This is nekodojo's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following nekodojo's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
nekodojo
Recent Activity
I think the next time that happens, and you're within a few miles of your house, you should flatly ask "hmm, where do you think Wil lives?"
1 reply
I am pretty sure I have bradhicks@LJ to thank for this pointer, but now I can't find his original post. "The Hackers Diet" is a great book, and also available free in electronic form. I didn't read the diet bits though... I went straight for the chapter on exercise. Basically the author advocates a daily workout of calisthenics (jumping jacks, running in place, etc) that you can do daily, in your home. He lays out an escalating ladder of how many to do of each, and after achieving that comfortably in the time allotted for a few days, you try the next step up and see what happens. (He doesn't call it "leveling up" but it basically is). Eventually you reach a comfortable level and stay there. I ended up not sticking with it, mostly because I have knee problems. But it is basically what you said: A simple exercise program with "levels". All you need is a roll-up yoga mat and a pen and paper. (I also heartily recommend bradhicks.livejournal.com even though it contains forbidden lore... perhaps *because* of it)
1 reply
I'm curious about what your experience with Lulu has been like. (Full disclosure: I work for one of their competitors). It's too bad that nobody at (my company) reached out to you... we offer the Kindle version along with the printed version as an extra option.
1 reply
I think it's funny that most west-coast people wait "in line" while east-coast people tend to wait "on line" instead. I hear "I waited on line" and I think "well you need a faster connection, don't you?"
Toggle Commented Nov 5, 2008 on one lever, pulled. at WWdN: In Exile
1 reply
I think it's funny that most west-coast people wait "in line" while east-coast people tend to wait "on line" instead. I hear "I waited on line" and I think "well you need a faster connection, don't you?"
Toggle Commented Nov 5, 2008 on one lever, pulled. at WWdN: In Exile
1 reply
Speaking of reading, have you tried out the Amazon Kindle yet? It's pretty awesome. If you buy a lot of books, and especially if you travel, you would probably love it. My wife and I love ours, so much we're probably going to have to get two.
1 reply
Speaking of reading, have you tried out the Amazon Kindle yet? It's pretty awesome. If you buy a lot of books, and especially if you travel, you would probably love it. My wife and I love ours, so much we're probably going to have to get two.
1 reply
One idea I have heard is to imagine interviewing your main characters, sometime after the event. Ask them about their memories of it (even if they are sketchy) and ask them about their feelings at the time, and whether those feelings have changed in the months after. The idea here is to learn what impact the key event in Act One had on your characters, and whether they saw it differently, and how it impacted the events that came after.
1 reply
One idea I have heard is to imagine interviewing your main characters, sometime after the event. Ask them about their memories of it (even if they are sketchy) and ask them about their feelings at the time, and whether those feelings have changed in the months after. The idea here is to learn what impact the key event in Act One had on your characters, and whether they saw it differently, and how it impacted the events that came after.
1 reply
I think AOL gets a bad rap because they are aggressive in fighting spam, and there are any number of horror stories from folks who have been blocked. I have dealt with AOL blocking issues before (at two different companies in fact) and I firmly believe AOL are definitely the good guys. I also believe if you're being blocked, there's a good reason for it and your ISP needs to clean house. The block patterns are usually based on the IP of the sending server, not your email address, so activity from other bad actors at your ISP can affect everyone. If your ISP doesn't clean up their act enough to keep AOL from blocking, move your email account to a competitor, and ask them if they are whitelisted by AOL first. Either the crap mail is actually coming from your ISP, or your ISP "forwards" mail for some domains to AOL, effectively laundering it. Both cases are relatively easy to clean up, if your ISP cares about doing the right thing. Some people will get up in arms and blame AOL for the (actually somewhat moderate) blocking that they do. Everyone should keep in mind that the REAL enemy is the spammer. Not only do spammers increase costs for everyone else, and make email no longer a clear, reliable medium, they have done even worse: they have shat in the fountain, taking a wonderful thing and making it just a little bit shitty. For more on the emotional/psychological impact of spam, I refer you to the original post by Norman De Forest called "A Hidden Cost of Spam" . I submit that by acting to block spammers, AOL is not only protecting their customers, they are also benefitting all Internet users by forcing bad (or even indifferent) actors to toe the line.
1 reply
I think AOL gets a bad rap because they are aggressive in fighting spam, and there are any number of horror stories from folks who have been blocked. I have dealt with AOL blocking issues before (at two different companies in fact) and I firmly believe AOL are definitely the good guys. I also believe if you're being blocked, there's a good reason for it and your ISP needs to clean house. The block patterns are usually based on the IP of the sending server, not your email address, so activity from other bad actors at your ISP can affect everyone. If your ISP doesn't clean up their act enough to keep AOL from blocking, move your email account to a competitor, and ask them if they are whitelisted by AOL first. Either the crap mail is actually coming from your ISP, or your ISP "forwards" mail for some domains to AOL, effectively laundering it. Both cases are relatively easy to clean up, if your ISP cares about doing the right thing. Some people will get up in arms and blame AOL for the (actually somewhat moderate) blocking that they do. Everyone should keep in mind that the REAL enemy is the spammer. Not only do spammers increase costs for everyone else, and make email no longer a clear, reliable medium, they have done even worse: they have shat in the fountain, taking a wonderful thing and making it just a little bit shitty. For more on the emotional/psychological impact of spam, I refer you to the original post by Norman De Forest called "A Hidden Cost of Spam" . I submit that by acting to block spammers, AOL is not only protecting their customers, they are also benefitting all Internet users by forcing bad (or even indifferent) actors to toe the line.
1 reply
Fenderberg!!!1
Toggle Commented Feb 22, 2007 on life sure does come at you fast at WWdN: In Exile
1 reply
Fenderberg!!!1
Toggle Commented Feb 22, 2007 on life sure does come at you fast at WWdN: In Exile
1 reply
I agree, totally. It seems to me that it's in the best interest of the current administration to observe a double-standard regarding who gets what "rights". The hair-splitting over whether someone is a "prisoner of war" or an "enemy combatant" is an example of this. It seems to me that the Geneva convention was trying to differentiate between "soldiers" (who are held for a while and eventually returned whence they came) and "criminals" (who would be subject to whatever "due process" exists in the place they committed their "crime"). Probably this was intended to keep soldiers from getting swept up by local courts. Bush and co. have created a third grouping -- not protected by either Geneva or our own due process. And they are conveniently located in Cuba, outside reach of any D.A. or public defender. The claim that US courts have no jurisdiction over GB because Cuba is sovereign there is laughable. They forget that "human rights" are granted to all humans, not because of who THEY are, but because of who WE are. The liberties we grant to anyone, everyone, regardless of situation are the liberties that define us (as a people). Nobody wants to say it too loudly, but our country was founded on granting liberties *even* *if* it reduces safety. People get off on "technicalities" all the time -- that just means that some policeman didn't do his job right, and we've decided in advance that liberty is more important. Nobody wants to stand up and proclaim this, but they should. Even the ACLU says it won't spend time and resources fighting for liberty in the face of something that grants real, actual safety. But, I wonder how many USAmericans would really agree that all those liberties don't really apply if we could have safety instead (insert Franklin quote here). In our zeal to protect the homeland, are we turning it into something different from what previous generations fought and died to defend?
Toggle Commented Jan 19, 2007 on regarding hersay and coercion at WWdN: In Exile
1 reply
I agree, totally. It seems to me that it's in the best interest of the current administration to observe a double-standard regarding who gets what "rights". The hair-splitting over whether someone is a "prisoner of war" or an "enemy combatant" is an example of this. It seems to me that the Geneva convention was trying to differentiate between "soldiers" (who are held for a while and eventually returned whence they came) and "criminals" (who would be subject to whatever "due process" exists in the place they committed their "crime"). Probably this was intended to keep soldiers from getting swept up by local courts. Bush and co. have created a third grouping -- not protected by either Geneva or our own due process. And they are conveniently located in Cuba, outside reach of any D.A. or public defender. The claim that US courts have no jurisdiction over GB because Cuba is sovereign there is laughable. They forget that "human rights" are granted to all humans, not because of who THEY are, but because of who WE are. The liberties we grant to anyone, everyone, regardless of situation are the liberties that define us (as a people). Nobody wants to say it too loudly, but our country was founded on granting liberties *even* *if* it reduces safety. People get off on "technicalities" all the time -- that just means that some policeman didn't do his job right, and we've decided in advance that liberty is more important. Nobody wants to stand up and proclaim this, but they should. Even the ACLU says it won't spend time and resources fighting for liberty in the face of something that grants real, actual safety. But, I wonder how many USAmericans would really agree that all those liberties don't really apply if we could have safety instead (insert Franklin quote here). In our zeal to protect the homeland, are we turning it into something different from what previous generations fought and died to defend?
Toggle Commented Jan 19, 2007 on regarding hersay and coercion at WWdN: In Exile
1 reply
You may find it interesting to read "Christians in the Hand of an Angry God" - a series of blog entries by bradhicks@LJ. Link here: http://bradhicks.livejournal.com/118585.html Basically, he says that there's been an alliance starting sometime in the seventies between Republicans and preachers, started to both defeat godless communism and possibly to turn back the tide of free love (and free thinking about religion). The interesting point Brad makes is that most of the preachers furthering this alliance *know* that it's a false gospel and are well aware that they're most likely going to Hell for preaching it. Somehow, the thought of really extreme fundamentalists burning in Hell because they chose to preach politics over charity, utterly warms my heart.
Toggle Commented Nov 30, 2006 on Seriously. What would Jesus do? at WWdN: In Exile
1 reply
You may find it interesting to read "Christians in the Hand of an Angry God" - a series of blog entries by bradhicks@LJ. Link here: http://bradhicks.livejournal.com/118585.html Basically, he says that there's been an alliance starting sometime in the seventies between Republicans and preachers, started to both defeat godless communism and possibly to turn back the tide of free love (and free thinking about religion). The interesting point Brad makes is that most of the preachers furthering this alliance *know* that it's a false gospel and are well aware that they're most likely going to Hell for preaching it. Somehow, the thought of really extreme fundamentalists burning in Hell because they chose to preach politics over charity, utterly warms my heart.
Toggle Commented Nov 30, 2006 on Seriously. What would Jesus do? at WWdN: In Exile
1 reply
wait, you're saying you have a *lame* blog too? where is that???
Toggle Commented Apr 12, 2006 on lost at WWdN: In Exile
1 reply
wait, you're saying you have a *lame* blog too? where is that???
Toggle Commented Apr 12, 2006 on lost at WWdN: In Exile
1 reply
About the only thing better than stale peeps (a.k.a. peeps jerky) is microwave peeps. 6 seconds, no more.
1 reply
About the only thing better than stale peeps (a.k.a. peeps jerky) is microwave peeps. 6 seconds, no more.
1 reply
I think there are a lot of blogs that deliberately try to wind people up, and give them something emotive without something rational to go with it. I think there are also a lot of blogs that are intellectual without feeling strongly about anything, and that makes them feel dry and sterile. One of the things that I like about YOUR writing is that you're able to talk about feelings in a pretty open and frank way. You somehow understand that humans are animals, and have feelings, but humans are also self-aware and able to self-examine. I personally am drawn to bloggers who SAY how they feel, honestly, but don't try to wind me up or persuade me. I don't want to be manipulated into feeling something, but I do enjoy sharing a feeling with someone else who is having it. I wonder if your acting experience allows you to express a certain emotion without letting it carry you away? Thanks as always for sharing your writing with us.
Toggle Commented Mar 7, 2006 on on the rise of trollblogs at WWdN: In Exile
1 reply
I think there are a lot of blogs that deliberately try to wind people up, and give them something emotive without something rational to go with it. I think there are also a lot of blogs that are intellectual without feeling strongly about anything, and that makes them feel dry and sterile. One of the things that I like about YOUR writing is that you're able to talk about feelings in a pretty open and frank way. You somehow understand that humans are animals, and have feelings, but humans are also self-aware and able to self-examine. I personally am drawn to bloggers who SAY how they feel, honestly, but don't try to wind me up or persuade me. I don't want to be manipulated into feeling something, but I do enjoy sharing a feeling with someone else who is having it. I wonder if your acting experience allows you to express a certain emotion without letting it carry you away? Thanks as always for sharing your writing with us.
Toggle Commented Mar 7, 2006 on on the rise of trollblogs at WWdN: In Exile
1 reply
My thinking goes: they make friends at school, and they need parents at home. I think a good parent will also become a good friend later down the line. I think it's supposed to be a gradual process... as they become more independent and need less hands-on parenting, there's more time for genuine friendship to develop. In a most ideal world, children would leave the nest at a point in their lives when the need for parenting had tapered off to zero, and their friendship with the parents would be fully formed. However, a lot of kids don't really want their parents as friends and their friendship doesn't develop until much later (usually because they suddenly need someone to watch THEIR kids). Anyway, I think your philosophy is a good one. A friendship is forming there even if you are a parent first and friend second.
Toggle Commented Feb 16, 2006 on less than you think at WWdN: In Exile
1 reply
My thinking goes: they make friends at school, and they need parents at home. I think a good parent will also become a good friend later down the line. I think it's supposed to be a gradual process... as they become more independent and need less hands-on parenting, there's more time for genuine friendship to develop. In a most ideal world, children would leave the nest at a point in their lives when the need for parenting had tapered off to zero, and their friendship with the parents would be fully formed. However, a lot of kids don't really want their parents as friends and their friendship doesn't develop until much later (usually because they suddenly need someone to watch THEIR kids). Anyway, I think your philosophy is a good one. A friendship is forming there even if you are a parent first and friend second.
Toggle Commented Feb 16, 2006 on less than you think at WWdN: In Exile
1 reply