|log (2002/06/07 to 2002/06/13)|
Wednesday, June 12, 2002
A reader of Plurp writes (in Plurp):
Give Dave a rest so he can post, eh?
I first read that as "Give Dave a reset", which has a nice ring to it. (I dreamed last night that I had a socket in the back of my neck, and another in my forehead. The one in the back of my neck was for a strange spiral cable that put me directly in touch with the Net; very transcendant. The one in my forehead was some obsolete older technology that I rather regretted having up there. A Jazz drive or something.)
This unannounced mini-hiatus we've been having isn't entirely Steve's fault (although I have noticed that things have begun falling out of his overstuffed calendar and landing in mine). The weekend was all busy with family things (I'll probably start regaling you with Heartwarming Stories of a Happy Suburban Family pretty soon, as summer's coming and all), and then there was this sudden wedding anniversary, and then this afternoon I was on the way home all primed for a nice big log entry when...
Well, I'll let my (slightly redacted) detailed notes tell the story (feel free to skip ahead once you've gotten the idea):
Wednesday, June 12, 2002
No injuries to anyone at all, and the car looks (I say "looks") only slightly more damaged than (sigh) last time. But it means hassling around with rental cars and body shops and insurance companies and renting a car and/or time-sharing M's, and all sortsa "good for the soul" stuff. Character building. Like that.
The other day Steve referred to us as "those more learned than we", on the subject of the famous "S. 1618" that spammers are always quoting to prove that they aren't really spammers, or at least shouldn't be clapped in irons. As some of Steve's other readers were quick to point out, not only did the bill called "S. 1618" not actually pass, it wouldn't have blessed the vast majority of this spam even if it had (link, link). Which just goes to show (film at eleven): spammers are slime.
Megnut points out that MSNBC has started some blogs on its website. More of the world conquered.
Last names; lots and lots of them. In decreasing order of how likely you are to find yourself sitting next to someone with the same one.
"If calling people enemy combatants is another way of holding American citizens indefinitely, it's extremely troubling. If they can charge him with a crime, they should try him."
(Usual "fubar/fubar" still seems to work on nytimes.com.)
Why isn't it causing more of a furor that the Executive Branch has started locking up citizens (citizens) on no more than the President's saying they're bad guys? Good summary of the problem from the MeFi thread:
If only we had a means of testing evidence and weighing facts before stripping people of their rights... Wait, we do! They're called courts! Whoah, wait until the Attorney General hears about those!
Would Bush really be pilloried if he were to suspend habeas corpus? Would enough people even know what it meant that he'd get in serious trouble? Or could he get away with it by invoking September 11th often enough?
On an entirely different subject, here are some NSA Security Recommendations for things like Windows systems and Cisco routers. One wonders why they aren't on NSA.gov. Perhaps just the agency tradition of inscrutability.
So there! Maybe I'm now back in the habit...