End of Time

End of the world is coming! Well, maybe not

2008-08-05T13:17:00.001-07:00

So the LHC is going to be started in about 1 day or so (http://lhcountdown.com), and it has the slight possibility of creating a black hole. Now some say if it does create it, it'll disappear. Others say it'll eat the earth from the inside out. Some say we'll know it's happening, but it'll be instant (time dilation type of thing I'm guessing) -- but one thing I do know for certain: the countdown site will go down. Ever since the countdown site was listed, they've been flooded by so many hits that the site's down more than it's up.

No matter what happens that day, either the world will end or it won't. No one can say with 100% certainty. Just to be creative, I'll just place a bet that we'll have unusual volcanic, tectonic (earthquake) and weather/water based things going on when it's running. There -- now it's in print so everyone can reference it. But in all reality, whatever happens will probably be nothing of too much interest. It might advance our scientific knowledge which will them be used to create new ways to kill ourselves off. It might destroy the earth. It might just mess up the earth. But in the end, we probably won't notice anything really different. Of course we might not be here, but it'd happen so "quick" that no one would even realize it.

Fear the Water

2008-05-29T05:56:00.001-07:00

Just a quick thing that's bee on my mind lately…. For some completely unknown reason, I've been fearing the water. I keep on seeing water destroying large areas of land whenever I try to get to sleep. Sometimes in large areas of land that collapse in a earthquake, then get filled in with water (either water table or rivers). Sometimes in tsunamis, worldwide flooding, or like impacts. Sometimes the water glows and fills in large areas (like a huge magma lake on the surface).

It's the strangest thing to be popping into my mind every single day and when I'm not paying attention to things -- especially when, other than a rive about 10 miles away, rare for water to be in my mind now.

Midwest Earthquakes

2008-04-18T14:18:00.001-07:00

Today there were a number of earthquakes in the Midwest. Surprisingly I only felt one of the aftershocks (despite there apparently being a 5.4, and a 4.6 -- the 5.4 one woke me up briefly I think). Given the past few years of me monitoring the earthquakes in the region, it seems a tad bit out of place. Normally we only have a "bigger" one if there hadn't been one for a long while. Yet in this case we had a smaller one on Wednesday [2 days ago].

While it doesn't mark the end of the world (by itself), it is an interesting phenomenon. I've said for years that there's going to be a big earthquake in the Midwest again, one of the reasons why I monitor the small ones for trends. Today's was out of the ordinary. While I was out walking a thought hit me, "what if a volcano started to form". Now I'm sure it's highly unlikely for it to happen within the next few hundred thousand years, but it sure would make life here a lot more interesting. What's not as interesting is bridges and rivers in the area. Are they really designed to withstand earthquakes? And is it even possible for an earthquake in this area to alter a river's path?

Here's the thing, it's not if a big earthquake will hit in the Midwest, but when. Overdue? Not really, we're still within a "could happen anytime" zone right now. It is said some places that a 7.5 or greater could hit between 2012 and 2112 (look even slightly familiar?) But it does raise one question, what are the towns in the Midwest doing to make themselves ready for a massive earthquake? And what would happen to our food? Big earthquake, loss of power, multiple state damage, Memphis, St Louis, Chicago, Indianapolis (to name a few cities) could have massive building failures. Think New Orleans was bad? Imagine having to rebuild the equivalent of two states with potential side effects that could last 5-10 years. Midwest even produces OIL; it's not just corn, soybeans, etc! And it's all in the earthquake zone.

And guess what? Towns don't even have earthquake preparedness classes or anything! Things that should be provided free of charge to the community, and they're nowhere to be seen. I doubt very many (if any) bridges are built to withstand earthquakes, you know if there's a big one they'd all have to be inspected. Some might have to be torn down or fixed. Lose a lot of bridges and entire communities will be blocked off from the "outside world"! It's a disaster waiting to happen -- and one that no one seems to care to prepare for.

The customer isn't always right

2008-04-05T15:14:00.001-07:00

That's right, the customer is always wrong. "Always" being the same as they're "always" right.

Customers are rarely right with things. Really, they aren't. Did they really buy this beaten up basketball last week at a store that only sells shoes because their friend said they got it there? Yet that's something a customer tries to pull. Even "you sell pop, therefore you should sell this pop, therefore I should have a refund on this pop that I bought 'here' (i.e. someplace else)". Again, something pulled by customers. Are they right? I'm sure a number of people out there think that no matter where you buy something you should be able to take it to anyplace (without a receipt, or with one that clearly says it's another place) and get a refund. Come on, do you people really think that every single business in the world's actually the same company? That's what these customers are acting like. Then they think of something like "well you get a refund from the distributer" -- maybe, for their cost, not their selling price (which is what is expected to be refunded).

Think of it another way. You have two friends that are selling speakers. You buy a set from friend A, and then take them to friend B for a refund. If friend B gives you one -- do you really think they broke even?

But the main reason why the customer isn't always right is a bit different.

By the customer being always right, your employees have to be always wrong (unless they agree with the customer). Which means that employees will know that no matter what the company policy is, no matter how they're trained, no matter how polite or helpful they are; they'll be stabbed in the back the second the customer goes to the manager to complain. Got a customer trying to return a five year old item that hasn't been stocked for four years -- without a receipt, when the store has a policy of a 30 day return policy? If you're the employee you might as well give up now. Might as well not even mention the policy -- because as soon as management comes they'll cave in, give the refund, and in some cases reprimand the employee for not providing good customer service. If the employee had of given the refund, guess what would happen? The employee would be reprimanded for going against company policy. Some work environment eh?
Abusive and threatening customers would be rewarded. Don't think so? What happens if a customer punches an employee for not giving a discount (yes, it's happened before), then demands special treatment by threatening in loud tones about everything wrong with the company ("the employee tried to rape me!" or anything that shocks and makes everyone turn to look -- you know, the things that would make people not shop there if true)? You guessed it! The managers would have to give the customer what they want to quiet them. Of course this has the side effect of other people thinking "if the comments weren't true, they wouldn't have caved in!", and others thinking "the more I yell, the better treatment I'll get!" And that's a good work environment there. Sell computers, TVs or just TV dinners and you'll know that the customers are ready to treat you like scum, abuse you, threaten you and whoever threatens you the most will get the best service -- and management will back the customers.
Customers that cause tons of problems every time they come in aren't customers. I know how can they not be right? As soon as you have a "customer" that comes in for a refund for something you've never stocked, and demands that you give them a refund, they're not a customer. They're not buying anything. If a "customer" walks in and does nothing but harass employees and management (taking them away from their duties and other customers), they're COSTING you more money than they'd ever spend! A person costing you money isn't a customer, they're a liability. Which is how there's two types of customers. Those that plan on buying something, and those that want something for nothing. The latter aren't customers, they're freeloaders. And since freeloaders aren't shopping with you, there's no reason to treat them with more respect, and give them more resources than those customers who are actually paying you.
When employee's come first, you have better customer service. Why? Well it's quite simple really. When your employees know that if a customer starts yelling and threatening they can have them removed from the store without being fired. They know that if they uphold company policies they'll be backed, not stabbed in the back. They know that if a customer tries to rip the company off, they don't have to bend over and take it, they can show the customer the door. When employees know that they actually have the same rights as any other human -- they'll treat the customers better. They won't be stressed out, upset, and just on the verge of wanting to hit someone because they have to take crap from customers that are in the wrong (but "right" based on an inaccurate policy). Employees will be quicker, more productive, and have fewer lines -- which will create a better experience for your actual customers. And don't get me wrong here, you'll have a few "customers" complain, but if the people really know how things go on, even your customers will back and defend you!
Some customers are so wrong, that they can't be right. If the customer is always right, a group of hate mongrels could walk into your store wearing a hate shirt, hat, or just start talking really loudly about some employee with racial slurs -- and you'd have to give them what they want to shut them up. Or you could say the customer isn't always right, and kick them out. If you had a customer that walked into the store and said "I want everything here for free now!" and started to make a scene, what then? If an employee comes in and starts shouting racial slurs towards your employees or item selections, what then? Could you ever really have a customer shoplift, since if they're always right…. Or as the joke would go, if the customer is always right, what if the customer says "I'm wrong."?

The main thing to think of is this: just because the customer isn't always right (which they never have been) doesn't mean you can't make them happy. If a customer can go to your place and receive quick and friendly service (even if paying a bit more), do you really think they'll go to your competitor where they have long lines, crappy customer service, and employees that run and hide for fear of getting in trouble? How many times have you gone to a store and noticed that they have employees that seem worn down, tired, grumpy, and almost hiding from customers -- but they were able to make decisions on the spot? How many places have you had friendly, upbeat employees that didn't force smiles to help you -- that could make decisions on the spot, or at the least had management that backed them?

We're the pets of the government (Population Control, Part 2)

2008-04-01T14:59:00.001-07:00

It's always a wonderful day when you start thinking about population control for no apparent reason. It was on my mind so much that I couldn't get to sleep. Know why? Because we're just the pets of the government. Really, that's what we are! Especially in any country where population controls are in place.

You can say it's for a completely legitimate reason, I know there are many that will say that, but it's the same thing people say about their pets. Get your dog and cats spayed and neutered -- can't have those things running around getting knocked up can we? So we do what's best to control their populations. And governments decide that their pets are out of control, so they go and pass laws and such to keep them in line. We're just pets. The cute little furry things that they pet every so often so we know we're loved. And sometimes, if we're really obedient and don't hump their legs, we might get a few scraps tossed at us.

When did this happen? When did humans get pushed aside as equals and made into the animals of the governments -- that are supposedly run by humans! What makes them better than us? Being elected? Well that makes about as much sense as saying that the rich have the right to poke the middle class and lower people with sticks because it makes them laugh. Although based on some of the so-called rich people's attitudes, it makes you wonder.

So as the new pets of the world, soon our owners will decide we like sex too much. Oh they'll try the "just don't do it!", or try to make condoms so expensive kids can't buy them. Then when STD's are on the rise they'll think of something else. Chances are they'd look at history and think, what a minute, we already tried that... And then they will be down to only a few choices. Kill people, force sterilization, or just dose everyone and "let god sort it out". As I sit here looking at the yellow-looking pop in my glass, it makes me wonder what's really in it.

Population Control

2008-03-30T00:34:00.001-07:00

This is perhaps one of the most useless things in the history of mankind that violates everything that makes a person human. And yes, I do think the world could use a lot fewer people on it right now, given how humans live. We spread all over the earth, taking up miles and miles of space -- when only a few blocks would do. But that isn't the point here. Soon different countries will end up limiting the number of children a family can have. Oh they'll say it's to help keep the population under control, and by the time they implement it, everyone will seem happy about it. But it's evil. What happens if they say a couple can only have two kids? What happens if they get a divorce and marry someone else? If it's phrased "wrong" they'll be some women and men who will never be able to have children not because they already have them -- but their spouse does. Picture a person who has a child with their spouse. The spouse dies. That person already has the max number of children allowed -- so whoever they marry or date will not only not want their own kids, but want kids.

People need to realize that the only way to maintain population controls is to murder, force castration, force abortions, and basically force people to request permission to have a child (and possibly sex). Don't think it'd happen like that? Oh, just wait. You see if you have one kid, and then you have another one illegally what else will they do? Throw the baby in prison or put it up for adoption? But then other couples will have maxed out their children or be forced not to have children of their own. But the governments are smart that way, they know people won't stand having their family torn apart for no good reason -- so they'll just force abortions or castrations on people. But then people will start to realize that those methods are way too violent -- and someone might complain.

So what then? Quite simple really: Governments will sterilize the populations without them realizing it. How? Well let's just say it's a fairly safe bet that humans drink water. Slip a few chemicals into the water supply that will sterilize the population and no one will be the wiser. Oh don't get me wrong, it won't be 100% effective, they'll try for maybe 10-25% of the population. And the best part is no one will ever realize it. It's not something that people would go around telling others -- not at first anyway. As soon as people start to realize that a number of their friends are sterile and it starts to make the news, maybe even before, a huge release of "disease X has caused humans to be sterile!" or even "cure for disease X has a potential side effect of sterilization". And that will be one glorious day.

Because at this point where the government's attempt to sterilize their populations -- they'll make a mistake. Their 10-25% population numbers will be higher to 75%+. Governments will panic and immediately stop all sterilization drugs in water supplies. Since it only takes one person in a couple being sterile to prevent conception, close to all couples in the world won't be able to have children. Populations will decrease rapidly within twenty years, causing a fear of "humans extinct due to sterilization?!?" headlines. People will be tested and forced donations will be done to artificially produce offspring in test tubes to try and repopulate humankind. Then it'll hit people, or perhaps before depending on the extent, the animal-based food supply will be affected as well. Entire lines of animals will die out (from drinking the same water as people). This will cause a huge food shortage (or at the least, force more people into being vegetarians). Some of the few people left alive that aren't sterile will be given the food, with the remaining being handed out to the others.

In the end, humans will survive. Just nowhere near the current population or lifestyles that we're accustomed -- then again, maybe we'll all die out due to some unforeseen side effects of the drugs -- like all of our offspring being sterile. That'd be the real treat. Mankind will kill off our entire species, in the attempt to cut back our population without the people complaining.

Kind of makes one wonder: are they actually planning this without anyone knowing about it? We'll never know, until we've drank up our species deaths.

Hagglers welcome at stores…

2008-03-24T13:32:00.001-07:00

"There was a New York Times article titled "Even at Megastores, Hagglers Find No Price Is Set in Stone"

I do understand that papers want to run articles of public interest. However the article "Even at Megastores, Hagglers Find No Price Is Set in Stone" (By Matt Richtel - Published: March 23, 2008) also runs the risk of hurting people. I know what you're thinking, how can it possibly hurt someone?

Now while I agree that many items in stores seem overpriced, there are many reasons for it such as overhead and shoplifting. There's a markup on everything so they can pay the store's bills and buy more goods to stock the shelves. If someone tries to haggle on a price and the store agrees ("less profit is better than none" belief), it doesn't generally matter for a few customers as they'd recoup the cost with other items, possibly that they themselves bought. However, every sale costs the company money. Even if the sale generates profit by itself, the company could have spent more money to sell it than they made (ex: 30 minutes of an employee who makes $10/hr to make a $5 profit on an item – they "broke even").

The problem comes is with the article, more people are going to assume that they can haggle for prices anywhere. And that's a problem since they can't. More customers demanding lower prices mean more time taken out to negotiate. This means you are either understaffed (resulting in complaints and demands for discounts for the inconvenience), or more employees being hired which will cause prices to increase drastically. Why? Well for one they have to increase prices to give themselves more "haggle room" and two so that when the price is haggled down to the original selling price, they can pay for all the new employees that were hired to do the haggling! This leads to another problem. You walk into a store and find something noticeably more expensive than a competitor. What do you do? Either you leave and go to the competitor, or you haggle. Which means prices can't be increased a lot, so no new employees – so longer wait times. Assuming everything goes smoothly, you'll have a longer checkout time – five people in line, all prices have to be manually edited. A simple 20 minute visit could take you an hour.

Now let's say a store has two customers that are both buying the same TV. They enter electronics at different times for the haggle – but hit the checkouts at the same time. "Frank" gets $500 off the TV. "Charlie" only gets $450 off (you know, since haggling doesn't yield the same price off for everyone – unless it's a "fake haggle" where the store has a set price, and a second set price that's the actual price they want). Now when at the register, Charlie realizes that Frank got a better deal, so he demands another $50 off, and files a complaint against the employee (since you know, the employee probably said it was as low as they could go). Cashier is authorized to make the change (since the computer says so), and they're both happy. Frank goes home and discovers the TV's damaged so he returns it – and requests another discount because he had to make two trips for it. This would mean that the TV was marked up not just $500, but closer to $750-1000 over their cost – so they could haggle if needed. But it doesn't seem too bad.

But let's take this same situation from the employee's point of view.

Frank walks into electronics and sees a 27" widescreen LCD for $2500. He knows he saw the "exact same thing" at the store a few weeks ago for only $1200. And here the problem starts. Now I'll assume that the employee isn't busy with another customer and everything goes smoothly overall, which isn't always the case.

Frank: "Excuse me. I need to talk to someone about this TV."
Employee: "How can I help you?"
Frank: "I saw this exact same TV in here a few weeks ago and it was only $1200! So that's what I want to pay."
Employee: "We just got this TV in last week. It's a new model that (lists new features). We don't have the old one anymore."

(At this point Frank would complain, assuming employee is lying, accuse the employee of such, etc)

Frank: "Then just give me a thousand off this one."

(Employee checks computer, it's marked up $750 – i.e. only $750 can be taken off without a loss)

Employee: "We can take off $250."
Frank: "That's unacceptable! The other model was only $1200, and I should be able to get this newer one for just a bit more!"

(Insert a few minutes of complaints and explanations)

Employee (assuming a manager didn't have to step in): "We can take off $750."
Frank: "Fine." (leaves with TV in a huff).

Now, after the employee just got ripped a new one by one customer, she gets to get to deal with a few hundred more. If they heard that you could haggle – guess what they'd want to do? And guess what happens to the wait times? Figure out what will happen next? Demands for free or greater-discounted stuff for the long wait. All the while the employees are the target of the customer's rage. And they're not paid enough for it.

Most customers are generally kind to employees. But there's a percentage that aren't. Now that people have discovered that haggling can be done at some stores, they'll just assume it can be done anywhere ("But company X does it! If you don't do it I'll go there!"). They'll start being mean to employees, anything they can think of to make sure they get a discount. People complain now that it's hard to find employees to help you – imagine how hard it'd be if almost everyone needs an employee every time they visit the store. It'd reach a point that anything shy of one employee per customer and you'll have complaints (demanding more discounts!). Brick and mortar stores will have huge operating costs that they won't be able to pass on to customers, since the customers will just demand it be removed or "they'll go somewhere else". They wouldn't hire more people since they couldn't cover the costs. It'd just make more hassle and an overall hostile work environment.

While biased since it's an "employee customer horror story" site, you may want to visit http://www.customerssuck.com/board/ -- you'll get some ideas as to what employees deal with everyday, or every week for the lucky ones.

And that leads to the point of how that article will hurt people in one sentence: Many companies won't allow haggling for the reasons I put in here – and the customers will take it out on the employees.

I know that article was just trying to let people know of a "hidden secret" of sorts. But all it's going to do is hurt people. And like I said, a few people wanting to haggle is no big deal. But if your entire clientele realizes it – you've got some major problems. And from me visiting those stores listed in the article I can say I had a hard enough time getting help as it was with no one haggling. Now I don't know if I even want to visit them.

Cable that watches you back

2008-03-21T10:03:00.001-07:00

Isn't it great to know that in the great USA your cable box will watch you? Isn't that great! Your cable box may have a camera inside it to peer into your lives to see who it recognizes -- you know, so it can customize your favorite channels. Just as Comcast! But don't worry, it's not going to recognize you based on face, just your body shape. So I guess if you're dieting and the cable box doesn't know who you are, congrats!

Couldn't you just imagine the bedroom! Lying there doing whatever it is you do when lying in bed watching TV. Couldn't you just imagine certain motions causing you to have a lineup of the skin channels, while others letting you see your crime dramas? Or just imagine the horror if your best friend comes in and the TV stations switch again.

I don't know about you all, but I can say without hesitation that when your TV starts watching you back, it's just another step to the end. Maybe not the end of life, but the end of something; privacy comes to mind. I could only imagine what would happen if the cameras actually had clear pictures, and some hacker found a way to get live feeds into America's bedrooms. The "greatest" porn site of them all would be launched "Comcast bedrooms" or "Hidden bedroom cams" -- come to think of it, they probably already exist.

Gamma Ray Burst Visible with Eyes, No Telescope Needed

2008-03-20T21:45:00.001-07:00

Ah, doesn't this make you feel all warm and cozy inside? Gamma rays burst and you don't need any special tools to see it! Kind of makes them seem extra dangerous don't they? It does raise a question, are we noticing them more now because we're looking for them, or are they too picking up in frequency? Ok, maybe not "frequency" as this one was 7.5 billion years old (the earth wasn't even here when it happened). If you look for something, maybe you'll just find it. But then with the Mayan Calendar "ending" in 2012, and all these exciting things going on, almost makes you wonder.

Almost that is. Personally I'd love to have a near miss of a burst, just once, just to see what it'd look like. The rioting would be about as amazing as the churches being overrun by the "so-called" religious that never visited before. I think I'd be more partial to an asteroid myself… that or a massive volcanic eruption. Something that gives so much warning that we may or may not know the exact day of the end; but just enough for people to show their true selves.

FBI posts fake hyperlinks in order to catch child predators

2008-03-20T21:32:00.001-07:00

Here we go -- actual examples of how the link scanners could (if the pages happened to be linked by search engines, while searching not for specific content, but info about it) get you arrested. Apparently the FBI's going around posting links to the illegal porn on sites, and getting search warrants. Now while on the surface this seems to make sense (despite all the problems, such as finding out the referrer to the content, and the content of the post that leads someone to the page), it'd be extremely easy to not only accidently click such a link -- but to also not even need to click it. What if someone wants to get even with you, so they send you an e-mail that just so happens to open up the link? What if you're just doing harmless searching and the page (or even a page that links to it, but isn't a porn site in itself)?

While it's true that now the story's broke out, they're probably getting nailed from every side possible -- and eventually will either fix the problems, or realize that "hey, we just had fifty million people go looking for illegal porn stuff, maybe something's up!" At least I hope so.

Safari the new "malware"?

2008-03-19T20:12:00.001-07:00

No, it's not really bad. Well, I don't think it's bad that is, never used it myself. I figure using one primary browser with IE and Opera as backups is good enough (especially with all a free "see your website in other browsers/OS's" site). But I did think about installing it once!

So when I logged on today and saw Apple's updater saying that I needed to upgrade (yes UPGRADE not INSTALL) to Safari 3.1 for bug fixes (or something), I almost clicked install. In fact, had it not of required administritave permissions and actually had that little "admin required" icon on the button, I may have clicked it. But only for one reason, I thought that maybe I did install it and forgot about it! Been known to happen before. I've needed a program, found some free open source version, downloaded it only to be prompted with an "overwrite" or "filename(1)" in the folder -- because I've not only downloaded it before but installed it.

But with this program, I never did install it. The only traces of "safari" that exist is in my browser's history. So what's with Apple doing this? That's not an update by any means of the word! It's an actual install of a brand new program. Yet they purposely put it in their updater utility. And I'd bet that there are thousands of people out there that did click install. I'd also bet it happened to set itself as the default browser too. Funny, isn't it, that that's the act of malware?

Now I'm sure in today's software climate they're going to get nailed for this. But it's a sad thing when a legitimate company goes trying to trick users into installing their programs. I wonder how long before an apology surfaces… probably before this post hits the net -- they probably had the apology press release made before they pushed it out to everyone.

Beware of Linkscanners (Link Scanners) -- the things that check search results for viruses and malware

2008-03-06T11:45:00.001-08:00

Please keep this in mind: Most likely you're using these and don't entirely know it! Many anti-virus companies have these "link scanners" setup on your computer just by installing their anti-virus program. Others, such as siteadvisor (that was purchased by McAfee) are stand-alone applications. I haven't tested them all, nor do I care to do so. But some of these are very bad things!

Why? Well there's two main reasons, and they all fall into one of these categories.

Category 1 -- Sends the link to a central DB for checking.

Why is this bad? Well let's say a site is classified as "Good", then it gets attacked and a virus gets uploaded the second after the test. Guess what? The site's no longer safe. But until the database for the program (*cough* siteadvisor *cough*) is updated in a timely fashion you'll go browsing around the site in a false sense of security. With a hope that your anti-virus program will block anything bad that might be on it. Computer viruses and malware are kind of like STD's. You could get tested at noon, but if the second the last test sample is taken you have sex with the nurse -- the results are potentially invalid for your current state.

Category 2 -- Parses the search result page for links, and then downloads all the info from the link pages to scan

Need I say more? If you're like me and have set your search preferences to return more than the top 10 results (come on, who really finds the exact thing they're looking for in the top 10 every time?), without even visiting a single site your IP address (and all the other "visit" related info) is passed to every search result! Doesn't seem like a problem? Imagine if you searched for "penalties for child molesters" and you notice that a link to a "child 'love'" site is listed. Would you click it (if you knew what it was that is)? Doubtful. But if you have a link scanner such as some anti-virus programs include you just did -- as far as their server logs are considered. So guess what happens if the site gets busted by the FBI? That's right; you get a knock on your door. And who do you think is right -- you that may have purged your computer history, or the server that has the date/time/ip/browser/etc of "your accessing their material" that's been confirmed by your ISP?

And yes, that's a worst-case scenario for the search things -- but here's an example that might hit closer to home.

Virtually every website uses tracking information to see how many people are accessing their website. They use this information for funding, website design changes, rates for advertisers, and countless other things that I can't think of offhand. Those examples are what my company uses the information for (we use Google Analytics as do many other sites). By these programs scanning a website, they're actually downloading the page (causing the site in question to get a "visitor"). If you click the link, they get a "second" visitor for the same information. If the search results have 4-5 results for the same place, they get 4-5 visitors even if you don't click the link. Every visitor access to a website uses your and the company's bandwidth! With some ISPs considering making you pay based on the amount of bandwidth you use (and the companies having to pay for every bit they use -- even if it's in large bulk quantities), these programs are potentially doubling your bandwidth use and the drastically multiplying the company's which can increase the cost.

Don't think that's a problem?

Let's say you search for a company's name. You get 10 results returned on your search page. You've just used bandwidth equivalent to viewing those 10 pages for both you and the company (let's say a total of 1MB). Now you decide to click one of the links. You've just visited 11 pages of that company. Now for you and the company that's not a big deal for the one user. Now let's say 1 million people search for the same thing…. Instead of 10 pages, that's 10 million. Instead of 1MB being downloaded, that's 1million MB (or just shy of 1 terabyte [TB]). Not to mention all the processor cycles required on the company's servers to display the page (php/jsp/asp/etc). And not a single true visit to the web server. Just think of all the bandwidth being wasted, not to mention company computer resources. If a company (even a small one) has to get more and better servers (costing thousands, potentially each month/year) to handle the traffic, don't for a second think they won't pass the cost on in their services. You'll even start to see a lot of index pages that have virtually nothing on them but "company X" followed by a search box or a few links to the main site (funny, isn't it, that this is already being done….). And guess what that does, invalidates the "safe" linkscan result since it's only scanning the index page and not any true content -- at least once companies start having to do that to save costs. What this causes (one page, minimal time, no clicking from that page) is referred to as "bounces" by some; high-bounce pages are frequently redesigned to either minimize bandwidth/processor usage on the server or redesigned for different content to prevent bounces (if possible).

And I know what some of you are thinking: But we'll know if the site is virus/malware free!

Guess what? If you click the link you're virus scanner will do something remarkable -- it'll scan the website for viruses and block them!

And that's the problem. These programs either show potentially out-dated information, or provide redundant scanning that wastes resources and time. Do yourself a favor -- disable these in your programs. Then write to the tech support of the companies and tell them that you don't want this huge "critical error!" looking thing in the system tray when you disable a unnecessary component. Because that's just what many of these do. Disable this "feature" and you get warnings shoved in your face. Then you're either forced to reactivate them, or not be notified (or notice) if your virus scanner or firewall (you know, the actual important things) have stopped running!

Gamma Rays

2008-03-04T13:12:00.001-08:00

Just another way the world might be in a world of hurt. Only now it seems to be big in the news as well. Astronomers at the University of Sydney apparently found a binary star ready to go supernova, and it's pointed at us. To top it all off, it's only 8000 light years away! Well, on a galactic scale that's just down the street. Apparently the swirling appearance the star has proves we're looking right at the tail (poles?), more or less, so if a gamma ray were to be sent out, the earth could likely be hit. Scientists have apparently decided that a gamma ray burst about 6500 light years away could strip the earth's ozone layer (although I believe I've seen "strip the earth of its atmosphere" mentioned as well), thereby ending almost all life or all life.

Know what? Sure sounds like a "Jesus has returned" type of thing. Everyone on the planet would see it at the same moment and life would end as the people would be shoved into the heavens (or pummeled into the ground, vaporized, whatever). And now we've got proof it could happen! Although I doubt many religious people think Jesus and God are stars in a solar system. Or maybe it's just another little thing that could end all life that only now are people noticing and being told exist. The only real question is, if it happened, would we even notice? If death happened in a millisecond (total, brain dead, no chance for "near death" experiences so to speak), would anyone even realize it?

All I know is if you see a sign on the road telling you that interstate 666 is up ahead for all lanes -- it's probably over.

Privacy?

2008-01-26T15:37:00.001-08:00

Got privacy?

Depending on how you define privacy, the answer can vary. Just by looking at this post you've just given the following information: your browser, your os, your IP, your general location and town, your language, your internet speed, how you got here, how long you spent here, whether you have Java, JavaScript and flash version. But not just to this domain, but also the web hosting company, Google, blogger, and the site that you were on before here and now. If you post some horrible thing and the FBI gets involved, you'd of started the process of giving out all your other information (since the FBI would be looking into everything).

That's a lot of information you're giving out isn't it? Not really. If you don't give your IP, there's no way to know who's requested the information. Most people in the world (most likely) use IE, Firefox, Safari, or Opera to browse the web. You've either got a dial-up or broadband/DSL connection. Most of the information involved is so general, that it could apply to one of a million people. I could say you're male and be right almost 50% of the time.

But everyone to an extent is so worried about their privacy. True, people would like to think that what they do won't be known to the "wrong people" or even government. People expect their phone calls to be unmonitored, their e-mails not to be read by others, even their postal mail to go unread except by the intended recipient. They don't even want machines to look into it, of course the second they find out that some evil plot could've been avoided had people of known of phone calls, mail, e-mail, etc, they're up in arms over it wondering why the government didn't step in.

But let's just think about the overall privacy of things shall we (everything following is USA based, just change the terms for your country if it applies)….

Got a SSN (social security number)? Do you know who has it? Every hospital, doctor, credit card company, utility, some superintendents (the people who rent your place), employers, schools, banks, car rental and dealerships, stores, library, video rental place…. Oh yeah, and your state and federal governments. The only people who don't have your SSN are your friends and family, you know the people you "trust"? People are so concerned about their privacy yet they give the one piece of information (their SSN) out to everyone so they can get credit checks, background reports, etc (and most times, it is done for these purposes) -- yet they're all worried that a website can find out what state they live in. Let's see… landlord knowing every credit card you own and the balance on them vs. some unknown person knowing what state you live in (or possibly city if your ISP is actually in your home town).

Kind of puts things in perspective doesn't it? Exactly why does anyone (other than places that give you money) actually need your SSN? Credit reports? They're trying to get a "likelihood to pay a doctor credit report" that you'd have to get checked before any medical treatment (and they're sure that doctors won't treat people differently because of it! [so um, why's it needed then?]). Bad credit? Maybe you were unemployed after an accident or injury and bills piled up. Now you can't get a job because of not having a job; can't afford car insurance (since it's based on credit history) since you don't have a job; can't get a job elsewhere since you don't have a car to get to that job; can't move to another town because the landlord will pull your credit history --and all because people get to collect your SSN to run these checks. Do they ever ask why you have a bad credit history? Nope, doesn't matter, they'll just find someone else that has a better one.

But do people complain about this? Of course not! Why complain, it's just a number! Yet people will complain about their search history being made public, or even their phone number being listed online. Everyone's just a number anymore. We're all marked by a number or two or a dozen -- and many of them are tied to our SSN. It's probably the #1 privacy breach out there, yet if you don't provide it, you'll get nothing. Funny isn't it? Isn't the "recognized only by a number, and can't buy/sell things without it" one of the signs of the biblical end of the world?

What are the signs of the end of the world? Or even still, the end of time?

2008-01-16T19:01:00.001-08:00

When you start to think about it you realize that the end of the world and the end of time are two different things in a sense. The end of time is more of a universal thing (the actual universe), whereas the end of the world is just that, our world. Religions, philosophers, shamans, prophets, and even "nut cases" (you know, those on the street corners with the signs as we so often think of t hem) all have their own ideas and times as when the world will end. And the thing is, they don't entirely all agree on how or when. But pretty much they all would agree that sometime, eventually, the world will end and probably the universe too.

So how will the world end? Will the end of the world come at the finger of a man controlling the nuke button? Will the end of the world come with a natural space-born disaster such as an asteroid? Perhaps the world will end when our sun expand? Maybe the world will end when a deity will return to earth? When it happens, it won't really matter -- that'll be it. But what does matter is how people prepare for it. And what's not too surprising is the preparations are the same no matter what you believe. Even if you believe that God will return, there's no reason not to prepare for an asteroid impact! It's perfectly likely that we'll have another one. We've had thousands in the past, and they haven't stopped yet.

It doesn't really take that much effort to prepare (as much as any human without government funds at least). Really, everyone should be doing this as it is anyway! And it's quite simple:

Stock up on canned foods -- rotate the stock, but always keep at least 6 months supply on hand (with rationing at the least).
Stock up on bottled water (or if you can find out how, bottle your own).
Get battery-powered devices, "green" power (solar panels & small wind turbines), and power generators
Keep a can opener and some "camping" cooking utensils by the food
Keep an "emergency" food and first aid kit in every car (even if just simple camping stuff), AND at your workplace at your desk

Now the first time you buy the stuff, you're going to have a huge bill compared to normal. After all, you are buying enough canned goods for 6 months (assuming you eat only 1 canned item per day, that's 180 cans for one person; 300-360 for two [sharing cans], etc). And that's a LOT of cans! They'll take up the majority of anyone's pantry. It's probably best to also buy a commercial food cart to store the foods on. They come in different sizes, are designed for food storage, meet food service guidelines, many/most times are on wheels, and they're designed to hold 500-2000lbs. Why bottled water? They'll be a shortage, or just the tap will be undrinkable (not to mention high prices in stores).

Well the second the world's coming to an end (like an asteroid or some other problem) what do you think will happen? People will rush to the stores. And if you're lucky, really, really lucky the governments will put a lock on all prices before all the goods sell out. And they will. Pop, water and canned goods will be gone within minutes of an announcement. People will rush to the streets to get to the stores. Now if you stock up in advance, you'll be fine! No need to rush to the store, no need to even leave the house. All you'll need to do is make sure others don't know you have food (otherwise they'll probably break in to steal it, killing you and your family in the process). And don't let the religious people or any "good natured" people fool you. When the world comes to an end, people will revert to animalistic "kill or be killed" instincts. Your friend today will be enemy the second the world's end is near.

But it is very, very important to cycle the foods! Keep on shopping as normal. Buy foods to replenish those eaten, just put the new cans in the back -- remember oldest goods get eaten first (so push the goods forward, and stock the back). The same goes for water! Water can't be saved forever; it has an expiration date (for one reason or another). So treat it just like the other foods.

And even if the end doesn't hit in your lifetime (even though I'm betting something really "world ending" will happen by 2060), being stocked up on food is good for any "minor" disaster such as earthquake, flood, tornado, volcano, etc. And the thing is, you'll actually be eating the food, so it's not like you're wasting money (so much). Even if the government does the right thing when the end of the world's announced, by having food stores for people, do you really think they'll have enough for everyone in the country to eat for six months? Of course not! For one they figure many of the people will die. But no matter what, you'll be forced to eat whatever they give you without choice (any religion-based diets, vegetarians, etc would be pretty much, well, screwed). By stocking up now, you'll be prepared for the world's end when it happens.

But for the end of time, in a universal aspect, there's not much you could do. On the plus side, most likely no one will be around to see it. So end of time, end of the world, world's end, end of existence, extinction level event (ELE "ellie") -- whatever you want to call it, it's time to be prepared. I personally don't believe in using guns. You have a gun, neighbor has a gun, comes down to using guns the winner's the best shot or just the one who pulls the trigger first -- and really, when all life might be ending a person's survival instinct will cause them to charge a man (or woman) will a fully loaded shotgun if that person has what they need. Why? While you might shoot them (and they'd die), if they don't, they'd die; but if they charge and you miss, they live.

Now there's a lot more for the end of the world stuff that needs to be done. Much, much more. But for now I'll end it here. I have detailed plans for everything needed to survive during an end of the world event, or at the least survive longer than others, that everyone can do. And if implemented, could save the lives of almost everyone not at ground zero for the event. Of course, extinction level event method greatly influences this (i.e. planet-sized asteroid impacting = kiss butt goodbye [food or no food], small meteor striking the earth = potential for survival of almost everyone).

Faith as a Running Point

2008-01-13T16:22:00.001-08:00

This has to be the scariest thing ever. Really! A person running for president of the United States with a slogan along the lines of "faith, family, freedom"!

Why is this scary? For one very simple reason: A person is running for president of the United States and outright lists "faith" as one of the reasons. This person says his faith is his life, and it defines him. Scary. Very, very scary. If elected, he'd try to pass as many laws as he could, which would be based on his beliefs, which he himself says is based on his faith. So…. He'll use the bible to pass laws for the USA! You know what the bible is right? The book that people don't agree on. The book that people interpret differently. The book that people don't even agree on whether there's two stories of creation, or one that's just phrased differently (and in different orders). A book that people don't agree on whether the old testament is still valid… Get the point? The laws of the United States will be based on one man's religious beliefs. Some of you might think that's a good idea. But think of this for a moment -- do you agree 100% with everyone's interpretation of the bible that attends your church?

We're just one step away from being the country that you're free to practice whatever religion you want -- so long as you go by the rules of religion X. Pagan? Great! You'd better practice Christian beliefs though! Believe that the bible's just a collection of stories (some fact, some exaggerated stuff)? Well, too bad. It'll be law now!

And here comes the funniest part o fit all! How many people are anti-abortion (because all life's precious!), but also support the death penalty? But no matter! Get raped and molested by your twin brother? Enjoy your baby! That's right, you were supposed to have it! Your brother was meant to do that for it was god's will! So what if you were raped by your twin and your baby will basically be a clone!

I know some of you think this would be a great idea. But as I said before -- what if the religion isn't Christian? What if the "faith, family, freedom" person was Muslim? Jehovah's Witness? Satan Worshipper? Pagan? Not so quick to want "faith" added to the government now are you? As soon as religion's used as the blueprint for the government, we're one step closer to the end of time, the end of the world. Forcing someone to abide by rules that can only be backed up with a bible that not everyone agrees on is wrong. People in the USA scream about how bad it is in other countries where religion has written the laws (women being stoned for loving the wrong guy, sleeping with the wrong man, etc, anyone?) -- yet as soon as someone wants to base laws in the United States on a religion -- people are all for it! Think people! The same thing you don't want in other countries, and find to be wrong, is the same thing you're trying to have in your own! And it's only because it's your own religion.

'Tis a sad, sad thing.

Politics and Religion

2008-01-08T14:54:00.001-08:00

As it would be, I'm actually checking into different candidates this upcoming election for President of the United States. I feel it necessary to specify which, considering the internet is world-wide. And there's something I find quite disturbing, something so small yet I see it creeping into the foundations without anyone really noticing. There may be a few that have noticed it, but not entirely enough to really mention. And for some I'm sure you can figure out where this is going.

Gay Marriage

Now exactly, how is this anything other than religious? Exactly how does banning gay marriage affect anything other than people's religious beliefs? Don't allow them to marry, and they'll still live together, still have relationships, still be intimate, still shop together, and so on. There's no difference other than they won't be married (health insurance benefits and such being excluded here). Ban gay marriage and you don't stop a single thing that makes them gay. You don't prevent a single thing that gay people do -- which anymore, the acts themselves are pretty similar to what straight people do, just the genders involved are different. There's no reason, other than religious, that gay marriage should be prevented. And please… let two consenting adults marry is a lot different than a child and an adult, or an animal that's incapable of speaking in a recognizable language and a human to marry.

Religion should not dictate what the rules of the government are. They should be separate ideas. Not saying they won't have similar viewpoints (such as don't kill, don't rob, no rape, etc -- although some might debate religion's viewpoints on these), but a viewpoint that can only be justified by a religion's backing has no place in government. However, just because a government allows something doesn't mean that religions should have to allow it. Like with marriages. Government could allow, religions could deny. Meaning that a government could recognize a couple, but the religion could ignore it, or just not allow them to be "married" in the church. Their choice.

But when you've got people running for office that are going to run the country, and be the spokesman for everyone -- would you really want to say "yeah, he pardoned rapists, treats women like slaves, passed laws to get them out of the workplace -- but at least those gays can't marry!" Exactly how do you think that makes the US look like to the world? The USA is hated by many others in the world, partially since others believe that these morons that we have running the place are a true representation of the US people. And the sad thing is they aren't. Some of them would probably be in prison today if they weren't in politics. A group of people that just happen to have free time pick people to run for office. Then this group of people gets in front of more groups of people to see who really runs for office. Sometimes the USA people get the chance to vote in primary elections from a list of people; I've lost count to the number of people that don't vote here because they hate all the people running. Then the big election that counts of the "lesser of evils" runs against each other, or in some cases "the best liars, with a good PR person".

And when it all comes to play, what do they all do? Play dirty. Play on the fears, and religious beliefs of the people -- "the gay's are going to convert the children!!!!!!!!" so they go against gay marriage. And what do the blind sheep (aka: Americans [U.S.]) do? They fall for it! Yep. Why pay attention to things that matter? Like say, if they're going to destroy all the forests, rape the land, wage war on other countries, and give breaks to companies so they can pollute without giving a hoot? Because, the people are too blind to realize that the politicians are smart enough (con artist) to ignore these things. Unless, of course, they're currently affecting people. If the oceans were to rise ten feet, you'd better bet "global warming" would be the first thing mentioned by politicians, but since it doesn't apply now, they pull out the wild card: religion. Most people are religious, so do things that might get religious backing, and you're in. That's right, chances are many of these politicians don't really care about gay marriage. They probably never gave it a second thought -- until they realized they could get votes by making a stance one way or another.

Want to know what happens if religious beliefs run a government? Look at the middle east. Because one day, if they keep on pushing to get these passed and succeed, the United States will be the same way. Only here instead of countries fighting, we'll have states fighting. Sound familiar? But just think -- at least the politician got elected right? And those gays weren't allowed to marry! Still screwing their brains out of their partners, still living together, still showing affection in public, but at least they can't marry.

Just remember to keep a stockpile of guns and ammo -- you'll need it.

Immigration

Now comes the funny part. Block the gays because the bible says so! But keep those damn foreigners out too! Because remember, the bible says to keep those unlike you out, and to hate your fellow man; keep those in need far away from you, kick the homeless out of your house and let them rot on the streets. I mean, it says that right?

Well if it doesn't, then why do some politicians that are against gay marriage because of the religious problems -- against letting people into the country and helping them out? Ah, that's right; it's what some call "selective bible". You know. The quoting of the bible to get your point across, and ignoring other parts as it suits you because you don't agree. But this isn't a bible thing so much as it is a point. Politicians will use the bible, your religion, to get voted in to do whatever they want. Using God's word to advance their agenda by saying they're for everything that the majority's for, and against everything they're against. Of course, it's a fine line for not everyone for one thing is against another. So in the end it comes down to odds. What statistical advantage does a person have by being "for" one thing and "against" another? Pick the right combination and guess what? You're elected. Get close, and you're opponent does the same, and you'll end up with a close run.

But let's think of the immigration thing for a bit now shall we? What's better, to have thousands of undocumented workers in the USA; or let them in legally? Trick question. They'll be here regardless! The only difference is, you'll know who's really here (and uh, isn't that what people want to make sure terrorists aren't in the country -- oh that's right! No attack recently, so we don't care). Give theme benefits? Why not -- as long as the USA people get them too. Now I know many of you are thinking that you want those people kicked back into their own countries. Sounds great! So after all the US Americans are kicked back to other countries so the Indians can take back the land…. Oh, what? Don't want that? We're ALL immigrants of sorts if you go back far enough (American Indians excluded), and if you go back really far (and believe in the bible), we are all immigrants since God kicked us out of our home. OK, OK, so let's say only the NEW immigrants that cross the border illegally should be kicked back. Think about this for a moment. Just how bad does your country have to be to risk your life and the lives of your family to escape? Imagine leaving everything you have right now, packing up light and heading for the border, sometimes crossing the ocean or other massive water body, paying everything you have -- just to work for "slave wages" since you'll be just a step above "slave" in the new country. How bad does it have to be if the idea of being just above a slave is a better life?

Pretty bad eh? So how can anyone, either just a moral person or a religious person, even consider sending them back? And what's worse -- they didn't even have a choice to be born where they were; yet we want to punish them for it? Worst case, we get so many immigrants here that other countries outsource to us. Better yet, why not? Open call centers and other things and have the immigrants and all other unemployed people to work there. Then have companies here and abroad "outsource" their stuff to us.

They're people, just like us, humans. Created by God just as us (for those that believe that -- or evolved from the same basic species for others). What makes anyone so high and mighty that they can say they aren't worthy of life? Yet again, it's another thing that politicians use. People's lives are not a peg in the election machine. I don't know what's sadder, the fact that politicians take a stance to condemn people's lives to death, or that probably half in the USA don't want them in either. It's sad when people have to be forced to be human because of a law.

Religion

Want to know the worst part about politics and religion? Candidates are outright asked about it. Some might have stated prior what they are. But what difference does it make? How many people out there agree 100% with every minister they've ever heard that's the same religious denomination as them? How many people agree 100% with everyone in their own church about beliefs? With a few exceptions, not many ever do. Families don't always agree. I've seen a Christian minister go from eating all meats to saying the bible's totally against it and condemn all non-kosher foods -- and not surprisingly lost almost all his followers. Shocking still is that a small group believed exactly what he said after (despite believing exactly what he said before the kosher thing). I've known identical twins that disagreed on what the bible said, yet they attended the same church. Someone's religious affiliation doesn't mean anything in the grand scheme of things politically. Just as political party doesn't mean anything (check out what the candidates believe from a single party -- they don't agree on every point). Just because someone is similar to you by a group affiliation doesn't mean that you can, should, or must agree with them!

In the political world, it'd be better (not for being elected of course) to be "non-religious", but accept all religious as a person's choice. As any political position, you have to deal with ALL religions. Your choices and decisions affect everyone. This is a country where people are free to practice whatever religion they want, so long as they abide by a few rules (such as murder). Get someone who's extremely religious with a religious agenda, and you'll be free to practice whatever religion you want, as long as you abide by their religion's rules. And it will happen. As time goes on more and more policies are trying to get passed that force religious standards on others. Stop birth control because sex before marriage is bad (can we say "rise of STD's" anyone? [retired people are starting to get them, thanks to Viagra]). Stop sex-ed because they shouldn't see things like that. Cover up statues of naked people because naked is shameful. If it feels good, it must be a sin as the joke goes; soon it'll be, if it feels good, it's probably illegal.

Religion's great though! It gives people hope. Lets them realize that after their governments screw them up one side and down the other, that they'll at least be something once they die. Gives them hope that their loved ones are no longer in pain and can watch over them -- and they can see them again once they die.

But it's not good for governments to preach. And it's not difficult to tell if it's being done. If the justification for a law is because the act banned is "sick", "disgusting", or "the bible says so" it has no place in law. Now if it can be backed across multiple countries as being wrong, and you can give reasons other than those for why, then that's different. Murder is wrong, it takes away one's right to live for the pleasure or psychosis of another; and the bible just happens to say so (although it is debated); it destroys families, causes pain and suffering to those left behind without warning because of outside means. While the same can be said for accidents (or unknown illness if "through outside means" is removed), murder is one or more people's intention to rob another of their existence. And few would agree that's right (death penalty, self defense, etc, excluded).

Shootings, Bombings, etc

2008-01-01T14:35:00.001-08:00

Ok, I just have to ask: why do people decide to take others out when they're depressed?

I mean think about it here. John Doe's girlfriend breaks up with him, so he decides to off himself. But no, that's not good enough! He decides to go to some store, mall, shopping center, someplace with a LOT of people at it, then open fire to take out as many people as he can -- then he offs himself. What type of mental defect exists in this person that makes them even remotely think that the person that "betrayed them" or whatever even cares? If anything, they'd think "thank god I broke up with that psychotic freak. That could've been me he killed!" Meanwhile these other families have to bury their dead family members and friends, and can't even see justice served because the cowardly bastard did himself in with the last bullet. All these innocent families suffer and are punished , and all they were guilty of is wanting or needing to go shopping!

Think about this next time you go to buy food. Some girl might've broken up with partner, and he might be that nutty looking person driving behind you. Yeah, he seems innocent. But he might be deciding whether to pop a bullet into your head there, or wait until you get inside to take out more people. You'll never know. Maybe he's planning on taking hostages, and using a knife to torture the people. Maybe he's just infected with a disease, and he's going to spread the love (so to speak). Never know. And all this because you had this bizarre and unnatural craving to….. eat. Yes… it's all your fault, you food addicted fool! How dare you decide to eat and go shopping there on that day! But you know someone will say "at the wrong place at the wrong time" -- well where else does a person go when they need food, the car dealership? And what about this crazed gunman? Is he supposed to be there? Well if he is how about some warning then! Like "Monday at 4:27 we'll have our 27 rapid bullet fire special, followed by a 50% off sale the next day after the police clear the scene."

And it's not like these people are going to get on the news anywhere like they'd want! Yeah, at one time they'd be all over the networks. But now there's so many shootings, like every week it seems, it's more along the lines of "another shooting at honey mall today, breaking their 14 day streak without a death" then they'd go on to weather or commercial. No one else really cares anymore. Society's already starting to get numb from it all. Now when someone mentions a public shooting, it's not "I heard about that!", it's "which one, the one at x, y, or z? Oh, at w? Didn't hear about that one".

People, if you're going to off yourself, and don't have the guts to do it privately, seek help. Just because you're some screwed up bastard doesn't mean you should make other people's lives hell. And for the love of god, please, whoever knows these sick people that take others out with them -- don't say "they were such a kind person" or "they were such a good Christian" or other such crap; if they were, they wouldn't of taken others out and then themselves -- you may of thought they were, but they weren't. Saying "oh man, that is so surprising since the shooter that took out ten people was such a good Christian!" now that doesn't make a bit of sense does it? Do "good" and "Christian" people really buy guns, then take them into the world to shoot people up? Well I sure as hell hope not, they're definitely teaching something wrong if "suicide's great" and "kill others too" is being taught.

And for the love of all things that are holy, don't blame yourselves if someone you know does something! You can't control them, and if you think someone's going to do some -- call someone to take care of it. But really, how many times do you hear someone say "yeah, I knew old bob was going to shoot up the place; he talked about it all the time!" You don't. Well it does happen, but the police are normally called in and the people are given professional help. But people that go and do these things have problems. I'd bet many of them have a "I'll show them!" attitude about it. But don't go around saying how good they were! If a person has these thoughts, they know they have the thoughts, and they would know those thoughts weren't allowed -- and they choose not to seek help ---- that doesn't make the person "good"!

New Year, and already shootings

2008-01-01T10:21:00.001-08:00

Well, apparently humanity has once again gone to show how destructive it is. People go to a bar to bring in the New Year, five get shot, one killed. At this rate, this will be the year to spread the gift of lead as well. I mean come on people! Can't you even go 4 hours without killing someone? A shooting here, a shooting there, everywhere a shooting. It's like McDonald's farm but with weapons. Stop killing people off will ya? It might be better to give than receive, but people don't want bullets!

And all these shootings do is make people say "that's why I need a gun" -- yeah, like everyone having a gun would prevent shootings. IT wouldn't, it'd just guarantee more causalities. There's a big difference between shooting a paper target, and shooting a human, with a gun, shooting back, ducking fire, and you trying to hit him without getting hit. It's not like the fricking movies people -- plants and leaves don't protect you from getting shot. Want to know what would prevent causalities from shootings? Don't even have to ban guns. Give guns to everyone! Let everyone pack -- just don't allow bullets to be made. Can't shoot someone without a bullet.

Guns might not kill people, but the fricking psychos they let get guns sure do.

Let's see…. At the past rate and all, there'll probably be another shooting by Jan 10^th that makes national/international news.

Student Gets Detention For "Using Firefox" (mouthing off)

2007-12-17T13:04:00.001-08:00

I'm sure you've heard about it. Google desktop had a link to it. But guess what? According to the school -- it never happened!

That's right, it's a scam. A fake. A hoax. A fraudulent attempt to get back at the school for detention.

While on the website it says they can't discuss the exact reasons for the detention, they can say that the student getting detention over using Firefox a hoax. Now I know what all you conspiracy people would say, that the school's just covering their butts and the teacher really did give the detention over using Firefox. Now I can't say for certain, but another website said they called the principal and he stated that the student was supposed to be doing a resume in word (you know, schoolwork), but he decided to browse the internet instead -- and he'd be warned about this before.

But let's, for argument's sake, say the school district is lying. If the student was using Firefox, and it wasn't installed on the computer by the IT staff, I'd of warned him and given him detention as well. And I use Firefox almost exclusively. I design websites, sometimes you have to use IE to see how the standards break it once the site's developed. Why would I? The same reason they should. Schools are meant to teach students about subjects, and real life experiences. There are few workplaces that say "install whatever you want, we don't care!" Most would be likely to fire, discipline, suspend, or just give a warning if you were to install software without their permission.

I worked at such a place once. I had to request permission to have software installed -- that I myself developed for the company. Think about that for a minute. It was my job to develop the software, to create the instructions for use, to write the installation package, to test the installation (which mean I had to install it on my pc). BUT I had to uninstall it, and then request permission for it to be installed. Now for you non-programmers out there you might not realize this: you can run a program from the source code when you have the developer program on a computer (i.e. you open the source in Visual Studio, and you can run the program from the source - no install needed). What would happen if the program was installed on my computer without permission? I could've been fired. Yep. Stupid isn't it? And while in reality, they'd of just written up the "permission to have on computer" and backdated it or such, there would've been a slight problem from me having the software installed.

So why should a student be allowed to run a program not approved by the school, on the school computers, without getting into trouble? Even if he had been warned about it -- he disregarded the warnings! Don't get me wrong here, I do believe that Firefox is better than IE in more ways than I even directly know. But I also believe that if you're told "do not use this product" no matter how much better it is, you don't use the thing. You do, however, convince the school board administrators, IT departments, teachers, etc that it's better so you can use it. Same for a workplace, you show that it's better.

But let's look at the bigger picture here. Imagine if you, the reader, were to find online some site saying you were cheating on your partner (or were homosexual, robbed a place, whatever) and it wasn't true. Within minutes, thousands of people would find out these false facts and condemn you because of them. They'd make your life hell, just as the probably thousands of phone calls and e-mails sent to the school most likely causing havoc with their network. But then you managed to get the truth out. Who's going to read it? Do you really think people are going to blog about the truth, that's far less interesting than the lie? The damage's has been done, and now your life could be over. All because someone spread a lie online. It's happened before. It'll happen again.

Yeah, they might seem important at first, but try to remember rules of reporters -- get the facts first, then publish the story. Blogs don't get the facts first (generally); they post, then let the accusations fly. There's no retractions because they themselves never look into it in the future. I'd bet right now that hundreds of blogs out there will keep the story about the student getting detention by using Firefox for years to come, completely untouched. Then some person will come across it years from now, and be outraged about how "stupid" people could be back then to allow that to happen, followed up by others posting -- "it never did, you should've looked harder".

Signs of the end? Pretty much, just not on a worldwide level, but a personal one.

edit: Well this is a shock -- some bloggers have actually updated their posts to say it was a host! Well, at least that's somewhat of a good sign.

Songs you shouldn't live without hearing

2007-12-16T21:36:00.001-08:00

While it's not the standard blog post here, nothing really end of the world like, it's something that just popped into my head today. Songs you shouldn't go without hearing.

They're not in any particular order, and I might even update the list at a later date, but for now there's these songs:

Neil Diamond - Solitary Man
Johnny Cash - I walk the line
Johnny Cash - Ring of Fire
The Mamas and the Papas - I Saw Her Again
The Mamas & The Papas - Monday Monday
The Mamas And Papas - California Dreamin
Ventures - Pipeline
The Beatles - Nowhere man
The Beatles - Yesterday
Three Dog Night - One
Paul McCartney and Stevie Wonder - Ebony and Ivory
Roxette - Listen to your heart (or by DHT)
Sarah McLachlan - Hold On
Sarah McLachlan - Possession
Sarah McLachlan - Dirty Little Secret
Simon and Garfunkel - Bookends
Simon and Garfunkel - Scarborough Fair
Simon and Garfunkel - Slip Slidin' Away
Simon and Garfunkel - Hazy Shade Of Winter
Simon and Garfunkel - Bridge over Troubled Water
Avril Lavigne - I'm with you

Why these songs? Well for one, they speak to you. It's something that doesn't always happen these days. They just draw you in and hypnotize you. It's just something about them (some more than others) that makes it hard to turn away. Others move you emotionally, but you don't always know why. Some are just beautiful in themselves. And yes, most are older (60s and newer). And don' t get me wrong, there's hundreds of good songs produced these days; and even more that make me wonder how they pass as music. But these in the list are ones that you've probably heard, if even in some movie, but they're good enough to listen to by themselves -- if even on YouTube.

Light at the end of the tunnel (Near death Experiences)

2007-12-15T01:29:00.001-08:00

I sometimes wonder about experiences that a lot of people claim to have. Not so much that I doubt they had the experience, but whether the experience existed because of the experiences of others. Like aliens. Tell someone to picture an alien and they'd be likely to describe some big headed, big eyed gray creature. With near death experiences, however, the stories are way too common.

Almost every time you hear about one a few things are mentioned

I was floating over my body watching things
There was a dark tunnel, with a light at the end
My life flashed before my eyes
All my family that passed on before me was waiting for me

Now while they do sometimes vary a bit, like not all people have all the numbered points (or just variants of them), it makes me wonder whether a near death experience isn't just the electro-chemical reactions in the brain shooting off randomly when trauma/death is imminent. It would make sense, and explain why everyone seems to have them. They've even been shown to happen with blood loss (say being tested in one of those G-force simulators). It would make sense that it is just a chemical thing since it can be reproduced in a laboratory. And there have been a few cases where someone said they were taken to hell (not heaven as so many others report, even atheists); they even smelled the smells, saw the demons, and saw the torture.

But it does make me wonder something. What about people that have a near death experience that doesn't involve any of those items. Just different mental personality causing the brain to fire differently? A few of the "hell NDE's" that I've seen, the person either wasn't a good person, or they had the experience from an accident that was caused by evil means (ex: DUI, killed driver of another car, they had a NDE of going to hell). It could be a mental thing of regret, or it could be they actually went to hell. Of course the only real proof we'd have of whether near death experiences were true would come from the dead, and well, they don't exactly wake up to talk about them.

I know, seems like I'm totally against all accounts for NDE's right? Like I believe there is no light at the end of the tunnel.

But, that'd be wrong. I've had a few NDE's in my lifetime. But I don't know if I can honestly say they were "near death" or not.

Keep in mind the following tidbits of information while reading on: I doubt most if not all religions as being true completely, and I can wake myself up from any dream I have by a certain procedure within the dream.

The first one I had was simple. I was awake, then everything was black, then a man appeared, cussed me out for being where I shouldn't be and told me to go (away) -- I woke up and it was 8 hours later. Could've been a dream, but the entire incident happened in like 5 seconds (fall asleep, black, man, waking). I was exhausted the entire day and almost fell asleep.

Ok… maybe that's not that great of an example.

The second one was a bit more complex. I was alert, then everything went black (see a pattern yet? There never was any white!) the same man from the first NDE appeared, asked me what I was doing there again, told me I should be more careful, and to go. At which point I woke up (late) because apparently I had an allergic reaction to muscle relaxants and had "overdosed" with only one pill.

A bit closer in a sense… but still debatable for a NDE to some I bet.

The third time I had a car accident. It was a bit stranger in the near-death aspect. I was on a straight road about a half mile from the last intersection and about one and a half miles to the next. There were no cars on the road. Slight blackout due to heat and the car went into the ditch. I flew up in the seat and was able to see the back side of the visor (that was pressed up flush with the ceiling before the accident). IMMEDIATELY, i.e. no light, no tunnel, no nothing, I was in a fog-light expanse surrounded by everything. I could see everything that was going on everywhere, I could see in my house, yet see the far reaches of the galaxy. I saw people at schools, people in hospitals, even atoms and molecules moving about. And at that very moment -- I knew everything, and could see everything; only I didn't care about them for they were all pointless. That's right, everything in the universe was completely pointless; it's just some perverted game to prepare you for the life beyond. I could see hundreds of people around me, yet there were easily thousands there. None of them approached me; they just went on with their conversations. I actually tried to "hide" as well as possible to keep from being noticed. For the moment I was there, the thought of "I'm not supposed to be here" immediately came to mind, and I knew I'd be sent away. I never saw anything from my life, other than what was transpiring in the mist -- yet none of it (other than being able to see my house and all) was my life. I had never seen most of the things there. I didn't even know anyone that was hanging around in the mist. And there's the other part -- they weren't people. They were impressions of the once-corporal self. It was like everything just was, without any distinction from one thing to another.

I did realize the reason why they and I no longer cared about the people still living on the planet(s), there was too much information going on to comprehend. It was easier to view only what was in front of you, and ignore the planet. And I managed to do so successfully for eternity -- I saw the universe be born, and the universe die, then be born, then die, over and over and over again as well as everything in between. After a few "eternities" the man from the other NDE's appeared from the mist to talk to a group of people. They responded only by pointing to where I was. He looked over. Then he was inches away. And he only asked a simple thing "why are you here; you're not supposed to be here; go".

At that very instant my body dropped into my car seat and the car came to a rest. The visor was still flush against the ceiling. The radio station had changed. And I was now a quarter mile closer to the intersection than I was before, with a car pulling to a stop before I managed to. I was a bit thrown off, confused -- and a bit pissed off at the "bastards that took my memory from the incident away, oh and not letting me stay". But what really confused me was, how did my car end up closer to the intersection than it was before (since I was heading AWAY from it), and where did this car come from!

What was even more shocking was the guy in the car's comment about my accident. I was on the road right ahead of him (again, there were no cars behind me, I checked the rear view mirror right before the accident -- like under 2 seconds before). He said that my car was there ahead of him, then all of a sudden it went into the ditch, tipped on its side and almost flipped over, but it was like a hand caught it, turned it right side up and set it down on the ground. The lack of any real damage to the soybean field kind of backed his story (it didn't kill the crops; the tow truck driver wondered how I ended up there since there wasn't any disturbed ground from the impact to the resting point).

Now the accident was strange. But so was some of the side effects. Ever since I've had "déjà vu" about a lot of things. But not what people normally think of, I was in classes where professors gave notes on things not in the textbook. In many of my classes I was writing down notes that hadn't been given yet. I drew complex dissection diagrams of animals -- that hadn't been shown to us (and I had never seen). I was writing down the scientific names for insects, without ever of seen them prior. I was taking tests and knew the answers beforehand (scanned "fill in the bubble" tests) -- I was filling in the bubbles quicker than I was reading the questions (i.e. I was at some points 10 questions ahead of myself). Shocking even more that all my answers were correct, and there were five choices to choose from. That's the type of "déjà vu" I had. I didn't think I did it before -- I KNEW I did it before.

And the feeling hasn't subsided yet (entirely).

I even had another experience, my fourth NDE, but long story short, it was similar to the third one and first one combined. Went to the same mist place, only I got cussed out, left to stay there longer (in real time, not "mist world" time) before waking.

So what's this got to do with the end of the world and all? Well, it makes me wonder. When the world does end, will everyone have a death experience (not "near" death experience since they'd actually die)?

End of the world. Yes, the end really is near. 2012-2060

2007-11-17T10:52:00.001-08:00

The end is near.

I'm not even talking about all those doomsday people that go around saying "the end is near!" and have been since the beginning of time. Nor am I talking about the Mayan civilization that marked the end as being December 21, 2012 (since they also said time would exist after, so if time exists after, it can't really be "the end"). Nor am I talking about Newton and the end of the world in 2060 (who some say the figure was based on religion, not science).

But it's close.

The world as we know it will end between 2012 and 2060; and after that, humans will either band together, or be like all the thousands of other animals that used to be here -- extinct.

What it's based on is just a simple prediction of probability. We're designing new and improved ways of killing ourselves off and record speeds. We haven't had a volcanic eruption (major one) in many, almost hundreds of years. We're overdue or just "any time from this second, to a thousand years" away for a major earthquake, island collapse, tsunami, volcanic eruption, meteor or comet impact, or other population reducing planetary event.

Not to mention global warming melting the ice caps which cause the earth to release methane gas (a global warming compound) which causes it to increase even more. Some scientists believe there's as much methane gas buried in ice in the permafrost and oceans as there used to be oil! Or enough to put 10x the current greenhouse gasses into the environment if it melts. Ice melts, oceans rise, land's lost, causing overcrowding and disease in the remaining lands – even less land for food, thereby causing a major reduction in the human population.

And that just assumes that it doesn't increase the intensity of weather, or kill off plants – which it does. So we'll have less to no food, less land, and the same population crowded into smaller areas. That will then be pounded by hurricanes and tornadoes. Some groups all over the world will turn to cannibalism to survive (since animals will either be killed for food, or killed by the lack of food); since humans will be the only food source that'd be "fresh".

Of course, that assumes we even live that long. As soon as the first "yes, the world's really ending" is announced ( as in the day and time is provided – in some cases to the second, others, the week), many people will become religious hoping to get some points in before they die; others will kill themselves and others , some will rape others, and others will just torture and do things – since at that point what's the worst someone could do, end their life a few days early? People will start to do whatever they want without consequence, for they know they're already condemned to die. Some will even joke about it "what are you going to do, kill me?"

And then governments will try to enforce martial law. But at that point, one where people know that everything's going to end (or at least believe it), the military personnel will have a choice: obey the government 'til they die, or go AWOL by going home and protect their family. And which do you really think someone would do? Protect someone from being shot a few minutes before they get killed by an asteroid, or hold their spouse and kids so they can be together when they die?

And it's not if it will happen, but when.

And when is between 2012 and 2060. Within these years the world as we know it will end. For some it will be the end of the world.

The worst part of the end of the world is, in many cases we can potentially prevent it, or just quickly recover and protect most the people from it. Now it depends on what world-ending event were to happen. Asteroids or comets we might be able to divert it entirely; or just evacuate the impact site while building arks throughout all the countries to help save millions/billions. Volcanoes, earthquakes, or other "no warning" types of events will have causalities. Earthquakes are currently completely unpredictable, other than saying an earthquake will hit (they happen somewhere daily, to a small extent). Volcanoes are, somewhat, obvious when they're going to erupt; they give small signs of being active, so the areas can be evacuated. But with them, you still don't know when they're erupt, only that there's an extremely likely chance it'd happen sometime within a few months. But man's impatient. So not everyone leaves, governments don't force people to leave (and actually pay them to do so, since moving does cost money), so people die.

Of course there are end of the world volcanoes on the planet (such as Yellowstone) that give signs of erupting every day! The hot springs, geysers, earthquakes, and land movements of Yellowstone would be the warning signs for other volcanoes; but for Yellowstone, it's just another normal day. At least that's what we believe. Hindsight might say that these too are warning signs, just a few thousand year warning. After all, until it erupts and destroys all the existing things there we'll never know. It's possible that after it erupts, earthquakes subside, and there's no geysers or land movement for hundreds-thousands of years! But it too will erupt again, and we are due.

If it were to go, in a massive scale, it's estimated that it would end the world as we know it. Ash would cover most of the USA in 2 meters (if I remember correctly) of ash. Not to mention the loss of a state, or more accurately, the "moving of the state to cover the world" -- well, technically the state would still exist, it'd just be unpopulated. The ash would cause millions of homes to collapse, killing those inside. Emergency vehicles wouldn't be able to move, since the engines would get blocked with ash, not to mention it's not really easy to drive through a meter high snow-covered road (without a plow), let alone ash which is more dense. Millions would die from the original eruption; millions would die from the ash (breathing it in); millions would die from buildings collapsing from the ash; millions-billions would die from starvation caused by the "nuclear winter" from the ash and gasses in the atmosphere.

It kind of makes you wonder, who's the lucky ones when a massive volcano erupts – the ones that die first without warning, or those that survive everything to keep the world going?

And that's even simplifying it all. The actual result of any world ending event would me much, much worse. It'd be one of those things that Satan itself would say "that's just wrong".

And it will happen. And soon. The world as we know it will end sometime from 2012-2060. It might even happen tomorrow, but what can I say, I'm optimistic. I'll give humanity a bit over four years left to live.

So… how do you want to die today?

History Repeats Itself

2007-08-28T10:58:00.001-07:00

Every day news is shoved into your skull. News flashes, breaking stories – yet only the names seem to change. It seems that not a day goes by without someone getting arrested for selling or using drugs. Someone’s picked up for DUI. Some political figure does something bad; or good, but then it’s something that everyday people do such as read to kids in a school. And that’s a bit messed up in itself: teacher reads stories to kids – not news; politician seeking election reads to kids – makes front page of national news.

Not even the “unexpected” news such as earthquakes, storms, or other nature-based disasters are that different. Almost every time people are left homeless, hundreds to thousands die, people’s pets die while some are reunited with their families. A disaster area’s declared. State, federal, and in some cases international governments step in to help. Red Cross and other agencies show up and setup tents and start the search and rescue. Media shows up with cameras to record the horrific footage (for live coverage), while interviewing people about how bad it really is. Many people donate time or money to help out. Cleanup crews show up days, weeks, or months later. Things are restored. Life returns to “normal”.

But it’s all the same, just different names and places. Not that it isn’t a horrible tragedy but it’s still the same as far as news and actions.

And it seems that no matter what happens, thanks primarily to news agencies I’d bet, whatever agency that goes in to help always screws up something that causes people to demand justice. Not saying in some instances they’re right, that some place truly screwed up, but what about all the other instances where they did well! Think of it like this: an organization helps out ten thousand people and gets them completely resettled and back to “normal”, five hundred people get screwed over for one reason or another, do you ever hear about the good the place did?
In the end, it’s the same. Same news day in and out. Same things happen, people don’t learn from the past mistakes, and it keeps on repeating. It makes one wonder, where is the ultimate failure – the individuals, or society?

Picture the society as a business, and the individuals as the employees. As a whole, the business can do many good things, or many bad things. But in order for things to take place, the employees have to do something. If an employee discovers a part they have is defective, but they say nothing, the company releases a defective product. In that case, it’s the employee, not the company, that’s at fault. But if the company knows the part is defective, and they use it anyway, it’s the company that’s at fault – but really, it’s not the “company” so much as it is the “group of employees that passed the motion to use the defective part” that’s to blame. So it’s still an employee, or employees, that are to blame.

Same type of thing for all other news material: someone knows there’s a problem, they either speak up and are ignored, or don’t speak up at all – no one learns, history repeats itself.

Think of it like this: A parent knows their child is using meth. They try to get help for the child, which doesn’t involve the police, and the child fights back. The child keeps on using meth and ends up robbing or hurting someone to get their fix. Now, it’s entirely the child that’s to blame – but the parents could’ve done more to prevent it. Or think about politicians, if you have a homosexual or bisexual politician roaming around demanding rules to ban homosexuality or such – someone should call them out on it. Or if the politician’s taking bribes from a company, that they just happen to pass legislation to help out the company, someone should say something. If a police officer’s dealing drugs, someone should report them.

Easier said than done for some, after all who’d want to report a gang murder when the members live in your apartment – but the point is still valid. Whenever you see something on the news, there’s someone (sometimes a group) that isn’t surprised. They’re the ones that think “took that long to happen?” and similar. But the better question should be this: if they knew it’d happen, actually knew, why didn’t they do something to stop it.

The revolution is now

2007-08-21T12:30:00.001-07:00

It's time. Time for everyone to band together as one to force the governments of the world to do what's best for the people. Time for people to stop complaining about what the evil government is doing, and actually do something about it.

Especially in the United States. Even our constitution allows the people to force the government to change, if they don't do what's in the best interest of the people.

But it'll be a peaceful revolution. With injuries being along the lines of paper cuts. Peaceful, legal protests throughout the country. It doesn’t even matter if people are on different sides of the issues.

The government should do what's best for people as a whole. It should give sentences for murder, robbery, rape, personal injuries and such. But it shouldn't go around telling people how and with whom they should be intimate. The government should build roads, housing, schools, and other public works to provide everything the people needs. Just think how many hours/months/years have been spent dealing with same-sex marriage; and how many are spent trying to improve the roads, decrease pollution, and just otherwise making the country safer.

Don't know about you all, but if there was a rapist running through the town killing and raping because the police couldn't get funding to stop him or her -- just because the politicians spent weeks trying to ban gay marriage instead of getting funding to the police; someone sure has priorities screwed up.

When people who truly can't work due to a disability or disease, such as a truck driver that can't get a CDL license because of diabetes, they have to wait years before they could get approved ---- yet someone who fakes the severity of an injury and says "I can't work!" yet goes around remolding houses, climbing ladders to put on new roofs, and just otherwise doing hard labor on a weekly bases can get disability within a few weeks. Then the same agencies don't seem to have enough people to police these defrauders even when reported! Because well, they can't get funding.

But at least we know the politicians have more than enough time to campaign and get more and more funds to run for office. And they have more than enough time to maintain church-based family values, in laws at least, who knows how many have a few mistresses on the side.

Let's not stop there, it's even important to ban all these bad drugs too -- like that's really doing a good job. New illegal highs are popping up faster than they can pass laws to ban them. Ever wonder why people take all these drugs? Because life itself sucks so much, they need an escape! Want to stop illegal drug use, try to actually make life worth living.

How many people really think a "good life" means that in a 168 hour week, 40 hours for work, 56 hours for sleep, and about 20 hours to get ready for work with a commute should be required by two people (sometimes 3 or 4) just to afford housing, food and utilities? Know how much time that leaves to "enjoy" the week? 52 hours. Of course that's assuming you don't eat, go to the bathroom, have any household chores, etc. So let's take off another 10 hours for that. 42 hours. Wow. That's sure with living for isn't it? Under 2 full days you can actually relax. Oh, but wait, if you've got kids -- there goes about 14 hours a week, so you've only got about 28 hours to "relax", and about 140 hours of work and sleep. Toss in the "if you get injured, and you're homeless" that many people fall into, and it's no wonder there's so many drugs for depression, and people just using drugs or alcohol!

But what does the government do about these things? Pass laws to make drugs illegal, and spend millions to stop drug trafficking, and making sure "family value" laws are passed. You know, things that don't do any good at all.

But that isn't entirely true, they are good for one thing: keeping the people from thinking about things other than what's the real problem. Keep people thinking that some drug-addict homosexual will convert your kid, and you'll think popping a dozen pills a week to cope with the few waking hours before you pass out isn't that bad.

Politicians are the new cons. They know just what to say and when to say it. Spin things around so fast by the time you realize what's hit you, they've maxed out their office term.

So stay tuned, for the revolution is near, and the blueprint will be posted. Tell your friends -- the government will do for the people, not for themselves.

The new age is upon us.