Ahh... my weight is now down to 177 pounds, which means that, for the first time in years, I'm no longer considered "overweight" by the admittedly-limited BMI calculators. (I don't remember for sure how fat I used to be, but I do remember weighing at least 220 pounds, possibly more than that, in the Summer of 2002. It was gross.) I'd like to lose about another ten pounds, but even if I can't, I'd be pretty pleased just staying at this weight.
My blood pressure is now down to 110 over 70, where it used to be 130 over 90. Still waiting for the results of my blood test to come back to see whether my cholesterol and triglycerides are down -- they were never all that high, but they could still stand a little improvement (my last cholesterol count, about six months ago, was 192, which isn't bad, but isn't all that great, either).
I've reduced my coffee intake, which is probably partly responsible for the drop in my blood pressure. I used to drink 25 ounces a day, but starting about a month or so ago, I reduced that to 20 ounces. Doesn't sound like a big drop, but it's made a big difference in my mood.
My attempt to quit smoking has once again failed, unfortunately... *sigh* I hate those god-damn cigarettes, but I'll kick the habit, one way or another...
On the up side, I haven't had a drink in over two months! (Except for some nighttime cold medicine that I took for a few nights when I had a cold... that kind of thing is a little controversial in recovery circles, and I'm not sure whether it makes any difference in my own case, but I mention it in the interests of full disclosure.) It's actually to the point now where if I even smell an alcoholic beverage, I feel somewhat ill. This is the longest I've ever been sober since... well, probably in about seventeen years, I think. It's hard to describe the effect... it's kind of just an overall general sense of well-being rather than any one pronounced effect I can put my finger on. Except for my blood pressure -- I'm sure the drop is at least partly attributable to my not drinking.
I've also made a bigger effort to avoid sodium. In addition to being yet another blood pressure elevator, I've also noticed that eating a meal high in sodium often triggers a very severe bout of depression (a phenomenon my doctor says he's seen in a number of other people as well).
This is the best shape I've been in physically in who knows how long. Things are looking up, up, up!
I was just hunting around for some new mail alert sounds to make my mail client more interesting, and I found this neat little page with all kinds of mail-related sound bites from pop culture and elsewhere. My personal favorite is Homer Simpson excitedly saying, "The mail! The mail is here! Wooo..."
In a lighter vein...
Does anyone know anything about LCD displays? I use a notebook, as most of you know, and my understanding is that if you don't allow the display to sleep during periods of inactivity, you can shorten the life of the display. If I turn the screen down instead of letting it sleep, will I extend the life of the display that way, or does it need to sleep completely to get the life-extending effect?
I majored in philosophy as an undergrad. My main field was the ontological problem, but ethics was a close second. After learning about any particular system of ethics, my usual reaction was, "Well, I can see the appeal, but no, that's not right." It seemed as though most philosophers were in the general ballpark, but no one got it quite right.
One philosopher, Immanuel Kant, came closer to the bull's eye than most of the others. His system wasn't right, either, but he did latch onto one notion that is very close to the crux of ethics: the distinction between "means" and "ends". Quoting from his "Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals":
Beings whose existence depends not on our will but on nature have... only a relative value as means and are therefore called things. On the other hand, rational beings are called persons inasmuch as their nature already marks them out as ends in themselves, i.e., as something which is not to be used merely as means and hence there is imposed thereby a limit on all arbitrary use of such beings, which are thus objects of respect. Persons are, therefore, not merely subjective ends, whose existence as an effect of our actions has a value for us; but such beings are objective ends, i.e., exist as ends in themselves. [Boldface mine -- PSK]
The practical imperative [for the distinction between ethical and unethical behavior] will therefore be the following: Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another, always at the same time as an end and never as a means.
In other words, inanimate objects, such as hammers or chairs, are merely things that we may treat however we see fit for our own purposes. However, rational beings must be treated as ends unto themselves, not as tools for our use or otherwise as things in any way.
For example: I ask Denise whether I can borrow her car. I am behaving ethically because, by making the request and then abiding by her decision (whether it's "yes" or "no"), I am acknowledging that she is a rational being and not merely something that I can use as I see fit. However, if I take Denise's car without asking, this act is unethical because it constitutes treating her as a means for me to use in pursuit of what I want, rather than as an end unto herself; I am, in other words, treating her as though she were a thing, rather than a person. If I take Denise's car after I've asked for and received her permission, that's ethical, and it's called a loan. However, if I take her car without her permission, that's unethical, and it's called theft.
The same principle applies not just in ethical considerations, but even in good manners. (Actually, that's not a very good distinction to be making, since ethics and manners aren't two discrete fields; they overlap. That's why unethical people are usually rude and rude people are often unethical, but I'm digressing.) For example: if you need to walk thru a doorway, and there's a chair blocking it, you simply move the chair out of the way and walk thru the door. However, if you need to walk thru the doorway, and there's a person blocking it, you don't just move the person out of the way. Instead, you say "excuse me," and you wait for the person to step aside to let you pass (and after the person lets you pass, you say "thank you"). Moving the person aside would constitute treating that person like a chair, a simple object, so you don't do it. Instead, you say "excuse me", you wait, and then you say "thank you" afterward, thus acknowledging that the person is a rational being, not to be used as you see fit, but to be treated with the dignity and respect (as Kant said) that is deserved equally by all sentient beings, simply by virtue of the fact that they are sentient beings.
Kant's distinction between "people" and "things" doesn't seem to exist only in theory, either. Human beings, regardless of their culture, almost universally expect to be treated like human beings, and when they're treated as objects, they nearly always resent it. (There are exceptions, of course, but they're exceptions, not the rule.) That being the case, I think Kant was definitely onto something with this distinction between "ends" and "means" (although he didn't get it quite right... Schopenhauer did that when he adapted Kant's system, but that's going to be an entry for another time).
So what brought all this on? Well, a couple of people have wondered why I take such strong exception to being ignored. This little diversion is meant to explain why I feel that way. When you refuse to speak to someone, you are saying that you regard that person as a thing, not a human being (after all, you don't speak to rocks or fence posts, either). It's much the same as the feminist movement's insistence that women be treated as human beings -- that they not be objectified, that they not be treated as things. Treating women as nothing more than their bodies is objectification and is therefore wrong. Similarly, refusing to speak to someone is also objectification, and therefore, it, too, is wrong. (In fact, shutting someone out that way is arguably the highest insult it is possible to give, since it denies a person's humanity to a greater degree than just about any other form of objectification possibly could. Virtually all other forms of objectification tacitly admit, in some limited way, that a person is a person, but refusing to acknowledge a person altogether makes no such admission.)
OK, I'm glad I didn't pay for iListen or MacSpeech, whichever it is, because it's buggy as hell. Apart from the obvious fact that it can't dictate anything for shit, it crashes, it locks up the Mac (which is no mean feat, since OS X is solid as a rock), and just now, it decided not to let me bring any other apps to the front -- whenever I tried to switch to another app, it brought itself forward again.
In other words, at this point, its incompetence doesn't even have any entertainment value anymore. Into the Trash bin it goes...
In other news, I'm thinking about ditching Qualcomm Eudora. Time was it was a fantastic mail application, and even today, it's still pretty good. However, it's definitely showing its age... in particular, its "OS X awareness" is very poor, and it mangles HTML-enabled email very badly. The three alternatives I'm looking at, each of which has advantages over the others, are MS Entourage, Mailsmith, and Apple Mail. I've used Apple Mail in the past, and it sucked rocks. However, I'm told that since the last time I used it (about a year or so ago), Apple has made a lot of improvements to it, so it may be worth another look. Mailsmith is supposed to be a very powerful app, but I'm hesitant about using a client that can't display HTML email at all. I've been monkeying around a bit with Entourage, and it also looks very good, but it has certain weaknesses as well (its filters and junk mail don't appear to offer the flexibility that Eudora does), and I'd really rather not use Microsoft products any more than I absolutely have to.
Decisions, decisions... I may have to try all three of them and see what I come up with.
In other news, my web cam, Bluetooth mouse, and Bluetooth keyboard are supposed to be here today. Woot. :-) Can't wait to attach my notebook to my 17-inch monitor and speakers, turn on the keyboard and mouse, and play Halo. *grin* After I set up my webcam so Denise and I can see each other, of course.
I listed a whole mess of books on Amazon last night, and I hope to list the rest today. Another project I've been meaning to handle for some time, now almost completed. It feels good to be getting so much done around here.
So we see from this morning's paper that Bush has finally declared publicly that he wants a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
*sigh* Where do I start...?
Setting aside for the moment the fact that there's not a reason in the world that gays should be forbidden to marry, the constitutional issues involved here are worrisome. The thing is, the Constitution is meant to define the structure of the government and explain what powers it has and does not have. For example, Congress may authorize the minting of money (and is, in fact, the only body that may do so); it may not prevent people from practicing Judaism. The proposed amendment on gay marriage, though, has nothing to do with that -- it merely attempts to define a particular word in a particular way, which has nothing to do with delegation of governmental authority. That being the case, this proposed amendment is not appropriate for the Constitution, any more than a bread recipe would be.
Another major problem is that, contrary to what the right-wing fundies would have you believe, the First Amendment makes clear that the United States is a fundamentally secular nation. Defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman is a fundamentally religious concept. If you doubt this, look at how many religions don't practice it. For that matter, even Xianity itself, upon which this proposed amendment is allegedly based, has never been real big on "one man, one woman", as a quick scan of scripture -- or even a visit to Utah -- will tell you.
Additionally, the Constitution is meant to protect individual freedom. The document defines which powers Congress has, and it explicitly states that those are the only powers that Congress has (admittedly, no one pays any attention to the Tenth Amendment anymore, but theoretically, it's still in effect. Anyway). All other amendments thus far having to do with people's rights have been aimed at either expanding individual freedom, or protecting existing individual freedom. (The only exception to this was the Eighteenth Amendment, which was a gargantuan disaster from which the nation has never fully recovered). This amendment would restrict individual freedom, which is contrary to the spirit of the Constitution.
The fundies are pushing for this amendment because they know they have to have it to defeat gay marriage... all it takes is one state formally and legally recognizing gay marriage, and then it's only a matter of time -- not a very long time, either, I'd wager -- before the Supreme Court will have to rule on what that means with regard to the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution. It appears that that state is going to be Massachusetts, in just a few months (the SF marriages don't count, since those are still not recognized by California state law).
David Gerrold has written a number of excellent essays in his blog, explaining why gay marriage is inevitable and also explaining away some objections to it. Hop on over to have a look. And if you like what you read, please consider dropping a little money into his tip jar. He deserves it.
Long ago, I lost my ability to listen to most music, especially stuff from my college days, for various reasons. On very rare occasions, I can manage to listen to something, though... this morning is one of those cases, even though the music is Celtic, which usually hits me especially hard, but this time, I actually found myself enjoying it. Perhaps it's because of the subject matter of the song, which I find wryly amusing considering the attitude of the speaker (and how completely opposite it is from my own, as evidenced by my own experiences with women who have money and women who don't). I guess this song also reminds me of my own brief dalliance with trying to study Irish Gaelic... which is a very difficult language to learn, so I abandoned the attempt after only a few months.
I wonder whether anyone will be able to find the English translation of these lyrics. I've searched the web for them and found links to and about the translation, but not the actual translation itself. (I have the translation of the lyrics, of course... but I'm not telling. At least, not yet. *wicked grin*)
Siún Ní Dhuibhir
D'éirigh mé ar maidin a tharraing chun aonaigh mhóir,
A dhíol 's a cheannacht mar dhéanfadh mo dhaoine romham;
Bhuial tart ar a' bhealach mé 's shui mise síos a dh' ól,
'S le Siún Ní Dhuibhir gur ól mise lauch na mbróg.
A Shiún Ní Dhuibhir, an miste leat mé bheith tinn?
Mo bhrón 's mo mhilleadh má 's miste liom tú 'bheith i gcill;
Bróinte 's muilte bheith scileadh ar chúl do chinn
Ach cead a bheith in lorras go dtara síol Éabh 'un cinn.
A Shiún Ni Bdhuibhir, 's tú bun agus barr mo scéil;
Ar mhná na cruinne go dtug sise 'n báire léi
Le gile le finne le mais' is le dhá dtrian scéimh
'S nach mise 'n trua Mhuire bheith scaradh amárach léi.
Thiar in lorras tá searc agus grá mo chléibh,
Planda 'n linbh a d'eitigh mo phósadh inné;
Beir scéala uaim chuici má thug mise póg dá béal,
Go dtabharfainn dí tuilleadh dá gcuirfeadh siad bólacht léi.
"Beir scéala uaim chuige go dearfa nach bpósaim é,
Ó chuala mise gur chuir sé le bólacht mé;
Nuair nach bhfuil agamsa maoin nó mórán spré.
Bíodh a rogha bean aige 's beidh mise 'r mo chomhairle féin."
(*grin* If I know Denise, she'll probably have the full translation in under an hour...)
I just started messing around with some speech transcription software this evening... this package is supposed to be pretty good, but I would assume that that's after you've gotten it properly and fully trained. I've done some preliminary training, but not the full set of training yet... so at this point, the software is still making some rather amusing errors. Just for kicks, I dictated a letter to my sweet babboo and sent it to her without making any corrections. At her request, I'm posting it here. The sign off was what really got us both roaring. I typically sign my letters to her "Your Imzadi now and always". I didn't expect MacSpeech to know "Imzadi", of course, but the mangling was still quite a hoot.
[begin]
Hello, sweetheart...
I'm for him around with MacSpeech this evening. Definitely slow going. But on the other hand, I have to admit that speech recognition these days is definitely better than was when I was in college! With very little training, it's already doing quite well as you can see, although there are minor errors here in there.
There are several training texts that you read to MacSpeech training to recognize your voice better. They're not a dozen or so. I've read only to them, so maybe they'll start working better after I have done the rest of them.
Just a short note. They go back and correct all this, but of course, part of the point is descended to you so you can laugh at it! To see whether you can hear what I was actually saying! Man, some of these mistakes are pretty bad...
I love you, sweetheart... (now, let's see how it tries to trends right mind that name for you!)
You or the Sunday now I'm always,
Parish
[end]
This is from yesterday's edition of the Washington Times, who in turn used an ABC News poll as their source. It's kind of hard to believe that this is true, but if it is, then it's a really sorry commentary on the United States (and, indirectly, on the rest of the human race, since it's likely that these trends are not restricted just to the U.S.)
Most Americans take Bible stories literally
God help us all, you should pardon the expression...
Seen in the want ads section of the classifieds while going thru the newspaper this morning:
"Restaurant: BARF! Sick of your job? Hate your boss? Going nowhere? I'd throw up too."
Ah, yes. A classified ad, hiring restaurant workers, that talks about vomiting. Where do I send my résumé?
...have you been wondering where that bizarre new ad campaign for Quizno's subs came from? Here you go.
The amount of television that I watch has started to decline over the past year or so, and it appears that the trend is going to accelerate. There are three show, in particular, that are coming close to being crossed off my list of "regulars".
Mutant X. This show's first season was great, featuring a fantastic storyline, great heroes and villains, and a "look and feel" that was clearly strongly influenced, in a good way, by The Matrix. The first fight in the series premier episode, in particular -- the one where Shalimar and Jesse rescued Emma from her pursuers, after which they brought her to Sanctuary for the first time -- was about as slick as anything I've ever seen, with wonderful choreography and a soundtrack that was topnotch. Now, the show is really going downhill; they've lost their main villains, Mason Eckhart and Genomex, and two of the main characters -- including the leader of "Mutant X"! -- were killed off at the end of last season, to be replaced by the far-inferior Lexa and an Illuminati-type organization called "The Dominion". (This slide has been coming since last season, actually. If I see one more TV show attempt to use any kind of "interview" format, whether it be a TV reporter, a trial, or anything else, to conduct an entire show in flashback, I'm going to clobber the writers.)
Gene Roddenberry's Andromeda. Again, an initially great show that's been sliding for the last year or two, and for a lot of the same reasons. The dialogue is becoming increasingly corny and contrived. The direction has a very different "feel" now than it did during the first season or two, which is also true for Mutant X. And Andromeda, like Mutant X, has also resorted to the "flashback" episode. (Hint for writers: when you do that, it's painfully obvious that you're doing it because you're trying to meet a deadline but don't have any fresh ideas for episodes. If you're having that much trouble, it's time to resign and pass the reigns over to someone else.) The only really enjoyable ep of Andromeda I've seen in a while is "Twilight of the Idols", where Michael Ironside guest-starred. Ironside is a great character actor, and I really enjoy just about everything he does, although he seems to work best as a supporting actor... he was the lead actor in Neon City, for example, and I didn't think he was nearly as good in that film.
A problem common to both Andromeda and Mutant X is that important changes in the overall storyline come much too abruptly, giving the whole series a "choppy" feeling. In Mutant X, for example, Genomex and its head, Mason Eckhart, basically just vanish. And in Andromeda, the Commonwealth pretty much appears out of thin air. You can't do that... you have to take the time to explain what's going on, introduce the changes to the viewer, and -- most importantly -- lay the groundwork for whatever is going to replace any element you're removing.
In fact, now that I think about it, I'd imagine that a lot of people involved in the production of Mutant X are also involved in the production of Andromeda, since both shows are produced by the same company, Fireworks Entertainment, and both shows are having a lot of the same problems at the same time. (For that matter, Beastmaster also comes from Fireworks, and Beastmaster went off my list some time ago for these and other reasons, some related, others not).
Enterprise. Yet another show that started off good but is going to the dogs. I particularly like the "look and feel" of Enterprise -- the sets and costumes really make you feel like you're looking at some type of near-future "NASA" type ship and crew. Episodes, also, started off good, but are slipping. Not long ago, there was an entire episode that was essentially a rip-off of Night of the Living Dead, only it was psychotic undead Vulcans on a dark damaged ship instead of psychotic undead humans in a dark damaged farmhouse. Also, in the series premiere, there was a brief dalliance with sexualizing the T'Pol character, which the writers wisely abandoned... however, this season, they are reviving that angle, and with the most recent episode, it has gone beyond annoying and become actively insulting. (My understanding is that the writers are bringing in all the T&A in an effort to boost Enterprise's sagging ratings, much as they introduced "Seven of Nine" on Star Trek: Voyager for the same reason.) The "neuropressure" sessions were farfetched enough, but having T'Pol -- a Vulcan, no less -- jump Trip's bones just as a "study in human sexuality"? I haven't heard of anything so contrived since the plot of "Deep Rising".
One thing about Enterprise that does keep me coming back -- at least for now -- is the recurring role of Shran, played by Jeffrey Combs. Combs is an excellent character actor, and watching him work, bringing that odd, unbalanced, borderline-psychotic feeling that he brings to every role he plays, is always a wonderful delight. However, even Combs isn't going to keep me coming back to Enterprise if this keeps up.
Unless these trends change, it looks like my SF/Fantasy lineup is going to be getting slimmer, and I don't think I'll be looking for much of anything to replace it. Beastmaster got cut from my regular viewing list some time ago, and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's: The Lost World was never on it (although I did watch three or four eps just to make sure it was what I thought it was). Note to Telescene, the producers of TLW -- putting Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's name in the title isn't fooling anyone, and we all know which movies' popularity you're trying to cash in on. Same note also to Fireworks Entertainment, the producers of the now-cancelled Relic Hunter and Queen of Swords. In the case of Relic Hunter, the source material is so ridiculously obvious that just the title gives it away. (I should know. I asked my friend Holly once whether she'd ever watched it, and she said, "No, I've never heard of it. Is it an Indiana Jones rip-off?". Queen of Swords' origin is only marginally more obscure.) If you could be honest about adapting Beastmaster for the small screen, you could do the same thing with RH and QoS. (Or, for that matter, with Mutant X... it's no wonder you got sued by Marvel Comics...)
Smallville, at least, is still doing well, and the writers are still doing a good job of coming up with fresh ideas (the recent ep explaining how Clark Kent got his super-hearing, for example, was a real peach, very novel). I haven't yet been able to find out why they changed the theme song. The original theme music was supposed to be Perry Farrell's "Song Yet To Be Sung", which for some reason was replaced by Remy Zero's "Save Me", which is markedly inferior to the Farrell tune.
All in all, though, it looks like decent SF, fantasy, and action on TV are pretty much out the window, and there doesn't appear to be anything up and coming to replace it. I miss Xena, and I miss Robocop, which was among the best TV shows I've ever seen but never went anywhere; most people never even knew that there ever wasa Robocop TV series. I also miss Jack of all Trades, which was a really funny show and a great opportunity for Bruce Campbell to do what he does best: chew up the scenery (and again: that's another one that most people have never heard of).
Then, too, there are other shows that died a quiet and deserved death. Birds of Prey was a neat concept that was badly developed and didn't really have anywhere to go, and it didn't last long. The television adaptation of The Crow would have been a good idea, and its lead, Mark Dacascos (a Honolulu native like myself), was perfectly cast. However, the The Crow: Stairway to Heaven overlooked an important element that made the original Crow with Brandon Lee such a success: its darkness. StH, inexplicably, was filmed almost entirely in daylight, which really ruined the effect. Gene Roddenberry's Earth: Final Conflict had the potential to be a great series, right up there with Babylon 5, but the storyline showed a serious lack of cohesion, so it never came together well. (Bizarrely, my local TV station never showed the series finale. I'm still annoyed about that.)
OK... no, there was no central theme to any of that, or any real point to it... it was mostly just a rantlet-type thing for me to say some various things that have been swirling thru my head lately.
Lately, I've been thinking about taking the MAT (Miller Analogies Test), mainly because I have an interest in the various high IQ societies, many of which accept MAT scores. I don't think I'd be interested in actually joining any other high IQ societies besides the one I'm currently a member of (Mensa), but it would be kind of neat to know that I qualify for some of the more exclusive ones. (I have already qualified for some of them, such as Triple Nine, based on an IQ test my parents had me take when I was a kid, but I don't have access to the official transcripts because it was so long ago and my mother doesn't have the contact information anymore.)
Anyway. Being who I am, I've been researching the MAT on various web sites, including Amazon for test prep books and software. I came across this review of one of the MAT test preparation books from someone who hated it. I copy it here, verbatim and in full, and offer it without comment. Well, OK, only one comment: how in the world can this person be blaming the book for his score?
"I got a 19 & in 15 precentile on the test due to my study of this guiede, and Im upset! It didnot perpare me for the totale nightmare ofx the mat or the horrors of takeing it. This is a vary hard test and impossable to pass for regular student takers! The book make you feel it ok but it was no help. I dont recomend the test or this book if reading and studyng is somthing you dislike like me. Congrats to the lucky winers but most wont do so good!"
As most of you no doubt already know, spammers are using a variety of techniques to defeat anti-spam filters. One of these techniques is to include a random literary passage in the spam message to fool the filter's dictionary. I got one of those this morning, and it worked: the spam filter scored it too low to be spam, so it landed in my inbox instead of the spam bin.
The funny thing about this one, though, is that, for one thing, the actual "spam" part of the spam -- an image linked to a URL -- didn't come thru, meaning that I didn't even know what I was being spammed for. The even funnier thing is that that sent my attention instead to the random literary passage, and when I read it, I actually found myself becoming interested in it and wondering where it was from (I would assume that spammers grab these passages from various random areas on the 'Net rather than writing them themselves). I'd do a search on this to determine its origin, but I'm getting ready to head out the door. For anyone who might be interested, here's the passage, quoted verbatim and in full:
"With a soft-spoken goodnight he reversed the car and drove away up the hill.Arthur Calary was left alone waiting on the quayside.Alone with his thoughts and his apprehension of what was in front of him.How wild the scenery was here,he thought.One could fancy oneself on a Scottish loch,far from anywhere.And yet,only a few miles away,were the hotels,the shops,the cocktail bars and the crowds of Redquay.He reflected,not for the first time,on the extraordinary contrasts of the English landscape. Fear-what a strange thing fear was. . . ."
I want a cigarette! *grumble* Hmm, maybe I'll set up the hookah this evening instead.
I'm just about done with the fourth season of Babylon 5 on DVD... the fifth and final season comes out in about two months. I have a spot in my media cabinet reserved for it. Things to look forward to in life.
After spending a lot of time thinking things over, I decided to buy a Canon i960 printer on Saturday night. It got here just a little while ago, and so far, I'm very pleased. The set up was painless. As of right now, I've only printed one photo, but if the others turn out as good as this one did, I'll be more than satisfied. Unless you look very closely, you would swear this was from a photo lab.
I'm also going to experiment a bit with seeing what my current digital camera is capable of. The photo I just printed is 4x6 and looks like a regular print photo, but I don't think my current camera will be able to do 8x10 photos, which is where I really want to go. My camera is 2.1 megapixels, which is fine for most purposes but not for larger prints. I've looked at a variety of cameras, and if money were no object, I'd buy a Nikon D100. It's a fantastic camera, and it can do just about everything I want to experiment with, including infrared photography, which I think is really neat. (The only thing I'm not sure about is certain kinds of time lapse, such as making photos of star tracks.) The Nikon D100, unfortunately, is also tremendously expensive, so for the foreseeable future, buying one is just a pipe dream.
I'm getting a variety of projects taken care of around the house, and the place is starting to look pretty neat and organized. I'm also getting my hard drive in order. I've always been really bad about dropping files pretty much anywhere on my hard drive and not using naming conventions. Bad habit that I'm trying to break.
Rather amusing discovery I made about a week ago while working on the hard drive project: I found out that, due to the way iTunes imports MP3s into its library, I had almost an entire duplicate set of my MP3 collection on my hard drive. Getting rid of the duplicate folder saved me about a gig of space (yes, only a gig. I don't collect MP3s the way some people do... I have only about 250 of them).
Weekend project: I need to go thru this box of spare computer parts and stuff that's just sitting around and put it on eBay. I've also got this complete server setup sitting here that I never use, so I'm wondering about getting rid of it as well, although I have some reservations about doing that... it's my only spare computer, and if I hadn't had it the last time Denise was here, she'd have been in real trouble when her notebook died. (For that matter, if I get rid of the server, I could be in big trouble myself if my own notebook died, even though mine is still under warranty.)
David Gerrold reports that A Method for Madness is nearly complete. One more major section to write, then the interstitials, and it's done. I can't wait to find out what happens to "Parrish" in the book, but obviously I'm going to have to wait several more months at least.
And that's the evening report... back to taking care of some matters around the house.
Yes, the great experiment is underway again... as Mark Twain once wryly remarked, "Quitting smoking is easy. I've done it thousands of times". I haven't reached the thousands mark yet, but as of yesterday, the number of attempts has increased by one.
I won't give up my hookah -- I love it far too much, and considering that I smoke it on average, only about four or five times a year, I'm going to conveniently pretend that there are no health risks involved (even though Denise has sent me research indicating that that's not the case). However, I am, once again, trying to go without cigarettes. I figure this is as good a time to try it as any. Late Monday night, I realized that I had only three left, and since I haven't been inclined to leave the house lately (which obviously means I can't buy any more), I figured I might as well use whatever circumstances I can to my advantage. So I finished the pack on Monday night and haven't had any since.
I'm getting nicotine cravings -- faint, not very strong, but other than that, the effect has been the opposite of what is typically reported. I'm already finding myself feeling calmer, less nervous, less irritable, less edgy. (For a while now, cigarettes have actually produced nervousness and irritation in me, rather than quelling it -- no idea why, but there it is.) I'm not leaving the house again until Friday at the earliest, maybe not even then, so I'm hoping that getting thru the next few days will give me a good start. The first few days are supposed to be the hardest.
I knew I should have kept my mouth shut. Lately, it seems like whenever I say anything whatsoever, regardless of how noncontroversial it might appear to be, I always end up getting into trouble. Right now, I could probably say that water is wet and end up receiving a prison sentence.
In an ongoing, desperate effort to find a topic that won't generate a spat, I offer a little something that I've had on the back burner for a while. Denise and I have a game that we play every once in a while where I name certain celebrities that most women find attractive, and she tells me what she thinks. Personally, I think that Tom Welling is one of the most handsome men out there today (but only when he shaves; when he lets his beard grow, he's really repulsive). Denise doesn't find him appealing at all and thinks I'm better looking than he is. I'll only concede that I have better teeth than he does... Tom Welling really needs braces, and not in a minor way, either. :^)
We agreed to solicit some other opinions, so please have a gander at the two photos and feel free to comment.
My entry about courtesy on this blog had nothing to do with Shaw -- someone a couple of days or so ago did a Google search on the Star Trek species quiz, hit my blog as a result, and posted a comment in that entry calling me a "dufus". I deleted the entry, banned the IP, and then went on my rant. It was not about Shaw, and was not intended to be about Shaw at all -- it was only about people like the random visitor I had a couple of days ago, or other individuals who have come here and been rude in my home. I apologize for any confusion.
No, I am not returning to regularly scheduled blogging yet, but after finding yet another comment in my blog this morning from a rude person (which I have just deleted), I have decided to implement a new policy. But first, a bit of background.
As everyone knows, courtesy, politeness, and good manners have become increasingly rare over the years, and the trend shows no signs of abating -- it is reasonably safe to assume that our "society" is going to continue to become ever more rude as time goes on. I am under no illusion that I, alone, would have the power to slow or reverse this trend, and as I become increasingly cynical about the human race in general, I find myself less and less inclined to make the effort (there was a time when I felt differently).
However, as the old saying goes, "A man's home is his castle". If, for example, I have you over to my apartment as a guest for dinner or hanging out or whatever, and you call my girlfriend a whore, I am going to ask you to leave, and if you do not do so, I will call the police and charge you with trespassing. It is my right, as the leaseholder on this apartment, to admit, or deny admission, to anyone I choose, for whatever reason I choose. In my own case, my decision in that area is based, as it is with so many other hosts, on the guest's level of courtesy; that is to say, I expect my guests to exhibit good manners, and if they do not do so, they are no longer welcome.
Some have occasionally objected to such a policy on the grounds that it is a violation of my guest's right to free speech, under the First Amendment, if I choose to deny admission to anyone who calls my girlfriend a whore (to revert to the previous example). Such an objection is based on a flawed understanding of constitutional principles. Private property rights override constitutional protections -- in my own home, for example, I can say, "No Bibles allowed," and that's the end of it. Anyone attempting to claim a First Amendment right to bring a Bible into my home, under such circumstances, would be laughed out of court.
This principle, for me, extends to the Internet as well. I consider this blog, like my apartment, to be my home. It is private property, and when you post comments here, you are, in my view, acting in the same capacity as if you were a guest in my apartment. I expect people who post on my blog to conduct themselves properly. In the past, I have approached this problem -- the problem of guests in my 'Net home behaving poorly -- with attempts to try to show such people that their behavior is wrong, and that they need to change it. I will not do this anymore -- I have learned that virtually all such people are quite ineducable, besides which, I am not anyone's father, and I have better things to do with my time in any event.
Therefore, effective immediately: if you post rude comments to my blog, you may expect your comment to be deleted and your IP to be blocked, which is the Internet equivalent of my ejecting you from my home. If you want to be rude, you are perfectly free to do so someplace else, but this is my home, and I expect courtesy here. I also expect courtesy toward my other guests; e.g., if you call Matt an asshole, you may expect me to respond the same way I'd respond if you called me the same thing.
Please note that this is not an attempt to prevent anyone from making posts disagreeing with me about anything. For example, I support gay marriage; if I say so in a blog entry, and you disagree with my position, you are perfectly free to post a response saying why you think gay marriage is a bad idea. However, I expect you to do so in a civil manner.
I have spoken.
Brief explanation... when life gets rough, I tend to withdraw, and the rougher life gets, the less likely I am to want to be talkative, even on my own blog, and even about subjects completely unrelated to my life, such as world events.
These days, life is pretty grim indeed, so no, I am not talkative. If things ever start looking up again -- a prospect that I find increasingly unlikely -- I'll start yapping more. In the meantime, the long silence continues...