Oh. It just occurred to me to actually look at my car's license plates, and...

They aren't the plates that are supposed to be on it.

My car's plate number (yes I memorize this, I also memorize my credit card numbers) begins with 47F. The plates that are on it begin with 41F. The last three numbers are the same. Both front and back plates are the same.

They're also way more bent up than I remember them being.

+++MORE DETAILS ON THE GREAT LICENSE PLATE MYSTERY AS IT DEVELOPS+++

SORRY FOR BEING SUSPICIOUS OF YOU LAW ENFORCEMENT

http://richarddawkins.net/article,3004,n,n

Evolution in its earliest days was derided by some for what they believed was a lack of observable evidence. However, a major piece of supporting evidence for evolution has come from computer analysis of cellular compounds. By examining minute details in organisms' genomes, we have observed how traits were transferred to descendants and how other traits arose at different points in the evolutionary ladder.

http://richarddawkins.net/article,3003,n,n

People start to write because they think they can change the world for the better. In the end, you find that it's hard enough to make your writing better. Occasionally, though, you can change something, even if it's only yourself. You probably already know this story: a group of prisoners in Auschwitz convened a rabbinical court, put God himself on trial - and found him guilty. I'm pretty sure now that it's an apocryphal tale, one of those stories that persists because it strikes a chord. It certainly struck a chord with a producer called Mark Redhead, who had been trying to turn the story into a film for almost 20 years by the time he called me in 2005 to write the screenplay.

http://richarddawkins.net/article,3002,n,n

All Things Considered, August 17, 2008 · A group of people claiming to be the heirs of the legendary Knights Templar are suing Pope Benedict XVI, seeking more than $150 billion for assets seized by the Catholic Church seven centuries ago.

http://richarddawkins.net/article,3001,n,n

On Saturday, March 8th, 2008, Richard Dawkins gave a lecture on The God Delusion during his US Tour. The event took place on the UC Berkeley campus in Wheeler Auditorium, and was completely sold out. A line of hopeful attendees stretched around the side of the building, waiting to see if there would be any 'no-show' tickets at the last minute! This is the Q&A session after the lecture

http://richarddawkins.net/article,3000,n,n

This is a PAL edition of the program, and is limited to Region 2 (Europe, including France, Greece, Turkey, Egypt, Arabia, Japan and South Africa). Unless you have a region free DVD player, it will not play unless your DVD player is from one of these countries.

http://richarddawkins.net/article,2999,n,n

Never mind the Olympic Games, The Genius of Charles Darwin last night offered a display of mental and verbal gymnastics the equal of anything seen on the pommel horses and asymmetric bars of Beijing, culminating in a head to head between the vast intellect of Professor Richard Dawkins and the similarly impressive mind of Dr Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury. It was absorbing stuff, perhaps more evocative of the judo than the gymnastics, with Dawkins assuming a position of absolute certitude about evolutionary theory, and the Archbish unable to floor him even with some ingenious manoeuvring on the Virgin Birth.

So I was driving perfect last night and I got pulled over by the cops and the cop kept asking me if my plates were supposed to be on my car and I was like "yes" because they are. So anyway after a while he told me that there must be some error at the RMV and they had the wrong license number entered for my car and I should get it fixed.

I just got back from the RMV and they said there's nothing wrong, all the numbers are right.

So I think the cop entered the wrong license number into his cop-car computer after gunning it up real close behind me. And I think he kind of did it on purpose? Because I kind of have a drug dealer car but still that's pretty fucked up? Because you can get pulled over for no reason at all?

new shert?:



(first set of stairs on the front, second would go on the back)

( help me pick some colors )

bird names - nobody loves me

I'm looking for a software recommendation guys!

Basically I've got a handful of servers that I ssh into often. I like to leave "top" running so I can keep an eye on how things are going. This worked well for 2 servers, but now whenever the internet goes down and I lose my connection, I'm having to re-log in to 7, 8 servers at a time. NOT FUN.

Is the a program that will automatically restore a connection on disconnect and which will let me keep track of multiple servers at once? Ideally I'd like to see the output of multiple servers in one window: my current technique is to arrage PuTTY windows so they display what I want, and it is hacky and weak.

extra bonus points: sending some activity once in a while so that my lameo router won't end the connection if it's left open.

SUGGESTIONS??

update: guys thanks for the suggestion for screen! But I want to see all the windows at once, so I've got at-a-glance server status. As far as I know screen doesn't allow that...

YouTube, blogs, and other technological advancements have widened the road between content producers and audience. Now, more than at any other time in human history, it is easier for everyone to create content and easier for everyone to access and find content that interests them. By (mostly) avoiding television for the past ten years, I kept my media intake down to a minimum. Web 2.0 has changed that.

Jana used to just watch the latest movie trailers and then go to bed. But now there are twice as many trailers and movie clips, especially over at the competing Yahoo site, and she is also fond of cuteoverload.com, icanhascheezburger.com, and other sites that feature or aggregate user-created content. Sometimes she even checks out digg.com, the ultimate black hole of time. In short, she never has to go to bed. Available content of interest is endless!

And her problem is nothing compared to mine. I logged on to a BBS in 1988 and have been surfing the Web and honing my content-herding skills ever since... as each new trend of content distribution has crested, I've been floating along, enjoying the show.

I'm not bragging, really; I am confessing. I am a fast-food junkie of content, my fat, distended gut glutted with videos, philosophical diatribes, WebComics, and aggregated articles about the topics I love most. From Yahoo in 1994 to "Digging" for "delicious" snacks I "stumble upon", indeed! Sure, sometimes my brain and my blog are filled with fun connections... but more often my brain looks and smells like a public restroom. Or like a jam-packed rental storage unit with a massive mold problem.

I do want to continue to create content and enjoy the content of others, but I really need to be more selective. There are plenty of great tools out there to help me be more selective... but is that part of the same rat race? If I develop clever LJ filters and custom saved digg categories, am I not simply maximizing further?

I am a pretty good maximizer, but perhaps I am maximizing the wrong things.

By what criteria should I be maximizing? My dad makes photo CDs, my wife makes acting tutorial movies, I write stories. Content created by those I love (my friends, family, and self) receives the highest score, but what comes next? Should I shepherd my intellectual development, my joys, my altruism, my lust? Could I assign every incoming item a series of ranks on each category, giving a story about XO laptops an 8 for intellect, a 6 for joy, a 0 for lust, and a 9 for altruism?

Maybe I could create a mega-complex ranking system and design a massive filter program that will do all the reading for me and then boil down the entire Internet and other digital sources into just five brain-stimulating stories, articles, or targets a day?

I know some Web sites do this already, but maybe they could do it for every e-mail, phone call, Web site, advertisement, and conversation?

-d

p.s.
The blog post below, which focuses mostly on the communication aspect of the problem, rang a lot of bells for me. It made its way to me via an RSS subscription that is filtered for writing content about issues I respect or find interesting:

"Too Connected: Utopias and Distopias of Communication (Noise!)"

p.p.s.
Yes, I know I've ranted about this before. I probably will again. If the topic tires you, set up your filter to block the topic... gah!

For a long time, I have believed that atheism is the only faith that stands the "test of time." I say that because:

1) As soon as humans were capable of thought, the "faith option" to believe in no superior being was an option.
2) No matter what humans conceive as a possible supreme being, there will always be an option to deny it.


but this morning I had a thought that I can't get rid of.

Most Atheists are big fans of reason and observation... WHAT IF a being approached an Atheist and claimed to be God? Would the Atheist still have doubt? I imagine he would. If God asked the Atheist to devise an experiment such that the God could prove himself -- what might the experiment consist of?

Bringing an evil comic to you from sinfest:

( Evil on Sale )

Indeed, the fact that there are brilliant scientists who believe in God and brilliant scientists who don't makes it clear that the conflict is not a simplistic one between science and religion, but between opposing world views - naturalism and theism. Naturalism opposes supernaturalism and insists that the natural world exists without incursion from outside, or as Carl Sagan put it: "The cosmos is all there is, or was, or ever shall be." The theistic view finds expression in the opening words of Genesis: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Theism understands the universe not to be a closed system, but a creation, initiated and maintained by God.

The Genesis statement is a statement of belief, not a statement of science. This is precisely the case with Sagan's assertion as well. He is expressing a personal belief that emanates from a world view, rather than science. When we ask ourselves whether science has sounded the death knell of God, we are really asking: "Which world view does science support, naturalism or theism?"

From:
http://www.watoday.com.au/opinion/why-not-every-scientist-worships-at-darwins-feet-20080818-3x8u.html?page=-1

It's a reasonably good article, but the question posed by professor Lennox is simply not a scientific question (and therefore science will not support an answer), although both can make contributions to what is fundamentally a question of ontology and cosmology.

More HERE @ wow_genius

http://richarddawkins.net/article,2998,n,n

Darwin's time has come again. Heralded by new biographies and editions of his works, a dual anniversary looms: 2009 will mark 200 years since his birth, and 150 years since the publication of On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. Like Marx and Freud, the other towering nineteenth-century humanists whose names are dropped in the same breath as his, he embedded in our world view fundamental concepts that once embraced will not let go. But unlike the variants of Marxist and Freudian thought that have launched a thousand experiments (not all seaworthy), evolution is accepted as fact, not theory, at least as far as biology is concerned. And with biology brought to heel, evolutionists have been hard at work figuring out how and why humans behave and think the way they do, both as individuals and as societies.

I guess it doesn't even matter but looks like you're only be able to get your new Guns' N Roses and AC/DC records at Wal-Mart (Chinese Democracy indeed), ensuring anybody who steals either of these albums absolutely no guilt whatsoever.

In related news what do you think I should do with SHITTR.COM? I was thinking about making it like Twitter but only for crapping and what your turds are like but that idea sucks and Rich would be the only one to use it.