||[19 Mar 2010|08:46pm]
. Wow. I think the message is: "Don't mess with Thai Buddhist relics"...
I love it when Ting enters a fight club, intending only to get his money back from a thief. A fight just ended with an over-muscled American fighter pulverizing his opponent. Ting tries to cross the ring, not realizing this puts him in contention. The arrogant American fighter lunges at him. The fights lasts about one second. Beautiful move... I have replayed it in slow mention several times. The audience is gobsmacked.
Ting proceeds to unwillingly participate in further fights, destroying an over fussy Japanese and an arrogant American. The main fight is further down the movie line, against a Burmese opponent. Much more serious as Burma
is the tralatitious enemy of Thailand
.Related articlesMyanmar releases U.S. activist early
(cnn.com)The King and I and I
(disconscious.livejournal.com)Thai protesters hurl blood at Thai PM Abhisit's home
||[10 Mar 2010|03:53pm]
OK, people who mark their location as "Earth", "Everywhere and nowhere", "Formerly New York", "Originally San Francisco", "Right next to the river", "In front of my computer", "Nowhere in particular", or who say "Let's just leave it at Europe" or "I'll get back to you on that" : You are not funny, you are not clever and you are not cute. If you have privacy issues, please deal with them in an adult way.
As for those who say they are in "Hobbiton", "Jararvellir", "Lake Wobegon", "Middle-earth", "Sarasa Land", "Fairytopia" or "Mos Eisley", you are despicable and annoying. Geeks. Get a life.
Finally, if you are "Not where I want to be" or in "Some city you've never heard of", puhleeze, stop the pity-party and move on.
||[09 Mar 2010|04:02pm]
Suppose you are black and you receive a perfectly nice letter from a person you fell out with when you learned they were racist. You never made up and they never apologized for their racist comments. However, they ask you for some some news about yourself, and share some news of their own. How do you react?
- You scrunch the letter in a tight ball and throw it in the bin.
- You reply by telling them you are still awaiting an apology and a change of mind from them.
- You do as if nothing happened and give them some news about yourself.
The banality of anti-semitism in present day Germany (disconscious.livejournal.com)
Big bombs are cool (disconscious.livejournal.com)
The impact of racism on African Americans (World History Archives)
|A variation on Pascal's wager
||[03 Mar 2010|08:47pm]
There is this big shot, Blaise Pascal, who was supposed to be the créme de la créme in French intellectual circles in the mid-1600s. He had this argument, this "wager", which is not about whether god exists, but whether it might be profitable to believe she does.
So it went like this: even if there was one chance in a million god exists, but you would spend an eternity in hell if you didn't believe in her, then you ought to believe in god just to avoid this one in a million chance of having an infinitely negative payoff.
I mean... really... "payoff". This is the way Blaise would go about it... You multiply 1/(1 million) by (-infinity), and you get (-infinity).
I won't spend too much time on picking out the many holes in this argument, like assuming that a god that would punish you for not believing in her is actually worth believing in, or would have a paradise that is worth working for. Or whether such a god would admit you in paradise when you bet on her existence, rather than have faith. I mean, frankly, Blais's argument was very much that of a banker, a merchant or a casino addict. And those people are a big no no in paradise, from what I gather.
Nah, the main issue I have with this half-clever argument is that it can be used to support any kind of superstition. Suppose for example I am told that eating dog will get me in hell, and then, according to the argument, and even though I am pretty sure eating dogs is perfectly fine, I should go, "hey, maybe, just maybe you are right", and therefore, based on this one in a million chance, would not want to risk it. OK, you could go, "only god can get you in hell", but then suppose I am told: "Eating dog will make you so sick for the rest of your life that you will regret ever having been born", and then, according to the argument, and even if everybody around me eats dog and is fine, I would not eat dog just so as not to risk a lifetime of pain. OK, so again, you could say that a lifetime of pain may not be as bad as an eternity of pain, but as I will argue later, it is quite well proven people discount the future, so the difference is minor.
Just to summarize before going on, I think poor Blaise really stretched his concepts from probability theory a little wee bit too far by applying them to the religious setting. The sad thing is that he ended up believing his own half-baked arguments and relegated himself to some sort of monastery, Port Royal. Personally, I think he had a nervous breakdown, and from that point on everything went pear shaped.
Anyway, here is now my modified Pascal's wager. In all the following, I will assume that only a firm belief in god will save you from hell, i.e. you must believe with 100% certainty that god exists. Any deviation is fatal.
Let's normalize the disutility you incur from spending one year of hell (i.e. pain, suffering and all the tra-la-la) to 1. This is the measure that we will use as the benchmark for everything, so let's call it a one-year hell-equivalent ("OYHE"). Let's also assume that you discount each year in hell by 0.9, which means the prospect of an eternity in hell is viewed as only 1/(1-0.9)=10 times more painful than 1 year in hell; even "infinity" gets discounted to something that can be grabbed within human understanding.
This means that, defining p as your own subjective (or maybe objective, tell me then!) probability that god exists, and assuming that your p=10%, then not believing in god exposes you to an expected 10%*10=1 OYHE.
Given this p of yours (10%), and your discount factor (0.9), you should believe in god (i.e. jump your existence probability p from 10% to 100%) as long as your disutility in doing so does not exceed 1 OYHE.
Now, be careful! What will that disutility be? This depends of course on what a firm belief in god might entail. Consider that your disutility from not believing would increase suddenly from 1 OYHE to 10 OYHE as your p increased from 10% to 100%. You will thus become very afraid of anything that might induce you to doubt your religion, since that would immediately condemns you to 10 OYHE. Once you are locked in, there is almost no limit to what you might do to ensure your faith is not shakenÉ
You should thus not be so naive as to think that believing in god would be a benign matter. It is not just some sort of abstract adherence to the idea that god exists. Protecting this belief of yours might involve much more than going to church every Sunday to strengthen your faith. This fear of entertaining any doubt might turn into paranoia as you try to ensure the certainty of your belief that god exists. Your will be ready to do almost anything to anyone whom you might perceive as a threat to your certainty that god exists.
Moreover, and this is the dark part of Pascal's try, it has suddenly become much easier to convince you of further superstitions that often go with religion, like you have to stop any drinking, any sex, any consumption of forbidden food, deny your sexual inclinations, etc... It will be much easier to convince you to adopt those new beliefs because now you believe in god, the consequences of not adopting them is 10 OYHE, not the 1 OYHE that convinced you to bet on god. You should therefore be very careful before making a bet on god; this is often the first step towards adopting even sillier beliefs.
Sadly enough, human limitations are such that most don't anticipate what this first bet will lead them to do. This means that people, even with the best of intentions, might become trapped into religion. Furthermore, while a skeptical person was less likely to adopt a belief in god, her behavior after conversion will be the same as that of a gullible one, since they both have the same p now. This explains why the sudden and horrible changes that occur once one starts believing in god are all the more sudden, unpredictable and violent when one previously entertained strong doubts about the existence of god.
Conclusion: Be very careful with sudden converts, like Paul, or "born again" Christians, like Bush. Be also very careful not to fall into the religion trap, because there is no way out. Finally, don't believe in any religion that requires full adherence to its requirements, even when it masks those requirements by presenting them as ideals. Prefer religions that admit doubts, that reject sudden convert (or don't believe in sudden conversion), and that have no concept of hell or of infinity. This includes having no concept of reincarnation or of a permanent soul, since this means one's existence is forever. This also includes having no concept of paradise or of the end of suffering, since those are merely mirror images of hell.
Those requirements of mine are aimed at ensuring that adherence to religion is a fully reasoned act that takes account of human limitations. However, to my knowledge, no religion fits this bill, and I don't think any will probably ever do.
|Men are descended from farmers, women from hunter-gatherers
||[17 Feb 2010|09:27pm]
Men are descended from farmers, women from hunter-gatherers
That would explain why men are so boring, limited, narrow-minded, predictable and oh so cowardly, while women are captivating, expansive, patient and persistent.
There is something so earthly in men, it is like they are wedded to mud and have acquired its character, while women are more like sisters of the wind, able to catch the whiff of change, sensitive to their environment, ready to move about, cut links and make new lives (literally and figuratively).
The only puzzle for me is why women were ever attracted to farmers in the first place; but then, I guess this is a matter of specialization: at least, men farmers were good at what they did, while men hunter-gatherers are totally useless (women's work provides more than 90% of the calories in hunter-gatherer tribes).
As for women farmer, I fear to think what they looked like; I even have difficulty to think such a thing could exist. I wonder if maybe they morphed into cows, sweet, wide-eyed and oh so generous, while men hunter-gatherers mutated into dogs: stinky, muggy and with bad breath.
So anyway, this is to file under the rubric: *upended paternalistic myths*. Men, not women are associated with earth, and women, not men, with freedom. Men are actually slaves, fixated on their lack of an ability to independently create, forever anxious about their work and its lack of fruits. Women are the genius unencumbered by such worries; forever comfortable in the knowledge that everything will eventually come their way, confident in their ability to make do with any opportunity.
(*) Update! Turns out men farmers would just invade hunter-gatherer's turf, kill the men and rape the women. Such is the wonderful habitus of men.
|The banality of anti-semitism in present day Germany
||[01 Feb 2010|11:20am]
I am spending a bit of time in Germany
. Before coming, I was assured that the German were really over their anti-Semitism
. Far from it! While speaking about Israel, the Jews or the Holocaust
is a big taboo in Germany, Germans are really not shy about expressing their prejudices against the Jews once you get to know them individually. Never in public though, always in one to one conversation.Examples from my conversations:Conversation 1:
Me: Let’ go to that bagel place for lunch.
Idiot German 1: Oh, you know, now you mention bagel, that reminds me of that Jewish woman at a conference on the Holocaust, she was so nasty!
Me: Hmm, why is that?
Idiot German 1: She got so angry when I told her I never concerned myself about Jewish people because there are so few in Germany. She told me that of course, that was because they were exterminated in the Holocaust.
Me: Well, but that is actually true.
Idiot German 1: Yeah, but she was like I had to feel guilty about it.
Me: Did she tell you that you should feel guilty?
Idiot German 1: No, but that was obvious, those Jews, they are always like we are responsible for the Holocaust, I wasn’t even born at that time!
Me: Anyway, that was just one Jewish woman, maybe she was nasty but that doesn’t mean all Jews are like that.
Idiot German 1: Yeah, I know, but that was the only Jew I ever met. She should have been more careful how she speaks, the way she acted; it was like she wanted me to become anti-Semitic!
***Conversation 2:Me: Did you see this new law in France, where Muslim women are forbidden to wear the burqa? That is so crap.
Idiot German 2: Oh yeah, but you know, it is not the French who were asking for it, that was the Jews.
Me: Err, I don’t quite understand, that policy was introduced by the French government, it is not like it is the Jews who asked for it.
Idiot German 2: Nah, it is not like that, you know, a friend of mine, he told me that in Israel, the Arabs, they are second class citizen.
Me: So? I really don’t see how that relates to France.
Idiot German 2: That is because in Europe, we do whatever the Jews tell us to do. Look, we German, we keep on sending money to Israel; we sell them submarines and all sorts of weapons. Germany is like the best friend of Israel!
Me: Well, again, I don’t see how that explains laws against the burqa in France. Maybe you should be careful to distinguish between the Jews and Israel; I don’t see how the Jews in France can be seen as a tool of Israel. Never mind that those who hate Muslims are often the same who hate Jews as well!
Idiot German 2: Nah, there is no far right in Europe, that is a complete fabrication by the press. This is really about being nice to Israel, they keep on complaining about how the Muslims are attacking Jews in France, so the French had to do something to calm them down.
Israel is really the most racist country on earth. You wouldn’t believe how they treat Muslims in Israel! Just because they are Jews doesn’t mean they should be allowed to do whatever they want!
Me: So, it is like the Jews in the entire world are responsible for whatever Israel does? Not all Jews are supporting Israel. And not all Israelis are Jews. There are also some Israelis who don’t like Israeli policies against Palestine.
Idiot German 2: I don’t see why I should make a distinction between Israel and the Jews, just so you know, you can’t be Israeli without being a Jew, so. Of course the Jews are supporting Israel, that is the only place where they are still welcome!
***Conversation 3:Me: I am really surprised, sometime, how ready Germans are to express prejudices against Jews.
Idiot German 3: Oh yeah, I really can’t understand, we learn a lot about Nazism in school though. You must have spoken with some East Germans, they never learned about the Holocaust.
Me: … but East Germany disappeared like 20 years ago; I would think they would have learned to at least express themselves in moderate terms.
Idiot German 3: Yeah, they are still badly educated you know. For my part, I can think of only one reason for not liking the Jews.
Me: Oh, is that so?
Idiot German 3: Yes, it is to do with how we have to compensate the Jews for what we did to them during the war. My grandfather, he worked at BASF (Note: Big German chemical company that was using slave labor, often Jewish in concentration camps), and he got really rich, so he bought the houses of Jews who were made to leave Pomerania. But that was for a totally fair price! So after the war, the Soviets, they confiscated the houses, and when we sued in the 90s to get the houses back, we were told that was not possible because the Jews sold them to us under coercion. That is so unfair!
Me: Well, you know, they would probably not have sold the houses if they didn’t have to emigrate to escape the Nazis.
Idiot German 3: Yeah, but we really offered them a good price!
Me: (Doesn’t mention the only reason her grandparents could pay this “good price” is that they had made money on the back of slave labor).
***Conversation4:Me: This week-end, I will be visiting Buchenwald.
Idiot German 4: Why do you want to go to Buchenwald? There is nothing to see at Buchenwald!
Me: Oh, but that was a Nazi concentration camp, they have got a museum there, I checked their website, this should be interesting.
Idiot German 4: I really don’t understand why the first thing foreigners do when they visit Germany is go to concentration camps. Not everything in Germany is about the Nazis, you know!
In effect, she was quite right: Germans destroyed most of the buildings at Buchenwald. There is not much left to see. The museum itself is quite repellent; it seems mainly devoted to “justifying” what Germans did during the Nazi period, rather than bear testimony to the atrocities that happened there. The first panel in the museum is devoted to explaining why Germans did not put up any resistance to Nazi persecution of communists, Jews, homosexuals and gypsies (“They couldn’t believe that Hitler would do what he said he would do, and once he started to do it, it was too late to do anything about it”). Later on, they go into loving details to explain the background of the SSs who ran the camp (“Herr XX had always dreamed to be an officer in the German army, and his Aryan credentials were impeccable. It was therefore a great opportunity for him when he joined the SS. He really believed he was doing a service to Germany by riding it of undesirables.”).
They also seem to be much more interested in explaining the structure of the camp, its hierarchy and the way it functioned from an administrative point of view. That way, they can avoid having to make any kind of moral judgment, probably not to hurt the sensibilities of those poor Germans who have to carry such an unjust burden of guilt... I guess German school children, who are provided guided tours of the facilities, must be so relieved to be provided such rational and detailed “explanations” for what happened in Buchenwald. You wouldn’t want those cherished blond-haired blue-eyed darlings to question their parents, now, would you?
Finally, but that is difficult to describe, the Germans I meet look so frightened when I tell them my name. And they are so relieved when, after a while, they finally dare to ask me if I am Jew, and I tell them that no, despite my name, I am not Jewish. Some of them are really confused about it, though, and maintain a “safe” distance, as if I was somehow dangerous or threatening.
|Militant Atheism on Reddit
||[09 Sep 2009|10:57pm]
I have been following the goings-on and happenings of a thriving community of atheists
(one of the less disreputable social news websites). It is really comical to see this aggregate of supposedly free thinkers evolve along the lines of a gathering cult. They strike me as extremely arrogant, unpleasant with anyone who does not follow strictly their (at the moment confusingly) evolving dogmas
, and full of so many contradictions it would take me too much time to list.
I have my own little theory of why such atheist
communities seem to evolve so much along the lines of an organized religion
; trying to convince others of their own righteousness; intolerant of any opposition; based around cliques of like minded people; developing their own myths and lines of argument; encouraging and supporting each other in their (non)-faith, etc.
It seems indeed that quite many of those atheists are ex-believers who have grown very disenchanted with their experience of religion, religions they often have encountered only in their most fundamentalist forms. However, this disenchantment does not come with proper understanding of its sources, and without proper understanding of how religion has ingrained into them habits of minds and attitudes that are intolerant, inflexible and disrespectful of others' integrity.
So basically, my thesis is that atheists are the rejects of the most extreme forms of religion in the US. Not surprisingly, they find it difficult to digest their experience of rejection, which translates in bitterness and barely controlled anger towards religious people.
For example, there seems to be a gathering trend towards a more militant type of atheism, apparently prompted by the belief that atheism is under attack or that religious people have dominated for too long. I saw them recently praising the actions of an atheist who aggressively preached to and harassed two clueless Jehovah's Witnesses
). Other atheists in the UK for example have been circulating adverts claiming the inexistence of god(s) (http://www.atheistbus.org.uk/faq/
I am afraid I do not quite understand the sources of this militant atheism, and have little affinity with their special types of arguments and with the intricacies of the conflicts between their different churches.
It seems like Dawkins et alii have unwittingly attracted a number of rather second rate intellects to their cause. The demographics of current adherents of the atheistic faith seems to consist mainly of disgruntled middle-class
white men intent on using their new set of belief to humiliate and dominate other semi-educated individuals.
Goes to show how beliefs, any kind of belief and knowledge can always be misused when it falls into the hands of the essentially inferior, testosterone-fuelled half of humanity (half, that is, when using the term "humanity" in its broadest sense).Related articles Profound Insight Into God Atheists, Christians, Temples & Mosques in 2nd Life Daffy Richard Dawkins Does Darwin...again Edinburgh 2009: Marcus Brigstocke's God Collar
|The King and I and I
||[07 Sep 2009|12:50am]
I watched the movie "The King and I", which purports to relate the experience of an English governess who was invited to educate the kids and wives of the King of Siam in the 1860s.
This movie generated a lot of controversy in Thailand and was banned by the current King Bhumibol because of the disrespectful way in which it portrays King Mongkut, one of his ancestors.
The movie is indeed quite offensive, portraying the king as a little bit of a simpleton with very basic English and comical scientific pretensions. The governess on the other hand is supposed to be a well minded reformer who chastises him for his treatment of women and of "slaves". She treats him indulgently like he is a “bon sauvage” to whom "proper" English manners have to be taught.
I think the main issue is with Margaret Landon, a missionary to Thailand who distorted and amplified the original account by Anna Leonowens. I also don’t like the way Yul Brynner plays the king as some sort of hyperactive swaggerer with an authoritarian streak. Not to mention Brynner does not look one ounce like a Thai.
Still, some essential qualities of this king shine through, like his good heart (he used to be a monk), his curiosity and passion for science, his energy, and his very real preoccupations of the time.
There are also a few other grains of truth in the movie. For example, I was surprised to learn the king did indeed have a harem and hundreds of kids. I was amused when Anna is shocked to see the king and his officials not wearing shirts. I had noticed that in portraits made at the time, and it is something the Thai are a bit uncomfortable with. There are some evocations of the tense relations with Burma, of the king’s preoccupation with introducing scientific education in his country, with colonialism, and the way France seized part of his country. Finally, it is true his subjects had to bow deeply before him, and that his son abolished the practice as well as that of slavery.
Also, this English governess, Leonowens, was indeed quite a remarkable woman, who went on to have quite a bit of influence in the feminist movement. She may indeed have had some influence on King Chulalongkorn, who expressed public gratitude to her.
Overall, the movie feels very dated, the singing pieces are not very good, the king does not look Thai at all, there is a lot of Chiniaiseries (naive confusion between Chinese culture and customs and those of the Thai), and the overall impression is that of a movie inspired by an ignorant colonialist mindset which applies its own preoccupation (with slavery, with the role of women, with democracy and enlightenment, etc) to a culture for which it has little respect and of which it has little knowledge.
Whether this movie warrants a ban in Thailand for "lèse majesté" I doubt somewhat; most Thai would probably see it for what it is: a silly but somewhat entertaining if disrespectful portrayal of the court of one of their kings. Since this movie is often the first some foreigners still hear about Thailand, it can be good to have seen it if only to be able to dismiss it more incisively.
PS: "Uncle Tom's Cabin" as a Siamese ballet is actually quite inspired and one of the rare scene I enjoyed in the movie.
The King and I at the Albert Hall review
Critic of Thai royal family receives 18 year prison sentence
Activist Gets 18-Year Term for Insulting Thai King
Mass Thai Rally For Thaksin Royal Pardon
|The Facts About Vampires
||[27 May 2009|01:11pm]
Facts about vampires (from "Let the right one in", http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1139797):
- very photo-sensitive; would burn if exposed to light.
- have to sustain themselves by drinking fresh blood.
- cannot ingest anything else, or would puke and be very sick.
- become vampires when infected by another vampire, through a non-fatal bite. Other modes of transmission may also reasonably be held to exist. There may be difference between vampires depending on the mode of infection.
- are hated by cats, who will attack and bite them if in sufficient number.
- cannot come in a house without being invited.
- if enter house without being invited, will start spilling blood from every one of their skin pores and orifices (eyes, ears, nose, mouth, etc...)
- stay the same physical appearance than when first became vampires.
- cannot resist the urge to drink blood when blood is available. Will lap it up if spilt on floor.
- will seduce partners to help them in dealing with the necessities of their peculiar life (e.g. helping to travel around, ensuring safety when recluse and sleeping during day, in some cases, even providing fresh blood).
- have a rather unpleasant (to unused noses) smell, though this is apparent only from perplexed wondering of new guests to a vampire's home.
- become very weak and sickly when not provided with their ration of blood.
- once satiated, feel much better very quick, smell better and are in much better mood.
- would very much like to be liberated from the burden of being a vampire.
- progressively lose the memory of their past human life, as it becomes further and further in time, to the point where they forget their own birthday, or the sensations of being human.
- while stay young, their family, and then partners, get old and die, leaving them alone if they cannot find new partners.
- inspire deep levels of loyalty, love, respect and devotion, but also fear and guilt, from their partners.
- age mentally even though not physically, but somehow still keep their own initial age's yearnings.
- are not sensitive to cold.
- can fly, and scale trees and buildings.
- are very light, "don't weigh a thing".
- can materialize out of nowhere in times of need, for their allies or partners.
- bite their victims in the neck, and will drain them of their blood mightily quick.
- sometime, especially when drinking blood, or subject to others' of their urges, their "real" (length of time living) age will show on their face.
- can be very wealthy, from gifts received from their admirers? or from accumulating wealth over so many years? Or maybe from stealing? This is not clear.
- prefer to live close to the poles, probably because nights are longer there?
- are ambiguously sexed. Do not consider themselves as human.
- do not care much for cleanliness, of clothes, body or living environment.
- have got the most mesmerizing eyes, and very cute smile.
- find it mightily difficult (if not impossible) to resist their urges (usually for drinking bloods), but will then warn the people they care about to stay away.
- if subject to a strong urge, this will be signaled by strange internal noise, like of a stomach growling with hunger.
- can be very inventive, sly and cunning in getting their preys to trust them enough to let them close.
- are very vulnerable because of all the difficult requirements for them to keep on living.
- have to change places constantly because of how the death of their victims will attract attention, suspicion and revenge.
- are really quite good with three dimensional puzzles (maybe because lots of time to think about it at night?)
||[26 Mar 2009|03:52pm]
Ah, finally, Safari gives the option not to download images from websites... good bye clutter, hello expression. Now, they only have to integrate the search bar with the address bar, and maybe I won't switch to Chrome as soon at it releases for the Mac... hear me Stevie?... Oh, yeah, and please include a menu item so I can download and display pics I do want to see. Still need stupid buggy crash-prone Firefox sometime, for compatibility issues ironically.
Other software I like: The Bean wordprocessor, soooo fast, not like overwrought slow starting Open Office, or gimmicky What-You-See-Is-What-You-See M$ Word. Still need those though for compatibility issues and "complex" documents.
Speaking of which, very enjoyable is LyX, finally up to task, along with JabRef, for any serious word processing and referencing. I love having full total control on what I write, while the SW takes care of proper typesetting.
As ever, LaTeX processed pdf files are a joy to watch; my favorite fonts at the moment are Latin Modern Sans in the Sans Serif family, and New Century Schoolbook in the Roman family (rather than previous favorite Times Roman). Donald Knuth is part of my personal pantheon.
For pics, I like Picasa rather than horrible iPhoto which hijacks your computer, scrambles up all your files and takes your pictures hostage. For picture manipulation, SeaShore does the job OK (Gimp is really too slow on my MacBook).
Other than that, I am kind of happy with iTunes, though a Picassa for music would be rather welcome. And I am OK with Mail, though of course any serious emailing is done with (offline) Gmail. I have no major quibble with Excel of Powerpoint either; they do what they do quite well.
The dictionary standard on the Mac is kind of OK, no need for external application; I wish however more software did program short-cuts to it. ATM, only Apple software routinely do so. Speaking of which, really, please, do implement usual Mac shorcuts in your application, developer darlings. I am using Phoenix for blogging at the moment, but it won't even run to the end of a line when I do "Apple + -->".
|Dodge the shoes, but the bullet?
||[17 Dec 2008|09:00am]
I think I could watch this video play and replay forever. Too bad the journalist could not smuggle a gun in there; I am quite sure that for all his superhuman reflexes, Bush would not have been able to dodge such amazingly well targeted projectiles.
Not such a lame ducking president, after all!
Oh well, another time?
||[15 Dec 2008|09:57pm]
For times when you want to browse in stealth mode, for example, to plan surprises such as gifts or birthdays, Google Chrome offers the incognito browsing mode.
Like this is not going to be primarily used by dirty people getting their dose of smut from the web without their partner knowing about it... "surprises such as gifts or birthdays", right...
| Я не говорю по-русски
||[15 Sep 2008|05:05am]
So, one LAST time:
I DON'T FUCKING SPEAK NO RUSSIAN! Ya ni gavaru pa Ruski. Я не говорю по-русски.
So if you are some booger-brained bear-shit stained Ruskie, stop FRIENDING my account and please go back to fucking the Georgies.
||most recent entries