I have come to a painful yet inevitable conclusion. There is a sub-set of ordinary females that is completely out of their mind.
Today was a cold day. Not a frigid winter day but despite the shining sun it was not warm. It was not spring warm, or even March warm. There was a definite chill in the air. You needed to be wearing a winter-type jacket to stay comfortable outside.
To my own discredit, I went to the mall on a holiday Saturday. This does not speak well to my own sanity. Nevertheless I went and it is there that I witnessed this lunacy. I was walking across the parking lot, having just visited the ABM. I wasn't really thinking about anything in particular, other than I felt like an idiot visiting the mall when it was busy. I looked up and coming towards me was a girl. Its becoming increasingly difficult for me to correctly judge people's ages. Nevertheless I'm going to peg this girl at about 20.
I was wearing jeans, and my winter jacket which is a reasonably warm, leather coat. My hair is only a week longer than shaved to the scalp. I was comfortable enough but by no means warm. Coming towards me was a girl, about 20 years old, and approximately 5'3" tall. She was wearing silly looking sunglasses and a mediocre looking jacket. It was more than a sweater but less than my jacket. Combined with that was shorts. Not short pants, or some kind of stylish fashion-oriented pants. These were shorts. Summer-time, lets go for a walk on the beach, shorts.
And giant, fuzzy moon boots.
WHAT THE HELL!?!
Its warm enough for shorts and yet still wear moon boots? How do you come to that conclusion? Let's try and imagine the thought process:
"You know, like, it looks so nice outside, I think I'll wear shorts. I love the sun!"
"Oh poo, there's still snow on the ground. That's like SOOO unfair. Boo! I guess I'll wear boots"
WHAT THE HELL!?!
Doesn't anyone think anymore? When its cold, wear cold weather clothes. When its GENUINELY warm, then break out the summer clothes. But don't mix/match the two so you go out looking like a semi-retarded idiot that's on a day-pass from the loony bin.
Saturday, March 22, 2008
Friday, March 21, 2008
Do you know what really grinds my gears?
Let's say you go to your average, social news site? Something that is populated by links to content that is created by amateurs, or semi-amateurs. There's nothing wrong with the content, its just not as polished as you might find on an MSN or Yahoo.
umb
I like these sites but one that drives me nuts is the pictures. What the hell is wrong with these people? They create a page about something and include a collection of thumbnails at the bottom that you can click for a better image related to the story. So you click the thumbnail and it proceeds to load a page with a version of the picture that is MAYBE 25% larger than the thumbnail itself.
What the point? What's the freakin' point!?! If you don't have a version of the picture that is actually worthy of being contained on a separate page but only have thumbnail or low resolution versions of the photo, then don't toy with me. Just post the thumbnails and leave it at that. I just hate when I click a little image, expecting a big image, and instead get a slightly blown up version of the original small picture.
Let's say you go to your average, social news site? Something that is populated by links to content that is created by amateurs, or semi-amateurs. There's nothing wrong with the content, its just not as polished as you might find on an MSN or Yahoo.
umb
I like these sites but one that drives me nuts is the pictures. What the hell is wrong with these people? They create a page about something and include a collection of thumbnails at the bottom that you can click for a better image related to the story. So you click the thumbnail and it proceeds to load a page with a version of the picture that is MAYBE 25% larger than the thumbnail itself.
What the point? What's the freakin' point!?! If you don't have a version of the picture that is actually worthy of being contained on a separate page but only have thumbnail or low resolution versions of the photo, then don't toy with me. Just post the thumbnails and leave it at that. I just hate when I click a little image, expecting a big image, and instead get a slightly blown up version of the original small picture.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
In ancient Greece (469-399 BC), Socrates was widely lauded for his wisdom. One day the great philosopher came upon an acquaintance, who ran up to him excitedly and said, “Socrates, do you know what I just heard about one of your students…?”
“Wait a moment,” Socrates replied. “Before you tell me, I’d like you to pass a little test. It’s called the Test of Three.”
“Test of Three?”
“That’s correct,” Socrates continued. “Before you talk to me about my student let’s take a moment to test what you’re going to say. The first test is Truth. Have you made absolutely sure that what you are about to tell me is true?”
“No,” the man replied, “actually I just heard about it.”
“All right,” said Socrates. “So you don’t really know if it’s true or not. Now let’s try the second test, the test of Goodness. Is what you are about to tell me about my student something good?”
“No, on the contrary it’s…”
So,” Socrates continued, “you want to tell me something bad about him even though you’re not certain it’s true?”
The man shrugged, a little embarrassed.
Socrates continued, “You may still pass though because there is a third test — the filter of Usefulness. Is what you want to tell me about my student going to be useful to me?”
“Err..no, not really..”
“Well,” concluded Socrates, “if what you want to tell me is neither true nor good nor even useful, why tell it to me at all?”
Defeated and ashamed the man said no more. This is the reason Socrates was a great philosopher and held in such high esteem.
It also explains why Socrates never found out that Plato was shagging his wife.
“Wait a moment,” Socrates replied. “Before you tell me, I’d like you to pass a little test. It’s called the Test of Three.”
“Test of Three?”
“That’s correct,” Socrates continued. “Before you talk to me about my student let’s take a moment to test what you’re going to say. The first test is Truth. Have you made absolutely sure that what you are about to tell me is true?”
“No,” the man replied, “actually I just heard about it.”
“All right,” said Socrates. “So you don’t really know if it’s true or not. Now let’s try the second test, the test of Goodness. Is what you are about to tell me about my student something good?”
“No, on the contrary it’s…”
So,” Socrates continued, “you want to tell me something bad about him even though you’re not certain it’s true?”
The man shrugged, a little embarrassed.
Socrates continued, “You may still pass though because there is a third test — the filter of Usefulness. Is what you want to tell me about my student going to be useful to me?”
“Err..no, not really..”
“Well,” concluded Socrates, “if what you want to tell me is neither true nor good nor even useful, why tell it to me at all?”
Defeated and ashamed the man said no more. This is the reason Socrates was a great philosopher and held in such high esteem.
It also explains why Socrates never found out that Plato was shagging his wife.
Monday, March 17, 2008
Sunday, March 16, 2008
I have a question.
I've been reading about this Eliot Spitzer dude in New York who just had his whole world brought to his knees over prostitution. This made me think of something.
Why are we regulating sex in this way? I thought we'd all agreed, when we, as a society, decided we weren't going to give homosexuals a problem anymore, that we were going to get out of the bedroom of people. Now its right back in there we go.
Here's my question. Why do we get out of the bedroom of gays, and not make their activities illegal, yet we do get into the bedroom of two people because one gives the other money?
I've been reading about this Eliot Spitzer dude in New York who just had his whole world brought to his knees over prostitution. This made me think of something.
Why are we regulating sex in this way? I thought we'd all agreed, when we, as a society, decided we weren't going to give homosexuals a problem anymore, that we were going to get out of the bedroom of people. Now its right back in there we go.
Here's my question. Why do we get out of the bedroom of gays, and not make their activities illegal, yet we do get into the bedroom of two people because one gives the other money?
I shouldn't have to get pissed off about things like this. But I went to the Chicago Tribune web site. I wanted to read an article about Barack Obama. My computer proceeded to sieze up completely with 96% RAM usage as Spamasaurus Rex attacked me.
Why can't I go to a completely innocuous web site like the god damn Chicago Tribune site, and not be deluged by pop-ups and spam advertising!?! Why is this? Who are the idiots that are getting sucked in by pop-up advertising? Really!?! After this much time is anyone still falling for this bullshit marketing!?!
Its the damn shot-gun approach that is taken to everything lately. If you beat enough people with enough baseball bats, eventually someone goes down from it. If I send a million pieces of spam, someone with inadvertently click it and I'll get the 3 cent page click-through. ARRGGGHHHH!!!! This crap has to stop. Can't you just sell something people actually want and stop trying to steal our money!?!
Why can't I go to a completely innocuous web site like the god damn Chicago Tribune site, and not be deluged by pop-ups and spam advertising!?! Why is this? Who are the idiots that are getting sucked in by pop-up advertising? Really!?! After this much time is anyone still falling for this bullshit marketing!?!
Its the damn shot-gun approach that is taken to everything lately. If you beat enough people with enough baseball bats, eventually someone goes down from it. If I send a million pieces of spam, someone with inadvertently click it and I'll get the 3 cent page click-through. ARRGGGHHHH!!!! This crap has to stop. Can't you just sell something people actually want and stop trying to steal our money!?!