I have never understood modern feminism. Women in the USA can now vote, get good jobs, and be treated fairly in court. If we are treated as human beings now on a basic level, then that's what matters. I do not understand what feminist fight for now, other than trying to stomp out being feminine completely. (Doesn't that kinda contradict what they call themselves? o_O)
Anyway, there are places in the world with women who are being treated horrible. They can't get good jobs, they are rejected by there family over things they can't control, and in some places they even circumcise women! *shivers*
Why aren't femaninst over in those places making a difference that will actually save lives? Or is it only the women in "modern" countries that should be worried about?
I dunno, I think it's rather disgusting and hypocritical and just heartless. I live in the lap of luxery, I don't NEED any more rights or whatever. But there are women out there who do.
Shame shame on modern femanists.
Saturday, July 31, 2004
Friday, July 30, 2004
Security Update & Nerd Ranting
Wow.
So (Win)XP wanted me to download this security update. I'd been getting a lot of those recently, and I finally decided to check the details. I should have guessed, it was an Internet Explorer security update.
I don't even need the thing, since I don't use Internet Explorer. XP doesn't use it for updates like '98 does (as far as I know). But I know that it's always wise to keep IE up-to-date. Sometimes I have to use IE to view sites that people (dumbly) decided to make IE only viewable. (This is very rare, but I actually encountered it on a government site once... boy was I surprised!)
I tell you people, stay away from IE. It's just not safe. Use Netscape for heaven's sake, it's much safer. In fact, just about any other browser than IE is safer.
But people stick with what they're use to, even if it's bad for them. You know, there are a lot of anologies I could go with from that. :P
Anyway, for those of you who insist on using IE and all it's security problems, I still have something great for you: MyIE2. This will let you have all the cool features of Firefox (minus security) but keeps IE at the core. Seriously, it lets you use tabbed browsing and a whole bunch of other cool features.
If my husband knew this existed, he'd probably use it instead of Firefox. But I wouldn't let him. IE is, by nature, very unsafe. I refuse to let the thing run on my computer if I can help it.
I have kept my computer virus free since I got it (and that was when I was 16, I'm almost 21 now). If I could, I would abondon Microsoft entirely (and use Linspire instead) because it's also not a very safe system. (Not to mention that to get the next version I'll have to cough up 200$ per computer for it... I hate that so much..)
And of course, most of the people who read the blog (you know, the two of you) probably don't care. But I shall continue to advance safe webbrowsing and OS stability! I MARCH ON!
So (Win)XP wanted me to download this security update. I'd been getting a lot of those recently, and I finally decided to check the details. I should have guessed, it was an Internet Explorer security update.
I don't even need the thing, since I don't use Internet Explorer. XP doesn't use it for updates like '98 does (as far as I know). But I know that it's always wise to keep IE up-to-date. Sometimes I have to use IE to view sites that people (dumbly) decided to make IE only viewable. (This is very rare, but I actually encountered it on a government site once... boy was I surprised!)
I tell you people, stay away from IE. It's just not safe. Use Netscape for heaven's sake, it's much safer. In fact, just about any other browser than IE is safer.
But people stick with what they're use to, even if it's bad for them. You know, there are a lot of anologies I could go with from that. :P
Anyway, for those of you who insist on using IE and all it's security problems, I still have something great for you: MyIE2. This will let you have all the cool features of Firefox (minus security) but keeps IE at the core. Seriously, it lets you use tabbed browsing and a whole bunch of other cool features.
If my husband knew this existed, he'd probably use it instead of Firefox. But I wouldn't let him. IE is, by nature, very unsafe. I refuse to let the thing run on my computer if I can help it.
I have kept my computer virus free since I got it (and that was when I was 16, I'm almost 21 now). If I could, I would abondon Microsoft entirely (and use Linspire instead) because it's also not a very safe system. (Not to mention that to get the next version I'll have to cough up 200$ per computer for it... I hate that so much..)
And of course, most of the people who read the blog (you know, the two of you) probably don't care. But I shall continue to advance safe webbrowsing and OS stability! I MARCH ON!
Am I Turning Liberal?
I was thinking that the anti-abortion groups need to give a little in certain areas. Moderates on the issue tend to side with pro-abortion simply because the view anti-abortion as uncaring and radical. If you could convince moderates on the issue to tend towards not recommending abortions and not going with pro-abortion groups, wouldn't we all be better off? Because almost all the people I meet who "believe in abortion" only do so under certain circumstances, and definately they do not believe in abortion "on demand".
For instance, I think anti-abortion groups should be pushing for "educated abortion". That is, educating people about abortion and it's alternatives. To educate on the issue of abortion is a sensible thing to do, medically and morally. You should never let someone go into a surgery without telling them the risks, the benifits, and the unknowns. In fact, this should be something pro-life groups heavily endorse, because it's something that [radical] pro-abortion groups heavily fight against. And anything that pro-abortion groups don't want has got to be good for the Mom and child.
There should also be a heavy financial hand from pro-life groups to support adoptions. In fact, anti-abortion groups should stop calling themselves pro-life and start calling themselves "pro-adoption". This is a two-handed name, because it speaks volumes about how much a group really cares about the child AND THE MOTHER. It also makes it so people automatically know what the best alternative to abortion is--adoption.
I think pro-life groups seriously underplay adoption. How often do you hear about a pro-adoption rally? Uh, never. Why is that? If abortion kills babies, shouldn't we be pushing adoption-- a baby saver? Should not the anti-abortion/pro-life groups be in Washington lobbying for easier adoptions with less red tape, yet equally safe standards? Financially endorsing adoption, and clearing up the strange myths that people have about adoptions?
Shouldn't WORLD be running articles that talk about Adoption? Shouldn't they be pushing for it? Why aren't they? You hear lots about abortion and anti-abortion, but almost nothing about adoption.
And it shouldn't stop there. There should be support for Mother's who want to keep their child, but are finacially unable to.
All of the positive aspects of "pro-life" should be pushed forward. Lets have some Pro-Adoption rallies in the middle of abortion rallies instead of pro-life. Imagine the funny looks one would get! :-o
I'm not saying pro-life groups don't endorse adoption either. I'm just saying you almost NEVER HEAR ABOUT IT. All you hear is the "anti-abortion" part... it's all that's printed in the news. Why is it that the voice of adoption often seem stifled?
Of course, now I'm going to be accused of allowing "baby killing" and being wishy-washy. Well, I'm not trying for either. I'm trying to be sensible about the matter. If I'm weak, wishy-washy, for trying to think of ways that might actually WORK in preventing as many of abortions as possible, so sue me.
I dunno, am I turning liberal? I just can't stop thinking that pro-life groups go about things the wrong way... they say they're saving a baby's life... but what about after the baby is born? Will they keep on saving?
For instance, I think anti-abortion groups should be pushing for "educated abortion". That is, educating people about abortion and it's alternatives. To educate on the issue of abortion is a sensible thing to do, medically and morally. You should never let someone go into a surgery without telling them the risks, the benifits, and the unknowns. In fact, this should be something pro-life groups heavily endorse, because it's something that [radical] pro-abortion groups heavily fight against. And anything that pro-abortion groups don't want has got to be good for the Mom and child.
There should also be a heavy financial hand from pro-life groups to support adoptions. In fact, anti-abortion groups should stop calling themselves pro-life and start calling themselves "pro-adoption". This is a two-handed name, because it speaks volumes about how much a group really cares about the child AND THE MOTHER. It also makes it so people automatically know what the best alternative to abortion is--adoption.
I think pro-life groups seriously underplay adoption. How often do you hear about a pro-adoption rally? Uh, never. Why is that? If abortion kills babies, shouldn't we be pushing adoption-- a baby saver? Should not the anti-abortion/pro-life groups be in Washington lobbying for easier adoptions with less red tape, yet equally safe standards? Financially endorsing adoption, and clearing up the strange myths that people have about adoptions?
Shouldn't WORLD be running articles that talk about Adoption? Shouldn't they be pushing for it? Why aren't they? You hear lots about abortion and anti-abortion, but almost nothing about adoption.
And it shouldn't stop there. There should be support for Mother's who want to keep their child, but are finacially unable to.
All of the positive aspects of "pro-life" should be pushed forward. Lets have some Pro-Adoption rallies in the middle of abortion rallies instead of pro-life. Imagine the funny looks one would get! :-o
I'm not saying pro-life groups don't endorse adoption either. I'm just saying you almost NEVER HEAR ABOUT IT. All you hear is the "anti-abortion" part... it's all that's printed in the news. Why is it that the voice of adoption often seem stifled?
Of course, now I'm going to be accused of allowing "baby killing" and being wishy-washy. Well, I'm not trying for either. I'm trying to be sensible about the matter. If I'm weak, wishy-washy, for trying to think of ways that might actually WORK in preventing as many of abortions as possible, so sue me.
I dunno, am I turning liberal? I just can't stop thinking that pro-life groups go about things the wrong way... they say they're saving a baby's life... but what about after the baby is born? Will they keep on saving?
Tuesday, July 27, 2004
Monday, July 26, 2004
Negativity in vogue
Something that has always puzzled me was people's inclination to be absolutely negative. While there is good reason to be negative (since the world is a very depressing place), there are some things worthy of praise. It seems to me that, when so many things are so bleak, that we'd want to focus on those things which aren't.
So how is it that some people not only refuse to acknowledge the goodness that is there, but also seek to destroy the joy other people find [in good things]? It's as if the very thought of goodness make their toes curl up.
I have alwasy suspected, and now feel it being confirmed, that people love to hate. I don't understand why, but they get malicious pleasure out of hating something or someone. It can be our president, a rich man, that nation wide chain-store, or even the guy next door with that sweeeet ride. It's as if people cannot tolerate other's happiness, others success, if it's not their own.
People focus on "hating" on homosexuals, minorities, or whatever, but I think that's more of a surface problem. For even those who advocate not hating other end up hating themselves. Because, as mentioned before, we love to hate.
I often feel that we are immitators of Lucifer, who committed the first sin (that we know of). Lucifer, to my knowledge, hates all that is good. He hates it most in people (Job is a good example of this). The reason for this is that goodness comes from God, and is pleasing to God. And God is the #1 enemy of Lucifer.
So we hate, I suppose because sin is a rejection of God. And if this is the case, than we are doing an aweful lot of rejecting.
Which isn't to say that we should never ever hate, because hatred can be a product of repulsion of something bad. It can be a product of disgust and contempt for something evil. But when we hate that which is good, than we're going about it all backward.
It's just very aggrivating. Can't people be happy without hating? >_<
So how is it that some people not only refuse to acknowledge the goodness that is there, but also seek to destroy the joy other people find [in good things]? It's as if the very thought of goodness make their toes curl up.
I have alwasy suspected, and now feel it being confirmed, that people love to hate. I don't understand why, but they get malicious pleasure out of hating something or someone. It can be our president, a rich man, that nation wide chain-store, or even the guy next door with that sweeeet ride. It's as if people cannot tolerate other's happiness, others success, if it's not their own.
People focus on "hating" on homosexuals, minorities, or whatever, but I think that's more of a surface problem. For even those who advocate not hating other end up hating themselves. Because, as mentioned before, we love to hate.
I often feel that we are immitators of Lucifer, who committed the first sin (that we know of). Lucifer, to my knowledge, hates all that is good. He hates it most in people (Job is a good example of this). The reason for this is that goodness comes from God, and is pleasing to God. And God is the #1 enemy of Lucifer.
So we hate, I suppose because sin is a rejection of God. And if this is the case, than we are doing an aweful lot of rejecting.
Which isn't to say that we should never ever hate, because hatred can be a product of repulsion of something bad. It can be a product of disgust and contempt for something evil. But when we hate that which is good, than we're going about it all backward.
It's just very aggrivating. Can't people be happy without hating? >_<
Saturday, July 24, 2004
Hu, I've been trying to access WORLDblog for the past two days with no success at all. I'm baffled about that, and wondering what exactly is going on. Does anyone over there know that people can't access? I dunno...
Sorry, not much to post about. The dog is outside playing with herself, which is good, that's something she needs to get in the habit of doing. When her owner comes back, there won't be much for her to do while he's at work.
Toodles!
Sorry, not much to post about. The dog is outside playing with herself, which is good, that's something she needs to get in the habit of doing. When her owner comes back, there won't be much for her to do while he's at work.
Toodles!
Saturday, July 17, 2004
SEE THIS MOVIE!
How many of you have seen "The Terminal"? You know, that Steven Spielberg movie, with Tom Hanks? How many? I bet none of you...
FOR SHAME!
That movie was so good. Seriously. Like, no violence, but there's suspence. And there's almost no bad language (and what's in there isn't really bad anyway..). There's love interest, but not typical chic-flick romance. The main character is deep, the supporting cast is great. There's.. I mean...
Steven Spielberg is awesome with movies. I mean, he's done action and all that, but this was so different. Like breathing a breath of fresh air. It was REALLY REALLY GOOD.
Everyone should see this film. Everyone... I'm gonna get it when it comes out on DVD for sure. You should at least rent it.
Why oh why do all the good movies get drowned out by the ones with all the money and special affects? *sighs*
FOR SHAME!
That movie was so good. Seriously. Like, no violence, but there's suspence. And there's almost no bad language (and what's in there isn't really bad anyway..). There's love interest, but not typical chic-flick romance. The main character is deep, the supporting cast is great. There's.. I mean...
Steven Spielberg is awesome with movies. I mean, he's done action and all that, but this was so different. Like breathing a breath of fresh air. It was REALLY REALLY GOOD.
Everyone should see this film. Everyone... I'm gonna get it when it comes out on DVD for sure. You should at least rent it.
Why oh why do all the good movies get drowned out by the ones with all the money and special affects? *sighs*
Thursday, July 15, 2004
Wow, did.. um. Did Blogger just change how I post things? *blinks* Hu. Looks prettier now.
ANYWAY!
I know this isn't really a place for showing my art. But I really liked how this drawing turned out. Go HERE and check it out. :D
ANYWAY!
I know this isn't really a place for showing my art. But I really liked how this drawing turned out. Go HERE and check it out. :D
Wednesday, July 14, 2004
Oh, the pain, the pain....
Say Anything...
What movie Do you Belong in?(many different outcomes!)
brought to you by Quizilla
LOL.. just for my friend...
I know, I know, lots of quotes...
Found this on WORLD blog. Thought it was pretty cool.
"Unfortunately Republicans are reluctant to define what liberal means philosophically. Modern liberals are not really liberal in the classical sense, like Jefferson who held truth and individual freedom (and its corresponding responsibility) in the highest regard. Modern liberals say these things, but do the opposite. They say they support free speech, but fight incessantly to restrict any speech that is either religious or political, the two forms protected by the 1st amendment. They say they oppose racism, but instead institutionalize racism (c.f. affirmative action), treating people differently based on the color of their skin. They say they support the little guy, but vote instead to allow the murder of the littlest of all, their own children. They say they support America, but then give speeches that sound remarkably similar to America's worst enemies. They say they support diversity, but oppose any ideas contrary to their own. They claim to be environmental, but leave man out. We're part of nature too."
Rick Flanders
"Unfortunately Republicans are reluctant to define what liberal means philosophically. Modern liberals are not really liberal in the classical sense, like Jefferson who held truth and individual freedom (and its corresponding responsibility) in the highest regard. Modern liberals say these things, but do the opposite. They say they support free speech, but fight incessantly to restrict any speech that is either religious or political, the two forms protected by the 1st amendment. They say they oppose racism, but instead institutionalize racism (c.f. affirmative action), treating people differently based on the color of their skin. They say they support the little guy, but vote instead to allow the murder of the littlest of all, their own children. They say they support America, but then give speeches that sound remarkably similar to America's worst enemies. They say they support diversity, but oppose any ideas contrary to their own. They claim to be environmental, but leave man out. We're part of nature too."
Rick Flanders
Tuesday, July 13, 2004
Old Post New Post
Ah, I found this in my livejournal, something dating back to 8th of December ('03). I thought it was cool:
"Also, I remembered why I think accusing the devil for our own sinfulness is.. well... just not right. First of all, Christ will come back and cast Satan and all his annoying demons away so they can't make any more trouble, yet people will STILL disobey God and rebel. This is proof that we sin whether Satan has anything to do with it or not. Also, saying Satan makes me sin seems to be giving him an AWFUL lot of power. I mean, he's only a fallen angel, and the most he can do is influence certain people and only one at a time (he's not like God and can't be every where at once).
And even so, I'm either God's or I'm not. I can't have Satan or his demons controlling me when I'm owned by Christ. I can't have two masters. I follow God, and perhaps I choose to willfully disobey him, but that is not Satan "making" me do it. That's me choosing to.
Lastly, it doesn't matter who starts it, I'm responsible for falling for the trap. Satan can't control me, so I have to choose. Just like Eve and Adam had to choose, and why they got punished. Satan may cause problems but he's never MAKING me do anything.
That is why I don't blame Satan for my own faults. I blame myself, for I choose, and I am the one who will stand before God in the end."
"Also, I remembered why I think accusing the devil for our own sinfulness is.. well... just not right. First of all, Christ will come back and cast Satan and all his annoying demons away so they can't make any more trouble, yet people will STILL disobey God and rebel. This is proof that we sin whether Satan has anything to do with it or not. Also, saying Satan makes me sin seems to be giving him an AWFUL lot of power. I mean, he's only a fallen angel, and the most he can do is influence certain people and only one at a time (he's not like God and can't be every where at once).
And even so, I'm either God's or I'm not. I can't have Satan or his demons controlling me when I'm owned by Christ. I can't have two masters. I follow God, and perhaps I choose to willfully disobey him, but that is not Satan "making" me do it. That's me choosing to.
Lastly, it doesn't matter who starts it, I'm responsible for falling for the trap. Satan can't control me, so I have to choose. Just like Eve and Adam had to choose, and why they got punished. Satan may cause problems but he's never MAKING me do anything.
That is why I don't blame Satan for my own faults. I blame myself, for I choose, and I am the one who will stand before God in the end."
Sunday, July 11, 2004
Moral Ambiguity is the luxery of the selfish.
So, yesterday I was in Mangasync's IRC channel (What's that? You don't know what IRC is? Ha! Go here to find out. :). Now I normally go there to get a Japanese Anime that's fan subbed (which isn't illegal to my knowledge beceause it's not lisenced in the states and the people who sub don't make a profit from it), and I like to chat with people too.
Well, one day when I was on their and someone posted this quote talking about how President Bush opposed homosexual "marriage". He (Bush) was saying how homosexual "marriage" manipulated the meaning of an institution that is the building block to our society. The guy (or girl?) said "bush soooo needs to be beaten in nov".
Now, I wasn't particularly in a mood for a debate, but there's this saying that goes "Silence can be taken as a form of agreement". So I spoke up and said I agreed with Bush, and you can imagine what happened after that. I really should have known, because the people in the chat were primarily college students in California. (Why does California always get the good anime and manga?! WHY!?)
What I came across deeply unsettled me. These people believed there were no moral absolutes. Everything was based on culture or religion... and that doesn't mean that morals mean anything anyway. Heck, one person was so morally "neutral" that they said murder wasn't wrong! (Talk about alarming..)
So I started thinking, "How do you deal with people like that?" Really, how do you deal with people who are so utterly selfish that morality doesn't matter as long as it's not hurting THEM? (And sometimes I wouldn't if they even care whether it hurts them...)
I don't understand, first of all, how anyone could believe that morals are all relative. There are some areas in life that are sketchy and up for debate, but that doesn't mean all things are in "the gray".
For instance, to say that murder is wrong to me, but not for the next guy who murdered his wife and kids is lunacy. Murder is wrong on so many levels, not the least of which are that it destroys innocent lives. There is no excuse for murder.
And then there's the whole "moral" issue of the difference between murder and killing (which is apparently lost on many people). For instance, when a man goes to take your life and in self-defence you kill him, that is not murder. Or when a wire you tied holding a plank accidently breaks and falls on your friend and kills him, that is not murder. When soldiers are fighting each other, and one (or both) die, that is not murder.
The reason there is a difference is because morally, it is wrong to take someone's life because you're angry, vengeful, bitter, or they are "in your way". If there were no moral laws, absolutes, there would be no reason for people not to murder.
When you take away moral absolutes, you take away the fabric that holds a nation, a community, a family, a person together. And when you take more absolutes away, you're essentially giving people the excuse to do anything they want.
And maybe that's what it's all about. Without moral absolutes, you can lie (white lies), cheat (just on this test), steal (just this one CD), and a number of other things... It lets the utterly selfish and spoiled people do what they really want, SIN.
Perhaps people are also very lazy. They don't want to have to deal with absolutes. If there are moral absolutes, how do you find out which ones are the right ones? Is a moral absolute determined by how good it is for one person, or many? Do you find it in a religious book, or in nature?
It makes me said to watch people erode the very fabric of their being away by thinking that way. It's such an illusion too. No matter what a person says, everyone lives by a moral absolute, and it effects what they do, and that in turn affects what other people do. If you can't acknowledge this, and try to find the TRUTH, then you're doomed to destruction.
Well, one day when I was on their and someone posted this quote talking about how President Bush opposed homosexual "marriage". He (Bush) was saying how homosexual "marriage" manipulated the meaning of an institution that is the building block to our society. The guy (or girl?) said "bush soooo needs to be beaten in nov".
Now, I wasn't particularly in a mood for a debate, but there's this saying that goes "Silence can be taken as a form of agreement". So I spoke up and said I agreed with Bush, and you can imagine what happened after that. I really should have known, because the people in the chat were primarily college students in California. (Why does California always get the good anime and manga?! WHY!?)
What I came across deeply unsettled me. These people believed there were no moral absolutes. Everything was based on culture or religion... and that doesn't mean that morals mean anything anyway. Heck, one person was so morally "neutral" that they said murder wasn't wrong! (Talk about alarming..)
So I started thinking, "How do you deal with people like that?" Really, how do you deal with people who are so utterly selfish that morality doesn't matter as long as it's not hurting THEM? (And sometimes I wouldn't if they even care whether it hurts them...)
I don't understand, first of all, how anyone could believe that morals are all relative. There are some areas in life that are sketchy and up for debate, but that doesn't mean all things are in "the gray".
For instance, to say that murder is wrong to me, but not for the next guy who murdered his wife and kids is lunacy. Murder is wrong on so many levels, not the least of which are that it destroys innocent lives. There is no excuse for murder.
And then there's the whole "moral" issue of the difference between murder and killing (which is apparently lost on many people). For instance, when a man goes to take your life and in self-defence you kill him, that is not murder. Or when a wire you tied holding a plank accidently breaks and falls on your friend and kills him, that is not murder. When soldiers are fighting each other, and one (or both) die, that is not murder.
The reason there is a difference is because morally, it is wrong to take someone's life because you're angry, vengeful, bitter, or they are "in your way". If there were no moral laws, absolutes, there would be no reason for people not to murder.
When you take away moral absolutes, you take away the fabric that holds a nation, a community, a family, a person together. And when you take more absolutes away, you're essentially giving people the excuse to do anything they want.
And maybe that's what it's all about. Without moral absolutes, you can lie (white lies), cheat (just on this test), steal (just this one CD), and a number of other things... It lets the utterly selfish and spoiled people do what they really want, SIN.
Perhaps people are also very lazy. They don't want to have to deal with absolutes. If there are moral absolutes, how do you find out which ones are the right ones? Is a moral absolute determined by how good it is for one person, or many? Do you find it in a religious book, or in nature?
It makes me said to watch people erode the very fabric of their being away by thinking that way. It's such an illusion too. No matter what a person says, everyone lives by a moral absolute, and it effects what they do, and that in turn affects what other people do. If you can't acknowledge this, and try to find the TRUTH, then you're doomed to destruction.
Thursday, July 08, 2004
Why I wish I had my Own Nation
Really, I sometimes hate newspaper and tv news and even internet news. I don't read it much anymore. It's not that I want to be cut off from the world, but every time I watch the news, I get really frustrated.
I can't remember anything specific, but almost every time I listen or read news, I'm finding it flawed. It's like they don't care how accurate they are, if they're quoting people in or out of context... because of course they don't care. News is a business. It's all about money.
There are some really horrible things going on in the world, things that never seem to interest the big name news sources. Slavery still exists in the world... women being sold as sex slaves and people being rounded up and forced to do hard labor.. it's happening. But when do we hear about it? Not from the big guys. Because they don't care about real news, they care only about political news.
And while there's all this bad stuff going on, why is the good stuff rarely mentioned? What about inspiring news? News that talks about indurance, selflessness, and sacrifice? No... you're not likely to hear about that either.
Seriously, I sometimes wish I could create my own nation, with my own laws. Maybe some day I will... at least in my mind. ;)
I can't remember anything specific, but almost every time I listen or read news, I'm finding it flawed. It's like they don't care how accurate they are, if they're quoting people in or out of context... because of course they don't care. News is a business. It's all about money.
There are some really horrible things going on in the world, things that never seem to interest the big name news sources. Slavery still exists in the world... women being sold as sex slaves and people being rounded up and forced to do hard labor.. it's happening. But when do we hear about it? Not from the big guys. Because they don't care about real news, they care only about political news.
And while there's all this bad stuff going on, why is the good stuff rarely mentioned? What about inspiring news? News that talks about indurance, selflessness, and sacrifice? No... you're not likely to hear about that either.
Seriously, I sometimes wish I could create my own nation, with my own laws. Maybe some day I will... at least in my mind. ;)
Why I hate the News Sometimes
I was browsing and I found this article. It made me want to cry. Sometimes I want to take newspapers and TV news and smack them all really hard. I understand that reporting news means you have to report the bad stuff. There's nothing wrong with that. But damn.... what the news is doing... sometimes... it's so aggrivating.... >_<
Monday, July 05, 2004
More than just Windows
How many people here use Windows (95/98/ME/2000/XP)? I'm sure that's most of you. This is for you (and even an Apple user or two).
As we all know, Windows is very very powerful in the computer world. It seems like all the neat programs are on Windows. But did you realize that instead of shaping their [Windows] operating system around people, they shape the people around the operating system. That is, they train people to accept whatever they're given because "There's nothing as good as Windows."
Windows (the company) bully other companies who try to make headway in the computing industry, because they absolutely HATE competition. They know if someone got popular enough, they could become a threat.. Deep down Windows knows that they're playing with their customers... they're using them because they're big enough that they can.
That's not to say that Windows is totally bad and useless. If you love to play computer games, it's an excellent OS. That's not, however, because Windows is a "gaming OS"... it's because Windows is so big that it's just easier for computer game designers to make JUST Windows games. (I feel sorry for Apple users, I really do. :( )
But outside of that, don't think that Windows is as great as it claims. Almost all the [non-game]programs you get for Windows, you could get the equivilent of for other operating systems. Not only that the other OSs that are out there are infinitely more secure and less "buggy" than Windows.
Most people know about Apple Computers. They are a wonderful alternative to Windows. They are sleek, and beautiful to look at, and they run just as well as Windows.
But Apple computers tend be expensive. You also can't really upgrade your Apple like you can a PC. Even if you tried, it would be very pricey, since only a few companies make Apple parts. Apple doesn't give you a lot of choices in how and what your computer is like, or how it performs.
However, there's a third option. It's called Linux. Linux is used by businesses. For servers and things along those lines. It's considered one of the most secure operating systems out there. It's highly customizable. There's just one problem:
It's a pain in the arse to learn. (Trying to just install something on Linux is enough to make a grown man cry in frustration.) Unlike Windows and Macs, Linux is for the "geeks". It's for people who understand what goes on BEHIND the "pretty face" of an operating system. These are people who BUILD programs, not just click a button to make them run.
Obviously Linux, though one of the safest OS out there, is not for the average user. In fact, it's not even for a middle user!
But I found something that recently changed all that. It's called Linspire. It's based off Linux (specifically, Debian Linux), but unlike almost every other Linux OS out there, the average person can USE Linspire. Linspire aims to be as easy to use as Windows, but more dependable.
Linspire can do just about anything Windows can, without having to worry about viruses or crashes. And to top all of it off: It's affordable.
Unlike Mac, which requires special parts and are expenaive, Linspire can be put onto a regular PC hard drive. It works with PC components, just the same as Windows. I should know, since my computer was "home built" and it has Linspire and WindowsXP (I had Windows XP first, if you're wondering why I use it.)
However, not everyone can build a PC. For those who don't build PCs, or who's computer is just too old and you need a replacement, Linspire is still a great way to go. You can get a PC for less than 500$. Out of the box it's internet ready, program ready, and even includes a flat screen monitor. Or, you can get a laptop for less than 850$.
Linspire is aimed for high internet speed, like DSL or Cable. But, if you're one of those people who can't afford that (or it's simply not in your area), Linspire can help you out with that as well. They have a special CD with most of the "big programs" (which are hard on dialup connections) on it.
Also, if you play games on Windows, there is still hope. Some games can be played on Linspire using special programs like WineX . Programs like WineX can not play graphically intensive games (like... Final Fantasy Online or StarWars Galaxy), but they can play games like SimCity 4 or WarCraft III.
In conclusion, I'm asking everyone to consider the fact that Windows is not the end-all for Operating Systems. There are choices out there, cheap ones, that are just as good, if not better, than Windows. So consider them when you think about buying a new computer.
And now I'm done being the sales person. ;)
As we all know, Windows is very very powerful in the computer world. It seems like all the neat programs are on Windows. But did you realize that instead of shaping their [Windows] operating system around people, they shape the people around the operating system. That is, they train people to accept whatever they're given because "There's nothing as good as Windows."
Windows (the company) bully other companies who try to make headway in the computing industry, because they absolutely HATE competition. They know if someone got popular enough, they could become a threat.. Deep down Windows knows that they're playing with their customers... they're using them because they're big enough that they can.
That's not to say that Windows is totally bad and useless. If you love to play computer games, it's an excellent OS. That's not, however, because Windows is a "gaming OS"... it's because Windows is so big that it's just easier for computer game designers to make JUST Windows games. (I feel sorry for Apple users, I really do. :( )
But outside of that, don't think that Windows is as great as it claims. Almost all the [non-game]programs you get for Windows, you could get the equivilent of for other operating systems. Not only that the other OSs that are out there are infinitely more secure and less "buggy" than Windows.
Most people know about Apple Computers. They are a wonderful alternative to Windows. They are sleek, and beautiful to look at, and they run just as well as Windows.
But Apple computers tend be expensive. You also can't really upgrade your Apple like you can a PC. Even if you tried, it would be very pricey, since only a few companies make Apple parts. Apple doesn't give you a lot of choices in how and what your computer is like, or how it performs.
However, there's a third option. It's called Linux. Linux is used by businesses. For servers and things along those lines. It's considered one of the most secure operating systems out there. It's highly customizable. There's just one problem:
It's a pain in the arse to learn. (Trying to just install something on Linux is enough to make a grown man cry in frustration.) Unlike Windows and Macs, Linux is for the "geeks". It's for people who understand what goes on BEHIND the "pretty face" of an operating system. These are people who BUILD programs, not just click a button to make them run.
Obviously Linux, though one of the safest OS out there, is not for the average user. In fact, it's not even for a middle user!
But I found something that recently changed all that. It's called Linspire. It's based off Linux (specifically, Debian Linux), but unlike almost every other Linux OS out there, the average person can USE Linspire. Linspire aims to be as easy to use as Windows, but more dependable.
Linspire can do just about anything Windows can, without having to worry about viruses or crashes. And to top all of it off: It's affordable.
Unlike Mac, which requires special parts and are expenaive, Linspire can be put onto a regular PC hard drive. It works with PC components, just the same as Windows. I should know, since my computer was "home built" and it has Linspire and WindowsXP (I had Windows XP first, if you're wondering why I use it.)
However, not everyone can build a PC. For those who don't build PCs, or who's computer is just too old and you need a replacement, Linspire is still a great way to go. You can get a PC for less than 500$. Out of the box it's internet ready, program ready, and even includes a flat screen monitor. Or, you can get a laptop for less than 850$.
Linspire is aimed for high internet speed, like DSL or Cable. But, if you're one of those people who can't afford that (or it's simply not in your area), Linspire can help you out with that as well. They have a special CD with most of the "big programs" (which are hard on dialup connections) on it.
Also, if you play games on Windows, there is still hope. Some games can be played on Linspire using special programs like WineX . Programs like WineX can not play graphically intensive games (like... Final Fantasy Online or StarWars Galaxy), but they can play games like SimCity 4 or WarCraft III.
In conclusion, I'm asking everyone to consider the fact that Windows is not the end-all for Operating Systems. There are choices out there, cheap ones, that are just as good, if not better, than Windows. So consider them when you think about buying a new computer.
And now I'm done being the sales person. ;)
Thursday, July 01, 2004
A negative view of college...
I got married at 19 (I'm 20 now), and that's pretty young 'round these parts. I remember how people were astonished that I would get married so "young" instead of going to college and finding my career. Even my Grandma (who got married at 18!) voiced her concern.
Now, this is gonna sound horrible, but I never wanted to go to college. I wasn't too interested in careers either. But if I was going to have a career, I didn't want to have to go to college for it.
I think that if I haven't gotten enough edumication (joke there) by the time I've gotten out of highschool, then I'm pretty hopeless. I really wish people would depend less on college degrees (which mean very little when it comes to putting things into practice) and more on the actual talent of the individual. (There are exceptions to this-- such as fields like medicine, etc.)
One of the things I wish our society emphasized is apprenticeship programs [instead of college]. I think this is much better than college (in certain fields) because it promotes PRACTICAL skills and gives experience (something most jobs require anyway). I mean, if parents and the government and ourselves have to pay to learn, we might as well learn things we're actually going to USE.
I know, I know, it's such a horrible thing to be dissing college. We're all taught that college is the end all to end all for edumication (hehe). If ya don't go to college your dumb and you'll never get anywhere in life.
Well, ya know what? Just because everyone says it, doesn't mean it's the best way to do things.
Now, this is gonna sound horrible, but I never wanted to go to college. I wasn't too interested in careers either. But if I was going to have a career, I didn't want to have to go to college for it.
I think that if I haven't gotten enough edumication (joke there) by the time I've gotten out of highschool, then I'm pretty hopeless. I really wish people would depend less on college degrees (which mean very little when it comes to putting things into practice) and more on the actual talent of the individual. (There are exceptions to this-- such as fields like medicine, etc.)
One of the things I wish our society emphasized is apprenticeship programs [instead of college]. I think this is much better than college (in certain fields) because it promotes PRACTICAL skills and gives experience (something most jobs require anyway). I mean, if parents and the government and ourselves have to pay to learn, we might as well learn things we're actually going to USE.
I know, I know, it's such a horrible thing to be dissing college. We're all taught that college is the end all to end all for edumication (hehe). If ya don't go to college your dumb and you'll never get anywhere in life.
Well, ya know what? Just because everyone says it, doesn't mean it's the best way to do things.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)