Like livejournal for photos.post a comment
20 entries back
When my life freaks me out, my life REALLY freaks me out. But I guess that's appropriate--I'm an all-or-nothing kind of guy.
This came as a bit of a surprise:
They do that a lot these days.
1 comment | post a comment
You are blue. You are somewhat innocent, in the fact that your genius only extends to the physical world. You have a false sense of contentness. You are usually the quiet one, the genius. Everyone can count on you to help when they have problems, but you only fall short of being able to solve your own. What inner color are you?
You are blue. You are somewhat innocent, in the fact that your genius only extends to the physical world. You have a false sense of contentness. You are usually the quiet one, the genius. Everyone can count on you to help when they have problems, but you only fall short of being able to solve your own.
What inner color are you?
[Error: Irreparable invalid markup ('<font [...] shirono</font>') in entry. Owner must fix manually. Raw contents below.]post a comment
<A HREF= "http://quizilla.com/users/Shirono/quizzes/The%20inner%20color%20quiz%20(Utena%20Images)" > <IMG SRC="http://homepage.mac.com/werkers/colorquiz/youareblue.jpg"> <P>You are blue. You are somewhat innocent, in the fact that your genius only extends to the physical world. You have a false sense of contentness. You are usually the quiet one, the genius. Everyone can count on you to help when they have problems, but you only fall short of being able to solve your own. </P> <P>What inner color are you? </P></A> <P><FONT SIZE= "-1"Quiz by Shirono</FONT> </P>
What the hell does that mean?? My genius only extends to the physical world?!
But at least <lj user="tmhsiao"> and I are true to our inner <a href="http://www.ufl.edu/">Gators</a>.
Who here knows the difference between a hump dolly and a reefer strap? Or is it reefer dolly and hump strap?
Actually, I bought a purse on Friday, but it was too small. xopherg said that it wasn't even a masculine purse. Then he retracted that statement and said it was feminine. I told him he was a moron for even thinking about it in such terms. Nevertheless, it was too small, so I returned it on Saturday. Yesterday I bought a new one, which is the perfect size. And this one's black (Friday's was brown), so I don't even have to buy new shoes.post a comment
Assume you and a friend are both thirsty, and you find a large bottle of water. Your friend takes a few gulps, then hands you the bottle. You take a sip and scald your tongue, because the water is nearly boiling. Then you realize your friend didn't exactly look relieved when she handed you the bottle. Would you sympathize with your pal (possibly making jokes) because you both are sharing the same pain? Or would you be pissed that she didn't warn you?3 comments | post a comment
I hate losing.post a comment
ISO standard cup of tea
I know exactly when and how I can put this precious bit of geekery to use.post a comment
Here's my .emacs:
(cond ((boundp 'running-xemacs) (setq user-init-file (expand-file-name "init.el" (expand-file-name ".xemacs" "~"))) (setq custom-file (expand-file-name "custom.el" (expand-file-name ".xemacs" "~"))) (load-file user-init-file) (load-file custom-file) ) (t (setq user-init-file (expand-file-name "init.el" (expand-file-name ".emacs-lib" "~"))) (setq custom-file (expand-file-name "custom.el" (expand-file-name ".emacs-lib" "~"))) (load-file user-init-file) (load-file custom-file) ))
Seems silly to have to do all that, doesn't it? Unfortunately, the XEmacs folks have decided to make a gratuitous change: instead of reading .emacs, XEmacs now looks for the files init.el (your hand-hacked lisp) and custom.el (the lisp XEmacs hacks for you) in the .xemacs directory. That was fine until I started using GNU Emacs again.
Emacs doesn't like some of XEmacs's lisp, so I can't just use the files out of the .xemacs directory. And I can't just switch over to Emacs, either. Some of the stuff Emacs doesn't like has to do with Gnus, which is what I use to read mail. So I hacked up the lisp you see above, which has worked really well. Emacs surprised the hell out of me.
Since my .emacs is now simply directing traffic, I wanted to see if maybe Emacs could read some other config file. Then I could do away with .emacs, since Emacs would read its config elsewhere, and XEmacs would go to the .xemacs directory. I couldn't find anything in the docs about this. But then I did some customizations through Emacs's interface, and lo! Emacs knows that it needs to store its customizations in my .emacs-lib/custom.el file. It seems trivial in retrospect, since Emacs just has to note whence it loaded its customizations. But at the time I didn't expect it.
XEmacs is still a fine editor. I switched back to GNU Emacs because I discovered its parsing internals are more sophisticated, and, as a result, syntax highlighting (which is so very, very crucial) works better. But I'm not about to live with email downtime, so XEmacs+Gnus is still there for me.
Rock on. 1 comment | post a comment
Yesterday I was leaving a parking garage (in Buckhead) around 5pm, so traffic was starting to get nasty. Cars were backing up well into the garage. At a 4-way intersection, a woman was stopped in a way that would allow traffic to continue through the intersection. I was stopped in preparation to turn right and make my exit at some point:
| | ----+ +----------- her -> ### ### ### ### <- more cars ----+ +----------- | # | | # | | | ^ | me --+
Once some of the other cars had moved enough, she moved into the intersection, past the point where she'd be blocking cross traffic, but not so far that she was out of my way. It took several minutes for her to get this opportunity, so I can't blame her. She was there first and she had been sitting there awhile. What irks me is that never once did she look at me. You've seen this behavior before, and probably been guilty of it yourself. I have certainly done both.
Someone is a little ashamed of some (usually automobile-related) action, and fears--what? the other driver's reaction? what Mom would say were she present?--so they don't even look. I mean, she was very obviously trying to avoid eye contact with me. I saw her eyes twitch in my direction a couple of times while she kept her neck rigid.
She was completely in the right, but totally rude about it. If she felt bad about it, couldn't she at least have looked at me, smiled sheepishly and mouthed, "Sorry"? Was she afraid I'd jump ahead of her? Could she have prevented that by giving me a stern glare instead of blocking me? Granted, the road-rage-afflicted are plentiful (right, thepeopleseason?), but people tend to be reasonable. A little politeness and/or friendliness (a simple smile can perform miracles) usually helps people stay reasonable.
Here's my challenge to you: the next time you feel like you shouldn't look at someone, look them directly in the eye, with confidence. Stand your ground. Smile if it's even slightly appropriate. And if you did something wrong, make some gesture of apology. At the very least, the next time you see me, look me in the eye. 3 comments | post a comment