edg: (loserpig)
I honestly had forgotten about LiveJournal (like, it didn't occupy a space in my conscious mind at all) until I saw someone on Twitter talking about how they got crap for having a four-letter .com address, and that reminded me of all the crap I got from people who wanted to do LJ roleplaying as EDG from Gaming Guardians, and then I thought, "Hey, I haven't checked LJ in a while," and it turns out that I entirely forgot to do a year in review in December, and here it is mid-April, so you know, why the hell not?

It's weird that it's been longer since I defunked this journal than it was between when I started it and when I defunked it. It was such a huge part of my life that it feels like the duration of my active use should have been two or three times longer than my absence, but here we are.

Last year I started a business, called Delight Specialist. It's where I put most of my creative effort these days, and I encourage you to go check it out.

Lots of stuff happened late last year that I don't really want to get into in a public forum, but suffice it to say that I'm still dealing with the fallout, that I'm not happy with any of it, and that as a result I might be packing up entirely and leaving Indiana behind. It's a hard decision (made harder by the fact that I have no money) but I think it's the right one. Nothing left for me here now except memories, which I can take anywhere I want.

I've made it a goal to spend at least 50% of my time traveling. I haven't even left the state since January 2, and I haven't been outside Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Delaware since 2007. That's kind of sad considering the kind of wanderlust I have, and I think it's time that that changes. I might be buying an RV if I can put the money together, in which case, strictly speaking, 100% of my time would be spent traveling. I like that idea a lot.

I think that's about it for right now - a general idea of what I've been up to.

Tell me about yourself! How have you been? What have you been doing? Is there anything amazing that I should know about? Comments are screened, so go nuts.
edg: (I'm With Stupid)
Submitted without further comment.
edg: (Dyna)
All In Nomine people, take note: they are among us, yea, even unto the still lives.

(By [livejournal.com profile] ursulav.)
edg: (Music)
I'm in a Tom Jones mood.

Also, the thing I forgot to mention in my previous post: apparently I still have a mailbox on campus! Nobody actually told me about it, though, so I didn't know until I happened to ask today if they wouldn't mind forwarding stuff on from my old box number.

So, [livejournal.com profile] kathornus, I only just got your card today! O_o

Dreams

Oct. 15th, 2005 08:30 am
edg: (...right.)
My mind picks up the strangest cues to use in my dreams.

For instance, apparently I have forgotten everything I ever knew about putting a diaper on. (Nota bene: I have not, on waking up.)

Also, according to my subconscious, An Extremely Goofy Movie is apparently scored by Iron Maiden. (Specifically, the "Xtreme Sports" bit near the end, in this last dream, had "Number of the Beast" in the background.)

This was not exactly how I had anticipated starting the day.
edg: (This just doesn't add up.)
Signs that you may be burning the candle at too many ends:

    ...

  1. You close your eyes at 12:45 AM. You open them again at 12:15 PM. You have not experienced any of the intervening time.

  2. ...


I guess I needed the sleep...
edg: (Writing)
"Hello, Mannie. Nice gun."

The Lilim glanced at the pistol. "I thought you might like it. You always did prefer the classics."

"I'm not sure I'd call that a classic." Hari sighed and set his pointer down on the easel. "Why are you here, Mannie?"

Mannie paused and looked over his shoulder at the captive angel.

"...he keeps bringing me sandwiches when I work too late."

"You could just go on a date with him when he gets out of Trauma. I understand that's what you do with all of the angels who take care of you."

Mannie took a deep breath. "Are you going to undo the padlock, Hari, or will I be forced to remove it by other means?"


Two of [livejournal.com profile] fadethecat's characters. A Steve Jackson Games setting.
edg: (Cheerful)
Actually, only one item on the list this time.

When I post to weblogs that use the TypeKey authentication system, my weblog, Aleae Iaciens (I just found out yesterday that if I really wanted to be accurate, that should be "Iactens" - "Iaciens" is valid Latin, but it's a verb with slightly different connotations - but who's counting?), gets linked from my name. The same thing happens with TypePad weblogs, but I have to manually put the link in; TypeKey remembers my link, when it bothers to remember that I'm logged in.

What happens occasionally is that I'll leave a comment on, say, Websnark, on a post which has a lot of readers who don't usually see my comments, and from the link on my name I'll get a little flurry of hits to Aleae. Today I've received ten hits from my comments on this Websnark post.

I think that's pretty neat.

([livejournal.com profile] phosphodae, Websnark is where I got my "I Aggro Drama" shirt. Eric doesn't have any more left, but I'm sure he could be persuaded to start up a second batch...)

([livejournal.com profile] demiurgent and [livejournal.com profile] weds, I've given out Websnark's address to two people since I've been at Earlham based solely on their approaching me because of my "I Aggro Drama" shirt. I have also done my duty in cautioning these people that you don't have any more shirts left, but telling them that you run a cool site anyway.

Just, y'know, so you know.)
edg: (Strange News)
"The passing of Chief Justice William Rehnquist leaves the center chair empty just four weeks before the Supreme Court reconvenes."
And that's an excellent point, you know, you can't have that - because you need the center chair to block.

- George W. Bush quoted, and Jon Stewart's commentary


Image behind the cut )

*mutter*

Sep. 1st, 2005 10:57 pm
edg: (Destruction)
Okay, why did nobody tell me that MANDY PATINKIN was in Dead Like Me?

("Because, EDG, you never told us you were a Mandy Patinkin fanboy.")

(Hush. And it's MANDY PATINKIN.)

Musation

Aug. 21st, 2005 11:56 am
edg: (Broken)
A curious concept came up in discussion ... last week, now, I think, and I never really got the chance to respond to it fully. Over on Websnark, I got into - call it a heated debate - over the idea of breaking up marriages/similarly-close non-marriage relationships because it just wasn't working out. (This was in a discussion about one of the current For Better Or For Worse storylines, in case you think Websnark might be changing its tone or focus...)

My position is that sometimes there are irreconcilable differences, and it's better to dissolve things if it will hurt the people involved less than staying together would. The other commenter's position was, as far as I could tell, that dissolving such a relationship is almost always worse than staying together - that the dissolution is itself more harmful than the consequences of staying in the relationship absent (his example) child abuse or something similar.

This is not the curious concept.

When I pointed out that I was in a marriage-like relationship which dissolved because of irreconcilable differences, his response was (I quote without permission):

I highly doubt that ANYONE in the United States can speak completely hypothetically in relation to divorce. Everyone has some direct experiance with it. However, generally people try to maintain a hypothesized facade during these kinds of discussions as a social tool, for this exact reason. Anything I say now is a direct insult to you, which is not my intention. There is no way for me to comment on your situation, because I know nothing about it. I would be very interested in a real unreconcilable difference, but this is hardly the place to discuss such things, and I doubt that you want to. So, I suppose this discussion is closed. Which, may have deen your intention.


This is the curious concept: "generally people try to maintain a hypothesized facade during these kinds of discussions as a social tool".

I really am not sure what to make of it. I'm not sure I've ever encountered a situation where I felt that it would be better to hide my own personal, direct experience with the subject at hand. Why speak in hypotheticals when you have actual information? (There are reasons, I know, to use hypotheticals in place of solid details in certain circumstances - I've done it myself, recently in the context of "if one were to start a game" rather than "I'm thinking about starting a game" - but that's usually to get more information in a general context, not to hide what you have.) More to the point - if everybody has experience with this, isn't it dishonest to pretend that they don't?

I'm seriously interested in your opinions on this. Am I wrong? Do people usually "try to maintain a hypothesized facade"? If they do, what's the rationale behind it?

As an aside, I want to note two things: first, that my reason for not responding to that was that when I finally got back to the conversation, it was several days later, and given that you can't tell when someone's replied to one of your comments over there, I didn't think the commenter would ever see any response; and second, that it seems to me that if anything you say on a subject is a direct insult to the other person in the conversation, maybe your position isn't as morally-upstanding or correct as you think it is.

Maybe that's why he wants to maintain this hypothesized facade - because he knows that his position is offensive to people who are actually in the situations he's hypothesizing about, and he doesn't want to be held accountable for them? But I'm being uncharitable.

EDIT: I want to make it clear that I'm frustrated by the poster's position and debate tactics, and I'm not trying to tear down the poster himself. From what I've seen, this person is, in general, a pretty good human being, and doesn't deserve to be slammed when he's not looking. When I say that I'm being uncharitable, I mean that; my frustration leads me to not give him the benefit of the doubt, when he undoubtedly should receive it.
edg: (Distant)
August 17th, the day I moved out of my house, probably for good, was the 20th anniversary of the day we moved in.
edg: (A-ha!)
On the year in which Harry Potter was born )

I know that this has almost certainly been established elsewhere, but I thought it was kind of neat to run across the evidence independently.
edg: (Bad math)
So I woke up this morning at about ten to eight (Alex had crawled into bed with me earlier in the night, and was studiously shoving me toward the edge of the bed; I finally got up so that I wouldn't fall off), came downstairs, and didn't notice anything out of the ordinary.

About fifteen minutes later, a clunking sound from outside catches my attention. I look up, and a silver SUV is parked in my driveway; the driver has just climbed in and shut the door. As I watch, the ignition goes (I couldn't determine the sex of the driver, so I'm avoiding personal pronouns), and as I'm getting up and saying "what the hell?", the car backs down to one of the parking spots off the driveway, turns around, and drives off. I couldn't even get the plate number.

(A digression: my house is not close to the road by any means. In order to park in the driveway by the front door - which was where the SUV was - you have to pass about a hundred feet of asphalt. So I have a hard time believing that the driver just pulled in for a quick nap, or whatever, especially considering that we're almost a mile from the main road, and two miles from the freeway.)

I looked around for about five minutes; whoever was in the car had not obviously left anything behind or done anything to the property. That person and the SUV were just... there.

Is it just me, or is that a little bit creepy?

Time spent

Jul. 5th, 2005 11:52 am
edg: (Bad math)
Many of you know that I work for Johns Hopkins University; specifically, I work for the School of Medicine. My actual title is Research Assistant; what I do depends on the day, and has included web design, medical data analysis (they give me the numbers; I tell them what the numbers mean), and running study protocols down to the Institutional Review Board five minutes before they close. (It's always, always five minutes before they close. Anyone who's helped put together a study protocol will appreciate why.)

Financial details )

My supervisor, however, has pointed out something interesting to me. See, I put in enough overtime here that I can, very often, just use banked overtime to "pay" for my time off, instead of using vacation or sick days. What this means is that I have piles of vacation and sick days - such that on August 1, I'll have about 136 hours at my disposal, assuming I work no overtime between now and then.

Which means that I can work six hours a week throughout the month of August and still claim a 40-hour paycheck.

What seems strangest to me about this is that my supervisor suggested it.
edg: (Productive!)
Law School In A Nutshell

To understand why legalese is so incomprehensible, think about it as the programming language Legal. It may have been clean and simple once, but that was before it suffered from a thousand years of feature creep and cut-and-paste coding. Sure, Legal is filled with bizzare keywords, strange syntax, and hideous redundancy, but what large piece of software isn't? Underneath the layers of cruft, serious work is taking place.

As always, one of the secrets of being a good coder is to be able to read someone else's code and recognize which parts were copied out of the Camel Book and which parts have been carefully tweaked for this particular project. It's okay to skim legal documents the same way you'd skim a long source file; you just have to know when to switch over to careful reading. One of the major goals of this walkthrough is to give you a better sense of when to skim and when to focus.
edg: (Bad math)
Applying Mathematics to Escher's Print Gallery
edg: (Science!)
DNA seen through the eyes of a coder
or
If you are a hammer, everything looks like a nail


(via [livejournal.com profile] jwz.)

Grammar

Jun. 24th, 2005 08:45 am
edg: (Pedantic)
I've been thinking about adjectives today.

(Yes, I know.)

Specifically, I've been thinking about lists of adjectives - and about special cases, when the listing rules don't really apply. In a comment to a dear friend's journal, I mentioned a "crumbling antebellum plantation manor", and I've been wondering since I wrote that whether it wants commas or not.

In my junior year of high school, ... )

Anyway. "Crumbling antebellum plantation manor".

I'm of the position that there are no commas needed, because these aren't listed adjectives, they're nested adjectives. "Plantation" describes "manor"; "antebellum" describes "plantation manor"; "crumbling" describes "antebellum plantation manor". In other words, "crumbling (antebellum (plantation (manor)))".

But I can see how people would think that it's a list. But even then - does "plantation" count in the list? (It describes what kind of manor it is.) Should it be "crumbling, antebellum plantation manor" or "crumbling, antebellum, plantation manor"?

Inquiring gnomes want to mine.

Baaaa

Jun. 23rd, 2005 01:41 pm
edg: (The Extremist)
Take the MIT Weblog Survey

December 2015

S M T W T F S
  12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27 28293031  

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 26th, 2017 02:36 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios