Serial Experiments: Lain
Last Exile
Cowboy Bebop / Samurai Champloo
Ghost in the Shell
Anything by Ghibli :)
Serial Experiments: Lain
Last Exile
Cowboy Bebop / Samurai Champloo
Ghost in the Shell
Anything by Ghibli :)
My opinion is wait until it's standardized (hahaha) in all of the browsers. God, they haven't been making it easy on us web developers, have they?
Hmm... Oh!
"The other day, I don't know if you've ever gotten this, it was about 2:30
in the afternoon. I got the itchy-est asshole I've ever gotten on record." -- Louis C.K.
Bizarre Foods w/ Andrew Zimmern definitely gets my vote. :D I love that show.
I think your prediction isn't necessarily bold, just misguided. I say that if that piece of crap Myspace can survive, so can Facebook, as long as there are enough consumer-trend-craving teens to use it. ;p
The other networking sites aren't nearly as well marketed as Facebook, so I don't think anything will compete with it for a long while...
Plook mun kuen ma kah 4. That was a pretty terrible movie, but the dubbing was priceless.
u kira my fazzah!
A monkey and a typewriter.
The book is infinitely better.
Knowing when to shut up and get back in the kitchen. ;)
When normal people such as clients or businessmen use the word, it's usually derogatory. Maybe the person had a lack of social graces and was not good with clients, maybe he was simply an arrogant prick. Many self-proclaimed geeks/intellectuals don't seem tor realize that a) almost nobody likes that kind of person and b) anymore, forming good business relationships and reputation is tantamount to how well you can network with people. If nobody likes a person, then he'll never form a solid network of people who can go to bat for him when it counts.
Thing is, a geek may be more intelligent than the average Joe, but a certain degree of respect (or at least cordiality) for Joe will go a long way, often when it's least expected and/or when it counts most.
@shadowsun7: I dunnooo about yoouu, but I doon't streeetch out every oother wooordh! :D Rather, that's reasonable, but the extent to which it's used isn't.
@Gnorb: Har har. Very funny. ;p
I applaud the law. I only hope that Texans will exercise their power with responsibility, though I hold the belief that most people will. :)
"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." -- Buddha
I don't claim to know whether there is something you should or should not believe in. I only argue that judgment and reason should be exercised. :)
I can accept that. On thinking about it, you could certainly create blogger designs and sell them for a little money. Perhaps a little bit contrary to what I posted earlier, I think that could be considered a level of professional web design.
Like I said earlier, I do (personally) respect people more when they are not only able to make a blog look pretty, but also when they can design a functional website using the same principles; but, if you are good at selling yourself, I could see you going somewhere with it. Be creative! Isn't that the whole idea behind business and art alike? ;p
P.S. Criticism is good, but it's always subjective, so take with a grain of salt. Use your own judgment. I think both layouts are very acceptable; clean, functional, overall good designs. While I don't see that little "glisten" of professional quality from either site, I could see it happening with a some tweaking here and there; that of course is up to you as the designer. All in all, great work.
I guess that depends on the point of view.
Not to come off as arrogant, but I have never been impressed by people who make "pretty" blogs and proceed to call themselves web designers. The grunt work is already done for you! All you have to do is edit the style sheet... I do start listening, though, if you show that you can create a similar design from scratch. ;)
The way I see it, anyone who writes HTML and CSS to create an aesthetically pleasing page can be called a web designer; one who can add server side code to that can be called a web developer. Those are both true... at least on the amateur level (I don't even mean amateur in a negative way; sometimes, amateurs can give professionals a run for their money). To be considered for a professional position, you'll have to be pretty damned convincing because of the fact that anybody can be a web designer.
I say if you want to call yourself a web designer, go for it... :P A lot of people tend to wait until they've held at least one position in the field before they do so, though...
Hahaha. Okay so I exaggerated a little bit for the sake of "satirical angry rant," but I only wish I meant, "i wnt 2 da prk 2dy, was fun." Why? Because it's short, sweet, and if someone was typing on a phone, I could certainly see the point. I choose to type properly, but can accept shorthand like that.
I did mean exactly what I typed, and am starting to think "Only in Missouri would an abomination like this occur." :P
There is a growing trend among teenagers who have just learned the ins and outs of (god damned) cell phones and text messaging. Have any of you ever seen extra, pointless letters attached to a word or number of words?
Let's say I write a half-paragraph:
Iii wennttt 2 thaah parkkk 2dayy. Itt was a lott offfh funnnm.
Now, of course I admit that I'm not the best writer in the world, but I have to ask...
First: Where the hell did this bullshit come from?! When I started out as a teen with instant messenger and chat rooms, admittedly I used the common abbreviations and shorthand like "lol," "brb," and "afk." While I no longer consider them acceptable for my own use in any line of communication, they did have a purpose... IMing was considered a lowly form of communication, wherein lazy spelling and grammar were considered acceptable, somewhat like a private chat room (where the shorthand ideas originated in the first place). Computers were new, people weren't used to typing so much. The shorthand made chatting quick and easy. Why make it inefficient and WRONG? With chat shorthand, there was a system. There was an accepted set of acronyms used to express different words or phrases. There is no rhyme or reason to this. "Iii jussttt decidedddh 2 typpeeeh lyk a moronnh one daaay." Ah-HYUCK!!!
Second: Is it a global or a local phenomenon? I really want to know whether I should lay down the proverbial hammer of justice or dismiss it as one of those phases.
@Ozone42: For the most part, I really agree. I think the only thing we disagree on is whether faith can or cannot be dynamic, and whether or not investigating and questioning are compatible with faith. That's fine, though, and really we're both correct in some ways.
@jbondo: The writings in the bible with clear historical evidence should be believed, though taken with a grain of salt (as often it is what the people perceived was happening, rather than what might have really happened in a more academic sense). It is a wonderful record of the history of the Israeli people. Saying that all of the doctrines of then still apply today to absolutely everybody on Earth -- literally and as written, based on one or two passages with little or no context -- doesn't necessarily make sense.
@Cappuccino: True enough. But what about people who choose /not/ to investigate, and /not/ to think? That's what bugs me, it isn't whether or not people choose to believe what they read, but rather whether they've really thought about it, and whether it really makes some sort of sense or not...
Obviously, I like to think that faith and rational thought are compatible, and I will stick to my guns on that. You certainly can't be logical for everything regarding religion, as faith by definition is holding a belief without sufficient proof.
I've had some experience with osCommerce and have found it to be decent software, though at times it can be a little bit difficult to configure. Zen Cart is pretty decent also, but osCommerce was my preference when choosing between the two.
Personally, what gets me excited is seeing not only women, but people in general, not attempt to fit some sort of image in order to accomplish the end of "not being single." I mean, why the façade? It seems so cliché, but I enjoy the idea of individuality... People who aren't afraid of their own little mannerisms, physical qualities, characteristics, etc. that only they exhibit. Having the ability to laugh at oneself, to sort of be that person who is able to see good in everything... Whatever. We all have our personal tastes, and someone else might just say, "I'm all over you if you have big cans."
If you choose to stick to your guns of "I'll do what it takes to not be single," then so be it, but I have no good advice for you except that it won't last.
P.S. Men are simple creatures. Don't read into us too much...
Music and computers are my main obsessions, and I am pretty good at both. Often comes at the price of my social life, but hey. What can ya do? :)
Around $3.35 / gallon where I live. It has not really affected me negatively at all. If and when I decide to travel, I just make sure that fuel is accounted for in our travel budget. :)
* I refuse to complain about gas prices so long as there are other people complaining who are still willing to pay $4.00 for a Starbucks Frappuccino.
You said it, man! Gee. You can get a cup of good coffee for half that price...
Speed metal, classical, ambient, whatever. :)
Just jumping on the bandwagon! You know how it goes. :D
Boxer-briefs. I don't have to "hang out" too much risking some nasty sore spots from the zipper (bad experience...), and I don't have to look silly by wearing briefs.
@Gnorb, that just made my day.
A good find, jbondo! And, Ozone42, I think the following is a pretty good illustration/demonstration of what I mean when I mentioned deciding what one chooses to believe through reasoning.
One could easily equate scripture to God's word from that passage and it would be a reasonable conclusion. However, that brings up the question of "inerrant" versus "useful." Inerrancy, interestingly enough, is never actually mentioned in that passage. I may be splitting hairs here, but that passage says "profitable," or useful, for teaching and rebuke -- which is certainly true! -- but it does not mention infallibility anywhere.
From another angle, that letter was not written to us. That was a letter from Paul the Apostle to his son Timothy (N.B. 2 Timothy 1:1-2). Timothy would have more than likely taken what he would from the letter and done with it as he saw fit. Paul was considered a holy man, but he wasn't God. Certainly Timothy realized that. Why can't we?
Now, we are taken back to faith versus ignorance. (I think ignorance is a good word because you don't have to be stupid to be ignorant. There are many brilliant minds who are equally ignorant.) The fallacy, then, must lie in human ignorance when reading and taking the words literally and as-is, not taking into account the historical and cultural factors and comparing them to today's norms. It's almost as if nobody wants to do any real research and would rather just listen to some preacher, afraid to accept his own humanity and say, "I have no answers," babble on about silly nonsense he knows nothing about.
What seems to happen is, instead of having faith in God, people have faith in a man. They idolize the charismatic guy on the pulpit instead of knowing their own God. Why, though, do people choose ignorance over faith? Would it be more or less correct, to say that these people are idolaters, following the cult of personality instead of the God they claim to worship? Is "biblical inerrancy" that hole in logic that, once accepted, is the conduit through which a massive number of people may be controlled by said cult through manipulation and deceptive interpretation of scripture?
I've just been trying to wrap my head around why people would choose ignorance over real faith. Do they see it as the easiest path to guaranteed salvation or something?
My wife loves it, and I call it her "white trash show." Hahaha. Admittedly, it's amusing at times, but it just makes me too angry and depressed at our society as a whole and at the fact that people like that not only exist, but are reproducing! Argh!
That's why I can't watch Cops. ;p
"Stupidity" was a terrible choice of words, so my apologies. Ignorance, perhaps, is a better word? There has to be something that isn't so demeaning and negative but still appropriate. (My vocabulary is broken today).
@Ozone42: I'll have to think on that one. ;)
@RightOn: That is the line of reason that most followers hold. I wouldn't even have a problem with it, if they didn't think it was real, logical proof. All they ever have to say to anyone is, "It isn't provable one way or another, but I believe this way." Most secular folks will say, "Okay, I respect that."
I also just realized I made a huge stereotype in my post, and that I really shouldn't assume that ALL believers of biblical inerrancy are loonies. I should clarify. Frankly, I could care less about the harmless ones! They tend to mind their own business and are overall decent people. The ones of whom I speak are the loonies who go around actively proselytizing, telling people they're going to hell, etc. The ones who prey on "lost souls" at funerals. That kind of thing.
[Ugh, whoops. Sorry for the double post... Edit somehow made a new reply.]
@RightOn
That's exactly my point! :) It's that fundamental flaw in logic that keeps them able to believe what they believe. If they one day chose not to accept that anymore, they would see that most of it is obsolete, even ludicrous by today's standards.
@Ozone42
You have a good point, but... Faith is not necessarily blind acceptance of doctrine. I know many people with faith -- the belief in something that can neither be proven NOR disproven, i.e. God, afterlife, etc. -- who are also able to make sound judgment in choosing which doctrines do and do not make sense.
I think the difference between faith and stupidity lies in whether someone's perceived "faith" contradicts fundamental truths that can be (or have been) found by empirical means. It's one thing to believe in God regardless of whether or not it's been proven. It's another thing entirely to say that the bible is error-proof and free of contradiction when, clearly, it is not. So the key difference to me is not whether it can be proven, but rather if it has not been disproven.
A history teacher at my school had made a good point once that, within every single cult, there is often but one fatal flaw in logic that -- once accepted -- makes every other belief in the cult fall together perfectly. At the time, I believe he was referring to the Waco incident, but it got me thinking about Christianity and fundamentalism.
The logic seems to go something like this:
"All of the texts in the bible are God-inspired, and all God-inspired texts are the infallible word of god. Therefore, the bible is the word of God, completely devoid of error and contradiction."
What's interesting is that I cannot think of anywhere in the bible in which the bible is specifically referred to as the "word of God." That could, of course, be simply because the canonized bible as we know it today did not exist when the books were written by the original authors! From another angle, by that logic, any person write any crazy thing he wants to, claim it was God-inspired, and say therefore that it is infallible. From that, these questions may be brought up. Who, then, one day determined that the bible is the unquestionable word of God? If all God-inspired texts are infallible and error-free, then why were so many of them left out and even labeled as "blasphemy" by the church?
To me, it seems the only reason the bible was canonized in the first place and established as the unquestionable word of God was for political reasons (ex. trying to stamp out gnosticism, the Edict of Diocletian). That in itself practically invalidates any notion that the canonized bible we know and love (or love to hate as it may be) is, in any shape or form, the infallible word of god. Thus, to me, that is sufficient to say that the fatal flaw in the Christian fundamentalist cult is that of biblical inerrancy. Once that premise is accepted, everything else can be justified with the bible.
Discuss.
I can not truthfully say I believe a word of the book of Revelation. The words contained within are little more than the ramblings of some crazy guy who lived in a cave and hated Nero. How it ended up as a canonical book simply floors me.
To me, the bible is a book of fables... Though much of it describes real events that can be backed by archaeological findings and whatnot, I find that little more than the events themselves are valid. Descriptions of how the people /perceived/ an event can be helpful in determining what really happened, but that's about it...
@tyler
You're either speaking of C# and .NET as if they are -- or have once been -- separate entities, or of .NET as a language in and of itself, even if you did use the word "framework." Was that intentional or did you improperly use "however?" I only ask because of your previous harsh criticism of the .NET framework, then the complete turn-around with the glorification of C#, which has always been one of its components.
As for me, I have been a .NET developer for a little over three years now and have become hooked. Despite its sometimes harsh criticisms, usually by anti-Microsoft zealots or 'hardcore' programmers (read, "masochists"), it is a brilliant framework which makes the development process a breeze for most Windows and web applications (not web /sites/, mind you). I'm most "familiar" with C# semantics, but at work I'm usually forced to use VB.NET since that's the only one with which my boss is familiar. No big deal, but at times I do run into some minor, though irritating, problems.
On the other hand, I'm a good old fashioned C/C++ developer for non-web applications in my spare time, PHP for web apps. Those are my favorites outside of the .NET universe.
I don't think that getting "stuck in time" is a new phenomenon, and I'm under the impression that it's a matter of maturity and the ability of one to look at himself objectively. What I've found though is that a lot of people just tend to, at a certain age, get stuck at some point in their lives and never grow from there. It's almost as if they think that they've already grown up, they're adults now, so why should they have to work toward something better? They don't have any more "growing up" to do, and that's how they will be for the rest of their lives.
Personally... I've changed a lot. I used to be a lot more arrogant, one of those know-it-all kinds of people that everyone hated. Someone who would conquer the world and take life for all it's worth with little effort. Maybe it was to overcompensate for my lack in social graces, but that mindset stuck with me well into college. Realizing the fallacy of that attitude hit me really hard and I just 180'ed one day and decided not to be that way anymore.
I don't regret that at all, and have been a lot happier ever since.
» Amazing Hillary Clinton Impression ... Last Reply: 5 months ago by shadowsun7.
Amazing. :D