justalurkr: (Default)
So, today I was billed for my first two months of retiree medical benefits and set up automatic debit for that.

My final paycheck arrived by mail last week, six days after payday because AT&T cut off automatic deposit the day after I went off payroll.

As for what's left of my severance check? Give it 45 days, then another 15 for the USPS, then complain.
justalurkr: (Default)
I want to limit asshats to one asshattery per debate.

You get EITHER "all lives matter" OR "but what about black on black crime???" NOT BOTH because idiot.

Mind you, I'm still dismissing either as a lame attempt to derail a discussion that's likely to make white Americans look like culpable racist assholes.

Yes, someone on YouTube pushed my buttons today. This individual even played the no such thing as white privilege because he had to work really hard to get out of poverty card.


The black on black crime thing is really starting to bother me. Aside from the whole derailment of a necessary conversation angle, don't these people realize they sound like they're approving race based violence as long as that race is doing it to themselves?

Cause that kind of goes both ways, and is wrong in either direction.
justalurkr: (Default)
Since I have no idea what reblogging is or how it works. (facepalm)

Orson Scott Card: Mentor, Friend, Bigot.

My current anti-Card elevator speech:
"He makes his living writing and puts his money where his mouth is, as is his right. As a decent human being, it's my responsibility to make sure none of his money was ever my money."

Yes, I'm boycotting the film even though a diverse cast and company put it on and it's got two strong female characters in it and Card thinks the whole gay marriage argument is now moot and didn't have anything to do with Ender's Game anyway. I DON'T CARE. None of my money will ever be that homophobic goober's money if I can in any way help it. He's got his version of "tolerance" and social responsibility and I've got mine.
justalurkr: (Default)
J. Grant, one the creators behind my new favorite webcomic, went on a rant this morning (or whenever he writes his blog portion of the post.) Future readers may need to back up to the 6/10/2013 strip about lonesome losers cleaning guns and scroll down to the blog post.

The focus of Mr. Grant's ire is the recent revelations about NSA programs, specifically PRISM, which I'll admit to not understanding quite a clearly as I do "phone record metadata." Why do I understand phone record metadata? Because it's what I use every single day to troubleshoot subscriber tickets. The friendly voice answering your call about your phone service at any wireless carrier has access to your metadata. Of course, we ask at the top of a call if we have your permission to use data specific to you (though we mean it to market new goods and services.)

Of course, the government asked when they ran the Patriot Act up the flagpole and everyone saluted. Me, I remember a lot of shouting down of mealy-mouthed civil rights people who did object because we hadda catch bad guys!

Anyway, my point is that (a) if you didn't see this coming with the passage of the Patriot Act, you weren't paying attention; (b) if you expected Obama or any other administration following the Bush crowd to do things differently with respect to the Patriot Act, you're either too young or too naive and I'll give you maybe one more administration before you get it and (c) the phone calls at least shouldn't worry you because all metadata tells the government is the same thing it tells me: who made a call at a specific time in a general area of a specific market. It gives them a place to start looking for bad guys. Federal and local governments have had permission to seek warrants for phone tapping through CALEA since years before the Patriot Act was even a fever dream.
justalurkr: (Default)
One, she is not the boss of me. Two, she either fails at reading comprehension or isn't reading my emails. Three, if the world is going to explode if this testing isn't done tomorrow, why are all the people with their hair on fire unavailable?

Someone is very lucky I'm in Atlanta and they're in Philly.
justalurkr: (Default)
Usually I'm joking when I say society should snap a chastity belt on every child at puberty and disallow drinking, smoking, voting and the owning or handling of firearms until the child has supported themselves on their own income (no student loans allowed) for at least a year and it'd be a felony to enable a belted individual to do any of the above. One successful financial audit (you can't be up to your belt in debt,) and the device comes off and you're free to be a grownup. I was seriously freaked out and angry yesterday in a way I haven't been in a long time (and thought wasn't possible on my current medical cocktail, to be overly frank.) I have a nasty feeling this is going to be someone's personal domestic bullshit, of which we all have plenty and manage to keep to our families, costing a community 20 of its most vulnerable members and six of its most useful.

I am calmer today. The communities of Newtown and Hoboken are in my thoughts for peace and recovery.
justalurkr: (Default)
Part of the reason I resisted an e-reader for so long had nothing to do with age related Luddite-ism (though cloud computing still makes me whack the geezer cane at those kids on my lawn calling what amounts to wireless distributed processing (or, What Geezers Did With Wires Before Desktop PCs) cloud computing like they're some kinda hippy dippy potheads) and everything to do with the Kindle Swindle. No links, because the Kindle Swindle apparently means LOTS of different things to different people. Tsk, amazon.com. That's a lot of restless natives customer and supplier dissatisfaction. Google Kindle Swindle for yourself and see.

tl;dr )

Still, the whole no-books-for-free-or-really-cheap kind of bugs me still. Why were used bookstores and libraries and swap meets and tape decks and VCRs okay in their day but DRM-free file swapping is OMG SO TOTALLY EBIL? Unless people at the publishing source are stripping files and hoisting them up with the Jolly Roger on torrent sites, someone paid for that book/movie/show/mp3 at some point, much like the books and tapes of old. I get that for-profit publishers have a duty to their paychecks to collect as much revenue as possible, but where was all this hysteria about piracy when books existed in the real world? Or did I just miss it?
justalurkr: (Default)
I didn't watch the first Presidential debate and have no big plans to watch any of the others pretty much because I'm in one of those 47%s that wasn't ever going to vote any other way than the way I'm going to vote. However, I still have a dream with respect to any level of political debates: don't discuss with me the miraculous ways you're going to save the world; tell me how you're going to pay for it. Or, more to the point, who ya gonna screw, dude? Rich, poor, middle class, future generation? Don't leave it to the opposition to tell me with their opposition spin on it; own that you're going to get the money from somewhere and tell me where that is. Everyone has to play, so no one gets the Giant Shaft of Truth Telling through their campaign alone.

Who's with me?
justalurkr: (Default)
I had to vent somewhere; lucky, lucky y'all )

It was rolling around in my head and needed to get out somewhere. I'm done now.
justalurkr: (what?)
Comments mid-Journeyman )
justalurkr: (And Furthermore...)
Periodically, I feel moved to post a reminder somewhere:

Apostrophes are your friends. They shortened the journey to sentence completion with contractions. They illuminate our understanding of who owns what in possessives.

Short Digression
Apostrophes have nothing whatsoever to do with making things plural. NOTHING, I tell you! [puffpuff] The pluralization of nouns is the business of another rant, but I will say this: it mainly involves the addition of the letter "s" to a word, sometimes an "es" and occasionally an "a," but NOT AN APOSTROPHE.
Digression ends.

In the matter of contractions:

They are = They're. Not there or their, nor yet there's (there is) or theirs (thing belonging to them.) Really. Also, no such thing as they'res. I'm not making this up.

It is = it's. That's a contraction, yes. It is not now, nor has it ever been, a possessive. (OK, maybe it was in some dark corner of history before there were rules and stuff; English-speakers got up to all manner of depraved perversity back then; but it isn't now.)

In the matter of possessives:

Thing belonging to it = its. (See "theirs.") "It" is a pronoun, not a noun. Theirs, its. No apostrophe in this set of possessives. We reserve that for:

Charles's dog: the dog belonging to Charles.

The Charles' dog: the dog belonging to all those people over there named Charles.

Charles's mistress' dog: the dog belonging to the paramour of Charles. If the noun already ends in two letters "s," this is an exception to the 's.

The Charles' mistress' dog: the dog belonging to that whore the extremely flexible & open-minded paramour of all those people over there named Charles, who all ought to be less cheeseparing and each get their own mistress.

Grammar lecture (most of which was cribbed from Strunk & White Elements of Style) ended. I feel much better now.


justalurkr: (Default)

September 2017



RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 23rd, 2017 09:36 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios