Friday, December 10, 2010

What we've got here is... failure to communicate

Fido calls me up and says they want to reward me for being a loyal customer by locking me into a contract for another 24 months. Well they didn't use those words exactly...

I goes I says I don't want a contract. He says he goes, "It's not a contract it's an agreement."

n. 1. An agreement between two or more parties, especially one that is written and enforceable by law.
So it's an agreement for 24 months. I axe the guy if there's any penalty for leaving Fido during that period. He tells me there's a "cancellation fee." So I repeat my desire to not be locked in. He goes he says, "You won't be locked in; you can change your service details any time you want." Confused, I axe if there is no cost for switching to another provider. He repeats that there is of course a cancellation fee.
Vendor lock-in

In economics, vendor lock-in, also known as proprietary lock-in, or customer lock-in, makes a customer dependent on a vendor for products and services, unable to use another vendor without substantial switching costs.
Thanks for nothing, but no thanks, please, thank-you.

It's funny how they will use semantics to make it seem that they're giving you a gift. The gift of an offer to buy something from them. Well, I get that they would use different words to try to make the sale more appealing. What I don't get is saying "It's not the old word, it's the new word that means the same thing as the old word."

Here's an offer I'd like to see:

Fido would like to offer you a 24-month complimentary gift of service. This cellular phone plan has no monthly charges! Instead you'll only receive the Fido Happiness Convenience Bonus invoice, which will be automatically withdrawn from your bank account once a month. And, you can cancel this offer at any time, with no penalties! Instead of penalties, you will be charged a one-time Loyal Customer Farewell Gift fee of $200.

You can steal this if you want to, you sneaky Fido bastards.

Source for definitions:

Wednesday, December 8, 2010

I can't hear ya. I say what's cooler than bein' cool?

Edmonton has now entered its period of polar night. We won't see the sun come up again until maybe February.

These days the temperature dips so low that our furnaces stop working. We try desperately to get them started again by shoving wads of newspapers into the coals, only to watch in desolation as the flames freeze into ice crystals right before our eyes, and turn to a cool dim blue light before fading out and falling from the air, shattering with a tinkle. Food is scarce as most of it has by now congealed into Bose–Einstein condensates, and has been rendered inedible.

Our only refuge is to crawl into the relative warmth and safety of our refrigerators, and try to balance shivering to stay warm, with staying completely still to conserve energy. Then we wait it out there until spring.

Tuesday, November 9, 2010

a pig in a cage on antibiotics

Skip reading this if you think ignorance is bliss when it comes to processed meat products.

Guess What’s in The Picture [Foodlike Substance]

Don't let the mouth-watering title seduce you into clicking the link!

Favorite lip-smacking quote: "USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) ruled that beef could no longer be processed this way, because testing showed that parts of the bovine central nervous system ended up in the meat." Well, I'm sure that, you know, not too much of a chicken or pig central nervous system ends up in food-like processed meat products due to this method. Maybe just enough to enhance the flavor of all the delicious pork rectums.


Sunday, September 19, 2010

The truth is bendy

I was thinking about how people seem to make any side of a story true, if they want it to be. X is worse for you than Y because of blah and Y is worse for you than X because of other blah. So I tried it out. It's surprisingly easy to do!

This is true:
Did you know that cars actually generate water when you drive them? People think cars are evil or something, but they actually create this life-giving fluid that is required by all life as we know it. Meanwhile, trees, which people think are wonderful things for our planet, literally destroy much of the water that they use, breaking down its very molecules. By driving your car, you can help restore water into the atmosphere to replace the water destroyed by trees. Not only that, but people think that trees create oxygen; they DON'T.


You can steal this if you want to, you sneaky anti-environmental bastards.

Tuesday, September 14, 2010

Next Season on True Blood

The following is a transcript of a montage-style preview of season 4 of True Blood.

Next season on True Blood...

What are you?

I'm a zombie!
Cut to:

What are you?!

I'm a wizard!

Cut to:

What are you?!

I'm a Hobbit!
Cut to:

What are you?

I'm a Jedi Knight.
Cut to:

What are you?!

I'm a Level 20 Half-orc Dual-class Rogue/Druid.
Cut to:

What are you?!

I'm a Crystalline Entity.


I'm a Cyborg from the year 2029.

I'm a Were-giraffe.

I am... a normal boring human. Obviously the last of my kind.

Saturday, August 14, 2010

Prelude to a God Post

In a future post I will prove that god exists. The proof is pretty much the same as the proof that Santa Claus exists, which I will present here. It is a "proof by redefinition", which I am finding very useful in a world where more and more of what we experience can be shown to be subjective or relative.

Proof of the existence of Santa

First, there is evidence that Santa Claus exists. Every Christmas morning, millions of children wake up to find presents that are addressed from Santa. If you axe the parents of these kids, "From whom are these presents?", many or most will say "They're from Santa Claus."

Who then is this clearly existent Santa Claus? Every Christmas, millions of parents take on the role of Santa, buying the presents, signing his name. If you allow a definition of Santa that doesn't have to be "one person", you can call this collective group of parents "Santa". In the way that Santa matters -- bringing toys to millions of kids on Christmas Eve night -- this group of parents fits the definition. They also label themselves with this definition.

You can equally easily prove that Santa doesn't exist. If you define Santa as a magical fat human who lives at the North Pole and delivers millions of toys by sleigh, sequentially all in one night, you will not find much evidence of his existence. In fact you can easily find evidence of "impostors" (parents) planting false evidence of his existence.

And so, whether Santa exists or doesn't, or can be proven or not, depends completely on how you define "Santa". Fortunately, we're given plenty of opportunity to make such definitions. Santa is based on St. Nicolas, an apparently real human who did in fact deliver gifts individually. The idea of a flying sleigh, elves, and a North Pole toy shop are all part of a myth, built around St. Nick. The myth need not have anything to do with the actual definition of Santa. Whether you define Santa as St. Nick, or as the myth, or simply as a label to describe the role that parents take on at Christmas, is up to you.

Clearly, the same idea applies to "god". There is plenty of myth surrounding the concept of god, and we choose which myths to accept and which to ignore (Does god look human? Are there multiple gods -- a god of the sun, a god of the sea, a god of lightning?). Everyone has a different (if even just slightly) definition of the meaning of "god". Most of us are free to choose what god means to each of us as individuals, and many of us incorporate what we "think" into what we believe. And, we can choose to define god as something that clearly exists, or something that doesn't, or something that is not provable either way.

Tuesday, June 8, 2010

This week in news

RIAA Sues LimeWire for $1.5 Trillion

In what seems like a sad and ill-timed April Fool's joke, RIAA is asking for $750 for each song downloaded through LimeWire.

RIAA Sues Radio Signal Receivers for $10 Trillion

People who are subjected to radio signals have been getting a free ride, according to RIAA.  "Radio stations are playing music that we own, and whether someone is listening to that song on an album that was purchased in a store, or if radio waves carrying that song pass harmlessly through their head, it makes no difference to us... we are still owed money for that song."  RIAA is asking for $750 for each song that is played on a radio station, for each person within the range of that station.

RIAA Sues Pet-Owners for $250 Trillion

RIAA claims that pet-owners are not living up to their contractual agreements.  "When you purchase an album, you are purchasing a license to listen to that album, as an individual.  Pet-owners tend to have their pets around when they listen to music.  The owners typically don't realize that they are required to purchase an additional copy of an album for each pet that consumes our product."

RIAA has also stated that they may be introducing new licensing agreements that require customers to buy a second copy of an album if they listen to it more than 5 times.

RIAA Sues India, China for $5.5 Quadrillion

RIAA has stated that consumers in India and China are not buying enough albums, which they are calling "Theft of potential profits". By their calculations, each person should be pulling their weight and buying enough albums for a collection of approximately 250 albums each, roughly the average for UK album owners.  At an average of 12 songs per album, and at $750 per song (the magic number that RIAA says each un-purchased potential song costs them), the bill comes to $2.25 million per person.  With around 2.5 billion people in the 2 countries, the total amounts to over $5,545 trillion.  "Luckily, with such large numbers, the theft of our potential profits is a very serious crime in these countries, and may even carry the death penalty as a punishment, which we think will really encourage people to pay up what they owe us."

RIAA Sues Earth for $3.3 Quintillion

"Frankly, we're just used to pulling ridiculously inflated numbers out of our asses and telling people they owe us that.  The number we came up with, and it's an exciting one, is $500,000,000, from each person on the planet.  And, we'd like to have that money, so we think we deserve it."

Saturday, May 15, 2010

Corruption is why we win.

A Deepwater BP oil spill conspiracy theory.

BP is struggling like a fumbling moron to contain the oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico. From the information we get, after being passed through the filters of PR departments and corporate news organizations, we get the impression that they are incompetent idiots who don't know what they are doing. But there's a lot of money involved in this thing, and chances are that quite a few very smart people are being paid a lot to think about this problem. Chances are they know what they're doing a lot more than we do, and a lot more than we're being told.

Here is the story that we see, based on what we're told, and what we assume:

1. It is in everyone's best interest that this oil spill be stopped as soon as possible. It is especially in BP's interest, because they're the most directly financially impacted by it, and they're the ones who look bad as it drags on.

2. It's good that BP is taking responsibility for dealing with the leak. They're responsible for causing it; they should be responsible for stopping it. Let them do it, because it's only costing them money, which is better than having someone else pay to deal with their problem.

3. They are struggling and failing to contain this leak, which means that it is a very hard problem and they're in way over their heads.

4. The government is on the same page as BP and everyone else.

Here is another version of the story. This one is again based only on news and assumptions. To be clear, what is proposed here is indeed a speculative conspiracy theory.

1. BP is not in the business of environmental preservation and recovery. They didn't immediately switch from a company whose goal is to make money from oil, to a company whose (temporary) goal is only to save the environment. As a corporation, they are still legally required to make as much money as possible for their investors. Having a company that makes money by exploiting the environment, in charge of an environmental rescue operation, doesn't seem all that smart.

We let this pass, because we confuse the multiple meanings of the word "responsible." Yes, we think, BP should be responsible for this because why should someone else pay for it? So if BP says they will handle it, we step out of the way and hold the door open for them. But being responsible for it also means being in charge, and doing it their way. We let them have total control, because stepping in on this will cost money.

2. Stopping the oil leak as quickly as possible is not in everyone's best interests. Yes BP wants to look as good as they can in this situation, but they have a lot of different people to look good for. First and foremost are the investors. Nothing would look better to the investors than coming up with a way to get out of this disaster while still turning a profit on it. Secondly there are government regulators. BP must look good enough to the government so that they're not fined, sued, or face changes in policy that make it harder to do their business. Third are average people. Unfortunately, we only matter insomuch as we can affect those in groups 1 and 2. It should be no surprise, that amounts to very little. Fourth and last are the sea creatures directly affected by the spill. Clearly, those most affected by the environmental aspects of the disaster, are of the least concern for BP. This is not an environmental rescue operation; it is an oil and profits rescue operation.  Stopping the leak as quickly as possible is secondary to doing it as profitably as possible.

3. BP has a cap on what they can be charged for in terms of environmental damage. They probably blew through this upper limit on the first day of the leak. That means that as far as they're concerned, given 2 possible solutions to dealing with the leak, the environmental cost of each simply does not factor in. Stupidly, everyone has stood aside and said "Your problem, not mine!"… but in doing so, our environmental problem slipped through the cracks and became just an economic problem, and we didn't even see it happen.

I don't think that BP has any further legal responsibility to fix this mess as quickly or best as they can. Whether they fix it tomorrow, or take a year, they've already reached the limit of what they're legally liable for. However, they still have a legal responsibility as a corporation, to fix this mess as profitably as they can. That means, if they can find a way that involves continuing to pump oil out, they will choose that over a way that involves blocking up the well.

We may think that the cost of the lost oil is a major factor, but I don't think it is. As far as economics goes, this oil field is essentially limitless. BP would be able to pump oil out of it for much longer than it matters. The well running dry is a problem for future investors, not today's. What matters today is time and flow, because any time spent not pumping out the most oil that you can handle, is money wasted. So a solution that involves stopping the flow of oil, keeping it intact for future recovery, yet delaying when that can happen, is an unfavorable solution.

And so, we don't see the best solutions being tried first. We see instead the quickest, cheapest solutions that would allow the oil to keep flowing, regardless of how how unreliable they may be.

With things like "relief wells" being drilled to relieve pressure, I wouldn't be surprised if when BP finally regains control of the oil from this well, we are told that they must maintain a much higher flow rate than would otherwise be allowed, "in order to prevent additional catastrophes".

4. If true, this suggests that BP is pulling the wool over government's eyes. But like BP, the government has a lot of smart people, and like with BP, there is a lot of money at stake for the government. Obama states that he will not rest until the flow of oil is stopped. And yet BP is given free reign to attempt oil containment schemes that don't involve stopping the oil at all.

Like corporations, governments have multiple people that they must cater to. There are of course the people, and there are corporations, and there is also themselves. This means balancing doing the right thing, doing the wrong thing, and trying to look good while doing it. Obama can't attack BP yet, and say "You're doing it wrong", because then he not only ignores the oil industry's interests, he also enters a costly battle against them.

The government must try to balance doing what's best for the environment, letting corporations have their way, and making it look like they did the best they can. They need BP to get the well under control, because no one else is willing to cover that cost. It is too late in the middle of a crisis to change policy and agitate anyone. Instead, governments tend to wait until crises are averted, and only then launch investigations into "what went wrong". New policies will be introduced "to ensure that this will never happen again". These are token policies that will satisfy some, but won't stop the innovativeness of industry from cutting corners to get around them. No, new policies are not meant to slow industry to prevent future disasters, they're the illusion of due diligence in dealing with the last disaster. All part of the cleanup.

Ironically, the worst things that we see happening with this disaster, are probably mostly technically legal.

So we will see BP fumble around for awhile. They'll come up with a solution that, miraculously, forces them to keep churning out profits. Then there will be a long period of studies on the impact of the disaster, and there will be debates on various internet forums, and there will be little news. Back to normal for the oil industry, for the suffering Gulf coast, for the dying sea, and for the world.

Friday, May 14, 2010

Lost fan fiction (with spoilers)

I really like the writing style of Across the Sea. I was inspired to write my own script, which covers the events of that episode and goes on to explain other mysteries of the show.

Act II, Scene I:

Adam: What's down there?

Mother: Light. The warmest, brightest light you've ever seen or felt.

Adam: It's beautiful.

Mother: Yes it is. It's the most beautiful light you've ever sensed. It's twice as yellow as any color you've ever known, and it buzzes louder than any light you've ever heard.

Jacob: Smells kinda like marshmallows!

Mother: It's the most marshmallowy light you've ever tasted. And that's why they want it.

Jacob: What's down there?

Mother: Life. Death. Rebirth. Infinity. Abstract concepts. Riddles, and double-speak. A one-sided slice of ham. A piece of buttered toast, strapped to the back of a cat.

… Also, some treasure.

… There's a bit of that light in all midi-chlorians. Men want it because it's super useful and junk. Just a bucket-full of this light, maybe attached to something like i don't know, a big wooden wheel or something… that could power a hundred clock-radios for over a week. And it's super warm! But the men would use it for very bad, very dangerous things. All sorts of crazy stuff.

Jacob: What do people want to do with it?

Mother: Very powerful and very dangerous, but very very vague and very unspecified things.

Things like what?

- Things that are not meant to be controlled by men.

Wow! Like what?!

- Things that are very mysterious, and totally, totally weird.

Things like what? Can you give me some straightforward answers?

- No… It's not time yet. There are still 2 more episodes.

Mother: You're special. Some people who are special can bend their thumb back and touch their arm with it. Others who are special are good at math or playing the violin or stacking cups really quickly. Your brother's special. He doesn't know how to lie or to tie his shoes. And in other ways, you're also special. Like how you turn into smoke and pick up people and smash them against rocks and stuff.

Adam: I'm special? Is that why I can possess dead people and get blowed up without being hurt and junk?

Mother: Yes. That's because you're special.

Adam: But how did we get here? Where did you come from?

Mother: I came from people who came before me.

Adam: But why can people travel through time?

Mother: Because that's the way that it had to be.

Adam: But why does the island move?

- Because why not.

Then why…

- Because it became like that.

But why did...

- Because of the rules.


- Because it just is.

But you're not even...

- Because I said so?

But it just doesn't make sense! Nothing makes sense! Why is there so much weird stuff always going on?

- Because I made it so it was that way, and also that's how the island wants it, and also that's how it's supposed to be.

Adam: [After a long pause] Well I think we can all be adequately satisfied by those reasonable explanations, thanks.

His name is… Jacob.

Look! There's another one!

It's another boy.

Hmmm, I think… I will call him…


Smoke Monster.

Tuesday, January 26, 2010

N.L. PM calls for war after pie incident.

After calling the pieing of Fisheries Minister Gail Shea "an act of terrorism," an MP stepped up his rhetoric and began calling for war.  "This is terrorism," he said.  "It's terrorism of the worst kind.  And we need to have an appropriate response, and the appropriate response is to find a country where people look kind of like her, and we bomb them."  The MP referred to the pie-er who perpetrated the pieing, a woman involved with the PETA organization, who oppose the seal hunt.

When asked if he proposed dropping huge pies on the selected country, the MP was incredulous.  "No.  Bombs.  This isn't clown-school shit, this is terrorism!  Many, many, many people need to be killed."

Speaking out against PETA, MP Gerry Byrne says, "When someone actually coaches or conducts criminal behavior to impose a political agenda on each and every other citizen of Canada, that does seem to me to meet the test of a terrorist organization."

PETA issued a statement saying that they agree with the MP on that point, and are "calling on the Government of Canada to actually investigate whether or not the government, with its ill-advised sanction of the slaughter of seals, is acting as a terrorist organization under the test that exists under Canadian law."

Some individuals are not waiting for an investigation.  An unknown individual has spray-painted the word "Terrorist!" on the MP's house.

"This is outrageous!", the MP is reported as saying.  "It's very damaging to myself and to my family to be called a terrorist.  You can't just accuse someone of being a terrorist, just because they did something wrong, something you don't like.  In fact the person who vandalized my house is the terrorist!  And we need to start bombing some countries.  It's shameful that anyone would call me a terrorist for something as silly as condoning the slaughter of baby seals.  These days, 'terrorist' is a hateful and very damaging word, and it shouldn't be used lightly.  The vandals should be charged with hate crimes for publicly labeling someone as a terrorist.  I've had it already with these animal-rights terrorists and the rest of Canada disagreeing with what the government does... that's terrorism, if anything is."

When asked by a reporter if he thought he was perhaps being a ridiculous idiot, the MP replied "Shut up, terrorist."

Monday, January 25, 2010

Windows 8 to Feature Fully Virtual Monopoly

In its next version of its surprisingly popular operating system, Microsoft will be moving away from providing additional software features, and instead focusing on the company's core strength: monopolies.

"The actual operating system of Windows 8 will be provided by other organizations, but it will have exclusive Microsoft branding, including a wide range of monopolistic features," says a Microsoft spokesperson.  "Users will be getting the best Windows yet, whether it is a version of Ubuntu, or Mac OS, or something else.  But with that they will be getting all of the features that they've come to expect from Microsoft, including easily creating files that can only be opened by other Windows users."

"It's more like an exclusive club than software," says Microsoft.  "And at $250 for a Standard Edition upgrade, our customers know that it's a premium club."

The move is being well-received by Microsoft's customers.  "I'm happy to pay whatever it costs to be part of the Microsoft monopoly", says the director of the New Zealand school board, which has recently renewed a contract to have all-Microsoft software in every one of its schools.  "We already have some schools switching to other operating systems.  This new version of Windows will allow them to do that while still claiming to be 'Windows only.'  Microsoft's new focus will greatly improve the quality of the software, and we will be safe in the knowledge that none of our students will be left behind, forced to pay out of their own pocket for Microsoft branding, or to get out into the real world and be left out, trying to make it in this world without even a shiny Microsoft sticker.  I'm glad we'll be getting something new and better, but still be able to pay Microsoft for it, as we always have."

'The Right Move', says Microsoft

"We've always known that when it comes to actual software, we're mediocre at best.  But as for successful monopolistic practices, we're in a class of our own.  We've listened to our customers, and they tell us that what they want is the monopoly, and they're tired of having to deal with our software to get it.  We've been working hard on this new version of Windows, to allow our monopoly to work with other operating systems, yet still retain that 'Windows only' feel.  The new version will be streamlined down to just the bare essentials.  Basically, it is nothing more than a file system with special Digital Rights Management restrictions that make all files on your system 'Microsoft-only'."

The OS will ship with the new file system on a single 3.5" HD floppy disk, a brochure for additional add-on Microsoft clubs, and of course, an official Microsoft sticker.

Monday, January 18, 2010

I have a googlephonic stereo with a moon rock needle. It's okay for a car stereo; I wouldn't want it in my house


Illegal Music just sounds better

Posted by Anonymous

I recently accidentally overheard some Illegal Music being played, and I was overwhelmed by the depth and emotion in the sound.  Some people say Illegal Music is the same as any music that is approved for listening by government and industry, but I beg to differ.  There is just something about Illegal Music that you can feel in your chest.  It moves you.  I'm not sure how to describe it, other than that it really just sounds better.

I think it might have something to do with the taboo factor.  It is a forbidden fruit.  Perhaps there are illegal bits in it, which add power to the music or something.  All I know is, it was exciting to hear this secret, subversive sound coming from the speakers, and now that I have a taste for it, I want to hear more.

I don't think the cops were on to me, and I hope I escaped the RIAA Illegal Music taser-squads and their fines and jail-time.  Luckily, this country doesn't have the death penalty, so I know that if I hear something that breaks the law, at least they won't kill me for it.

Are there other types of forbidden music that might also induce this type of excitement?  Are there Terrorist Tunes?  Are there War Crimes Chants?  Music that is criminal is one thing, but is there music that wears furs or clubs baby seals?


PS. I heard that if you play Illegal Music backwards, the devil will come through the walls and sue you.

Saturday, January 9, 2010

You lack the brains to know that 4 simultaneous days rotate in an imaginary cubed Earth.

Isn't it pointless to stop eating factory-produced meat, since one person won't make much difference and will never change the world this way, and because it's impossible to convince others when you can't even convince yourself?

Do you secretly hope for an environmental catastrophe big enough to finally prove that global warming is real and that you were right all along, but even more secretly fear that deniers will still say that it isn't anthropogenic, or that deaths and suffering will quickly be forgotten as the extreme right continues to extol the virtues of the new hotter world?

Don't you hate it when you argue about the existence of god and prove your case flawlessly, but then people discover the existence of consciousnesses in the universe that dwell in scales of size and time that are completely beyond our own experiences, and then people say, "See? That's God!", but really they cheated because that's not at all what they described when they were talking about their God, which really isn't fair.

How do you effect change in a world that stupidly, stupidly refuses to agree with you?

Hint: It doesn't matter whether you're right or not; all that matters is what's important to you.


There's an old saying by Oprah -- I know it's by Gandhi, probably by Oprah -- that says:
"You must be the change you want to see in the world."

Of course that means that you can't change the world without changing yourself first. But, it can also mean that by changing yourself, you are changing your world.

We each live in our own world. Our world is everything we're aware of, everything we choose to be a part of, everything we experience. Modern living and global news networks make us think that the entire planet is our world, but that's not true. You can let the news tell you what's important to you, and you can take on the entire world's problems (big and small) as your own, but you don't have to. You can tune out, and tune into a different world, make your world the world you want it to be, not by changing everything around you to your liking, but changing yourself to see the world you want to. You can make your world smaller, small enough to be able to make a difference in it.

How does this work?

Suppose you're in a grocery store and you simply read the ingredients on a package of meat, because you're concerned about what's in it ("right view and intention"). You've then already started changing the world. Suppose it contains "pork by-products" and "sodium nitrite", and because this sounds unappealing, you put it back ("right action"). You've changed your perspective on your world, and though it may change back, you might instead never take for granted what you buy and put in your mouth.

Without having to force yourself to do anything, you may find yourself interested in what's in everything you're eating. You may notice things that make you feel healthy and things that make you feel unhealthy, and end up changing your diet. You will see advertisements differently, being aware of some of the things they don't tell you, and decide what you want based more on your own decisions than on persuasion. This way of thinking will affect all your purchases, not just pork vs. no pork. You can escape the world of consumerism, and enter a smaller world where there is more intelligent thought put into what you buy. And that will spread from what you buy to what you do, in different aspects of life. Pretty soon your world is very different. You may not have shut down a hog factory, or convinced anyone not to eat meat, or even stopped doing so yourself, but you'll have changed your own world in ways that make a much bigger difference on your own life.

Last week Some time ago was Buy-Nothing Day. Are your spending habits different than they were a few years ago? Do you feel more conscious of what you buy, and what you do?


If you want to change the larger world around you, I'd suggest helping enable people to change their own worlds, rather than fighting against people who seem to be content with a world you want changed. Work for increasing people's freedoms and education, and then leave it up to them to change their own worlds.

Tuesday, January 5, 2010

I try to be my best.

It takes 10 minutes to run from the DVD dropoff slot at the libary, across a deserted parking lot and streets at 2:00am, back to my place.

Also, I'll put on an icepack while doing my stomach crunches.  I can do a thousand now.