man, you ever feel like you have all these ideas that might be really good ideas, but at the same time, you'd understand if someone thought they were really stupid ideas?
like, things that seem so simple they're genius, but in actuality, are just so simple they're mundane?
yea, i'm full of those. going out on a limb for any of them is always a decision wrought with anxiety.
Oct 26, 2007
Oct 23, 2007
information that would have been helpful
found on a financial quiz at the toronto star website:
5. I may deduct what I pay my adult child to care for younger children at home as a child-care expense: T or F.
the answer is TRUE?! man. if i had kids of varying ages, this would be the best loophole ever.
5. I may deduct what I pay my adult child to care for younger children at home as a child-care expense: T or F.
the answer is TRUE?! man. if i had kids of varying ages, this would be the best loophole ever.
Oct 20, 2007
i find the sun-maid attractive
there's something strange about the fact that raisins still come packaged in tiny little paper boxes. for some reason, this practise seems antiquated, but i can't put my finger on why exactly this is. unless of course sun-maid realises this, and is purposely aiming to be antiquated, which in my mind seems not so much kitchy as it seems impractical.
what if i want to eat more than one box of raisins? then i need to have twice the litter. unless they are suggesting one box of raisins per snack session is exactly the proper amount a raisin fan should indulge themselves in. but staring into the eyes of the sun-maid raisin girl (who if measured with proper ratios, seems to be carrying a basket of grapes that no real women her frame should be strong enough to carry with a smile), i can't help but believe that is not the case. she would not place such limitations on us, and it is clear by her delicate features and knowing smile that she honestly believes that raisins have the power to make our lives better.
actually, maybe that's why the boxes are so small. so that somebody who gorges themselves with six boxes at once can suddenly be so much more than regular in their bodily functions -- they can be the proud owner of a harem. i must concede with each box i finish and place on my desk, my collection of sun-maid girls is keeping me company on this most blustery of autumn afternoon.
it's crazy how in depth these marketers will go. how did they know i was attracted to women who wear bonnets?
simply amazing.
what if i want to eat more than one box of raisins? then i need to have twice the litter. unless they are suggesting one box of raisins per snack session is exactly the proper amount a raisin fan should indulge themselves in. but staring into the eyes of the sun-maid raisin girl (who if measured with proper ratios, seems to be carrying a basket of grapes that no real women her frame should be strong enough to carry with a smile), i can't help but believe that is not the case. she would not place such limitations on us, and it is clear by her delicate features and knowing smile that she honestly believes that raisins have the power to make our lives better.
actually, maybe that's why the boxes are so small. so that somebody who gorges themselves with six boxes at once can suddenly be so much more than regular in their bodily functions -- they can be the proud owner of a harem. i must concede with each box i finish and place on my desk, my collection of sun-maid girls is keeping me company on this most blustery of autumn afternoon.
it's crazy how in depth these marketers will go. how did they know i was attracted to women who wear bonnets?
simply amazing.
Oct 17, 2007
the price of ... guilt?
On October 10, thousands of people logged onto the website www.inrainbows.com to download Radiohead’s latest album. The fact that the band officially announced the release mere days in advance was a shock to many. That the download would cost whatever you wanted, however, seemed absolutely mind-boggling to some.
The novel idea (customers can pay as little as nothing if they are so inclined) has sparked debate over the future of the music industry, with many starting to subscribe to the idea that the clock is ticking for behemoth record companies like Sony and BMG.
This is a knee-jerk reaction. Reports suggest the average downloader is paying between five to eight dollars to download “In Rainbows”. This is a veritable steal considering most digital downloads from stores like iTunes cost one dollar a track (there are 10 on the album), and CD’s are often priced well into the double digits.
Well, it would be a veritable steal. That is, if it wasn’t available for free. People have asked me why I didn't pay anything for "In Rainbows," or if I feel guilty for doing so. I pondered that question myself as I entered nill into the donation bin of rock.
After all -- this is a social experiment. It’s a question of what the experience of music is worth to us personally, on an emotional and economical level. Blah blah blah.
What "In Rainbows" should really be seen as is a sample survey on how fiscally responsible we are.
If you take a pragmatic look at the situation, the idea that Radiohead should be hailed as some sort of musical Che Guerra is absurd. People were going to download their album for free anyways, through Bit Torrent and other piracy venues. In fact, I would wager that the very same people who were going to steal it are now the ones paying nominal prices for an inferior version of the album.
What the band has done is basically just ask their fans to donate money. For nothing. Every cent that goes toward the digital download of "In Rainbows" is money Radiohead would never have seen had they only released a CD version.
People willing to buy the album will still buy it – they want something tangible. For everyone else, however, who otherwise would have downloaded the album illegally but not necessarily purchased it, this is an unexpected expense. People have been programmed as consumers to pay for a service. It’s not surprising that many would feel bad for actually having to type "nothing" into a donation box.
Downloading from some faceless peer-to-peer site is easy. “Stealing” directly from the source seems somewhat more difficult and guilt inducing. And so, small numerical values start being entered by downloaders into the “how much will you pay” box, all the while rationalizing it by telling themselves how little they are paying for an album. But you know what’s cheaper than one or two? Zero.
The band that created arguably the greatest rock album of the past 20 years in “OK Computer” have taken hundreds of music fans (and probably more than a handful of college students) and essentially shaken them down for their lunch money.
Not everyone may have thought hearing Paranoid Android was a seminal point in their lives, but somehow Radiohead have guilt tripped music pirates into paying for music – and incredibly, convinced them to do so happily. If that doesn’t prove the band is a foursome of musical geniuses, I frankly do not know what will.
To be fair, “In Rainbows” is a gorgeous album (yes, there is actually music involved in all this), with sweeping melodies and a driving rhythm section that somehow have made an album that does nothing crazy, and sounds perfect within its familiarity. In short, it is so un-Radiohead avant-garde it actually is Radiohead avant-garde (like that episode of South Park where a goth kid decides he is so goth, he's going to be conformist instead of non-conformist). I will probably buy the CD when it comes out, just to hear Reckoner in better quality.
However, Thom Yorke lives in a giant house, while I just ate ramen noodles for dinner again.
So no, the answer is I don’t feel bad for downloading “In Rainbows” for nothing. And neither should you.
The novel idea (customers can pay as little as nothing if they are so inclined) has sparked debate over the future of the music industry, with many starting to subscribe to the idea that the clock is ticking for behemoth record companies like Sony and BMG.
This is a knee-jerk reaction. Reports suggest the average downloader is paying between five to eight dollars to download “In Rainbows”. This is a veritable steal considering most digital downloads from stores like iTunes cost one dollar a track (there are 10 on the album), and CD’s are often priced well into the double digits.
Well, it would be a veritable steal. That is, if it wasn’t available for free. People have asked me why I didn't pay anything for "In Rainbows," or if I feel guilty for doing so. I pondered that question myself as I entered nill into the donation bin of rock.
After all -- this is a social experiment. It’s a question of what the experience of music is worth to us personally, on an emotional and economical level. Blah blah blah.
What "In Rainbows" should really be seen as is a sample survey on how fiscally responsible we are.
If you take a pragmatic look at the situation, the idea that Radiohead should be hailed as some sort of musical Che Guerra is absurd. People were going to download their album for free anyways, through Bit Torrent and other piracy venues. In fact, I would wager that the very same people who were going to steal it are now the ones paying nominal prices for an inferior version of the album.
What the band has done is basically just ask their fans to donate money. For nothing. Every cent that goes toward the digital download of "In Rainbows" is money Radiohead would never have seen had they only released a CD version.
People willing to buy the album will still buy it – they want something tangible. For everyone else, however, who otherwise would have downloaded the album illegally but not necessarily purchased it, this is an unexpected expense. People have been programmed as consumers to pay for a service. It’s not surprising that many would feel bad for actually having to type "nothing" into a donation box.
Downloading from some faceless peer-to-peer site is easy. “Stealing” directly from the source seems somewhat more difficult and guilt inducing. And so, small numerical values start being entered by downloaders into the “how much will you pay” box, all the while rationalizing it by telling themselves how little they are paying for an album. But you know what’s cheaper than one or two? Zero.
The band that created arguably the greatest rock album of the past 20 years in “OK Computer” have taken hundreds of music fans (and probably more than a handful of college students) and essentially shaken them down for their lunch money.
Not everyone may have thought hearing Paranoid Android was a seminal point in their lives, but somehow Radiohead have guilt tripped music pirates into paying for music – and incredibly, convinced them to do so happily. If that doesn’t prove the band is a foursome of musical geniuses, I frankly do not know what will.
To be fair, “In Rainbows” is a gorgeous album (yes, there is actually music involved in all this), with sweeping melodies and a driving rhythm section that somehow have made an album that does nothing crazy, and sounds perfect within its familiarity. In short, it is so un-Radiohead avant-garde it actually is Radiohead avant-garde (like that episode of South Park where a goth kid decides he is so goth, he's going to be conformist instead of non-conformist). I will probably buy the CD when it comes out, just to hear Reckoner in better quality.
However, Thom Yorke lives in a giant house, while I just ate ramen noodles for dinner again.
So no, the answer is I don’t feel bad for downloading “In Rainbows” for nothing. And neither should you.
Oct 11, 2007
question
you awake one day to find yourself in the bedroom of one of your closest friends of the opposite gender.
you are not, however, merely sleeping in his or her bed. you quickly realize that, somehow, you have actually been transported into your friends body, similar to the movie "being john malkovich."
you are befuddled by this surreal turn of events.
do you look at yourself naked?
you are not, however, merely sleeping in his or her bed. you quickly realize that, somehow, you have actually been transported into your friends body, similar to the movie "being john malkovich."
you are befuddled by this surreal turn of events.
do you look at yourself naked?
blink
it's funny how from utterly asinine conversation, you can glean morsels of wisdom.
life is just too short, too unpredictable, to spend it doing anything but enjoying every moment to the fullest. having that mentality changes so much of the way we approach every decision we make, yet we so often take for granted that the next day will even exist for us.
i guess it's kind of morbid to think about. and it's also awfully cliche. but at the same time, i'd rather spend my time preventing myself from having regrets, than having to live with them later on.
the impact we have on those around us, our legacy; to some it might all be irrelevant in the greater scheme of our biological existence.
ironically of course, if that's the case -- doesn't what we do now count for even more?
life is just too short, too unpredictable, to spend it doing anything but enjoying every moment to the fullest. having that mentality changes so much of the way we approach every decision we make, yet we so often take for granted that the next day will even exist for us.
i guess it's kind of morbid to think about. and it's also awfully cliche. but at the same time, i'd rather spend my time preventing myself from having regrets, than having to live with them later on.
the impact we have on those around us, our legacy; to some it might all be irrelevant in the greater scheme of our biological existence.
ironically of course, if that's the case -- doesn't what we do now count for even more?
Oct 9, 2007
LAST SONNET
by: John Keats (1795-1821)
- BRIGHT Star, would I were steadfast as thou art--
- Not in lone splendour hung aloft the night,
- And watching, with eternal lids apart,
- Like Nature's patient sleepless Eremite,
- The moving waters at their priest-like task
- Of pure ablution round earth's human shores,
- Or gazing on the new soft-fallen mask
- Of snow upon the mountains and the moors--
- No--yet still steadfast, still unchangeable,
- Pillow'd upon my fair love's ripening breast,
- To feel for ever its soft fall and swell,
- Awake for ever in a sweet unrest,
- Still, still to hear her tender-taken breath,
- And so live ever--or else swoon to death.
neat huh?
Oct 3, 2007
Last Week
[Tues]
14:00, Curry chicken, bowl of rice
23:00, Bowl of cereal, pear
[Wed]
11:30, Ham sandwich
14:00, 1 slice pepperoni pizza
20:00, 1 can cream of mushroom soup
23:15, Bowl of cereal
[Thurs]
16:00, Bowl of instant noodles
18:30, Banana
[Fri]
16:00, Bowl of cereal, Banana, some toasted almonds
20:00, Rice w/ various dishes
[Sat]
08:00, Timbits
14:00, 2 Hamburgers, small box of smarties
20:00, 10 course Chinese wedding banquet
[Sun]
12:00, Vietnamese grilled chicken on rice
20:00, Rare beef Pho, small
[Mon]
11:00, Pasta w/ pesto sauce, tomatoes and sausage
13:00, 1 pear
20:00, Rice /w various dishes, 1 orange
[Tues]
13:00, Rice /w various dishes
18:00, 1 Red bean popsicle
20:00, 1 Wendy's Jr. Bacon Cheeseburger
In conclusion, I believe I need to eat more fruits and vegetables.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)