Monday, December 20
I have absolutely no idea what most of the pictures used in the titlebar represent. One of them is the Sydney Opera House. One is opals, another is agate. The other 597, I dunno.
Just wait until I get the remaining 59,400 images loaded onto the server. Or, if I manage to get the font switching working without it screwing up permissions like it did last time, the remaining 959,400.
Posted by: Jennifer at Tuesday, December 21 2004 12:52 AM (vVN5/)
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Tuesday, December 21 2004 01:25 AM (uOsif)
“Peace and wealth and effective medicine and a comfortable home with air conditioning...”My little aside bagging Noam Chomsky in About the Author, and my choice of Oliver Kamm as my latest Blog of the Day after a long absence, are not some momentary aberration, but rather a return of this blog to its roots.*
After the recent electoral victories of the right people in Australia and America I felt as though a great weight had been lifted - or to use a less cliched phrasing, as though a critical and feared exam had turned out to be, relatively speaking, a walk in the park. And here we are in Graduate School, exams no longer looming on the horizon, but still a huge amount of work to be done.
Because, you have to understand, I'm not a Conservative. Neither George Bush nor John Howard truly represent my views on most subjects. I am pleased by their respective victories primarly because both are fundamentally honest, and I was deeply opposed to John Kerry and Mark Latham primarily because both challengers seemed to me to be deeply, personally, dishonest.
Look, I'm not a child; I don't expect politicians to tell the truth all the time. Sometimes they can't - they have to deal with matters of security that cannot be made public. Sometimes they won't, because, well, politics is like that. But the dishonesty of Kerry and Latham runs much deeper; they are not honest even to themselves.
What I'm really most directly opposed to, and what I've been fighting for years, long before I set up this blog, is not the political Left as such but intellectual dishonesty.
I'm not, technically, a scientist, though I would have been, technically, a scientist had I troubled myself to attend my classes and so ultimately graduated.** That doesn't mean that I can't recognise Science - the process, the method, even more than its vast body of discoveries and achievements - as the single greatest invention of Western Civilisation. (Number two being the limited liability corporation, something that far too many people take for granted.)
My aim is to promote Science and Civilisation, and it's a selfish aim. I want the products of Science and Civilisation for myself: Peace and wealth and effective medicine and a comfortable home with air conditioning and a fancy computer and an interesting and productive job. The people who attack Science and Civilisation are trying to deprive me of all that, and I won't allow it.
The Creationists pushing their fraudulent spin on Evolutionary Theory; the Post-Modernists denying the concept of Objective Truth; the Islamists trying to do both at the same time; the historical revisionists; the Psychics; the "Alternative Health Practitioners"; the academics who see their role being not to teach but to brainwash their students into leftist zombiehood; the "free speech" proponents who want to stamp out speech they don't like; Mysticism and Obscurantism; the spammers and scammers and hackers who are doing their level best to destroy the Internet; the nanny-state idiots and the totalitarian hardliners who try to legislate problems out of existence: These and more are what I truly oppose.
So I shouldn't want for subject matter.
* Not that it has any.
** I was studying Computer Science, hence the "technically". Still, it's better than Sociology...
Posted by: Susie at Monday, December 20 2004 11:21 AM (3nS88)
Posted by: Stephen Macklin at Monday, December 20 2004 01:07 PM (U3CvV)
Posted by: Dean Esmay at Monday, December 20 2004 07:05 PM (LOj+R)
Posted by: Kathy K at Monday, December 20 2004 07:06 PM (fGtFB)
I resemble that remark! Seriously, sociology is a fairly mature field of study. The forces at play in human interaction are relatively well understood (keep in mind that sociology is a totally different field from psychology, which does involve a lot of mumbo-jumbo revolving around sheer speculation as to what takes place inside the human brain).
"Hard" science, on the other hand, can't even tell us what matter is fundamentally composed of! New, previously unknown sub-atomic particles of indeterminate function are discovered all the time, and we have string theorists running around telling us that the universe really has somewhere around 8 to 12 dimensions (they're not too sure about the number).
I'm not anti-hard science, but I think it is a critical mistake to think that social science is all frivolous silliness. The technologies that humankind is now developing will be so powerful that they may well lead to our extinction - unless we make a conscious, serious investment in learning how best to control them and use them wisely.
Posted by: MikeR at Wednesday, December 22 2004 02:47 PM (h8FAf)
Posted by: Rossz at Wednesday, December 22 2004 04:19 PM (NEjeN)
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Wednesday, December 22 2004 07:47 PM (uOsif)
Not that I'm trying to tell you what to think or post.
Posted by: Squidley at Thursday, December 23 2004 12:35 PM (06/Rc)
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Thursday, December 23 2004 07:23 PM (uOsif)
Posted by: wanderer at Saturday, December 25 2004 08:50 PM (3ULfT)
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Monday, December 27 2004 08:19 AM (+S1Ft)
Posted by: wanderer at Wednesday, December 29 2004 12:46 AM (3ULfT)
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Wednesday, December 29 2004 01:55 AM (+S1Ft)
Posted by: wanderer at Thursday, December 30 2004 02:21 AM (3ULfT)
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Thursday, December 30 2004 08:17 AM (+S1Ft)
Posted by: wanderer at Wednesday, January 05 2005 11:43 PM (3ULfT)
Posted by: wanderer at Sunday, January 09 2005 01:50 AM (3ULfT)
Over the weekend I switched from Mozilla to Firefox and Thunderbird, the separate web and email programs from, well, Mozilla. I do prefer the integrated design of Mozilla, but Firefox and Thunderbird are sufficiently ahead in functionality that the switch was worthwhile.
Except for the minor fact that I've stopped getting 90% of my email, which is somehow - I haven't quite worked this out yet - ending up in Mozilla, even though it isn't running! At least it's peaceful this way.
Update: Worked it out. Answer: I'm an idiot. Big surprise.
Posted by: David Boxenhorn at Monday, December 20 2004 05:58 PM (6y1rx)
Posted by: Kathy K at Monday, December 20 2004 09:09 PM (fGtFB)
“Few of my correspondents manage to scale comparable heights of idleness and incompetence”Oliver Kamm dismantles a Chomskyite:
Thank you for writing. I receive, if not quite hundreds, then certainly scores of messages from people who, like you, press Chomsky's case without having first read either him or his critics. Be assured, however, that your own message is distinctive, in that few of my correspondents manage to scale comparable heights of idleness and incompetence, or at least not in the opening sentence.I won't exhort you to read the whole thing, which is part of a series of articles regarding our favorite left-wing crank, but if you have ever been irked by Chomsky's followers, or Moore's, or similar rabble, it is a delight to see Kamm's elegant handling of their uninformed diatribes.
Witness too his dismissal of some of Chomsky's fellow travellers in linguistics:
Ã¢â‚¬Å“I read books and talk to people about them,Ã¢â‚¬Â she says. Ã¢â‚¬Å“Without a method?Ã¢â‚¬Â asks Howard. Ã¢â‚¬Å“ThatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s right,Ã¢â‚¬Â she says. Ã¢â‚¬Å“It doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t sound very convincing,Ã¢â‚¬Â says Howard.
I thought of this exchange when considering an international symposium to be held next April at the University of Montreal under the felicitous title For a Proactive Translatology.
Translatology is the study of translation. Proactive is a gruesome synonym for anticipatory. Of this pseudoscholarly gobbledegook, one leading literary translator remarked despairingly that her own work required no proactive translatology beyond the aim of serving foreign authors and English-language readers as well as possible.
Take that, defilers of the syllabary!
Oh, and this too:
I think you should be aware that a discharged lunatic has managed to gain access to your email account and is using it to send out absurd messages in your name in an attempt to discredit you. I am forwarding an example.That one looks to be quite useful. I might need to adopt it at work.
I should look into this if I were you.
Blog of the Day, folks: Oliver Kamm.
Posted by: Kathy K at Monday, December 20 2004 09:20 PM (fGtFB)
Posted by: Kathy K at Monday, December 20 2004 09:29 PM (fGtFB)
Posted by: Ozguru at Friday, December 24 2004 12:01 AM (AJL/m)
Posted by: Ozguru at Friday, December 24 2004 12:02 AM (AJL/m)
Thursday, December 16
Her life was transformed when she was introduced to the works of linguist and political philosopher Noam Chomsky, and she realised that anyone can get tenure these days. Sadly, her new academic career was short-lived, and in 1995 she was drummed out of the Bristol School of Sophistry when authorities uncovered her secret cache of samizdat Robert Heinlein novels.Forced to take up a new trade, she started her own business selling "Y2K" solutions to large corporations. This proved to be a huge success, and by 1999 her net worth had reached $3.5 billion, before she lost it all in a failed takeover bid for British Telecom.
Reinventing herself yet again, she became known as a composer, producing the chart-topping hits Crunchy Frog Blues, What Dance Dance Kitten Did On Her Holiday and Return of the Return of the Electric Ant in rapid succession. She is also the author of several unpublished novels, most notably the fantasy thriller Stone Dead, as well as even more unwritten ones.In 2003 she founded Mu.Nu, the Online Journal of the Good Parts of Western Civilisation, which has prospered to the point that it now garners sometimes dozens of visitors every month. In 2004 she became an ordained minister of a recognised church, though just how this was allowed to happen has not been adequately explored.
Her eyes are blue, her star sign is Carotius, the root vegetable, and she prefers coloured stones to diamonds, thank you.
Posted by: Tig at Thursday, December 16 2004 11:16 PM (G5PGV)
Posted by: Ted at Friday, December 17 2004 07:03 AM (blNMI)
Posted by: Sissy Willis at Saturday, December 18 2004 10:34 AM (7WFgX)
Posted by: Chase at Sunday, December 19 2004 12:31 AM (xxkgB)
Posted by: yawn at Sunday, December 19 2004 05:22 AM (zi6C8)
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Sunday, December 19 2004 05:24 AM (+S1Ft)
Posted by: yawn at Sunday, December 19 2004 05:29 AM (zi6C8)
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Sunday, December 19 2004 05:49 AM (+S1Ft)
Posted by: mamapajamas at Sunday, December 19 2004 03:03 PM (y+znv)
Posted by: mamapajamas at Sunday, December 19 2004 03:22 PM (pLYNe)
Posted by: yawn at Monday, December 20 2004 02:42 AM (zi6C8)
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Monday, December 20 2004 06:44 AM (+S1Ft)
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Monday, December 20 2004 06:57 AM (+S1Ft)
Posted by: yawn at Tuesday, December 21 2004 02:37 AM (zi6C8)
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Tuesday, December 21 2004 03:59 AM (+S1Ft)
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Tuesday, December 21 2004 04:48 AM (+S1Ft)
Posted by: yawn at Tuesday, December 21 2004 05:10 AM (zi6C8)
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Tuesday, December 21 2004 05:29 AM (+S1Ft)
Posted by: yawn at Tuesday, December 21 2004 05:32 AM (zi6C8)
Posted by: yawn at Tuesday, December 21 2004 05:51 AM (zi6C8)
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Tuesday, December 21 2004 05:59 AM (+S1Ft)
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Tuesday, December 21 2004 06:03 AM (+S1Ft)
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Tuesday, December 21 2004 06:07 AM (+S1Ft)
Posted by: yawn at Tuesday, December 21 2004 06:14 AM (zi6C8)
Posted by: yawn at Tuesday, December 21 2004 06:21 AM (zi6C8)
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Tuesday, December 21 2004 06:25 AM (+S1Ft)
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Tuesday, December 21 2004 06:29 AM (+S1Ft)
Posted by: yawn at Tuesday, December 21 2004 07:11 AM (zi6C8)
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Tuesday, December 21 2004 07:56 AM (+S1Ft)
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Tuesday, December 21 2004 08:01 AM (+S1Ft)
Posted by: Polysemous at Tuesday, December 21 2004 04:30 PM (76/qS)
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Tuesday, December 21 2004 05:32 PM (+S1Ft)
Posted by: learningcurve at Tuesday, December 21 2004 06:05 PM (wTjmz)
Posted by: yawn at Wednesday, December 22 2004 02:52 AM (zi6C8)
Posted by: yawn at Wednesday, December 22 2004 03:04 AM (zi6C8)
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Wednesday, December 22 2004 04:19 AM (+S1Ft)
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Wednesday, December 22 2004 04:22 AM (+S1Ft)
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Wednesday, December 22 2004 04:34 AM (+S1Ft)
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Wednesday, December 22 2004 05:01 AM (+S1Ft)
Posted by: yawn at Wednesday, December 22 2004 05:30 AM (zi6C8)
Posted by: Jim at Wednesday, December 22 2004 05:33 AM (GCA5m)
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Wednesday, December 22 2004 05:49 AM (+S1Ft)
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Wednesday, December 22 2004 05:57 AM (+S1Ft)
Posted by: yawn at Wednesday, December 22 2004 06:00 AM (zi6C8)
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Wednesday, December 22 2004 08:02 AM (+S1Ft)
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Wednesday, December 22 2004 08:18 AM (+S1Ft)
Posted by: Polysemous at Wednesday, December 22 2004 02:14 PM (MB3Ss)
I, like Dr. Miyake, have a Ph.D. in Linguistics. I also have a strong background in the "hard" sciences (math, physics, chemistry, and even biology).
I find the following major faults with Chomskyian theory:
* It relies on hypothetical constructs for which there is no evidence (e.g., transformations, empty categories, movement).
* It is unfalsifiable, that is, its constraints are so loose as to allow anything. Put another way, no data can show it wrong. A theory that allows anything explains nothing.
* In Chomskyian analyses, all languages have the same "underlying" structure, and this structure is extraordinarily like English.
* It is so complex that the only way children could have it in their heads is if they're born with it. While it is certain that many elements of human language ability are innate, a less convoluted theory requires less on the part of the brain, and fits better with what we know about general human cognition and learning processes. Chomsky's Universal Grammar, on the other hand, requires things (like strict binary branching) that are absent from general theories of learning and cognition.
I conclude that Chomskian theory is unscientific. It has no more place in academia than astrology.
Oh, Yawn, please point out where Dr. Miyake "slanders" Chomsky. Excoriation is not the same as slander (and you mean libel, don't you?).
Posted by: Squidley at Wednesday, December 22 2004 06:50 PM (06/Rc)
Posted by: yawn at Thursday, December 23 2004 11:54 PM (TeAGq)
Posted by: yawn at Friday, December 24 2004 12:05 AM (TeAGq)
Posted by: yawn at Friday, December 24 2004 12:13 AM (TeAGq)
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Friday, December 24 2004 05:02 AM (+S1Ft)
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Friday, December 24 2004 05:37 AM (+S1Ft)
Posted by: yawn at Friday, December 24 2004 05:46 AM (TeAGq)
Posted by: yawn at Friday, December 24 2004 05:47 AM (TeAGq)
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Friday, December 24 2004 06:12 AM (+S1Ft)
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Friday, December 24 2004 06:23 AM (+S1Ft)
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Friday, December 24 2004 06:31 AM (+S1Ft)
Heh. Funny man!
Notably, very soon after the time the United States of America were actually unified under the current Constitution, our first international war (albeit a very one) was the maritime confrontation with France. It even predates our policy of pre-emptive regime change for outrageously offensive Muslim nations, which started (sensibly enough and with ample provocation) in the 18th century and has, thankfully, been dusted back off in time for the 21st.
Our cultural commonality and history of amity vis a vis France is much weaker than the same record with Britain, Australia, or even Canada (the latter marred, of course, by our early tendency as a nation to invade Canada as a means of antagonizing its British owners).
Posted by: learningcurve at Friday, December 24 2004 10:35 AM (wTjmz)
Posted by: yawn at Friday, December 24 2004 10:54 AM (TeAGq)
Saddam has a record of ignoring any and all UN Security Council Resolutions he finds inconvenient, despite the threat of the resumption of hostilities, as laid out in UN Security Council Resolution 687, if he should fail to comply. Those that have condemned the Iraqi regime for violations specifically relating to weapons inspections include: SCR 707 (1991), SCR 715 (1991 -- 715 does not condemn Iraq for violation, but he refused to comply with it for almost two years), SCR 1060 (1996), SCR 1115 (1997), SCR 1134 (1997), SCR 1137 (1997), SCR 1194 (1998), SCR 1205 (1998), and SCR 1441 (2002). This from a nation who lost the Gulf War and whose regime continued to exist after 1991 contingent upon compliance with SCR 687 and other UN Security Council Resolutions.
At the time that Hans Blix claimed inspections were working, albeit slowly the seasonal/environmental window for operations in Iraq was rapidly closing. Saddam was simply playing his usual games, trying to run out the clock on a potential spring invasion. As has been previously stated, if I recall correctly, the burden of proof fell completely on Iraq to demonstrate its compliance. UNSCOM/UNMOVIC was not intended to be a scavenger hunt across the desert, though Iraqi intransigence rendered it such. Technically, any if Iraq's various violations of the requirements of SCR 687 were grounds for the renewal of hostilities. Saddam was clear on this point, which is why he invested such time and money in bribing French, Russian, and Chinese officials to prevent a resumption of hostilities, regardless of his violations of 687.
Posted by: learningcurve at Friday, December 24 2004 11:21 AM (wTjmz)
I dunno, I guess it's someone who is extremely partisan, spends a lot of time complaining about the other side, but uses poor logic and only a subset of the "facts", if any at all. A very subjective label, for sure... but once it seems like someone is a "nut" (and there a "left wing nuts" too, for sure) it becomes very hard to take them seriously.
For members of the Chomsky Cult it really is not nearly so complex as that rather simple definition allows for. Those who disagree with Chomsky or hold differing political views than Chomsky are "right wing nuts." Never mind that any rational person with non-Stalinist political views might regard such people as right, left, or center in the political spectrum, it is the act of disagreeing with the religious leadership that brands one as a "right wing nut," "freeper," etc., and therefore obligates the faithful to ignore anything they might say as reactionary and heretical. In so doing, of course, the minds of the faithful are protected from the contamination of anything that does not descend from proletarian heaven by way of the omniscient and omnibenevolent (except for the victims of Chomsky-sanctioned totalitarian regimes such and the Cuban and Vietnamese Communist Parties, the Khmer Rouge, various international and intranational terror groups, etc) Chomsky.
Posted by: learningcurve at Friday, December 24 2004 11:44 AM (wTjmz)
First, please keep it civil. The best way to do that? No name-calling. You called Dr. Miyake "an absolute imbecile." You may disagree with him, but does that make him an imbecile? If so, you have no place in polite society. Have you ever read any of his academic writing, or talked with him? I have done both, and he is one of the most intelligent and knowledgeable people I've ever met. His academic work is of the highest caliber.
As for Dr. Miyake's comparison of Chomsky to Stalin and Lysenko, well, you'd have to ask him how that works. I don't think anyone is dying because of Chomsky, but the academic parallels to Chomsky and Lysenko--namely, ignoring empirical evidence due to adherence to a theory--are solid.
You claimed that "the vast majority of linguists" disagree with me as to the validity of Chomsky's work. The number of people who believe something has no effect on its veracity (ever hear the silly notion that the earth is round?). Furthermore, how many linguists do you know? I acknowledge that most American syntacticians use Chomskian theory, but the ones I know well who do so actually disagree with it, and only use the theory so that they can get published. As for non-syntacticians (who outnumber syntacticians), most ignore Chomskyism because it's irrelevant for their work. Some U.S. linguistics departments are decidedly non-Chomskyist, and outside of the U.S., his work is significantly less popular. In my professional opinion, your statement is false.
As for coming up with a better theory, neither I nor Dr. Miyake are syntacticians, so we're not going to come up with competing theories--but they're out there. Also, one does not need to propose an alternative merely to point out the shortcomings of one approachÃ¢â‚¬â€though it is more productive if you can.
Posted by: Squidley at Friday, December 24 2004 03:26 PM (06/Rc)
Posted by: Polysemous at Friday, December 24 2004 04:27 PM (MB3Ss)
"maybe you just don't really understand them well enough."
Lessee here, I have a Ph.D. in Linguistics. Is this what makes me unable to understand his theories? Please tell us: what in your background or training gives you your superior understanding of Chomsky's academic writing?
Having said that, I will admit to having difficulty understanding Chomsky's writing. It's not due to the content; rather, it's the form. IMO, Chomsky is the worst popular writer in English alive today. His turgid prose is obscure, laden with jargon, and deliberately impenetrable. I believe that part of why his writing is so hard to fathom is that it puts the onus on the reader. "Gee, I didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t understand that at all--must be something wrong with me," thinks the unsuspecting grad student upon reading Chomsky for the first time. Being able to wade through the swampy morasses of his writings is a kind of rite of passage. Once you've gone through it, you're in the club. Also, there's strong incentive to go with the flow, because some branches of linguistics (notably syntax and phonology) in America are dominated by certain theories, and one goes against them at one's own risk. Syntacticians who don't agree with Chomsky have a hard time getting published and finding work.
Furthermore, Chomsky's academic writing is intellectually dishonest. When he changes his theory, he'll publish a new book to tell everyone what's new and what's out. (His followers all fall in line; no one dissents.) However, his bibliography fails to mention all the books and articles that others have written that have already arrived at similar conclusions. Chomsky makes himself look like a genius for having come up with all these new ideas ex nihilo, when in fact what he's done is just short of plagiarism.
One last question: how is it venomous to give the reasons why you disagree with something? Show that my analysis of Chomsky is wrong. Show that his theories are, in fact, scientific. Show that empty categories and transformations are real. If you can, I will concede that I am wrong and Chomsky is right. What will it take for you to admit you might be less than correct? (BTW, I agree with Pixy: nothing Chomsky's written actually reaches the level of theory, but for want of a better word...)
Posted by: Squidley at Friday, December 24 2004 06:21 PM (06/Rc)
Every ten or twenty minutes, someone is clicking through from the Ecosystem, wondering who this new number three blog* is, maybe one of the big bloggers has changed names, and ending up here, and saying huh? And it's funny, but even when it's just an accident, being number three in the world feels like it carries some responsibility, and that I should be, you know, actually doing something with this blog.
Unfortunately, most of my posts - and all the good ones - come when I am inspired (or more likely, irritated) by something. I can't write good stuff on demand; that's a talent, and not a common one. Also, left to my own devices, I'm a lazy slug. That's why I'm hosting a hundred or so other blogs - no, hang on, this actually makes sense. I have a lot of things to say, but unless something is really pissing me off right now (the editorials in New Scientist are good for this) I'm likely to just let it slide and go and watch some anime instead. But now I have a hundred bloggers doing my writing for me!
Am I sneaky or what? And I don't even pay them! Of course, they don't always do what I had planned, but then neither do I, so it works out pretty well. It used to be that if anyone wondered what my opinion was on something important, I could just point them at U.S.S. Clueless, but that was before Steven retired and
became a hermit took up a new career as an anime critic. Now I can only point to him for that, and while there's only one Den Beste, there are other anime critics whose tastes match mine, near enough. (By the way, Steven, if you don't watch Escaflowne you're really missing out. Yes, there's a mecha in it, but it's central to the plot in name only. Err, literally. And the music - by Yoko Kanno - is fantastic. I'm utterly disinterested in the average mecha series, up to and including Evangelion, but Escaflowne had me hooked. Don't bother with the movie, though, it's rubbish.) But now I have the Munuvians to talk for me. (Oh, and I agree with you about manga, mostly. The only ones I've followed are where the anime series was cut short - Oh! My Goddess, Gunsmith Cats, and 3 x 3 Eyes being leading examples.)
So, um, that is all I really have to say right now. I'm going to take a nap, then set up some more blogs for various people. You can amuse yourself while I'm gone by reading some of the fine blogs listed on the right. Or you can hold a party in my comments, that's always good.
* Unaudited figures.
Posted by: Susie at Thursday, December 16 2004 08:14 AM (3nS88)
Posted by: Tom at Thursday, December 16 2004 04:12 PM (D7UYv)
Posted by: Sadie at Thursday, December 16 2004 04:42 PM (6Mg2O)
Posted by: physics geek at Thursday, December 16 2004 10:08 PM (auFn9)
Posted by: Harvey at Thursday, December 16 2004 11:52 PM (ubhj8)
real whipped cream (check!)
I Can't Belive It's Not Butter (check?)
Ben and Jerry's Cherry Garcia™--oops, that's mine!!!! Not sharing, no way no how....
Posted by: Susie at Friday, December 17 2004 12:18 AM (3nS88)
Posted by: Machelle at Friday, December 17 2004 10:15 AM (ZAyoW)
Posted by: Victor at Friday, December 17 2004 10:21 AM (L3qPK)
Posted by: Ogre at Friday, December 17 2004 10:24 AM (/k+l4)
Posted by: Publicola at Friday, December 17 2004 12:01 PM (SoPfa)
Posted by: _Jon at Friday, December 17 2004 01:25 PM (ZM3Qb)
Posted by: Machelle at Friday, December 17 2004 01:50 PM (ZAyoW)
Posted by: physics geek at Friday, December 17 2004 04:11 PM (Xvrs7)
Posted by: Susie at Friday, December 17 2004 06:00 PM (3nS88)
Posted by: vw bug at Friday, December 17 2004 06:47 PM (JhG7E)
Posted by: Teresa at Friday, December 17 2004 09:38 PM (nAfYo)
Posted by: Ogre at Saturday, December 18 2004 08:25 AM (/k+l4)
Posted by: Machelle at Saturday, December 18 2004 01:49 PM (ZAyoW)
Posted by: Teresa at Saturday, December 18 2004 09:59 PM (nAfYo)
Tuesday, December 14
Something is just slightly out of whack on the Ecosystem today - I've been elevated to Higher Being:
1.Instapundit.com (4351) details
2.Daily Kos :: Political Analysis and other daily rants on the state of the nation. (279 details
3.Ambient Irony (2572) details
4.lgf: skiing through the revolving door of life (250 details
5.Talking Points Memo: by Joshua Micah Marshall (2422) details
6.Eschaton (232 details
7.Boing Boing: A Directory of Wonderful Things (2137) details
8.Power Line (2131) details
9.The Volokh Conspiracy - (1914) details
10.www.AndrewSullivan.com - Daily Dish (1851) details
I don't expect this to last. But you can all claim that you knew me when...
Posted by: Light & Dark at Wednesday, December 15 2004 01:06 AM (880wB)
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Wednesday, December 15 2004 01:43 AM (kOqZ6)
Posted by: Evil Pundit at Wednesday, December 15 2004 06:37 AM (ss0/1)
Posted by: Helen at Wednesday, December 15 2004 07:08 AM (QuLsu)
Posted by: RP at Wednesday, December 15 2004 08:44 AM (LlPKh)
Posted by: Daniel at Wednesday, December 15 2004 10:26 AM (Oc6V9)
Posted by: LeeAnn at Wednesday, December 15 2004 12:23 PM (vqSdN)
Posted by: Michael at Wednesday, December 15 2004 03:39 PM (CO/Uo)
Posted by: Madfish Willie at Wednesday, December 15 2004 07:40 PM (Av8yb)
Posted by: Chase at Wednesday, December 15 2004 08:49 PM (ksHCE)
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Wednesday, December 15 2004 09:02 PM (kOqZ6)
Posted by: Simon at Thursday, December 16 2004 02:27 AM (FUPxT)
Posted by: Steve the LB at Friday, December 17 2004 12:49 PM (c5Jw4)
I uploaded 10,000 images this morning to go with my new layout.*
I just kicked off our not-entirely-regular complete offsite backup. So it's now downloading those 10,000 images again.
* No, I'm not kidding. Yes, ten thousand. Well, 9985 in fact, upon actually counting the little buggers.
Posted by: Rossz at Wednesday, December 15 2004 11:54 PM (n5Jbg)
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Thursday, December 16 2004 05:00 AM (+S1Ft)
This layout is starting to grow on me.
It's a little irritating that it looks better in Internet Explorer than Mozilla, but that might just be the font settings that I have in Mozilla.
Anywho, let me know what you think.
The only remaining problem is that for some reason, MT never puts the code for the icon in the first time around. Edit and re-save, and there it is. But never the first time. Pfui.
P.S. No, the images didn't just change. It must be your imagination. Yes indeedy.
P.P.S. Hey, I like these ones. Think I'll keep 'em for a while.
Posted by: Evil Pundit at Tuesday, December 14 2004 09:22 AM (ss0/1)
Posted by: Chris C. at Tuesday, December 14 2004 11:19 AM (jb9Ux)
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Tuesday, December 14 2004 05:57 PM (+S1Ft)
Posted by: Chris C. at Wednesday, December 15 2004 11:07 AM (jb9Ux)
Posted by: Chris C. at Wednesday, December 15 2004 11:13 AM (jb9Ux)
This is why I had a three-column layout before.
Now I'll have to put two months' worth of posts on the main page just to make the content longer than the sidebar.
59 queries taking 0.152 seconds, 481 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.