erikars: (Default)
I am amused by an article about today's LA earthquake which spends ~700 words saying nothing too bad happened.
erikars: (Default)
The subject matter of the Ars Technical article "Gates' digital utopianism no match for China's realities" is certainly serious, but I could not help but laugh at the RSS feed summary of the article:
At a Stanford speech yesterday, Bill Gates trotted out some remarks on how the Internet couldn't be censored or controlled. No word yet on just how hard this made Chinese officials laugh.
erikars: (Default)
NPR has an article about an annoying type of "biographical" movies such as the upcoming "Becoming Jane". The article articulates, much better than I feel like taking the effort to do, why movies like "Becoming Jane" annoy me. Short version: movies that make out the lives of artists to be a real life version of their novels diminishes the artists creativity by implying they can only copy directly from real life.
erikars: (Default)
An article criticizing Japanese changes to their history text books. The changes are related to WWII and soften some of the horrors that happened during the war. While, given my very limited knowledge, I agree that the history is being revised to make it reflect the actions of the Japanese military is a less negative light, I do not agree with the almost holier-than-thou criticism. Every country revises history, and everyone, including the winners probably committed some atrocities during war. The difference is that the winners are able to get away without mentioning the atrocities at all in their text books.
erikars: (Default)
Now, you can never completely trust media coverage, but according to an MSNBC article on a study about the behavioral affects of day care the study defined child care as "care by anyone other than the child’s mother who was regularly scheduled for at least 10 hours per week". The key word in there being "mother". Excuse me? Even if it would only make a small difference in the number of children counted as in child care, that definition should read "parents" or "mother or father" or even, if we really want to be general "legal guardians".
erikars: (Default)
A Seattle times article on theft of (mostly copper) wire. No time to rant now, but the whole thing seems ridiculous, and the article seems biased against the recycling center owners. Most recycling centers are not run by shady people trying to aid criminals. They are run by people like my parents who are working hard trying to have a successful business.
erikars: (Default)
Today the Seattle Times had an article Private companies as park sponsors? State is already advertising idea. It included this sentence:
Deals of more than $100,000 would need commission approval, and sponsors promoting alcohol, tobacco, birth control, guns or political issues or candidates would be banned.
Who else had a gut reaction of shock to birth control being in the list? Who's gut reaction was that it made perfect sense? In both cases, why?

My answer )

EDITED TO ADD: The comments have helped me refine my opinion a little. What bugs me is not so much the prohibition of birth control companies from sponsoring the parks, but the specificity of having birth control on the list. As I see it, it would be fine if pharmaceuticals or sex related things were on the list. However, they are not. Just birth control is. Such specificity seems ominous.
erikars: (Default)
Better not eat bagged spinach for a little while. Glad I heard about it, Jeff and I usually have a bag a week.
erikars: (Default)
A somewhat random Seattle Times article about oil use and the Alaska field closure. I found this quote particularly illuminating
And how hard would it be to cut 3 percent? To conserve away the Prudhoe Bay mess? ... take my family. In two cars we drive a combined 12,000 miles a year. To lop off 3 percent, we'd have to drive one less mile per day.

Just one mile daily. If I rode the bus to work twice a month, that would about do it.

As minimal as that is, requiring no real change in our lives, it still is somehow too much for today's politicians to ask of us. It's Jimmy Carter crazy talk.
erikars: (Default)
Tolls on Snoqualmie pass and the 520 bridge? I can imagine the Snoqualmie one working because, as the article notes, people do not use it too often. However, I cannot see putting a toll on the 520 bridge working. It might encourage people to take the bus though. ;-)
erikars: (Default)
I am pretty laid back about wedding issues but having our wedding site closed down would definitely stress me out a little. Anti-yay! for articles like that 3 weeks before our day.
erikars: (Default)
I find this chart about gas prices highly amusing. Mostly because the cars look like little Mini Coopers.
erikars: (Default)
1! NYT opinion piece on why taxes should be done automatically. Leastaways, for the people who need it. Being the bit of a control freak that I can be, I am not sure I would use it, but I suppose it would be nice for all those people who do not do anything too complicated anyway.

2! Bill Nye makes religious people sad. Ignoring the fact that reporting tries to make the most out of every little thing, the most surprising thing about the article was that someone walked out because Nye said the sun was a star and the moon a reflector. Yes, he said it in a way that was critical of a bit of the Bible, but honestly, how uptight can people get?

3! I have just discovered how useful it is that LJ saves drafts.

4! Some random person's opinion on language people vs IDE people. More on this later.
erikars: (Default)
For the first time in months, I am caught up with the articles I marked as interesting on my National Geographic feed. Yay!

EDIT: Caught up on Ars Technica too! If only I were getting more work done.
erikars: (Default)
I am not going to comment on the Danish cartoon fiasco except as to say that all sides seem to be acting unreasonably. I am going to comment on a portion of the Vatican's comment which was quoted on CNN: "The right to freedom of thought and expression ... cannot entail the right to offend the religious sentiment of believers." Now, CNN took that quote out of a larger statement, so I may be misunderstanding the context. But as the article quoted it, I must disagree. Freedom of thought and expression can and must include the right to offend anyone. If freedom of speech does not include the freedom to offend people, there is no freedom of speech. Speech that legitimately offends people should be discouraged and frowned upon, but it should not be controlled or punished by the government.
erikars: (Default)
Interesting and spiffy article from the Seattle Times here.
erikars: (Default)
An interesting op ed piece and then some by Bruce Schneier on the government spying fiasco. As usual, Schneier does a good job of summarizing the facts and injecting some interesting opinion.
erikars: (Default)
Of all the pathetic things to get riled up over. Some activists in Ballard think a pump house is too ugly for their park. Boo hoo. As one person quoted in the article says, paint it.


erikars: (Default)
Erika RS

May 2012

  123 45
2728 293031  


RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 22nd, 2017 12:48 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios