Shades of Grey - Greymatter

Kate Beckinsale is worth the price of admission for Underworld: Evolution, even if the rest of the movie is uneven and at times unconvincing. Give it a go if you like vampire movies; wait for the DVD if you don't.

And for the love of Cthulhu, if you're a parent, leave the frelling kids at home. My movie experience was tempered by my annoyance and disapproval of the not one, not two, but *six* kids under the age of seven (from three different families) who sat in rapt attention, from the very opening scene when a man is having his face chewed off, through the various decapitations, disembowelments, skull shredding (I don't think there's a word for the act of ripping off the top of a head by putting your hands inside the mouth and pulling in two directions, but it happens a lot in this movie), impalements, limb losses, surgical vivisections, naked women, threesomes, biting, spurting blood, piles of corpses and, oh, yeah, packs of 8-foot-tall scary-as-hell werewolves that rip people limb from limb. I can guaranty all of those kids are having nightmares tonight. What kind of ineffectual, judgment-poor excuses-for-parents think "hmm, it's rated 'R' for violence, gore and nudity, but I want to see it so it won't hurt to take all three of my kids to it"? Worse, what kind don't see the aforementioned face chewing in the first 15 seconds and say "Oh, you know, I think I made a mistake. My fault. I'd better take the kids home before it gets worse"? Hire a frelling babysitter or wait until it comes out on DVD and watch it after they go to bed. Having children means your own desires become secondary to the upbringing and protection of your progeny. Idiots.

Okay, I'm done. Until I gain omnipotence, or some close approximation, anyway. Then those parents are in big trouble.

Posted at 3:55:00 AM. | | Permalink to this post.

Friday, January 27

Don't Build a Web Site, Either

Whoops.

Posted at 9:04:00 PM. | | Permalink to this post.

Mood Swings

An emergent property of a panoply of beliefs is that everyday people polarize out into different places on the political spectrum (which I believe has more than two dimensions), and come to think of that comfortable perch as "the center." Thus, whether something is "too far left" or "too far right" is dependent on the vantage point (and if a link in one of my previous posts is correct, this is largely genetic). For example, I know a couple of people who find the World-Herald (the local paper) to be "typical conservative propaganda," and a few others who refuse to read it because it's an "eastern Nebraska liberal joke." It all depends on the original vantage point. For my part, I'm fairly comfortable with the World-Herald. It has its good and bad days, but I'm rarely irate with it (disappointed now and then, but I acknowledge that it has to take its audience into account and I'm not "the average demographic"). I'm amused, however, by its "mood swings." It may go a week giving concessions to "both sides" (running Pulse submissions representing both sides of a discussion), then run an entire opinions page of what most would consider "liberal" submissions and columns, then wait three days and repeat with a bevy of "conservative" submissions and columns. Sometimes I'm curious how the selection process goes, and whether someone intentionally guides it or if it's random.

In any case, today was a "conservative" day. Nothing to the point of irritating me, but enough that it was palpable on the opinions page:

1. Two Pulse submissions criticizing the ACLU, one suggesting the ACLU drop its criticism of Bush's domestic spying (with a scary Cicero quote about legal requirements being irrelevant during a time of war) and one making the ludicrous correlation that because the original founder of the group was a Communist sympathizer, all supporters of today's ACLU must be Communist sympathizers (conveniently leaving out the facts that the group was founded in 1917 and all Communist ties and members were excised in 1940 with an official statement that totalitarian governments are the enemy of freedom). This is an example of the "association fallacy" ("because group A has a member who believes X, all members must believe X"). The submission then implies that the ACLU wants to eliminate "any vestige of religion" in order to institute a totalitarian regime, and cites Hitler and Stalin as examples of former attempts (despite Hitler's own words that "I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord"; he wasn't a *good* Christian, and might not have even been a practicing one, but he certainly wasn't interested in eliminating "any vestige" of religion). In contrast to the submission, I might suggest a list of cases in which the ACLU has defended the religious rights of various individuals and groups and suggest the Pulse writer is confusing "hostility toward religion in general" with "opposition to enforcement of a specific religious belief through authority over those of a different belief."

2. Two Pulse submissions cheering the pastor invited to the Nebraska Unicameral who gave, instead of the traditional nonsectarian blessing, a politically oriented prayer asking forgiveness for the Unicameral for, among other things, not outlawing the teaching of evolution. One submission put forth that the disapproval by state Senators in particular and some Nebraskans in general is a sign that "darkness doesn't like the light," which I suppose is a poetic way of saying "if you accept evolution, you're an immoral person."

3. A syndicated column on Google's recent resistance to turning over its search records to the Justice Department, with another fallacious argument (that Google's refusal to cooperate is equivalent to Google condoning "giving stacks of hardcore porn to little kids"). Google objected on privacy and trade secret concerns; I doubt its executives said "if we turn over the records, the government won't let us give porn to little kids anymore." The author's main point seemed to be (as I understood it, and as odd as it seems) that everyone who supported Google's decision did so because they don't like Dick Cheney (based on a column by Maureen Dowd where she expresses her dislike for him), rather than what might be an equally likely possibility: they're First Amendment advocates. At least I think that was his main point. It was stretched a little thin.

Tomorrow might be a "liberal" day for the paper. It'll be interesting to see.

Update: And one from the Web. The always-entertaining Ann Coulter suggested today that someone should poison liberal Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens so that Bush could appoint another conservative Justice. But then clarified that she was just joking. Pat Robertson should take notes.

Posted at 5:27:00 PM. | | Permalink to this post.

Putting the "Right" in "Copyright"

After reading the posting board attached to an article about a music piracy court case I had the momentary zeal to write a lengthy diatribe about my ongoing confusion/dismay over the seemingly prevalent view that copyright infringement is "no big deal" or even "acceptable" (a trend that I've yet to reconcile with my belief that most people are good people and know that it's not ethical). I'm literally amazed at the efforts undertaken to rationalize or compartmentalize a clearly illegal activity with no corresponding groundswell for a change in law, and the open hostility on most discussion and posting boards toward not only "the industry" but also those who merely object on ethical grounds. I've seen several unpersuasive arguments (angry - "the industry is ripping us off"; entitled - "music should be free"; lazy - "I only wanted the one song, not the whole album"; even the traditional "everybody else does it"), but I've yet to see one that logically challenges these core facts: copyright has a functional legal purpose and legal standing, in the U.S. copyright comes into existence automatically on any creative work (whether it says so or not on the work), the holder of the copyright is the owner of the intellectual property (note the word "property") involved and controls its use and violating a copyright is illegal. If you *really* believe pirating music or movies should be legal, your proper course of action is to lobby Congress to change the law. Or contact the artists directly and convince them to grant their works to the public domain. All the other arguments are just smokescreens for "I want to take this without paying for it," and I'm disappointed that a generation would accept that as proper behavior.

Scarily enough, this was a condensed, less-passionate version of my original post; I ran out of ire about halfway through it and lapsed back into the confusion/disappointment angle. Feel free to disagree with me; I'm interested to hear opposing points of view.

Posted at 4:17:00 AM. | | Permalink to this post.

Thursday, January 26

Deals on Wheels

Lisa had a flat tire last week. Cost of repair: $20

I've had a tire with a slow leak for the last 5 months. Cost of repair: $167.

I want to trade. :P My normal 3,000-mile maintenance costs at Saturn are around $85 (give or take). Today, between a new wheel (the old one was bent) and various other small repairs, it was just shy of $300. More incentive to buy a Toyota. But as Lisa pointed out, it's still preferable to a car payment, so I'm in Zen "life goes on" mode.

Although while I'm kvetching, and since it doesn't deserve its own post, I'd also like to announce that this season of Scrubs is sorely lacking. They changed the formula (Lisa thinks they got new writers), and it doesn't resonate with me like it used to. It still works for Cris, and that's cool. Even if he's wrong. *cough*

:)

Posted at 7:01:00 PM. | | Permalink to this post.

Happy Birthday. :)

The patriarch of my clan celebrates another year today (making him, once again, 30 years older than my brother, just as he is 30 years younger than my grandfather; that makes it easy to remember their ages). I already mailed the card, and I considered calling him at 2 a.m. just to be the first to give birthday wishes, but I'm not sure that would fall into the "appreciated" category (and I'm almost certain my mom would be unhappy), so I'll try to call him later today (what the majority refers to as a "reasonable hour"). He doesn't read my Web log, so this is mostly a reminder to those of my family members who do read it. Not naming names or anything.

Humor aside, my dad's a great guy. He's volunteered for more things than I can count (he was a wrestling coach, a Boy Scout leader, a member of the school board, etc., and he still serves as a volunteer EMT and a something-or-other in his church, on top of being self-employed). He's also one of the most honest men I've ever met (even if his belief in doing business on a handshake has cost him a time or two). He and I don't really see eye-to-eye on a lot of specific issues (and I inherited his stubbornness, which means the two of us can clear a room if we start debating), but I've always admired his core values and his "do what you can for other people" ethos. I also inherited his "stand up for what you believe in, regardless of the consequences" stance, to my mother's chagrin (being stubborn about doing the right thing isn't always the most popular opinion with employers). I think everyone who knows him would agree that he's a great guy, and he deserves to have a happy birthday. :)

Labels: birthdays

Posted at 3:16:00 AM. | | Permalink to this post.

Wednesday, January 25

Court of Opinion

The World-Herald today ran a cartoon by syndicated cartoonist Michael Ramirez (I don't know if this link will work or for how long, but this is the cartoon, provided it shows a Supreme Court justice pushing the representation of justice with a banner of "humanity" off a cliff). The caption reads "Judicial Assisted Suicide" and references the Supreme Court's decision in the recent case involving Oregon's assisted suicide law.

Here's my confusion (all sarcasm and my opinions aside, if you can answer this question, please do so). Ramirez is a Pulitzer Prize-winning cartoonist known for his conservative stance, so I feel justified in assuming he's expressing a conservative point of view, showing his disapproval of assisted suicide in general and his perception that the Supreme Court has endorsed it, directly or indirectly, in particular. But that question wasn't put to the Supreme Court. They weren't asked to rule on assisted suicide; they were asked to determine whether an executive branch agency misinterpreted a federal statute (whether then-Attorney General Ashcroft had the authority to use a federal statute to punish doctors operating within state law). From the cartoon, I assume Ramirez believes the Supreme Court should have voiced an opinion on assisted suicide (or at least not prevented Ashcroft from misusing a statute "for the greater good"), but to do that, the Supreme Court would have to do what most conservatives have criticized the judicial branch for doing: legislating from the bench. Since there is no federal statute outlawing assisted suicide, the Court would have had to create a prohibition out of thin air. And in contrast to the suggestion in the cartoon, the Court didn't rule that assisted suicide is a Constitutional right (and in fact has stated outright that it isn't); Congress is still free to enact a statute to outlaw it if it so chooses. So my question is, from the conservative point of view (or at least from the conservative point of view of Mr. Ramirez, since it's unfair to assign his particular viewpoint to all conservatives), how should the Supreme Court have ruled? It seems to me he's damning the Court for doing exactly what conservatives have been insisting the Court do (narrowly tailor rulings according to established law and the questions presented rather than using rulings to create new laws).

Posted at 4:17:00 PM. | | Permalink to this post.

Science Geek Update

It's not Earth, but it's still pretty cool.

Posted at 4:08:00 PM. | | Permalink to this post.

Did You Make a Save Point?

It didn't surprise me when Ashlee Simpson went really blonde (even though I thought it looked horrible), but now Janeane Garofalo has done it, too. Gah! Bad! Go back. Defer to my aesthetic preferences ('cause we all know dark hair is better). :P

Posted at 1:45:00 AM. | | Permalink to this post.

Showing Some Skin

Heard on the radio on the way home tonight:

An ad for Dr. John's (a local adult novelty store), inviting listeners to come see it's "scintillating new merchandise." Only the speaker pronounced "scintillating" with a hard "c" (making it "skin-tillating"). At first I thought it might be a pun, given the establishment so being advertised, but there was no emphasis on the syllable and I doubt most of the shop's target audience would get the pun, so chances are the radio station just needs to buy a dictionary.

So ends your English geek humor for the night.

Labels: overheard

Posted at 1:02:00 AM. | | Permalink to this post.

Tuesday, January 24

Myst-ically Delicious, Pt. II

Making good on her earlier promise, Jamie delivered my birthday present last night (yes, she's a little late, but given her time constraints and the amount of effort involved in the cake, she's forgiven). Holy cow.

Labels: birthdays

Posted at 2:39:00 PM. | | Permalink to this post.

Monday, January 23

Tea Time

At my behest, my mother procured for me this fabulous tea kettle (it's copper! yay!) for Christmas. I brought it to work last week and set it up next to my desk, and without so much as a conscious effort my tea consumption has increased exponentially (which says something about my lack of motivation when I'll drink tea all day if it's in reach but go days without if I have to walk to the kitchen for each cup). This has led to some interesting conversations:

Jay: I've been drinking about a liter and a half of tea a day.
Cris: Liters? What, are you British now?
Jay: It's the measurement on the side. I can't do conversions in my head. :P
Cris: Sure. Are you having crumpets with it?

Although I still have an entire copier-paper box full of tea (yes, I had that much when I cleaned out my desk at the other building), I now have an excuse to buy more (and hence my experimentation with vanilla almond and white pear teas today).

Posted at 9:24:00 PM. | | Permalink to this post.

Lend Me Half an Ear

The World-Herald's editorial page today ran a blurb about evolution, noting a possible answer to critics' opinions that "anatomical features are far too complex to have evolved step by step" with a mention of a research team's study of the ears of a fossilized fish. The research study itself was interesting, and the World-Herald's intentions were good, but its conclusions were off.

It referred to the critics as "evolution deniers" rather than by their specific ideology, even though a later description is clearly of Creationism (rather than "Intelligent Design"). Creationists, however, don't claim their opinions or work to be science and are not persuaded by scientific evidence (if they were, the numerous papers documenting the evolution of eyes, which may have evolved as many as 40+ times, would have laid the question "What good is half an eye?", which the editorial references in its title, to rest; they haven't). Finding intermediate steps between species is not some "Holy Grail" science can't find; it happens all the time (for example, we have many examples of species intermediate between modern humans and our common ancestor with chimpanzees). Each new addition, however, creates new gaps (if you divide a line in half, you go from one gap to two, etc.); what critics of evolution want is an unbroken step-by-step line of every change between species A and species B, and without a time machine that's not going to happen. In other words, their "denial of evolution" (to borrow the World-Herald's descriptor) isn't based on a lack of evidence, but rather a belief that the theory is incompatible with their faith. And faith is going to win.

Posted at 5:29:00 PM. | | Permalink to this post.

Saturday, January 21

Is That a Giant Ape in Your Pocket, or . . .

Lane and I took in "King Kong" this afternoon (although "afternoon" is somewhat relative, considering we entered the theater at 4:35 and left at 8:05 - it's a long damn movie). We agreed that it was good, definitely worth seeing. It wasn't as impressive as I'd hoped it to be (and it didn't inspire the excitement that I felt when I first saw the trailer), but the visuals were good and Jack Black is always humorous. After the film we pontificated at length on how the natives got to the island, who built the expansive ruins on the t-rex-infested island and how the dinosaurs went 65 million years without evolving at all. We eventually chalked them up to "things the average viewer would not consider and therefore unimportant to the plot." I did note that we didn't see Kong until 45 minutes into the movie, with the majority of the first half-hour a look at the conditions of the Great Depression and Prohibition; it was a good history lesson, but I'm afraid it was lost on most viewers.

Other random observations:

We saw the thoroughly impressive trailer for X3. Lane is borrowing my X-Men DVDs in preparation for an expedition.

We saw a second trailer for some gritty cop movie staring Colin Farrell (whom I personally can't stand, but that's not really relevant other than to mark this blog with my personal opinions, in much the same way dogs mark their territory) and Jamie Foxx. It looked bland and humorless, largely indistinguishable from any of a dozen other "pissed off policeman" movies. It wasn't until the end when they showed the name of the film that I laughed, and then not because of any humor inherent to the movie itself, but because of its almost parody-like juxtaposition with a previous media incarnation now known for open shirts and pre-Baywatch bikini babes. Really, Colin Farrell as "Sonny Crocket"? Did they take anything from "Miami Vice" besides the names?

We saw a Coke commercial that I actually liked. The initial visceral reaction was "What the hell?", but it proved itself to be a quirky and funny presentation (far superior to any dancing rock stars or product placements). You can view it here yourself (it's the one labeled "Fritz").

Posted at 11:21:00 PM. | | Permalink to this post.

Wait, What?

My conversation at Taco Bell this evening:

Me: [ordering], minus the salsa.
Woman on the speaker: That item doesn't come with salsa. It comes with fiesta.
Me (in my head): It can't come with "fiesta." That's not a noun, unless it comes with *a* fiesta and you're selling Mexican parties with your burritos.
Me (out loud): Okay, minus the "fiesta," then.
Displayed on the screen directly in front of me: "[order] -fiesta salsa"
Me (in my head): :P

Posted at 10:22:00 PM. | | Permalink to this post.

Friday, January 20

The Harem

Since I haven't had a musical musing in awhile . . .

I've officially spent $250 on iTunes now. New additions to "Jay's Harem of Angsty Female Singers" include Dot Allison, Thea Gilmore and Si*Se. The most recent star is Vienna Teng; her Web site has free MP3s of some of her songs, and I highly recommend at least giving "Lullabye For a Stormy Night" a listen (it's a song about a mother comforting a frightened child during a thunderstorm and explaining that even though it seems scary the rain is actually part of the cycle of life). Eric's Song is my second favorite. I'm also fascinated with James Blunt's "Tears and Rain" (maybe because it's the only song I've ever heard that actually references Dorian Gray in the chorus).

Posted at 4:15:00 PM. | | Permalink to this post.

Thursday, January 19

Web Sites and White Hoods

I came across an article about a woman serving a sentence for releasing her police dog on a suspect at Snopes.com today, and, curious, did a search to background check some of the facts presented in the piece (I'm a big fan of Snopes, but even they aren't infallible). Searches on both Yahoo and Google brought up a "paleo-conservative" group that has taken up her cause (I'm not providing a link to them; some positions are repugnant enough as to preclude free advertising). The group is "legitimate" in that it obeys all laws, works "within the system" and holds panels and presentations, but is labeled a "racist" group by several organizations, and it didn't take me long to find out why. It's one thing to champion causes one sees as noble and to shine a spotlight on cases of perceived injustice. It's another to hand-pick cases featuring white defendants and minority plaintiffs (specifically for that criteria) and then present only the defendants' sides in emotional language. I'm a solid advocate of free speech (even if that speech involves such repulsive statements on a Web site as "[blacks are] a retrograde species of humanity)"; that means, however, only that I don't think they should be censored, not that I shouldn't criticize the hell out of them.

About the only thing on their site that amused me was their Statement of Principles. The first statement is that the U.S. is a Christian nation. Not an uncommon position, even if I disagree. Many racist groups have devoutly religious members (even if their interpretation is anathema to mainstream congregations and has no bearing on them) and cite Biblical support (one is free to rationalize it, and I've seen several creative albeit unconvincing explanations, but it's difficult to dispute that the Bible oddly fails to label slavery as immoral, and at least tacitly approves it by providing extensive directions regarding the care and treatment of slaves and their families, acceptable punishments for disobedience and the places where they may be purchased). My amusement came from the conflict between the first statement and second statement, which puts forth that the U.S. is "a European country" and "part of the European people" (and the U.S. should "remain European in [its] composition and character"). 'Cause, apparently the group hasn't kept up with the fact that Europe (today, anyway) is one of the most secular places in the world ("59 percent of Americans say that religion is very important in their lives, only 11 percent of the French, 21 percent of Germans, and 33 percent of Britons do"). Or the fact that Hispanics (as the plaintiffs in the case cited in the first sentence are) may be entirely or partially of Spanish descent (and last time I checked, Spain was in Europe; it's possible it broke off because of plate tectonics, but I'm sure I would have seen that on Yahoo!News). Or that the Moors (a North African Muslim people) conquered and controlled Spain and Portugal for 700 years (and thus even many "true Europeans" are of mixed ancestry).

I'm fairly confident that most Americans would find this group's point of view unpalatable (even if I did have an argument with one of my family members within the last year about interracial marriages), and thus I'm not concerned with it transmogrifying into a national movement, but it's always good to keep on eye on them anyway.

Posted at 8:35:00 PM. | | Permalink to this post.

Wednesday, January 18

Donations Welcome

After flirting momentarily with the familiar (and alluring) curves and feel of the latest model of my broken camera (complete with a 7.1-megapixel resolution - wow!), I've decided to abandon the Elph line (although I might pick up a used older version to replace my broken one just to carry around in my bag).

Instead, I've renewed my interest in the camera I've been watching for the last 6 months. The Canon S2 is about $80 more than the newest Elph, and has a smaller resolution (5 megapixels instead of 7.1), but it has, in the common jargon, "all the bells and whistles." Whereas the SD550 is a compact point-and-shoot with a 3x optical zoom (the same as my broken one), the S2 features a 12x optical zoom, image stabilization (to compensate for shots taken by hand or at full telephoto), 2 frames-per-second continual shooting until the card is full and a camcorder-quality movie mode in stereo (although I'll only be using it for Web clips, since a 1gb card holds 8 minutes of video and I already have a camcorder). It also, and this is where I'm going to find myself pitching headfirst into the blackest depths of "pretending to be a real photographer," accepts lens adapters and add-ons (I've already picked out an adapter, a polarizing filter and a uv filter to buy when I buy the camera, and *eventually* a telephoto lens will be following, when I have a little more free cash).

Do I actually need any of this stuff? Nope. But keeping in mind the amount of amateur photography I do, it makes more sense to splurge now and buy something a little nicer than I need and grow into it than buy what I need now and chafe a year from now at the limitations. All told (including the adapter, filters, batteries and 1gb secure digital card, since Canon is nice enough to include a 16mb card that holds *6* seconds of video . . .), I'm probably going to end up shelling out around $600. Which means I'll need to take a *lot* of photos to make it worthwhile. Brace yourselves for daily photos of my pocket change and paperclips . . . :)

P.S. - Take a look at the customer-submitted photos on the Amazon page. The moon photos are fantastic, far superior to anything I can take with my old camera.

Posted at 10:12:00 PM. | | Permalink to this post.

Tuesday, January 17

The Ashcroft Legacy

I was surprised by this article today. I knew the case, and knew it was going to come before the Supreme Court, but I didn't realize it was going on now and I really didn't expect this outcome.

Not that I'm unhappy. The Supreme Court actually agreed with me (although I doubt my opinion really carried much weight with them). This was one of the last cobwebs of the Ashcroft regime, the most striking example (for me, anyway) of his willingness to use whatever federal law was convenient to enforce his personal beliefs on other people (in this case, by using a federal statute dealing with the regulation of narcotics to threaten punishment to doctors who operated within Oregon's twice-voter-approved assisted-suicide law, rather than challenging the Oregon law directly). Ashcroft has since retired, but the case was continued by the Justice Department, who was reprimanded at all levels of the judiciary by judges who found that Ashcroft twisted the meaning of the statute to grant himself the authority to determine what constitutes a "legitimate medical purpose" (a power reserved to the Secretary of Health and Human Services) and to regulate medicine (a power held by the states). The argument upheld by the Supreme Court is essentially that, in Oregon, assisted suicide *is* a legitimate medical purpose because state law says it is.

This was a closely watched case for other reasons. Notably, several groups with no particular interest in the assisted suicide issue supported Oregon in this case to protest what came down to a federal vs. state contest (and a perceived intrusion on state autonomy by a federal agency without explicit Congressional intent), which framed the case more in terms of "limited" vs. "expansive" government, resulting in an odd arrangement where the traditionally "limited government" Republican party was forced to defend an expansive interpretation.

I can't say I'm a big fan of the current Attorney General, but he's a vast improvement over Ashcroft.

Posted at 3:53:00 PM. | | Permalink to this post.

[Insert Random Cursing Sounds]

Note to self: make sure the camera is firmly settled on the counter before letting go. Dammit. I loved that camera. It appears to take pictures still, but it doesn't zoom anymore.

This makes me somewhat less than happy. Looks like the money my dad gave me for Christmas "to go toward something on my house" is going to go toward a new camera instead. Now I have to decide whether to buy a replacement in the same price range (which will buy a better camera than that one), or buy the one I've actually wanted for a couple of years (even if it's almost $500).

Oh well. I suppose in the long run it's pretty minor.

Posted at 4:21:00 AM. | | Permalink to this post.

Monday, January 16

Common Understanding

As someone with a less-than-impressed view of the assortment of spiritual claims bandied about the various parts of the world, I've had my share of the experiences put forth in this blog post, stemming in large part from a lack of education about what atheism and secular humanism are. So I can relate to her amused frustration.

But this post is meant to take the other side to task. I find it ironic that I encountered this blog post as a link on an atheist/humanist mailing list here in Omaha to which I used to belong. "Used to," as in "enthusiastic supporter and frequent poster for several years." The irony occurs because, while the mailing list entry was meant to criticize Christians for not being open-minded and tolerant, I left the group eight months ago because I was frustrated with it for doing the same thing (being dismissive and close-minded toward Christians and conservatives). After a failed attempt to steer the group more toward a limited scope and a focus on educating and recruiting people who are willing to listen, and faced with frequent doses of messages with such asinine titles as "Top 10 Conservative Idiots of the Week" and "Rush Limbaugh Sings 'I'm a Nazi'," I dropped out of the group. I was looking for a network of positive thinking and a forum to share ideas, and even after it became evident that many of the members were there to make fun of the other side or engage in partisan jabs every bit as pointless and unconstructive as those they criticized I still hung around for the occasional good discussion or debate, but eventually it became clear that many of the members of the group couldn't separate "liberal" (with a lowercase "l") from "Democract" (with a capital "D") or "secular" from "anything about which I feel like ranting, whether it relates to the group or not" (I interjected in one discussion on gun control to ask how the topic related to the group's stated purpose and never received a satisfactory answer). What disappointed me the most, though, was that, even while discussing falling memberships, the most vocal members couldn't see that dismissive, superior posts (even if they had a core of truth) drove away potential new members and did nothing to educate or persuade people who might be inclined to listen to a reasoned, patient discussion. (I check in on them now and then to see if they've changed, which is how I found the blog post, but so far no luck.)

It's one thing to have a strong opinion and disagree with the opposing point of view. It's another to resort to name calling, stereotypes and generalizations. The latter serves no purpose, for anyone. We're never going to have a worldwide consensus on most points of view, but we can disagree in a respectful, dignified manner.

Posted at 11:13:00 PM. | | Permalink to this post.

So, I Guess I'm a 14-Year-Old Girl . . .

Tiffany had a link to a genealogy site that uses face-recognition software to match related people, and to demonstrate it they have a free "celebrity match" section where you can upload a picture of yourself and let the software determine which celebrity you most resemble. Which is pretty cool.

Except I think it's broken. 'Cause I ran 5 different pictures, with the following results: one as Leonardo DiCaprio, one as Ewan MacGregor, one as Kofi Annan (?) and *two* (yes, two *different* photos) as Emma Watson. Who, for those of you unfamiliar with her, is a 14-year-old actress who plays Hermione in the "Harry Potter" films.

There's an ego booster.

Run the test yourself and post your results.

Update: Oh, look, it matched another one to Emma Watson . . . :P It must think we have the same nose structure or something. On a whim I also put the composite picture I posted earlier into it, and I'm happy to see that it matches Emma Watson to herself with much greater certainty than it matches her to me. Although oddly, the original picture matched her with 54% certainty, and the composite matched her with 61% certainty, even though it's the same picture.

Posted at 4:32:00 AM. | | Permalink to this post.

Sunday, January 15

Fleeting Memory

I'm going to spoil Friday's episode of Stargate: SG-1. If you haven't seen it and intend to, skip this post.

Friday's episode involved a people who had developed the technology to edit, overwrite and delete memories in much the same way we handle computer files, which they developed for the purpose of training (medical students would suddenly have the complete memories of the nation's most brilliant neurosurgeon's medical training, while fighter pilots would skip months of training by "downloading" their instructor's own memories of learning to fly). The plot of the episode centers around one of the main characters confessing to a murder because he actually remembers doing it, even though it's later revealed to be a planted memory.

A plot twist, however, brings up some ethical questions (hah! ethics in a show about aliens and wormholes? who'd have thunk it?). Spoiler: The actual murderer not only implanted his memories of the murder in the main character, but also erased them from his own mind and replaced them with a memory of himself sleeping at home. Thus he spends a good part of the episode helping the main character catch the killer, and when confronted with evidence that he did it scoffs and openly volunteers to have his memories scanned because he "knows" he didn't do it (with the result that the replacement memory is found to be identical to a previous one and therefore a copy). As a final twist, the nation's government considers him so important to the memory transfer program that rather than put him on trial, they simply erase his memories of the entire event, "restarting" him to a point weeks earlier, with the argument that he doesn't remember the crime (and in effect the "murderer" has ceased to exist), thus making it difficult to punish him for it.

The episode touches on the inefficiency of memory and how our own memories are subjective (and even change as we subconsciously remember things more the way we want to remember them). More importantly, it considers the question of culpability in the form of punishing people who don't remember the crime (which is relevant to today's court cases involving people with Alzheimer's, low intelligence or mental disorders). To contribute from my own experience, I don't have false memories, but I do have gaps in my memory during the time period I was having seizures (seizures are really unfriendly toward the brain), and I'm frightened of the thought that because of them I've forgotten things that I don't know I've forgotten. I've discovered the gaps when talking to people who reference conversations I don't remember having (Lisa thought I was joking one night when I just stared at her with a blank expression when she asked how something I'd spoken of before turned out and I had no idea what she was talking about). Probably the worst example was when a woman with whom I'd gone on a date messaged me online just to chat, and I assumed she was a stranger messaging random people; she thought I was joking and "played along," until it became evident to me that she actually knew things about me and checked my old e-mails to confirm that we'd met. I had no recollection of her at all. It's been an annoyance and kind of scary, but not critical. It *could* be critical, though, if I were put on trial for something I didn't remember, or if someone made me defend an opinion I'd expressed that I didn't remember expressing, etc. From my perspective, I'd feel unequipped to defend myself against things I didn't remember doing (and probably think it was unfair), while the person who remembered it would find my refusal to acknowledge it as a cop-out. And then there's always the question of how much memory must be changed before you have a "different person." If I committed a crime today, and then someone erased the last year of my memory, would I still be culpable for it? Would I even be the same person who committed the crime?

Posted at 6:00:00 PM. | | Permalink to this post.

Saturday, January 14

Faded Photographs

I found a couple of my baby books while cleaning today (they weren't filed with my other photo albums, although I'm not sure why). Presented for your enjoyment:

Proof that I did, in fact, have a huge head as a baby.

A picture of me I actually really like. Even if I do have a big head.

The pre-liberal vs. conservative years. :)

Another Kermit picture. I should add it to the essay.

A visual warning regarding the unfortunate (and painful) consequences of riding your bike down a set of concrete cellar steps. (Whoops.) Amazingly, I didn't break anything (and in fact have never broken anything; I just get cut a lot).

Who could have possibly thought this was a good idea? Must have been an aftershock from the seventies . . .

I also discovered that I detonated the rifle shell in my hand just before my second birthday, not after my third birthday like I'd written. I also locked my parents out of the car at around the same time period. By my fourth birthday I was inserting phrases like "actually" and "in fact" in my sentences. The pretension started early . . .

Posted at 6:22:00 PM. | | Permalink to this post.

Friday, January 13

Reasons To Have Proofreaders

"The Company shall maintain teases [rather than leases] as provided in the Indenture."

"The Company shall have readily available hinds [rather than funds]."

Posted at 11:46:00 PM. | | Permalink to this post.

The Vagaries of Prophecy

I know, I've already done one religious post this week. I'm not out looking for them, honest. They just follow me around like sad puppies.

My hometown paper this week carried a "weekly meditation" (a column passed around the local pastors) by the pastor of the local Adventist church that amused me. The gist of the column was the imminence of the Second Coming and the necessity for being prepared, but what struck me was one of the choices for his Scripture quotations.

"Verily I say unto you, this generation shall not pass until all these things be fulfilled." (Matthew 24:34)

This is one of a handful of verses cited by the Preterist movement to support the notion that the Second Coming already happened . . . in 70 C.E., within the lifetimes of the Apostles . . . and thus doesn't really support the notion of a Second Coming in the near future.

The other verses are:

Matthew 16:28 "Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom."

Mark 9:1 "And he said unto them, verily I say unto you, that there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power."

Luke 9:27 "But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God."

I John 2:18 "Even now many antichrists have arisen; from this we know that it is the last hour."

Revelations 22:10 "Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near."

From what I've read, the first verse is sometimes defended by construing "generation" as "race," but the counter-argument is that the phrasing for "generation" occurs in more than thirty other places in the New Testament, all of which are clearly meant to indicate "contemporaries of me."

Okay, no more religious posts this week. :)

Posted at 6:02:00 PM. | | Permalink to this post.

Multitasking

Wooo! A quantum computer chip now officially exists (and yes, Lisa, it employs a particle that exists in two states at the same time . . . until you look at it). On to quantum computers!

(To clarify the above comment to Lisa for everyone else, Lisa *hates* Schrodinger's Cat, the classic thought paradox involving quantum indeterminacy. She's actually told me to "shut up about the damn cat" and plugs her ears every time I mention it.) ;)

Labels: quantum mechanics, science

Posted at 2:34:00 PM. | | Permalink to this post.

Thursday, January 12

Linguistic Evolution

Harold Andersen (the "retired publisher of the World-Herald," who apparently received as a retirement gift enough space in the paper to write columns on whatever catches his attention on a semi-random basis, kind of like a blog except in a news periodical) vented today about word appropriation. "I'm not very subtly objecting to the fact that homosexuals and lesbians have appropriated for themselves the word 'gay,' robbing it entirely of its original meaning. The press is an accessory in letting this happen, in my opinion."

This has shades of a previous post I made on the concepts of "living" versus "dead" languages, although in this instance an already existing and properly used word gained a secondary meaning (rather than an improperly used word gaining acceptance). This is the nature of a living language; new words are added, existing words are lost, some words become more precise and some words shift meanings (Shakespeare's plays have to be annotated because much of the language has changed meaning to the point where modern readers, without assistance, would not understand it). Railing against that change is not uncommon, but it's not exactly productive.

The part about "the press [being] an accessory," though, made me roll my eyes. Although not overtly stated, the implication is that this is a recent, or moderately recent, meaning change, and there are people today facilitating (consciously or not) a plot to redefine the word. Unconvinced, I did some etymology research. The Oxford English Dictionary acknowledges the date of the existence of the "homosexual" definition (at that time slang, as most new words are, although it's an accepted definition now, making his point largely moot) as 1951. Other dictionaries and cited sources show the slang form in definite use in the 1920s and 1930s, and a few debatable sources suggest it was used as early as 1889. Thus "the press" had little to do with redefining the word, unless he's speaking of the press of a half century ago (and the same is true of "homosexuals and lesbians" doing the appropriating; most of them weren't yet born when the slang meaning was first introduced). I guess I'm not sure what Mr. Andersen is suggesting; that we artificially abandon a dictionary definition? Isn't that what he's complaining about now?

Posted at 11:01:00 PM. | | Permalink to this post.

Comedic Cognizance

Tidbits of humor:

1) Seen on the closed captioning while picking up pizza at Zio's: George Hamilton explaining his difficulties with whatever show it is where celebrities enter a dance competition. "I've been having some knee problems, and because of that the muscles have trophy feed." I laughed out loud in the restaurant. The deaf must think we're all absolutely insane.

2) The vending machines are now just around the corner from my office. Yesterday someone bought a bag of chips that became wedged in the little spiral thingy. At random intervals all night we would hear pounding and thumping as someone wandered into the kitchen, spotted the tantalizing prize and attempted to dislodge it by shaking the machine. Seen only once, it seems like a worthwhile attempt. Seen (or rather heard) repeatedly over a several-hour period, it invokes commentary on the human desire to get something for nothing (it's a 2 oz. bag of chips, people; is it really worth spending 10 minutes trying to retrieve when you didn't go there to buy it in the first place? Would you go through that much effort to retrieve two quarters from a drain?). It reminded me of those hidden camera shows where they film people on the street doing things they'd never do if they knew they were being filmed.

Posted at 9:31:00 PM. | | Permalink to this post.

Friends to the End (Times)

Pat Robertson officially apologized today for suggesting that Ariel Sharon suffered a stroke due to God's wrath at his actions. At this point, I don't know why his antics even make the news anymore (except for the tabloid selling factor).

Something in Robertson's letter caught my eye, though. "My concern for the future safety of your nation led me to make remarks which I can now view in retrospect as inappropriate and insensitive in light of a national grief experienced because of your father's illness" (emphasis added). My first response was that he's sorry for his comments because now he doesn't get to play in the sandbox at Israel's new Christian Heritage Center (which has been one of the recipients of his fundraising for awhile); Israel has pretty much cut him off. My second response was specifically to the phrase "the future safety of your nation." Granted, my understanding of dispensational Christianity is thin, but it's my understanding that (along with more noble beliefs like concern and outreach) the primary reason evangelical churches (like Robertson's) support Israel is because a unified Israel is a prerequisite to the Second Coming (based on a variety of Biblical prophecies). So it's in their best interests to give the billions of dollars in aid they give because it helps "lock all the pieces" in place.

This relationship seems very macabre to me, in varying degrees depending on the level of awareness on each side. From the evangelical Christian perspective, they're giving support and money to a people who, according to the Biblical prophecy, must either convert to Christianity before or during the tribulation or be consigned to Hell with all the other nonbelievers. So the whole "we support your beliefs and want you to prosper" thing has a footnote in small print saying "Until [date], at which time you have to convert to our religion or be punished for eternity because you're nonbelievers." Is the rank and file of evangelical Christianity aware that their support of Israel is for the state itself and not the Jewish people (whose beliefs are "wrong"), and are the Israeli people aware that the people giving them money only want to see them hold out long enough to fulfill a prophecy, and "to hell with them" (literally) after that's accomplished? (In fairness, some groups suggest that all Jews will be saved, but it's by being "miraculously" converted to Christianity ('cause free will is overrated), and thus technically will no longer be Jews.) I think it's the "we're your friends and we want to help you" thing that gets me. I'd find it less ghoulish if it was a pure business relationship ("You're wrong and will face consequences for it later, but we need your help for our own ends so here's a billion dollars." "We think you're wrong, too, and doubt we'll ever change, but we could use a billion dollars so we'll accept the money." End of transaction.)

Posted at 8:24:00 PM. | | Permalink to this post.

Happy Birthday in Snow Camo

My younger (but much larger) brother reaches his 23rd birthday today. I think I got him a present, although since Haley simply took my money for it at Christmas and I haven't heard a word about it since then, maybe it went into her "I'm going to Cancun after I graduate" fund.

Labels: birthdays

Posted at 2:35:00 PM. | | Permalink to this post.

Tuesday, January 10

iUpdates

Apple revealed its new line of Intel-based dual core computers today, and the new iMacs are already available for order on the Apple Web site. According to Apple (appropriately taken with a grain of salt until independent benchmark testing), the new iMacs are "two to three times faster" than the G5s that are still onsale in most stores (for the same price). That's a pretty good jump.

A couple of things that I've pondered: First, I'd be rather pissed if I'd just bought a G5 for Christmas, only to find that an identical computer that's (possibly) twice as fast is out for the same price three weeks later. Granted, that's not Apple's fault, but there it is. Second, I'm also confused over the decision to continue offering the G5 (I'm guessing until the warehouses are empty) at the same price (I would think Apple would want to cut at least a few hundred dollars off of them, because who wants to get less computer for their money?). Third, almost half of the articles I've read on the subject have made a point of mentioning that Intel-based iMacs can now run Windows (which isn't compatible with the G5s); maybe there's a reason I'm missing, but I can't see why this is a big deal. Given that most hardcore Mac fans would find the concept of running Windows on an iMac to be heresy, and most Windows users have no incentive to shell out the extra money for a new iMac and then go through the process of installing Windows (not to mention installing Windows opens you back up to viruses, one of the selling points of the iMac), I would think the subset of the population interested in this would be very small. Chances are I haven't yet read the article that points out why this is an important point, so I'm keeping an open mind.

Update: At least part (if not most) of the buzz over the "Windows in iMacs" thing, according to a few blogs I've read, is about the possibility of a dual-boot Mac/Windows machine (you buy an iMac, then install Windows alongside OS X, and switch between them as you want). It won't work for a PC; Apple has announced that OS X won't run on non-Apple hardware, even if it's made by Intel. So at first glance it would seem Apple would have a hit on their hands by making a dual-boot system and luring Windows users who like the Mac's functions but not its limitations. I'm not sure that's really feasible. Apple might lure some Windows users, but software developers would lose the incentive to make Mac versions of their software (since their Windows versions could run on the iMac and developing separate Mac versions is much less profitable), which eventually leads to Apple having only its proprietary core programs and the ability to run the not-designed-for-the-Mac Windows third-party applications, which is a stark contrast to Apple's current "everything is integrated, everything is well-designed" philosophy, and that's going to piss off the loyal Mac users. I doubt Apple is going to do that, and without shipping a dual-boot system, only people who actually understand how to set up a dual-boot system will be able to make it work (not the majority of the user base). So I'm still confused.

Posted at 9:47:00 PM. | | Permalink to this post.

Monday, January 9

Decorating the Castle

Thanks to the new Design Toscano catalog, my artistic appreciation has been piqued (unfortunately for them, I've found I can buy the same posters online for a fraction of their asking price; granted, they aren't artist-grade canvas and I don't get a fancy frame, but I don't know that I need canvas and I've yet to encounter a frame I felt warranted $140).

If I feel energetic enough to buy a new poster, which of these possesses the greatest amount of "cool"? (Note: Although museum-replica paintings, these do contain mild nudity, so if you're surfing from work, be warned.)

Lluis Ribas' "Secret Cove"
John Collier's "Lady Godiva"
Pino Daeni's "Evening Repose" (which seems substantially "redder" than Toscano's version)

Posted at 8:22:00 PM. | | Permalink to this post.

Karma

Serves him right.

Posted at 6:52:00 PM. | | Permalink to this post.

Overestimation

Hmm, so my previous guess of 3 weeks of Arcanum bliss turned out to be 2 nights. I guess that's what you get when you've already played through it 4 times. It was still entertaining, though. Because I know you all want to know, I did indeed destroy the Bangellian Scourge, secure peace between the Wheel Clan and the city of Qintarra and prevent the destruction of all of Arcanum. And I saved some bunny rabbits, too.

Posted at 5:15:00 AM. | | Permalink to this post.

Sunday, January 8

Dyslexic Alcoholics

Related by the checker at Hy-Vee at 3 a.m. tonight:

Sorry for making you wait. I just got off the phone with my mom. It's been exciting around here. We just had a kid try to walk out the front door with a case of beer. My boss had him by the collar and said "How old are you?" The kid said "21." My boss said "Nice try, I have a 21-year-old. Try again." The kid said "Okay, 12." Hoo was my boss hot. He decided to let the kid go with a warning, though.

I'm not entirely certain why a 12-year-old would be out at 3 a.m., let alone trying to steal beer from a grocery store, but I imagine there's some sort of "lack of parenting" involved. I would think that would have warranted a call to the police, if only to ascertain where the boy's legal guardians were (and to make sure there weren't semi-sober cohorts waiting in a car).

I'm also not sure "calling your mom to relate a story" and "telling customers about robbery attempts" are part of a checker's job description, but it worked out in my favor.

Posted at 3:52:00 AM. | | Permalink to this post.

Saturday, January 7

Customer Service

I met the nicest guy ever on eBay this month. I won an auction for a set of used video games last month and promptly forgot about them. Last week I received an e-mail from him advising me that he'd actually shipped them once, but the company he hired to ship them used the wrong postage and they'd been returned to him, so he was shipping them again that day. Today I received the package, along with a handwritten note that apologized for the delay. And a check refunding the entire shipping amount. He even noted that he would understand if I felt compelled to give him negative feedback, but he'd give me positive feedback regardless.

I've already e-mailed him back to thank him for his politeness and to inform him that I shredded the check. I'm tempted to send him *more* money just to thank him for being so customer-friendly.

In the meantime, I have a new (well, used) copy of Arcanum (since Lane borrowed my old one). I'm sure that won't occupy me for more than, oh, 3 weeks . . .

Posted at 5:12:00 AM. | | Permalink to this post.

Friday, January 6

DC

Not the city, not the comic book company, not the initials of this guy I knew in college.

It's the Roman numeral for 600, which corresponds with my 600th post (I know, I was disappointed when I punched "600" into the conversion thingy and it came back like that, too; I was hoping for something impressive like MCMLXXVI).

I guess I could do it in binary, instead. That looks more impressive: 001101100011000000110000

In any case, 600 isn't particularly noteworthy, but I forgot about 500, so pretend it's cool.

Posted at 1:45:00 AM. | | Permalink to this post.

My Two Cents

Literally.

The postal rate (in the U.S., anyway) is going up on Sunday. First-class postage goes from 37 cents to 39 cents. If you have old stamps, you'll need to get some 2-cent stamps (I just ordered mine from the USPS's Web site). Just a friendly public service announcement.

Posted at 1:35:00 AM. | | Permalink to this post.

Thursday, January 5

Divine Wrath

Pat Robertson, a fount of compassion and wisdom, has expressed his belief that Ariel Sharon's recent stroke is God's punishment for dividing Israel. 'Cause, you know, 77-year-old obese males never have strokes for purely biological reasons. We're lucky Pat was here to diagnose it for us.

Posted at 10:02:00 PM. | | Permalink to this post.

Mail-Order Bride

I got this in my e-mail today. I'm sure it's legit:

Hello,
My name is Irina, me of 29 years. I liked your structure on a site and I at once have decided to write to you the letter. I very much liked yours the image and in the following letter I shall send you the image, I hope, that I liking to you also am strong, as you to me!!! With impatience I shall wait for your letter!!!! Please write the letters on mine

I with impatience shall wait from you for the letter.

Sincerely
Irina Klyucheva.

Or maybe not . . .

Posted at 8:29:00 PM. | | Permalink to this post.

Wednesday, January 4

Networking

Seen on a billboard on my drive to work today: an advertisement for an Omaha man looking for a wife. I guess that's one way to do it. I would think renting a billboard and paying Web hosting fees would be slightly less cost-effective than a personals site, but hey, if it works. I kind of raised an eyebrow at his age preferences ("I prefer 25-40 but if someone played it right, I would go as high as 45"; this from a 45-year-old guy) and his preference for a woman who "knows how to keep their mouth shut," but if you're looking for a long-haul trucker who is planning on quitting smoking (and if you like Rottweilers and Jesus), then you can give him a ring.

Posted at 7:55:00 PM. | | Permalink to this post.

Tuesday, January 3

The Strange Box With People in It

I wasted an entire day watching television and movies (something I almost never do) yesterday. I suppose I can afford myself one lazy day now and then. Things that I filed away amongst the IQ-lowering masses of electronic splendor:

a) One of the stars on the O.C. (which I've never seen) spends $12,000 a year on her *hair.* Dear Cthulhu.

b) There is a rapper who takes his own chef with him wherever he goes (not uncommon) and has the chef *take over* the kitchen of whatever posh restaurant the rapper attends and hand-prepare the meal (uncommon). Dude, you're already spending $300 on dinner; you don't think the resident chef can handle it?

c) Kate Beckinsale still looks really good in black latex with glowing eyes. Underworld: Evolution comes out in a little over two weeks. Yay!

d) New Stargate episodes this Friday! Double yay!

e) New Scrubs episodes tonight! Triple yay!

Posted at 5:53:00 PM. | | Permalink to this post.

Happy Anniversary. :)

A very happy 30th anniversary to my parents. :) I'd make them waffles, but waffles don't really travel well through the mail . . .

Posted at 8:11:00 AM. | | Permalink to this post.

Sunday, January 1

Synonyms for "Tired"

I'm in that sleep-deprived mood that would, in those more prone to imbibing, be called inebriated, a state occassionaly witnessed by a select few of my friends, friends who tend to gaze upon my odd behavior with looks I imagine were reserved centuries ago for those suspected of demonic possession. Such a state is characterized by a subtle, yet clearly perceptible, shift in my personality, beginning with a loosening of my introversion, progressing to a feeling of empathy for those around me, jumping to a compulsion to babble in verbose vocabulary and ending with a tendency to find totally innocuous situations to be riotously funny, all symptoms common to inebriation (save perhaps the extended word lengths . . .) but in my case caused, directly, by a total of 23 hours of work and 5 hours of sleep over the course of the last few days. At this point, I am barely coherent. To clarify, I am failing to cohere. And now I'm laughing at the previous sentence, in a way whole undignified for a grown man.

The Firm has leapt head first into the process of transferring to a new locale (albeit a mere two blocks away, although given that the time-consuming portions of said move involve loading and unloading trucks and not transit, two blocks might as well be two miles). Our previous home, the esteemed Omaha Building, has been closed, and volunteer shifts (including yours truly) have been operating around the clock to oversee the tenuous task of transporting 11 floors of desks, furniture, equipment and files to a new location. For me, this means a very long shift encompassing the wee hours (until 6:30 a.m.) dedicated to directing the hired movers, verifying the delivered items really do belong on my assigned floor, arranging furniture in the preferred patterns specified by the attorneys in the arcane hand-drawn maps taped to the walls and assembling bookcases and other disassembled components ("No disassemble!"; random and obscure movie quote, which I'm finding quite amusing at the moment). Tedious, but it does provide some financial stability, which is a desired trait in one facing unpleasant heating bills.

And now I should be in bed, celebrating the glorious start of another arbitrary chronological designation with a stretch of deep, dreamless sleep, but unfortunately my sheets are still in the dryer. Poor planning all around, really. A full night of sleep will do much to dispel my mood, which most would consider a good thing, although I can see where it serves as a unique (in the same way that reality television is unique) form of entertainment.

Best wishes for a New Year. :)

Posted at 7:04:00 AM. | | Permalink to this post.

Obligatory (Yet Sincere) Well-Wishes

Happy New Year to everyone. :) I hope everyone had a fun (and safe) one.

P.S. - No, I didn't actually write this at midnight. Yay for Blogger's postdating options . . .

Posted at 12:01:00 AM. | | Permalink to this post.

Sunday, January 29

Rated "R" for "Really Bad Parents"

Friday, January 27

Don't Build a Web Site, Either

Mood Swings

Putting the "Right" in "Copyright"

Thursday, January 26

Deals on Wheels

Happy Birthday. :)

Wednesday, January 25

Court of Opinion

Science Geek Update

Did You Make a Save Point?

Showing Some Skin

Tuesday, January 24

Myst-ically Delicious, Pt. II

Monday, January 23

Tea Time

Lend Me Half an Ear

Saturday, January 21

Is That a Giant Ape in Your Pocket, or . . .

Wait, What?

Friday, January 20

The Harem

Thursday, January 19

Web Sites and White Hoods

Wednesday, January 18

Donations Welcome

Tuesday, January 17

The Ashcroft Legacy

[Insert Random Cursing Sounds]

Monday, January 16

Common Understanding

So, I Guess I'm a 14-Year-Old Girl . . .

Sunday, January 15

Fleeting Memory

Saturday, January 14

Faded Photographs

Friday, January 13

Reasons To Have Proofreaders

The Vagaries of Prophecy

Multitasking

Thursday, January 12

Linguistic Evolution

Comedic Cognizance

Friends to the End (Times)

Happy Birthday in Snow Camo

Tuesday, January 10

iUpdates

Monday, January 9

Decorating the Castle

Karma

Overestimation

Sunday, January 8

Dyslexic Alcoholics

Saturday, January 7

Customer Service

Friday, January 6

DC

My Two Cents

Thursday, January 5

Divine Wrath

Mail-Order Bride

Wednesday, January 4

Networking

Tuesday, January 3

The Strange Box With People in It

Happy Anniversary. :)

Sunday, January 1

Synonyms for "Tired"

Obligatory (Yet Sincere) Well-Wishes