Linkage

by

I just noticed that both Falling Awake and db link to me. Nice to know someone else out there finds me worth checking in on for one reason or another — much appreciated!

A gun for words

by

I’ve heard about self-fulfilling prophecies — could this be a self-defeating prophecy?

The problem with reading wonderful writing by truly great authors is that my own writing suffers, dramatically, in comparison. Everything I write lately just sits on the page, flat, dejected, and suffering. If there was such a thing as a gun for words, I would shoot each of mine and give them a quick and painfree end.

Boy, do I ever understand the feeling Burningbird describes here, but what really caught me was how spot-on that was, while in the midst of being frustrated at her own writing.

And speaking of being dissatisfied, I just stumbled over how to put this post together through about three false starts. You’d think a simple “I think this is nifty” post would be easy, wouldn’t you?

Oh, hell.

I think this is nifty.

Rearranging a bit

by

I’ve done a bit of reorganizing to the sidebar, in an effort to group things together a bit more logically, and move sections that are more likely to be used closer to the top (above the ‘fold’, ‘Above the fold’ is a carryover from newspaper publishing. In print terms, it just means that the most important items should be on the top half of the page, so that they are seen when the paper is folded and lying face up. It’s the same concept on the web, only the ‘fold’ in this case is considered to be the bottom border of the visible area when the page first loads at a standard resolution (usually 800px by 600px).so to speak).

I decided to start off with the more ‘interactive’ elements — ‘Music of the moment’ and the most recent comments. While ‘MotM’ isn’t really interactive, the voyeuristic aspect to it has some of the same feel (at least, that’s my justification for keeping it towards the top).

After that we have the search form and the archives list, as they’re both related to finding older information, or information elsewhere on the site. The search form is one of those things that’s commonly ‘supposed to be’ above the fold, anyway, so this helps. Also, I’ve taken the calendar display off of the archive list. I’d debated its usefullness before, but finally made up my mind to remove it after reading Jonathan’s reasons for removing the calendar on his site (which I stumbled onto thanks to Burningbird).

Next come all the various links to other places to go, the Amazon voluntary paybox (which would be just as useful if I put it on an entirely seperate page with some horridly dry, academic-sounding title not likely to interest anyone, named the file something else entirely [and misspelled it to boot], and then didn’t post any links to it anywhere — but that’s another matter alltogether), the syndication link (almost as useless as the Amazon box, except that I occasionally use it for testing purposes), and the linkback to MovableType.

And, that’s about it for now. Woohoo?

40.5 days

by

Over the past few months, I’ve been working on converting every audio CD I own to .mp3 format on my computer. I just got done tonight — and the results are kinda frightening, in a very cool sort of way.

Here’s the final tally:

  • 1,147 CDs imported
  • 2,911 artists
  • 12,509 individual .mp3 files
  • 40.5 days of music
  • 67.14 GB of storage space used

40.5 days. It would take me over a month to listen to everything I have, listening 24 hours a day. Just crazy.

But very, very cool.

If anyone’s bored/morbidly curious enough, feel free to download my .mp3 list (586.6kb .zip’d .xls file).

I like being a music whore. :D

Why can’t Bush speak?

by

Mark Miller comments on Bush’s recent “Fool me once…” flub:

Bush actually believes that he can do no wrong. This fixed conviction of his own infallibility has come out often, in remarks not laughably sub-literate or confused. He’s boasted that he knows what he believes, and that he never changes his position, or his mind, and that he sees the world in black and white, and so on. He’s made it clear repeatedly: George W. Bush is always right, George W. Bush can do no wrong. And now he’s accidentally made the point again, by showing himself incapable — psychologically, and therefore physically — of saying “Shame on me.”

Without really knowing anything about Mr. Miller’s credentials, I’m tempted to chalk this little bit of armchair psychoanalysis up to being just another off-the-wall theory by someone unimpressed with Bush. However, it does make me wonder if this really could be the case? It seems a bit far-fetched for me to jump into believing right off the bat, but it doesn’t seem to be an unthinkable premise. A fairly frightening premise, also, especially for the President of our country, and moreso given the current state of the world. It’s worth thinking about, at least.

Also, ‘Quiddity Quack’ posits this theory:

While plenty of folks chuckle at the Presidents verbal stumbling, we think that it’s more serious. It appears that Bush’s inability to handle complex thoughts may have led him over time to forsake rationalistic approaches, and instead, make decisions based on his feelings. This may explain why he disdains nuance (as he’s said), and why he has simple solutions for everything. E.g.

  • Tax cuts always help.
  • Good people will make any controversial program (like drilling in ANWR) come out all right.
  • American military power is benevolent. (Again, Americans are “good people”).
  • Evil is the reason for misfortunes.
  • …and so on…

I’ve got to admit, this theory sounds a bit more sound to me than a psychological disorder so severe that Bush physically cannot utter any self-deprecating remark, no matter the context. Now, neither of them are qualities that I’d really like my President to have, but, in a ‘lesser of two evils’ situation, I’ll take the latter over the former.

If I had my druthers, though, I’d like a third option.

Found via Anger Management Course

‘Up-skirt’ photography ‘reprehensible’ but legal

by

Well, here’s something handy just in case I decide to take my photography in a new direction — in public areas, peeking up skirts is completely legal.

The state’s voyeurism law protects people who are in a place where they “would have a reasonable expectation of privacy” — meaning the person could expect to be able to undress in seclusion or “be safe from hostile intrusion or surveillance.”

But the court found the law doesn’t apply to filming people in a public place, even if it’s underneath their clothes.

“It is the physical location of the person that is ultimately at issue, not the part of the person’s body,” Judge Bobbe Bridge wrote.

Laws are funny things, sometimes, both with what they cover and what they don’t.