(while discussing our cousin's upcoming wedding and the fact that it will include religious ceremony items such as communion. We are both non-religious, but he usually goes up to eat Jebus anyway and I always stay in my seat.)
Him: At least if they have communion it will let us get up and move around.
Me: Not for me.
Him: Yeah, but I'm always down for a snack.
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Monday, November 24, 2008
Thursday, November 20, 2008
The mind, it boggles
Just in case you didn't think antitrust could get any more ridiculous, read this.
Let me get this straight. Microsoft providing free software as an optional download might be a violation of antitrust? How does this make any sense at all? Translation of the article: "Microsoft providing a product that is more attractive to consumers than its competitors' products might drive those competitors out of business." WELL NO SHIT. Wahhh, boo hoo, someone makes better products than me so I want the goverment to come in and save me from them, wahhhh. The next thing you know, C students will be asking the government to prevent A students from getting such good grades, since the A students will beat them out for good jobs as a result.
I particularly like this gem from the article: "It's unclear whether giving away software that others charge for will ultimately be enough to justify regulatory action."
Are you fucking kidding me? This is unclear? Well in that case, we should also take to court the following people:
1. Kids who babysit their young cousins for free at family functions (nannies and daycare centers chargef or this)
2. People who volunteer to tutor their friends (tutoring services charge for this)
3. People who knit things and give them away as gifts (clothing stores charge for such items)
4. Almost everyone who is sexually active (prostitutes charge for sex)
5. People who give rides to their friends (taxi and limo services charge for this)
6. Any store that includes a free gift with purchase (other stores charge for such items)
*bangs head repeatedly on desk*
Let me get this straight. Microsoft providing free software as an optional download might be a violation of antitrust? How does this make any sense at all? Translation of the article: "Microsoft providing a product that is more attractive to consumers than its competitors' products might drive those competitors out of business." WELL NO SHIT. Wahhh, boo hoo, someone makes better products than me so I want the goverment to come in and save me from them, wahhhh. The next thing you know, C students will be asking the government to prevent A students from getting such good grades, since the A students will beat them out for good jobs as a result.
I particularly like this gem from the article: "It's unclear whether giving away software that others charge for will ultimately be enough to justify regulatory action."
Are you fucking kidding me? This is unclear? Well in that case, we should also take to court the following people:
1. Kids who babysit their young cousins for free at family functions (nannies and daycare centers chargef or this)
2. People who volunteer to tutor their friends (tutoring services charge for this)
3. People who knit things and give them away as gifts (clothing stores charge for such items)
4. Almost everyone who is sexually active (prostitutes charge for sex)
5. People who give rides to their friends (taxi and limo services charge for this)
6. Any store that includes a free gift with purchase (other stores charge for such items)
*bangs head repeatedly on desk*
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Monday, November 17, 2008
It happened again
Do I send off some kind of "please, come pee next to me" vibes? Is there some new, unwritten rule among women that demands we take only stalls adjacent to currently peeing women? Today, I was once again in the office bathroom alone. I had a stall in the middle, leaving 5 nonadjacent stalls open. Naturally, the next person who walks in takes the stall directly to my right. AND THEN. Another person came in and took the stall directly to my left. Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot.
Seriously, people.
Seriously, people.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Out of context
(7:19:58 PM) ilyeria: you'd so want to have sex right now if you saw it
(7:20:51 PM) tallbladeofgrass: how big is it?
(7:20:51 PM) tallbladeofgrass: how big is it?
Monday, November 10, 2008
Why do people do this?
The women's restroom at my office has 8 stalls. Can someone please explain to me why, when I am the only person occupying a stall, the next person who comes in must take the stall right next to mine. There are SIX other stalls you could use. Why is it necessary to pee within 3 feet of me? Do you need an audience?
This has happened to me at least 3 times in the last month.
This has happened to me at least 3 times in the last month.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
A-fraking-men
John Quincy Adams on U.S. Foreign Policy (1821)
October 2001
And now, friends and countrymen, if the wise and learned philosophers of the elder world, the first observers of nutation and aberration, the discoverers of maddening ether and invisible planets, the inventors of Congreve rockets and Shrapnel shells, should find their hearts disposed to enquire what has America done for the benefit of mankind?
Let our answer be this: America, with the same voice which spoke herself into existence as a nation, proclaimed to mankind the inextinguishable rights of human nature, and the only lawful foundations of government. America, in the assembly of nations, since her admission among them, has invariably, though often fruitlessly, held forth to them the hand of honest friendship, of equal freedom, of generous reciprocity.
She has uniformly spoken among them, though often to heedless and often to disdainful ears, the language of equal liberty, of equal justice, and of equal rights.
She has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the independence of other nations while asserting and maintaining her own.
She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart.
She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama the European world, will be contests of inveterate power, and emerging right.
Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be.
But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.
She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.
She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.
She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example.
She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom.
The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force....
She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit....
[America's] glory is not dominion, but liberty. Her march is the march of the mind. She has a spear and a shield: but the motto upon her shield is, Freedom, Independence, Peace. This has been her Declaration: this has been, as far as her necessary intercourse with the rest of mankind would permit, her practice.
October 2001
And now, friends and countrymen, if the wise and learned philosophers of the elder world, the first observers of nutation and aberration, the discoverers of maddening ether and invisible planets, the inventors of Congreve rockets and Shrapnel shells, should find their hearts disposed to enquire what has America done for the benefit of mankind?
Let our answer be this: America, with the same voice which spoke herself into existence as a nation, proclaimed to mankind the inextinguishable rights of human nature, and the only lawful foundations of government. America, in the assembly of nations, since her admission among them, has invariably, though often fruitlessly, held forth to them the hand of honest friendship, of equal freedom, of generous reciprocity.
She has uniformly spoken among them, though often to heedless and often to disdainful ears, the language of equal liberty, of equal justice, and of equal rights.
She has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the independence of other nations while asserting and maintaining her own.
She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart.
She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama the European world, will be contests of inveterate power, and emerging right.
Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be.
But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.
She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.
She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.
She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example.
She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom.
The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force....
She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit....
[America's] glory is not dominion, but liberty. Her march is the march of the mind. She has a spear and a shield: but the motto upon her shield is, Freedom, Independence, Peace. This has been her Declaration: this has been, as far as her necessary intercourse with the rest of mankind would permit, her practice.
Friday, October 17, 2008
Stereotypes exist for a reason
Today I was stuck on the freeway behind an old man going 45 miles an hour with his turn signal on for the entire time. I'm just saying.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Amusing things in the news
An NHS trust has spent more than £12,000 on private treatment for hospital staff because its own waiting times are too long.
Is this somehow a surprise to anyone? I love this line from the article: "They need to appoint more physiotherapists and bring the waiting lists down."
"Appoint" more doctors. How very telling, and unintentionally so.
"Sovereign" couple uses the courts to file liens
I think this qualifies for a "you're doing it wrong." We all know how I feel about taxes, but you don't get to declare yourself sovereign from the government and use government courts to collect money.
Is this somehow a surprise to anyone? I love this line from the article: "They need to appoint more physiotherapists and bring the waiting lists down."
"Appoint" more doctors. How very telling, and unintentionally so.
"Sovereign" couple uses the courts to file liens
I think this qualifies for a "you're doing it wrong." We all know how I feel about taxes, but you don't get to declare yourself sovereign from the government and use government courts to collect money.
Sunday, October 12, 2008
It's not that hard
Wrong: Your an idiot.
Right: You're an idiot.
Wrong: You're shoes are on the wrong feet.
Right: Your shoes are on the wrong feet.
Wrong: Who's book is this?
Right: Whose book is this?
Wrong: Whose going to the party tonight?
Right: Who's going to the party tonight?
Wrong: Their still at school because they left there books they're.
Right: They're still at school because they left their books there.
Wrong: Its a nice day.
Right: It's a nice day.
Wrong: The cat is chasing it's tail.
Right: The cat is chasing its tail.
There should be some kind of law that allows me to punch people who make these errors repeatedly.
PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT FROM SARA'S BLOG: IF YOU ARE ABOUT TO USE A CONTRACTION IN A SENTENCE, DON'T BE AN IDIOT! MAKE SURE THE SENTENCE WILL STILL MAKE SENSE IF YOU USE TWO WORDS INSTEAD OF A CONTRACTION. (e.g. "you are" instead of "you're," "it is" instead of "it's") IT'S NOT THAT HARD.
Right: You're an idiot.
Wrong: You're shoes are on the wrong feet.
Right: Your shoes are on the wrong feet.
Wrong: Who's book is this?
Right: Whose book is this?
Wrong: Whose going to the party tonight?
Right: Who's going to the party tonight?
Wrong: Their still at school because they left there books they're.
Right: They're still at school because they left their books there.
Wrong: Its a nice day.
Right: It's a nice day.
Wrong: The cat is chasing it's tail.
Right: The cat is chasing its tail.
There should be some kind of law that allows me to punch people who make these errors repeatedly.
PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT FROM SARA'S BLOG: IF YOU ARE ABOUT TO USE A CONTRACTION IN A SENTENCE, DON'T BE AN IDIOT! MAKE SURE THE SENTENCE WILL STILL MAKE SENSE IF YOU USE TWO WORDS INSTEAD OF A CONTRACTION. (e.g. "you are" instead of "you're," "it is" instead of "it's") IT'S NOT THAT HARD.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Heroes Episode 3 or Rush Hour 4? You decide.
Cultures clash and tempers flares as the two cops enemies named Detective Inspector Lee Noah Bennet, a Hong Kong Detective disillusioned Company man, and Detective James Carter FBI Sylar, a big-mouthed work-alone Los Angeles cop powerthirsty murderer who are from different worlds discover one thing in common: they can't stand each other. With time running out, they must join forces to catch the criminals and save the eleven-year-old Chinese girl of the Chinese consul named Soo Yung world. Cultures clash until these unlikely partners realize they both want to nail the crooks. Between LeeNoah's high-flying kicks gun and cold glares and CarterSylar's rapid-fire wit immortality and silver tongue, the bad guys won't know what hit them!
Monday, September 29, 2008
Ric Romero apparently writes for foxnews.com
Facebook Profiles Benefit Narcissists, Study Finds
No kidding! That just blows me away! Some surprising facts from the article:
"The researchers found that the number of friends and wall posts (messages left by the owner of the profile or friends) that a person had on their profile correlated with how narcissistic they were.
Study leader Laura Buffardi, a Ph.D. student in psychology, said this is similar to how narcissists behave in the real world, forming numerous but shallow relationships with others."
"Narcissism hampers a person's ability to form healthy, long-term relationships, said study co-author W. Keith Campbell.
'Narcissists might initially be seen as charming, but they end up using people for their own advantage,' Campbell said. 'They hurt the people around them and they hurt themselves in the long run.'"
Thanks for clearing that up!
No kidding! That just blows me away! Some surprising facts from the article:
"The researchers found that the number of friends and wall posts (messages left by the owner of the profile or friends) that a person had on their profile correlated with how narcissistic they were.
Study leader Laura Buffardi, a Ph.D. student in psychology, said this is similar to how narcissists behave in the real world, forming numerous but shallow relationships with others."
"Narcissism hampers a person's ability to form healthy, long-term relationships, said study co-author W. Keith Campbell.
'Narcissists might initially be seen as charming, but they end up using people for their own advantage,' Campbell said. 'They hurt the people around them and they hurt themselves in the long run.'"
Thanks for clearing that up!
Thursday, September 25, 2008
This Love
「愛があれば平和だ」と
誰かが口にしていた
頷く人もいれば、疑う人もいる
苦しみがあるからこそ
あなたを抱きしめる時
その腕の優しさを
平和と感じるのでしょう
ある時から無口になり心を締め切り
この恋が引き裂かれそうになった
※重ねたこの手を
今度は離さない
信じる力が
愛を自由にする※
友情に救われたり、
未来を想像したり
幸せは見えるけれど
自分を見る事はない
約束と言う私達のコンパスだけでは
この恋は方角を見失うの
△奇跡を待つより
この手をつなぎたい
信じる力が
私を自由にする△
この恋を恐れずに
You don’t have to fear this love,this love
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Heroes Season 3: A Rambling Recap
The two themes of the premiere were: 1) Remember all that stuff that happened in the other seasons? Forget all of it because you know nothing about anything. 2) All characters are now going to act really weird.
What? We spent a whole season trying to keep Claire from dying? Surprise! She can't die. And Mohinder? We're just going to forget about him trying to help people and suddenly make him a power-hungry weirdo the instant he discovers the power serum, and after no deliberation whatsoever. And that whole thing with powers emanating from that one spot in the brain, which is why Claire and Peter died when they got stabbed there? Nope. It's adrenaline. And apparently everyone in the whole goddamn show is related to the Petrelli family. And now Nathan is seeing visions of Linderman, what a fresh idea! Oh, and he INSTANTLY becomes religious and starts spouting off common religious phrasings when he un-dies. How realistic.
The whole plotline with Hiro and the formula was completely unconvincing. He is told not to open the safe, which he immediately does, and then the formula is immediately stolen out of his hand, and he's not at all distraught about that happening or thinking "shit, maybe I shouldn't have done that." And why was the speedy girl frozen when he stopped time, only to suddenly stop being frozen because she is moving so fast? Also, wtf was with the movement trail she left behind? Is she kicking off colored molecules as she goes along? And why wasn't she still leaving a trail once she started moving in "stopped" time. And for that matter, why doesn't Hiro leave a trail since his relative speed to his almost-stopped surroundings is the same as hers?
What? We spent a whole season trying to keep Claire from dying? Surprise! She can't die. And Mohinder? We're just going to forget about him trying to help people and suddenly make him a power-hungry weirdo the instant he discovers the power serum, and after no deliberation whatsoever. And that whole thing with powers emanating from that one spot in the brain, which is why Claire and Peter died when they got stabbed there? Nope. It's adrenaline. And apparently everyone in the whole goddamn show is related to the Petrelli family. And now Nathan is seeing visions of Linderman, what a fresh idea! Oh, and he INSTANTLY becomes religious and starts spouting off common religious phrasings when he un-dies. How realistic.
The whole plotline with Hiro and the formula was completely unconvincing. He is told not to open the safe, which he immediately does, and then the formula is immediately stolen out of his hand, and he's not at all distraught about that happening or thinking "shit, maybe I shouldn't have done that." And why was the speedy girl frozen when he stopped time, only to suddenly stop being frozen because she is moving so fast? Also, wtf was with the movement trail she left behind? Is she kicking off colored molecules as she goes along? And why wasn't she still leaving a trail once she started moving in "stopped" time. And for that matter, why doesn't Hiro leave a trail since his relative speed to his almost-stopped surroundings is the same as hers?
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Job Opening: Man
Now that I am back "on the market" I decided to compile a little wish list of things I want in a man. The three people who actually read my blog might find this a little narcissistic, but I don't really care. Onward!
MUST-HAVES
1. Atheist. I don't date people who believe in invisible sky fairies. End of discussion.
2. Monogamous/faithful. I want a guy who only wants me, and who can get everything he needs from me. I don't want someone who thinks it's okay to get a little on the side and that it doesn't affect our relationship. He shouldn't need anyone else.
3. Successful. He should excel in whatever it is he does, and be financially responsible. He doesn't have to own six yachts and run a Fortune 500 company. I just don’t want someone who is horribly in debt because he can’t budget.
4. Must make me a priority. I want someone who has various interests other than me, but at the end of the day just wants to come home and spend time with me. Someone who makes time for me even when he is busy because I am important to his happiness. Someone who does not wind up with no time for me because he procrastinated on other important tasks and then had to use the time he would have spent with me to catch up.
5. No smoking. Even aside from all the obvious life-threatening health hazards (at least from regular smoking), it smells fucking disgusting. I will never, ever, kiss someone with smoker breath. Ever. Don’t even breathe near me. It’s nasty. Seriously. Have a mint or something. Actually, don’t even try to disguise it with a mint. I can smell through that shit. I can smell it on your hair, in your clothes, in your car. No smokers.
6. Should be turned on by both my body and my mind. I want a guy who finds me sexy, both physically and intellectually.
7. Good with kids. I don’t know if it’s really fair for me to require this since I, myself, am not good with kids. It’s not that I don’t like them. I love kids. I just…have no idea what to do with them. How do I talk to them? I don’t know. How do I hold them? I don’t know. And don’t ever give me an infant. What the hell do I do with it? I prefer to look at them and make cooing noises from afar. Although, maybe that’s actually a good justification. Because when I actually HAVE kids, at least one parent is going to need to know what the hell is going on. And it will not be me. But yeah, I’m really attracted to guys who are good with kids. It makes my uterus happy.
8. Asks me serious questions about my day, and not just to get them out of the way so he can talk about himself.
9. Punctuality. I can’t stand habitual tardiness.
10. Must be considerate of my time and how his actions affect it. If we make tentative plans, or you imply that you are going to be somewhere at a certain time, call me and tell me if something is changing. If we talk about doing activity x on day y, know that I will be keeping day y open because hanging out with you is more important to me than other stuff that might come up, and if you don’t tell me until the last second that we are not doing activity x after all, I’ve just wasted my time. Don’t leave me in the dark.
11. Not clingy. I mentioned having other interests briefly in number 4, but it’s important. I want a guy who has other friends and wants to do things with them without me sometimes (but not all the time). Someone who sometime turns down the opportunity to do something with me because he’s not completely obsessed. I should be number one on the list, but not the only thing on the list.
12. Not jealous. Recognize that yes, I do have male friends, and we like to hang out, sometimes without you. Don’t call me every 5 seconds and don’t get mad if I hang out with a guy.
13. No whiners/pouters. I don’t want to hear 24/7 about how much your life sucks and how this person is annoying you and you’re so tired and you have to do this project you hate and blah blah blah. I need to be able to express displeasure with something you do without you pouting about it.
14. Must be able to take criticism. If I tell you that I don’t like something you are doing, don’t get defensive and ask “how DARE I accuse you of doing something wrong?!” Accept the criticism gracefully, and recognize that something you did made me come to the conclusion I did. If you think I made a mistake, tell me that, and tell me why, but don’t dismiss it out of hand because it is a criticism.
15. Is romantic, but not sappy. Some women like sappiness, and that’s cool, but it’s not me. I like a guy who surprises me with sweet, romantic things every now and then but isn’t laying it on like butter all the time. Keep it fresh, and keep it creative.
16. Take-charge personality. He knows what he wants and goes for it. If something isn’t going right, he figures out why and fixes it.
THINGS I PROBABLY SHOULDN’T CARE THAT MUCH ABOUT BUT KIND OF DO
1. Physical fitness. You don’t have to be Michael Phelps (although if you are, please call me), but I like a man who likes to be fit and strong.
2. No excessive body hair. I know some women like this, and that’s fine, but I just really get grossed out by a lot of chest hair. And doubly so for back hair. I want a man, not a gorilla.
3. Knowledge of statistics/probability/math. You don’t need a PhD, just a working knowledge of these fields, enough to know when some journalist is being a retard about it, and enough to understand simple math jokes.
4. Good grammar. Don’t get me started.
5. Handyman skills. I am significantly more handy than a lot of guys, and there's nothing wrong with that, but I REALLY like a man who knows his way around a toolbox. The handier the better. What's that? You can build furniture, install electrical outlets, and repair plumbing? I'd like to invite you to my pants party.
NON-ESSENTIAL THINGS THAT I JUST FIND VERY ATTRACTIVE
1. Tall, lean, muscular guys.
2. Musical talent, especially piano, drums, and singing.
3. Artistic ability
4. Sharp dressing
5. Interest in anime and/or video games, particularly RPGs
6. Dancing ability
7. Cooking skills
ATTENTION INTERNET: If you think you fit this list, or you know someone who does, or you don't fit this list but think I should invite you to my pants party anyway, or you think I'm stupid and asking for way too much, or you think I should totally like chest hair and how could I not?, or you think I should become a lesbian because women don't have chest hair, please contact me!
MUST-HAVES
1. Atheist. I don't date people who believe in invisible sky fairies. End of discussion.
2. Monogamous/faithful. I want a guy who only wants me, and who can get everything he needs from me. I don't want someone who thinks it's okay to get a little on the side and that it doesn't affect our relationship. He shouldn't need anyone else.
3. Successful. He should excel in whatever it is he does, and be financially responsible. He doesn't have to own six yachts and run a Fortune 500 company. I just don’t want someone who is horribly in debt because he can’t budget.
4. Must make me a priority. I want someone who has various interests other than me, but at the end of the day just wants to come home and spend time with me. Someone who makes time for me even when he is busy because I am important to his happiness. Someone who does not wind up with no time for me because he procrastinated on other important tasks and then had to use the time he would have spent with me to catch up.
5. No smoking. Even aside from all the obvious life-threatening health hazards (at least from regular smoking), it smells fucking disgusting. I will never, ever, kiss someone with smoker breath. Ever. Don’t even breathe near me. It’s nasty. Seriously. Have a mint or something. Actually, don’t even try to disguise it with a mint. I can smell through that shit. I can smell it on your hair, in your clothes, in your car. No smokers.
6. Should be turned on by both my body and my mind. I want a guy who finds me sexy, both physically and intellectually.
7. Good with kids. I don’t know if it’s really fair for me to require this since I, myself, am not good with kids. It’s not that I don’t like them. I love kids. I just…have no idea what to do with them. How do I talk to them? I don’t know. How do I hold them? I don’t know. And don’t ever give me an infant. What the hell do I do with it? I prefer to look at them and make cooing noises from afar. Although, maybe that’s actually a good justification. Because when I actually HAVE kids, at least one parent is going to need to know what the hell is going on. And it will not be me. But yeah, I’m really attracted to guys who are good with kids. It makes my uterus happy.
8. Asks me serious questions about my day, and not just to get them out of the way so he can talk about himself.
9. Punctuality. I can’t stand habitual tardiness.
10. Must be considerate of my time and how his actions affect it. If we make tentative plans, or you imply that you are going to be somewhere at a certain time, call me and tell me if something is changing. If we talk about doing activity x on day y, know that I will be keeping day y open because hanging out with you is more important to me than other stuff that might come up, and if you don’t tell me until the last second that we are not doing activity x after all, I’ve just wasted my time. Don’t leave me in the dark.
11. Not clingy. I mentioned having other interests briefly in number 4, but it’s important. I want a guy who has other friends and wants to do things with them without me sometimes (but not all the time). Someone who sometime turns down the opportunity to do something with me because he’s not completely obsessed. I should be number one on the list, but not the only thing on the list.
12. Not jealous. Recognize that yes, I do have male friends, and we like to hang out, sometimes without you. Don’t call me every 5 seconds and don’t get mad if I hang out with a guy.
13. No whiners/pouters. I don’t want to hear 24/7 about how much your life sucks and how this person is annoying you and you’re so tired and you have to do this project you hate and blah blah blah. I need to be able to express displeasure with something you do without you pouting about it.
14. Must be able to take criticism. If I tell you that I don’t like something you are doing, don’t get defensive and ask “how DARE I accuse you of doing something wrong?!” Accept the criticism gracefully, and recognize that something you did made me come to the conclusion I did. If you think I made a mistake, tell me that, and tell me why, but don’t dismiss it out of hand because it is a criticism.
15. Is romantic, but not sappy. Some women like sappiness, and that’s cool, but it’s not me. I like a guy who surprises me with sweet, romantic things every now and then but isn’t laying it on like butter all the time. Keep it fresh, and keep it creative.
16. Take-charge personality. He knows what he wants and goes for it. If something isn’t going right, he figures out why and fixes it.
THINGS I PROBABLY SHOULDN’T CARE THAT MUCH ABOUT BUT KIND OF DO
1. Physical fitness. You don’t have to be Michael Phelps (although if you are, please call me), but I like a man who likes to be fit and strong.
2. No excessive body hair. I know some women like this, and that’s fine, but I just really get grossed out by a lot of chest hair. And doubly so for back hair. I want a man, not a gorilla.
3. Knowledge of statistics/probability/math. You don’t need a PhD, just a working knowledge of these fields, enough to know when some journalist is being a retard about it, and enough to understand simple math jokes.
4. Good grammar. Don’t get me started.
5. Handyman skills. I am significantly more handy than a lot of guys, and there's nothing wrong with that, but I REALLY like a man who knows his way around a toolbox. The handier the better. What's that? You can build furniture, install electrical outlets, and repair plumbing? I'd like to invite you to my pants party.
NON-ESSENTIAL THINGS THAT I JUST FIND VERY ATTRACTIVE
1. Tall, lean, muscular guys.
2. Musical talent, especially piano, drums, and singing.
3. Artistic ability
4. Sharp dressing
5. Interest in anime and/or video games, particularly RPGs
6. Dancing ability
7. Cooking skills
ATTENTION INTERNET: If you think you fit this list, or you know someone who does, or you don't fit this list but think I should invite you to my pants party anyway, or you think I'm stupid and asking for way too much, or you think I should totally like chest hair and how could I not?, or you think I should become a lesbian because women don't have chest hair, please contact me!
Thursday, August 21, 2008
The Woz
When I was 10 or so, Steve Wozniak used to come to my grammar school and talk at assemblies. I think this happened two or three times. He was friends with our principal or something; I'm not sure. Anyway, he drove an enormous yellow Hummer and wore ridiculous Hawaiian shirts and we all thought he was a huge geek.
These days, he apparently drives a Prius and rides around on a Segway. I guess some things never change. I wonder if he still wears Hawaiian shirts...
These days, he apparently drives a Prius and rides around on a Segway. I guess some things never change. I wonder if he still wears Hawaiian shirts...
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Well, he WAS a carpenter
bcwoods: Ever wonder how big Jesus' package is?
bcwoods: I'm going to say 8 inches
bcwoods: because seven isn't that extraordinary
bcwoods: and 9 would be painful
bcwoods: so 8 inches would be the perfect size
bcwoods: which the perfect son of God would have
bcwoods: I'm going to say 8 inches
bcwoods: because seven isn't that extraordinary
bcwoods: and 9 would be painful
bcwoods: so 8 inches would be the perfect size
bcwoods: which the perfect son of God would have
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
I support this plan
bc woods: I'd just give everyone my melon test
bc woods: and sterilize those that failed
bc woods: like dudes with male pattern baldness with pony tails?
bc woods: snip snip snp
bc woods: and sterilize those that failed
bc woods: like dudes with male pattern baldness with pony tails?
bc woods: snip snip snp
Monday, July 28, 2008
Friday, July 25, 2008
iPhone widowry
malikfalasteeni: arthur's coming tomorrow to assist us by talking incessantly about his iPhone and generally take up space.
ilyeria: yeah, he's a hard worker
malikfalasteeni: we should trade him for you
ilyeria: that's like offering a 3rd round draft pick for an all star
ilyeria: yeah, he's a hard worker
malikfalasteeni: we should trade him for you
ilyeria: that's like offering a 3rd round draft pick for an all star
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Why I like stories about other people's dysfunctional families
I recently discovered this blog, which then led me to this other blog. It took me approximately 2 days to read every post on each one. One thing they both have in common is that they relate sometimes-horrible stories about the author's dysfunctional/retarded childhood and family. For some reason, I love these types of stories. Of course, both of these blogs are extremely well-written and the stories are presented in a humorous and entertaining manner. However, there is something about this subject matter in particular that fascinates me. I was thinking about it today, wondering what horrible psychological disorder makes me enjoy reading about horrible things happening to children and people being horrible parents/siblings/relatives/humans. It turns out, fortunately, that I'm not just some sick, twisted fuck. There actually is a reason that I like these stories so much, and it's a good one!
What I enjoy is that the people sharing these stories have "lived to tell the tale" as it were. They are functioning, successful, (mostly?) well-adjusted people who are doing just fine in life despite all the various past horrors. They have taken responsibility for their own lives. I get so sick of people using a person's past to excuse present behaviors. While I understand that trauma, especially at a young age, can warp a mind beyond repair, a poor upbringing is too often used to evade responsibility. And half the time, it isn't even the person with the bad childhood using it as an excuse! It's someone else--a lawyer, a bleeding-heart activist, a lawmaker--saying, "Oh, he can't help it!" Not that this should surprise me; these days no one takes responsibility for anything. But I digress.
The point is, I love stories about people who had something really shitty happen to them in the past and went, "Fuck that, I have a life to live." They don't look for pity, they don't bemoan the past, and they don't go crawling around expecting other people to help them because they "never had a chance." They don't even think of these experiences as something they "overcame." It's just how life was, and now life goes on. They get on with the business of living, taking whatever lessons they can from their experiences to use later in life.
That, I think, is why I like those stories so much. Every time I hear some "underprivileged" slacker whining about how he "can't get ahead," I almost feel like I can take these stories and smack him upside the head with them. If they were transformed into physical objects, I imagine they would be large hammers or clubs that I could use to beat the stupid out of people.
So, I encourage anyone who happens to read this to share any such stories that they have.
What I enjoy is that the people sharing these stories have "lived to tell the tale" as it were. They are functioning, successful, (mostly?) well-adjusted people who are doing just fine in life despite all the various past horrors. They have taken responsibility for their own lives. I get so sick of people using a person's past to excuse present behaviors. While I understand that trauma, especially at a young age, can warp a mind beyond repair, a poor upbringing is too often used to evade responsibility. And half the time, it isn't even the person with the bad childhood using it as an excuse! It's someone else--a lawyer, a bleeding-heart activist, a lawmaker--saying, "Oh, he can't help it!" Not that this should surprise me; these days no one takes responsibility for anything. But I digress.
The point is, I love stories about people who had something really shitty happen to them in the past and went, "Fuck that, I have a life to live." They don't look for pity, they don't bemoan the past, and they don't go crawling around expecting other people to help them because they "never had a chance." They don't even think of these experiences as something they "overcame." It's just how life was, and now life goes on. They get on with the business of living, taking whatever lessons they can from their experiences to use later in life.
That, I think, is why I like those stories so much. Every time I hear some "underprivileged" slacker whining about how he "can't get ahead," I almost feel like I can take these stories and smack him upside the head with them. If they were transformed into physical objects, I imagine they would be large hammers or clubs that I could use to beat the stupid out of people.
So, I encourage anyone who happens to read this to share any such stories that they have.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Tuesday, June 03, 2008
afkdlshgjio
I am seriously going to punch in the face the next person who creates, joins, or publicizes one of those freaking "how to lower gas prices" facebook groups. I can barely write a coherent sentence right now because I am so furious. This is the latest feat of retardation:
http://ucla.facebook.com/group.php?gid=9904021903&ref=nf
Are you fucking kidding me? What kind of gross idiocy/evasion/who-knows-what does it take for someone to join this group, let alone make it. Do you people seriously think that the reason gas costs $4/gallon is that companies selling auto fuel just decided to make that happen? Give me a fucking break. This may be news to some of you, but fuel doesn't just drop out of the sky in its current form, ready for evil corporate baddies to sell to poor consumers. No, children, it gets refined from another substance entirely! And you know what? Fuel producers have to buy those raw goods in order to make the good they sell! Amazing, I know. In this case, the raw good in question is crude oil. More amazing still, the price of crude is not constant over time! It actually changes! And when it goes up, get this, fuel producers have to pay more to get it! And since they can't operate at a loss, that means they have to raise the price of their final good! In fact, the price of crude has risen from ~$30 in 2001 to ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY dollars a barrel. J That's a four-fold increase. Just over the last year the increase has been from $60 to $120. How is it a big mystery to you people that gas prices have risen so much? It's not even POSSIBLE for producers to sell gas at $1.30 a gallon when the input required to produce it costs so much. Jesus christ. Grow the fuck up, get a clue, and stop whining about stupid things that make absolutely no sense.
http://ucla.facebook.com/group.php?gid=9904021903&ref=nf
How to get GAS back down to $1.30 per gallon:
"I suggest that we not buy from EXXON/MOBIL UNTIL THEY LOWER THEIR PRICES TO THE $2.00 RANGE AND KEEP THEM DOWN. THIS CAN REALLY WORK."Are you fucking kidding me? What kind of gross idiocy/evasion/who-knows-what does it take for someone to join this group, let alone make it. Do you people seriously think that the reason gas costs $4/gallon is that companies selling auto fuel just decided to make that happen? Give me a fucking break. This may be news to some of you, but fuel doesn't just drop out of the sky in its current form, ready for evil corporate baddies to sell to poor consumers. No, children, it gets refined from another substance entirely! And you know what? Fuel producers have to buy those raw goods in order to make the good they sell! Amazing, I know. In this case, the raw good in question is crude oil. More amazing still, the price of crude is not constant over time! It actually changes! And when it goes up, get this, fuel producers have to pay more to get it! And since they can't operate at a loss, that means they have to raise the price of their final good! In fact, the price of crude has risen from ~$30 in 2001 to ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY dollars a barrel. J That's a four-fold increase. Just over the last year the increase has been from $60 to $120. How is it a big mystery to you people that gas prices have risen so much? It's not even POSSIBLE for producers to sell gas at $1.30 a gallon when the input required to produce it costs so much. Jesus christ. Grow the fuck up, get a clue, and stop whining about stupid things that make absolutely no sense.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
I'm bored
Per the procedure on this forum, my band name will be History of the English Penny, my debut album will be The Way it Started, and the cover art will be this image: http://www.flickr.com/photos/twistedsun/2517715711/
Friday, May 23, 2008
It's not news, it's foxnews.com
Foxnews.com headline today : WHO: Wealthier Lifestyles Fueling Global Health Crisis
Article:
Increased wealth appears to be making people sicker, rather than healthier, according to the World Health Organization.
By 2030, the only contagious disease in the list of Top 10 global killers will be HIV/AIDS, the Daily Mail reported citing figures from the World Health Organization.
According to the WHO, a third of deaths will be caused by road crashes, cancer or cardiovascular disease by 2050, while tobacco will remain the single largest preventable killer.
By 2030, worldwide cardiovascular disease deaths are expected to rise to 23.4 million, up from 17.1 million, the report said.
And, as greater wealth enables more people to buy automobiles, road deaths are expected to almost double over the same time period. Meanwhile, diseases like malaria, TB and bowel disease are expected to kill fewer people as mosquito nets, clean water and vaccines become more widely available.
I'm sorry, what? How does any part of this say that wealthier lifestyles are fueling a global health crisis? What global health crisis? Here's what the article actually says and does not say:
1. AIDS will be the only contagious disease in the top 10 (good)
2. 1/3 of deaths will be caused by crashes, cancer, or cardiovascular disease (presumably because other causes of death are becoming less prevalent). This does not mean more people will be dying. It means of the people who die, more of them will die because of this. It says nothing about total death rates, which presumably are dropping.
3. Cardiovascular diseases will rise from 17.1 million to 23.4 million. This is completely meaningless unless we know the expected population at that time. Obviously as there are more people on earth there will be a greater number of deaths. Duh. What matters is the death RATE. Also, when people are living longer and not dying as infants, they will be around to risk death by cardiovascular disease, so even if the rates of this type of death increase, part of that is because right now people are dying too soon for that to happen.
4. more cars = more road deaths. This is the ONLY place in the whole article that actually links wealth to death, but this isn't a health issue! And again, this is not a death rate so we don't know if a doubling in the number of deaths equals a doubling in the rate of deaths.
5. Diseases are going to kill fewer people as wealth increases (!!). This necessarily means decreased death rates since population will be increasing.
To summarize, wealthier lifestyles lower health-related death rates and foxnews.com is retarded.
Article:
Increased wealth appears to be making people sicker, rather than healthier, according to the World Health Organization.
By 2030, the only contagious disease in the list of Top 10 global killers will be HIV/AIDS, the Daily Mail reported citing figures from the World Health Organization.
According to the WHO, a third of deaths will be caused by road crashes, cancer or cardiovascular disease by 2050, while tobacco will remain the single largest preventable killer.
By 2030, worldwide cardiovascular disease deaths are expected to rise to 23.4 million, up from 17.1 million, the report said.
And, as greater wealth enables more people to buy automobiles, road deaths are expected to almost double over the same time period. Meanwhile, diseases like malaria, TB and bowel disease are expected to kill fewer people as mosquito nets, clean water and vaccines become more widely available.
I'm sorry, what? How does any part of this say that wealthier lifestyles are fueling a global health crisis? What global health crisis? Here's what the article actually says and does not say:
1. AIDS will be the only contagious disease in the top 10 (good)
2. 1/3 of deaths will be caused by crashes, cancer, or cardiovascular disease (presumably because other causes of death are becoming less prevalent). This does not mean more people will be dying. It means of the people who die, more of them will die because of this. It says nothing about total death rates, which presumably are dropping.
3. Cardiovascular diseases will rise from 17.1 million to 23.4 million. This is completely meaningless unless we know the expected population at that time. Obviously as there are more people on earth there will be a greater number of deaths. Duh. What matters is the death RATE. Also, when people are living longer and not dying as infants, they will be around to risk death by cardiovascular disease, so even if the rates of this type of death increase, part of that is because right now people are dying too soon for that to happen.
4. more cars = more road deaths. This is the ONLY place in the whole article that actually links wealth to death, but this isn't a health issue! And again, this is not a death rate so we don't know if a doubling in the number of deaths equals a doubling in the rate of deaths.
5. Diseases are going to kill fewer people as wealth increases (!!). This necessarily means decreased death rates since population will be increasing.
To summarize, wealthier lifestyles lower health-related death rates and foxnews.com is retarded.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
An open letter to Bank of America
Dear Bank of America,
I feel no regret at informing you that I will not be choosing you as my mortgage lender, despite your apparent willingness to undercut the competition as many times as it takes. My reasons are as follows:
1) Your bank center loan staff repeatedly fails to follow through on commitments. The first person I spoke to at a banking center promised to email me certain documents on the following day. This did not happen. When I spoke to him again a few days later, he once again promised to send them. Again, he did not. A second employee at another banking center promised to acquire and pass on to me a good faith estimate and to call me if, for any reason, this could not be done. He failed to contact me in any way. Finally, someone at the loan call center promised to fax over a good faith estimate once the computer system came back online. She did not do this, and the loan specialist assisting me had to call in all over again and request the document all over again the following day, as if no prior request had been made.
2) You require your own employees to phone the automated call center to give clients simple loan documents such as a good faith estimate. I spent approximately 5 hours sitting in banking centers over the course of a week simply trying to get a good faith estimate with a different number of points than had been requested on the initial application. 90% of this time consisted of me sitting at a desk while the loan specialist helping me was on hold. With his own employer. For 30 minutes at a time. He was also shuffled between different call center areas and required to wait on hold anew each time. Apparently, being a "Loan Specialist" consists in filling out loan applications for customers and faxing them to the real loan people.
3) You have left messages on my home answering machine every weekday for the past two weeks. I have two different women from your loan area switching off leaving me messages asking me to call back to verify information. This is a problem for several reasons. First of all, I have a day job. You know this because you took my employment information for the loan application. I know you know the number, because you once called me there. You also have my cell phone number which I listed during the application process as my primary contact number and which you have never used to contact me. Yet, you insist on calling me at home between the hours of noon and 3pm. Secondly, I fail to see why it is necessary to leave a new message every day. Is it really likely that the last 6 didn't go through? What if I were on vacation? Do you think I want to come home to 30 messages from Bank of America on my answering machine? And why do you have two different agents calling me? Are they tag-teaming? Maybe the protocol is to call every other day, and these two women don't know about each other and have each been independently assigned to my loan. Or maybe they are competing, and whoever gets the lucky callback from me gets a promotion. This would not surprise me because--and this is point number three--I already spoke to yet a third woman two weeks ago about this information that needed to be verified. I verified it. I have not given any new information since then that would need to be verified. Everything is the same.
4) You have sent me THREE identical loan information packets since I filed the loan application. I suspect that one new packet was sent out when I requested the second good faith estimate, since apparently this was a very confusing process and required changing the application. However, why was there a third one? And what if I had already signed and returned all the forms in the first packet? Would I have to sign them again? Also, the packet says right on it that the offer expires Sept 30 or some such date and that if I do not respond by then, no further action will be taken by you. It does not say that I will be harassed by phone on a daily basis if I have not sent in the forms.
In summary, working with you has been a complete nightmare. The inefficiency is mind-boggling. That your own employees had to spend hours on hold with your own automated call center (that they even had to call the call center in the first place, for that matter) just to get a simple document that my other lender gave me in 5 minutes is ridiculous. I may have been able to get a lower rate by sticking it out, but it is not worth the headache. The complete incompetence of everyone involved in this process failed to inspire me with confidence about the handling of any actual loan that I might get from you. Ultimately, you fail. Big time.
Sincerely,
Sara
Note: If anyone has any kind of email address to which I could send this letter, please let me know. I am pretty sure BofA does not even use email, since one of the employees said he would go home and SCAN a document and email it to me.
I feel no regret at informing you that I will not be choosing you as my mortgage lender, despite your apparent willingness to undercut the competition as many times as it takes. My reasons are as follows:
1) Your bank center loan staff repeatedly fails to follow through on commitments. The first person I spoke to at a banking center promised to email me certain documents on the following day. This did not happen. When I spoke to him again a few days later, he once again promised to send them. Again, he did not. A second employee at another banking center promised to acquire and pass on to me a good faith estimate and to call me if, for any reason, this could not be done. He failed to contact me in any way. Finally, someone at the loan call center promised to fax over a good faith estimate once the computer system came back online. She did not do this, and the loan specialist assisting me had to call in all over again and request the document all over again the following day, as if no prior request had been made.
2) You require your own employees to phone the automated call center to give clients simple loan documents such as a good faith estimate. I spent approximately 5 hours sitting in banking centers over the course of a week simply trying to get a good faith estimate with a different number of points than had been requested on the initial application. 90% of this time consisted of me sitting at a desk while the loan specialist helping me was on hold. With his own employer. For 30 minutes at a time. He was also shuffled between different call center areas and required to wait on hold anew each time. Apparently, being a "Loan Specialist" consists in filling out loan applications for customers and faxing them to the real loan people.
3) You have left messages on my home answering machine every weekday for the past two weeks. I have two different women from your loan area switching off leaving me messages asking me to call back to verify information. This is a problem for several reasons. First of all, I have a day job. You know this because you took my employment information for the loan application. I know you know the number, because you once called me there. You also have my cell phone number which I listed during the application process as my primary contact number and which you have never used to contact me. Yet, you insist on calling me at home between the hours of noon and 3pm. Secondly, I fail to see why it is necessary to leave a new message every day. Is it really likely that the last 6 didn't go through? What if I were on vacation? Do you think I want to come home to 30 messages from Bank of America on my answering machine? And why do you have two different agents calling me? Are they tag-teaming? Maybe the protocol is to call every other day, and these two women don't know about each other and have each been independently assigned to my loan. Or maybe they are competing, and whoever gets the lucky callback from me gets a promotion. This would not surprise me because--and this is point number three--I already spoke to yet a third woman two weeks ago about this information that needed to be verified. I verified it. I have not given any new information since then that would need to be verified. Everything is the same.
4) You have sent me THREE identical loan information packets since I filed the loan application. I suspect that one new packet was sent out when I requested the second good faith estimate, since apparently this was a very confusing process and required changing the application. However, why was there a third one? And what if I had already signed and returned all the forms in the first packet? Would I have to sign them again? Also, the packet says right on it that the offer expires Sept 30 or some such date and that if I do not respond by then, no further action will be taken by you. It does not say that I will be harassed by phone on a daily basis if I have not sent in the forms.
In summary, working with you has been a complete nightmare. The inefficiency is mind-boggling. That your own employees had to spend hours on hold with your own automated call center (that they even had to call the call center in the first place, for that matter) just to get a simple document that my other lender gave me in 5 minutes is ridiculous. I may have been able to get a lower rate by sticking it out, but it is not worth the headache. The complete incompetence of everyone involved in this process failed to inspire me with confidence about the handling of any actual loan that I might get from you. Ultimately, you fail. Big time.
Sincerely,
Sara
Note: If anyone has any kind of email address to which I could send this letter, please let me know. I am pretty sure BofA does not even use email, since one of the employees said he would go home and SCAN a document and email it to me.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Who should pay?
This blurb appeared on Slashdot today, musing over the need for a completely new internet infrastructure and asking who should pay for it (profit-making content owners vs. consumers). Predictably, most of the comments are idiotic, but aside from that, the question itself is wrong. It gets the whole idea of invention and business completely backwards. Here is an analogous question: "27 mpg is too little. In the future, I want to see cars that get 100 mpg. Who should pay for that?" Or how about "Hey, it would be great to have voice-activated stereos in cars. Who should pay for that?" It's completely idiotic.
Here is how the world actually works. Someone thinks, "Wouldn't it be nice if x product/service existed? I'd pay good money for that. Hey, I bet other people would pay good money for that." Said person/company then goes about coming up with a way to make x happen and either solicits external investments or uses retained earnings to finance the project.
A company does not just raise prices on existing products/services to finance a new project. Demand for Windows XP does not increase when Microsoft starts developing Vista. The cost of R&D only gets "passed on" to consumers once the product is actually being sold. The fact of the matter is, someone is going to want to invest in this new internet technology, and, once it is developed, consumers are going to want to buy it. I don't understand why anyone is asking who *should* pay for it, when we already know who *will* pay for it: investors who see an opportunity for profit and (later) customers who see a valuable product.
In the case of the internet, there is some kind of entitlement complex going on. People are whining because they can't download 6gb of porn in 30 seconds, and because the more people who try to use a lot of bandwidth at once, the slower it gets for everyone. Then they bitch and moan about the evil ISPs. It's like whining about traffic in Los Angeles, blaming the evil auto makers, and demanding that Ford, Toyota and Daimler build a monorail (which people can then ride for free, of course).
Here is how the world actually works. Someone thinks, "Wouldn't it be nice if x product/service existed? I'd pay good money for that. Hey, I bet other people would pay good money for that." Said person/company then goes about coming up with a way to make x happen and either solicits external investments or uses retained earnings to finance the project.
A company does not just raise prices on existing products/services to finance a new project. Demand for Windows XP does not increase when Microsoft starts developing Vista. The cost of R&D only gets "passed on" to consumers once the product is actually being sold. The fact of the matter is, someone is going to want to invest in this new internet technology, and, once it is developed, consumers are going to want to buy it. I don't understand why anyone is asking who *should* pay for it, when we already know who *will* pay for it: investors who see an opportunity for profit and (later) customers who see a valuable product.
In the case of the internet, there is some kind of entitlement complex going on. People are whining because they can't download 6gb of porn in 30 seconds, and because the more people who try to use a lot of bandwidth at once, the slower it gets for everyone. Then they bitch and moan about the evil ISPs. It's like whining about traffic in Los Angeles, blaming the evil auto makers, and demanding that Ford, Toyota and Daimler build a monorail (which people can then ride for free, of course).
Tuesday, April 01, 2008
maybe that's why there are so many churches in Hawaii
Hehe, I just read an article that described Christians trying to talk at you about Jesus as "human spam." I giggled.
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
Philosophy, Degrees, and Objectivist Clones
Too often I have observed a person's formal education being used as a criterion for judging his philosophical claims. Claims made by people who lack a degree in philosophy are rejected in favor of those made by people who have one. In particular, ideas are frequently only taken seriously if they are put forth by someone with a PhD in philosophy. This is complete and utter nonsense. The main way in which this kind of criteria is used is in arguments against claims. i.e., "I reject your claim because you lack a PhD in philosophy." or "So-and-so has a PhD in philosophy, so your arguments against his claims must be wrong." Setting aside the fact that this kind of reasoning is a classic logical fallacy (appeal to authority), in the case of philosophy the issue is much more fundamental.
Certain fields do require significant study to gain a working understanding of certain concepts. A high school student cannot (in most cases) argue effectively against the scientific claims made by a PhD physicist, because he simply lacks the necessary concepts. In cases like this, the word of a more educated person can reasonable be accepted over the word of a less educated person. Philosophy, however, is a completely different story. It is emphatically *not* a field characterized by specialized knowledge inaccessible to the common person and requiring years of study to comprehend. To see why this is the case, we must understand the purpose of philosophy.
Why does man need philosophy at all? For that matter, what is philosophy in the first place? Is it disconnected, cerebral musings about other worlds, which bear no relation to the day-to-day operations of life? No. Philosophy is fundamentally an examination and understanding of how the world works. What is the nature of reality? What is the nature of man? How should man act? These are questions answered by philosophy, and questions that must be answered if man is to live at all. When a person acts, he acts on the basis of some philosophy. His understanding of the nature of reality determines how he thinks about the consequences of his actions (if at all). If he decides that reality is a product of human consciousness, that whatever he wishes will come to be, and that if he jumps off a roof he can fly, he will be dead in short order. Ultimately, then, the purpose of philosophy is to help man live. By discovering the nature of the world around him, including his own nature, he can take more appropriate actions to further his life.
Philosophy, therefore, must be accessible to all people. A field that requires years and years of graduate school to master is of no use as a tool to guide one's life. Anyone, from a janitor to a physicist, must be able to form and grasp philosophical ideas. Everyone must decide how to act, and to say that only a person with a PhD in philosophy can figure out the proper basis on which to act is obviously nonsense. To reject someone's philosophical claim on the basis of his educational experience is to reject philosophy entirely.
Now, there are certainly more complex topics in philosophy and its application to specific situations that can require more study (by which I mean thought, and not necessarily under anyone's instruction). Basic philosophical principles, however, can and must be grasped by anyone with a functioning mind.
Objectivist clone types would also do well to remember this discussion about the purpose of philosophy, as they are almost as bad in this regard. Ayn Rand was an amazing, brilliant woman. She made a great many discoveries in philosophy, and built a coherent body of philosophical writings explaining many realms in which philosophy applies. Her work has made it that much easier for the rest of us to come to philosophical truth more quickly, because we need not rediscover all of these principles on our own (think of the difference between deriving a mathematical proof yourself and being shown how to do it in class--either way you will understand it and be able to make use of it, but one takes significantly more time and effort). However: she was not some sort of superhuman god. The things she discovered are accessible to anyone with a mind. That she discovered so much in so little time is an amazing accomplishment to be admired, but her philosophy is not some convoluted, complex maze of thought difficult to navigate without years of study.
Objectivist speech and writing is too often peppered with praise of Rand, awe at her having discovered things, self-deprecation in the face of her achievements, and a general disdain for the rest of humanity for not having discovered what she did. Science teachers do not begin their lessons on gravity with a ceremony honoring Newton's unmatched genius. What is important about Rand's work, and what will matter years from now when no one that new her is alive, is that her ideas were true. The best philosophical writing today is that which discusses what is true in Philosophy while giving a nod to Ayn Rand, instead of that which uses Ayn Rand as a framing device for the discussion of her ideas. (Note: There are plenty of talks/writings titled something along the lines of "Ayn Rand's Ideas." In cases like this the focus is obviously on Ayn Rand, just as a talk entitled "The Discoveries of Newton" would be expected to focus on Newton much more than would a talk entitled "How Gravity Works." What I take issue with are situations where the talk is called "Capitalism: The Only Moral System" and the entire lecture is about Ayn Rand discovering how great Capitalism is.)
Certain fields do require significant study to gain a working understanding of certain concepts. A high school student cannot (in most cases) argue effectively against the scientific claims made by a PhD physicist, because he simply lacks the necessary concepts. In cases like this, the word of a more educated person can reasonable be accepted over the word of a less educated person. Philosophy, however, is a completely different story. It is emphatically *not* a field characterized by specialized knowledge inaccessible to the common person and requiring years of study to comprehend. To see why this is the case, we must understand the purpose of philosophy.
Why does man need philosophy at all? For that matter, what is philosophy in the first place? Is it disconnected, cerebral musings about other worlds, which bear no relation to the day-to-day operations of life? No. Philosophy is fundamentally an examination and understanding of how the world works. What is the nature of reality? What is the nature of man? How should man act? These are questions answered by philosophy, and questions that must be answered if man is to live at all. When a person acts, he acts on the basis of some philosophy. His understanding of the nature of reality determines how he thinks about the consequences of his actions (if at all). If he decides that reality is a product of human consciousness, that whatever he wishes will come to be, and that if he jumps off a roof he can fly, he will be dead in short order. Ultimately, then, the purpose of philosophy is to help man live. By discovering the nature of the world around him, including his own nature, he can take more appropriate actions to further his life.
Philosophy, therefore, must be accessible to all people. A field that requires years and years of graduate school to master is of no use as a tool to guide one's life. Anyone, from a janitor to a physicist, must be able to form and grasp philosophical ideas. Everyone must decide how to act, and to say that only a person with a PhD in philosophy can figure out the proper basis on which to act is obviously nonsense. To reject someone's philosophical claim on the basis of his educational experience is to reject philosophy entirely.
Now, there are certainly more complex topics in philosophy and its application to specific situations that can require more study (by which I mean thought, and not necessarily under anyone's instruction). Basic philosophical principles, however, can and must be grasped by anyone with a functioning mind.
Objectivist clone types would also do well to remember this discussion about the purpose of philosophy, as they are almost as bad in this regard. Ayn Rand was an amazing, brilliant woman. She made a great many discoveries in philosophy, and built a coherent body of philosophical writings explaining many realms in which philosophy applies. Her work has made it that much easier for the rest of us to come to philosophical truth more quickly, because we need not rediscover all of these principles on our own (think of the difference between deriving a mathematical proof yourself and being shown how to do it in class--either way you will understand it and be able to make use of it, but one takes significantly more time and effort). However: she was not some sort of superhuman god. The things she discovered are accessible to anyone with a mind. That she discovered so much in so little time is an amazing accomplishment to be admired, but her philosophy is not some convoluted, complex maze of thought difficult to navigate without years of study.
Objectivist speech and writing is too often peppered with praise of Rand, awe at her having discovered things, self-deprecation in the face of her achievements, and a general disdain for the rest of humanity for not having discovered what she did. Science teachers do not begin their lessons on gravity with a ceremony honoring Newton's unmatched genius. What is important about Rand's work, and what will matter years from now when no one that new her is alive, is that her ideas were true. The best philosophical writing today is that which discusses what is true in Philosophy while giving a nod to Ayn Rand, instead of that which uses Ayn Rand as a framing device for the discussion of her ideas. (Note: There are plenty of talks/writings titled something along the lines of "Ayn Rand's Ideas." In cases like this the focus is obviously on Ayn Rand, just as a talk entitled "The Discoveries of Newton" would be expected to focus on Newton much more than would a talk entitled "How Gravity Works." What I take issue with are situations where the talk is called "Capitalism: The Only Moral System" and the entire lecture is about Ayn Rand discovering how great Capitalism is.)
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
filling the void
(8:43:35 PM) tallbladeofgrass: hmm, that bagel was insufficient to satisfy my needs
(8:44:29 PM) MightyBobX: that's amazing, considering its size relative to your capacity
(8:44:58 PM) tallbladeofgrass: looks can be deceiving
(8:45:50 PM) tallbladeofgrass: i can accommodate more volume than you might expect
(8:44:29 PM) MightyBobX: that's amazing, considering its size relative to your capacity
(8:44:58 PM) tallbladeofgrass: looks can be deceiving
(8:45:50 PM) tallbladeofgrass: i can accommodate more volume than you might expect
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)