Never Censored

Conservapedia's database crashes

nospam@example.com (Kurt) — 2008-05-19T22:04:58Z

So it looks like Conservapedia suffered a database crash. Guess it was because they were kind and tolerant of homosex— ermm... wait no. Maybe it was because God hates liberal— oh wait... no.... Perhaps it was because they supported evolu— hmm.

I guess that's what happens when computer "science" teaches both sides of the issue, because clearly constant data backups aren't needed, as God will watch over your data.

Let us not forget, though, that when data corruption happens and/or hard drives fail, it's only God testing your sysadmins...

... riiiight.

Is Scientology a church or a business?

nospam@example.com (Kurt) — 2008-05-12T01:05:22Z

I was recently skimming over the Wikipedia article on Scientology controversies and came across a particularly interesting bit of text:

The Church maintains strict control over the use of its symbols, names and religious texts. It holds copyright and trademark ownership over its cross and has taken legal action against individuals and organizations who have quoted short paragraphs of Scientology texts in print or on Web sites, in some cases asserting their scriptures constitute "trade secrets." Individuals or groups who practice Scientology without affiliation with the Church have been sued for violation of copyright and trademark law.

I thought this was kind of interesting. Arguably, the point of copyright law is to protect businesses (including sole proprietorships) from other businesses trying to make pure profit off of the former. That is, copyright law is there so that should Joe Schmoe want to create a book called Joe Schmoe's Guide to Modern Cults, another profiteer by the name of Jane Doe couldn't come along and copy, verbatim, Joe's Guide to Modern Cults and claim it as her own work while making pure profit.

So, when I see Scientology trying to delve into laws made to protect businesses, a red flag is raised in my head: they're a church— not a business. By definition, they're technically a 501(c)(3) non-profit religious organization. Therefore, I have but one question: why should they be covered by copyright law if the fundamental goal of the organization, legally, is not to turn a profit, but instead to benefit mankind? More importantly, is it valid to use patent/trademark law in matters of religion to begin with?

Above all, if the legal protections designed to protect profit-oriented activities of businesses and individuals are allowed to be applied to churches, then how, exactly, could you even legally distinguish a religion from a business? This one's fairly intriguing, because if the only method for doing so are the tax reporting and exemption statuses delegated by the IRS/states, then we have, in effect, created the largest loophole to a tax code ever known by man. Not only is a religious organization tax-exempt, but unlike every other non-profit organization, it also does not have to report its income to the IRS. Therefore, if religious organizations like Scientology are afforded the same luxury protections as businesses, they are essentially tax-free/tax-reporting-free businesses.

Now, can you imagine how profitable (and dangerous) a business would be if: it never had to pay taxes; it never had to tell the IRS where it's getting its money from; it never had to tell the IRS how it's spending its money; and, it could sue anyone who said anything bad about them? Yikes.

If religious organizations are allowed to be covered by copyright law, and they're allowed to trademark their religion's name, and, on top of that, they can actively bring suit against people who use the name when the religion doesn't want them to, then they are demonstrating business behavior. Essentially, they sue in order to "protect" the corporate image of their "brand name." That makes them even more indistinguishable from businesses. Using the power of the government, they can proactively suppress political dissent, preying directly upon the financial disparity between them, a multi-million dollar organization, and their target, a multi-hundred dollar citizen.

Continue reading "Is Scientology a church or a business?"

God agrees: Christian rock sucks

nospam@example.com (Kurt) — 2008-04-27T03:28:15Z

As a followup to my blog on why Christian rock sucks, it appears that God agrees:

More than 40 people were taken to hospital — three with serious injuries — after the floor caved in at a packed concert in an Abbotsford, B.C, church late Friday night.
...
The sold-out event featured contemporary Christian rock band Starfield. A couple of warm-up bands were playing their music when the accident happened, Thiessen said.

Glad to know the big guy shares my opinions. Sucks people had to get injured in the process. If only they had read my blog, this whole thing could have been averted.

Okay, so I joke. Realistically, God didn't do it because even if he exists, he certainly wouldn't give a shit about some crap music and some silly teenagers— regardless of their faith. I suppose, though, that it's really more the end result of putting too little faith in science. Oh well. Perhaps this serves as a warning against future mindlessness.

... or not. After all, chances are they'll simply say it was "God testing them" or something, but the next time a gay soldier dies, they'll say it's because God hates him. Funny how they get to have it both ways. Funny— but mainly just plain pathetic.

Cheers.

Zappy the clownbattery

nospam@example.com (Kurt) — 2008-04-05T02:30:07Z

I think that it's time that as a society we sit down and agree of one phrase that says succinctly the following:

Trust me, I know exactly what I want, or at least have a good idea, and judging by the way this is going, don't ask why, don't take it personally, but you and I would never work out. It's not you, and it's not me— it's the fact that if we were both in the same equation, it would perpetually be imbalanced, and we would waste a year of our lives trying to rebalance it, only to fail miserably. You're nice, but you've got issues with which simply I won't be able to reconcile. There's someone out there for you, but it's not me. Sorry. You might be a good friend, but it would never be more than that. Ever.

Simple as that. Just one phrase. It needs to be unambiguous and simple to recognize. Perhaps "Zappy the clownbattery" would work. It just sucks when someone tries to talk to you, and makes really shitty small talk to the point where you know, definitely, that the person is either too stupid or too simplistic to ever be able to tolerate for more than 30 minutes— much less date. On top of that, you know with certainty that they'd never be able to tolerate you. So, the only way to convey that is to invoke the Zappy clause.

And, it sucks, because people take it personally and wonder how they can "change" and whatnot, when in all reality they can't. Even if there were some magic personality changing device, it's unlikely that it would have any effect on the already-formed opinions by one person on another.

Anyway, we just need to leave it at that. Someone says hi, someone else detects that you might be hitting on them by the sharp pain in their stomach and the wincing of their eye. Subsequently, they say "Zappy the clownbattery," and then it's mutually understood that that's as far as it goes. No awkward pause or silence; no backstabbing; just pure and simple. Think of all of the broken hearts that would be prevented.

Cheers. :P

Wikimedia hits ten million articles. We kick ass.

nospam@example.com (Kurt) — 2008-03-28T22:20:55Z

Yep, that's right, Wikimedia has hit its 10 millionth article across all 250 languages. Apparently, it was an article about Nicholas Hilliard, an Elizabethan era portrait painter, on the Hungarian language Wikipedia. Pretty cool, eh?

Not only do we have articles about various historical people— we also have them in lots of languages. From alexa's rankings, the various Wikipedias are in the top 10 visited sites for 14 countries, and in the top 20 for 9 more on top of that. And, only around 15% of our users come from the United States. To give even more perspective, our daily reach exceeds MySpace, Facebook, and blows Britannica out of the water. That means that on a daily basis, more people will make their way to Wikipedia than any of the other sites listed. Eat that, Britannica. Of course, google is still kicking our ass, but their time will come... muahahahah.

Wanna jump on the bandwagon? Go make an account on the English Wikipedia... or don't. It's totally up to you. After all, we don't require you to create an account to edit, but if you want credit for your work, it's easier to keep track of it by making one.

Some little-known niches of Wikipedia:

The reference desk — have a question in need of someone who knows a certain topic well? Ask there and you'll likely have a response within a couple of hours or less.

Commons — Need pictures or other media but don't wanna pay for it? Look no further. Commons hosts royal-free, free-to-use-and-modify content, so instead of paying ridiculous sums for stock photos, look on commons first. Simply looking for a new wallpaper? Check out the quality images category and you won't be disappointed. I never am. :P

How we pwn Britannica — We maintain a running list of things that Encyclopedia Britannica screwed up and we've since corrected. Unlike other encyclopedias, we actually respond to our readers' complaints, and, if we don't, we invite them to fix it themselves :P

Anyway. yay us. I'll be the one celebrating, dancing naked on our admin chat channel on IRC if anyone needs me. ;)

Cheers. :P

No title, or at least, I really am too tired to come up with one

nospam@example.com (Kurt) — 2008-03-22T05:11:00Z

It sucks being different. I've tried to be the same, and every time I've tried to fit in, somehow I fuck it up. In all reality, I think I'm destined to stand outside of the candy shop for the rest of my life, looking in and wishing that had fates been better, I, too, would be able to sip from the nectars that others are free to take delight in eating— bitter and sweet treats alike.

I blame myself for trying to fake it. Every day I try to fit in by making jokes and trying to keep people happy so as to mask the abject dejection that I can't but feel when I look at the nasty shit that makes the cogs of society spin. When I find something I can latch on to— hold like a blanket to distract me from that horrible reminder— I get caught up in it, thinking somehow... somehow if I can just do this one thing maybe I'll get closer to healing it all. At least I'd be able to justify it as helping someone, somewhere to live a better life.

So I tried to fake it. I should have never tried to be an actor— I should have never emerged from my backstage home to try to be something I'm not.

It's lonely working behind the scenes. It's a lonely, thankless job that'll net you, at best, a few words in a forgettable program. I guess I don't really have a choice, though. I mean, in the end, I'll always botch something when I'm on-stage. I'll forget a date, miss a cue, break character, or somehow make others remember that I'm not the person they expect me to be, and instead of being what they need, I'll just be some random person. ... and then it all hits me again. Faced with rejection from my facade, I lose grasp of my distractor, and all of the things I've tried to forget about the world come rushing back to mind, and I cry. Withdrawing from the light, I never want to set foot in it again.

... but give me the option to be myself— to return backstage where I truly can make magic and none will be the wiser— and I'm able to once again quiet the din of the world.

So I guess I'll just be alone. That's probably why, when you hear about all of the people like me in history, they pretty much all had dysfunctional relationships with society. I understand that now, and I'm increasingly coming to terms with that.

I long so much for someone to love— truly love— who actually does understand me. However, like my predecessors, I don't really know if that's ever going to happen. Nobody falls in love with guys like me. They fall in love with actors— they fall in love with guys pretending to be guys like me, because guys like me, despite our shitty attempts at acting when we force ourselves to do so, are too shy to approach the audience. We prefer, instead, to sit from afar and watch others enjoying the show we know in and out— almost wishing that we didn't know the next punchline by heart, so that we, too, could hinge on it and, once delivered, finally sigh laughter like everyone else.

I'm not sure where to go from here. You'd think the choice would be simple: do what's in your heart, right? Well, what's in my heart right now is withdrawal— giving up— living a life of solitude. Otherwise, I'm probably just going to continue to fuck up attempts at trying to be someone I'm not in hopes that I might finally fool someone into a meaningful relationship that is, essentially, built on a meaningless foundation. I always figured that the latter was the only real option, because it seemed like the most practical compromise between the two extremes: on one extreme, being myself would denote that I would spend relatively little time in the public eye and would thus minimize the chances of finding love; on the other extreme, not being myself would denote that I would spend proportionately greater time in the public eye and would thus maximize the chances of finding love, yet that love would be fundamentally built on a persona of someone I'm not.

So I'm fucked either way. The problem is that in the latter condition— playing the game by acting the role, it's clear that I might accidentally cause hurt to another person. That doesn't sit well with me. I can't justify even temporarily hurting someone if I can at all control it, and pretending to be someone I'm not in order to find love is potentially emotionally dangerous for those that cross my path; so, by logical deduction, I think I'll just skip out on it all together. I'd rather feel miserable for the rest of my life than make someone else feel the same way.

Yeah, it's a raw deal. I suppose that's the "perk" of being me. By the way, if you're one of the few out there who truly is a good person, let no one ever tell you that knowledge is power. It's not. It's only powerful for those that abuse it. On the kind person, however, it has crippling effect of imparting... nothing. No, worse than nothing. It takes away all that was once unknown in the world and replaces it with all of the correct answers— almost none of which are the ones you had desperately longed for.

Trust me, it'll be much easier for you at the end of your life to go, "oh wow, everything I know is wrong" than to realize it early in life. At least when you're in a nursing home you can blame it on being young and stupid, and you'll be free to bask in hindsight.

I'm living proof that no old person should ever be cursed with being young again. It's cruel and unusual punishment, and it's a trap to assume that being "young'n'sexy" or some other delusion will ever be worth it. You'll feel emptier than you've ever felt in your entire life, and since you've likely already experienced love, you'll quickly remember that sex is just plain boring without it. But, it'll be too late. You'll start to wonder if you'll ever be able to find the love you once had, and soon you'll be back where you started— dying in a nursing home, relieved that you don't have to worry about it any more.

... and I'll envy you.

Until then, you'll find me behind the curtain. Heh, actually, I lie— you'll probably find me perpetually behind you (since that's where the lighting console probably is), wearing all black while staring at the back of your head, but saying that I'll always be staring at the back of your head while wearing all black sounds wayyyy too spooky, so if it helps, you can instead continue to imagine that I'm just behind the curtain. :P

The best disclaimer ever

nospam@example.com (Kurt) — 2008-01-29T12:25:21Z

Forget liability waivers, lawyers, or legalese. This nature preserve has the absolute best and most honest disclaimer ever. It's the disclaimer to end all disclaimers.My favorite part:

By entering the Preserve, you are agreeing that we owe you no duty of care or any other duty. We promise you nothing. We do not and will not even try to keep the premises safe for any purpose. The premises are not safe for any purpose. This is no joke. We won't even try to warn you about any dangerous or hazardous condition, whether we know about it or not. If we do decide to warn you about something, that doesn't mean we will try to warn you about anything else. If we do make an effort to fix an unsafe condition, we may not try to correct any others, and we may make matters worse! We and our employees or agents may do things that are unwise and dangerous. Sorry, we're not responsible. We may give you bad advice. Don't listen to us. In short, ENTER AND USE THE PRESERVE AT YOUR OWN RISK. And have fun!

Cheers.

The Golden Compass points to true "suck."

nospam@example.com (Kurt) — 2007-12-08T06:27:00Z

I heard this movie was going to be some sort of sci-fi film, so I went in with low expectations of nerd humor, average directing, average writing, and some silly twist. At worst, I'd be Villaged. Alas, even my low expectations for movies could not prepare me for this crapfest. Mind you, this is coming from someone who can always find something fun, silly, or stupid about a movie and still walk away and go, "meh, it wasn't that bad." The Golden Compass, however, has redefined the world as I know it.

I think this is how it went down in the writing room:

Larry: silence... typing on the keyboard
Curly: silence... writing
Mo: silence... brainstorming

All silence. Why? Because if they would have talked, they would have realized that I, as well as my friend, heard the phrase "ball sac" at least a dozen times. I honestly don't know to what they were referring, but I think it was a city of some sort. I was laughing too frequently at its occurrence to figure it out.

On top of that, there was another memorable zinger uttered by some polar bear: "you want to— ride me?" By that point, I had already been primed by the thought of traveling to a city of "ball sacs" that I lost it when I heard one about "riding me." Clearly, these writers were retards.

It gets better.
Continue reading "The Golden Compass points to true "suck.""

Aussie ratifies Kyoto Protocol making that 91% of the world. Guess the rest.

nospam@example.com (Kurt) — 2007-12-03T23:44:12Z

So as of today, Australia has now ratified the Kyoto Protocol— the thing that tells countries to progressively limit their carbon emissions. You know... so we don't all boil.

Anyway, that now makes 91% percent of the world. A few countries haven't even said anything about it, but one has vehemently denied even considering it: The United States of America. Yep, the US is the only country in the world that has overtly said, "fuck off" to the United Nations.

Of those who haven't taken a stance yet, well, I'll give you some of the highlights:
Continue reading "Aussie ratifies Kyoto Protocol making that 91% of the world. Guess the rest."

USPS money order security features - extended.

nospam@example.com (Kurt) — 2007-12-01T00:10:33Z

I was browsing through the USPS Postal Money Order Security Features reference card thinggy and realized that it was lacking in a few of the more intricate features. So, I figured I'd detail the more extended list here for all who are security freaks like me. Plus, it always helps to not get screwed out of money :P.
Continue reading "USPS money order security features - extended."

This dude needs to be the next president

nospam@example.com (Kurt) — 2007-11-17T03:09:07Z

I've liked Bill Richardson since he announced his candidacy, and he's one of the only candidates up there that makes me still believe that someone can be in a position of power and maintain his integrity— he truly represents the people. Lemme give you some recent highlights:

"I am the only one who has dealt with immigration directly"

"It is not about what Halliburton wants in Iraq"

"One American death is too many"

I'd take him over Obama and certainly over Hillary any day. We need someone who's straightforward for a change.

Cheers.

Baptists pass resolutions on homosexuality, predatory lending

nospam@example.com (Kurt) — 2007-11-16T00:19:00Z

Looks like some Baptists in South Carolina are pretty homophobic. From the article:

Encouraging churches to work to curb gang violence.

Calling for laws restricting sexually oriented businesses.

Opposing the Catawba Indian Tribe’s proposal to start a high-stakes bingo operation in Marion County.

Encouraging Baptists to help pro-life pregnancy care centers purchase ultrasound machines.

Praying for candidates for political offices and thinking of their vote as a Christian duty.

How wonderful. I don't quite understand why they chose those topics, but let's try to understand their reasoning:
Continue reading "Baptists pass resolutions on homosexuality, predatory lending"

In case anyone's still counting the zeroes, the total cost of the Iraq war

nospam@example.com (Kurt) — 2007-11-15T02:06:12Z

Here's a quickie:

We've now spent $1,600,000,000,000 dollars on the War in Iraq. Yes, that's "16" with 11 zeros after it.

You know what this is starting to remind me of? Gamblers who keep borrowing money from the house thinking their lucky breaks are overdue. It's called the gambler's fallacy, and it's driving us into oblivion. Soon, the United States will be putting the pink slip for its car on the table— and we'll be practically guaranteed to lose it.

We're a country of lazy, unintelligent, mindless, paranoid, hedonistic dumbasses who are easily frightened into tossing money in any direction to prevent some unknown person from doing some unknown thing to us. We build gates and walls to fence ourselves in— even though they keep out nothing.

So here's my question: just when, exactly are we going to cut our losses and walk away from the table? The corporate puppets will say that we want to, "cut and run," and you know what I say to that?

YES! Cut and fucking run the hell out of there, before our legs get blown off and we can't even do that. I'd much rather cut and run instead of hemorrhage everything we've worked for as a country on some fucking sand people over some bullshit archaic energy source. Let them deal with their own shit.

We've got our own problems to deal with here. We can start with the infant mortality rate and try to re-instate the constitution as we work our way up. Maybe once our ravaged rectums heal, we'll be able to formulate another strategy for invading the middle east for economic gain. Until then, let's recoup our losses and focus on brainstorming ways to prevent a great depression.

Cheers.

The future of obscenity

nospam@example.com (Kurt) — 2007-11-09T12:37:00Z

I came to an interesting revelation today while I was naked in the the shower: nudity isn't the last straw for obscenity. Instead, it's actually much, much worse. We just simply don't think about it because we assume it'll never happen (our parents all thought the same thing), but as shows like Fear Factor have proven to us, nothing is too disgusting for America.

We have an interesting road ahead of us that is filled with poop, rape, incest, and death.

... and you thought that naughty language and boobies were the worst of it. Let's examine history to see why.
Continue reading "The future of obscenity"

People who say "Abortion is murder"

nospam@example.com (Kurt) — 2007-11-07T02:14:00Z

I keep seeing this all over the place. Bumper stickers, wikipedia talk pages, and web pages made by 12 year olds, and even pages made by sociopaths seem to tout the message.

Of course, I'm having a hard time understanding the validity of the point or even why people would want to defend it, and it's not coming from a pro-abortion point of view, either. It's a practical thing. If someone says, "Abortion is murder," then there's a fundamental assumption that life begins de-facto at conception. I understand why this point is made; after all, a cell is living, thus, there is life, so ending life would, in essence, be murder. Okay.

My problem is that aside from the practical definition, I find a serious problem with calling it murder Sure, you're killing an unborn fetus, and I realize that people can have issues with that. However, calling it murder seems to devalue the connotation of the word. For example:
Continue reading "People who say "Abortion is murder""