And coming to you not-so-live

CUT TO VTR

In honour of my really not doing my assignment(s), I present to you a video special!

Because Sesame Street set to hip-hop really is sublime (and quite amusing). Via this.





Donna Brazile isn't moving to the back of the bus. Full video is the bottom one, which is also something I haven't seen, but you can just watch the top one for all its racially goodness.

For something a little more weighty (read: LONG), this. Princeton bitches, so you know, not too shabby.



Princeton economists review recent events on Wall Street and assess the implications for the economy and public policy.

Panelists: Hyun Shin, Professor of Economics and associate chair of the Department of Economics; Markus Brunnermeier, Professor of Economics;
Harrison Hong, Professor in Finance;
Paul Krugman, professor of economics and international affairs; Alan Blinder, Professor of Economics and Public Affairs and co‐director of the Center for Economic Policy Studies.

For the record, haven't actually seen it yet. Have downloaded it though, so will get there to seeing.

And finally, 14 ways to piss off those goddamn vegetarians/passive-aggressivists (kind of a long-winded way of saying lesbians, methinks):

7. Have you ever noticed how sun-dried tomatoes and top-grade peyote look exactly the same? Not a suggestion, really. Just saying.

14. Hepatitis! (Note: This is not technically an appetizer.)

Yes, I understand the somewhat heavy-handed and ham-fisted promotion of the New Yorker here. But what can I say, they publish some good shit.

Back to non-essaying! (Also far too early in the morning.)

It may just be me

I don't want it to ever change

SO, while I sit here, still with an uncompleted essay on hand, due in a few hours, I get distracted. So I decided to download Big Rigs. I'm not actually sure what particular course of events/hyperlinks lead me to that particular wiki page, but it's by far one of the most entertaining and funny wiki pages ever written. Though this could be crazy fucked up sleep talking, the entire game itself seems completely surreal. To quote the first paragraph of the wiki:

The box of Big Rigs states that the player may "race trucks across the country, with cops chasing [them]." GameSpot's Alex Navarro wrote that this description of the game is nothing more than "horrible, horrible lies", since there are no police in the game. Additionally, they pointed out, the computer-controlled opponent vehicles have no AI and never move from the starting position, making even the description of the gameplay as a "race" questionable.

I mean, who actually goes to the trouble of coding all that, and releasing and distribution? Is it even a game as such? I mean, a game involves challenges and obstacles and some process of achievement, and it's arguable that this game achieves even the bare minimum of that. It seems more like some self-reflexive, postmodern exercise in minimalism/lying. The Gamefaqs review page and board on the game is also highly amusing as well.

After a little research, i've learnt that the game that was in fact shipped out was a pre-alpha release, so it's understandable that it lacks, you know, features. But still. You're Winner indeed.

Disturbing parallels

it may just be me (you)

In these Annals of Culture, Gladwell points out economists are clever. However, if you're into lyric poetry, you'd better hurry the fuck up and publish something good. In poetry terms, late twenties means you're waaaayyy over the hill*.

Do you who else thinks that? NAMBLA, that's right. Think about it.

Poetry = paedophilia

More economist lovin': Article on Nathan Silver, the awesome awesome guy who runs 538. Back to not doing essay!

*NOT TRUE. READ THE ARTICLE. I was just using it as a set up for NAMBLA.

You talk too much

is that even possible?

While being generally frustrated by various (technological-related) imbroglios' (getting my damn wireless working, annoyed by the lack of unified feeds for both the New Yorker and NY Mag, and being unable to decide to whether I should just subscribe to all the feeds they have; but that seems like a grave and grievous decision, with much rash consequences), I came across this interesting article in the New Yorker. While the article itself is of some interest and import, it's raised an issue that i've thought about before, an issue that's always vexed and perplexed me.

This issue is the issue of the working poor. The first time I heard this phrase, I was confused. I thought to myself, 'How can that be? How can you work and yet be poor?' And yet, here we are. Stories of people working 60 hour weeks in Walmart, and yet have to live in a car; people who work two, three jobs, twelve, fifteen hour days, six, seven days a week just to make ends meet (whatever that means; I think that nebulous and loaded phrase further illustrates the difficulty of talking about this). It doesn't make sense: isn't the precise point of work to reduce your poverty? I admit, it's possible, and most likely probable, that some of these stories have been exaggerated, for political or social posturing. It's also possible that some of these people brought it on to themselves, being lured into a mirage of luxury through usurious financiers and a lack of self-control. (I'll do my best to tread lightly; I'm trying not to be callous, even if it seems like I am).

But is it true? Is it true that there are people who suffer such hardships, even in the pursuit of modest goals? It saddens and distresses me that the economic and social fabric of human society can be stitched together in such a manner as to allow something like this.

I don't really know. It doesn't seem right, however. We didn't become civilised for this, not to become slaves to new masters. The project of civilisation has always struck me as something that strives towards the abolition of subsistence; and yet, here we are. What to do, what to do...

Heads up

Or should that be brains up...

The World Mind Sports Games (unwieldy much) is up and running for the first year. So, finally, all that time playing draughts plays off into fame and recognition. Rejoice.

It's been obvious for a while

But i'm more or less completely (yes! split those infinitives!) out of original ideas. And so I present:

Interview with a Search Engine: If you enjoy strange, surrealist, stream-of-consciousness sagas, much in the style of that fantastic skit that the (s)Arts revue did this year.

Que Será, Cera? An Open Letter to Michael Cera: The folks over at CMG are, as always, kicking butt. And for the record, I would totally go on many, MANY fact-finding 'missions' on my favouritest Bluth (though that Maeby gives him a good run for the moneyz) to find out if indeed, his man-parts tasted like watermelon (or strawberries).

OiNY: Bash, but in RL. And located within a much narrower geographical area. The contents about the same though. Good ones this week:

(a soprano is singing an opera aria in her apartment on the 4th floor)
Random man on street (screaming up to the window): Girl, you're not even gonna sing the high note?! Pussy!
Soprano (screaming out the window): Everyone's a fucking critic!

Middle aged white woman on cell: Okay, mom. Go back to watching Snoop. Yeah, I know you love him. Okay, have fun watching the D-0-double g! Bye.
Random passerby: Best. Conversation. Ever.

Oh Mister Galbraith, you may be right about about the alcohol, but you were wrong about the coffee. But you might be wrong about the alcohol as well. But don't hold or quote me on that, you giant scary man you.

Well you can see what my substitutive effects are

How embarrassing.




The cochon one scares me especially. And just one more propaganda item, for good luck:



Because even Duck Tales understands the velocity theory of money.

When this is all over

Bipolar disorder never looked so good. Strangely, being bipolar also means you enjoy wearing lipstick when ANGRY.

Because Commericalism =! Sellout.

Many many things (including bad music)

I'm in this interweb cafe in the city, owing to my shitty shitty interblag connection currently at home. It's nifty, in that it's self-pay, you create an account (that's disposable if you wish) that you can effectively carry around with you with like-branded internet cafes. Also has reasonable rates: two dollars an hour, which drops to one-fiddy, if you bulk buy. And as the credit carries, it gives a good incentive to bulk buy. Intriguing.

One peeve: I can't play Dota, because of CD-Key conflicts. They need to better manage their permissions. This may be a good thing.

This (distressingly) is a surprisingly accurate account of the economy, and my freakouts over it. And this for an explanation, if a little long. And it's these guys that are entirely responsible for it:



GEDDIT!!? GEDDIT!? HEDGE-FUND?! HA HA HA HA HA. Great.

We (you) are just too good

This is what happens when evolution isn't smart, which is always. Unlike the hand of the one true Lord, FSM. 

I'm more or less convinced that whatever is recorded in human history is more or less long strings of paredolia and apophenia, with some postdiction thrown in there for 'good' measure. Which brings me to my main point:

Michael Drosnin is a douchebag. 

I've just bumped up the pagerank (albeit infinitesimally) for his wiki article for the keyword 'douchebag', though they are many a candidate competing for that position. 

Hmmmm

Cool name. Nice comic.

Free lunch! Wheee!

Don't read too much into this; I may do an expanded post more fully exploring the implications of this. But this is food for thought, so to speak:

If I could loan out my physical books without giving up possession of them, I would. The fact that I can do so with digital files is not a bug, it's a feature, and a damned fine one. It's embarrassing to see all these writers and musicians and artists bemoaning the fact that art just got this wicked new feature: the ability to be shared without losing access to it in the first place. It's like watching restaurant owners crying down their shirts about the new free lunch machine that's feeding the world's starving people because it'll force them to reconsider their business-models. Yes, that's gonna be tricky, but let's not lose sight of the main attraction: free lunches!

Universal access to human knowledge is in our grasp, for the first time in the history of the world. This is not a bad thing.

I have learned To spell hors d'oeuvres Which still grates on Some people's n'oeuvres

AN INTERESTING HYPOTHESIS ABOUT A WOMAN, THE PRESIDENCY AND LAME DUCKS

There's been a lot of brouhaha about the choice of Palin as VP nominee on the Republican ticket, and atleast some of this comes from concerns surrouding McCains' health. In addition to his somewhat 'statured' age (72), his tortuous and brutal treatment at the Hanoi Hilton (he can't lift his arms above his head; all those victory-cheer shots of him lifting his hands above head are done by his wife holding his hand and raising them for him) McCain has had a history of melanomal skin cancer, and in 2000 underwent an operation for that condition that left a noticeable mark on his face. 

All of this plays into the secret hope that McCain could shuffle off his mortal coil sometime during the next four years; or at the very least, have a recurrence of cancer or something serious enough to warrant the 'abdication' of his presidency. Schadenfreude has broken out.

However, even if mooseburger lady were to come into the top job at the Oval Office, she would have a tough time at the post. Simply put, she'd be a lame duck. She would have absolutely no credibility, and possibly even less power. The Dems will most likely control atleast one, if not both houses of Congress, and won't listen to her; and the Republicans (at the best of times) haven't been a women-friendly party. 

Unless we have some kind of October surprise where Palin bares her teeth and proves that she could use bully pulpit (emphasis 'bully') of the presidency, it's probably safe to say her (theoretical) presidency would likely be a deadlocked one.

Things are heatin' up

McCain picks his VP. Incredibly good political move.

Plus, she's a VPILF to boot.

Also, i'm writing this down and checkin' it twice, as to make a record; if McCain does infact win the election, you have to join Facebook. You know who.

Atlas Shrugged 2: Shrug Harder

That joke may very well make up for the Facebook.

I love student life. Sitting on homely couches at Stucco (this beautiful, gorgeous, amazing place in the middle of Newtown, with lovely doors and bohemian perfection) working out policy points, tuning lecture bashes, screen printing shirts; this is what it's about. Spending time with possibly the largest group of incredibly funny, smart, talented, dedicated people i'm ever going to meet in one place, wearing bear masks and getting paint everywhere. I'm tired. I'm exhausted incredibly, from going from one wonderful party to helping out PULP, hungover and 5 hours of sleeping on the floor.

I want to feel like this forever.

It's not all bad, though I agree on the jetpacks

See? The Internet is more than just a channel for the faster delivery of pornography and gossip! It can also deliver funny cat pictures!! LOLZ

P.S. Never actually do this to a cat. That would be horrifying, and hasn't Gotham got enough supervillains as it is?

Oh Brfxxccxxmnpcccclllmmnprxvclmnckssqlbb11116: Reasons why people and children do not mix, and should never be allowed to happen. More to the point, parents using pataphysics would be a terrible name for a 'rock band'.

If you have a lot of these running as a flipbook

Cameraphone!? Paging Dr. Dali...

I wish I was this happy when eating strawberries. Also: TORTOISE!

Hot velocipedal action

It's a brand new day

Not what you're thinking

Joss Whedon new project!! Go watch now, because it's gone after 20th midnight of this month. Read the master plan too.

Also amusing: ads from the 30s. The last one is super great, especially if you enjoy fancy calligraphy/promiscuity/'being everyone's pal'.

Shamelessly cribbing off the best

Standing on the shoulders of giants, I prefer to call it. Or atleast crouching at their knees.

Exceeding moment of hilarity! Ran across this video today. While the advertisement itself isn't particularly great (it's about beer and soccer and cross-dressing or some such crap), the comments are priceless:

Headcrabb (4 hours ago)  
What the hell do you mean fake?

Its not a real commercial? 

Bittermanscolon (7 hours ago)  
of course it's fake, it's a COMMERCIAL! Fuck sakes. 

manupdude1 (7 hours ago)  
fake

Quick addendum:

SHOPPED

You're not very funny

That's just because you're not very smart

Pejoratives everywhere I look!

I know I shouldn't, I know I shouldn't, but Moonlight is just too damn nice a sonata for me to ignore like that. I realise that the first movement is just three fucking keys played over and over but c'mon! Guilty pleasures of Beethoven I suppose. I am resigned and doomed to a world of Cyndi Lauper and Aqua. Of the classical world.

Shit to do sirs! Have to change my units, unpack stuff, clean up room, wash things, go shopping for a few useful things, start eating again (seriously, what is up with this shit), install some flavour of Linux (shed the yoke of Windows, fellow technologists! Arise from ye inertive slumbers to don the mantle of freedom that is Open Source!...Ahem. For more, this.) and learn more about the Rhaeto-Romance family of languages. That last one, maybe not so much. YAYYYYY WEST WING

And to all you Mac users, fuck y'all.


----------------
Now playing: 1. Adagio sostenuto - Moonlight Sonata

Yet again the foolish fool spouts out more foolishly foolish drabble

Or so i've been told.

Leaving for trippin' tomorrie! Phrase of the day: "Ethical magic."

"I have absolute faith in the logic of my convictions."

Here be dragons

I'm going to talk today about dragons in garages.

In Carl Sagan's book The Demon-Haunted World, he opens with a passage about a dragon in his garage. Obviously, you're intrigued. He shows you his garage, but you see no dragon. Of course not, he replies, because the dragon is invisible. You try to touch the dragon, but that's no use, as Sagan says the dragon is incorporeal. You try to smell it, but no odour. This process continues so on and so forth, until you exhaust all your possible attempts to prove the existence of this dragon in some way. 

This leads on to a wonderful quote by Sagan: 

Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all?

Rightly, he concludes, there isn't. 

However, sometimes, there is a dragon in the garage. Newton had one such famous dragon: gravity. He could 'see' it; he could percieve its existence, and had to come up with a new mode of understanding (calculus) to prove it. 

Sometimes, some people's dragons are interesting purely for their imaginative quality. The New Yorker is running a review of a retrospective exhibition held in New York on the life and times of Buckminster Fuller. Fuller was either a eccentric visionary or complete madman; "Fuller’s schemes often had the hallucinatory quality associated with science fiction (or mental hospitals)."

Fuller was a strange, fantastic figure, who invented the idea of using geodesic domes as houses and gave eight hour lectures on everything, from environmentalism to architecture. Quote:

"instead of finding a job, [BF] took to spending his days in the library, reading Gandhi and Leonardo."

We need more people like this. I'm not saying that it would be a good thing if everyone were like this, but we do need more dream sellers.

If nothing else, they make the world less boring.

I think that's what I want to be. Penny for a dream?

This post cribbed and crafted from here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

Before I write something

Wondermark is super-rad.

An example of the exemplary mouseover.

the Court's almost obsessive focus on homosexual activity

Repressed gays on the Supreme Court?! Say it isn't so!

That one comes from awesome Harry Andrew Blackmun, who also authored the majority opinion on Roe v. Wade. Another great opinion to read, if you have the time. Actually, the Roe v. Wade opinion is one of the nicer legal decisions i've read, managing a surprisingly nimble balance between women's rights and public outcry. Mind you, it's a long opinion, which is somewhat expected I guess.

The evidence is conclusive

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs. 

I especially like the colouring hints. "Flesh of Christ"? What the fuck does that consist of? Communion wafer colours? Or actual flesh of Christ, if you're into the whole transubstantiation shit?

You can stop reading...now. Back to the picture.

Had a good couple of days, which is good, compared to the terribleness I felt for so much of last week. Learning a lot. I found a metaethics that i'm somewhat favourable on, which is positively good news. It's nice to not feel crappy for extended periods of time. 

Wondering whether I should write some things on hypocrisy. Being involved in rational modes of thought for significant periods of time seems to fuck you up in all sorts of good ways.

'My needs are meager. I don't even care if the world has stupid people in it; I just wish they would leave the smart people alone to get their shit done.'

Man who falls in vat of molten optical glass makes spectacle of self

For all you sexy chemists out there:

Periodic Tables don't come much sexier.

This is an outrage

Legal trouble, again. Actual, blood-boiling style outrage.

About fucking time. Seriously, this sort of bullshit has gone on for too long. 6 years?! Christ. What's even more appalling is the umitigated douchery of Scalia's dissenting opinion:

Of the two dissenting opinions, Justice Antonin Scalia’s was the more apocalyptic, predicting “devastating” and “disastrous consequences” from the decision. “It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed,” he said. “The nation will live to regret what the court has done today.” He said the decision was based not on principle, “but rather an inflated notion of judicial supremacy.”

Yes. Habeus Corpus. A quaint, inflated notion of judicial supremacy. How these people get into power still baffles/saddens me.

That one was easy, if late. Now, in general, the RIAA are dicks, and their lawyers more so. But this...this is a new standard.

To summarise: The RIAA filed a 'making available' suit against Cassin, when said defendant filed a motion to dismiss aforementioned suit. Just before the judge made that ruling however, the RIAA submitted a voluntary notice of dismissal on the suit, and it was over. Or so we thought. 

The bastards then resubmitted the suit, only they renamed the defendants to 'Does 1-4' (in legal terms, John Doe is a placeholder name for defendants who are either unknown or anonymous). In addition, the fuckers filed another motion for ex parte discovery! 

To say that this is a gross violation of legal principles would be, frankly, an understatement. One needs Jon Stewartesque style to adequately convey the sheer gall and principled evil of these people.

I'm not even a fan

But RAD. I especially like the fact that some-bodys went to the trouble of dressing up as the Imperial Royal Guard.

I'm pretty sure the sixth movie lied to us about the Empire being gone...

But...But...I loved Caribbean Monk Seals!

So stop it! Stop with the dying!

If you didn't know: From the 6th of June 2008, they have been officially extinct.

So I is sad :(

Sad, and ornery, because people think stupid things sometimes. Terrible, terrible reasoning. I mean, i'm a pretty reasonable guy and all that, but seriously, when people use really terrible reasoning, I get all ornery like. Like a...orner. Or something like that. 

"A gay man has no need for women."
"Actually, that's not true. He needs them more than anyone else, for it reminds him what he misses, and thus strengthens his resolve."

Agronomy or asskicking

Stop all this "organic" and "natural" treehuggery. Because that's all it is. Well, that and money grubbing on the part of the people selling you that overpriced stuff

.

"Organic" means almost nothing in the USA thanks to the influence of the USDA, and "Natural" means less than nothing.

However, you are sadly mistaken about the basic realities of farming...

"Organic" and "natural" crops cannot even remotely compete in terms of volume of perfectly safe, edible food with the genetically modified, pest free varieties.

The following things are true:

1. A hundred years ago, there was no such thing as agriculture which was not "organic", because we did not turn petroleum into fertilizer or, for that matter, pesticide.
2. The use of shallow tilling of soil, especially when done with heavy machinery, creates hardpan.
3. The use of petroleum-based pesticides and fertilizers (as well as other artificially-sourced pesticides etc) harms soil diversity. Good soil is over 60% organic material (ideally, over 80%!) and can be 20% or more living matter. The chemicals with which you are so enamored harm beneficial insects, the worms which we depend on to create soil (they are also defeated by our tilling practices) as well as nematodes and mycelium.

Enough facts, I don't want to confuse anyone with them. Let's get back to the battle. Again, a hundred years ago it was all "organic" farming. Therefore "organic" itself doesn't mean a whole lot. If you're fertilizing only with poop and the like you can still be horribly harmful to the environment by simply allowing topsoil to wash into rivers. Or, for that matter, by tilling it and leaving it uncovered, which allows it not just to wash away, but even to blow away. This results in harm to air quality and thus to our ability to breathe - living in agricultural areas is no fun. I am living in Lake Country now; I was living in Marysville last. Here it's vineyards, and you can find them south (Napa) or west (Hopland) where various items are sprayed on the plants - and into the air, where we get to breathe them. That shit sets off my asthma every time, so I really don't want to hear about how "safe" your inorganic farming is.

Now, let us discuss the issue of sustainability in more depth. "organic farming is mining the soil of its vital minerals, particularly phosphorus and potassium. ... Conventional farming, on the other hand, restores mineral balances through fertilization." This is amazingly empty-headed cheerleading bullshit. In fact, organic farming restores mineral balances through fertilization, but in conventional farming techniques (those of the so-called "Green Revolution") instead of correctly amending the soil with those things which it requires, and allowing natural forces to fix those nutrients and make them available to your crops (these "natural forces" are also called "other plants" or, by the ignorant, "weeds") we spray ready sources of the food into the soil and feed the plants. Feeding the soil is a basic tenet of true (i.e. nothing to do with the USDA) organic gardening, but I understand that there is always a temptation to simply ignore facts in the pursuit of a good argument.

It just so happens that in my yard there is an organic garden which produces food crops at an extremely economical rate. It is based on compost, poop (steer, llama, seabird, bat, and chicken shit) and the usual range of organic soil amendments including alfalfa meal, blood meal, bone meal, feather meal, seaweed meal and so on. Those with an eye for detail will note that much of this is actually recycled refuse from animal processing and the like - I'm no space cadet from Vega. The soil is better this year than it was the year before - it's been obvious for months because the cover crop (mustard) was about four times taller this year in spite of similar (if anything, less ideal) conditions otherwise.

Now, let me address the issue of food quality. In theory, commercial farming methods can safely produce food of the same quality as organic methods, or even superior quality. In actuality, this almost never happens. First of all, the pesticides are unequivocally not safe for you (I don't know what makes you think that the food is safe, when it has repeatedly been shown to not be so - some of the pesticides don't wash off conveniently and we even have special vegetable washing products for this purpose now - the global "We" you understand, because I produce my own produce and otherwise general buy organic) and honestly, you should never spray anything on your plants that you wouldn't at least spray on your own body, if not something that you wouldn't mind putting in it. Common sense here. While the food for the plants is taken apart one molecule at a time and put back together the way mother nature intended regardless of if it comes from poop or from oil, the pesticides don't get the same treatment.

The next factor negatively affecting food quality is the process with which these products are shipped to the store. It affects every stage of the plant's existence from its very selection - the varieties of food available on the shelf at your local supermarket are based more or less entirely on appearance and ability to travel. Food is picked early, gassed to force "ripening" (as if it were ripe after that) and then shipped hundreds of miles to the store. Consequently, not only does organic food generally taste better simply because it's a superior variety, but also because organic farming is usually carried out on a smaller scale, with the product being used closer to the point of production. Far from being a "throwback", this makes good economic sense and you can see the principle at work all over the world; in fact, China is going to have cars built in Mexico to sell to the American market in spite of the fact that American companies have things built in China to sell to the American market because it's cheaper than having them built in Mexico. Welcome to our world. Because the food does not have to travel so far, it can be picked at an actual state of ripeness, when the parts of the plant which we eat are fully developed, and thus the macronutrients are fully developed. Genuinely ripened products are always substantially richer in the things which are interesting to us; things with antioxidants have more of them, things with beneficial complex amino acids have more of them, et cetera.

Shocking to discover that fertilizer and pesticides yield more crops.

Food is rotting in silos all over the world (except maybe for Africa - wait, it's rotting in warehouses!) which should clearly make the point that the reason people are starving in this world has nothing to do with adequate supplies of food being available on the planet, but with them being available locally. Right now Mexicans are going hungry because our demand for subsidized ethanol fuel has increased the demand and thus the price for corn. The issue with people starving on this planet has nothing whatsoever to do with the amount of food available, and everything to do with greed. It is really just that simple.

NOW, where do we go from here? How do we correct the downward spiral that is destroying the soil all over this planet?

The first step is to stop throwing away valuable poop. In this country almost all sewage is pumped (at great expense) to sewage treatment plants where it is processed (at further great expense) and then generally put right back into some water system that someone will be drinking out of later. Then we later pump that water out of the stream, spend huge amounts of money to clean it up so that we can drink it or take a crap in it and flush it towards the treatment plant. The solid waste (lovely euphemism) left over from this process is usually either burned or landfilled. Or burned and then landfilled.

Instead of doing this, we need to recycle this human waste and feed the plants. You don't just pump the shit out into the fields, that's a recipe for E.Coli sprouts. You do have to process it slightly, but there are actually a number of methods to do this which involve very low (or basically zero) energy input aside from the crap, and which not only produce fertilizer but also methane gas. The methane gas can be used onsite for cooking, or compressed and taken offsite. It can be used pretty much anywhere we normally use propane or "natural gas". Most sewage plants actually just "flare off" or simply burn this methane, putting the CO2 right back into the atmosphere without any gain. And we pay them for the privilege of having our shit processed in the most inane way possible.

Of course, a lot of basic assumptions about the way people should live have to be revised - we have to reconsider location, location, and location. Or we can still spend a lot of money to pump the shit, but instead of pumping it to a treatment plant, we pump it to what amounts to an array of wildlife refuges with submerged plastic tents which capture methane. The shit is pumped into the bottom with a supply of water, and bacteria process it and heavy metals settle out and are fixed by other bacteria. The process produces algae which can be used to make biodiesel and alcohol fuels, and methane which I have already discussed. The only reason we're not doing this today is the very same reason that there is so much resistance against organic farming - in order to protect the profits of oil barons and their vassals, who are making big metric fuckloads of money by shitting on the planet and taking our money unnecessarily.

If you would like clarification of any of these points, or any further explanation of why organic farming is absolutely essential and why modern mass agriculture is destroying the planet, I will be happy to provide you with more information.

A more political tenor than the last one, but still good.

Also, a/n (implied) correction: In my previous post, I may have implied that photons are not affected by gravitational fields. This is distinctly not true. While it's true that photons do not exert gravitational force, they most distinctly are affected by gravitational fields, a la light being unable to escape black holes, parallax and the like.

As if we didn't love the guy already

Because this picture isn't getting enough press.

Funny story:
"I hate to break it to you, but everyone already has a gravitational field around them."
"Not me, I'm made of photons."

Oh Sparky Oh Jet

Quintessential YouTube: a teleology satisfied. I believe the ascension will be complete soon. In other news, why does Slashdot insist on giving me mod points? Just because I'm an awesometastic mod doesn't mean you should. *sigh* back to work...

She felt she had to do it

Which was strange, because she didn't feel much of anything these days

Would anyone be so kind as to remind me of what that's called, when you stick a word into another word? They mentioned this elusive little linguistic phenomena(non? more literary puzzles) on QI, but it escapes me right now.

Unmitigated douchebaggery: I have to admit it right now. Having a laptop is AWESOME

Bastardly devious business practice:

"If I'm selling you drugs, the best thing I can do is sell you $400 a month of marijuana, but if I can get you on to heroin at $4000 a month, that's dead easy to do. All i've got to do is spray the marijuana with heroin in a drying process and you'll be addicted within a week. The chances of you getting off it, if you do into detox, is about 12 per cent. Most people can't get off it." [emphasis added]

Hot damn. That's so cunningly evil, I'm repellently impressed. And I thought I was good at evil...I think I want in on this. Interestingly enough, from a business magazine about 'leadership'.

I'm almost embarrassed by the number of lesbians I know. Almost.

There is a God

Scrolling through the SEP (as to deluding myself that is equivalent to research on my essay) I ran into these:

Zombies.

Holy carp.

Oh but it gets better.

Scroll down to the end of that, and you get:

Zombies on the Web. Featuring the works of: Daily Dinosaur Comics!

David Chalmers contributed to the SEP entry, and also maintains (in addition to a whole cavalcade of other philosophy related minutia) Zombies on the Web. I knew David Chalmers as a smart Australian philosopher when I ran into some of his work for logic. What I did not know was that a) he's funny and b) A total goddamn hippie.

Look at him! Also featuring such great work as: Ramsey + Moore = God.

EDIT: Why the fuck do I continue to use Opera, when it seems to have a indefatigable need to eat or generally destroy the formatting of my posts?

The infinite cruelties of old age

this isn't over yet

Article the first: A few things:

You walk wrong. If you're still obstinate about this, atleast admire the pretty trompe l'oeil pictures. There's some nice shoes in there as well, of atleast one I want a pair of (The 3mm sole ones, if you must know). One page version, if you don't want to give NYmag the money (I know I want to.)

Article the Second:
I wrote what I believe is one of the greatest sentences I have ever done, or perhaps, ever will do.

On not providing a sketch of even a basic taxonomy of political protest (or even just civil disobedience):

"I prefer not to think of this as philosophical cowardice or intellectual laziness, but rather due to the incredible range and critical complexities engendered in political intercourse."

And I threw it away in a footnote. I am so fucked for honours.

Article the Third:
Grrr. Winter's coming back. Wasn't part of the deal. Also, depressingly useful to know that chronic depression makes you smarter (Answer: No.) Or does being smart make you chronically depressed? (Answer: No.) Either way, I'd prefer one of those two things.

Article the Fourth:
I realised I cannot die.

Article the Fifth:
We, the Highest Authority of the Land, hereby fully and completely, do solemnly revoke the fourth article, with Prejudice.

Article the Sixth:
I've realised I cannot die until I've learnt enough french to read In Search Of Lost Time (À la recherche du temps perdu, in the original french) atleast once. At the least, frustrated with trying to learn enough french to give up and just read the damn thing in english.

Addendum to Article the Sixth:
If anybody gives me shit about certain proper nouns not being capitalised, this is your fault. I know, and it was deliberate.

Dammit, where's a sound engineer when you need one

This problem comes up a surprisingly awful lot. I have suspicion that this is faked somehow.


Mario Theme Played with RC Car and Bottles

Continuing the vein of the Mario Theme played in awesome ways.

Because I didn't turn up to Uni today (i'm a terrible, terrible person) I've posted some extra stuff for youse guys. Enjoy!

Hilarious litigatory action

Not at all hot.

Funny though!

First, this. This is the one making the rounds on the WEB 2.0 (policy dictates this is always capitalised) or the Intertubes, as I believe it's called. It's a little dry and technical at the start and middle:

D323643 is the least dissimilar to the Tartan connector of any of the patents, and stands as an obstacle to any claim of infringement of the others because it establishes prior art; if its scope, like the others, is granted the breadth you argue for, then the Tartan connector falls plainly under the prior art and cannot constitute an infringement of the later, and more dissimilar, patents. Read the patents narrowly, and Monster loses; read them broadly, and Monster loses. You are welcome to point out any error in my reasoning; but I have to say that I will be unreservedly surprised if you are successful in doing so.

In legal terms, that's known as a ZING!

But get through that and the man decides to go and tear them a new one:

It may be that my inability to see the pragmatic value of settling frivolous claims is a deep character flaw, and I am sure a few of the insurance carriers for whom I have done work have seen it that way; but it is how I have done business for the last quarter-century and you are not going to change my mind. If you sue me, the case will go to judgment, and I will hold the court's attention upon the merits of your claims--or, to speak more precisely, the absence of merit from your claims--from start to finish. Not only am I unintimidated by litigation; I sometimes rather miss it.

Bahahahahhahahahah.*wipes tear* I nearly fell over my chair when I read that. Good times.

Second, more historical piece: Arkell v Pressdram, or how to say fuck off in legal proceedings properly.

If you hate Wiki for some ungodly reason:

[The plaintiff, Arkell, was the subject of an article relating to illicit payments and so sued the defendant magazine Pressdram.] The magazine had ample evidence to back up the article. Arkell's lawyers wrote a letter in which, unusually, they said: "Our client's attitude to damages will depend on the nature of your reply". The response consisted, in part, of the following: "We would be interested to know what your client's attitude to damages would be if the nature of our reply were as follows: Fuck off".

I look forward to more hilarious legal mischief.

Silly observations

Food crisis, shmood crisis. I'll eat the same as I ever did.

I find it astonishing (and quite frankly, appalling) that I would commit what might be regarded as borderline acts of starvation or malnutrition, all for the sake of short-term convienence. The fact that I have been doing this for several just compounds the madness of this.

Be advised: boundless human curiousity without adequate and appropriate scaffolding will kill you, or at the best, lead you to slow, drawn-out half-death. However, it's goddamn fantastic inbetween.

Tomatoes

I recently had an experience while chopping tomatoes that readers may find a little disturbing. However, in the interests of posterity, i'm recording this as a not-so-weird reminder on my life.

The scene: a kitchen. The players: Me, a knife and a tomato. The play: replete with erotic (sub)text.

I started chopping this tomato to put onto my bread. Everything seemed normal. I picked up the knife and began. There seemed nothing unusual about this; I should note however that the knife was serrated.

From the moment I started cutting, something happened. The way the knife plunged into the tomato was unmistakably arousing; the sound of that red flesh being gently sawn apart was electrifying. This was crazy.

My breathing slowed; the heart raced. The dawn huskiness crept into my voice. I deliberately slowed down cutting as to continue that soft, sibilant hiss of the knife slowing cutting that tomato apart.

And when I was finished cutting that first tomato, I did it all again for a second one.

Don't mind me, it's just the solanine talking

Green potatoes and bargains, that is.

You know, the number of things that I find myself complicating really grows rather large. I've made the supermarket my latest paramour; commerce, especially banal commerce, is ever so thrilling and complicated. You know that crazy guy who walks around the supermarket a lot, talking to himself, looking at things, putting them away, then coming back, going away, and eventually leaving either purchasing a) tubers b) dairy product or c) nothing? I'm that guy.

The economic and moral opportunities (starvational challenges, more like) presented to me in supermarkets are somewhat absorbing. I've stood in front of a dairy section for about half an hour once, debating silently, and sometimes not so silently, what kind of soy juice to buy (if indeed, anything at all is purchased).

Minor changes to the place. I'm wondering what to do as regards archives; given that i've got more visitors to this place (hullo!), I'm thinking about changing the availability of archives. However, that seems to involve a bit too much effort on my behalf, and frankly, at time of printing (how marvellously quaint), I don't care. My one advice is not read too far back, lest you wish your senses assaulted.

Goddamn, I was emo back then. And a terrible writer. That must be how Goethe felt.

I kid, I kid. I'm sure Goethe was better than that. He was German, and I am not.

Resource-rich: or the intoxication. I like it when money is given in physical form. I love the rich (entendres abound) corporeal feel, the usefulness of its instrumentalism. It even distracted from thinking about those sexy kids...

For about 10 seconds. Then it came back.

I think i've had a long day, though I very much doubt it. I'll say this much: smart people are rad. Maximal trust signals maximal return, though i'm inclined not to play that with an economics student. Or me.

I have something else (to my standards, oddly disturbing. I'll venture that others probably find it confusing, but not dangerous. It's funny that things that are truly disturbing and dangerous is what I indulge in, and I refuse to give these up. Yet, i'll gladly embark on half-hearted crusades [A weak Pope, you see] to eradicate my more wholesome desires) to write about. It's about a little encounter I had with tomatoes.

This week sure has me with a lot of run-ins with the nightshade family.

I've said too much, and not all of it well enough. I'll be good.

Shit be going down in Harare, Sir

Good news!

Mugabe (and his party, more accurately) recently lost control of Zimbabwe's parliament, ceding control to the MDC. Huzzah! Now, i'm not one to get theological on you, but may he rot in Hell. Depressingly odious man.

In other news, my philosophy of law lecturer (The awesome Rick Benitez, or rb, for short [NB: his abbreviation, not mine]) actually used the word theosophical in class! Properly, even! The heart sings.

It sure can

He spoke the words into his lips

what happened

There exist, in the course of human life, innumerable little verities that are deeply vexing to one's person that nobody mentions. To mention them would be a moot point; it would be as if to get annoyed at the sky being blue or grass being green.

However, these lilliputian bastards can build up to the point wherein you just want to go, 'Goddamn, I am so fucking sick and tired of the sky being blue or grass being green all the goddamn time.'

A better question would be probably be to ask, 'What are verities, and what are not?' But that's a different question, for a different night.

David Gerrold (Marker)

"We don't necessarily want accurate maps, we want useful ones. But accuracy is extraordinarily useful."

Waaaagh, he gets it. Can you believe this is also the guy who wrote The Trouble With Tribbles?! Crazy Awesome. Will obtain novels to read.

Humorous Errata

Let us whack mightily upon our enemy as the oaken staff assaults an unwary pinata! All for the chocolatey treasures within!

This time I'm with you 100 percent, Javier.

I don't want to imagine the amount of time and effort required to produce this. God Only Knows..

This quote nearly made me cry

In 1784 the provision banning slavery was narrowly defeated. Had one representative (John Beatty of New Jersey), sick and confined to his lodging, been present, the vote would have been different.

"Thus," Jefferson later reflected, "we see the fate of millions unborn hanging on the tongue of one man, and heaven was silent in that awful moment."

Mary, carry your shame

Well past all those eyes across the avenue

Running across this (This actually came up in a Boston Legal episode as well, so go figure), I came across some interesting legal trivia, more specifically relating to the Roth v. United States case. It's a somewhat important case in First Amendment law, and it's a sweet interpretation too, from the wonderful Mr. Brennan:

Obscenity is not protected by the First Amendment, but more strictly defines what is considered "obscene". 

Reading on, I was strangely confused that there were dissenting opinions on such a smart ruling. Turns out, the dissenters (Justices Hugo Black and William O. Douglas) argued the ruling didn't go far enough; they argued that the First protected all obscene material. Impressive, yes?

Additional trivia: Heterochromia is nifty.

Also, if you're interested, Slate is hiring general question answerers.

Pushing the fat man

And why apparently now I have trouble doing it.

Traditional trolley case: Oncoming trolley. Lever for you. If you pull, kill 1 save 5. Do nothing, kill 5 save 1.
The fat man case: Trolley oncoming. Pushing fat man will stop trolley saving 5 lives, but kill the fat man.

Consequentially, the cases have the same effects. 1 down, 5 up.

But why I can't push the fat man is this: I actively participate in his death. With the traditional trolley case, the one person on their own on the tracks has assumed some element of risk by being on the tracks; (regardless of whether they've actually assumed responsibility for taking said danger). However, with the fat man, I take his position from a level that has no risk to one that is actively fatal towards him.

Musing about deontological rights. Wonder if this intuition matters all that much. Wonder what Caroline would say about this...

Beetroot dip motherfucker

Do you stock it?!

Surprisingly, not really. Strange, really, that one would only find such few choices of beetroot/beetroot-themed dip in the wonderful world that is the Western marketplace today.

Have taken a liking to dips and bread recently. I don't know what hasn't possessed me to do so till now. Crazy, n'est-ce pas?

I don't know whether that's grammatically correct. More to the point, I don't care.

That was one of the things I find seriously frustrating about learning other languages. Fundamentally, grammar structures can be seriously, seriously different (e.g. My name is example vs. I am(je, itself conjugated)) named/appended(m'appelle) example) and native speakers are completely used to it. What may sound strange is basically culturally conditioned.

In other words, lots of memorisation. Frustrating, nevertheless.

This was inspired by late-night SBS and kittens. In a french movie, obviously.

Breaking the law shouldn't be a crime.

Well, not all the time.

Or: A plausible defense against random fellatio on the street?

For you see, as per Shaw's riposte ("Do not do unto others as you would expect they should do unto you. Their tastes may not be the same.") to the golden rule, (of which there exist many formulations; the most trite being "He who has the gold, makes the rules" to the more conventional "do to others what you would have them do to you") a more holistic approach to the ethic of reciprocity is required.

A better approach may in fact involve doing unto others as you would think they would want done to them. This helps avoid the differing tastes problem, but yet it overlooks a crucial fact: the lack of easily obtainable information as regarding taste.

This is where the random fellatio on the street comes in (that was a terrible pun). I have it on highly, highly reputable sources that this problem is reaching epidemic proportions. It most likely is the single greatest threat to our productivity (working families) and the glorious new epoch under the RUDDVOLUTION (Party policy dictates it must always be in bold, and always in capitals. Because that is the nature of this change.)

Now, how best can we balance the ethical dilemma of allowing the freedom of random fellatio on the street, with the dangerous possibility of it spiralling out of control? Simple: Large enough data sets. I propose that their be a nationwide census of random fellation, in order to determine whether, we, as a nation, are prepared to abide and tolerate random strangers giving us oral sex. It will be a taxpayer-funded revolution of epic proportions.

And of course, the revolution will be televised.

I'll get the plates out, cause you got served!

Yeah, we gotta drop these fools!

Rawk!

Advance wars: Dual Strike is freaking awesome. When somebody actually says owned in the game, awesome.

You know how the DS is basically full of jangly, fun pop? Dual Strike is that kickass exception. The music alone could be keep me going for days, not to mention the life-addicting gameplay. Lots of uptempo, dance-esque, surprisingly layered percussion, with scratches thrown in places for good measure. Atleast one other person agrees with me, as I'm downloading the torrent of the music of him/her as I write this. Hopefully, they'll agree with me for atleast the next 4 days, or however long the damn things takes to finish.

More to say on the DS itself, but I've got atleast a metric weeks of astonishment loaded on it currently, and my head is near asplosion point. So look out for that!

We should shine a light on, a light on

And the book of right-on's right-on, it was right-on

I WANT ONE

Good couple of days. BDO was somewhat subdued (why Bjork why), joanna was awesome to the max.

A coupla weeks ago, talking things over with Oliver and some of his fairly rad friends, topics inevitably turned over to why people suck/knowledge about things. Some people sort of said that if they don't know something about something, they just tend to sit quietly and let it pass over their heads.

I do not. I mentioned that if I don't know something about something (and it sufficiently piques my curiousity) I will go and research the shit out of it. I will read as much possible and learn about the damn topic within a reasonable (what's reasonable you say? I'll let the courts decide on that) period of time. The funny thing is, I remarked, even after spending all that time and effort learning, i'm usually not that much better[less confused/more decided] off then when I started.

Which brings me to my question: Why am I such a damn fool?

Much unlike this one, who's probably one of the my favourite people ever. It makes me cry when you learn about that much goodness.

On a side note, that has to be one of the most entertaining wiki articles I've ever read. I actually want to read it the entire way through and not just skim/skip parts of it; i've read it multiple times and still find it engrossing. Kudos to the person/s who collaborated on it. I'm sure Erdos would appreciate it.

A recap, of sorts

Saturday January 5 (All subsequent days are in chronological order)

Brian Wilson at the Domain. It was grand. Must remember to marry woman in polka dot dress. Watch out for (potential) husband.

Sunday

Spank Rock:

"It's party music." "No consequences." "Just ass-shaking shit." "Why you hating?" "Stop thinking so hard."

Monday

Andrew Bird was great. Really great. I also wish to marry him. He would be a most excellent suitor.

Tuesday

Brian Wilson

GODDAMN FUCKING AWESOME. 25 BUCKS?! Fucking, 25 BUCKS FOR THAT MUCH FUCKING COOLNESS!? Jesus.

Wednesday

Bobs. I love vodka. Makes me feel great. Not even sleepy.

Thursday

Oliviers film. I look forward to Tropfest and his subsequent placings. Should be good. Also, my maelstrom (ignore the damn umlaut) that is my mind produces some nice shit. I keep forgetting just how entertaining I really am sometimes. Effortful though. Maybe, I have something to say on that matter. (Turns out, I don't. Go figure.)

Friday

Fullhouse. Always lovely. Chiquis for poker (Lost. I did well last week, counts?). I hope I don't end up being too much of a dick, even if I'm good at making it something.

Saturday

Jazz in the Domain. Lordy, it was crowded. More than the festival first night.

Sunday

Missed out on tickets to Sufjan. Went to construct instead. "I liked it a lot, despite the fact that it was so abstractly pretentious." (why am I quoting myself now??)

Monday (my birthday)

Slept in. Had a lot of nice pizza. Nice things happened (Support/fuck the police! Drums in the park at 3 in the morn was cool. Really cool. I dig) I wish I could afford good vodka. ALL THE GODDAMN TIME

It could be summed up in one, very unique way:

Suck my battleship/sunk my cock

I think Machiavelli would understand

Life is mostly froth and bubble;
Two things stand like stone:—
Kindness in another’s trouble,
Courage in our own.

END COMMUNIQUE

BEGIN COMMUNIQUE

My boobs aren't cut out for this cold weather. They're too new.

Good Vibrations drive out bad juju

What do you think it's about?

Past few days have been good, yeah. I finished On The Road. Depends who you ask, yeah.

OR

"Yes! Yes! Yes!"

Je ne sais pas, eh?

It's really sort of that whole concept of craft and creativity. "That's not writing, it's typing."

Methinks someone is jealous.

Andrew Byrd is a wonderful, wonderful man. I still hold to the theory that he stole the throat of a warbler. There exists now, a poor, lonely, quiet, warbler, hoping to whistle.

I think I have some things to write. Facts, even.

I would blog right now

But I have to go soon, and I want to watch Whose Line. So, in an imitation of I might consider my favourite medium, this post will be delivered in episodic fits.

(It's aptly ironic the writer's strike is on.)

The title is:

"Good vibrations drive out bad juju"

More to come later!

Scientists are stumped

“ The universe is like a safe to which there is a combination. But the combination is locked up in the safe. ”

Peter De Vries

“ ...Fuck. ”

Peter De Vries

One of these quotes is real! Can you guess which one?

This explains a lot

Maybe not everyone needs a "chain of logical arguments" to convince them that God exists? Or of other things - I don't have any logical arguments to convince me that my husband loves me. Logically, it's just as likely that having and raising children is very very important to him, and he believes that I will be an excellent mother, and so he wants to take good care of me and make me happy so that I will help him raise children. That could, potentially, be indistinguishable from him actually loving me, but still I believe that he does love me.

I don't think I love any of you. It's all just a series of giant coincidences, you sneaky bastards.

Why I love Slashdot and you won't care

On the contrary, the Prime Minister in a Westminster style system has much more power than the President of the USA, because the PM fully controls the legislative agenda.

In the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, laws that spend public money or raise taxes must be accompanied by a "Royal Recommendation". Since the Monarch of each country with respect to the exercise of the Royal Prerogative has been an automaton since at least 1936 (and for hundreds of years with respect to the UK and its legal predecessors), acting only on the advice of the Prime Minister, this means that the PM has a veto on whether Parliament can even consider most important bills. Ireland and India have similar rules, but have (appointed) Presidents instead of a (heridtary) Queen and (appointed) Governor-General.

This is Section 56 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (current version): "A vote, resolution, or proposed law for the appropriation of revenue or moneys shall not be passed unless the purpose of the appropriation has in the same session been recommended by message of the Governor-General to the House in which the proposal originated." The Senate and House of Representatives both have rules and standing orders forbidding the debate of votes, resolutions or proposed laws that may not be passed, and the President or Speaker enforces these assiduously.

Moreover, in all of these countries except the UK, either the Royal Assent can be deferred, or the Proclamation can be deferred, in the event Parliament passes a Bill that the Prime Minister does not want. In the UK, the Royal Assent has been automatic and has not involved the Monarch or the Prime Minister since the early Victorian era; Proclamation is not a feature of the UK system -- an Act of Parliament that receives Royal Assent becomes law immediately (or at a future date fixed in the Act itself). It is pretty clear that if it became necessary, the Prime Minister could constitutionally insist that "the Queen withhold Royal Assent in order to consider the Bill" ("la Reyne s'avisera", is the Norman French formalization), which in practice would mean sending a letter to the Department of Constitutional Affairs and the Clerks of both Houses of Parliament.

This is described in Sections 58 (Royal Aseent) and 60 (Proclamation) of the Australian Constitution.

Finally Section 59 of the Australian Constitution uniquely retains the power of Disallowance (it was abolished with respect to Canada and New Zealand, and never existed in the United Kingdom). (It reads: "The Queen may disallow any law within one year from the Governor-General's assent, and such disallowance on being made known by the Governor-General by speech or message to each of the Houses of the Parliament, or by Proclamation, shall annul the law from the day when the disallowance is so made known.")

In effect, these tools represent a Prime Ministerial veto over legislation, available even if the majority of Parliament supports a bill.

Section 59 might actually be used by the new government. It is normally considered a political mistake to do so, but since the campaign dealt with legislation forced through at the end of the Howard premiership, it is plausible that the new Prime Minister can claim an electoral mandate to exercise the power.

In short, the veto powers of a Westminster-style Prime Minister far exceed those of the President, who must veto or not within a short period of time, and whose veto can be overturned by Parliament.

In the Westminster system, the only remedy for Parliament is to refuse to pass the bills the PM actually wants, or to withhold confidence in the government (by declaration of no confidence, or the defeat of a supply bill), which likely would trigger an election. However in that case it is the PM who decides whether to name a replacement, try to secure confidence with a new set of ministers, or set an election date. The Monarch or Governor is expected to act like an automaton in this regard too.

The only two cases in the past few hundred years where this did not happen (King-Byng and Whitlam-Kerr) led to heavy restrictions on the Crown (King-Byng led to the Statue of Westminster, ultimately; Whitlam-Kerr had a less dramatic aftermath but did result in a revision of the rules of the Senate with respect to blocking supply and the convention that the Governor General serves only during the Queen of Australia's pleasure, and that may be tested ONLY through the Prime Minister) and both led to a more or less disgraced Governor-General. In other words, the Prime Minister always wins, especially if he enjoys a majority in the House of Commons/Representatives.

The last British Monarch who refused to act on the advice of the Prime Minister was beheaded.

The last British Monarch who exercised Royal Prerogative without first securing the formal advice of the Prime Minister was forced to abdicate and leave the country.

Since the Prime Minister typically sits in Parliament, can directly influence the progress of legislation within the rules of the House of which he is a member, and enjoys greater party discipline (usually thanks to selecting even junior members of the Ministry from Parliament), these powers are rarely needed. Cohabitation is unusual in Westminster systems; it is commonplace in the USA.

In fact, the President of the USA is much weaker than most heads of government of systems in which a president is given a personal mandate. In France and Germany, for example, the President (or Chancellor in Germany) has greater influence over the process of legislation both formally (various recommendation systems, and stronger vetos) and through the power of patronage appointments.

The President of the USA has enormous power with respect to firing department heads and members of his Cabinet, but is constrained in the upside of patronage since the Senate must approve of most senior appointments. That approval is occasionally embarrassing to the President (and prospective appointees) and may not always be forthcoming, particularly when the appointment is an overt payback to a former member of Congress for showing loyalty in pursuit of a legislative agenda (e.g. John Ashcroft). No such review exists in the Westminster system, or in France, and the legislature's reviews and confirmations in Germany, Italy and Israel (as examples) are tepid to the point of being pro forma.

In fact, I can think of no area in which the President of the United States is formally more powerful than a Prime Minister in any European state other than Liechtenstein. It's just that the exercise of his or her restricted set of powers can be formidable, since the United States is such a large economic, political and military superpower internationally and domestically, so the President seems much more powerful than other executive heads of government.

*sniff* Wasn't that beautiful? How many places do you know can give you an indepth look into the Australian Federal Constitutional law and parliamentary procedure, comparative and historical analysis with other parliamentary systems AND backed up with examples? All in the one, surprisingly easy to understand (atleast for me) breath?

I want to marry Slashdot.

This lady is my hero

Tired and unable to sleep due to irritating fever, so came across this. (One really hopes she spayed the damn things.)

Warning! Cats! Not the musical kind!

I can't believe that i've had to do this again

BUT I HAVE THE INTERNET AGAINS LOLS YES

See, it's things like this that drives me to whisky. Atleast you can't get disconnected from sweet, sweet Chivas.

Either way: INTERNET LOLS YES

Technological Hullabaloo

Posting to resume shortly.

Fuck the pain away

Damn Peaches and her sexy (yet addictive) agenda!

Plastic is back. That's all I'll say for now.

Am I the only one excited by the changes to the NSW Liquor laws? In previous discussions about bars, I facetiously remarked that I would go to Melbourne [bars] to meet interesting new people. The reason was that bars in Sydney often have to cater to the lowest common denominator to make any money, one of the costs being the $15,000(!) dine-or-drink license.

From what i've read, the new laws are 1) aiming to encourage wine bars and other 'boutique watering holes' and 2) increasing live music, and making it easier for underage performers to get into bars (Operator Please keeps coming up. They're not that good, or that influential...or are they!?) More details here. They 'stiffed' hotels, but they have more than enough power anyway. Not really a big deal. Either way, the new deal looks to be awesome.

In inflationary news, milk went up by 10 cents a litre. That's a 10 percent rise! Methinks Woolworths is lying about low prices. Also, possible interest rate rise? 8-ball says:

YES.

Frighteningly fast time travels

(that made more sense if you talk like Yoda. Also, mixing tenses!)

Misinterpretation!

The Actual™ quote is "R U 4 SECKS CHAT????" (it's from a Slashdot story) When I recontextualised it into my musings below, I was parodying the way the people behave in such places, claiming through this clever use of technique that bars and such were the real-life equivalents of seedy chatrooms and the like.

As Dostoevsky said,"Goddamn it, I shouldn't have to do all the work."

Well, that was what I said. What he said was a trifle more poetic ("Let the reader do some of the work.")

Know that I miss you

In what must be truly karmic retribution to my longwindedness downstairs, I got 'Around The World' stuck in my head for a day.

Who knew it was actually good advice to not go shopping on an empty stomach? I'd attach an addendum to that, which would be more generally along the lines of, 'Don't go shopping while craving something' and more specifically along the lines of, 'Don't go shopping while craving icecream.'

Because you know what the inevitable end of that transaction is going to be.

Answer: Delicious.

I may have royally pissed off my boss today. That's too bad, because I got sick of skipping class for him. I did what I had to do however, so we'll see what the fallout is. My Prac. Ethics class ended on a nice enough note, but it did get a little tiring to rag on MacKinnon the entire time. State priests are so tiring, you dig?

I'm trying to keep my writing fresh and interesting, and I realise it's hard work. This is an example of me not doing so. Jesus, I haven't started a third day of this and I've moved on a meta-post. I have no qualifications whatsoever.

As an excuse, I offer the time tested one of writer's block. To paraphrase Marx (the one with eyebrows, not the one with the beard), if you don't like that one, i've got others.

(Was that actually Groucho Marx? A quick google search is inconclusive)

Really, the main thing I'm trying to do with my writing is less is more approach. I hope you appreciate how difficult that is for me to take, even if you are as I, believe brevity is a high form of wit (as Shakespeare did! This I am sure of. Well, I actually think irony is the highest form of wit, whiles good ole Shakes there thought it was brevity)

[If you wish for me to level with you, I'm feeling not so peaky; there exist pockets of depression hiding in my mind longer than I thought possible. It's not something i'm proud of, nor should it be something you should encourage. This has been your Public Service Announcement. Please take the proper precautions.]

Ravioli: Buoyant

All systems go!

Unfortunately, it boiled over :(

I'm talking a lot. It seems to stem from my mind. This is how I deal. The cards.

Some justification: I've (presumably) remarked numerous times (possibly to no one in particular) of my general distaste and dislike for what might be named dance music (really, as the link states, more correctly, electronic dance music, music played at clubs, discotheques, raves and the like) My reasons for this range from the aesthetic to the philosophical, and i'll try to go through as many as I can to prove my point.

To me, however lax I may be about it, music is an artform. It is a platform from which to express, from which to edify, educate and entertain (I mean entertaining solely through the music itself) Really, I can find no better aesthetic position on which to explain it from as well as: Do you dig it? I mean, man, do you really dig it? When someone says something like, 'It's all about the music', that's what I mean.

What 'dance' music seems to do is subordinate that talent, that ability, merely to the point of sounding non-offensive (might as well say boring), providing a beat to move to. Technically, it seems dull. 4/4? C'mon, that shit went out with Beethoven. Music should be listened to, not measured in bpm. If you want to dance (physical sense of the term) to a beat, get a metronome.

The social reasons: most clubs, discos, raves, hell even most bars play this sort of 'dance' music. I dislike most of these places, not only due to the type of music being played, but due to the fact that they play music too damn loud, making it near impossible and seriously infuriating if you try to have a half-decent conversation. The innate seediness of many of these places doesn't help either; it's like a real-life version of people asking "R U FOR SECKS????", with louder music, and overpriced drinks.

Now, the disclaimatory personal reasons: I've remarked (again to someone) how much I hate my brother (goddamn douchebag). He listens almost exclusively to dance music (although recently he seems to be broadening; i've caught him listening to both my (that's right, my) MIA (that was most likely because of hearing her at Parklife, again an event I do not like) and Gotye))) In addition, he frequents many of those places i've mentioned above. In particular, he goes out specifically to 'dance clubs'. If my impression that my brother is the average sort of solicitor of such places is correct, well that really explains my dislike of those places.

Lastly, the philosophical/psychological: I've wondered whether my opposition to dance music (and its [is this the right apostrophication, or lack thereof? Apparently, grammar nazis read this, so I be wary. I've never really been solid with rules of possesive apostrophes; I feel there should be a ' after the 's' of the 'its' I just did] wider association with clubs, bars, et al) comes from that wider association. I've never really been comfortable with those places; I do not enjoy flirting/hitting on people, I'm much more of a direct lecher for that. Primarily, I talk a lot; this is most how I make friends, socialise and develop (secret) crushes on people. I do not 'groove', nor 'move', nor do I 'tear up the dance floor'. Those places seem like places where looks and style (how I loathe that word) seem to dominate, filled with younguns full of hormones aiming to have fun and casual sex, with a minimum of talking or engagement. This distinctly doesn't suit me, as a) I lack looks b) I lack style and

c) my greatest strength is most likely my intelligence, which I express through talking. Put me in an environment where you cripple that, and it's natural I get defensive. I'm still wondering whether all this talk is just a post facto rationalisation for my dislike of dance music.

Obligatory caveats: Generalisations apply heavily in above. I acknowledge that there exist artists who make great music, utilising 'dance' techniques, or even artists who make great dance music (Kraftwerk comes to mind). However, I should have made it clear by now that i've talking about a different subset of music (read: fuck you Purple Sneakers), of which again i'm generalising. Please filter where appropriate.

A reply

The (surprising) amount of things said about what I said has freaked me out. But also, a reply:

The problem is that people are naturally risk averse, and thus we always arrive at a point of utility that is sub-optimal. Not only that, we are not wise enough, nor rational enough to live anywhere near the lives that we have within grasp.

Risk-averseness: I agree, partially. Knowing you're risk-averse can (and should) lead you to compensate for it. See winner's curse, prospect theory et al. And I'm not entirely sure about risk-averseness outside agency problems. If the axioms of invariance and substitution hold (as they should within standard micro theory), risk-averseness should be compensated for.

we always arrive at a point of utility that is sub-optimal.

Better a point that is sub-optimal than null-optimal.

Now in analysing tasks from a simple marginal benefit/cost analysis, you risk falling into a pattern in which the tendency to be risk-averse moves you closer and closer to adapting demand to supply, rather than supply to demand. To some extent, this has to happen

On adapting demand to supply: Even you said this has to happen, in a sense. Remember, unlimited wants. There's no real way you could possibly satisfy all those wants, so you adapt those demands to the ones that can (ir)rationally be satisfied.

The economic problem is precisely that, in one sense: To pick the option that gives you the most utility at the lowest opportunity cost.

but in satisficing, rather than maximising, this can have the effect of higher qualities being run out of business and thus resulting in a continual narrowing of boundaries for all.

I call slippery slope. This was a subjective account of my own demand/utility functions, and there obviously exist some people who place greater utility on maximising than satisficing. I never said everyone does this.

Higher qualities? I call strawman. Higher qualities (in a consumer-sovereign, market-oriented sense) are those qualities I (and you, and everyone else) determine to have value to me/them. You can't blame people for buying what they want, regardless of how misinformed they may be (or want to be even. You can lead a consumer to information, but it doesn't mean they'll learn. In addition, I'm making concessions to market-distortive situations such as monopoly, externalities, cartels, etc. This is where stepping in is justified.)

That's why I object to the logic of obeying price signals. To some extent it's unavoidable, but the extent to which you conform creates a greater alienation from self that degrades the lives we lead.

Greater alienation of self that degrades the lives we lead? Shopping around is not a "greater alienation from self that degrades the lives we lead." That's a mighty presumptious statement about my life right there. Call me what you want, but do not call me a bad consumer. Price signals are a valid (and valuable) form of information transmission. Are you saying I shouldn't act on information available? Not only that, I act on other signals available to me as well; if this were some other game available to me at the same price, I would not buy it. I do not base my decisions solely on price.

Effectively, what I was describing in The Spectrum of Wants was a simple heuristical method of demand sorting, given finite time, finite information and infinite wants. YMMV. In short: cognitive biases do not an argument make.

Jesus, you've made me sound like Miltie Friedman. I feel dirty.

As to Sam's whiteness:

I told you!

The next time you weather an existential storm

pause and wonder if it's all in your head. And bring clean underwear. It's important.

So i've had a few things whirling in my head recently, and I really wish it would stop. It's making me dizzy. I'll try to set one of these things down as a short (hopefully) essay I will entitle for now:

"On the Spectrum of Wants"

After my recent and fairly annoying incident of wallet losing, I've begun the process of replacing my cards. One of the cards I replaced was my 'Access' card, the commie one that lets you do commie things. It's great, I recommend you get one. Now, with this little card came a bag of goodies, mostly in the form of vouchers. The big voucher book (like the one we got last year with the krispy kreme vouchers, which are back this year; hurrah for diabetes!) had a voucher for Liberty City Stories [the PS2 version: as a change of style, brackets] for 10 dollars in it. Which brings me to my point.

I went and purchased this game from the Broadway store that had this promotion, with Ed who came along as he seemingly had nothing better to do. As he generally does, he asked a simple enough question: did I actually wanted the game or not? Good question. Demand, generally speaking, isn't supposed to be a function of price, as it is a function of utility. Now, obviously, you have to look at tradeoffs between utility and the money exercised to obtain this utility, but did I buy the game because it was cheap or because I actually wanted it? My response was/is this: I did buy the game because I did really want the game. It had existed in my spectrum of wants, albeit at the fringes. It was pushed further towards the middle by a combination of a lower of price[effort], and the new information provided to me in voucher form.

Atleast for me, the spectrum of wants is extremely wide. I generally satisfy the spectrum of wants through a value system: how much effort do I have put into this to satisfy a particular want? Which is why consistently, my wants tend to be things that are possible already to me: reading, gaming, music, learning and so on. However, it should be noted that I internally individuate those wants quite specifically; that is, there is a different want when I want Baldurs Gate as opposed to Majesty, there is a different want when I read Steinbeck rather than Slashdot, and so on. Those wants are not monolithic blocks of things.

Occasionally, such events (mostly concerts) have enough utility attached to them such that even though more effort would be required of them than simpler wants, I am willing to expend the effort required to satisfy them. To be accurate, it's not neccessarily more utility that i'm gaining, as it is a different type of utility not available to me from other wants.

A anarchist's motto

If men were angels, there would be no need for government.

If men were angels, they could be trusted to government.

1000 pictures and all that

Keep looking

It's nice isn't it

When will people learn

Democracy doesn't work.

Imagine a courtroom. You have lawyers for two sides, who (presumably) has gone through several years of cheating and ly^h^h^h^schooling to obtain their positions. You have a judge, who has gone through schooling and (presumably) even more experience to obtain his/her position. Now, let take 12 members of the general public drawn by general ballot to decide the verdict. Also known as:

"Why are the smart people outnumbered?"

Medical marijuana reform, and this comment:

Why

by SimonGhent (57578) on Thursday October 04, @11:25PM

Why is this put to a public vote?

If the medical establishment say that something has a clinical benefit, what business is it of the public?

Should we have a referendum for every new drug?