Musing and rambling, portrait of a fractured mind
The humdinger rule

'harbinger' is to be read and pronounced as 'humdinger'

People need to realize that being wrong isn’t a bad thing
Why do i even bother reading yahoo (?-rhetorical)

It’s some stupid dog, human interest type of story.

I got less than a paragraph through reading it before noticing a glaring mistake; they refer to the soviet union as a “nazi-friendly country”. The soviet union was not only no more a country than the united kingdom is a country, but it was no more “nazi-friendly” than the united states is butt-buddies with cuba. How can you not understand the idea of not attacking countries just because you can? Countries with a massive army, insanely solid propaganda machine, plans to kill everyone in your country (jews, slavs, communists), etc.

I’ll say it: Hitler was kind of a dick, everyone knew that (they didn’t know the extent of his dickery until after the war, but that’s a whole other story).

I’m sorry about the whole rant, but one of my pet peeves is the tendency for idiots in all levels of society to blame communists (and random countries [and presidents ffs] that aren’t even communist) for everything that goes wrong. But economic systems are a rant for a different day.

Took a break from tumblr (right after i said i’d be posting some of my artwork for a few days, cuz i’m a douche) and when i got back i was following someone. Someone new.

So i tried to figure out who it was, how did i end up following this person? Who are they? Frightened, I went through many theories, one of which was that someone had hacked into my account. But to merely follow themself? Who would do such a thing? I pondered long.

By that time i wasn’t even mad, merely impressed that someone could hack my account, and intrigued that they would hack it for such a reason. It left me asking why, and who would do such a thing.

Turns out it was just someone i followed but they changed their name and profile icon while i was gone. And here i was, believing that i had been infiltrated by someone who merely wanted more followers, dare i even say they wanted me as a follower?

Lol i know, i’m batshit insane, but it’s part of my charm innit?

I will stop making excuses why i could never be the person i want to be.

I will stop letting other people make my decisions for me,
I will do what i want regardless of whether i’ll be on my own,
And I will stop worrying over what people think of me.

(I don’t normally make new years resolutions, because it’s stupid and arbitrary, but i’m drunk and so i’ll stoop to the level of the great masses that think that the 31st is different from any other day and that there’s any real difference from just choosing any other day of the year to make your life better.)

In other words, happy new year!

My mom does this so much. But it’s with glass jars instead of knives.

My mom does this so much. But it’s with glass jars instead of knives.

The feeling of relief after experiencing something that is not nearly as unpleasant as you had remembered.

I bet the Germans have a word for it.

Facebook is like porn

You can spend hours looking at people who are living a better life than you, you end up feeling dirty afterward, and to top it all off you’re probably worse off than when you began.

urlesque:

Truth in Numbers? Everything, According to Wikipedia, a new documentary explaining the site’s methods and guiding vision, is available for viewing online before its theatrical release. Whether the sort of people who seek out  online documentaries need a tutorial in how the go-to information site  works is an open question, but the film raises interesting questions  about authority, only somewhat intentionally.
The film opens in India, at a school whose students don’t use the  internet, in a town whose adults aren’t familiar with Wikipedia. An  American man shows the citizens Wikipedia, and one instantly notices an  error in the entry for the city of Varanasi,  which the man fixes. By this time, we’ve learned the stranger’s  identity, after he calls Wikipedia “my website” – he’s Jimmy Wales, and  we jump to a lecture he’s giving, far from India, about the potential  his site has. But Truth in Numbers? may well be coming too late.
More: ‘Truth in Numbers? Everything, According to Wikipedia’ - The Documentary Reviewed - Urlesque

This will be a long commentary about the movie in question, viewer discretion is advised:
They point out that anyone can edit Wikipedia. Duh. They conveniently and egregiously avoid mentioning that this information is (in all but the most extreme case) referenced by linking to other sites. And those references are, in turn, scrutinized by the group of editors.
They mention a person claiming they were an expert and that they had several college degrees in theology. And? Doesn’t this say more about how much we put into appeals to authority? Why does it matter that a person has a piece of paper, when, if asked, they couldn’t prove any of their knowledge in a peer-reviewed manner?
They also point out that editors are anonymous. Ooh, scary, we can only judge these people on what they’ve actually done and not on where they grew up or what color their skin is. The world would be better if people were anonymous more often.
And how can you prove that anyone wrote anything? Anyone could write a book and sign their name as someone else. It would be more difficult now, but the majority of our knowledge as human beings could very well be written by people under pseudonyms or even blatantly posing as other people.
Also, why so many “critics”? I’m starting to think that word just means “contrarian with a thumb up their ass”. And then they come out with the Sarah Palin logic of “they’re anonymous, therefore: criminals!!!” and that just made me want to punch a baby (which is the only appropriate emotional reaction when faced with Sarah Palin logic).
Another example of Sarah Palin logic is when they continually say that Jimbo Wales should “reveal the identities of it’s anonymous users” if he cares about Wikipedia continuing to be a reliable source of knowledge. Basically they want everyone to be revealed so they can enforce their methods of intimidation and stop Wikipedia from being a platform for the free spread of information.
There is no cabal.
They also completely reject the idea that a collective of people who constantly scrutinize and correct eachother would be more accurate than just one person, even though that’s the same exact way that science is advanced; through peer-review. And at one point they mention Adolf Hitler and how if you were to write an article on him you’d have to call him a “monster” and say that everything about him was bad. This is obviously not the case and it’s just plain stupid to glorify name-calling over explaining the whole story. And i’m not saying that Hitler was good. He was, quite frankly, a complete jerkass. But to put the word “jerkass” in any encyclopedia would be disturbingly unprofessional, to say the least.

urlesque:

Truth in Numbers? Everything, According to Wikipedia, a new documentary explaining the site’s methods and guiding vision, is available for viewing online before its theatrical release. Whether the sort of people who seek out online documentaries need a tutorial in how the go-to information site works is an open question, but the film raises interesting questions about authority, only somewhat intentionally.

The film opens in India, at a school whose students don’t use the internet, in a town whose adults aren’t familiar with Wikipedia. An American man shows the citizens Wikipedia, and one instantly notices an error in the entry for the city of Varanasi, which the man fixes. By this time, we’ve learned the stranger’s identity, after he calls Wikipedia “my website” – he’s Jimmy Wales, and we jump to a lecture he’s giving, far from India, about the potential his site has. But Truth in Numbers? may well be coming too late.

More: ‘Truth in Numbers? Everything, According to Wikipedia’ - The Documentary Reviewed - Urlesque

This will be a long commentary about the movie in question, viewer discretion is advised:

They point out that anyone can edit Wikipedia. Duh. They conveniently and egregiously avoid mentioning that this information is (in all but the most extreme case) referenced by linking to other sites. And those references are, in turn, scrutinized by the group of editors.

They mention a person claiming they were an expert and that they had several college degrees in theology. And? Doesn’t this say more about how much we put into appeals to authority? Why does it matter that a person has a piece of paper, when, if asked, they couldn’t prove any of their knowledge in a peer-reviewed manner?

They also point out that editors are anonymous. Ooh, scary, we can only judge these people on what they’ve actually done and not on where they grew up or what color their skin is. The world would be better if people were anonymous more often.

And how can you prove that anyone wrote anything? Anyone could write a book and sign their name as someone else. It would be more difficult now, but the majority of our knowledge as human beings could very well be written by people under pseudonyms or even blatantly posing as other people.

Also, why so many “critics”? I’m starting to think that word just means “contrarian with a thumb up their ass”. And then they come out with the Sarah Palin logic of “they’re anonymous, therefore: criminals!!!” and that just made me want to punch a baby (which is the only appropriate emotional reaction when faced with Sarah Palin logic).

Another example of Sarah Palin logic is when they continually say that Jimbo Wales should “reveal the identities of it’s anonymous users” if he cares about Wikipedia continuing to be a reliable source of knowledge. Basically they want everyone to be revealed so they can enforce their methods of intimidation and stop Wikipedia from being a platform for the free spread of information.

There is no cabal.

They also completely reject the idea that a collective of people who constantly scrutinize and correct eachother would be more accurate than just one person, even though that’s the same exact way that science is advanced; through peer-review. And at one point they mention Adolf Hitler and how if you were to write an article on him you’d have to call him a “monster” and say that everything about him was bad. This is obviously not the case and it’s just plain stupid to glorify name-calling over explaining the whole story. And i’m not saying that Hitler was good. He was, quite frankly, a complete jerkass. But to put the word “jerkass” in any encyclopedia would be disturbingly unprofessional, to say the least.

When people say “you know”

Not as a question, but as a statement.

No, i don’t know. Please fucking tell me.

fuckyeahterribleart:

i was useing Gimp and Photoshop..i personaly like how it came out..xD(No i’m not a Nazi..shut up..i don’t what no flame’s)
Oh, you’re not a nazi?BECAUSE THE HUGE FUCKING SWASTIKA BEGS TO DIFFER 

Okay, i have to clarify this because i’m an OCD bastard, especially when it comes to language and history. The swastika has been used by almost every culture throughout history and across the globe, and is still used in many eastern cultures and religions as a symbol of good luck.
The right-facing swastika (卐), such as the one in the picture, was used by the Nazis as well as allot of other groups in history; not so much anymore for obvious reasons. But the left-facing swastika (卍) was not ever used as a symbol by the Nazis and thus can be used to clarify your meaning in using this ancient symbol.
Of course this person doesn’t clarify why they are using the symbol(alternately called swastika, svastika, or manji) so i could only assume that they think it looks SUPER KEWL!!!! which is fine too i suppose.
tl;dr= Swastika does not equal Nazi.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika

fuckyeahterribleart:

i was useing Gimp and Photoshop..

i personaly like how it came out..xD

(No i’m not a Nazi..shut up..i don’t what no flame’s)

Oh, you’re not a nazi?
BECAUSE THE HUGE FUCKING SWASTIKA BEGS TO DIFFER 

Okay, i have to clarify this because i’m an OCD bastard, especially when it comes to language and history. The swastika has been used by almost every culture throughout history and across the globe, and is still used in many eastern cultures and religions as a symbol of good luck.

The right-facing swastika (卐), such as the one in the picture, was used by the Nazis as well as allot of other groups in history; not so much anymore for obvious reasons. But the left-facing swastika (卍) was not ever used as a symbol by the Nazis and thus can be used to clarify your meaning in using this ancient symbol.

Of course this person doesn’t clarify why they are using the symbol(alternately called swastika, svastika, or manji) so i could only assume that they think it looks SUPER KEWL!!!! which is fine too i suppose.

tl;dr= Swastika does not equal Nazi.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika

tumblrisforlulz:

Declaration of War Against Justin Bieber Haters 

Children have too many freedoms.

Know that lisp that seems to only come from having braces?

Most. Annoying. Fucking. Sound.

Also, this is the stupidest plan ever. If you do this then you will go to jail, and rightfully so as it would potentially endanger people’s lives and property. In short: consequences will never be the same.

Also also, assuming that anyone who doesn’t like [he who doesn’t deserve to be mentioned] is a “metal-head fucktard”, is just idiotic (in more technical terms it’s called a false dichotomy).

Bullies

The problem isn’t bullying, the problem is this capitalist society that uses the idea of popularity to constantly barrage adults and children with the message that if they don’t by x then they are going to be looked down upon by their peers and thus are useless little empty shells of human beings.

The reality is that those popular kids are vacuous drones that will never amount to anything because they don’t have the balls to go against the decrees of some authority figure, and that nobody should admire or even respect these people. Pick any historic person and they’re bound to be someone who was either unpopular or at the very least had something to say outside the norm.

Popular people are stupid people; break the norm and make history, or follow the crowd and become a mere ghost in the records.

(on a somewhat unrelated note: http://www.interestings.net/?p=167)

Is there something i’m missing here? Some cultural difference wherein Canadians merely slow down so as to not hit a child at more than 18 miles/hour?

There would be so much rear-ending and swerving into oncomming traffic in the future if this goes through.

(As a side-note: the guy who wrote the story has the surname Dykes, which must have really sucked growing up)

I hate it when

My internet keeps going out.

Like right now, when there’s actually someone online that i want to talk to.

Also, when it says that i have a good internet connection, but that it’s not connected to the internet. How is that not contradictory???