Friday, January 30, 2004
Sorry for all of the loaded posts, lately. I've been in quite a state which, combined with my new job at a liquor store on the night shift, has lead to some pretty bizarre trains of thought.
Anyway, check this out! (maybe not safe for work.)
Joel M. (via www.boingboing.net)
Anyway, check this out! (maybe not safe for work.)
Joel M. (via www.boingboing.net)
Thursday, January 29, 2004
"I spent all night at the 'Drink Drink Revolution' game."
How can a person be expected to change when everyone knows everything about that person? Doesn't that mean that that person is just a big, fat liar?
You know, I wouldn't say 'no' to the prospect of a human tongue touching down on my 'undiscovered country.'
Joel M. (via www.yourmom.com)
How can a person be expected to change when everyone knows everything about that person? Doesn't that mean that that person is just a big, fat liar?
You know, I wouldn't say 'no' to the prospect of a human tongue touching down on my 'undiscovered country.'
Joel M. (via www.yourmom.com)
"Now destroy them, crush them Torg! Do as I say!"
Joel M.
Joel M.
Hey, you!
Yeah, you.
Seeds from a thousand others drift down from within.
Also, fuck you.
Joel M. (via booze)
Yeah, you.
Seeds from a thousand others drift down from within.
Also, fuck you.
Joel M. (via booze)
Still here?
Grrrn!
OK. The truth of the matter is that I was worried about zombies infiltrating the electronic medium. That and girls who like boys who do girls like they're boys. Those things are just, you know, horrible.
Anyway, your family deserves some decent zombie protection or, failing that, your death.
That's right. Somebody other than you might benefit from your transformation into a rotting sack of shit. So go do it already.
Joel M. (via www.penny-arcade.com plus my hatred of all things living)
Grrrn!
OK. The truth of the matter is that I was worried about zombies infiltrating the electronic medium. That and girls who like boys who do girls like they're boys. Those things are just, you know, horrible.
Anyway, your family deserves some decent zombie protection or, failing that, your death.
That's right. Somebody other than you might benefit from your transformation into a rotting sack of shit. So go do it already.
Joel M. (via www.penny-arcade.com plus my hatred of all things living)
"Everybody was kung fu fighting."
Here's something that the Sterlings and Stephensons of the world will be happy that you know in case of a sudden case of oppression or something that can be somehow mystically dispelled with a little media attention: a pinhole camera of exceptional quality.
But just in case you thought you knew what I was doing:
Fuck You.
Seriously, what makes you think that you are welcome here? The fact that you know me? Bah! What have you done for me recently? Nothing, that's what! Get lost!
Joel M. (via booze)
Here's something that the Sterlings and Stephensons of the world will be happy that you know in case of a sudden case of oppression or something that can be somehow mystically dispelled with a little media attention: a pinhole camera of exceptional quality.
But just in case you thought you knew what I was doing:
Fuck You.
Seriously, what makes you think that you are welcome here? The fact that you know me? Bah! What have you done for me recently? Nothing, that's what! Get lost!
Joel M. (via booze)
Tuesday, January 27, 2004
Warning! Rant!
Warning! Poorly Thought Out!
Warning! Rambles!
Warning! Read at Your Own Risk!
Have you ever thought that things are just too complicated?
I know, I know. Things are complicated. The world is a big, complicated system with all of the bits related in ways that are often hard to determine. A butterfly flapping it's wings on one side of the world affects the course of hurricanes on the other and the right nod or wink or twitch of an endocrine system in China can impact how much I'm paying for a cup of coffee, or whether thousands of soldiers are dying over something I couldn't care less about.
I guess what I'm asking is this: have you ever thought that things are unnecessarily complicated? That things like NAFTA, or criminal justice, or human resources departments, or NASA are just too big and too convoluted? That the purpose that they serve is obscured and that those who are intimately connected with them can use these features to gain disproportionate rewards and to hide their dirty little deeds?
To paraphrase my friend Aaron when, long ago, I asked him why legislators make tax laws so arcane: "Accountants sometimes grow up to be tax lawyers." Meaning that the guys making the rules now are intimately connected with the people who stand to make a living from the structure of those rules.
But think about it. Doesn't it just make sense that, if we all paid a totally arbitrary amount of taxes with the only requirement be that it is sufficient to do the job at hand, couldn't the time and energy, friction in other words, saved by avoiding deductions, audits and high-powered accountants be turned into lower taxes?
Now I know, in fact I have made, the argument that that would mean a lot of out-of-work civil servants and accountants and tax lawyers, but consider this: money that I save is still going to get spent. Instead of having it taken away and distributed to accountants, lawyers and administrators, though, I could spend it on things that I like. Or, failing that, I could just work less and, as a result, leave some of the work that I need to do now for someone else to do.
I guess my point here is that maybe a complicated world could do with some solutions that result in things being simpler.
And what about the law in general? Whatever happened to the old American idea of swift justice? Why do trials drag on forever when the conclusion in the vast majority of them seems pretty cut and dried?
OK, that was a little rhetorical. I know why. Nobody wants to get punished for their actions and, at the same time, the justice system desperately wants to not get it wrong while, at the same time, reaping large rewards.
Here's a little micro-example of how screwy justice can get. I was a bike courier this past summer and, as part of my training, I was required to read the law on the placement of license-plates, which read that they must be on the bike and they must be visible from the front and back. I signed off that I had read the law and immediately, under the advice of a more experienced courier, fastened my rear plate to my backpack. Later, I was busted for non-compliance with the law and issued a mandatory court appearance. Because I might be found guilty, which would mean one fine for me and another for the company, the management at my company leaned heavily on me to plead not-guilty based on the argument that I didn't understand the law. This was, of course, not true. I understand what it means when it is said that something must be on something else. "This painting must be hung on this wall" does not mean that it is to be hung on a book-case leaning against the wall, or hung on a different wall, or that a novelty license plate must be hung on that wall. Now, it could be argued that the distinction between the license plate being on me and on my bike was unnecessary, but the law was quite clear and, while I considered pleading "not guilty" for the sake of expedience and the $100 mandatory fine, when I got to the stand I realized that I was unable to do so. I was guilty, damn it, and knowingly so! I knew the law, and even if it should have recognized that the exact position of my plate was irrelevant for its purpose, it didn't and I knew it. Later, it turned out that another biker had no trouble with pleading "Not Guilty" and got off scott free, while I wound up being stuck with an additional $100 fine from the company for getting them in dutch with my plea of guilty.
The lesson here is that even a couple of paragraphs of simple legal lingo can malignantly punish an honest man while rewarding a liar. And, what's worse, is that I, the honest man, was made to feel like a dupe and a patsy by my co-workers for inconveniently allowing that I was not a mental retard.
OK, what's my point with this little escapade? It is to show that the law seems to go out of its way to put people into the position of wanting to do anything in their power to avoid being responsible for their actions, while at the same time the subjects of the law are conditioned to do the same by other circumstances. All of this adds up to unwieldy processes and backlogs of courtroom activity. In the above situation, it took two months for his case to come up with plenty of pre-appearance wrangling to secure the not-guilty verdict. Wouldn't it have made sense for the officer who charged him to snap a photo, show it to the judge, and for him to have been found guilty on the spot?
But enough ragging on the law. What about NAFTA? All it is is a simple agreement that opens borders for trade? Hell, isn't this the essence of my argument for simplicity? Not so:
Ten years ago, the North American Free Trade Agreement was sold to the people of the United States, Mexico and Canada as a simple treaty eliminating tariffs on goods crossing the three countries' borders. But NAFTA is much more: It is the constitution of an emerging continental economy that recognizes one citizen--the business corporation. It gives corporations extraordinary protections from government policies that might limit future profits, and extraordinary rights to force the privatization of virtually all civilian public services. Disputes are settled by secret tribunals of experts, many of whom are employed privately as corporate lawyers and consultants. At the same time, NAFTA excludes protections for workers, the environment and the public that are part of the social contract established through long political struggle in each of the countries.
Not so simple, is it? And, of course, nobody but experts really understand something this complicated and so nobody but experts, or those who can afford to hire experts, can really benefit from it.
I'm getting a little sick of ranting for now, so I'll just wrap up. I don't have any answers, but I will say this. People aren't getting any smarter and every additional layer of complexity in the world is just another tax on everyone's thoughts. Even the smartest people are functionally stupid in most situations outside of their specific specialty and nobody really understands what is happening overall except for in the broadest, most theoretical ways. But things can't go backwards, either, since things have always been complicated. I'm sure, for example, that most British citizens of the seventeenth century understood the details of the machinations of the Houses of Commons and Lords or the ways that money flowed throughout the apparatus of the Empire. New thinking and technologies are supposed to be making things better for us all of the time, right? So why not make comprehensibility one of the traits that defines what is better and get on it?
Joel M.
P.S. I read an interesting short story a while ago in which an alien race conquered the earth. These aliens had an interesting take on just this topic, but their solution was to plaec a hard cap on the size of any given organization and to have it enforced by a powerful group of referees, for whom this was the sole purpose. Any organization that grew too large was broken up, by force if necessary. I thought I would mention it for its implications to what I am saying in addition to the way in which it related to deconstructive theory because of the fact that the fundamental premise of this system is, by necessity, at odds with the remainder of the system.
Warning! Poorly Thought Out!
Warning! Rambles!
Warning! Read at Your Own Risk!
Have you ever thought that things are just too complicated?
I know, I know. Things are complicated. The world is a big, complicated system with all of the bits related in ways that are often hard to determine. A butterfly flapping it's wings on one side of the world affects the course of hurricanes on the other and the right nod or wink or twitch of an endocrine system in China can impact how much I'm paying for a cup of coffee, or whether thousands of soldiers are dying over something I couldn't care less about.
I guess what I'm asking is this: have you ever thought that things are unnecessarily complicated? That things like NAFTA, or criminal justice, or human resources departments, or NASA are just too big and too convoluted? That the purpose that they serve is obscured and that those who are intimately connected with them can use these features to gain disproportionate rewards and to hide their dirty little deeds?
To paraphrase my friend Aaron when, long ago, I asked him why legislators make tax laws so arcane: "Accountants sometimes grow up to be tax lawyers." Meaning that the guys making the rules now are intimately connected with the people who stand to make a living from the structure of those rules.
But think about it. Doesn't it just make sense that, if we all paid a totally arbitrary amount of taxes with the only requirement be that it is sufficient to do the job at hand, couldn't the time and energy, friction in other words, saved by avoiding deductions, audits and high-powered accountants be turned into lower taxes?
Now I know, in fact I have made, the argument that that would mean a lot of out-of-work civil servants and accountants and tax lawyers, but consider this: money that I save is still going to get spent. Instead of having it taken away and distributed to accountants, lawyers and administrators, though, I could spend it on things that I like. Or, failing that, I could just work less and, as a result, leave some of the work that I need to do now for someone else to do.
I guess my point here is that maybe a complicated world could do with some solutions that result in things being simpler.
And what about the law in general? Whatever happened to the old American idea of swift justice? Why do trials drag on forever when the conclusion in the vast majority of them seems pretty cut and dried?
OK, that was a little rhetorical. I know why. Nobody wants to get punished for their actions and, at the same time, the justice system desperately wants to not get it wrong while, at the same time, reaping large rewards.
Here's a little micro-example of how screwy justice can get. I was a bike courier this past summer and, as part of my training, I was required to read the law on the placement of license-plates, which read that they must be on the bike and they must be visible from the front and back. I signed off that I had read the law and immediately, under the advice of a more experienced courier, fastened my rear plate to my backpack. Later, I was busted for non-compliance with the law and issued a mandatory court appearance. Because I might be found guilty, which would mean one fine for me and another for the company, the management at my company leaned heavily on me to plead not-guilty based on the argument that I didn't understand the law. This was, of course, not true. I understand what it means when it is said that something must be on something else. "This painting must be hung on this wall" does not mean that it is to be hung on a book-case leaning against the wall, or hung on a different wall, or that a novelty license plate must be hung on that wall. Now, it could be argued that the distinction between the license plate being on me and on my bike was unnecessary, but the law was quite clear and, while I considered pleading "not guilty" for the sake of expedience and the $100 mandatory fine, when I got to the stand I realized that I was unable to do so. I was guilty, damn it, and knowingly so! I knew the law, and even if it should have recognized that the exact position of my plate was irrelevant for its purpose, it didn't and I knew it. Later, it turned out that another biker had no trouble with pleading "Not Guilty" and got off scott free, while I wound up being stuck with an additional $100 fine from the company for getting them in dutch with my plea of guilty.
The lesson here is that even a couple of paragraphs of simple legal lingo can malignantly punish an honest man while rewarding a liar. And, what's worse, is that I, the honest man, was made to feel like a dupe and a patsy by my co-workers for inconveniently allowing that I was not a mental retard.
OK, what's my point with this little escapade? It is to show that the law seems to go out of its way to put people into the position of wanting to do anything in their power to avoid being responsible for their actions, while at the same time the subjects of the law are conditioned to do the same by other circumstances. All of this adds up to unwieldy processes and backlogs of courtroom activity. In the above situation, it took two months for his case to come up with plenty of pre-appearance wrangling to secure the not-guilty verdict. Wouldn't it have made sense for the officer who charged him to snap a photo, show it to the judge, and for him to have been found guilty on the spot?
But enough ragging on the law. What about NAFTA? All it is is a simple agreement that opens borders for trade? Hell, isn't this the essence of my argument for simplicity? Not so:
Ten years ago, the North American Free Trade Agreement was sold to the people of the United States, Mexico and Canada as a simple treaty eliminating tariffs on goods crossing the three countries' borders. But NAFTA is much more: It is the constitution of an emerging continental economy that recognizes one citizen--the business corporation. It gives corporations extraordinary protections from government policies that might limit future profits, and extraordinary rights to force the privatization of virtually all civilian public services. Disputes are settled by secret tribunals of experts, many of whom are employed privately as corporate lawyers and consultants. At the same time, NAFTA excludes protections for workers, the environment and the public that are part of the social contract established through long political struggle in each of the countries.
Not so simple, is it? And, of course, nobody but experts really understand something this complicated and so nobody but experts, or those who can afford to hire experts, can really benefit from it.
I'm getting a little sick of ranting for now, so I'll just wrap up. I don't have any answers, but I will say this. People aren't getting any smarter and every additional layer of complexity in the world is just another tax on everyone's thoughts. Even the smartest people are functionally stupid in most situations outside of their specific specialty and nobody really understands what is happening overall except for in the broadest, most theoretical ways. But things can't go backwards, either, since things have always been complicated. I'm sure, for example, that most British citizens of the seventeenth century understood the details of the machinations of the Houses of Commons and Lords or the ways that money flowed throughout the apparatus of the Empire. New thinking and technologies are supposed to be making things better for us all of the time, right? So why not make comprehensibility one of the traits that defines what is better and get on it?
Joel M.
P.S. I read an interesting short story a while ago in which an alien race conquered the earth. These aliens had an interesting take on just this topic, but their solution was to plaec a hard cap on the size of any given organization and to have it enforced by a powerful group of referees, for whom this was the sole purpose. Any organization that grew too large was broken up, by force if necessary. I thought I would mention it for its implications to what I am saying in addition to the way in which it related to deconstructive theory because of the fact that the fundamental premise of this system is, by necessity, at odds with the remainder of the system.
Baseworld. A Mother Jones article on the subject of the USA's quite-well-thank-you global empire of military bases.
The numbers are actually pretty freakin' frightening to tell you the truth. The DoD's annual report on the subject indicates that the US had over 700 bases abroad and 6,000 bases at home and abroad. What is funnier, though, is that some creative mechanism or other (probably the whole civilian services thing) has caused a number of very significant bases, such as the one in Kosovo, to not show up in this report. This means that the Pentagon itself may not know the extent of its own resources.
Hard to believe.
Joel M. (via www.michaelmoore.com)
The numbers are actually pretty freakin' frightening to tell you the truth. The DoD's annual report on the subject indicates that the US had over 700 bases abroad and 6,000 bases at home and abroad. What is funnier, though, is that some creative mechanism or other (probably the whole civilian services thing) has caused a number of very significant bases, such as the one in Kosovo, to not show up in this report. This means that the Pentagon itself may not know the extent of its own resources.
Hard to believe.
Joel M. (via www.michaelmoore.com)
Fun little flash movie describing the fucked-up mess that is the American federal budget in terms of... Oreo Cookies?
Ben, of Ben and Jerry's ice cream, makes a compelling point about the relative sizes of national defense budgets around the world. However, much as I agree with him, I strongly suspect that there are a few fallacies buried in this piece:
First, when he talks about the defense budgets of Russia and China, he points out that they are relatively very small. However, what he fails to mention is that countries like these tend to get a lot more bang for each individual buck on account of how they seem to have fewer qualms about stuff like making sure that their soldiers don't die whenever they use them for stuff.
Second, he refers to Russia and China as an ally and a major trading partner respectively. This is true, but I am still very nervous about the prospect of America and China fighting a war over the fate of Taiwan. America is obliged by law to intervene in the event of a Chinese take-over, and I recall that this was a concern during the first few months of the Bush Administration when he sold an advanced destroyer to Taiwan. This won't be too much of a problem for too much longer, though. China's economy is heating up and pretty soon they'll be able to dictate terms to the States. It'll suck to be Taiwanese at that point, of course, but that is beyond the scope of this discussion.
Finally, he claims that tiny chunks of the defense budget would be all that is required to take care of a multitude of social woes. This is fine, I suppose, though I am curious about his assertion that ten billion dollars or less invested in alternative energy sources would be enough to make a real impact. I am also curious about what proportion of any reallocated money would be required to deal with the fallout of the reallocation. Stuff like soldiers and paper shufflers getting laid off, bases closing, and equipment being retired. Also keep in mind that, for the states, military bases in places like Arkansas are a way for poor states to receive assistance from the Feds.
Not so simple now, eh Ben? Still, I agree with you.
Joel M. (via www.boingboing.net)
Ben, of Ben and Jerry's ice cream, makes a compelling point about the relative sizes of national defense budgets around the world. However, much as I agree with him, I strongly suspect that there are a few fallacies buried in this piece:
First, when he talks about the defense budgets of Russia and China, he points out that they are relatively very small. However, what he fails to mention is that countries like these tend to get a lot more bang for each individual buck on account of how they seem to have fewer qualms about stuff like making sure that their soldiers don't die whenever they use them for stuff.
Second, he refers to Russia and China as an ally and a major trading partner respectively. This is true, but I am still very nervous about the prospect of America and China fighting a war over the fate of Taiwan. America is obliged by law to intervene in the event of a Chinese take-over, and I recall that this was a concern during the first few months of the Bush Administration when he sold an advanced destroyer to Taiwan. This won't be too much of a problem for too much longer, though. China's economy is heating up and pretty soon they'll be able to dictate terms to the States. It'll suck to be Taiwanese at that point, of course, but that is beyond the scope of this discussion.
Finally, he claims that tiny chunks of the defense budget would be all that is required to take care of a multitude of social woes. This is fine, I suppose, though I am curious about his assertion that ten billion dollars or less invested in alternative energy sources would be enough to make a real impact. I am also curious about what proportion of any reallocated money would be required to deal with the fallout of the reallocation. Stuff like soldiers and paper shufflers getting laid off, bases closing, and equipment being retired. Also keep in mind that, for the states, military bases in places like Arkansas are a way for poor states to receive assistance from the Feds.
Not so simple now, eh Ben? Still, I agree with you.
Joel M. (via www.boingboing.net)
Monday, January 26, 2004
Top Ten Junkfoods list.
I knew about a lot of this stuff. I even knew about the difference between fruit juices and fruit drinks, but I still was a little shocked by this list and I think that people whould read it, just in case they don't know about something on it.
Joel M. (via Scott Jackson)
I knew about a lot of this stuff. I even knew about the difference between fruit juices and fruit drinks, but I still was a little shocked by this list and I think that people whould read it, just in case they don't know about something on it.
Joel M. (via Scott Jackson)
Sunday, January 25, 2004
I'm on a roll.
This guy eats nothing but McDonald's and, basically, gets very, very sick. Not much of a surprise, I guess.
I liked how he got sugar and fat cravings between meals, though, and how his doctor said that his liver tests were "very, very abnormal."
Joel M.
This guy eats nothing but McDonald's and, basically, gets very, very sick. Not much of a surprise, I guess.
I liked how he got sugar and fat cravings between meals, though, and how his doctor said that his liver tests were "very, very abnormal."
Joel M.
Saturday, January 24, 2004
YEAAAARGH!
So the Spirit rover is already busted. Al-fucking-ready. What was that, two days of research out of one half of an $810 MILLION dollar project? That's $202.5 million a day.
Here's a little pause to let that sink in.
.
..
...
..
.
OK. OK. Er. Ah. OK.
Ahem.
WHAT THE FUCK ARE THESE BOOBS THINKING?!?!?! $810 Million to send a pair of fucking golf-carts on a pleasure jaunt to a place that is slightly less useful for addressing the woes facing the human race than THE UNDERSIDE OF MY FUCKING BIG TOENAIL! And, to make matter worse, they didn't even have the foresight to think to pack along a couple or five extremely inexpensive self-motivated autonomous command and repair units, aka PEOPLE!
Now there are a lot of people who disagree with the expensive and somewhat silly notion of sending people to Mars at this precise historical moment, but it baffles me that these same people can see nothing wrong with dropping the GNP of a smallish nation into sending a pair of FUCKING TOASTER OVENS instead.
Why aren't we launching manned missions to nearby asteroids to test the feasibility of extracting rare minerals? Or the provision of life support in the outer space environment? Or the chances of moving something big and loaded with very heavy metals and rock (AKA spacecraft, housing and radiation shielding) into a close enough proximity to the Earth to be worth something to anybody except for that idiot who filed a parking claim against NASA?
Or, and here's an interesting idea, we could invest that cash in spaceships that don't explode. Or in improving the overall quality of life of people who weren't born grotesquely wealthy. Or in paying down government debt so that taxes can go down so that people can actually enjoy the money that they actually earned doing actual work?
You know, I can't imagine what would happen if I was an American. I would probably drown in my own bile or explode.
Joel M. (via www.spacedaily.com)
So the Spirit rover is already busted. Al-fucking-ready. What was that, two days of research out of one half of an $810 MILLION dollar project? That's $202.5 million a day.
Here's a little pause to let that sink in.
.
..
...
..
.
OK. OK. Er. Ah. OK.
Ahem.
WHAT THE FUCK ARE THESE BOOBS THINKING?!?!?! $810 Million to send a pair of fucking golf-carts on a pleasure jaunt to a place that is slightly less useful for addressing the woes facing the human race than THE UNDERSIDE OF MY FUCKING BIG TOENAIL! And, to make matter worse, they didn't even have the foresight to think to pack along a couple or five extremely inexpensive self-motivated autonomous command and repair units, aka PEOPLE!
Now there are a lot of people who disagree with the expensive and somewhat silly notion of sending people to Mars at this precise historical moment, but it baffles me that these same people can see nothing wrong with dropping the GNP of a smallish nation into sending a pair of FUCKING TOASTER OVENS instead.
Why aren't we launching manned missions to nearby asteroids to test the feasibility of extracting rare minerals? Or the provision of life support in the outer space environment? Or the chances of moving something big and loaded with very heavy metals and rock (AKA spacecraft, housing and radiation shielding) into a close enough proximity to the Earth to be worth something to anybody except for that idiot who filed a parking claim against NASA?
Or, and here's an interesting idea, we could invest that cash in spaceships that don't explode. Or in improving the overall quality of life of people who weren't born grotesquely wealthy. Or in paying down government debt so that taxes can go down so that people can actually enjoy the money that they actually earned doing actual work?
You know, I can't imagine what would happen if I was an American. I would probably drown in my own bile or explode.
Joel M. (via www.spacedaily.com)
Reason has a good article about Bush's comments on how there shouldn't be doping in sports. I took particular glee in the following passage:
Safety was not the only issue the president raised. He also said using performance-enhancing drugs "sends the wrong message: that there are shortcuts to accomplishment, and that performance is more important than character."
A man who owes so much to inherited wealth and his family's political connections probably should not broach the topic of "shortcuts to accomplishment." Not all shortcuts come in pills or capsules.
Haw haw haw!
Fuck you, Bush, and all of your pathetic, inbred type. I hope we all find out that the Egyptians were the only ones who had religion even close to right and that Anubis doesn't give a crap about how much lip service you paid to Jesus' puckered anus. Buy your way out of that, asshole.
Joel M. (via www.reason.com)
Safety was not the only issue the president raised. He also said using performance-enhancing drugs "sends the wrong message: that there are shortcuts to accomplishment, and that performance is more important than character."
A man who owes so much to inherited wealth and his family's political connections probably should not broach the topic of "shortcuts to accomplishment." Not all shortcuts come in pills or capsules.
Haw haw haw!
Fuck you, Bush, and all of your pathetic, inbred type. I hope we all find out that the Egyptians were the only ones who had religion even close to right and that Anubis doesn't give a crap about how much lip service you paid to Jesus' puckered anus. Buy your way out of that, asshole.
Joel M. (via www.reason.com)
The chant is death.
Just so's you know.
Joel M. (via booze)
Just so's you know.
Joel M. (via booze)
Just a quick question: why are all leaders such lying sacks of crap? Bush's State of the Union address was garbage, Cretien's old promise to ditch the GST was garbage, at least one of Paul Martin's big promises is going to turn out to be garbage. and if Gore had won in 2000, I'm sure we would all be talking about what a giant cock-smoker he is.
More important than why they are crap is why do we buy this crap? Is the common man just as full of bullshit as his leaders? Or do we all always just hope that the next leader isn't going to be like every other leader throughout the history of mankind? Or are we just too retarded to respond to even the extreme shocks that only the people with a great deal of power are capable of generating?
My personal theory is that even the most virtuous people are, at some level, giant hypocrites and massively evil for one reason or another. Maybe you cheat on your wife, or at taxes, or at scrabble. Maybe you embezzle or take bribes or vote a straight party ticket. Whatever it is, we all unconsciously realize that we are big bastards and, consequently, secretly welcome the shabby treatment that our officials hand out to us (see previous post re: Bush's crooked tax cut.)
Seriously. Masochism as status quo. It makes as much sense as anything else.
Joel M.
More important than why they are crap is why do we buy this crap? Is the common man just as full of bullshit as his leaders? Or do we all always just hope that the next leader isn't going to be like every other leader throughout the history of mankind? Or are we just too retarded to respond to even the extreme shocks that only the people with a great deal of power are capable of generating?
My personal theory is that even the most virtuous people are, at some level, giant hypocrites and massively evil for one reason or another. Maybe you cheat on your wife, or at taxes, or at scrabble. Maybe you embezzle or take bribes or vote a straight party ticket. Whatever it is, we all unconsciously realize that we are big bastards and, consequently, secretly welcome the shabby treatment that our officials hand out to us (see previous post re: Bush's crooked tax cut.)
Seriously. Masochism as status quo. It makes as much sense as anything else.
Joel M.
Friday, January 23, 2004
At long last, extreme marketing comes to hardware. Death Stick!
You know, it was the dorky tools that were keeping me from working construction for all of this time. I guess I should be reevaluating my life's goals now. Thanks Death Stick!
Joel M. (via www.boingboing.net)
You know, it was the dorky tools that were keeping me from working construction for all of this time. I guess I should be reevaluating my life's goals now. Thanks Death Stick!
Joel M. (via www.boingboing.net)
Disturbing Auctions. Simply put, this site nearly made me poop my pants. Especially awesome were the snuff mull (?) (note the final bid), the attack puppet, and the UPS driver sculpture. However, they are all great, so I recommend surfing the archives.
Joel M. (via Scott Williamson)
Joel M. (via Scott Williamson)
Thursday, January 22, 2004
28: Number of days holiday that Bush took last August, the second longest holiday of any president in US history (Recordholder: Richard Nixon)
13: Number of vacation days the average American worker receives each year
OK, this takes the cake. All of Bush's other transgressions can go hang, but this is just sick. 28 fucking vacation days? Why not just retire, you fucking boob?
Loser.
Joel M. (via www.independant.co.uk)
(let's not forget this, either:
88%: Percentage of American citizens who will save less than $100 on their 2006 federal taxes as a result of 2003 cut in capital gains and dividends taxes
$42,000: Average savings members of Bush's cabinet are expected to enjoy this year as a result in the cuts in capital gains and dividends taxes)
13: Number of vacation days the average American worker receives each year
OK, this takes the cake. All of Bush's other transgressions can go hang, but this is just sick. 28 fucking vacation days? Why not just retire, you fucking boob?
Loser.
Joel M. (via www.independant.co.uk)
(let's not forget this, either:
88%: Percentage of American citizens who will save less than $100 on their 2006 federal taxes as a result of 2003 cut in capital gains and dividends taxes
$42,000: Average savings members of Bush's cabinet are expected to enjoy this year as a result in the cuts in capital gains and dividends taxes)
Tuesday, January 20, 2004
Life-sized sculpture of Han Solo frozen in carbonite made out of Lego!
Joel M. (via www.boingboing.net)
Joel M. (via www.boingboing.net)
Monday, January 19, 2004
Oops!
Douglas Rushkoff, author of a bunch of stuff plus the sublime Ecstasy Club, points out that Bush's NASA money shuffle will kill off the Hubble Space Telescope. This is not kewl. Not Kewl.
Joel M. (via www.rushkoff.com)
Douglas Rushkoff, author of a bunch of stuff plus the sublime Ecstasy Club, points out that Bush's NASA money shuffle will kill off the Hubble Space Telescope. This is not kewl. Not Kewl.
Joel M. (via www.rushkoff.com)
Sunday, January 18, 2004
Jim Munroe, author of Flyboy Action Figure Comes With Gasmask, Angry Young Spaceman and Everybody In Silico has a pretty cool website that I am just starting to get into.
It seems that his whole thing is indie media. What makes this more impressive than most stabs at the indie media grail is because I have actually read his books, which are both fantastically written, interesting and, quality-wise, on par with anything that the major publishers put out. Oh, and they appear in the same mega-bookstores as books by major publishers as well as selling just like books by major publishers.
Gotta get me some of that.
Joel M. (via my sister, Elizabeth)
It seems that his whole thing is indie media. What makes this more impressive than most stabs at the indie media grail is because I have actually read his books, which are both fantastically written, interesting and, quality-wise, on par with anything that the major publishers put out. Oh, and they appear in the same mega-bookstores as books by major publishers as well as selling just like books by major publishers.
Gotta get me some of that.
Joel M. (via my sister, Elizabeth)
Saturday, January 17, 2004
How's this as a definition for arrogance? Or snobbery? Or just plain pretentious, over-monied idiocy?
I could go on and on, but it would be easier for anyone interested in my opinions of the scions of the wealth and powerfu lto go back and check out what i had to say about the Bush boys.
Joel M. (via www.disinfo.com)
I could go on and on, but it would be easier for anyone interested in my opinions of the scions of the wealth and powerfu lto go back and check out what i had to say about the Bush boys.
Joel M. (via www.disinfo.com)
Edward Burtynsky captures the beauty of modern industrial mega-death.
Joel M. (via www.boingboing.net)
Joel M. (via www.boingboing.net)
Friday, January 16, 2004
This fellow has some interesting takes on the California strip-mall city that North America has become. However, I think that a lot of his predictions for the future are a little idealistic. I suspect that he is underestimating the resourcefulness of industries that have us where they want us and the willingness of those in power to throw away the lives of the lower class in order to hang on to what they have.
Joel M.
Joel M.
I'm just a chatterbox today, hmmm? It must be that imminent doom that puts the spring in my step.
Anyway, reason has a good little bit about the all-consuming plague that is the common lawyer.
OK, not that the sort of businesses and governments that get nailed in class action suits are any better, but it still seems ridiculous that the lawyers in an $18 million class action suit get $9 million of those dollars in fees. I mean, yeah, sure, there wouldn't be a settlement without the lawyers and Citibank could get away with heinously nailing people with late fees three hours earlier than they could after the suit and the guy who wrote this piece wouldn't have gotten his $0.73 (he's an American, so that's about $1.00 to my Canadian reader.)
Ahem. Where was I?
Right. Anyway, this is just another drag that winds up costing everyone in the end. After all, Citibank isn't going to just take a loss like that in the shorts. Nope. They either already saw it or something similar coming or are taking steps to deal with it, and that means jacking their fees up a little. It's something that people don't seem to understand about businesses, insurance, governments, or whoever. They are like amorphous slime-beasts. If you hit them and don't kill them, they and the people who are running the show don't really care. They just jack up the fees by a penny and bounce right back. Sure, in an ideal world this might be a problem since their customers should theoretically be getting pissed and heading across the street to Brand X, except that Brand X got sued and raised it's fees last week.
Just more friction so that a bunch of arrogant, parasitic dinks with too much money can make a few more payments on their mid-life crisismobile and donate tens of thousands of dollars to their political buddies.
Joel M. (via www.reason.com)
Anyway, reason has a good little bit about the all-consuming plague that is the common lawyer.
OK, not that the sort of businesses and governments that get nailed in class action suits are any better, but it still seems ridiculous that the lawyers in an $18 million class action suit get $9 million of those dollars in fees. I mean, yeah, sure, there wouldn't be a settlement without the lawyers and Citibank could get away with heinously nailing people with late fees three hours earlier than they could after the suit and the guy who wrote this piece wouldn't have gotten his $0.73 (he's an American, so that's about $1.00 to my Canadian reader.)
Ahem. Where was I?
Right. Anyway, this is just another drag that winds up costing everyone in the end. After all, Citibank isn't going to just take a loss like that in the shorts. Nope. They either already saw it or something similar coming or are taking steps to deal with it, and that means jacking their fees up a little. It's something that people don't seem to understand about businesses, insurance, governments, or whoever. They are like amorphous slime-beasts. If you hit them and don't kill them, they and the people who are running the show don't really care. They just jack up the fees by a penny and bounce right back. Sure, in an ideal world this might be a problem since their customers should theoretically be getting pissed and heading across the street to Brand X, except that Brand X got sued and raised it's fees last week.
Just more friction so that a bunch of arrogant, parasitic dinks with too much money can make a few more payments on their mid-life crisismobile and donate tens of thousands of dollars to their political buddies.
Joel M. (via www.reason.com)
Groan.
Argh! Aeiii! Sweet Jesus Mary Mother of God! Grah! Whatthefuck! Awwwooooooo! Ow ow ow awwwooooooo!
That is all.
Joel M. (via www.spacedaily.com)
Argh! Aeiii! Sweet Jesus Mary Mother of God! Grah! Whatthefuck! Awwwooooooo! Ow ow ow awwwooooooo!
That is all.
Joel M. (via www.spacedaily.com)
U.S. To Give Every Iraqi $3544.91, Let Free-Market Capitalism Do The Rest
Too rich.
Rumsfeld said. "If we simply step back and let the market do its thing, a perfectly functioning, merit-based, egalitarian society will rise out of the ashes. Probably some restaurants or hardware stores or something, too."
See also:
McDonald's Introduces McCrazy Burger
OAK BROOK, IL—Responding to an over-abundance of low-cost beef, McDonald's unveiled the new five-patty McCrazy Burger Tuesday. "A pound and a half of all-American beef topped with lettuce, tomatoes, and a dollop of our new peppercorn sauce," said Melanie Haas, marketing director for the fast-food giant's Northwest region. "We promise you'll go crazy from the delicious taste of 100 percent pure beef, and not from bovine spongiform encephalopathy!" Haas refused to comment on the exact geographic origin of the cattle used in the new sandwich.
Joel M. (via www.theonion.com)
Too rich.
Rumsfeld said. "If we simply step back and let the market do its thing, a perfectly functioning, merit-based, egalitarian society will rise out of the ashes. Probably some restaurants or hardware stores or something, too."
See also:
McDonald's Introduces McCrazy Burger
OAK BROOK, IL—Responding to an over-abundance of low-cost beef, McDonald's unveiled the new five-patty McCrazy Burger Tuesday. "A pound and a half of all-American beef topped with lettuce, tomatoes, and a dollop of our new peppercorn sauce," said Melanie Haas, marketing director for the fast-food giant's Northwest region. "We promise you'll go crazy from the delicious taste of 100 percent pure beef, and not from bovine spongiform encephalopathy!" Haas refused to comment on the exact geographic origin of the cattle used in the new sandwich.
Joel M. (via www.theonion.com)
This is excellent. It's a story about clowns that reads a little like that damn book about gangs in the fifties that I had to read in high school. Basically, just a run-of-the-mill rum-soaked clown road-trip.
Joel M. (via www.boingboing.net)
Joel M. (via www.boingboing.net)
Great. Today I'm totally robbing boingboing. Oh well, fuck it. This way all two of you don't have to bother actually going there.
Anyway, Get Your War On has gone to Mars!
Seriously, this guy has some pretty awesome points about the pointlessness of a trip to Mars. As in "what the fuck good is it for anyone?"
Now don't get me wrong. I'm all in favour of people traveling in space. I just want there to be a goddamn point to it is all. Don't send 'em to Mars! Send 'em to an asteroid or the Moon or something! Don't bring ten kilos of red rocks to the Earth's surface! Bring forty tons of steel into geostationary orbit! Bring two hundred people and enough plants to grow and eat forever to the moon! Don't come back!
I don't know about anyone else, but I am fucking sick of being inspired. C'mon, NASA. You've got the hordes of smelly brainiacs, the dumptruck loads of money, and the actual fucking rockets! Do something!
Joel M. (via www.boingboing.net)
Anyway, Get Your War On has gone to Mars!
Seriously, this guy has some pretty awesome points about the pointlessness of a trip to Mars. As in "what the fuck good is it for anyone?"
Now don't get me wrong. I'm all in favour of people traveling in space. I just want there to be a goddamn point to it is all. Don't send 'em to Mars! Send 'em to an asteroid or the Moon or something! Don't bring ten kilos of red rocks to the Earth's surface! Bring forty tons of steel into geostationary orbit! Bring two hundred people and enough plants to grow and eat forever to the moon! Don't come back!
I don't know about anyone else, but I am fucking sick of being inspired. C'mon, NASA. You've got the hordes of smelly brainiacs, the dumptruck loads of money, and the actual fucking rockets! Do something!
Joel M. (via www.boingboing.net)
Lawrence Lessig at Wired proposes that developing nations respect American intellectual property rights if, and to the extent that, America reduces agricultural subsidies. Just as America once sort of did:
When America was poor, its citizens "stole." We took the intellectual property of Dickens and other foreign artists without paying for it. We didn't call it stealing, but they did. We called it a sensible way for a developing nation to develop. Eventually, we saw it was better to protect their rights as well as ours - better because we had rights to protect elsewhere, too. But we only imposed this burden on ourselves when it made sense to do so. Until 1891, we were a pirate nation.
Check it out.
Joel M. (via www.boingboing.net)
When America was poor, its citizens "stole." We took the intellectual property of Dickens and other foreign artists without paying for it. We didn't call it stealing, but they did. We called it a sensible way for a developing nation to develop. Eventually, we saw it was better to protect their rights as well as ours - better because we had rights to protect elsewhere, too. But we only imposed this burden on ourselves when it made sense to do so. Until 1891, we were a pirate nation.
Check it out.
Joel M. (via www.boingboing.net)
Monday, January 12, 2004
Fade, an interesting notion for copy protection.
I like it because it is innovative and actually moves to exploit the pirate market as a marketing tool, something near and dear to my own heart.
Of course, it will probably prove that CD Writer XYZ can make a perfect copy of a disc protected by Fade, thus defeating the protection.
Joel M.
I like it because it is innovative and actually moves to exploit the pirate market as a marketing tool, something near and dear to my own heart.
Of course, it will probably prove that CD Writer XYZ can make a perfect copy of a disc protected by Fade, thus defeating the protection.
Joel M.
Saturday, January 10, 2004
Check out Peter Bagg's hilarious take on taxes.
Not that I don't think that there are some things that only a government can do and some things that can both only be paid for by taxes and which should be done, mind you. However, I strongly suspect that one of the roots of all evil in our world is large organizations.
I'm not really interested in getting into this in depth right now, but the outline of the idea is this: every organization, be it a convenience store or an oil company or a government, has an appropriate size. A size that lets it get its job done in the most efficient method possible. As an example, it makes no sense to have eighteen people working at a convenience store and it makes no sense to hire one guy to build a bridge.
Naturally, organizations tend to screw it up, and the way they seem to do it is by getting too big. I'm not going to rant about this part, though, since I think it is pretty self-evident.
So you've got too-big organizations doing stuff and, as an organization gets too-bigger, it has to support more and more guys whose job is exclusively to shake hands and more and more people whose job is to keep track of other people's activities. All this is just friction, requiring greater and greater infusions of cash, that universal lubricant, in order to keep the whole thing from freezing up.
This means that things cost more than they should.
But why does this happen, really? Well, what with so much lubricant flowing around anyway, who is to notice when the guys behind the wheel decide to slip a little extra into their own pockets? Add to that the difficulty of firing people, the impossibility of demoting them, and the fact that most people only work so that they can watch TV and drink beer in comfort and you've got a pretty good idea about why too-big is so attractive.
One day I'm going to put all of this together. I mean it. Then you'll all be sorry. Or laughing.
Joel M. (via www.reason.com)
P.S. Here is an example of the wrong size for a task. Not that I'm sure that there is a right size for it.
Not that I don't think that there are some things that only a government can do and some things that can both only be paid for by taxes and which should be done, mind you. However, I strongly suspect that one of the roots of all evil in our world is large organizations.
I'm not really interested in getting into this in depth right now, but the outline of the idea is this: every organization, be it a convenience store or an oil company or a government, has an appropriate size. A size that lets it get its job done in the most efficient method possible. As an example, it makes no sense to have eighteen people working at a convenience store and it makes no sense to hire one guy to build a bridge.
Naturally, organizations tend to screw it up, and the way they seem to do it is by getting too big. I'm not going to rant about this part, though, since I think it is pretty self-evident.
So you've got too-big organizations doing stuff and, as an organization gets too-bigger, it has to support more and more guys whose job is exclusively to shake hands and more and more people whose job is to keep track of other people's activities. All this is just friction, requiring greater and greater infusions of cash, that universal lubricant, in order to keep the whole thing from freezing up.
This means that things cost more than they should.
But why does this happen, really? Well, what with so much lubricant flowing around anyway, who is to notice when the guys behind the wheel decide to slip a little extra into their own pockets? Add to that the difficulty of firing people, the impossibility of demoting them, and the fact that most people only work so that they can watch TV and drink beer in comfort and you've got a pretty good idea about why too-big is so attractive.
One day I'm going to put all of this together. I mean it. Then you'll all be sorry. Or laughing.
Joel M. (via www.reason.com)
P.S. Here is an example of the wrong size for a task. Not that I'm sure that there is a right size for it.
OK, now I'm just ganking Mz. Wurzeltod's page in full, but I just can't help it. I'm drooling over her links. Check out Robotik, if you dare.
Joel M. (via www.deadjournal.com/users/wurzeltod/)
Joel M. (via www.deadjournal.com/users/wurzeltod/)
OK, now here's a website and a half. It's The Cynical Fish!
The quotes are random, so don't take off the first time you see one duplicated.
Joel M. (via www.deadjournal.com/users/wurzeltod/)
The quotes are random, so don't take off the first time you see one duplicated.
Joel M. (via www.deadjournal.com/users/wurzeltod/)
Boingboing has a bit on a little idea someone has posted about solving the dating problem.
While I should be all in favour of a 'final solution' to something that handed me as much pain in high school as dating, I am not really sure I bite on the concept of the 'soul mate,' loosely defined here as someone who can give you a love that can last a lifetime.
Call me a skeptic, call me a cynic, call me burned or just an idiot, but I don't think that love honestly can last a lifetime. You can say 'I love you' twice a day, every day, for a lifetime. You can think that you love someone for a lifetime. You can like someone for a lifetime and you can be scared of being alone for a lifetime. But can your brain generate that searing, first date / first kiss / experimental fucks / finding out neat things about a person feeling for the rest of you life? You know. That feeling that we're encouraged to write off as infatuation in high school so that it's easier to get over the constant sting of rejection and later on settle for what you can get? I think that that feeling is a big chunk of love, and I don't think that the brain can.
It's like that homely old wisdom where the father says to his son "sure, you love her. But do you like her?" Because one day you're going to be faced with a snoring warthog in bed who's been pissing you off for days with her mindless chattering about spending a wad on doileys for the cat and you won't feel anything resembling love.
Joel M. (via www.boingboing.net)
While I should be all in favour of a 'final solution' to something that handed me as much pain in high school as dating, I am not really sure I bite on the concept of the 'soul mate,' loosely defined here as someone who can give you a love that can last a lifetime.
Call me a skeptic, call me a cynic, call me burned or just an idiot, but I don't think that love honestly can last a lifetime. You can say 'I love you' twice a day, every day, for a lifetime. You can think that you love someone for a lifetime. You can like someone for a lifetime and you can be scared of being alone for a lifetime. But can your brain generate that searing, first date / first kiss / experimental fucks / finding out neat things about a person feeling for the rest of you life? You know. That feeling that we're encouraged to write off as infatuation in high school so that it's easier to get over the constant sting of rejection and later on settle for what you can get? I think that that feeling is a big chunk of love, and I don't think that the brain can.
It's like that homely old wisdom where the father says to his son "sure, you love her. But do you like her?" Because one day you're going to be faced with a snoring warthog in bed who's been pissing you off for days with her mindless chattering about spending a wad on doileys for the cat and you won't feel anything resembling love.
Joel M. (via www.boingboing.net)
Friday, January 09, 2004
Those fat Americans. I hate them so.
Well, I actually just hate the idea of Americans. I am sure that there are plenty of Americans who don't fit into my stereotypical view of the atrocious American. But, on the bright side, there are more than enough Canadians who fit that category to make up for it.
And let's not talk about the French. Or the Serbians. Or the assorted Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Asian, European, Australian, African and South American stereotypes which piss me off.
I guess you could say that I just hate people. Not to my face, though. It'll just piss me off more.
Joel M. (via www.boingboing.net)
Well, I actually just hate the idea of Americans. I am sure that there are plenty of Americans who don't fit into my stereotypical view of the atrocious American. But, on the bright side, there are more than enough Canadians who fit that category to make up for it.
And let's not talk about the French. Or the Serbians. Or the assorted Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Asian, European, Australian, African and South American stereotypes which piss me off.
I guess you could say that I just hate people. Not to my face, though. It'll just piss me off more.
Joel M. (via www.boingboing.net)
Wednesday, January 07, 2004
Oh my God.
This fuck, Neil Bush, is the most pathetic example of a human cockroach. Insider trading, peddling his family name for huge piles of cash, his involvement in the Savings and Loan crash... Argh!
You know, I'm all in favour of people being able to reap the rewards of hard work and fortune and do what they may with the results, but guys like the Bush boys really try that belief. Certifiable morons who get handed whatever they want, who then turn around and fuck it all up, and who then get handed even more..! It's outrageous that these rejects get away with this kind of crap! This kind of trading on unearned wealth and personal connection is a real affront to free enterprise and the dignity of people who scrabble away for their entire lives with nothing to show for it!
OK, calm down. Maybe I'm overstating the case a little. Heck, maybe people like the magical moron boys are actually a safety valve which prevents the eventual global dominance of a single family. This isn't new. How many family fortunes have been pissed away by an unworthy scion? It just strikes me as sucky, how many people must die or go into pernury just because George Senior and Barbara both had a bad case of moron genetics.
I've gotta say, though, that if I was the Big G, I would disown every last one of my little bastards. Maybe have some sort of competition for orphans across the world for who would be my heir.
Joel M. (via www.michaelmoore.com)
This fuck, Neil Bush, is the most pathetic example of a human cockroach. Insider trading, peddling his family name for huge piles of cash, his involvement in the Savings and Loan crash... Argh!
You know, I'm all in favour of people being able to reap the rewards of hard work and fortune and do what they may with the results, but guys like the Bush boys really try that belief. Certifiable morons who get handed whatever they want, who then turn around and fuck it all up, and who then get handed even more..! It's outrageous that these rejects get away with this kind of crap! This kind of trading on unearned wealth and personal connection is a real affront to free enterprise and the dignity of people who scrabble away for their entire lives with nothing to show for it!
OK, calm down. Maybe I'm overstating the case a little. Heck, maybe people like the magical moron boys are actually a safety valve which prevents the eventual global dominance of a single family. This isn't new. How many family fortunes have been pissed away by an unworthy scion? It just strikes me as sucky, how many people must die or go into pernury just because George Senior and Barbara both had a bad case of moron genetics.
I've gotta say, though, that if I was the Big G, I would disown every last one of my little bastards. Maybe have some sort of competition for orphans across the world for who would be my heir.
Joel M. (via www.michaelmoore.com)
OK, now this is intensely weird. Paranoid conspiracy theory? Or real sinister plot?
Stuff like this points out just how frustrating mediated experience can be. It would be easy to verify to my satisfaction if only I were there. In fact, knowing about this does little for me except to make me just that much more frustrated and angry about the giant phantoms of the world.
But what is the answer to this problem? How can you have a mediated experience that is somehow guaranteed to be honest? How can you know that a picture was really taken? Or that a quote was really recorded? Or, for that matter, that the dollar you slip into a donation box isn't being pissed away? Just one of those things that seems impossible but that may one day make someone rich.
Joel M. (via www.michaelmoore.com)
Stuff like this points out just how frustrating mediated experience can be. It would be easy to verify to my satisfaction if only I were there. In fact, knowing about this does little for me except to make me just that much more frustrated and angry about the giant phantoms of the world.
But what is the answer to this problem? How can you have a mediated experience that is somehow guaranteed to be honest? How can you know that a picture was really taken? Or that a quote was really recorded? Or, for that matter, that the dollar you slip into a donation box isn't being pissed away? Just one of those things that seems impossible but that may one day make someone rich.
Joel M. (via www.michaelmoore.com)
I kind of wanted to break the X-Mas silence with something a little more profound, but I just can't resist this piece of crap, a small device that chooses one of four people to shock randomly. Er. Fun!
I'll just let you boggle on your own for a little bit.
Joel M. (via www.boingboing.net)
I'll just let you boggle on your own for a little bit.
Joel M. (via www.boingboing.net)
