Chawlk

1. Drawar
2. Fenxy
3. Decaflon
4. Two Credits
5. Wriging
6. Loose Suits
7. Chixe
8. Dud3s
9. Wing Colors

 

I don't think it's a bad idea, but I would never use it.

@Vidar & jark
Why do you say this? I think everyone at 9rules knows blogs that get A LOT of traffic. I do think if you're writing a personal-type blog, or one with poor content, you're unlikely to ever get traffic. But if you're really trying to get traffic, you can.

I do hate to plug my own post again, but you might want to look at this. Basically I argue that the "quality" of a blog is driven by its novelty and its specificity (they're explained there if you're not sure what I mean by them). From that, I would tend to argue that any good quality blog, when known, will grow.

Certainly getting known isn't easy: but commenting, blog directories--anything that gets people to come by--will help a blog grow. I also have to repeat Josh's point: Be patient.

As you suggested, my large, thick, bound dictionary is probably Answers.com.

Were I to looks for a dictionary, money and portability being no object, I'd probably opt for the complete (and notorious) Oxford English Dictionary--though I would wait for the third edition before buying. Realistically, were I in the mood for a bound dictionary, I'd probably just pick something up from a used book store.

Like Rich said--this means I'm most people--I've never worried about difference among printed English dictionaries, though I don't doubt there are important ones.

@RightOn
I think "intelligent commentary" was meant as a joke. I could be wrong about that.

Watching Sunday's game, I was very satisfied that that Pats were down most of the games. I don't much like Indy, but I dislike that Pats more.

So it is only begrudgingly that I say that, yes, you're probably right. I think there's a strong possibility that the Patriots will be 19-0. If they aren't, it'll probably be because they played poorly and not because someone beats them. Poor play is why they almost lost this Sunday, and I do think it could happen again. But then I wouldn't put money on it.

I have to agree essentially with peroty (as does the Salon piece I linked to). Perhaps we'd (as a random grouping of people) prefer that she didn't keep talking about the book, but there's no good reason that she can't. She may be stifling furtive speculation about things, Harry's future or Dumbledore's sexuality, but there's no reason she shouldn't be allowed to do it.

And I'm not sure that talk of "rights" is exactly what you want, but law does give her the "right" to say it as well.

This is very interesting. At first I wondered why America is a flock of birds flying over a field, but then it moved.

I don't think she's changed anything about her characters. Dumbledore was gay before and after she explicitly stated that he is. And there was a fair amount of speculation before she said that he was, in fact, gay. But to casual readers, like myself and 90% of the population, it escaped unnoticed.

I think part of the reason she may have stated explicitly that he was gay was that it doesn't matter. After all, if he's gay and no one notices, he may as well have been straight and no challenge to our heteronormative understanding of the world. By making us aware that he is, people have to consider what difference, if any, his homosexuality makes.

Having said all that, I'd tend to agree with this piece from Salon: Dumbledore? Gay. J.K. Rowling? Chatty. It raises the same questions you do: when should an author stop talking about their work?

I don't know much about baseball, but 13 to 1 makes me think you're probably right.

I know it's really OS "ten," but quite often I say OS "ex" by mistake.

Saying it as the letter feels more natural. I mean, its letter (O), letter (S), letter (X) that way. That feels far more natural than letter (O), letter (S), letter that's really a number but doesn't look like it to a normal person (X/10).

Also, to the majority of people who didn't use Macs before OS X, they don't really even know about the history of numbered OSes.

"I'm thankful to be breathing, on this side of the grass. Whatever comes, comes." - Ron Perlman

My habit of editing is about like dreamweaver's. After I publish I check for any obvious errors or any terrible sentences.

I do sometimes go back, days or even months later, and read old stuff. When I do that I usually find something--either a typo or a phrase--that I want to change. I usually fix that too. I guess it means that I'm about as compulsive as weishing.

I think cavemonkey's is good advice. Another technique, if you need to use the computer/internet for your work, is to create a "work" account without all your bookmarks, etc close at hand. It makes it harder (though far from impossible) to find your way to 9rules "accidentally."

You could also just develop some discipline, but that's never worked for me either.

Well, this is certainly a pessimistic bunch.

I admit to being at least a little confused by what's meant by "intelligent." I thought you meant something akin to "academic," but dooce isn't really within that range to my mind. Sure, she's not just mindlessly telling you how to "make money online," but I'm not sure what the difference is.

In any case, I think an important thing to remember is how relatively young blogging is, and how few people regularly read blogs. If you think about it, the reason that "making money online" blogs tend to do well is that they have a large audience--people who are technology-forward and would like to do that. The vast majority of people who read a lot of blogs are interested in that. Other topics are harder to do well in, but far from impossible.

Having said that, I do think you can make money from a blog, but it takes a lot of hard work--posting regularly, commenting elsewhere (or paying for advertising), writing interesting stuff--and persistence--you'll probably need at least a year before you could live off the income.

Because I think blog quality's a nebulous concept that certainly makes a difference to if you can make money or not, I wrote a little piece a few weeks ago about understanding the differences among blogs. It's not perfect, but I do think it's relevant to the idea of having a good "intelligent" blog.

Best note all day...

No, I do care. My undergraduate studies were in history, so it's not unimportant to me. But it's hard to answer a question so broad.

Generally, I think history's pretty interesting. To me there are certainly more important things in the world than archeology, and studying the history of ancient Egypt never held much interest to me. Sure it was probably a nice place, but it doesn't really change the current world.

Having said that, history from early Greece forward is pretty interesting. Admittedly, the bulk of my reading of history has been post-1776, but I'm still at least mildly interested in all of it.

My study of history since graduating is much less thorough than what you learn in school. I've read some good histories lately: The Living Unknown Soldier, Team of Rivals, Becoming Charlemagne, and now Five Germanys I Have Known, but reading them isn't the same as you'd do in a history class--it lacks the rigor.

I suppose that the short answer is that I like it. Not sure what the long answer is though.

It worked for me. And though I'm not trilled with it, it's a lot less obtrusive than I thought it might be.

Interesting question, though my answers not. My screensaver is the Windows XP logo that jumps around the screen. I've never bothered to change it because, well, the screen savers there for when I'm not using the computer.

Though I'm not too sure about the last possibility, I do think pen spinning is very cool. I remember sitting in class in seventh grade and trying to do it. I never got very far.

Maybe I'll give it another try...

I don't use Facebook much anymore, but I think that's got more to do with having graduated from university than with the Apps.

I do agree that Facebook becoming Jesus is an interesting and strange development, but it does have first-mover status on the API which means this won't exactly make it the unJesus to observers. If anything, MySpace's API will probably be seen as validation that Facebook really is Jesus and that MySpace is, at best, an apostle.

@Ozone42
You're not wrong about some of this, but you did miss a few crucial things. Kids below the poverty level aren't covered by SCHIP, they're covered by Medicaid--as they've long been covered. SCHIP covers, depending somewhat on the state, kids between the poverty level and 200% of the poverty level. The bill that's being voted on today would allow it to be over 200% in some states, but that would require presidential approval and get less favorable levels of federal funding.

Also, the funding increase doesn't simply move up the economic ladder to cover more people. The program still doesn't cover all those below 200% of the poverty level. Increasing funding would have enabled enrolling more of those people, and some people above the 200% level (with executive approval).

You can find some good info in this piece from the Washington Post.

I have to second almost everything hthth said, except the last bit. It seems to me that your first argument--that her going makes fans aware--can and does override your second. That is, if she just donated money, she'd get less attention and her fans would be less likely to notice.

I'm not sure when you went there, but I just when to FeedBurner and it seemed normal to me.

My two favorites are probably [daily dose of imagery] and clever[art]. They're very different, but I like them both. I do have to admit that they're the only photoblogs I regularly visit. I will have to watch this note looking for more good ones.

@lelia
Though I think modesty is a strange argument against global warming, I do agree with you that you never seem to turn people to your way of thinking by condemning them.

I'm not sure what there is to environmentalism if it doesn't champion regulation. Studying the impact of industrialization without challenging the known ills it does seems fatalistic and silly to me. Whether or not you believe that humans are responsible for warming, the fact remains that much of what environmental activists ask for are common sense regulations. We know--and I don't know of anyone who doubts--that deforestation or industrial pollutions can be bad things with bad results. The only way to prevent such ills, it seems to me, is regulation. Is there something I'm missing?

I don't think they're entitled to it. The 50k example is just the reason most critics oppose the bill. Some states (SCHIP is administered by each state's government) have increased eligibility to higher income brackets (toward $50,000, I think the highest number I've seen is $62,000, could be wrong) which Bush and others have used to criticize the program. I believe the bill that's being voted on tomorrow would cap the possible income levels, but I'm not sure.

In any case, the vast majority of people covered by SCHIP legitimately cannot afford private insurance. The reason I said that I don't care about the money is that I'd rather see kids that genuinely need government subsidized coverage getting it and having a few that don't really need it thrown in, than to have a lot of kids that need the coverage not getting it. I am not and was not arguing that those whose parents make 50k and up are somehow "entitled to government handouts."

@cooper
I'm not sure I understand your point completely, but I'm not claiming that Congress only does good things or that they always do as much as they should. But if politicians never compromised on legislation, the government would cease to function--kind of like Michigan.

@RightOn
I suspect you fall into the rank of small-government conservatives who, as I mentioned, have understandable ideological reasons for rejecting the bill.

To your points, I hardly think protecting the "rights" of smokers is more important than protecting the rights of poor children. After all, smoker choose to be smokers, low-income kids don't really choose to be low-income kids.

To speak more broadly, this bill is hardly the government making an effort to control your health (or anyone else's). The bill would only increase--not create--the punitive tobacco tax. Smokers would still be free to smoke, low-income kids would be able to stay off the SCHIP programs, and average people would be in exactly the same health situation.

@RightOn
If a celebrity does something without a film crew, does it really happen? But seriously, you don't hear about celebrities (or normal people) doing things when they intentionally avoid publicity for what they're doing.

And I have to strongly agree with cooper, I think it's a good thing that Ms. Hilton is finally working to use her celebrity to bring attention to the world's problems. Though Rwanda's hardly the world's biggest trouble spot, small steps are admirable.

And I also have to say that David Letterman's treatment of Ms. Hilton in that interview is just embarrassing.

"Politicians are politicians" is true (hello Mr. Identity Property), but I'm not sure it's sad.

If politicians never made compromises in the interest of expedience or utility, nothing would ever change. This wouldn't be bad for people satisfied with the status quo, but for the vast majority of people--either on the right or the left--that's a bad thing.

On SCHIP, I honestly find it hard to understand why people oppose the bill as its currently drafted. Levying higher taxes against smokers to finance health care for children--I don't even care if their parents make $50,000 a year, they're still kids--is a hard thing to dislike. It seems like you'd have to be a strict small-government conservative (or a smoker) to disagree about the good this law would do.

This was discussed earlier in the SCHIP note.

I'm pretty sure that Bush has vetoed the bill, and Congress is now working on an override. The Senate passed the bill with a veto-proof majority at the current spending level--that's why the President claimed he had to veto it. I've heard a lot of doubt about if they can muster a veto-proof majority in the House.

@Jen:
I think we agree then. Networks use ratings to determine if a show should stay on or not, but this often means good shows get canceled.

Back on topic, I just watched an episode of Cavemen (on ABC's website), and it was better than I expected. Not the greatest sitcom ever, but not as bad as the gimmicky idea made me fear it would be. It's pretty involved in psuedo-racial issues--are cavemen like black people?--but it's actually pretty interesting and intelligent.

jensized said:

As with any show, if it gets good ratings, it should stay on.

Really? I'd like to think that if it's a good show it should stay on. Now, I would agree that if it gets good ratings, it's more likely to stay on. But I like it when a good show--like Friday Night Lights--gets to stay on even with subpar ratings.

As to Cavemen, I've never seen it. Most reviews I've seen pan it, and I--like everyone not working for ABC--was doubtful ad characters could make a good sitcom.

Also, to anyone wanting to see it, I THINK, you should be able to stream at least the most recent episode over at ABC.com. I haven't done it but it looks like you can.

First thing in the morning, I skim the local newspaper. I never read many articles, just what strikes my fancy.

For most of my news, I go to my feedreader. I'm subscribe to a number of sources: Yahoo!'s top stories, the BBCWorld front page, the CSMonitor, Salon, Slate, The Economist, etc.

For the most part, I just look at headlines, reading the article only when I really need or want more information. As anyone who's worked in news will tell you, a good headline will make reading the article unnecessary. Obviously for well-written articles or poorly written headlines, I will read the whole thing.

And, like peroty, I do watch The Daily Show and Colbert Report quite often.

I don't really believe that there's a distinction between night and morning people. I think it's just habit.

Like you, in high school and college I stayed up very late at night. I thought I was a "night person," but I was never especially productive late at night. I'd just delayed everything so long that I would get work done late at night because that's when I had to do it.

Now, not having the luxury of sleeping until 10am, I get up around seven every morning. Even without an alarm, I can wake up pretty regularly because that's when I've gotten used to waking up.

It's very easy to become an early-riser, setting an alarm earlier makes you get less sleep, and thus be tired earlier. Going the other way, to become a late-riser, is harder. One way to become a night-owl would probably be--if you can spare the time--to move your rousing time earlier and earlier until you're waking up at something like noon. (You'd go from 6AM to 4AM to 2AM to midnight to 10PM... to noon.) Not exactly convenient, but I've been told it's the best way to do it.

The other possibility would to be create situations in which you MUST stay up late. Perhaps this means delaying an important project until 9PM and working until 3AM, something like that. That way you'd go to sleep late, wake late, and could continue that cycle. But chances are good you'd feel pretty lousy while and immediately after doing this. It is much faster than the other way though.