So lately I've been very committed to getting healthier (and more importantly back into my expensive jeans that I haven't been able to squeeze myself into for ages). This has involved being very motivated to work out and eat properly. The exercise and the eating healthy is working out pretty well for me - I've been feeling more energetic during the day, I'm seeing some progress on the scale, and most importantly, I'm really proud of myself. It's a great feeling.

In the process of finding a new template!

Nils had a blog an eternity ago (2006) which he started to chronicle his family's trek through Europe. He made exactly three posts, then abandoned the project. Now Nils is back with a slick new layout and a great sense of humor, entertaining with posts that include....

"...I do not understand my subconscious. Most of the people who I talk to about dreams, like friends and stuff, are all, "I had this dream last night where I cleaned my kitchen, but everything was upside down. Crazy."

So then I'm like, "Wow, that is weird. I had a dream last night where I was in a State Park that was also a shooting range and there was a Poodle-Eating Puma terrorizing our campsite. The end of the dream was me tackling the the Puma as it tried to eat our friends second poodle, the first having been the first victim of it's spree."

So go visit Nils at Musician's Choice.

And because I love the URL...

http://penguinboxers.blogspot.com/

We must make him post more!

So this afternoon my mom texted me at work with this:

Myspace is not my favorite thing ever but I still keep in contact with several friends through the site, so I log on every now and then. I logged in today to check mail, and on the sidebar where they keep the big obnoxious advertisements I saw THIS:

(*crossing fingers* Please don't get sued for snaking that image...)

I got a good laugh out of it. I admit, I'm not familiar at all with dating sites, but this just seemed silly. And shallow. And wrong.

So of course I clicked on it.

Apparently this is "where the classy, attractive, and affluent meet". The front page told me I could start interacting with the most attractive, wealthy, and desirable people in online dating, should I so choose. Still, I was hesitant. Even though they proclaimed they had been delivering a superior dating service since 2002 I was wary, so I decided to check out their testimonials.

Well! High praise from a lot of rich men who hooked up with beautiful women. And hey! Even a few recommendations from some satisfied ladies!

I was impressed. I was convinced. I was ready to meet attractive, wealthy, desirable people.

I went back to the home page and selected "I am a woman looking for a Sugar Daddie (male)" from the drop down menu. I left the country set at "All Countries". After all, who would turn down a foreign Sugar Daddie? Age, lets see... well, I'm not going to be too picky if they're affluent and pretty. Between the ages of 21 - 45? Sure, why not.

Goodness. There's certainly more than a few decent looking guys, and several showing off perfect steroid sculpted bodies. Hey, check it out! A 40something man introduces himself with the quote "WELCOME TO THE PLEASUREDOME!" Dream come true! Ooh, here's another one that sounds promising: "Cadillac on the loose seeks brakes". I'll give him points for being creative.

Unfortunately one can't view full profiles without registering, and though I clearly could see that the site would definitely be able to hook me up with the Sugar Daddie I had been waiting for all my life (as long as I put on something slutty that showed off my breasts for the profile picture, of course) I didn't feel that I was quite ready to take that next step.

So what did I do next? I wrote a blog post.

In all seriousness, although I do feel a little bit bad for making fun of this dating site..... HOW SHALLOW IS IT? I mean, honestly!

I don't have much time this afternoon, but I thought I would take a moment and plug my friend Andrew's new blog.

Andrew and I have been friends for a few years now. He is an extremely talented musician (fiddler) who plays with local Seattle folk-rock band Handful of Luvin' (also definitely worth checking out, especially this time of year - fantastic summer music!).

Andrew has just recently begun blogging. He writes "Music Musings", which, as the name implies, centers around intelligent, researched, well written and well thought out reviews of bands and albums, old and new.

An excerpt from "The Inconvenient Truths of Ben Gibbard - Death Cab for Cuties "Narrow Stairs"

"From Bixby Canyon Bridge (with Gibbard opening the album with his personal reflections on Jack Kerouac and his stay at Big Sur, CA); the album almost moves like a dark stream of consciousness in the style of a Kerouac beat poem as Gibbard recalls and expounds on topics such as loss of innocence and disillusionment (No Sunlight, Your New Twin Sized Bed, The Ice is Getting Thinner); the inevitability of death and how we cope with it(Cath..., Grapevine Fires, You Can Do Better Than Me), and other topics ranging from love and obsession(I will Possess Your Heart, Long Division, Pity & Fear), to feelings of inadequacy (Talking Bird.) Gibbard tackles a wide array of issues and delivers to his audience a clear thoughtful, yet always somber voice."

Andrew's love and vast knowledge of music is apparent in his reviews, and makes them very enjoyable to read. He doesn't seem to post very often, but each review is worth waiting for.

So check him out. ^_^

In my little part of Western Washington, the weather has been a little... off... for spring. The temperature has rarely risen above 50 degrees, and if we happen to get a day of partial sun, by evening it'll be raining and we won't see the sun again for the next five days. Oh, and it snowed in April. Unusual? Yes.

Still, even with all that in mind, I didn't really think that this Severe Weather Alert on Weather.com was necessary:

"AFTER A COOL AND CLOUDY SPRING IN WESTERN WASHINGTON...A DRAMATIC SHIFT TO HOT AND SUNNY WEATHER WILL GET UNDERWAY TODAY. WIDESPREAD RECORD HIGH TEMPERATURES ARE EXPECTED ON FRIDAY.

TEMPERATURES WILL BEGIN TO CLIMB TODAY...AS A MASSIVE AREA OF HIGH PRESSURE IN THE UPPER ATMOSPHERE BUILDS OVER THE REGION. WEAK NORTHERLY ONSHORE FLOW WILL KEEP TEMPERATURES FROM GETTING REALLY HOT. STILL...HIGH TEMPERATURES ACROSS MUCH OF WESTERN WASHINGTON WILL BE IN THE 70S AND LOWER 80S."

blah blah blah...

"AFTER SUCH COOL WEATHER THIS SPRING... PEOPLE SHOULD REFRESH THEMSELVES ON BASIC HOT WEATHER TIPS. WHEN THE WEATHER WARMS UP...BE SURE TO SLOW DOWN...DRINK PLENTY OF WATER...WEAR LIGHTWEIGHT AND LIGHT COLORED CLOTHING...AND BE SURE TO PROTECT YOURSELF FROM SUNBURN BY WEARING SUNSCREEN AND A HAT. BY SATURDAY...THE HUMIDITY WILL RISE A BIT AND MAKE THE AIR FEEL MUGGY. THE ELDERLY AND THE VERY YOUNG ARE THE MOST LIKELY GROUPS TO EXPERIENCE ADVERSE HEALTH EFFECTS FROM THE HEAT."

Okay, guys. I know it's been a while since we've had a nice day. But it hasn't been that long.

This is the first severe weather alert I've ever seen warning people about temperatures rising all the way to possibly the low 80s.

Good lord.

I was surfing Engaget today and I have something amazing to show you:




Nubrella: tomorrow's fashion mistake, today!






Posted Feb 20th 2008 6:48PM by Paul MillerFiled under: Wearables
This is frankly brilliant. A hands-free umbrella is perfect for walking to work while yapping on your phone with one hand and cradling a cup of coffee with the other. Unfortunately it's just never going to make it past the "my friends will laugh at me" stage, because they will. They will laugh so very hard. It's a cruel, backwards society we live in, and it's no wonder we don't have flying cars yet. That said, you can destroy your own fashion credibility today for a mere $59.99. Maybe the fanny pack types will accept you, but we can't make any guarantees.


I mean....


Wow.


And I don't know what they're talking about - I don't see why anyone would laugh at you! And only $59.99? It's a steal!


But seriously though, can you imagine walking down a busy city street wearing that thing? Even barring the people are staring at me like I'm a freak factor, you've got the I'm wearing a giant bubble that takes up twice the space I normally would factor. And what about getting into a cab, bus, or other such transportation? I don't know how easy that thing is to take on and off, but it can't be that easy. And if it is super easy to take off, that begs the question how stable is it when it's on? Is it liable to tip over, or fly off unexpectedly?

No. That umbrella thingie is a bad idea.


Now THIS is much more useful:



Nihon Uni shirts resist stabbing, make you feel like a superhero





Posted Mar 25th 2008 3:46PM by Darren MurphFiled under: Wearables
Mind you, this isn't the first time we've seen garb constructed to withstand vicious knife fights, and apparently a few Japanese streets are becoming just as frightening as some in London. Reportedly created to provide protection against stabbers following an "increasing number of malicious crimes that have victimized children and late-night convenience store clerks," Nihon Uni has developed a t-shirt crafted from "ultrahigh molecular weight polyethylene fiber." Aside from rendering blades useless, the material is also completely machine washable and lightweight; still, the fabric can be penetrated by "sharp points," so it's up to you to steer clear of rooftop archers. Nevertheless, long-sleeved versions can be had this June for ¥22,000 ($221) to ¥59,000 ($593), while the way less protective short-sleeved variety will run you between ¥19,000 ($191) and ¥52,000 ($522).




Just ask yourself, do I want to be protected in case I get into a vicious knife fight, or am assaulted by someone with a bladed weapon?


I think clearly the answer is yes.

I learned something today.

Buyer agent Noelle sits at a desk next to mine. Noelle is from England, but is actually Irish - her mother was full blooded Irish, and she spent part of her life living in Ireland, and when she moved away, visited relatives there countless times.

We're chatting a bit as we usually do in the morning, and I mentioned my plan's for St. Patty's day. She turned and gave me a look. "What?" I asked, confused.

Noelle proceeded to explain to me that in Ireland, no one ever refers to St. Patrick as St. "Patty". She said that is a good way to end up dead in a ditch with your head bashed in. I was surprised, and asked her to elaborate.

Apparently in Ireland the term "Patty" is the equivalent to the nastier racial slur against African Americans in the states - and I don't even want to type that word. Therefore, calling St. Patrick St "Patty" is considered horrible and derogatory, and the Irish get pretty anrgy when you insult their patron saint. Noelle told me with a laugh about how when she first moved to the states she was shocked the first time she heard "St. Patty".

So. St. Patrick it is.

Learn something new every day. ^_^

I've been having some trouble thinking of something amusing and/or possibly witty to post about. That will happen when you're sleeping only a few hours a night and aren't really eating that much. Oh yeah, and I drank about a bottle and a half of wine last night.



So anyway, I submit to you.....



THIS:



Engadget.com says: Homegrown alarm clock tests your math to gauge alertness



We've seen some fairly sinister alarm clocks in our day -- ones that fly around, nearly make you go deaf and "explode" if you don't get up in time, for starters -- but this DIY creation is definitely lobbying for top honors. The Turing Alarm Clock, which has admittedly been making the rounds of late, starts making racket just as any other alarm clock when the time comes, but rather than letting you smash the snooze button, it forces you to answer math questions with varying levels of difficulty before quieting down. Evil? Sure. Effective? You betcha. Check the video after the jump.



Now is it just me, or does this seem like the cruelest invention to be created by man (possibly with satanic inspiration)? I won't be getting one any time soon, that's for sure.

The undignified, painful, and just all around yicky That Time of the Month is upon me. I am irritated. And I would like to take a moment to remind those of the male gender about the Ten Commandments of That Time of the Month:

1. Thou Shalt Not argue with the Woman. Ever. Until such time as she sighs with relief and proclaims That Time of the Month to have passed.

2. Thou Shalt Not make fun of the Woman in her delicate time.

3. Thou Shalt Not remind the Woman that she was going to start a diet when she demands a Dominos Pizza or chocolate bar.

4. Thou Shalt Not condem the Woman for wanting to watch When You Were Sleeping, Sex in the City, or other such chick TV.

5. Thou Shalt Not argue with the Woman. Ever. What? I said that already? NO I DIDN'T!

6. Thou Shalt agree with the Woman all the time, no matter what she says, even if she makes ludicrous statements.

7. Thou Shalt watch whatever movie the Woman wants to watch.

8. Thou Shalt provide a shoulder to cry on should the Woman's emotions become too much for her.

9. Thou Shalt provide Dominos Pizza and ice cream.

10. Thou Shalt give copious amounts of sympathy when the Woman complains about mentrual cramps.

Obey these Ten Commandments.

OR ELSE.

My favorite human being whom I have never met is......

MARK MORFORD!

From his bio: Mark Morford is a columnist for sfgate.com and the San Francisco Chronicle. He also teaches yoga, subscribes to magazines, admires trees, detests shrill alarmism (including his own), sleeps naked. He has not seen your blog, but is sure it's amazing. He never wears sneakers. He writes about politics, pop culture, sex, music, design, a wry and punch-drunk universe, vibrators, scotch, media, spirituality and small European cars. And sometimes, genital grooming.

Morford's articles are wickedly funny, unapologetic, witty, occasionally brutal, and of course Morford himself is.... oh, how shall I say this....

GORGEOUS.

^_^

Seriously, though. He is a brilliant writer. Whenever I read one of his articles, I am either laughing out loud, or I get the overwhelming urge to leap to my feet, stab my finger in the direction of the computer screen while yelling, "YEAH! WHAT MARK SAID!" He is, quite frankly, awesome. So visit his archives and enjoy.

I think Pandora, a fantastic customizable internet radio station, is absolutely brilliant. All you have to do is type in an artist's name or song title, and Pandora will find it, then start playing bands that are similar to the band you chose. By clicking a thumbs up or thumbs down buttons you tell Pandora whether or not you like the music it's chosen for you, and by doing so, further customizes your internet radio experience. If you click the "why did you play this song" button, Pandora will bring up a little text box explaining the musical similarities between the band you started out and the song it's playing for you. For example: "Based on what you've told us so far, we're playing this track because it features synth rock arranging, electronica influences, new age influences, a subtle use of vocal counterpoint, and a subtle use of vocal harmony." This service is also free for users, paying for itself by allowing third parties to post advertisements (no pop up ads) on the website.

Pretty cool, huh?

Well, enjoy it while it lasts, because the Copyright Royalty Board in Washington, DC has decided to almost triple royalty fees for internet radio stations, which greatly exceeds the revenue of most internet radio stations. Oh, and on top of that, since the new royalty rates are retroactive to January 1, 2006 so they will cause immediate bankruptcies if they become effective for even one day.

Here are some myths and facts provided by SaveNetRadio.org:

MYTH: Broadcast radio, satellite radio and Internet Radio pay the same amount of royalties to creators of music, or pay proportionate relative to the size of their businesses.

FACT: The smallest medium – Internet radio – pays the most royalties; and under the new CRB royalty scheme the smallest webcasters will pay the highest relative royalties in amounts shockingly disproportionate to their revenue. Broadcast radio, an industry with $20 billion in annual revenue, is exempt and pays no performance royalties to record companies or recording artists. Satellite radio, which has approximately $2 billion in annual revenue pays between 3 and 7% of revenue in sound recording performance royalties. The six largest Internet-only radio services anticipate combined revenue of only $37.5 million in 2006, but will pay a whopping 47% (or $17.6 million) in sound recording performance royalties under the new CRB ruling. In 2008 combined revenues will total only $73.6 million, but royalties will be 58% or $42.4 million.

Small Internet radio services are essentially bankrupted by the CRB ruling, with most anticipating royalty obligations equaling or exceeding total revenue.

MYTH: Internet Radio isn’t really that big anyway. Most people still listen to traditional FM radio.

FACT: At some point every day more than 7 million Americans are listening to Internet radio. Studies by Arbitron and Bridge Ratings conclude that between 50 and 70 million Americans listen to Internet radio every month, and about 20 percent of 18-34 year olds listen to Internet radio every week.

MYTH: If Internet Radio is so big the higher royalty rates should be affordable.

FACT: Internet radio is a relatively new industry with advertising models still developing. Some services rely on banner ads; others are selling traditional audio ads; and still others rely on sponsorships. The vast majority of Webcasters will not be able to generate enough advertising revenue to pay their new, higher royalty fees.

MYTH: The webcasters’ previous royalty rate was too low and needed to be increased to ensure that artists and record companies are paid fairly.

FACT: Bankrupting the Internet radio industry will not benefit artists or record companies, as total industry royalties will diminish. Moreover, the demise of Internet radio will be particularly harmful to independent artists and record labels whose music is rarely played on broadcast radio. The American Association of Independent Music reports that less than 10% of terrestrial radio performances are independent music but more than 37% of non-terrestrial radio is independent music. This benefits artists, labels and music fans.

When Congress provided webcasters a guaranteed “statutory license” to perform sound recordings, Congress intended that Internet radio would flourish as a competitive medium offering diverse programming and paying a royalty. Tripling webcasters royalties undermines all these goals.

MYTH: Big webcasters can afford these royalties and they will each offer hundreds or thousands of channels, so what’s the big deal?

FACT: The CRB royalty is so high that even the biggest Internet-only radio services – including Yahoo, AOL, MTV and RealNetworks – will pay a combined 50+ percent of their revenue for only this single royalty. The only way to make a profitable, scalable business will be to attract the largest audience and advertisers while reducing overhead and innovation. The result will be “mass appeal” Internet radio programming that will look much more like today’s broadcast revenue, rather than the diverse programming that exemplifies today’s Internet radio.

MYTH: The rate is only increasing from 7/100 of a penny per song streamed to 19/100 of a penny per song streamed over a 5-year period.

FACT: Nearly tripling the per-song royalty rate is only the first insult.

No Revenue-based Royalty Option. Prior to this decision all small webcasters and some large webcasters had the choice of paying royalties based on a percentage of their revenue that typically equaled 10-12%. But the CRB decision did not offer a revenue-based royalty option for any webcasters.

Retroactive Impact. The CRB decision is effective as of January 2006, so if it actually becomes effective for only one day its impact will be immediate as the past due royalties alone will be enough to bankrupt virtually all small and mid-sized webcasters.

Per Station Minimum. The CRB piled on even more, by imposing a $500 per channel minimum royalty that for many services will far exceed the annual royalties that would otherwise be due even after the CRB decision. One advantage of Internet radio is that it is not limited by spectrum capacity or bandwidth capacity, which enables several services literally to offer 10,000 or 100,000 stations

So does any of that seem right, logical, or fair?

I have one final thing to say about the issue. Quite a bit of my fairly extensive CD collection was purchased after hearing a band on an internet radio station. Internet radio provides a wonderful way to experience new and diverse music, especially when learning about music or new artists in smaller, less popular genres can be difficult. I support the fact that internet radio stations need to pay royalties - I do not support increasing these royalties to exhorbitant amounts, such as what has been proposed. Shutting down internet radio, intentionally or not, will be a crime.

So how about we stop it?




Visit SaveNetRadio.org and put in your two cents about raising internet radio royalties. And while you're at it, check out Pandora.com. You'll enjoy it. ^_^

Save the internet!

This may sound dramatic, but there are some significant things going on that the internet may very well need saving from. Some people may not know this, but there is a "First Amendment" law for the internet-- it's called Network Nuetrality, which prevents internet providers like Comcast, AT&T, etc. from deciding which internet sites work best for you on your computer based on which sites pay them the most. This is important protection. Companies shouldn't have to outbid each other just to determine whose site will open quickly on your computer.

Here is a quote from www.savetheinternet.com.

"Net Neutrality allows everyone to compete on a level playing field and is the reason that the Internet is a force for economic innovation, civic participation and free speech."

Right now Congress is pushing for a law that would abandon Net Nuetrality. If Net Neutrality were overridden, and internet providers were allowed to make companies pay them for the right to load at the same speed as their competitors, imagine what this would do to smaller companies, non profit organizations, charities, people trying to start a business on the web, etc.

We are all affected by this.

(Again quoting from www.savetheinternet.com)
"Small business owners benefit from an Internet that allows them to compete directly — not one where they can't afford the price of entry. Net Neutrality ensures that innovators can start small and dream big about being the next EBay or Google without facing insurmountable hurdles. Without Net Neutrality, startups and entrepreneurs will be muscled out of the marketplace by big corporations that pay for a top spot on the Web.

But Net Neutrality doesn't just matter to business owners. If Congress turns the Internet over to the telephone and cable giants, everyone who uses the Internet will be affected. Connecting to your office could take longer if you don't purchase your carrier's preferred applications. Sending family photos and videos could slow to a crawl. Web pages you always use for online banking, access to health care information, planning a trip, or communicating with friends and family could fall victim to pay-for-speed schemes.

Independent voices and political groups are especially vulnerable. Costs will skyrocket to post and share video and audio clips, silencing bloggers and amplifying the big media companies. Political organizing could be slowed by the handful of dominant Internet providers who ask advocacy groups or candidates to pay a fee to join the "fast lane."

Here are some examples of what has already been allowed:

In 2004, North Carolina ISP Madison River blocked their DSL customers from using any rival Web-based phone service.

In 2005, Canada's telephone giant Telus blocked customers from visiting a Web site sympathetic to the Telecommunications Workers Union during a labor dispute.

Shaw, a big Canadian cable TV company, is charging an extra $10 a month to subscribers in order to "enhance" competing Internet telephone services.

In April, Time Warner's AOL blocked all emails that mentioned www.dearaol.com — an advocacy campaign opposing the company's pay-to-send e-mail scheme.

Vint Cerf, a father of the Internet and Google's "Chief Internet Evangelist," recently wrote this to Congress in support of preserving Network Neutrality:

"My fear is that, as written, this bill would do great damage to the Internet as we know it. Enshrining a rule that broadly permits network operators to discriminate in favor of certain kinds of services and to potentially interfere with others would place broadband operators in control of online activity...Telephone companies cannot tell consumers who they can call; network operators should not dictate what people can do online."

Here are some sites relating to this issue:

This is the Snopes.com (urban legend de-bunking site) talking about this issue. This will definitely be of interest because it gives a bit of the story from the other side of the tracks-- it talks a little about what the internet providers are saying in support of their movements.
Snope.com on Network Neutrality

Save the Internet. This is the big site devoted to this issue. The SavetheInternet.com Coalition is made up of dozens of groups from across the political spectrum that have banded together to save the First Amendment of the Internet: network neutrality. No corporation or political party is funding our efforts.
Save the Internet Coalition

MoveOn.org is a civic action organization offering means to spread the word about this menace,
MoveOn.org

Lets all do what we can to preserve the freedoms that we are entitled to on the internet.

On November 17, the House of Representatives narrowly passed a federal budget bill which contains a proposal that would weaken US mining laws and put millions of acres of public land, including lands sacred to Native Americans, up for sale.
This proposal stands to affect several Oxfam America partners, including the Western Shoshone Defense Project. For years, the Shoshone have been fighting to protect Mt. Tenabo, a Shoshone sacred site in Nevada. The amendment would give mining companies the option of tearing up Mt. Tenabo—without any input from the Shoshone.

While the House bill did pass, it did so by only two votes—a narrow margin that can be attributed at least in part to the thousands of responses from Oxfam supporters to our earlier action alert. Now it’s time to turn our energy to the Senate.

On to the Senate

On or around December 13th, a conference committee will convene to reconcile House and Senate budget bills. The Pombo Amendment language is only included in the House bill; it is not included in the Senate bill. When conferees determine the language of the final bill, we want to be sure it does not include the amendment.

We need you to write your Senators TODAY and tell them you oppose the Pombo Amendment.

Gaining Traction

A deluge of news stories and editorials shows that people are waking up to the serious dangers posed by the Pombo Amendment. All the Western state governors and many Western Senators, including Sen. Thomas (R-WY) and Sen. Allard (R-CO), oppose the amendment. With your help, there's still hope that the mining language will be dropped in conference.
Congress has a responsibility to manage the nation's public lands for the benefit of all American citizens now and in the future. Please take action and contact your Senator to ensure Congress lives up to that responsibility.
Sincerely,

Keith Slack
Extractive Industries Campaign Manager

P.S. Thank your Representative!

Learn how your Representative voted on the budget bill. The correct vote was NO. If your member voted correctly, please give them a call and thank them for voting against the budget reconciliation bill containing the Pombo mining provision.