Thursday November 3, 2005 - 11:55AM EDT
Why in the fuck doesn't Linux have more rigid structure to its filesystem. What I mean is that both OSX and Windows do a much better job of clarifying the mess that is Unix filesystem organization. The Unix method is unruly and no one really cares whether things are upper-case or lower case. And there should be a more semantical way to differentiate files and directories. You should be able to tell by their name. Same goes with types of files. The dos three character extension is a stroke of genius. Although you can get away with it in Windows it is still a great organizing tool. In Linux you can't tell by the name what kind of file it is. Pathetic. That in my opinion is a huge usability weakness in Linux. The unruly filesystem naming conventions. Even Windows is trying to eliminate it's filesystem disorganization with WinFS and relational database type storage. Linux is still stuck in lower-case upper-case purgatory. Larry Ellison at Oracle advocated the database approach to filesystems years ago anyway.
Thursday November 3, 2005 - 11:30AM EDT
I love this gay marriage hoopla. Because it is finally exposing a bunch of prejudice losers and their "beliefs". Arnold should be shot for what he said about marriage. I can't fathom that he believes what he said about a "man and a woman". He is just giving in to political pressure. Pathetic. I love how everyone phrases their opposition to marriage with either "the definition" or "my belief". It must be too hard to call themselves prejudice.
Thursday November 3, 2005 - 10:49AM EDT
You know what I hate? Dumb fuckers and their "traditions". I fucking hate the nationalistic, traditional, ethnics attitude that seems to divide people and dominate the modern psyche. Everyone has their "own" language or people or country or traditions. That is why I like the Japanese a lot. Theit history of cultural assimilation. They are like the borg of planet earth. The Japanese have their traditions but nothing trumps practicality and they are always willing to take on and assimilate things about other cultures into their own. It's magnificant. Meanwhile everyone else likes to "value" their cultural traditions by pissing all over everyone elses and ferocisly guarding their "heritage" through traditionalism. Growing up in a country like america that may have the most heterogenous population on the planet I am constantly baffled by various "sepertist movements" around the world. I'm also baffled by China's demands on Taiwan too but that is another story. Also what is the deal with lamenting the death of languages. The less the better. More uniform communication is only better for the human population. I would hope that in another 100 years only like 10 languages are spoken in the world. It would make things much easier. It is just a form of communication and not anything sacred.
Speaking of tradition and Japan. What is the deal with not letting women ascend to the throne. Some loser published a letter saying the line of ascenscion should be male. But if I remeber in my studies the whole male only thing wasn't the original way things were done. That crap took hold after the introduction of Buddhism and Confucianism. Prior to that there were female empresses and it wasn't seen as an issue. Luckily the public support for allowing women seems to be there so hopefully it will change.
Wednesday November 2, 2005 - 10:47AM EDT
This movie is terrible. It is a wolf in sheeps clothing. Only slightly more plausible than Friday the 13th or Nightmare on Elm street. In reality it is just a cheap gore flick hiding under some kind of psychological thriller mask. It deperately attempts to draw you into a taught psychological game. However by the time you get to the end the scenarios have become so unreal and so contrived that you don't care anymore. The characters start out as normal and maybe having some kind of depth to them. But quickly they become props to propel the next gory killing. I love me some gore but this isn't even that gory. Then it goes out of its way to cheat its way back into some kind of sense which then blows the whole plot apart making the whole thing make less sense. The movie is not even fun like Freddy vs. Jason. Which was much more gruesome. I just get this feeling that whoever wrote this thin is trying to make some kind of serious thriller and fails miserably. The movie is not really a horror flick because there aren't any scary parts. There is very little suspense because every outrageous act is telegraphed. It is just a bunch of setups for clever ways to kill people.
Wednesday November 2, 2005 - 10:37AM EDT
I am begining to like these kinds of Nicolas Cage movies. Again this is not a movie for everyone. And I read reviews about how the plot is weak and whatnot. Plot here is not so important as Cage's character and his interpretation of his world. This movie may only speak to a certain group of people. Others who are looking for standard dramatic fare aren't going to find their needs fullfilled. Michael Caine gives the best acting performance of the movie by far. Nicolas Cage is solid as always and I liked the character. Just like that movie Waiting Nicolas Cage's character lurks somewhere in my psyche. I particularly liked the part where he is going to the store to pickup take-out and we get this voice-over of his thoughts as they rapidly bounce from thing to thing. I really liked the movie. This is the kind of movie where a good bit of the entertainment value is in your own thoughts about what you see on screen. Some people don't like those kinds of movies, I do. It also ended in that open-ended fashion that I have come to appreciate. The clean and tidy endings are so unreal. I like when the movie ends but the story doesn't. Reminds me of what is said about Japanese novels and what I have experienced in reading one (Kokoro, Natsume Soseki). The books ends but the story doesn't.
Wednesday November 2, 2005 - 10:23AM EDT
I made a post about how much I don't like religious headgear. Except for that bitching sikh turban (it is stylish in some and i just wish it would catch on). France banned religious headgear in schools a while ago and it seems to be going well. There is a conufucian proverb that goes something like; A nail that sticks out will be hammered back in. You see that proverb a few times studying Japanese as it is said to be a part of their society's conformism. Which overall has its good and bad aspects.
I just want to eliminate all religious dress outside of the privacy of the place of worship or special cermonies. I'd like to see religion dissapear anyway, but that is another story. The wearing of religious headgear and whatnot in public is retarded. I went over this before. I went over how it is an annoucement of you affiliation when no one even asked and that it is implying your exclusion from the rest of society. It is akin to dying your hair bright colors or dressing goth. Ok express yourself but don't get mad when people don't like it or think bad thoughts of you. Your expression is simplistic and generalized. So expect the same kind of response. Besides it is not like the color of your skin which you can't feasably control. You don't have to wear a hat.
Tuesday November 1, 2005 - 8:31PM EDT
I'm trying to figure out why I get so tired during some days and not during others. It really doesn't make sense. My malaise seems to come around for now reason. After reading that article about the mice who got tired after doing repetitive tasks it has me thinking. Maybe I can just adjust what I do during the day so that I don't get tired. I think there might be something to that. If I just keep active and vary my tasks more I wouldn't get so tired and I could get more done. I don't know.
Tuesday November 1, 2005 - 7:29PM EDT
So there is a transit strike in Philadelphia now. Of course in the media you see them show people that are angry and people that don't care, people that are accepting, etc. What I think about are they people who virulently criticize either septa or the union for fuckin up their schedule. Sure your allowed to be angry for loses your transportation but focus on that anger isn't productive. I'd rather see the news showing more pensive people and giving us more information on what exactly is causing the strike above a few bullet points. No one on the news is giving an intelligent analysis to give people a clearer picture. I just wonder why?
Tuesday November 1, 2005 - 7:29PM EDT
So DeLay got the original judge removed. The first question I have is how common such a removal is. Second question is a rhetorical one, aren't judges supposed to be impartial that is why they are judges. I just think that if he can get one judged removed for something like contributions to a group what stops him from removing any judge until he gets one that he likes. That isn't how the justice system normally works to my knowledge. I don't think judges are removed like this often. The judge commited no crime. I just think it is really weird. He simply didn't like the judge so he got a new one. Weird. Maybe he still thinks he is invincible and untouchable. You always see this with these people who get in trouble for abusing power. The reality of the situation doesn't hit them until it is too late.
I never shop at abercrombie and fitch but I hear some group of students wants them to stop selling some of their t-shirts with certain writting on them. Don't know what other affiliations this group has. I hope it is none. Because if they are a religious youth group of some shit then I just sigh. But if they are just a group of regular kids then it gives me hope. Not because of what they are against in particularly but because it might be a sign of them actually thinking and analyzing something. That is clearly lacking in all age groups especially yound kids. Also abercrombie has gotten a reputation for pulling stuff like this. Like thongs with sexual innuendo for 8 year olds. I just wonder who in the hell in that company comes up with this stuff. That is the real mystery and it would be very interesting to explore.
Beans beans the musical fruit - comments(8)
Tuesday November 1, 2005 - 4:44PM EDT
There are a few local radio stations around here made by idiots for idiots. Everytime you turn to them when they are not playing music some moronic DJ is talking to an even stupider caller. It is such a fucking disgrace.
Speaking of disgraces I heard some local DJ make fun of Weezer member going back to Harvard to study. It might have been off the cuff remark but that kind of comment is symptomatic of a larger problem. Meanwhile we have a TV show where that degenerate from Motley Crew goes back to school. What the fuck is that shit all about. That giant pile of loser only regained his short lived 80's fame by hooking up with Pamela Anderson and giving her hepatitis. I really don't care if giant piles of losers live their lives however they please but please stop showing that crap on TV and making us aware of it. We have plenty of losers in everyday life that we encounter we don't need that crap in TV land.
I was also thinking about when Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon won oscars and when one of the producers got on stage to thank people he spoke their names in his native Chinese and the audience would giggle. I don't know how many people even think about that but I do. Especially since studying Chinese. Now when I was first studying Chinese there are things that are intially funny because it is strange and new. But you quickly get over it especially if you want to learn the language. When the audience laughed I just thought how childish. I thought these people are supposed to be some kind of pinnacle of culture, educated, dignified, etc. They acted like children and no one called them on it. I don't necessarily want to ridicule them because it is so ignortant and childish. I just want correct them like a child so they know. But if one were even to suggest such a thing they would probably be seen as some kind of haughty intellectual and dismissed. But the collective psyche of the audience was childish and they need to learn.
The NBA dress code is in full effect. I called them out on the sham proposal it was. What I didn't think of though is something that Chris Webber mentioned in an interview. It was that none of the players had any idea that this thing was going to happen. They weren't warned or involved in any discussion on it. One day they woke up and there was a dress code. I never thought about it that way and that kind of thing can be what is really upsetting for some players regardless of whether they are againt the dress code or not. That someone made a snap decision in the league they play in without even talking to them. Especially in the age of unions and whatnot. Almost everything about the game is talked over before action is taken. The fact they just implemented this without any discussion is evidence that it was a sham proposal and posturing on the leagues part to flex their muscle. It was an "because I say so" move that serves only to pump up the league executive's ego. To make themselves feel powerful. You see this kind of shit all the time. For various reasons. Maybe in a league more dominated by players and their personalities than any other league NBA execs were just feeling small and wanted to stick it to their players and this was probably the only thing they could pull off without the real shit hitting the fan. What my question is now is whether these execs have fooled themselves into believing this is some kind of image enhancher or they are just going along with that game in the media when they know that this is just their own personal game of machismo. Also something Chris Webber mentioned in the interview was that some teams already have a dress code so it various team to team. No one ever talked about that.
Tuesday November 1, 2005 - 2:15PM EDT
I've adjusted my daily facial skin care strategy and I think I have found something that works. I start off each morning with a benzoyl peroxide based wash. Immediately after washing I use an alcohol free toner followed by a small amount light facial moisturizer. At night I used a glycolic acid wash. 2-3 times a week I will use tazorac at night. And one a week I will do a glycolic mini peel. For the past 2 weeks my skin has never gotten over oily as it usually does throughout the day. Also there have been no substaintial blemishes in a while.
I think I will finish up my 9-5 soon. In a few weeks after I finish the 3 projects I'm working on for them. Want to focus on outside projects a little more. I think I have some decent interest in a few of the projects so I'll give them a go.
Monday October 31, 2005 - 4:49PM EDT
I like reading bad movie reviews. The way some people evicirate bad movies is hilarious.
One of the worst movies ever made, Howard the Duck. I double dare you to find a good review of that thing.
There are however a who bunch of bad movies that I like.
Monday October 31, 2005 - 12:49PM EDT
What is the deal with these people who say we "rely too much on technology". Morons. Why don't they stop wearing clothes and eating with forks then because that is technology that we rely on way too much. Idiots.
I hear this stuff about arguing for the existence of god based on bad things that happen and why god would let that happen and soforth. Ha. Why even bother with such a ludicrous philosophical exercise. I'll be looking for the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow with a map I got from my leprechuan friend while your having that conversation. I bring this up because of an article here it is
I like this section the best
Christianity. The Lord works in mysterious ways and must have some divine purpose for all this. In any event, a better life awaits the victims (although Christian victims might have something of an edge there, unless they happen to be gay or abortion providers in "Sin City," a.k.a. New Orleans).
Islam. Allah allows such things to happen, but only the guilty need worry about their immortal fate. Paradise awaits the innocent victims (well, the Muslim ones, anyway; who knows about infidels?)
Judaism. Strictly speaking, God has nothing to do with these natural disasters. (Of course, you're always free to argue the point.)
Hinduism. Must have been an aggregate of bad karma, very bad karma. (But not to worry, everyone will get another shot at life anyway.)
Buddhism. Maybe karma had something to do with it, then again maybe it was all those sex shops in Thailand, or those al-Qaeda cells in Pakistan. (In any event, God does not exist.)
I like the comment on Buddhism because it actually gets sort of what Buddhism is about right. Buddhism wasn't originally a religion with gods or belief in gods. That stuff was cobbled on to it later by a bunch of freaks. Ha. Anyway. The writer is a teacher of religion at Skidmore college. I'm guessing she teaches from a historical and philosophical context and not from a theological base in that she wouldn't treat one religion as superior over the others. I do wonder though whether she subscribes to one of those moronic faiths.
So I think this person has some sense right? Then I read this article on gun-control. This person is somehow relating abortion-rights to gun-rights. Any respect I had for her in the religion article is almost gone now. I looked at a short bio of her and it all becomes clear after reading it. She is an avid hunter and runs a ranch in Montana. She just used her intelligence to trumpet something she likes. I wonder if she ever really critically looked at the situation. She is arguing that women have a right to defend themselves and guns are the best way. Holy flipping shit. What is the deal with these "guns are the best way" people. In the article on guns(found here) she says Most gun-rights advocates would prefer to live in a world in which no woman should need a gun to ensure her safety. But as long as contraception fails, as long as rape occurs, as long as men abduct women, stalk ex-wives and girlfriends and threaten harm to their children, the options to choose an abortion and a gun must equally remain fundamental women's rights. The first sentence says it all. She is qualifying or tempering her arguement with that statement. That one is particularly sinister. You see it all the time in various different things. To make their opinions seem more logical or rational people will qualify a strong statement of opinion with these utopian hypothetical situations. I hope I don't do that too much. Its pathetic. It is as if somehow if they hint that they would do the opposite of what they think they are proving that they see the situation with an observant eye. That they have really taken many things into consideration and their opinion is the best. It is a fake out, a feint and I'm not buying it. It is so cleverly constructed feint that I'm almost at a lost on how to decipher it. Prefer to live in a world where no women should need a gun. Wow dude. How in the hell can you prefer something that never exists. That is not a strong prefence or one that can be taken seriously. Should is conditional statement and it is a subjective opinion. Preference to live in a world that should exist. Prefer to live in a world in which your subjective opinion defines its existence. Is anyone following me here? It makes no sense. Preferences are choice, something over something. This statment about prefering a world that should exist is a double choice. She is prefering a preference. It means nothing, that kind of statement. You have to remove either prefer or should to make the sentence make sense. Either you prefer to live in a world where women don't need guns for protection or we should live in a world were women don't need guns for protection. First one is a choice second one is an opinion. Now with that said if that is your preference or your opinion being vehment gun-rights is doing nothing to support either. Even with all that said. How much fucking deterrent or defense is a gun anyway. That is the real question.
I would tend to believe that people who purchase guns legally aren't the majority who commit gun crimes. I don't know for sure though. If they are then there are other questions to explore. So if I assume that most of the gun crime is done with illegally obtained guns how does one stop it. More police more enforcement? Maybe. I would argue that the fastest and best way would be to just restrict the amount of guns made. You go to the manufacturers of guns. They may not be directly responsible or a traditional culprit. But if you make it so that guns are a rare piece of equipment you obviously are going to reduce the amount of illegal traficking. There just won't be that many guns around. A gun can be small and hard to track. Its existence alone is going to be hard to deal with regardless of laws and enforcement. Gun control laws are kind of a losing battle and their effectiveness is always going to be limited. Though there has been some happenings is taking on gun manufacturers the focus is still not on them. A gun is hard to make, not just anyone can make a gun. If you stop the manufacturers from making them you are not going to have that many guns. Besides the millions they have already made. You have to take the gun manufacturers to task. You have to just limit them outright or shut a bunch of them down. That is going to be the only effective solution. But that is sacrilidge according to some. There are some areas in the country where gun violence is horrible and a huge problem. There are others where it isn't. Even in those areas in which it is a huge problem. Guns in themselves are not make up the core of the issue. But you have to be able to give these areas a chance to mitigate part of the problem on the way to a solution. It just seems like such vehement defenese of an instrument of killing is misguided. Lets be clear here that guns are made to kill first, no illusions there. If the only reasons you have to keep your gun are constitutional right to arms and self-defense in only the most rare of situations then you have a weak arguement. That one is not willing to allow giving up their guns a chance, a let'see what happens in response to the problems encountered is troublesome. What about all the people that go through life without a gun for protection. A whole lot more than people who have them. They seem to make it. So the self-defense thing is so very weak. I just think that the gung-ho gun-rights people are maybe just being paranoid and scared. Not really looking at the situation with a critical eye. It is just an idea planted in their head and they blindly accept it without examination. All they look for is as many reasons they can find to keep it in their mind.
Sunday October 30, 2005 - 8:45PM EDT
There are times when thinking is cut short or seemingly cannot be done. Those times are very few and far between. Like certain plays on a football field or if you are on the bomb squad. In those cases preperation is what you need. In those very rare cases when no preperation helps and there is not time to think your decision almost becomes an afterthought. Something will be decided whether you like it or not. What you pick is simply a matter of happenstance. Why am I talking about this? Because more times than not I see people act without thought (or study). In situations in which you can think and you do have time. Yet the prevailing perception sometimes is that in these situations you don't have time to think or you can't prepare. What a load of happy horseshit. Only in the rarest of cases you find yourself unprepared and no time to think. Usually if you are unprepared it is because you didn't take time to prepare not because of the situation. I just keep seeing these stories and situations where thought is absent. It's pathetic.
Friday October 28, 2005 - 3:13PM EDT
Full article for below blurbs
In some fields, artificial intelligence has already bested humans — with Deep Blue’s 1997 victory over world chess champion Garry Kasparov providing a vivid example.
Surely Deep Blue was progress. But such infintesimal progress and nothing to get scared of computers taking over.
Three years later, computer scientist Bill Joy argued in an influential Wired magazine essay that we would soon face challenges from intelligent machines as well as from other technologies ranging from weapons of mass destruction to self-replicating nanoscale “gray goo.”
Here they negelected to mention that the author they speak of recanted his "gray goo" scenario. I forget the reason why but I think it was because it was silly and ignorant.
I don't understand those who think AI is so close. We can barely get a computer to interact naturally with a person and that is just a small part of being intelligent as a human. To think they will become smarter than us just doesn't make any sense. How can something we create exceed us in intelligence if its intelligence is based on ours. This evolving computer that is so popular in sci-fi has people not thinking straight. For humans to get to be able to create a system like ourselves that seems to be able to evolve would probably be the greatest achievement in the history of mankind. Frankly I don't believe that is going to happen anytime soon. And that "ghost in the machine" nonsense is retarded. I wonder if the people that come up with that have ever actually programmed a computer. Random chunks of code my ass. We have so far to go to make computers intelligent as humans. We can't even figure out what makes us intelligent let alone duplicate it in machine. We might come really close but it may never reach the potential of humans which we don't even know the limits of.
Friday October 28, 2005 - 2:14PM EDT
living a reclusive life back home in the U.S. But when a girl goes missing, he is forced to abandon his quiet lifestyle and take justice into his own hands. - full article
I love that description. That movie will just be fun.
Friday October 28, 2005 - 1:02PM EDT
One post before lunch. I hate this fucking bullshit morality that people like to talk about. Because they speak of it as if everyone is and should be held to the same standard in every case. I don't like when someone brings up morality as reasons for doing or not doing something. I don't want to ever hear such reasoning. It is better in my opinion to just say nothing or say you don't know. Because morality is a fools game.
Thursday October 27, 2005 - 1:12PM EDT
I just realized how much this CIA leak thing is like the Clinton Lewinsky thing. If Congress was Democratically controlled and charges were brougth against Cheney they would most assuredly start the impeachment process. Bush seems to not have anything to do with this though. For once I think his leadership ineptitude saved him.
Thursday October 27, 2005 - 12:45PM EDT
Bush's nomination of Meirs was a curious decision. It was also almost universally derided by just about everyone. It was curious because he seemed to come out of left field with the pick. I think that maybe he actually made a decision for himself once and tried to say screw you to all the people and organizations that control or think he owes them. Now instead of him giving up she was browbeaten into withdrawl. That is a goddamn shame. To think that all of these organizations and politicians think they have control of nominees in such a manner is so sinister. They want to treat them like the puppet politicians. This is not get your man elected and he will do what you want. The judges on the supreme court have time and time again proven that they are not and will not be puppets for any one group or person. Part of the brillance of making it a lifetme job I guess.
Thursday October 27, 2005 - 11:01AM EDT
GM is under suspicion from the SEC now not to mention their huge losses and "junk" bond status in GMAC. Some people are saying bankruptcy. I wouldn't call bankruptcy yet. But things are bad. It is pretty much all their fault too. They just didn't change their strategy and kept selling big ass SUVs. That isn't the only problem though. There is probably a lot of internal ineffeciencies. You would have thought that with Toyota's success and legendary managment and plant effeciencies that everyone in the car insdustry would have gone out their way to copy them. Maybe they have but it sure doesn't seem like it. All I know is that Toyota hasn't been ultra stingy with guarding these effecincies or no one else would know about them as they do today. Anyway. That's it.