|log (2004/07/30 to 2004/08/05)|
Wednesday, August 4, 2004
Section 2. That all constitutional government is intended to promote the general welfare of the people; that all persons have a natural right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and the enjoyment of the gains of their own industry; that all persons are created equal and are entitled to equal rights and opportunity under the law; that to give security to these things is the principal office of government, and that when government does not confer this security, it fails in its chief design.
Section 33. That to be valid and recognized in this state, a marriage shall exist only between a man and a woman.
I see a certain contradiction there, personally. Fortunately it seems unlikely that the citizens of Missouri will get rid of that "equal rights" stuff in section 2, and with any luck at all they'll eventually realize that the "shall exist only" stuff in section 33 isn't compatible with it.
Too bad they're not that mature yet.
And speaking of immature, on the national level we have the
Constitution Restoration Act of 2004
And I think that's about my quota of worrying about people with Imaginary Friends In The Sky tonight. Or at least in this paragraph.
On our recent excuses for not posting so much, a reader writes:
I remeber when you didn't think FFX was any good.
Well, yeah. But as reflected there we got to like it better pretty quick, once we got used to the very linear nature of it. The early parts of the game are sort of scripted and claustrophobic, but as you get more party members and more items and skills and stuff there's more variety. And now that I'm in the late stages of the game I've escaped most of the linearity, and I can go anywhere in the world that I want to, and work on random side-quests, and play around, and it's much more like the kind of open ended games that I tend to favor.
From Bill, a story about nerdy tattoos (including, appropriately enough, some with video-game characters in them).
Speaking of imaginary friends in the sky (again already), bookslut links to a rather interesting CJR piece about how the press reports religious issues. Worth reading itself (not that I entirely agree with it), but here I just want to note my annoyance with a particular statement:
Journalism is grounded in this world and embodies a belief that everything can be known. On the other hand is religion, which is fundamentally about mystery and the unknown. Faith is grounded in this notion, that we surrender ourselves to greater powers beyond our reach.
That annoys me. Faith is grounded in the notion that we surrender ourselves to greater powers beyond our reach? That's true if by "Faith" you mean, say, traditional Christianity and probably Islam. I don't remember a whole lot of "surrendering" in Judaism, though, or Zen Buddhism. Or Ariadnitism. Or Taoism or Shintoism or Unitarianism or...
When people mean "Christianity", why can't they say "Christianity", rather than saying "religion" or "faith", as though theirs was the only one?
Flipping annoying, it is.
I did my first major group mission in City of Heroes. I'm so proud.
Without, ehem, that apostrophe. It's a title, obviously; there's a place on an html page where you're supposed to put a title, and that's a title. Very simple!
I don't remember having talked much about "reciprocity" or "contamination" myself (musta been that other guy).
Yeah, isn't that cute?
We decided that the ability to redefine words doesn't count as omnipotence (unfortunately for me).
And it's not an anagram (well, actually it is; thanks!); I recall the next words being "dill pickle, dog my cats and rowr-bazzle!", but Google doesn't entirely agree.
So let's see. There was a piece of spam (of which I got several copies) that whenever I opened it my mail client would crash, and I opened it once and the client crashed, and I brought it up again and eventually opened the spam again and the client crashed, and I thought "ah, it must have been that spam; I won't open any more of those", and then later in the day I opened another one by accident, and the client crashed.
On the other hand I managed to create a .htaccess file with the right bits in it, and now the RSS and ATOM feeds are being served with the correct MIME types, and Mark Pilgrim will stop scolding me by proxy.
(Note that Mark's latest posting is recommended for being non-geeky, interesting, and involving an imaginary abandoned bookstore.)
So the Democrats apparently nominated some Senator from Missouri or somewhere as their presidential candidate. Pretty boring! I was hoping for a stripper, or Howard Stern, or Ralph Nader, or Barney or something. Maybe Tinky-Winky.
Apparently Fafblog attended the convention! Lots of coverage that others have missed (I'm surprised no one else mentioned the "mighty robots" line in the nominee's speech).
Subject: dont ask me that cambrian avogadro
More political geekage: The Internet changes rules:
The Internet has helped minimize the advantage Republicans have held in fundraising since the FEC was established in 1975 to track contributions. Kerry has raised $186 million, more than a third of it on the Internet, for the campaign leading up to his nomination tonight.
Also geeky: Totally Gridbag. "So, I figured I'd make an animated weblog... thing." Flash and Java class library humor.
And that's about it for tonight. I feel very rushing-about-y, although I did get in a few minutes of FFX (had to get Wakka's and Bahamuth's overdrive meters full again). Now I should go to sleep. I want to leave you with a final image, something to remember this moment by.
How about half a watermelon? Is that too obvious?
"Okay, here's another one: 'When liquid splashes me, none seeps through. When I am moved a lot, liquid I spew. When I am hit, color I change. And color, I come in quite a range. What I cover is very complex, and I am very easy to flex.'"
In memoriam, Sidney Morgenbesser. A life worth noting in general, but noted here specifically because at least once in my life I'm misattributed his most famous line ("Yeah, yeah" in riposte to "Two negatives make a positive, but two posititves never make a negative") to Saul Kripke or somebody.
So the main logworthy thing I've done recently is to pan the (audio) book "Gasping for Airtime". I'll stick a copy in here also, to give the impression that I have a significant log entry today:
(I listened to this as an abridged audiobook. I suspect the abridgement of being somewhat inept, but I also suspect that I wouldn't have liked the book much more if I'd read the complete thing.)
So yeah, I was sort of mean. But on the other hand I didn't even mention the annoying namedropping.
More in the "very mysterious spam" department:
Subject: Important News and Announcements
Link redacted by me, everything else exactly as received. Very odd. (I didn't check for IE-exploit payloads; maybe that was it.)
A reader writes:
I and a few friends have started a wiki about the Codex Seraphinianus at http://www.blinkenlichten.info/codex/. Our purpose is that it be an useful resource for the reader (both the well-acquainted and the unfamiliar with this wonderful mysterious book) with annotations of its illustration and content; we also intend to analyze the writing in the Codex through statistical means in order to find out if it's just rubbish or if there is a message in there, and if so translate it. Well, since you have talked about the Codex on the web a while ago, we thought you might be interested in checking it out (and maybe help us divulge it, or contribute to it? :) )
which sounds like a darn good idea, so here I am divulging it. (Why do I have the feeling that years ago I could / would have dived right in and started contributing to it, but that right now I'm unlikely to? Advancing age, or an addiction to Final Fantasy X? Or something still more sinister?)
More spam gleanings:
I'm cold, you said, staring at the continuation we had to feel through yesterday. There were many examples of animals all around. I don't know how he found that place. It was time...
Yeah, so it's one of those "random strings of found text" sort of days. These things happen.
But when you choose a language, you're also choosing a community. The programmers you'll be able to hire to work on a Java project won't be as smart as the ones you could get to work on a project written in Python.
And for that matter
Whether the hog ever actually existed or is some sort of Faulknerian myth, it has definitely been the topic of conversation in small towns across southern Georgia.
Leave the cat alone, for what has the cat done, that you should so afflict it with tape? And hum not that humming in your nose as I read, nor stand between the light and the book. Indeed, you will drive me to madness. Nor forget what I said about the tape.
Political analysts say this advertising through the Supreme Court's closed circuit TV system allows the campaign to target its spending to specific constituencies that will likely be a factor in the upcoming election, rather than playing to mere voters that will not be a factor in the election.
And from Rebecca again:
Gulab is completely illiterate. Ask her what she does for a living, and she'll tell you she makes electronic circuits and chargers for solar lighting panels. And before you start wondering whether you heard wrong, she'll tell you that she also installs and maintains handpumps, water tanks and pipelines. Not only is she running her household comfortably with her salary from this work, she is also one of the most respected members of her community.
(Not funny, just extremely gratifying. It'd be nice if she learned to read along the way, it occurs to me.)
On the other hand, funny (that's today's Completely Blind Link).
Veering back into politics again, here is an interesting story about a Republican dilemma: listen to the faction that wants access to people's money, or to the faction that wants to control their behavior?
The Bush administration has until the end of today to decide whether to take a stand in a Supreme Court case pitting former Whitewater prosecutor Kenneth Starr and President Bush's brother-in-law against a coalition of evangelical Christians.
In the same sphere, a reader writes with an amazing thought:
Is it just me, or wouldn't a court need the right to "hear or decide any question pertaining to the interpretation of" a law in order to enforce it? If a court can't interpret an act, it can't make _any_ determination as to what it means at all.
Isn't that a great image?
"Hey Federal Court, the DOMA says that no State has to recongize any other State's same-sex marriages, but now this court over here has found that State A has to respect State B's same-sex marriages in thus-and-so circumstances. Apply the DOMA and make them stop!"
And from a similar source, a pointer to Electoral Vote dot Com, which has interesting statistics and stuff from the electoral vote point of view, which is strictly-speaking more important than the popular vote view that the media are always reporting polls about (if perhaps not quite as important as the Supreme Court vote view, as mentioned above).
And lastly, as I run entirely out of breath, I point to recent activity on the inimitable Hitherby Dragons.
"Restrain yourself, Mr. Brom," Mr. Collins says, sharply. "Our business plan must not include concrete milestones that precede the fiery death of humanity."