Fri - December 16, 2005

Yet another issue to worry about


For those of you who are up to date, this issue isn't news. But I still feel like ranting.

So who knows about seed patenting? What about agreements regarding saving seed? What about genetic engineering that has been done to prevent plants from reproducing?

It's scary stuff. Companies are being allowed to genetically modify crops, and then patent their revisions. It's been a long-standing part of the seed business to require growers to sign contracts that prevent them from saving seed (or plant seeds resulting from the crops they grow). And now, with advanced genetic modification happening, seed manufacturers (italicized because the process is no longer natural) are now making seeds that will not produce plants that make viable seeds.

So... here's my proposition. This is perversion. For those of you who are against abortion, or the very few of you who are against contraception, this should be a major concern to you. We have now, in the interest of profit, allowed the destruction of part of the natural ability for plants to do what God created them to do. It is unnatural. Plants should be able to reproduce naturally.

I watched a show on PBS sometime in the last year that gives even creepier information. Some of the plants that were first modified were corn plants. Corn plants reproduce by spreading corn silk through the air. Even the modified corn plants that don't reproduce do make silk. It contains genetic material. Genetically-modified genotypes are being spread through this corn silk- traveling from the midwest to as far away as Mexico. We could potentially start seeing organic unmodified crops inheriting the DNA that makes them incapable of reproducing.

So... we're making money off of destroying the natural functioning of the ecosystem. Great.

As Christians, and as world citizens, we should oppose this. Keeping farmers from saving seed and preventing plants from reproducing naturally makes it harder for them to make money, and wastes natural resources. This isn't quantified by anyone, but I have a feeling that the amount of farm subsidies we spend millions of dollars on annually in the United States could be drastically reduced if growers were allowed to resell excess seed and re-use the genetic material in the crops they grow by replanting. Who would hurt? Monsanto and the other seed companies (Con Agra, etc.). Why should we care? As far as I can tell, we shouldn't. Anyone have evidence to the contrary? Comments? Requests for references? I'm too lazy to give you references without a request.

Posted at 03:40 PM    

Why the Waltonian Sucks


Many of my colleagues and I read the Waltonian, my school's newspaper. It sucks. For an example of why the Waltonian sucks, I present this:

That's a photograph I took of the Lovedrug concert a few weeks ago (yes, you may recall I was also running sound for this concert, and yes, I am proud that I'm such a dork that I took the photos AND ran the sound).

This is the photo that was printed in the Waltonian, pretty much as you see it:



Sucks, eh? Yeah. I offered my photoshopping skills if needed, they didn't ask for them. But this photo was printed.

I present to you the same photo, with 50 seconds worth of work in Photoshop. Yes, I timed myself. I don't use Prof. Frink as my rant icon for no good reason.



Not incredible, but it's a lot better.

The photo was attributed to one of the other Waltonian photographers, not me. This sucks. School papers suck, in general, I should say- but this is getting pathetic. Eastern University: Ignoring Quality since 1952

Posted at 03:28 AM    

Sat - September 17, 2005

It's been a while


This is a good one. As usual, it helps if you read the article first:
The Bush administration yesterday proposed nearly $500 million in federal funding to help displaced private school students from the Gulf Coast enroll in private schools elsewhere in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/16/AR2005091601723.html?nav=rss_print/asection

So. You wake up one morning, and the government's telling you to evacuate. You're a 4th grader, so this is a pretty strange and scary endeavor. You and your family pack up what's important in the lexus (flatscreen TV, baby pictures, clothes, purebred dog, Thomas Kinkade paintings... and don't forget the iPods). You get in the car, and watch DVDs for 10 hours, which is getting pretty boring. And apparently mommy and daddy aren't getting too far with their driving because of the traffic. So eventually sometime later that day, you arrive at grandma's house. In the next two days, mommy and daddy tell you that the house is gone, all of your stuff (including race-car bed) is either gone or will have to be thrown away from water damage. But that's okay- mommy and daddy have insurance, so they'll be buying you a brand new race-car bed... or even a big boy bed if you want it. Next week, mommy and daddy realize that you're not going to school anymore. But the only places that are prepared to take on a new student immediately are public schools- there's no St. Ignatius near grandma's house. So you go to public schools for the first day, and the kids don't talk like you, or act like you, or look like you. Some of them smell funny, some of them look like they haven't ever been to chuck-e-cheese's in their entire lives. Obviously this is a scary environment to you, so you tell mommy and daddy how strange it was when you get home that day. And they're outraged.

What's wrong with this? Probably nothing but parents who are concerned about their children *having* to go to public schools for a while. To think that putting a child in a private school that is completely different from any school they've ever known is functionally different from putting a child in a public school that is also completely different is... simple stupidity. Considering the weight of what just happened, the amount of real learning that is going to happen for these displaced and confused children is not going to be measurable. So, what, might you ask, is the purpose of making sure your kid goes to a private school? I'm going to step out on a limb here- classism and racism. I don't see any other reason. The children are going to have to be confused and unhappy with their surroundings, things are going to be really difficult for a while no matter where they go. A complete change of surroundings is going to effect rich and poor alike, and honestly, for most little kids, having strange new kids in their class and a strange new teacher isn't going to be any worse if the kids are black. And if it is uncomfortable to adjust? So be it! Some of the largest persisting cultural problems we have in this country are caused by a lack of cultural understanding across class and race boundaries. If only the poor could gain legitimacy in the eyes of the rich, and vice versa, our ability to network with eachother would increase, and new business partnerships and ideas would come out- ones that benefit both ends of the social structure.

But apparently this situation is just too uncomfortable for Bush and his followers. Mommy and daddy might have to question their country club membership fees once they meet Mr. and Ms. Smith- two great (and low income) parents of a black child their son has become good friends with. They might even have to question how much they donate to the Republican party next year when they discover that "trickle down economics" really wasn't all the jazz to the welfare receiving, working public.

Perhaps what is most disturbing here is that, after Bush took the blame for having allowed a horrible disaster of misplaced, misappropriated and mismanaged aid to occur, he has brought this proposal out- a modification to a bill that adds a very clear benefit to the wealthy, and absolutely nothing for the poor. Disasters are often opportunities to improve an area- rebuilding means new opportunities in the end. And what new opportunity does Bush see? To help the cause for Public School Vouchers. Instead of focusing on acquiring funding to ensure that all the rebuilt public schools in New Orleans provide education good enough that the rich families decide to save some money and trust their children to the system.

What about the kids who lived in slums? Why not use this as an opportunity to enhance their life experiences- provide funding to put them in special classes to help them deal with the loss together- but also catch up on what everyone's been learning about those brand new iMacs at St. Ignatius? It's pathetic that we live in a nation that thinks of funding the status quo before it even comprehends the idea of helping improve it. Instead of allowing for class-bridging social change based on disaster- something most people would not expect you to counteract- you go "above and beyond" to ensure the status quo of classism in New Orleans continues well into the next generation. I feel like Michael Moore when I say this, but honestly, "Shame On You, Mr. Bush"- and shame on those who support this, too.

Anybody got any wild ideas on how to turn this situation upside down?

Drew

Posted at 02:22 PM    

Thu - August 25, 2005

They just keep on coming!


So: final update (I hope) on the Pat Robertson front: He apologized. In a beautiful display of the Christian ability to apologize and look stupid (it's one of our best qualities- don't knock it... seriously). With his words, he denied his own words. And then later on last night, he admitted he used the word "assassination"... and now he's apologizing for the whole thing. Apparently the fact that we are willing to "acommodate" for someone who thinks we're trying to "kill him" and the fact that he has "found a common cause with terrorists." Wow. Apparently having a common cause with the terrorists is a dangerous thing, now.

News flash: I have a common cause with terrorists. Why, do you ask? I think this is an unholy nation of people more likened to evil, greed and lust than anything else. I think we make complete asses of ourselves in the world community, and need to play down the use of sex in the media, spend more money on foreign aid, stop exploiting the resources of poorer countries using our pre-existing wealth and military might, and really, I'm getting sick of an economy that has so many resources going through it yet no substantial method of distribution that uses wealth to invest in the human capital we have (poor people). Apparently, I have quite a few common causes with the terrorists. Why? Because (not to sound too arrogant) my aim is to be more of a Christian than an American.
"If I see a madman driving a car into a group of innocent bystanders, then I can't, as a Christian, simply wait for the catastrophe. . . . I must try to wrestle the steering wheel out of the hands of the driver." Okay... and all this time, Robertson has given no real link to WHY Chavez is the man driving that car. It seems that maybe Robertson has begun to take his followers for granted just a little- which is understandable. He's used to people who eat up every word he says, and ask few to no real questions before accepting it. Which, you know, is what Jesus said we should do. That whole "You will know them by their fruits" thing was just a side note... meant for youth pastors you want to get rid of, not for international figures who speak on the behalf of the church.
But look on the bright side: because the evangelical community separated itself so much from Robertson's words, many more people and their pastors are freed from the clutches of Pat Robertson's 700 club... at least a little bit for now. It can't be a bad thing.
BUT WAIT! There's more!
This just in: You know that guy who hates the UN that we prevented from being appointed to the post of U.N. Secretary, and then Bush put in anyways because the voting stopped? As it turns out, he doesn't like the U.N. And is throwing some sort of a temper tantrum. The U.S. introduced over 750 changes to a U.N. bill that would remove essentially... any requirements that we help anyone in any way. But the resolution also calls for us to take tougher action in the name of human rights and against terrorism.
What about G8? Yet more empty promises. With one organization, we promise huge increases in foreign aid and the cancellation of debt. And then to the U.N., we say that we want no responsibility to increase aid, and more opportunities to blow people up.
The human rights part is suspect. Since when has the U.N. had a hard time emphasizing the importance of human rights? They do better than the U.S. does. My guess? Excuses for war. Terrorism+human rights issues= free war. Interesting realization: The United States could easily fall into the same pattern of human rights problems and terrorism that we are likely to use to invade other countries next time around. Let's see here... "In President Bush's hands are billions of dollars, most of which go to war and national defense, and almost nothing to aid the numerous impoverished people in his nation." It's loose, but it's almost close enough. That is, it's almost as bad as Chavez, anyways.
Okay. that's enough for today. No one's been commenting! please do! You're quite welcome to!

Posted at 09:48 AM    

Tue - August 23, 2005

This one is easy...


http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/12456432.htm

Need proof that the "religious right" is out to lunch (and has been for... oh say.... 30 years)? Pat Robertson has got a great new idea for the world- coming to you straight from the 700 club in Colorado Springs, Colorado: capitol of fast food consumption, abode of the religious right, and home of Cheyenne Mountain- the military's favorite underground cold war playset.

Everyone's favorite family-values loving man has it in for the president. Except not the U.S. President- it's the president of a country he's probably never been to. Venezuela. Mr. Roberts has come out with a voicing of extreme compassion for the Venezuelan people... he cares so deeply about their plight, that he's suggested that we assassinate their president in order to fix things in the country.

What are the problems, do you ask? We need cheaper baseball players? Robertson is tired of people complaining about how horrible "Chavez" sounds in his southern drawl? The country's name is too long for President Bush to pronounce properly more than half the time? Nope. I'll give you a hint: it's why the White House still treats the Bin Laden family very kindly despite the unsightly actions of one of their members. No clue yet? Another hint: Iraq.

Here are the globally recognized social problems Robertson's plan will tackle:
1. Venezuela has lots of oil
2. President Chavez is a communist, and likes Fidel Castro.

Any good student of history would know that these sort of attempts NEVER backfire.

Yep, that's right- Venezuela's got oil- and what better way to lower the price of gas than to blow off the head of someone else's president? Geeze, I wish I had thought of this one earlier. Forget more efficient cars, forget taking the bus: save money by killing people in foreign countries.

And what's more, why bother with a war? Why bother rebuilding anything, or taking direct responsibility? Just shoot the guy and run- it'd be "a whole lot cheaper." Yes, that's a real quote. He's talking about pricing when it comes to completely re-aligning the politics of other countries. Have no fear, Venezuela- this is going to hurt us more than it's going to hurt you. An assassination is merely the best way we could find to show how much Christ is willing to sacrifice in the name of his love and compassion towards Venezuela. Wait... no it's not. In fact it'd be entirely painless to us, and all of the difficulties would be pinned on South America. They have to learn how to stand up for themselves somehow, right?

Robertson hates abortion, and like his best buddy James Dobson (we can best assume), he's seriously concerned by the gay-ness of tinky winky and spongebob. Thank God we have such strong and focused men leading the body of Christians in the United States. What would we do without such strong moral fathers?

So... let's get this straight: destroying human life=wrong. But not if they're a criminal (see also: texas execution rate, racial disparity in murder convictions in texas). Or someone else's president, when the other country has oil.

So let's make a little chart of world leaders, and how we treat them:
Click here to view
Sorry... it got a little wet. OR I got bored and played with photoshop. whichever you believe.

So I'm noticing a pattern. Can it lower the price of Oil? Kill em. Anything else (be it threats, or style of government, or even low income)... who cares?

Moral of the story: "If Rumsfeld has yet to suggest we invade a country, don't you go insisting we should." Or is it "If you see an assassination that might help the U.S. economy, tell the state department before the press- that way they won't know we're coming." or could it be "If you're having a hard time finding a Christian issue to focus on because the sinners have already taken equality and poverty as their own, maybe it's time to question your worldview."

Posted at 10:42 PM    

Fri - August 12, 2005

You know you have too much money when...



Wow. I'm beginning to be convinced there's a Simpsons reference for everything...

Stealing candy from a baby- well, the technological equivalent thereof:

Read This

Yes, that's right- Microsoft is patenting technology that Apple used in the iPod- why? They got around to patenting it 5 months earlier than Apple did. Is this really a realistic law, then? I mean, clearly, Microsoft has not made any incredible leaps and bounds towards creating a good user interface for a portable digital music device... but here, they're allowed to take the technology, because they managed to write it down. I love the microsoft quote here- "In general, our policy is to allow others to license our patents so they can use our innovative methods in their products..." Wonderful. It's so nice of them to be willing to charge money for Apple to use an idea they put to use before Microsoft.

I've got a problem with patent law: it does nothing of what it was originally supposed to do. It was designed to prevent companies from being able to screw the little guy out of their own ideas. Issue? Well... I'm a little guy, and I have had a few patent ideas- but it's nearly impossible to do it on your own. It's become a competition of legal abilities... something I will most certainly lose, especially if my idea is one that is a. revolutionary and b. something I don't know how to make on my own. The mind should get the spoils, even if a working prototype isn't within their means. Why? Because this encourages the most innovation.

About 4 years ago, I had an idea for a device that is now patented and on the market (for $5000 apiece, no less)- an optical-reading turntable. Completely analog, reading LP's and 45's with none of the drawbacks of using a needle- flawless audio. The idea itself was complete, even my basic idea for how it would work was dead on to what the current patent holder has. Problem? There's absolutely no way that as a 16 year old high school kid I was going to learn how to create the electronics to turn focused laser light into sound. That's a very difficult transition. And no way did I have the money (or legal skills) to construct a non-disclosure agreement so I could allow someone else to make a prototype. So what happened? My drawings sat in a binder for 4 years, and someone else is making all the money.

Were patent law constructed properly, this device could have been on the market two years earlier. No, it's not the end of the world- but when it comes to things like agriculture technology- which actually effects the world every single day- we're hurting ourselves. With seed giants like Monsanto and ConAgra, it would be impossible for a major breakthrough to happen on a small scale- anyone who wants to tinker with crop management would be at a serious disadvantage- since they own all the patents, and have the money to turn all of their R&D efforts into legally protected ground. So what does that mean? No innovation happens outside of the playing field of the giant corporations. Sure, Universities can manage funding these projects sometimes- but now that the pattern has become such that any major innovation made at a University is held as property that they then outsource to corporations, we've got another Microsoft problem- this time the student (or professor) vs. the University in the ownership of the student's ideas. Again, more reason for you to hold a big idea back until you get a big break and have the money to protect yourself.

I'll shut up and make it simple: Patent law is a joke anymore.

So... is this a pipe dream? Comment. Please. Perhaps I should first ask you to view my blog at all-- hits have been down lately. COME BACK FROM VACATION, LAZY BUMS!

Oh... and in case you were wondering, this is the simpsons episode referenced.

Posted at 03:34 PM    

Tue - August 9, 2005

The outrage of oil



So... you know how cars cost... a lot? And you know how they tend to... use a lot of gas? Yeah. Well apparently that doesn't have to be. A New York Times article just reported that GM can and DOES make minivans that cost $5000 and get 43mpg... city. What's the catch? Only in China. So why don't we get these cars? Apparently because "we don't want them." Is it just me, or is marketing research becoming the excuse for everything? I mean, it is why we have porn channels on every cable system in the country, and food that will kill you at every fast food restaurant. Clearly, if a large number of people want something, it excuses the industry that creates it. This makes tons of sense. Because, you know, the average consumer is an expert in knowing what is feasible in auto manufacturing.

Which is why I must remind you of the great, deep teachings of The Simpsons, yet again. In an episode in the second season (link goes to full transcript), Homer meets his long lost brother, who happens to be an auto manufacturer owner. So he allows Homer to design a car for the 'average joe'. Despite its beautiful appearance (see above), the car flops. Why? because everything the average joe wants in his car is ridiculous.

Sometimes you have to draw the line. We don't need heated motorized seats, DVD players in the car, 5k watt stereos (sigh, I know... contradicting myself... I guess I'll have to give up the power thing), or 350 horsepower engines to get the kids to school. Unless you happen to have produced paralyzed, deaf, ADD children with circulation problems, your child's school is 10,000 feet higher in elevation than your home, there are no paved roads to get there, the drive is covered with black ice, and you have a sleeping disorder that prevents you from getting up on time in the morning to drive them to school at a normal speed. In that case, maybe you need a modern SUV. But then again, if I just described you, perhaps you should ask yourself at this juncture in your life: Where did I go wrong? Was it the 3rd day-long trip to Ikea in preparation for the baby's room, when I decided to use bo-tox on my belly button because it looked saggy with baby in me?

Okay... I got carried away there. But it was fun, and you get my point. It seems to be that America's fatal flaw has come forth in the last few decades: the masses are stupid, and we let them run the place.

Posted at 01:22 AM    

Thu - August 4, 2005

At least someone gets it...



Here- read this NYtimes editorial by Jim Wallis...
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/04/opinion/04wallis.html

Ahh Jim Wallis. Sometimes he comes off as annoying (he says a whole lot... but how much actually gets done?)... but I think he's got it down this time. So... I think it's easy to say that he's identified the perfect platform for a party that wants votes from world-conscious, Christ-loving believers. Is the platform he's identified really for the democrats though? It doesn't seem to me that the people who are in office now- or even likely to run for office now- could do this. Honest policy and caring-oriented democrats... what a concept. Where ever did our bleeding hearts go in the last decade? What do you think? *scratches head*

Wallis helped found and has since fueled http://www.sojo.net -- a Christian Progressive Magazine (Sojourners). Check it out, if you're bored and into that kind of thing.

Posted at 08:56 PM    

Wed - August 3, 2005

Get your feedbackin' fingers ready...


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/02/AR2005080201686.html

So... this is a fascinating one. Bush+Intelligent design. Who'da thunk it? I'm impressed... and kind of afraid. Maybe somewhere in his record (for all presidents) 5 weeks straight of not being in the White House (most of it vacation), he managed to read a good book. And before I get too far, my apologies to anyone at Eastern who's already taken STV and has had this beaten into the ground.

Here's my problem with this issue: Everyone's trying to shut the other side up.

I like science... I read scientific american and popular science, a lot. It's interesting stuff, the best way we have to explore the known universe. But... honestly... let's be serious here... scientific evidence is NOT a theory. Scientific evidence is merely the pieces of a puzzle that should come together in order to create any accurate theory. So... scientifically speaking, any logical permutation of the evidence that comes together and creates a logical pattern that takes account for all of the evidence would be a good theory. Anyone who's spent a good amount of time reading scientific journals or anything other than a science textbook would come to understand that Evolution is much less a theory than a field of science. Evolution itself, the theory, is in constant debate and is subject to the interpretation of individual scientists. So please, tell me why a scientist can say, with honesty, that Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory? Including unknown forces into a theory doesn't make it not a theory. It doesn't make it the most simple interpretation of the evidence available- but that is subject to personal interpretation. If you read up on your quantum physics and theories of matter and whatnot, you'll learn just how much science can be comfortable in calling in unseen forces. Even Einstein had one in his theories- the Cosmological Constant- the fudge-factor to end all fudge-factors- that was included in some of the explaining relationships that proved relativity... he called it his greatest blunder- but recent research insists he was completely correct. So screw-you, hippie scientists who haven't read a scientific journal in years yet feel the need to voice your opinion on behalf of the discipline.

So then there's our fundy-folks. Bible=truth. Correction: King James Translated Bible (that is, the greek and hebrew translated into latin, then translated into english with only moderate greek and hebrew consultation, written in a dialect of the english language that was extinct at the time of the book's publication-- read "literally")= Truth. Yes I know this doesn't account for all Creationists, but I think I'm safe in calling these folks the core group screaming in these debates. Apparently, everything in the Bible requires literal belief. I'm not going to get into a serious (long) study of what "literal belief" should be defined as... it's most certainly not an objective process. Unless the definition of literal is "convenient for smarmy old white guys." So, not only should we believe that God created the universe in 7 days, but apparently we should believe that there was a tree in the garden of eden with a big plaque on it that said "Tree of Forbidden Knowledge: Do No Touch." I'll ignore how much this makes God sound like an old grumbly church lady for putting up the sign in the first place, and get to the point: This isn't going to work, either. You would think that if you're going to have such a specialized system of beliefs, that you would be willing to recognize the need for the other side to be understood, too. Biblical truth is always recognizable and infallable- so what's knowing the other stuff going to hurt? And what kind of good parent leaves their child so painfully impressionable that they believe EVERYTHING they hear?

How long is a day when there's no sun or earth? The truth, in this situation, comes into being through a process that looks a whole lot like brainwashing. Scientific evidence doesn't tell the story of Creation, and neither does anything but a certain interpretation of the Bible, and a large group of people telling you it's right, and God will dislike you for not believing it. So... basically... the only reason you would believe in Creationism is if a. Everyone convinces you, or b. you receive some convincing evidence from beyond the phsyical world. Either way, being an insider-creationist-Christian, you should be able to see how both A and B could be missing from the life of someone else, without including a life of intense sin. Unless of course, you're just using belief in creationism as a boundary marker that makes you necessarily holy and predestined for greatness. Which, you know, is precisely what Jesus wanted: and I quoth (ducking a few lightening bolts)

"Forget what you do and showing other people you love them- what I REALLY care about is the specifics of your belief. Heaven will be like a country club- full of beautiful people who believed all the right things; and at the gates of heaven will be a standardized test greater than the new SATs, with which we will quiz your knowledge of even the most finite laws of God. STUDY HARD"

Wow, that was fun. I'm not saying Creation (note the capital C) is impossible, I'm saying it's improbable, and anyone in their right mind will understand the value in making serious concessions to the a-moral world before trying to shove such an ideological whopper down their throats.

---------------------

So, enter mommy and daddy, the newspapers, the U.S. Government, and teachers. Apparently, despite all the intelligent people on either side, only the hard-nozed idiots tend to take part in this debate. The only source of such an epidemic of an argument- when it comes to individuals trying to shut up the other side and brainwash the children to believe their own is this: bad education. So here's my proposition. Every high-schooler takes a class titled "Science and Religion 101: People are Often Wrong." Good science and good faith have less to do with the theory you accept than WHY you accept it. The good in evolution is that it is intelligent- something that is lost when it's shoved down people's throats as the only way. And in the same, the good in Intelligent Design, or Creationism or whatever God-inclusive design for the creation of the universe you'd be happy to accept... is that it is an all-inclusive, human answer. So include your humanity in the answer! Welcome to America: Please gain maturity before screaming your opinion from every mountaintop. It really seems to have become a debate of "MY daddy didn't like YOUR daddy, so YOU must be WRONG!"

This obviously isn't going to work as a popular vote issue. So how do we get schools to take an intelligent approach towards teaching about the reality of the universe? It's definitely a worthwhile cause. What do we do? And please, someone other than Chris post this time :-P.

Posted at 06:58 PM    

Mon - August 1, 2005

And another thing...


So... I'm not trying to incite any e-riots of techno-nerd fervor (or degenerate 1337's either) , but I must post this link. A fine young (or old, I'm not sure) lad named Clint Ecker recently posted an article that debunks a commonly heard rumor about the origins of the Macintosh. According to the rumor, Apple stole the idea for the GUI from Xerox (if you don't know the term, you probably don't care about the rest of this post... but feel free to click for a wikipedia definition). According to Ecker, this is not the case- in reality, Apple allowed Xerox to invest a whopping $1 Million in the company before it went public, in order to have access to the GUI system that Xerox was working on at the time... money which it must have run to the bank with sometime in the next 5 or 6 years with. This changes the picture quite a bit... since Microsoft DID steal the GUI idea from Apple. So, there you are :) Oh. Here's a link to the article.

And in other nerdy news, I'm looking for the Life Aquatic ringtone that was posted for free on the movie website, but has since been removed. Anyone who has it, or has access to it (not an Mp3 version or any other substitute) wins brownie points for sending it to me.

Posted at 09:11 PM    

Fri - July 22, 2005

Rants!


For your personal enjoyment (the lack thereof, if you're a republican (: ), I'm planning on putting in some political ranting. Why? Well... the current process of selecting a new supreme court justice is enough inspiration on its own.

Posted at 12:28 AM    

©