« February 2005 | Main | April 2005 »
March 30, 2005
RSS Package Tracking via Bloglines
I'm waiting for a software package to arrive, and I just got my packing number yesterday. Then this morning, Bloglines announced to me that they can track packages via an RSS feed. I tried it, and it works. Very slick.
But mostly it reminded me of how MAW and I compared package tracking to little blogs for boxes. After that comparison, I wrote a little blog while waiting for my camera last summer. Here's a repost to get it into my new blog:
And so I present, the short blog of a package called 650152785933.
July 13, 2004, Tuesday, 6:44pm
Wow, here I am ready to start my trip. I'm all packed up, and I'm even bringing my new camera. I can't quite see my ticket, but it's tucked safely in my breast pocket. At least the ticket agent was nice, and it looks like I'll be taking the FedEx shuttle bus to the airport. Of course, here in Harahan, Louisiana, that's a bit of a drive.
9:13pm:
Ok... a little hitch. I have to wait for a bit of a transfer, but there's lots of other packages around to talk to. One of them is even going to Paris. Ooo, I hope I get to go to Paris someday. Ok, here we go again.
11:21pm:
If I read the signs right, I'm in Kenner, Lousiana now. Still no sign of the airport. I guess we're just going to be taking the bus for part of this trip, but it looks like maybe we're going to have just hole up here for the night.
July 14, 2004, Wednesday, 5:59am
All right! A fresh cup of coffee, and we're on our way. I didn't get a seat next to that cute Paris box this time, but this crate's going to California. He's got his surfboard and everything!
9:30am
Wow, Memphis! Maybe we'll get to out to Graceland! Hmmm, but it looks like we've got to hang out a while in... well, it looks about as organized as baggage claim. I was smart though, cause I only did carry-on.
3:29pm
Ok, I've got my boarding pass, and I'm getting onto my flight. It's a short hop to Austin, TX. My seat's a little closed in though, and none of the windows are open. I must be flying on Funsaver fares or something.
5:54
Damn but Austin is hot today. It's like 100 degrees out here, even hotter in the shuttle bus. Still, Austin, live music capital of the world! That should make up for missing Graceland.
9:11
Baggage claim took forever again, and me with just my carry-on! It's too late to get a hotel now, so it looks like we're just gonna hunker down here for the night.
July 15, 2004, Thursday, 6:34am
Man, I just gotta say, FedEx has the freshest coffee in the world. I'm feeling on top of the world. Plus, it's at least a little cooler in the bus this morning.
8:02am
Ok, we're pulling out at last. I wonder if we'll get to see the capitol building?
11:05am
Finally, it looks like I'm here. A bit more rural than the brochure suggested, but it's nice. Big open sky, pretty lake... I'm glad I brought my camera. And hey! This totally hot, red-headed chick just signed for me. Wow. Maybe I'll get to take her picture if you know what I mean. (wink, wink)
11:45am
Hey, who's this guy? Is he the red-head's brother? No! Oh my god -- it's the jealous husband! He's standing over me with this strange gleam in his eye, and... and... he's got a KNIFE IN HIS HAND!!!
AAAAGGGH!!! I'm being gutted here! Someone call 911!!
And now, he's reaching inside... I don't know how much more of this I can take! Where's that travel agent!
My camera! That knife-wielding hoodlum is stealing my camera! My brand new camera!
12:02pm
My life is ruined. Here I lie, a mere shell of my former self, tossed aside like so much garbage.
I so wanted to see Paris.
Blog /Narrative by Dan | Permalink | Comments (0)
March 29, 2005
Journalistic Style Leading to Bias
Today I’m going to rant a little about a common journalistic style that can easily lead to a subtle biasing of a news story. The style itself does not trend toward liberal or conservative bias, so in itself it is neutral, but its application frequently is not. So, this is less of a political rant against the right or the left, but more of a complaint registered against the professors who teach this style and the editors who allow it in their papers or wire services.
The style I’m talking about is commonly used in the lead-in for a news article. Here are a couple of examples I’ve lifted word for word:
At least 1,000 people were killed by Monday's huge earthquake which hit an Indonesian island famed as a surfing paradise, reducing large parts of its main town to rubble, officials said on Tuesday.
Traces of an explosive used to bomb an Alabama abortion clinic were found in Eric Rudolph's home in North Carolina, a federal agent testified Tuesday in a key pretrial hearing for the serial bombing suspect.
The basic form here is [statement] [attribution]. In these examples, it’s fairly straightforward and not terribly biased. The facts in the statement are not very much in dispute, and the attribution gives us some idea of the source of the facts and maybe some relevant details about the source. I contend that it often parses in an awkward fashion, but I can’t make any real bias complaints about these two instances.
This Opinion is Factual
However, the fundamental problem remains. The story leads off with the statement, presented as a fact. Only after that has made the initial impact are we told where the statement came from, and that attribution can be just as important as the statement. Sometimes it can be even more important than the statement itself, because knowledge about the attributed source can often taint or even rebut the truth of the statement. Here are a couple of examples than demonstrate this kind of bias:
President Bush's proposal to change Social Security by creating retirement investment accounts for younger workers would shatter the New Deal-era program and burden future generations with debt, a Michigan congressman said.
Wednesday's opening of parliament in Baghdad is a bright moment in Iraq despite ongoing violence in the country, President Bush said later the same day.
Here both of the statements are not really so much statements of fact as much as statements of opinion. I say that they’re opinions instead of facts because both the consequences of Bush’s social security plan and the current trend in Iraq are under much debate. Yet here they are both presented as fact. To make it easier, try reading them without the attributions:
President Bush's proposal to change Social Security by creating retirement investment accounts for younger workers would shatter the New Deal-era program and burden future generations with debt.
Wednesday's opening of parliament in Baghdad is a bright moment in Iraq despite ongoing violence in the country.
According to Whom?
Now let’s look at the attribution side of it. How you do the attribution can have a significant impact. Note that the social security comment is attributed merely to a Michigan congressman. That doesn’t tell you much about any bias he might have. Do you know enough about Michigan politics to predict his party affiliation or to know if he’s extreme vs. moderate? Probably not. Now, further on in the story, it does point out that this is the senior-ranking Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee. Try this again with a slightly different attribution:
President Bush's proposal to change Social Security by creating retirement investment accounts for younger workers would shatter the New Deal-era program and burden future generations with debt, a leading Democrat congressman said.
Ah, here you are immediately tipped off to the source’s bias. It is well known that congressional Democrats have been opposed to his plan, and politics being what they are, we take such statements with a grain of salt.
The attribution of the Iraq statement takes the other tack. It was very clear in attributing the statement to President Bush himself, and everyone knows that Bush wants to put as good a spin on Iraq as possible. Some Democrats will take this attribution as an immediate sign of the statement’s falsehood. Consider if we had used a softer attribution instead:
Wednesday's opening of parliament in Baghdad is a bright moment in Iraq despite ongoing violence in the country, Washington stated.
The attribution of “Washington” or “the administration” is common when talking about the top levels of the executive branch of the government. [If it’s domestic, it’s “the administration”, but in foreign affairs, it’s “Washington”. This is not limited to the U.S. as we often see statements like “Beijing refuses to negotiate on the Taiwan issue.”] This “Washington” attribution would have been much more neutral, and thus less informing about the statement’s bias.
He Said, She Alleged
You can even shade things by your choice of attributing verb. Is this something the source said, asserted, stated, maintained, opined, alleged, or supposed? In some cases, it’s clear which one to use. Here are a couple of examples from crime reporting.
A severed foot was found washed up on a California beach Sunday afternoon, police said.
Michael Jackson first plied his victim with alcohol before sexually abusing him, prosecutors alleged.
One is simply reporting on a fact, so “said” is appropriate. The other is an accusation being contested in a court of law, so “alleged” is appropriate. In these areas, the press seems to be pretty strict on their usage. However, in the realm of politics, the press exercises a lot more freedom. Here are a few examples that seem to break the rules:
Secretary Rumsfeld had full knowledge of the abuses in Abu Ghraib and approved the continued use of those interrogation techniques, stated Senator Kennedy.
“Stated” carries a strong connotation of fact, so the attribution implies that Senator Kennedy has strong proof of the statement. Well, not really. In this case, “alleged” would have been more appropriate.
Iraq’s WMD’s were never found because the U.N.’s delay allowed them to be buried and smuggled into Syria, said ex-CIA Director Tenet.
“Said” is fairly neutral compared to “stated”, but in context, I imagine that “maintained” or “supposed” would have been a better reflection on the statement and source.
The U.N.’s “Oil for Food” program was little more than a complex web of bribes and kickbacks designed to reward Saddam’s Security Council allies, said Volcker in his report released Friday.
Here “said” is perhaps accurate, since that is pretty much what he said in his report, but since we edging into near-criminal accusations, “accused” or “alleged” would have been more appropriate.
A Better Style?
While this would remove some of the hard-hitting punch from the top column inches in America’s newspapers, I would prefer to see the attribution come first, and I’d like to see the thesaurus trimmed for qualifying the attribution to just a few neutral verbs. That way, we know where this is coming from, and we’ll use that to shade our interpretation of the statement, not relying on the reporter’s choice of verb to do the coloring for us. Some of the previous examples would become:
A leading Democrat addressed President Bush's proposal to change Social Security today saying that it would shatter the New Deal-era program and burden future generations with debt.
The prosecuting attorney’s outlined their case against Jackson today, alleging that Michael Jackson first plied his victim with alcohol before sexually abusing him.
Volcker released his report on the U.N.’s “Oil for Food” program Friday, saying that the program was little more than a complex web of bribes and kickbacks designed to reward Saddam’s Security Council allies.
I don’t expect journalists to abandon this time-honored form, but it would be nice to see them clean it up. In the meantime, be aware of it when you’re reading the news. It’s a subtle form of media bias, but in terms of bias, the more subtle is generally more effective in achieving its persuasive goal.
Final Fun
I leave you with a few fake openers to show the kind of fun you could have here if you throw subtlety to the wind:
President Bush continues to advance his agenda of starving grandmothers and children, congressional leaders maintained.
Ted Kennedy promotes a lifestyle of misogyny and drunk-driving in his latest book, Bill Buckley opined.
Most homosexuals torture innocent animals for their own Godless amusement, a leading radio psychologist disclosed Tuesday.
The Reagan administration’s CIA released the AIDS virus into Africa to cleanse the land for a new wave of white colonialism, reported Louis Farrakhan this week.
And my favorite...
Dan is always right – even when he’s not – proclaimed a trusted and long-revered blog this glorious, Dan-blessed day.
Politics by Dan | Permalink | Comments (1)
Blog! Of! Fortune!!!
I just ran across the blog of Pat Sajak of Wheel of Fortune fame, and it surprised me. First, it's not a "look at me!" blog, but a "let me speak" blog -- at least the segregated "Sajak says..." political section. Second, he's both a celebrity and a conservative. Third, for someone whose job qualifications seem to be a winning smile and a strong spinning arm, he knows how to string them thar words together fairly well.
I particularly enjoyed his piece on celebrities and politics.
Blog by Dan | Permalink | Comments (1)
March 28, 2005
More linky goodness
Passing on more links:
The Mission Beach Sandman who's mission in life is now to make sand paintings at Mission Beach. (Hat tip to the cheese mistress.)
Astronomy Picture of the Day... here's a neat one in particular. It even comes in a convenient RSS feed.
This interesting photo gallery of people's "transparent" computer monitors. (No, they're not really transparent, but it's an interesting effect.)
Blog by Dan | Permalink | Comments (0)
On the subject of bunnies
Passing on a link to Bunarchy, where there's a catchy flash animation/tune.
Tinfoil Beanie by Dan | Permalink | Comments (0)
March 27, 2005
Friday 5: Fearfest
This week's question comes from me:
What are the 5 scariest moments in your life, the moments when you were most filled with fear?
You know, I almost didn’t submit this question in the first place just because I knew how much I would dread eventually answering it, but while I might dodge someone else’s question, I think it would be bad form for me to dodge my own. It should come as no surprise to fellow parents that the three scariest moments were all about my kids.
- Summer 2003: Crossing the Richmond Bridge. I’ve written about that bridge before, and I’ll just leave it at that. This one night was the worst it has ever been.
- June, 1988: I very nearly flunked out of college in my sophomore year. My GPA for the fall semester was 0.6. Yes, you read that right, ZERO point SIX. That brought my overall GPA to below 2.0, and if I’d had just two more credit hours already, I’d have been booted out over Christmas in 1987. However, since I was still just under the wire, I was put on academic probation. I worked pretty hard that spring to get my GPA up, not so much because I loved school, but because I’d met a girl. I was convinced she was the one, and if I flunked out, I’d hardly ever get to see her. So there I sat in June, 1988, holding my grade report from the university in my hands, scared to open it. My future, my marriage, my family, were all in that envelope. I squeaked out a 3.2 which was enough to save me, and yes, that girl was the one and only MAW.
- May 25, 2001, 2:12am: MAW had been in labor for ten or twelve hours by that point, and it looked like it would be another six or seven, so we were trying to get some sleep in the delivery room. I had fallen asleep around midnight to the sounds of the fetal heart monitor beeping along at about 120/minute. I woke suddenly as the rate started dropping rapidly, first to 100, then to 80, eventually all the way to 60 beats per minute. Little Sammy had shifted his weight onto the umbilical cord. It was all over in a minute or two as we shifted MAW and Sammy to a different position, so everything was fine. But I didn’t sleep another minute until that afternoon.
- September 26, 2003, late morning: MAW had just given birth to Catherine, and Tommy had taken the opportunity to stretch out in a now roomy womb. As a result, he was no longer head down. Several attempts to reorient him failed, and the OB decided to bring him out feet first. That was pretty scary in itself, but the real scary moment came when he emerged, not red and screaming like his siblings but pale and still. With a quick spank and suctioning, he was doing much better, but for that second, I thought we’d lost him.
- December 15, 2004: Tommy had just been put into the hospital after months of intermittent vomiting, weight loss, and ultimately dehydration. His veins were in such bad shape that they eventually had to put the IV in his jugular, one stop short of a “main line” into the heart’s neighborhood. I was stuck at home with the other kids, completely out of the loop, and utterly powerless to do anything. I didn’t know if he would survive the night, and every time the phone rang, I feared it was MAW calling with the word of his death. Sufficed to say, there is telemarketer or two who will never call me again.
Meme by Dan | Permalink | Comments (1)
Bunnies!
To comemorate this religiously significant day, I present you with three completely irreverant images.
Sorry I've been so quiet lately, but I'm deep in a secret project. If it fails, I'd just as soon everyone not know, but if it succeeds, I'll be basking in the wonderful accolades of "What -- that's all? Damn, I thought you were really doing something."
Wish me luck!
Tinfoil Beanie by Dan | Permalink | Comments (0)
March 21, 2005
The Terri Schiavo Act: a Blow to the Rule of Law
I must confess that I have not been following the case of Terri Schiavo much. In fact, I've been avoiding it as much as my various media/blogging sources will allow. Mostly, it's just not very interesting to me. I have no significant feelings on the "right to die" issue one way or the other, so I haven't been swept up by the moral issues at the heart of it. I've made extra effort to avoid all the extraneous conspiracy issues involved, e.g. the husband's girlfriend, prior jury awards, insurance, the debate of Terri's mental state, etc.
However, this weekend the controversy crossed the line into a subject where I do have passion, the Rule of Law.
Wiki does a good job of summarizing the principal here as "a safeguard against arbitrary rulings in individual cases." My feeling is that the whole point of the Rule of Law is that you can live your life with a certain predictability, sure in the knowledge that the rules of the system will be the same tomorrow as they are today and that any changes to those rules will come gradually, with debate, and foreknowledge.
But here a case proceeded through the judiciary with various appeals and reached a conclusion, a conclusion that did not sit well with various Congress-critters. Now, it would be one thing for them to say, "Hey, I don't like how that turned out -- we should debate this issue and craft an appropriate law for future cases." I would be OK with that. But that's not what they did. Instead, they said, "Hey, I don't like that judge's ruling. Let's pass a law to force the case into a different court where we hope to get a different ruling."
That's so wrong on so many different levels. It's effectively forum shopping, which Republicans disdain, and it's a repudiation of the notion of federalism which Republicans hold in high regard. I'm not delving into this at length here. Instead, I'm going to write to my Congress-critters and express my displeasure. Here's the House roll call, but it passed the Senate on a voice vote, so there's no record.
Politics by Dan | Permalink | Comments (1)
Cost of the War on Drugs
Here are Becker and Posner taking on the War on Drugs in good economic terms. Not surprisingly, their analysis leads to logical legalization in short order.
Check it out.
Politics by Dan | Permalink | Comments (1)
March 17, 2005
Two Sides, final
Here's the final version of that earlier rendering: Two Sides. Click the thumbnail for a larger resolution.
I actually have it at 4000 pixels wide, and I think I'm going to try and get a print of it made. I'm pretty pleased with this one. It's the first render I've done that I've really considered as more than a demo or experiment in using the software.
Render by Dan | Permalink | Comments (0)
March 15, 2005
Two Sides, a work in progress
I've fiddled with a new rendering image the last couple of evenings. It's one that I tried to do years ago w/ an earlier version of the software and was never satisfied with it. This time I'm much closer. Click the thumbnail to see it at full resolution.
I've still got work to do. The eye-corners aren't the right color IMO, and I think I want the eye on the left to be a little more bloodshot. I'm also considering a few other elements and some bordering beyond the hair on the right and left. Still, it was a good stopping point, so I figured I'd post what I had.
Render by Dan | Permalink | Comments (0)
March 14, 2005
California Gay Marriage Ban Found Unconstitutional
A California judge ruled today that California's state ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional. In previous posts I've opined on how the San Francisco marriages were wrong because the city's mayor had no authority to declare the law unconstitutional. Fortunately, the California Supreme Court agreed, and very fortunately drew the elegant distinction between gay rights and the rule of law.
Now it's moving on the appropriate track by judicial review, not adminstrator fiat, and it's also IMO moving in the right direction. This will be appealed, of course, and we'll probably get to see the California Supreme Court take up the issue that they specifically avoided in their earlier ruling.
Politics by Dan | Permalink | Comments (1)
Steak and BJ Day
Remember all, today is Steak and BJ Day.
Just remember, folks, you use your teeth on the steak, not the BJ. Got that?
Tinfoil Beanie by Dan | Permalink | Comments (1)
FEC Blogging Petition
As I mentioned in a previous post, the FEC will soon be considering rules to regulate political content and advertising on the internet. While most politicians have stated that this will not apply to bloggers, we all know that a politicians promise is a far cry from a written regulation. If you want to tell the FEC commissioners to keep their hands off political blogging, then check out this petition.
Personally, I think the FEC is unlikely to attempt to regulate blogs since that would almost certainly guarantee a quick and painful trip to the Supreme Court, but as we all know, the collective IQ of a committee is the lowest IQ divided by the number of members in the committee.
Politics by Dan | Permalink | Comments (0)
March 11, 2005
Friday Five: Dousing Dreams
Today's question comes from me:
What 5 events or things would you like to see in your lifetime but are skeptical that you will?
While I’d like to go into details as to why I want to see these and why I’m skeptical, I’m on a business trip this week which has left me with little free time for such ponderous prose. So, in brief…
- Permanent colonies on the moon and Mars.
- Worldwide democracy – not necessarily a world government that’s democratic, but I’m just hoping for every human to be living in a democracy.
- Another good film from George Lucas.
- Commercially feasible fusion. I was very optimistic twenty years ago, but now twenty years have passed with very little progress.
- A hot, steaming three-way with Claudia Christian, Grace Park, and Jolene Blalock. Hmmm, has a week away from MAW left me horny and frustrated? You be the judge.
Other Friday Fivers are giving up their dreams here.
Meme by Dan | Permalink | Comments (0)
March 09, 2005
Random Entry
I'm off in San Francisco this week, or is it San Rafael? San Antonio? San Angelo? San San? Who the fuck cares anyway?
Meme by Dan | Permalink | Comments (0)
March 05, 2005
FEC regulating the internet/blogs
By now I presume that some (or most?) of you have heard the news that a judge's ruling on the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law will require that the Federal Election Commission do some regulation on the internet.
Since then, I've heard varying opinions ranging from "the FEC gestapos will jail you for political blogging" to "chill dudes -- this is about regulating political spam". Some folks think that FEC comissioner Bradley Smith is being an alarmist, hoping to get congressional action to either force an appeal of the judge's ruling or to issue an updated law trumping the judge's opinion. Others think he is doing a Paul Revere public service alerting the pajama-clad minutemen that the government is coming to take away the right to free speech.
Personally, I never liked the McCain-Feingold law. It seemed like a poor attempt to dam the river of political money, but like all previous attempts, it just diverted it. On top of that, it did so with dangerous first ammendment implications, equating political speech with regulated campaign contributions. While I don't expect the FEC to shut me down any time soon, I am inclined to think that Commissioner Smith is right to be alarmed on this. Free speech law is always one of those slippery slope areas, and this judge's ruling has put one foot squarely on that soapy incline.
Here's a transcript of an internet-radio interview with Commissioner Smith, part 1 and part 2.
For the record, it looks like the FEC is split 3-3 on whether or not to appeal the ruling, meaning that no appeal will happen. The three Republican commissioners want to appeal it, while the three Democrats do not. I wonder what Howard Dean has to say about that.
Politics by Dan | Permalink | Comments (0)
March 04, 2005
Friday Five: Damn, even my evil twin is losing his hair!
Today’s question comes from Rob:
One for the navel gazers: five times you've looked in the mirror and thought “who the bloody hell are you?”
Well, I don’t really have five of those, possibly not even one. I’ve pretty much always had a firm grip on who I am and what I want out of life. It’s not that I haven’t considered the options – I actually do a fair amount of deep-thought evaluation – just that I started pretty much where I wanted to end up. Much like my affinity for Texas despite my frequent travels, I’ve seen a lot of different super-egos and self-models but always thought, “That’s a nice philosophy to visit, but I wouldn’t want to live there.” Note, this doesn’t mean I have envisioned a static life. Rather, I envisioned a journey through different stages, careers, and lifestyles, and I’m chugging along.
So, I’m left with the more literal look in the mirror.
- Age 20... when I realized that an adolescence spent on my bicycle (paper-route/etc.) and then climbing 40-50 flights of stairs every day for two years had given me very muscular legs. They had bothered me for a while given they way they would spread out into a lap when I sat down, but then I realized that they were pretty much rock-solid muscle. (I recall that at the time, I could leg-press over 1000 pounds. Even years later, after knee surgery rehab, I could leg press almost five hundred on my good leg.)
- Age 23... when I grew a beard because I felt I had to make myself look older. I was in a semi-management position, and I looked like a kid. It really did make me look older. Seven years later a more recent hire (an awesome vice president) had reason to go through my employment file and was stunned to discover I was only 30, figuring I was at least ten years older.
- Age 29... when I was walking through an unfamiliar downtown area. I was approaching a corner, and looking through the windows of the drugstore, I saw this bad-ass character coming down the side street. He had wild, long hair, a trim beard, and was wearing a rather stern raincoat and sunglasses. At first I just saw him out of the corner of my eye, and there was this sudden lurch-in-the-gut as I maneuvered to avoid him. He looked like the kind of guy you definitely wanted to pass behind rather than in front of, but he had suddenly slowed as well. I came to a quick stop, and then he was staring right at me. And then, of course, I realized it was me. A trick of the window angles and a mirror in the store had thrown me off, but the scary guy in the reflection was me.
- Age 32... damn, when did I get fat?
- Recently... when standing in a mirrored elevator, a recessed light in the ceiling was shining directly down onto my head, casting stark shadows on my face. A friend once told me I looked like a cross between a serial killer and a Norse god, and the light just then made me see what she’d meant. Someday soon I’m going to have to capture that in a self-portrait.
Other Friday Fivers are gazing into the mirror here.
Meme by Dan | Permalink | Comments (0)
March 02, 2005
Ten things (times four)
Ok, I am now succumbing to peer pressure to do the same “10 Things” list everyone else has done, but I’m not satisfied to be entirely a member of the herd. Instead, I’m doing four lists.
10 Things I’ve done and you probably have too:
- Voted.
- Read this list.
- Vomited. (hopefully not in that order)
- Been treated by a professional doctor with a real education.
- Met someone on the internet you never would have run into directly.
- Had a three-day weekend.
- Had cynical thoughts about a politician.
- Lit a match.
- Watched television.
- Ruined a perfect 100% purity score.
10 Things I’ve done that you probably haven’t:
- Owned my own company for several years, sold it, and made money on it.
- Completed over half of a self-paced course in the last week of classes. (After I did this, the EE department changed the rules to prevent this from being attempted again.)
- Seen every Star Wars film on opening weekend – to my utter shame.
- Written fiction and been paid to have it published. It wasn’t much, and I kept my day job.
- Held a long-standing record for most-times-riding-amusement-park-ride-X-in-a-row-without-throwing-up.
- Lived for three weeks on a 48-hour schedule, i.e. awake for 32 hours (with a one hour nap) and then asleep for 16-hours (with a brief break for a snack). It was interesting, but I don’t recommend it.
- Had a medical mishap that led to a widespread change in the use of a particular drug.
- Foreclosed on someone else’s property. (It was investment property, so no, I didn’t put anyone out on the street.)
- Driven through a major city during a racially-provoked riot.
- Designed a house and had it built.
10 Things you’ve probably done, but I never have:
- Commuted more than five miles to work.
- Been fired or laid off.
- Been pulled over for a moving violation.
- Drunk an entire domestic beer.
- Dumped someone. (I’m not counting the stalker who I never actually met face to face.)
- Ridden a bus to school.
- Missed a federal or state or county or school election. (I’d say all elections, except I missed a city council run-off four years ago. In fairness, I was about to move out of the jurisdiction.)
- Watched the needle go in, even when I was giving myself shots for allergies.
- Gone out to a party in either high school or college. (I’m not that dull, really, but a combination of my shyness and poor hearing made parties a very bad place for me to socialize.)
- Sent out my resume. (Instead, I blundered into my first job out of college which turned into a great career path and led directly to my current position via an acquisition.)
10 Things I haven’t done, and you probably haven’t either:
- Walked on Io.
- Swam the English Channel, using only the breaststroke.
- Been burned in effigy.
- Won the lottery – the big one, none of this $5 crap.
- Ridden in the Pope-mobile.
- Fucked a goat. (Please, no one chime in with their own accomplishment here.)
- Parachuted naked into my university graduation ceremony. (If I’m wrong on this one, send video.)
- Been secretly replaced by an android.
- Put a whoopee cushion in Captain Picard’s chair.
- Drunk Zolo in the timeline which was widely considered to be the prevalent probability wavefront prior to the Great Causality Violation of 2284/1908.
Now, what I'd really like to see is a list of "Ten Truth Tables You Never Want to See Evaluated." But I'm weird that way.
Meme by Dan | Permalink | Comments (2)
March 01, 2005
Elevator blog
Gord pointed me towards an interesting little blog of experiences in an elevator. It's an open community blog and has posts from quite a few different folks. I added mine here as well as below. It's a true story.
I got on the elevator on twelve. Normally I get on at eleven. I don’t live on eleven. I used to, but now I live up on twelve. Several of us took over the short hallway as sort of an eleventh-floor annex, and we typically walk down one flight to get on at eleven. After all, if you’re going to be stuck in the lobby for five minutes waiting, you may as well be with friends.
But today I got on at twelve because I have an eye infection. My left eye has been slathered with medicated goop and then covered with an oversized cotton gauze bandage taped across my face. It doesn’t hurt so much anymore, but with only one eye my depth perception is gone, so I’m avoiding stairs as much as possible this week.
Two girls were talking when I got on, probably coming down from fourteen. They paused briefly and shifted towards the corner, but they picked up their banter again as soon as I turned to face the door.
“You going on Saturday?”
“Maybe. Jason’s been a bit of a shit lately.”
The elevator stopped on eleven, and Michael got in. He doesn’t live on eleven either, but eleven is funny that way. He nodded and let the doors close.
The girls in the corner started up again, and we let it go for three more floors before Michael turned to me and asked calmly, “So, the old fencing wound opening up again?” It was completely out of the blue. I didn’t even fence. Michael was like that.
But so was I. “Yeah,” I nodded. “And the puss is really thick this time.”
“You should get that checked.”
“After lunch.”
The rest of the ride down was in utter silence, broken only by the occasional jangle of the elevator cable. We got off on two for the cafeteria, and as the doors closed behind us, we smiled at the long-repressed “Ewwwww!” from the girls in the corner.
Narrative by Dan | Permalink | Comments (0)