued a culinary degree, but it's too late for that. Now I just practice in my kitchen.
3. Sports. I'm a sports nut, but probably not the kind you're use to. I'm very passionate about the Cowboys, Washington State and the Rangers (in that order), but I despise homerism and trash talk. I'm also a huge advocate of a logic-based, objective approach to sports conversations. For baseball, this means I'm a huge advocate of sabermetric research, or the quest for objective knowledge in baseball. For football, this means I mostly don't have much to talk about, since everything is a small sample size littered with unreliable stats and opinions are based almost entirely on suspect anecdotal evidence.
4. Theme Parks. This primarily means Walt Disney World, where I have been a Cast Member in the past. I intend to spend a bit of time talking about the Disney parks and themed design here, since I have a blog outlets for the other two things. This includes all theme parks, though. Even crappy amusement parks like Six Flags can be fun.
5. The Outdoors. One day, I will hike the Pacific Crest Trail and maybe this will be where I write about that. I don't get outside as much as I use to, and that is the biggest current temporary regret in my life.
6. Video Games. This is another thing that will be getting a lot of play here. I really like video games and like talking about them. And that will happen here.
7. Other Stuff. Like Star Wars and Calvin and Hobbes and the Far Side and overplayed internet memes and micro brews and dogs and my beautiful, quirky girlfriend and people watching maps and coffee and peanut butter. Off the top of my head.
8. Lists.

That's all I've got right now.