Here’s a joke I’m going to pull out next time a conversation about divine inspiration of Scripture comes up at college.

Here’s a joke I’m going to pull out next time a conversation about divine inspiration of Scripture comes up at college.

This is a great little video that plots the story of Google (until just prior to the launch of Wave) in two minutes. I think I saw it first at CafeDave – so he can have a link.
I’m pretty sure I’ve posted this before – but I mentioned them to Amy last night because Tim lent me a really incredibly awesome looking Chuck Norris movie. Anyway. I give you. Chuck Norris Action Jeans.

Although perhaps you’d prefer something more purpose built when roundhouse kicking someone in the head.

This is a question that needed some science applied to it. It turns out the optimal wife is 27 percent smarter than her husband. IQ tests on the first date probably come on a bit strong – but by the time you reach the altar you need to have established a pecking order. Here’s the science. Here’s the CNET report.
The highlights are, indeed, a joy to behold, squeeze tightly, and never, ever let go. The perfect wife is five years younger than her husband. She is from the same cultural background. And, please stare at this very carefully: she is at least 27 percent smarter than her husband. Yes, 35 percent smarter seems to be tolerable. But 12 percent smarter seems unacceptable. In an ideal world–which is the goal of every scientist–your wife should have a college degree, and you should not. At least that’s what these scientists believe.
I know your bit will already be chomped with your enthusiasm for learning these learned scientists’ methodology. Well, they interviewed 1,074 married and cohabiting couples. And they declared, “To produce our optimization model, we use the assumption of a central ‘agency’ that would coordinate the matching of couples.” Indeed.
Finding that woman might prove difficult. But if you synchronise the science with a separate mathematical model (at the end of this article) you’ll learn that the 38th woman you consider is the one.
If you interview half the potential partners then stop at the next best one – that is, the first one better than the best person you’ve already interviewed – you will marry the very best candidate about 25 per cent of the time. Once again, probability explains why. A quarter of the time, the second best partner will be in the first 50 people and the very best in the second. So 25 per cent of the time, the rule “stop at the next best one” will see you marrying the best candidate. Much of the rest of the time, you will end up marrying the 100th person, who has a 1 in 100 chance of being the worst, but hey, this is probability, not certainty.
You can do even better than 25 per cent, however. John Gilbert and Frederick Mosteller of Harvard University proved that you could raise your odds to 37 per cent by interviewing 37 people then stopping at the next best. The number 37 comes from dividing 100 by e, the base of the natural logarithms, which is roughly equal to 2.72. Gilbert and Mosteller’s law works no matter how many candidates there are – you simply divide the number of options by e. So, for example, suppose you find 50 companies that offer car insurance but you have no idea whether the next quote will be better or worse than the previous one. Should you get a quote from all 50? No, phone up 18 (50 ÷ 2.72) and go with the next quote that beats the first 18.
The Oscars are this weekend (or Monday for Australians). Here’s a handy breakdown of the role you need to play to win – and a slideshow detailing roles from this set that have won in the past.

Long time readers will remember the world’s worst “worship”… purely assessed from an aesthetic standpoint – I don’t know if this is acceptable to God. That’s up to him.
Here are two contenders to knock it off its throne (I have included the original as the third video in this post). In the Hokey Pokey one it’s worth persevering until 3.48. Apparently short term memory is not biblical… nor is Alzheimer’s.
I like Lego stop motion videos and I can not lie. I don’t even care if it uses Star Wars’ concepts as the basis for the narrative. This is cool.
Rhett and Link are the guys who travel the US making local commercials – they also make pretty cool videos. Like this stop motion production featuring 222 shirts.
It’s spectacular. I love the eggs.
This is probably a good question to ask yourself if you’re a product designer or an aspiring billionaire – it’s not going to get you anywhere in the long (eternal) term like the original FLAW (four letter acronym wristband). But it’ll only cost you $5.

You know. Jesus was pretty darn awesome and he hung out with all the movers and shakers in first century Jewish society – so we should totally do the same with our ministries… no wait. That’s not right. An Acts 29 church planting screener has pointed out that a number (all is a number) of the planting candidates he’s interviewed have the same missional passion – the desire to see cool people saved.
It’s amazing how many young pastors feel that they are distinctly called to reach the upwardly-mobile, young, culture-shaping professionals and artists. Can we just be honest? Young, upper-middle-class urban professionals have become the new “Saddleback Sam”.
Seriously, this is literally the only group I see proposals for. I have yet to assess a church planter who wants to move to a declining, smaller city and reach out to blue collar factory workers, mechanics, or construction crews. Not one with an evangelsitic strategy to go after the 50-something administrative assistant who’s been working at the same low-paying insurance firm for three decades now.
His conclusion is just as on the money.
It could be that we’re simply following in the footsteps of the church growth movement that we’ve loved to publically criticize while privately trying to emulate – we’ve just replaced Bill Hybels and Rick Warren with Tim Keller and Mark Driscoll.
In the Australian context it’s probably not so bad – but it’s just something to remember. Jesus loves city people, young professionals, farmers, retirees and the homeless. Our ministries should love those people too.
* Check out the King Missile song by this name if you haven’t already discovered it.
Can we ever choose our own destination or are we just pawns in a grand game of chess at the hands of an omnipotent deity. Are your choices your choice? Or are they the inevitable product of nurture and nature colliding. It’s a question that literally keeps young theologians and philosophers up at night.
I’m not actually sure where this originally came from – it just popped up in deli.ci.ous. But it made me laugh.

I’ve posted some cool wedding invitations here in my time – none cooler than this one. A couple of geeks programmed their own Marioesque invitations and sent them out on CDs. Their friends had to play through the level in order to receive the details of the nuptials. They could choose to play as either the bride or groom.

Here’s a video of the invite being played (and you can download the actual invitation (link to .exe file) if you want to invite yourself along)…
Via here.
You’ve no doubt seen the new OK Go Rube Goldberg music video by now. If not, here it is…
Watching it yesterday on Amy’s blog I was skeptical about its origins. I thought it might be a bunch of videos stiched together or some sort of CGI. But it appears to be legit.
Here’s the story behind the film clip on Wired.
These Russian Doll measuring cups designed by Fred and Friends are cool.
