December 28, 2004
One of the benefits of KDE is that is has the the most powerful IO interface of any desktop environment I have ever seen. KIO allows for a pluggable interface to outside resources in a simple and powerful way. The best part about it is that is works system wide. For example, long before Windows was working on a DB file system; a enterprising KDE developer had created kio_sql. This allows every KDE application to have access to any database as if it were just part of the file system. You can open table data just like you open a test file.
One very cool KIO module is kio-locate. Locate is a system wide indexer for Unix OSes. On the command line you can type “locate bob” and it will return every file with the name bob in it INSTANTLY. Want to open your websites index.html file but you don’t remember where it is? With kio-locate you simply start your web development environment, click file->open… and in the file selection dialog type locate:index.html… and you will see every file named index.html that you have access to on the system. Its like having a file name meta data search available in every KDE application. Check out this screeny to get an idea of what I mean.
There are literally dozens of KIO interfaces for everything you can imagine. kio_rar (for access to your rar files without unrar’ing them), kio_burn (gives every KDE application drag-&-drop file burning capabilities), kio-sword (browse the bible like its a file system), and the one I use most often ipodslave (aka: kio-ipod), which gives all of my KDE applications access to my ipod (i.e. any music player can play from it, and all applications can save files to it.)
December 26, 2004
A comment by Jasan, in reply to my “News From a Blue State” post has prompted a reply that I would rather post here. Jasan basically pointed out that –”it doesn’t prevent the mother from calling the cops – it prevents the mother from using the evidence she heard listening in on the second phone line as evidence in court.” While technically this is true, in some jurisdictions calling the police with such a tip would actually be worse than not calling them; because any leads that occur based on illegally obtained evidence can invalidate the case. But that is really not the point.
It is a ridiculous proposition to believe that an individual has a right to privacy when talking to a minor. A parents job is to protect their child, to the best of their ability, from the kind of negative external influences that are possible in just this kind of circumstance. Its freggin hard enough to protect you child from the filth that is available through modern mass communications. Now to take away the only tool that parents have to bring legal action against those who would do harm to those same children.
For 200 years we have made the conscious decision to protect a child from harm, even when it sacrifices their rights in the short term. We do this to give them a chance to develop into adults who can make their own sound decisions. Then we let them succeed or fail based on those decisions… but to protect a child’s “privacy” at the expense of their safety; before they even have the experience or mental capabilities to intelligently use those rights; is the very definition of irresponsible. Following this same logic, we should let the children stay with the adults they want to live with. Even if a court has decided that their drugged up, abusive, sexually molesting parents are unfit. Hey, the kid has a right to freedom of association. Or if a 9 year old wants to screw a 55 year old, well then who are we to stop them. How about giving 4 year olds guns? The parents shouldn’t have any say in such things, right?
The rights I have listed above are actually directly protected constitutional rights; unlike the implied constitutional interpretation that the “right to privacy” is. Don’t get me wrong. I believe in implied constitutional rights and I even support the “right to privacy”, but if we are fundamentally able to restrict the rights of children that are expressly defined by the constitution then why in the world would we protect an implied right.
I remember the big hoopla that conservatives (blame the parents not the guns) and liberals (blame the parents not the kids) made about the Columbine Massacre because the parents did not pay attention to the actions of their kids. There have been a half a dozen cases where “Columbine” like attacks were thwarted by parents listening in to telephone conversations. If this ruling were in place in those circumstances then the police could be prepared to stop the kids, but they could not bring any “attempted” charges against them (i.e. They could charge them with possession of a weapon on school property but not for attempted murder) because the tip they used to identify the threat was obtained illegally. In fact in some jurisdictions ALL charges would have to be dropped because of how the evidence was obtained.
This same ruling has dramatic ramifications to other forms of communication. It effectively states that (although you can monitor the actions of your kids on the Internet) you cannot reasonable expect to get police protection if you discover that a pedophile has been talking about picking up your kid during school… and even if the police decide to watch your kid they CANNOT LEGALLY STOP the pedophile before he does anything illegal.
More than one person has already pointed out that it is generally totalitarian regimes that pursue the rights of children over the protection of children and the rights of parents. Things like the Hitler youth did this because its so easy to TAKE ADVANTAGE of children and exploit them to their own ends. No, this ruling is ridiculous in the extreme. It does huge amounts of damage to those that would work to help children; and in doing so creates a bastion of safety for pedophiles in the very homes of the children that this ruling is suppose to help.
December 20, 2004
People who finish quicker than me
Remember when you were young and wanted to test how quickly you could finish Super Mario Brothers? How about Contra? Well, archive.org has a list of video’s by people beating video-games in record time. Talk about amazing. How about Half-Life beaten (hard setting) in 48 minutes! Metroid (old Nintendo edition) completed in 22 minutes! Mario Brothers (NES edition) five minutes. Metal Gear Solid (extreme mode), one hour and 18 minutes. … seriously! Watch the full video’s and be amazed!
December 17, 2004
Its a boy!
December 16, 2004
News from a blue state
The State Supreme Court of Washington has ruled that children have an expectation of privacy when in phone conversations. This ruling basically states that information collected while listening-in on your child’s phone conversations in in-admissible in court.
The case involved a 17-year-old boy who told his 14-year-old girlfriend that he mugged an elderly lady. The girls mother was listening on another phone line and informed the police. The 17 year old was then convicted of a felony. He had served nine months of his sentence when the judges overturned the conviction, saying: “The right to individual privacy holds fast even when the individuals are teenagers. The judge basically decided that the mother was acting as an agent of the police (the police informed her that her daughters boyfriend was trouble and that she should watch out for him.)
How dare a mother worry about her 14 YEAR OLD DAUGHTER talking to a 17 YEAR OLD BOY; who just happens to turn out to be a FELON. </sarcasm>
While this may not sound that bad at first (it doesn’t keep your from listening, just calling the cops) the ruling is ultimately destructive to the ability of parents to raise their children. If I, for example, overhear my daughter being threatened on the phone by a 35 year old boyfriend; I am unable to use the evidence from that conversation to get a restraining order if my daughter feels it was a private conversation. In addition that evidence could not be used it the court case the convict the same 35 year old “boyfriend” for rape/murder.
Ultimately, if you call my underage child (at my home) you have lost any reasonable expectation of privacy… PERIOD!
December 9, 2004
More than meets the eye
I love transformers. They were both my favorite toys growing up as well as my favorite cartoon show. So I figured this would be something fun to start the day with.
December 8, 2004
For anyone who likes reading political blogs: here is the third Annual Warblogger Awards. The wards are presended by Right Wing News; but the list makes for some interesting reading. Is pretty good, whichever you political affiliation.
December 3, 2004
Ghost 4 Unix (aka g2u) is a disk imaging tool for Unix OSes. Basically its a custom FreeBSD distro on a disk with local and network disk writing tools. It supports both IDE and SCSI; and work with every known x86 operating system. Work on same-to-same size disks and smaller-to-larger size disks.
December 2, 2004
The Second Amendment
Some quotes of interest on the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment. If you have one that I don’t have listed please send it to me or post about it:
- “The possession of arms by the people is the ultimate warrant that government governs only with the consent of the governed.”
– Jeff Snyder
- “As the Founding Fathers knew well, a government that does not trust its honest, law-abiding, taxpaying citizens with the means of self-defense is not itself worthy of trust. Laws disarming honest citizens proclaim that the government is the master, not the servant, of the people.”
– Jeff Snyder
- “Probably fewer than 2% of handguns and well under 1% of all guns will ever be involved in a violent crime. Thus, the problem of criminal gun violence is concentrated within a very small subset of gun owners, indicating that gun control aimed at the general population faces a serious needle-in-the-haystack problem.”
– Gary Kleck, “Point Blank: Handgun Violence In America”
- “When only cops have guns, it’s called a ‘police state’.”
– Claire Wolfe, “101 Things To Do Until The Revolution”
- “Americans have the right and advantage of being armed – unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
– James Madison, The Federalist Papers
- “The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.”
– Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188
- “Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.”
– Mohandas Gandhi, An Autobiography, pg 446
- “The people of the various provinces are strictly forbidden to have in their possession any swords, short swords, bows, spears, firearms, or other types of arms. The possession of unnecessary implements makes difficult the collection of taxes and dues and tends to foment uprisings.”
– Toyotomi Hideyoshi, dictator of Japan, August 1588
- “One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offense to keep arms.”
– Constitutional scholar and Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, 1840
- “The bearing of arms is the essential medium through which the individual asserts both his social power and his participation in politics as a responsible moral being…”
– J.G.A. Pocock, describing the beliefs of the founders of the U.S.
- “Men trained in arms from their infancy, and animated by the love of liberty, will afford neither a cheap or easy conquest.”
– From the Declaration of the Continental Congress, July 1775.
- “As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives [only] moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion to your walks.”
– Thomas Jefferson, writing to his teenaged nephew.
- “Taking my gun away because I might shoot someone is like cutting my tongue out because I might yell `Fire!’ in a crowded theater.”
– Peter Venetoklis
- “…Virtually never are murderers the ordinary, law-abiding people against whom gun bans are aimed. Almost without exception, murderers are extreme aberrants with lifelong histories of crime, substance abuse, psychopathology, mental retardation and/or irrational violence against those around them, as well as other hazardous behavior, e.g., automobile and gun accidents.”
– Don B. Kates, writing on statistical patterns in gun crime
- “The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”
– Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story of the John Marshall Court
- “Militias, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves and include all men capable of bearing arms. [...] To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”
– Senator Richard Henry Lee, 1788, on “militia” in the 2nd Amendment
- “…quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est.” [...a sword never kills anybody; it's a tool in the killer's hand.]
– (Lucius Annaeus) Seneca “the Younger” (ca. 4 BC-65 AD),
- “False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.”
– Cesare Beccaria, as quoted by Thomas Jefferson’s Commonplace book
- No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave.
– “Political Disquisitions”, a British republican tract of 1774-1775
- “Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defence? Where is the difference between having our arms in our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defence be the *real* object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?”
– Patrick Henry, speech of June 9 1788
- “To disarm the people… was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”
– George Mason, speech of June 14, 1788
- “The great object is, that every man be armed. [...] Every one who is able may have a gun.”
– Patrick Henry, speech of June 14 1788
- “Such are a well regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen.”
– “M.T. Cicero”, in a newspaper letter of 1788 touching the “militia” referred to in the Second Amendment to the Constitution.
- “That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United states who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms…”
– Samuel Adams, in “Phila. Independent Gazetteer”, August 20, 1789
- “The danger (where there is any) from armed citizens, is only to the *government*, not to *society*; and as long as they have nothing to revenge in the government (which they cannot have while it is in their own hands) there are many advantages in their being accustomed to the use of arms, and no possible disadvantage.”
– Joel Barlow, “Advice to the Privileged Orders”, 1792-93
- [The disarming of citizens] “…has a double effect, it palsies the hand and brutalizes the mind: a habitual disuse of physical forces totally destroys the moral [force]; and men lose at once the power of protecting themselves, and of discerning the cause of their oppression.”
– Joel Barlow, “Advice to the Privileged Orders”, 1792-93
- “Every Communist must grasp the truth, ‘Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.’”
– Mao Tse-tung, 1938, inadvertently endorsing the Second Amendment.
- “In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. [...] The Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.”
– Majority Supreme Court opinion in “U.S. vs. Miller” (1939)
- “An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.”
– Robert A. Heinlein, “Beyond This Horizon”, 1942
- “The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.”
– Adolph Hitler, April 11 1942.
- “The right to buy weapons is the right to be free.”
– A.E. Van Vogt, “The Weapon Shops Of Isher”, ASF December 1942
- “Rifles, muskets, long-bows and hand-grenades are inherently democratic weapons. A complex weapon makes the strong stronger, while a simple weapon — so long as there is no answer to it — gives claws to the weak.”
– George Orwell, “You and the Atom Bomb”, 1945
- “Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms. [...] the right of the citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government and one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible.”
– Hubert H. Humphrey, 1960
- “No matter how one approaches the figures, one is forced to the rather startling conclusion that the use of firearms in crime was very much less when there were no controls of any sort and when anyone, convicted criminal or lunatic, could buy any type of firearm without restriction. Half a century of strict controls on pistols has ended, perversely, with a far greater use of this weapon in crime than ever before.”
– Colin Greenwood, in the study “Firearms Control”, 1972
- Let us hope our weapons are never needed –but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government — and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws.
– Edward Abbey, “Abbey’s Road”, 1979
- If I were to select a jack-booted group of fascists who are perhaps as large a danger to American society as I could pick today, I would pick BATF [the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms].
– U.S. Representative John Dingell, 1980
- .. a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen…
– Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App.181)
- The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner.
– Report of the Subcommittee On The Constitution of the Committee On The Judiciary, United States Senate, 97th Congress, second session (February, 1982), SuDoc# Y4.J 89/2: Ar 5/5
- In recent years it has been suggested that the Second Amendment protects the “collective” right of states to maintain militias, while it does not protect the right of “the people” to keep and bear arms. If anyone entertained this notion in the period during which the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were debated and ratified, it remains one of the most closely guarded secrets of the eighteenth century, for no known writing surviving from the period between 1787 and 1791 states such a thesis.
– Stephen P. Halbrook, “That Every Man Be Armed”, 1984
- To make inexpensive guns impossible to get is to say that you’re putting a money test on getting a gun. It’s racism in its worst form.
– Roy Innis, president of the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), 1988
- I don’t like the idea that the police department seems bent on keeping a pool of unarmed victims available for the predations of the criminal class.
– David Mohler, 1989, on being denied a carry permit in NYC
- Americans have the will to resist because you have weapons. If you don’t have a gun, freedom of speech has no power.
– Yoshimi Ishikawa, Japanese author, in the LA Times 15 Oct 1992
- You know why there’s a Second Amendment? In case the government fails to follow the first one.
– Rush Limbaugh, in a moment of unaccustomed profundity 17 Aug 1993
- The whole of the Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals… It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of.
– Albert Gallatin, Oct 7 1789
- The world is filled with violence. Because criminals carry guns, we decent law-abiding citizens should also have guns. Otherwise they will win and the decent people will lose.
– James Earl Jones
- Whether the authorities be invaders or merely local tyrants, the effect of such [gun control] laws is to place the individual at the mercy of the state, unable to resist.
– Robert Anson Heinlein, 1949
- Strict gun laws are about as effective as strict drug laws…It pains me to say this, but the NRA seems to be right: The cities and states that have the toughest gun laws have the most murder and mayhem.
– Mike Royko, Chicago Tribune
- According to the National Crime Survey administered by the Bureau of the Census and the National Institute of Justice, it was found that only 12 percent of those who use a gun to resist assault are injured, as are 17 percent of those who use a gun to resist robbery. These percentages are 27 and 25 percent, respectively, if they passively comply with the felon’s demands. Three times as many were injured if they used other means of resistance.
– G. Kleck, “Policy Lessons from Recent Gun Control Research,” Law and Contemporary Problems 49, no. 1. (Winter 1986.): 35-62.
- If gun laws in fact worked, the sponsors of this type of legislation should have no difficulty drawing upon long lists of examples of criminal acts reduced by such legislation. That they cannot do so after a century and a half of trying — that they must sweep under the rug the southern attempts at gun control in the 1870-1910 period, the northeastern attempts in the 1920-1939 period, the attempts at both Federal and State levels in 1965-1976 — establishes the repeated, complete and inevitable failure of gun laws to control serious crime.
– Senator Orrin Hatch, in a 1982 Senate Report
- Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.
– Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491
- Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops.
– Noah Webster
- [President Clinton] boasts about 186,000 people denied firearms under the Brady Law rules. The Brady Law has been in force for three years. In that time, they have prosecuted seven people and put three of them in prison. You know, the President has entertained more felons than that at fundraising coffees in the White House, for Pete’s sake.”
– Charlton Heston, FOX News Sunday, 18 May 1997
- (Those) who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it’s not an individual right (are) courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don’t like.
– Alan Dershowitz, Harvard Law School
- The right of self-defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and when the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.”
– Henry St. George Tucker (in Blackstone’s Commentaries)
- “Both oligarch and tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of arms.”
- The biggest hypocrites on gun control are those who live in upscale developments with armed security guards — and who want to keep other people from having guns to defend themselves. But what about lower-income people living in high-crime, inner city neighborhoods? Should such people be kept unarmed and helpless, so that limousine liberals can ‘make a statement’ by adding to the thousands of gun laws already on the books?”
- “Boys who own legal firearms have much lower rates of delinquency and drug use and are even slightly less delinquent than nonowners of guns.”
– U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, NCJ-143454, “Urban Delinquency and Substance Abuse,” August 1995.
- Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound.
– L. Neil Smith
- A man with a gun is a citizen. A man without a gun is a subject.
- “Gun control” is a job-safety program for criminals.
- During waves of terror attacks, Israel’s national police chief will call on all concealed-handgun permit holders to make sure they carry firearms at all times, and Israelis have many examples where concealed permit holders have saved lives.
– John R. Lott
- “Historical examination of the right to bear arms, from English antecedents to the drafting of the Second Amendment, bears proof that the right to bear arms has consistently been, and should still be, construed as an individual right.”
– U.S. District Judge Sam Cummings, in re U.S. vs Emerson (1999)
November 30, 2004
Its been a while but I finally updated and added pics to my image gallery. One of my favorite additions is this picture (subtle but funny.) I also added a new image gallery that consists of just desktop screen shot pictures. I love looking at some of my old desktop configurations and seeing which applications I used to use. You can see the gallery by clicking on the sidebar link under the VAULT STUFF category; or you can click here.
November 29, 2004
Jeep Links #2
I have been desperately trying to find some good Jeep tutorial websites but unfortunately even Google seems to continually direct me towards part sellers. Here are a couple of my most recent finds.
November 24, 2004
Command line colorization is a useful tool for working on the Unix CLI environment. Here is quick tutorial on how to customize your bash environment colors. The example is set to work just with your command prompt, but the same technique can be used to colorize anything in the Unix bash environment.
November 20, 2004
For the Oil
November 18, 2004
Linux Command #1
Here is a Linux command that I am always trying to remember. It checks to see which applications/services are using/keeping busy a given file system. Its particularly useful when you want to find out why you cannot unmount a given file system. If, for example, you want to check and see why you cannot unmount your USB pen drive from /mnt/usb you would type:
November 17, 2004
Dresses and Antique Furniture
Ok, after months of reading this book on my bathroom breaks I have finally finished Cryptonomicon . This book was wonderful. If you are a tech minded programmer, network administrator, mathematician, a cryptanalyst, or a plain old computer nut; you will find yourself laughing out loud during parts of this book. I loved Neal Stephenson’s writing style which often goes off on wild tangents, and long metaphors, that are as entertaining (and sometimes even more-so) the the plot itself.
The book is basically short on plot and long on story. I found his “techy” descriptions as accurate as any I have every read in a fiction book. While covering the life of the three main characters you will also run into such storied jems as how to eat Cap’n Crunch, why men wear beards, cards as a crypto-system, discovering what really turns married couples on, and many many more. Great story, great writing… great book.
November 15, 2004
I ran into this wonderful DHTML version of the popular Lemmings game. It makes for a nice way to start off Monday morning.
November 12, 2004
Which OS are you?
So I took this BBspot survey. Here are my results:
Well, currently I use Linux on Suse or Redhat, but hey, at least its Linux.
November 5, 2004
C.S. Lewis has always been a talented writer. His “Chronicles of Narnia” was one of the first book series I read. His non-fiction literature stands as some of the best Christian material written in the last century. All of that said “Mere Christianity” is probably one of his best books.
The purpose of the book is to introduce non-Christians into the most basic and fundamentals of Christian thought; what C.S. Lewis calls “Mere Christianity”, but the information given is as useful to Christians as non-Christians. It thoroughly and succinctly makes the case for natural law, the existence of God, Christian morality, and the “core” set of beliefs that make Christianity. Almost like a Christian version of “Book of Five Rings.” A book with significantly more wisdom than you would expect in its modest 228 pages.
November 3, 2004
It was the best of times
Although I have read some of Charles Dickens other works; I had never read “A Tale of Two Cities.” My wife had bought the book some time ago and so it sat on our shelf waiting to be read. A classic sitting on my shelf that I had not read was too much of a farce for me to ignore. And so I began reading it in the mornings, on my way to work.
Maybe it was because I was so much younger when I read Dickens other work, but for some reason “Tale” touched me in a way that his other books did not. I do not believe that another author, since the time Shakespeare, has demonstrated such a mastery of the English language and a skill for story telling. “A Tale of Two Cities” read like bitter-sweat honey to my tongue. Sweat, because his words welled up emotions in me that I have not felt for a story in a very long time. Bitter, because my heart aches that I will never have the skill to write such words. How sad it is that very few books have the capacity to be like that. The following are some of my favorite quotes from the book.
The two stand in the fast-thinning throng of victims, but they speak as if they were alone. Eye to eye, voice to voice, hand to hand, heart to heart, these two children of the Universal Mother, else so wide apart and differing, have come together on the dark highway, to repair home together, and to rest in her bosom.
Crush humanity out of shape once more, under similar hammers, and it will twist itself into the same tortured forms. Sow the same seed of rapacious license and oppression over again, and it will surely yield the same fruit according to its kind.
The great grindstone, Earth, had turned when Mr. Lorry looked out again, and the sum was red on the court-yard. But, the lesser grindstone stood alone there in the calm morning air, with a red upon it that the sun had never given, and would never take away.
A dram, all a dream, that ends in nothing, and leaves the sleeper where he lay down, but I wish you to know that you inspired it.
His surname was Cruncher, and on the youthful occasion of his renouncing by proxy the works of darkness, in the easterly parish church of Hounsditch, he had received the added appellation of Jerry.
October 29, 2004
And so it begins
This article by the AP scares the holy crap out of me. Evidently the Department of Homeland Security (DoHS) feels the part of its job mandate is to enforce patent and trademark rules on US citizens. Can anyone say “night watch?” Can someone please tell the DoHS that the US economy can take care of itself just fine. If a company is worried about a trademark infringement, they can do the same thing the rest of us would do; go to the courts to have it resolved. Unfortunately the focus of the article is on the fact that the patent had expired (making the DoHS look stupid) but the real focus of the article should be; exactly what business does the DoHS have pursuing trademark enforcement?