the diabolical deity

the asskickingest shit evah!

grimmy — Mon, 15 Aug 2005 06:29:36 GMT

More punk
More rock
More glam
More ass
More beer
Better beer
Open bar

More love
More beauty
More bearhugs
More fuck
Less war
Less bull
Better government

Tighter pants
Bare chests
Younger boys
Better boys
More gloss
More bling
Pink water in swimming pools

More joy
More horniness
More kisses
More frenching
More stars
More heat
Brighter northern lights

I was messing around with the laptop of my sister-in-law (of sorts) and i came across a video that i think puts some serious shoes into glutes! it's a music video of a song by an icelandic band called Brúðarbandið ('The Bridal Band'). they're seven girls/women/whatever who all wear, you guessed it, wedding gowns at their concerts. the video's title (and i assume the song's as well) is 'Brúðarbandsmantran' which translates into "The Bridal Band's Mantra" and it looks low-low-low-budget, like flash animated cut-outs of cats in wedding dresses and playing their instruments pasted onto concert-scene backgrounds. almost southpark-ish. the music is quite punky. no chance in hell they'll ever get an award for musical abilities, but it's awesome entertainment value in my mind.

usually i shy away from so-called girlbands almost as much as i avoid boybands because it's just stupid to go "hey, let's dig them because they're chicks", but these girls actually do kick ass.

they sing in icelandic, as far as i'm aware of, so that kinda takes some of the fun out of it for you non-icelandic-speaking people, but here's the original lyrics for anyone wanting a look (or if somebody wants to try and correct any mistakes i made in the translation):

Meira pönk
meira rokk
meira glam
meiri rass
meiri bjór
betri bjór
fría drykkj'á barnum

meiri ást
meiri fegurð
meira knús
meira ríð
minna stríð
minna bull
betri ríkisstjórn

þrengri buxur
berar bringur
yngri stráka
betri stráka
meira gloss
meira bling
bleikt vatn í sundlaugum

meiri gleði
meiri greddu
fleiri kossa
meiri sleik
fleiri stjörnur
meiri hita
skærari norðurljós

[those lyrics are repeated three times, and after that there's like a chorus type repetition of just "meiri rass", which means "more ass"]

gobsmacked like a mofo

grimmy — Wed, 03 Aug 2005 00:49:23 GMT

so, there i was, channel-surfing and looking for something fun to watch.
"ooh, this looks like it might be funny" i said to myself.
the scene was prisoners just having come off the bus that was transporting them to prison and the comically evil guard was giving them the standard this-is-my-house-speech. the camera switched between showing the guard and panning from one prisoner to the next.
"wow, this is such piss poor acting that i MUST be Son Of The Beach or something funny-in-a-dumb-way like that", i thought.
then i saw Chuck Norris and wondered if he'd started doing comedy for real (instead of the unintentionally funny stuff he usually does). then i checked the program info and, lo and behold, it was Walker Texas Ranger.

can somebody, please, tell me why this show is on the air?
it's got crap acting, about as much plot as a hot dog has easily identifiable animals parts, and (as far as i can see) serves ONLY the purpose of making sure Chuckie's face is on the tube when his infomercials aren't being shown.
crist, what dumbass sadist came up with the idea of having a TEXAS ranger take down criminals using karate??? hello! Texas! the state that's known the world over for having trigger-happy nednecks! rednecks don't use high-kicks, rednecks use "them there shawtgons, y'all". even Steven Seagal is more refined an actor than Chuck Norris!

grimmy — Tue, 19 Jul 2005 17:30:25 GMT

just finished Killing Pablo. took me about three days so it was about time.
an interesting read, even though my main reason for reading as that i like the author, Mark Bowden.

anyways, now it's smoking time and then transcribing the phone entries of our beloved Krazycat.

it's all been said and done

grimmy — Mon, 18 Jul 2005 22:35:16 GMT

there's a lot of talk about britain introducing some new ID cards, and it's nothing new that the US government has, and plans to further, impose severe restrictions on people's freedom. all in the name of fighting terrorism.

i think my thoughts on this can be summed up in a single sentence, a quote attributed to Benjamin Franklin that goes a little like this:
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

with the risk of sounding ever so slightly paranoid, doesn't any of this remind you at all of George Orwell's '1984'?

riddle me this, and riddle me that....

grimmy — Mon, 18 Jul 2005 17:53:27 GMT

the other day, at dinner, the talk turned to corruption among business leaders, and it made me wonder....

in this country (norway), anyone who's been convicted of stealing would have a seriously tough time getting a gig as a security guard. a known pyromaniac wouldn't be allowed to become a fireman. anyone even accused (needn't be tried, just charges being pressed) of being anything close to a child molester wouldn't even have a snowball's chance in hell of getting a job in a kindergarten or anything else to do with kids.

now, those requirements are all well and good. you wouldn't want someone with a shady past working for you in a trusted position.
basically everyone understands this and noone thinks this is odd. if you have a criminal record then you don't even try to apply for that high-level government job you'd love to have, let alone whine if you don't get a positive answer to your application.

but, what i wondered about was this:
if you've been found to have participated in corruption, being bribed by someone or having bribed someone, making deals with competitors and thusly breaking competition laws to increase profits, using blatant lies to gain an advantage against your opponent(s), spreading malicious untruths as facts, using propaganda that's been proven to be false, or done any other corrupt act, are you then automatically excluded from government and/or business leadership positions?

these "white-collar criminals" often do extreme amounts of damage, yet face little if any legal retribution.
a junkie who breaks into ten homes, stealing items of a total worth of, say, £10 thousand would be thrown into jail faster than they could say "ohcrap" and be labeled as an incorrigible menace. but the really big crooks, the people behind things like Enron, WorldCom and things of that magnitude, they steal millions and get sent to a minimum-security detention facility (something often called Club Fed, a play of words on the Club Med holiday trip) for a short while.
why is that?
are their crimes somehow lessened by the fact that they didn't pose any potential direct physical threat to their victims? shouldn't then, equally, their crimes be considered worse because of the huge damage they made? someone who loses a tv, vcr, home stereo and some jewelery in a burglary can get those things back through their home-owners insurance. someone who loses their life savings cannot get that money back so easily from a bankruptcy estate or lawsuit against the crooks' accountants who signed off on the books not having been cooked.
the "rule" is that the bigger the crime, the longer the time (you have to serve in prison). why not then follow that rule across the board?

Muttley and Dastardly ride again

grimmy — Sat, 16 Jul 2005 00:00:12 GMT

so i'm reading this article about how some british right-wing extremists and hooligans are going to join forces so they can beat up muslims together.

let's take them up on the offer, i say!

the royal marines must have some guns and hand grenades lying around that they part with and the RAF probably has some transport planes to lend, so why not fly the fuckers off to Afghanistan and let them fight al-qaeda there? or we could send to brush knuckles with the armed wing of hamas, hizbollah and fatah? maybe even let them try to deal with the suicide bombers in iraq?

really.
i mean, two flies, one stone, anyone?

not only would it help rid the world of stupid european people, but it could also make for a few less stupid middle-eastern people.
i'm certain that the average muslim would agree with me here that lowering the count of violent idiots (regardless of their skin colour or self-proclaimed religious affiliation) is a good thing.

they needn't be given the latest and greatest guns, just something from the nearest arms depot would do. there's transport planes going back and forth probably about every day so giving up a few seats wouldn't make much of a difference. they'd not need any wages, or at least not for long as they'd most likely get themselves killed rather quickly. they could be given air support by the planes already droppings bombs in those neighbourhoods, just to give them a little advantage. the only real expense would be supplying them with copious amounts of lager. that'd demand a few of more transport planes, or a cargo ship or two, but it'd be worth it!

hell, give them head-mounted cameras and we could make a reality show out of it!
the networks love showing us dimwitted people performing harebrained schemes, so why not this too?
i know i'd be laughing my ass off with a mouth full of crisps watching that show!
come on, people. it's win-win for us all!

grimmy — Tue, 12 Jul 2005 06:47:23 GMT

i'm reading a few pages on a reality series called 'Welcome to the Neighborhood' that got killed by the tv channel before it got aired. in short, three white, Bush-voter families were supposed to choose a new neighbour from a group of families. the candidate families were a black family, a latino family, an asian family, the two gay men who'd adopted a black baby, a extensively tattooed republican couple, a supposedly normal white family where mommy is a stripper and a Wiccan couple who met at the woman's initiation as a witch. or to put it another way, stereotyped conservatives were put face to face with their prejudices.

some of the articles actually went to say that this reality show lacked reality. it could very well be that i've really fucked up and missed a meeting, but i thought journalists were supposed to have at least half a brain. we ALL know reality shows have bugger all to do with reality. Big Brother, very realistic that a dozen shitheads are put into a single house with videocameras constantly filming their every move. Paradise Island, very real that half a dozen couples get separated into groups based on gender, then put into a setting where the booze flows freely and they have buttloads of "attractive members of the opposite sex" try to tempt them to stray from their wife/fiance/girlfriend/boyfriend/whatever, all for the cameras to see. seriously, grab your glasses and spot the obvious!
then again, maybe i shouldn't put too high demands on a guy who's both founder and president of 'Media Research Center' which claims to not only be "America's Media Watchdog" but also "The Leader in Documenting, Exposing and Neutralizing Liberal Media Bias".
hate to break this to you, Brent, but it's the conservative parts of the media who do most of the distortion of facts and marketing their bias and opinions as truths. just check out 'Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting' at www.fair.org so you can claim you've read what the liberal bastards have to say with a little more credibility. not that i'd really expect a guy who, according to the bio on his MRC site, "is frequently invited to appear on Fox News Channel shows such as Hannity & Colmes and The O'Reilly Factor" to read stuff that might not coincide with his right-wing views.

anyways, on one of the pages i read there were comments at the bottom, including such idiotic remarks as:
"Hey, when this kid turns out to be gay? will it be because he was Genetically disposed to being gay? Or will it be that he was raised by two perverts? just a question, not being judgmental"
first off, learn some punctuation; i'm not saying my punctuation is great, but your's sucks. second, who's to say the kid will turn out gay? thirdly, homosexuality isn't a perversion, it's a (sexual) preference. fourth, you were being judgmental.

is it any wonder i think it'd be a good idea to kill off all the idiots in this world so the rest of us don't have to suffer for their lack of reasoning and logic abilities?

on the trail of my ancestors

grimmy — Mon, 11 Jul 2005 22:53:20 GMT

so, we went to merry olde england to loot, rape and pillage. y'know, to carry on the traditions and stuff.
came back before the bombings though, so we got away easy, i guess.

however, i think several shops in Brighton have a somewhat diminished stock after our little escapade.
laid waste to Borders and came back with a stack of books from there. a couple of books on Bill Hicks, Al Franken's 'Lies And The Lying Liars Who Tell Them', 'Globalization and Its Discontents' by Joseph Stiglitz, Richard Feynman's 'Don't You Have Time to Think?' and several others. when i went to pay for them, the clerk lady actually said "i'll say, you like to read" with surprise in her voice. yes. the cashier at a bookstore commented on my stack of books like it was one of the biggest she'd ever seen a customer bring to her. and yes, i do like to read. am actually on my third book from said pile and we haven't even been back for a week yet. though, i did finish one before we even went back.

i won't go into detail about the other stuff i left there with, except for one item.
went into a second-hand store and came across the most amazingly fantastic t-shirt of all time!
picture this, white t-shirt, and on the front it says in all uppercase letters "God bless America...", below that a, well, a bust-type-picture (of the person in the text below the picture) with an American flag background, and at the bottom it says "God bless Oliver North".
oh yes. good old Ollie North, the guy who sold weapons to Iran and gave money to the Contras in Nicaragua.
no offense to the merkins who may read this, but when such a golden opportunity to take the piss out of one of your government's dumb-ass ideas presents itself, i just have to jump at it.

grimmy — Mon, 06 Jun 2005 13:25:00 GMT

yesterday, nobody was home when i woke up, which is strange because there's usually someone up and about when i finally open my eyes.
when my head starting working i realised i was going to visit my brother who's studying in england, so i thought about how you lot could give me tips on what i should take time to see. then when my body had started working semi-properly i made the effort to go to school and try to read a bit, in addition to posting my last entry.
i got fuckall reading done, so i decided to just skip that for the day and go home instead. on the way i came across a park, and decided to sit there for a little bit, just watching the sky while having a smoke and eating an apple.

....and if none of you gets any of the references in the above lines, i shall be very disappointed.

the results of boredom...

grimmy — Sun, 05 Jun 2005 14:19:55 GMT

last night (after i'd gotten home from watching Tori play her guitar and jockeying some discs, both of which she was good at, btw) i read an ebook called "Sex-Ploytation: How Women Use Their Bodies to Extort Money from Men" or some shit like that.
it was quite amusing to read how somebody could fit all those illogical conclusions and contradictions into one book. basicly, the guy's pissed off because he can't get laid and according to him all women refuse to take any responsibility for not climbing the corporate ladder as fast as men do, not earning the same wages as men, and for being raped, yet he somehow neglects to see that he himself is refusing to take responsibility for shit that happens to him. it reminds me of the following conversation:

Pot: "Kettle?"
Kettle: "Yes?"
Pot: "You're black!"

so, he's saying that all women just want money from men, not cash-in-hand because that'd be outright prostitution, but gifts like diamonds and cars and whatnot, and he's calling out for a revolution to overthrow this heinous system that'd in place.
well, this is just a thought here, but isn't HE to blame for being a dolt and catering to the whims of those women who actually are golddiggers? yes, those women are cunts to say the least, but when a woman (or anybody) expects you to do everything for them and they're not willing to do anything in return (not to mention offering a favour without asking for something), then they're not hanging out with you because of your sense of humour or sparkling personality! it's not exactly fucking rocket science.

i had a much more scathing point in my head about half an hour before i got online, but it's obviously gone into hiding now so i'll have to make it another time.

----

in more fun news, i'm going to merry ole England in about three weeks and staying for a week. we (yours truly and parental units) will be visiting my older brother and his gf who live in, ehh, Brighton, i believe, well, right outside London, in any case, and i was wondering if any of you UK people wanted to meet up for a piss up or just shoot some shit and perhaps give me tips on what i absolutely MUST see while there? :)

anybody got a boundary indicator for sale?

grimmy — Tue, 24 May 2005 20:29:45 GMT

y'all know how people have boundaries or "borders" that decide how close physically other people are allowed before you get uncomfortable?
i think it's supposed to be like strangers can go as close as 2-3 meters away, acquaintances 1.5-2 meters, friends 1-1.5meters, close friends and family 0.5-1 meter, and lovers and others who you're very close to can go inside the 0.5 meter boundary.
well, i don't have that boundary system, but since lotses of other people do, that can easily lead to me overstepping someone else's boundaries without realising it until it's too late.
in short, and a tiny bit simplified, people are in one of three groups for me. strangers in one group, people i hardly know or don't like in the second, and people i know at least to a degree, like and otherwise feel comfortable around in the third. my boundaries are basicly like this:
strangers - stay at more than an arm's length away till i get to know you.
group 2 - you can sit next to me at a table, but that's about as close as you can get.
group 3 - anything short of a sexual activity is fine by me.

for instance, my little brother is in group 3 and on more than one occasion when he's, say, lying on the couch watching tv and the other seats are taken, i've lied down behind him on the couch and had my head and an arm on his hip or shoulder and proceeded with watching the tv without hardly considering whether this was going too far or not. now, he's family and we're not very timid of physical contact and over the years we've gotten used to not worrying about whether touching eachother is a trespass or not. hugs, fine. pat on the back, fine. groping eachother's ass and making lewd comments while the other is having a piss, fine.

most other people, however, prefer more distance, it would seem.
which leads us to the pickle i'm in...
i slept at a friend's house, in the same bed as her, we started joking around by hogging the duvet so as the other was left without anything to sleep under, i did my patented "Gah!" and practicly spooned her. for various reasons, some unknown and unknowable to me at the time, this led to her being pissed off at me.
did she at any time tell me to back off? yes. did i back off when she asked me to? yes. did i stay back and on my side of the bed? yes.
however, she did wriggle a bit from time to time which i thought was part of the joking around and attempts to gain a more comfortable position instead of as her trying to push me back as she intended it.
now you see the pickle in 32-bit colours and 1600x1200pixel resolution?

this shit sucks because i like her and i enjoy hanging out with her, but what more can i do when practicly all she has to say is something as un-constructive as "if you were really my friend you should've known" (in addition to the "neh, i'm busy" when i asked her if she had time to grab a coffee and talk) after i've apologized and tried to explain to her that it wasn't a dumbass lead-in to "wanna have sex?" or something stupid like that?

what's even worse is that she has my "Spaced" season 2 dvd :P

holycrapit'sbeenforeversincelasttime

grimmy — Tue, 27 Jan 2004 08:27:38 GMT

i just realised i haven't updated my journal since the dawn of time, and i haven't even read through my friends list in half that long. at least.

i blame school.
speaking of which, i was supposed to take a test today, a test that i've been reading and preparing for for ages, but about an hour and a half before it was supposed to start they call me and say it's been cancelled because they couldn't download the test from Prometric.
that kinda sucked. i'll have to reschedule it for some other time, but that doesn't really fit all that great into my plans of moving to Oslo. oh well, it's probably sort itself out somehow.

so, what's up, people?

hmmm... interesting...

grimmy — Fri, 13 Jun 2003 12:28:33 GMT





	
	
	
		sheepboy
		
		106%
		
		
		
	
	
	


	
	
	
		aubreyblack
		
		87%
		
		
		
	
	
	


	
	
	
		corruptia
		
		87%
		
		
		
	
	
	


	
	
	
		herdivineshadow
		
		87%
		
		
		
	
	
	


	
	
	
		angel550
		
		86%
		
		
		
	
	
	


	
	
	
		thessalian
		
		85%
		
		
		
	
	
	


	
	
	
		holoroses
		
		80%
		
		
		
	
	
	


	
	
	
		crashedcarstar
		
		78%
		
		
		
	
	
	


	
	
	
		innocentbaby
		
		76%
		
		
		
	
	
	


	
	
	
		unknownj
		
		74%
		
		
		
	
	
	


	
	
	
		iambebby
		
		73%
		
		
		
	
	
	


	
	
	
		krazycat
		
		72%
		
		
		
	
	
	


	
	
	
		jellystar
		
		62%
		
		
		
	
	
	


	
	
	
		serpent_sky
		
		47%
		
		
		
	
	
	

How compatible with me are YOU?

grimmy — Mon, 05 May 2003 14:52:04 GMT

Your Ultimate Purity Score Is...
Category	Your Score	Average
Self-Lovin'	43.3% When I think about you - or anyone - I touch myself	57.8%
Shamelessness	88.1% Has yet to see self in mirror	74%
Sex Drive	86.8% The Pope is envious	71.2%
Straightness	83.9% Just go fuck something, okay?	35%
Gayness	92.9% Repressed, are we?	75.1%
Fucking Sick	92% Refreshingly normal	85%
You are 78.52% pure Average Score: 65.8%
Take The Ultimate Purity Test and see how you match up!

grimmy — Sat, 03 May 2003 21:55:42 GMT

i haven't really been following things much lately. am yet to set up any newsserver accounts since i reinstalled everything a few weeks back, rarely check my email (except for my hotmail address). in other words, i haven't read amp or seen any replies to my comments on other people's ljs for a while now.

it's basicly just me being lazy, yeah.
y'see, i have two installations of windows on this comp. one is win2k pro where i have my email accounts set up (and will be setting up newsserver accounts eventually), and the other is win2k server where i'm doing drew's site on (it's good to have a local server for testing stuff, i'd go ape if i had to upload every file every time i changed something in the php scripts).
i just can't really be bothered to shut down every program and reboot to the other installation just to check my email or whatever.

in my head, the choice is "1. i kill all running programs, then wait for the comp to shut down and then start up again, check email and read it, then kill all the programs there, then wait while the comp is shutting down and starting up into this installation again, or 2. i could not do that and just keep doing what i'm doing now. door #2 sounds like less of an effort, i'm gonna go with that."

oh, for drew (and any other poor misguided souls who'd want to see how making his site is going), i've got a little news page here which i update after every "breakthrough" i have.
i'll also be putting up full details of the task when it's done, or even before it's done if there's any requests for it.

grimmy — Fri, 02 May 2003 19:39:59 GMT

i'm bored as fuck, and not at all motivated to do anything at all.

i should be working on drew's site, but, alas, i am not.
maybe it's because i've made it past any big hurdles or large difficulties with the site. i mean, i made a rather intricate login system in php from scratch and all i really have left now is to write admin tasks (adding/changing/deleting entries in the database) and their respective sql queries. it's like i've beaten the boss on the final level and now i just have to get past a few dumb henchmen to reach the final end and watch the credits roll by.

bah, i'm gonna read that last unread comic book i have here somewhere and then go do something productive.

j00 sux0r!!1!!!11!!!

grimmy — Thu, 01 May 2003 00:13:28 GMT

The Dante's Inferno Test has banished you to the Eigth Level of Hell - the Malebolge!
Here is how you matched up against all the levels:

Level	Score
Purgatory (Repenting Believers)	Very Low
Level 1 - Limbo (Virtuous Non-Believers)	Very Low
Level 2 (Lustful)	High
Level 3 (Gluttonous)	Moderate
Level 4 (Prodigal and Avaricious)	Moderate
Level 5 (Wrathful and Gloomy)	High
Level 6 - The City of Dis (Heretics)	Moderate
Level 7 (Violent)	High
Level 8- the Malebolge (Fraudulent, Malicious, Panderers)	Very High
Level 9 - Cocytus (Treacherous)	Moderate

Take the Dante's Inferno Hell Test

grimmy — Tue, 15 Apr 2003 22:47:58 GMT

in the last couple of days i must've spent at least five to ten hours doing stuff on the comp for other people.
not that i mind, quite the contrary.

i "made" an image for my brother for one of his classes and i also reconfigured the template onmy brother's girlfriend's blogspot page.

the image was, simply put, getting a few pieces handed to me and then putting them together and colouring them and adding a few details.
go here to see what pics were handed to me and what i was supposed to make the end result look like.
it was fun fiddling about in photoshop trying to make it all come together to form something ok-ish.
the blogspot template, however, was oh so frustrating because i had to make changes to the template (which was in HTML and some blogspot specific tags) though the browser, "publish" the template (ie, making the public page actually use the template) and then going back to edit the template to do more changes and/or fix code that didn't work as planned. but still, it was fun.

it felt good to do stuff for other people. i mean, doing small favours that only take a few seconds is nice too, but this was better because i could immerse myself completely in it.
in a way it gives me more motivation to do stuff for myself, like pushing on through my textbooks and things.

ah well, i'm off to go read now.
good night, good morning, or both.

geekness

grimmy — Tue, 15 Apr 2003 07:02:54 GMT

i have two comps and one internet connection.
comp #1 is the old one. comp #2 is the new one. (full specs aren't important). both are running win2k professional.
they're connected together with a crossed cable, so communications between the comps is not a problem in itself.
comp #1 has the internet connection, while comp #2 has the scanner and, more importantly, the printer, as well as shared files being on both comps.
that all means i NEED the comps to be able to see eachother.

right now comp #1 is acting as a DHCP server for comp #2, so if i reboot comp #1 then any attempts at connections with comp #2 are impossible unless i either reboot that one as well or have it request a new IP address. both solutions require me to have to actually do something instead of it just resolving everything automaticly.

however, i'm wondering if setting up static IP addresses on both comps would do he trick.
just to be sure i'm not using addresses that are bad in any way, something like, say, 192.168.2.10 and 192.168.2.11 would be my choices.
but how would i go about making sure both comps know eachother's address even right after a reboot? would the route commands be sufficient?

if i set 192.168.2.10 on comp #1 and 192.168.2.11 on comp #2, then i could just have 192.168.2.10 as comp #2's default gateway and that'd only leave me with comp #1 to configure. i could set a persistant route in comp #1 for comp #2's IP address, but would that be enough?
i mean, would comp #1 actually know that that address was comp #2's address?
whenever i tried getting at any shares and stuff, comp #1 would go "ok, i'm looking for other comps in my 'network neighbourhood' and i have the IP of some other comp in my routing table set to go through the NIC" but would it also go "i'm gonna see if that comp is in my 'network neighbourhood' and try to connect to it"?

i'm gonna give it a go as soon as my dad is done with whatever he's doing on the other comp and i've finished downloading the new radiohead album.

it workeded!!!
i set both to use static IP addresses, had comp #2 use comp #1's IP as the default gateway and set a persistant route in comp #1 with comp #2's IP address. that worked as far as getting them to see eachother on the workgroups/"network neighbourhood" thing. i rebooted one and checked if it could see the other, it did, then i rebooted the other and checked if it could see the first, it did.
it didn't, however, allow comp #2 to get online through #1's internet connection. but that was easily solved by adding my ISP's DNS server IPs to comp #2's network settings. now it all be honkydory :D

long see no time

grimmy — Mon, 14 Apr 2003 19:11:36 GMT

haven't posted in, uhh... *thinks* ... a while now.
guess i'm "neglecting" lj. not that i'd have much to say, anyways.

i set up the puters here at home into a little network of sorts. both running win2k because it's stable and doesn't suck up as much resources as winxp does. i'm wanting to make it so that the comps would see eachother and stuffs even after the cable has been unplugged and the replugged, but that's something that'd take a good deal more effort than i can give it right now.

i'm also gonna be getting my site up again, again. if i can be arsed to fiddle about with it, that is.
but i'm not muchly happy with my current domain name. i want something better.
i was thinking i'd get "faustus.com/.net" or maybe even "wowbagger.com/.net" (name the books those characters are from!) but they're taken, so i'll have to go with something else.
i want something that says "don't take this site too seriously, it's just for shits and giggles really". something like "thissitesucks.com", only snappier.
i think i should be less frazzled by sleep deprivation when i make my choice, but pat came up with some good ones. such as 'thisshouldnotbeonthe.net', 'youareretardedfortypingthiswholeaddress.com', 'gluemakesyouhappy.com', 'imadethiswhileondrugs.com, 'concreation.net' (pat: "as opposed to PROcreation") and 'anization.org' (pat: "switch them- anization.org - org.anization").

perhaps i should use one of his ideas, just to suck up a bit. after all, he is providing me with free webspace and all.

ah well, i'll decide that later.
now it is night and i shall sleep. nightnight.

grimmy — Tue, 25 Mar 2003 14:12:12 GMT

saw recently an little article about how the US military is sending books to their soldiers.
i've never heard about this sort of thing happening, but apparently it's been done before in WW2 and other conflicts/people from one country shooting at people from another country/wars [strike as applicable], so it's nothing new.
the pentagon chose to only have books about war in their list, books like sun tzu's 'the art of war' and shakespeare's 'henry the 8th' (or was it some other henry?) and others i can't remember the names of.
for the next war, i wonder if they'll go a bit more hightech. like sending music cds to the troops. it could be useful for masking the sounds of the artillery battalion next door or soldiers having a go at the shooting range. though i think they should be fairly picky on what music they send out. i mean, even though the cure are one of the best bands of all time, it'd be a bad bad pr day if journalists saw 'killing an arab' on the list.

grimmy — Sat, 22 Mar 2003 05:30:16 GMT

since most everyone is making arguments that what the US is doing is wrong, i thought i'd play devil's advocate. not that i think that what they're doing is right, of course.

saddam is a ruthless dictator who's responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, including tens of thousands of iraqis he had gassed, all because they opposed him in some way. you have the kurds in northern iraq that were gassed because of their opposition to saddam's regime, and you have the shi'a muslims in the south that were massacred following the war of '91 because they started a uprising against saddam. a marsh area near An Nasiriyah was drained and has been made a desert as a reprisal for the shi'a uprising, that area was populated for thousands of years by shi'a muslims that have now been displaced.
a quote from the sky news website on saddam: "The new president [saddam] started as he intended to go on - putting to death
dozens of his rivals. A video shot at a private party meeting showed how chillingly ruthless he could be. In it Saddam announces there are traitors present and he sits calmly smoking a pipe while they are dragged off screaming to be executed." and "Saddam used chemical weapons against Iranian soldiers and against his own people in Halabja. He also tried to develop a nuclear bomb. The United Nations ordered him to give up his weapons of mass destruction but typically he played a cat-and-mouse game with inspectors sent to Iraq after the 1991 Gulf War."[1]

the country's rulers, including saddam, are sunni muslims. this ruling minority regime reminds me of south africa's apartheid regime, only iraq's regime is even more brutal.

saddam has kept iraq under his control for 24 years, since 1979, and in the last "elections" he got 99% of the vote because noone ran against him. a less than likely event if iraq, with its 24+ million people population, were a free democratic country, now isn't it?
saddam himself, as said in a bbc documentary i saw a few days ago, "rose from the ranks of a hitman [for the ba'ath party] to become president" and "stories say that he himself killed an opposing candidate [for presidency] by dropping him in a pool of acid".
the only political party in this nation of 24 million people is the ba'ath party. quote from the cia world factbook, "any formal political activity must be sanctioned by the government; opposition to regime from Kurdish groups and southern Shi'a dissidents"[2], would indicate that the lack of any other political parties (especially ones opposing the ba'ath party) isn't something the majority of iraq's inhabitants agree to.

the UN sanctions imposed iraq following the gulf war allowed for an "oil for food" trade, which would give the government of iraq the ability to sell oil in exchance for enough food and medical supplies that it itself could not produce so that the country's population would not suffer from starvation or a lack in health care. according to what said on a norwegian newsshow a day or two ago, iraq still has 49 billion left in that "account" to buy food and medical supplies for. however, there have been new presidential palasses built since the gulf war and the military expenditures of iraq in fiscal year 2000 was 1.3 billion dollars[3], so that should say something about the priorities of the government.

the UN website had a few interesting things to say about the oil for food program.
"Throughout 1991, with growing concern over the humanitarian situation in Iraq, the United Nations proposed measures to enable Iraq to sell limited quantities of oil to meet its people's needs. The Government of Iraq declined these offers, contained in particular, in resolutions 706 (1991) and 712 (1991), adopted, respectively, in August and September 1991." [4] the iraqi government said no to UN offers to help feed the population and provide medical supplies!
the oil for food program began "at the end of 1996 after the United Nations and the Government of Iraq agreed on the details of implementing resolution 986 (1995)" [5] they spent about a year and a half bickering with the UN on how the oil for food program should be implemented!

now, i can't believe i'm the only person that thinks that saddam's reign of power should be ended, because he's obviously no good for the most of the iraqi people.
there have been many who've said that the civilian casualties will be too high from the bombing campaigns and subsequent invasion of iraq, but what about the civilians who died every day before this war started? which option is "better", on one hand, to have some casualties from bombings and a change in government and a raise in the quality of life for the iraqi people and thusly a significant demise of deaths from malnutrition and lack of healthcare or, on the other hand, just let saddam continue to oppress his people and slowly kill them using starvation and only providing for those that follow him?
or to put it in another, and perhaps oversimplified, way: many die now and very few later or have an "average" rate of deaths for an indefinite amount of time?

the US and the coalition countries could, and should, have gone about changing the government of iraq in a different manner. war is by no means an easy and clean way to solve such situations, but it can be a very effective one. killing saddam and putting a stranglehold on his regime will change the situation. for the better, most likely, if something is put in place to prevent further oppression and, well, torture of the iraqi people.

[1] http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,70146-12249651,00.html
[2] http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/iz.html#Govt
[3] http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/iz.html#Military
[4] http://www.un.org/Depts/oip/background/fact-sheet.html
[5] http://www.un.org/Depts/oip/background/inbrief.html

grimmy — Sat, 08 Mar 2003 22:42:44 GMT

Explosions In The Sky!
kick ass!
rock booty!!

go download a song by them called 'Greet Death' and see that even something as morbid as dying can have a fun soundtrack to it!
DEU EET! :D

WEEEE!!!!

grimmy — Thu, 06 Mar 2003 22:33:15 GMT

i'mah gonna get mah siteses back up!!

pat's letting me use some of the webhost space he has, so i can't fuck about with the settings of it all seeing as i can't get into the cpanel for the hosting account. which makes little difference for me, really. just as long as i can get it with grimmycorp.com (or whatever domain i might get seeing as i don't like that one very much any longer) and not grimmycorp.sqonline.net (he has sqonline.net) and a few email addresses for use with the sites, then i'm happy.

but now i'm gonna try to find out how i embed lj into a webpage.
[edit]i can't. only paid members can properly embed their journals. drat.[/edit]

grimmy — Thu, 06 Mar 2003 21:10:38 GMT

one of the most entertaining parts of speculating as to why people act the way they do is assuming the worst and thinking you're right.
i mean, "all" the evidence and clues do lead to that conclusion, so what else could it be?

however, the only way to actually find out why they're acting the way they are is to ask them.
which can both be odd to approach and they might not want to tell you so they opt to try and brush it aside, play it down or simply just lie to you.

ahh, the wonderful world of human interaction.