flog

From here:

"The yulist advocates the view that evidence is available to prove conclusively that Santa does exist, and that this evidence is adequate to establish beyond reasonable doubt the existence of Santa. However, when we employ the word "prove", we do not mean that Santa's existence can be demonstrated scientifically in the same fashion that one might prove that a sack of potatoes weighs ten pounds, or that a human heart has four distinct chambers within it. Such matters as the weight of a sack of vegetables, or the divisions within a muscle, are matters that may be verified empirically using the five senses. And while empirical evidence often is quite useful in establishing the validity of a case, it is not the sole means of arriving at proof. For example, legal authorities recognize the validity of a prima facie case, which is acknowledged to exist when adequate evidence is available to establish the presumption of a fact that, unless such fact can be refuted, legally stands proven (see Jackson, 1974, p. 13). It is the contention of the yulist that there is a vast body of evidence that makes an impregnable prima facie case for for the existence of Santa - a case that simply cannot be refuted. I would like to present here the prima facie case for the existence of Santa, and a portion of the evidence upon which that case is based." <snip cosmological argument>

I was going to take time to refute this statement, just to stretch my god-denying muscles, but it is so absurd on its face that that would really give it more credit than it is due. I will simply point out - the feelings of theologians aside - that uncaused effects are a fact of the quantum world.

  Riding with no hands

  Whilst texting his hot girlfriend.

  Douche hits curb - face plant.

  

groundglass: unintentional goatse

I kind of have to link to this story about a guy being detained and eventually arrested for refusing to let a Circuit City drone search his bag of recently purchased goods. This kind of crap has always made me feel a little hinky because it displays the tacit assumption that every customer exiting the store is a thief. In Amerka, I'm also supposed to be secure in my person from unlawful searches - where unlawful is defined as lacking probably cause. I just demonstrated to the store my willingness to play by the rules by paying for their overpriced, marketed crap. Why do they need to hassle me before letting me out of the store?

It almost makes me want to go to Wal-Mart and give them some of my hard-earned money in exchange for their cheap, poorly made shit just so I can tell the "greeter" to self-fellate as I leave.

  That lazy motherfucker stole my check

   

  And I want it back

 

  That lazy motherfucker stole my check

  

  stole my check, stole my check

  wooo, yeah, yeah, yeah

  wooo

 

  That lazy motherfucker stole my check

  And I want it back

  Lazy motherfucker



  wooo, yeah, yeah, yeah

  wooo

  wooo, yeah, yeah, yeah



  That lazy motherfucker stole my check

  stole my check, stole my check 

  that's the second time you did that

  you done did that twice



  Yeah



  That lazy motherfucker stole my check

  stole my check, stole my check

  And I want it back

  I want it back, my check back

  you lazy motherfucker



  You stole my check and run off

  Call 911

  Lazy motherfucker

  

  Wooo, yeah, yeah, yeah

  wooo

  wooo, yeah, yeah, yeah

  wooo 

  

114 Across - Best selling Grisham novel, with "The"

Some nimrod called into the Junkies' radio show on Monday to complain about one of their number's use of the phrase "god dammit" as taking the LORD's name in vain. It gave me reason to ruminate on the topic and it strikes me as odd that Christians so often are ignorant of their own Scriptures.

The first misunderstanding is that the name that can be taken in vain is anything other than the tetragrammaton, which we don't even know how to pronounce because biblical Hebrew didn't have the little vowel/aspiration marks that modern Hebrew does. 'God' is not the name we are to avoid taking in vain.

The second misunderstanding is that uttering an imprecatory phrase is what constitutes taking the name in vain. In Ecclesiastes 5 we learn that you take the LORD's name in vain when you swear an oath to him and don't pay it back.

The third misunderstanding which the nimrod caller did not bring up , but which is common among nimrods in general is tied to misunderstanding #2. Only followers of the LORD can take his name in vain - "the LORD, thy god". One could retort that the LORD is everyone's god, but that does not jibe with the usage of that phrase anywhere in the Old Testament. The Philistines worshipped Dagon and the incident with the statue and the ark make it quite clear that the LORD was Israel's god, but not the Philistines'.

Can you believe this crap is still online?

• Golden Arch
• all night long
• structural

  My reflection.

  Dirty mirror

  bears no connection to my self.

  I'm your lover

  I'm a zero.

  I'm the face in your dreams of glass.



  So save your prayers

  for when we're really gonna need them.

  Throw all your cares and fly.

  Wanna go for a ride.



  She's the one for me.

  She's all I really need, oh yeah.

  She's the one for me.



  Empty is loneliness

  and loneliness is cleanliness

  and cleanliness is godliness

  and god is empty...

  just like me.



  Intoxicated!

  with the madness.

  I'm in love with my sadness.

  Bullshit fakers.

  Enchanted kingdoms.

  The fashion victims chew their charcoal teeth.



  I never let on that I was on a sinking ship.

  I never let on that I was down.



  You blame yourself

  for what you can't ignore.

  You blame yourself

  for wanting more!



  She's the one for me.

  She's all I really need. 

  She's the one for me.

  She's my one and only. 

  

Ok, I've been on the internets since gopher was the hot hypertext medium and I've never been rick-rolled (I presume it's a deliciously punny play on blogroll and rick astley). Making me wonder exactly what Michael Parker means when he says it's "one of the longer Internet phenomena that we've seen". Define 'longer' and define 'we'.

I never have understood all the hullabaloo about null. It marks that there's no value here. There's nothing more sinister going on than that.

However, our friends on comp.database.theory would have you believe that null is a blight or scourge to be eradicated. This thread on null is fairly tame by comparison, but the core of the venom is there.

I would ask our theory loving friends what they suggest to replace null, but I know what the answer would be - a database should not contain missing values. It may make for theoretical simplicity, but can often be impractical to implement.