Diets of the Past

Cribbed from http://www.lileks.com

1965 It’s the latest diet, ladies: Karo Syrup and Mazola. I’m not kidding. They’re not kidding. No one’s kidding. You were supposed to mix Karo Syrup, Mazola, some dextrose and evaporated milk. And that’s all you got for the day. No cottage cheese, no melba toast. That’s IT. The lady is not wearing a dress made out of newspapers - that’s from the wet ink on the facing page. By some peculiar coincidence, this diet came from CORN PRODUCTS company, which made . . . well, you figure it out.

Polygamy. and Gay Rights, is there a connection?

A friend wrote Ironically, one of the main arguments they're pushing is that this would open the door to polygamy...

To which I replied:

I've been wondering, how would one implement Polly marriages in 21st century America? Who would have what custody rights over kids? Think of all the database that would have to be completely rewritten to accommodate multiple spouses!

Caps on how many spouses you can put on a company's health plan?

The logistics hurt my mind.

I think Polly unions aren't likely to become legal just because of the practicality of implementation. Gay Marriages are incredibly simple by comparison. I've nothing against either, but the amount of work involved in making Polly marriages happen legally will keep it from becoming a reality until such tome as 80% of the population is clamoring for it and making it a litmus test issue for political support.

Perhaps in a generation or two.

That said, I want to see gay marriages in the near future, if for no other reason than I know a couple lesbian couples who would be wonderful examples of good marriages in general if they got hitched.

In my opinion, anyone who seriously raises the threat of Polly marriages as an argument against gay marriages is hoisting a straw man and using it as a scare tactic. It's not a real progression, and I doubt most people who support gay marriages also support polly relationships. The argument irks me in a number of ways.

Part of me suspects such an argument was concocted by a conservative who couldn't wrap their minds around the idea that people really could be "gay" and not still want to have sex with the opposite sex. I can just see a Pat Robertson type mulling over the idea and concluding that gays must have their same sex partner for "perversion" and an opposite sex lover for "real" sex.

Aside form the fact that I don't consider gay marriages to polly marriages a real or possible progression, the argument that such a transition would be "logical" is an insult to those who are gay and not bi. It smacks of a condescending parent patting a child's head and saying "There there, we know you're not REALLY gay son, sooner or later you'll find a nice girl you like and settle down."

Of course, this is all from someone who has not been a part of the gay rights movement in any way, so I'm pretty tout of touch with the communities involved. Most of what I've been saying is based on my own beliefs and views, and I freely confess that my experiences are drawn from a relatively small scope. I could be way off base, and I'd appreciate anyone who knows more telling me if I'm wrong.

I've yet to see any evidence that people who are not 100% heterosexual are any different than the rest of society, and I see no reason for them to be discriminated against and kept out of the legal and religious institutions that the rest of society cherishes.

Security Through Obscuri--- Never Mind

Well, Windows source code has been leaked. It's "littered with profanity" and the leaked code represents "15% of the total source code for the operating system."

I hope this will result the end of Microsoft touting the tight control they have over their source code as a reason to buy Windows.

Because, well, it isn't true anymore.

I knew there was a reason I wore my comfy Tux fleece today. :)

On the prospect of same sex weddings

To Whom it may concern,

I am a Heterosexual male. I am engaged to be married to a Heterosexual female. I am a moderate politically, and consider myself Christian religiously. I was raised in a home that was conservative, both politically and religiously.

I am in favor of legalizing gay marriage.

I do not find the concept offensive to my beliefs, and even if it did grind against my personal moral code, it is not my right, nor is it the right of our government, to deny marriage to same sex couples.

This is a nation of differences, founded on the concept of freedom of religion and the freedom of belief.

Forcing the conservative idea of "Marriage is one man and one woman" onto the entire nation is little different than forcing all restaurants to serve only kosher food, or requiring women to cover their faces in public. It is a belief founded on the conservative views of a number of religions, but not necessarily the majority of Americans.

Gay marriage neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

I know there are many people who are violently disgusted by the sight of two men holding hands. I am equally offended by people who hold up signs claiming that gays are going to Hell, but I, as an American do not try to stop them. It is their right to state their beliefs, no matter how offensive I find them.

It is their right to live their life the way they want, and that applies to heterosexuals and homosexuals alike.

IE patch breaks Exchange Webmail

We (The company where I work) have learned that there are issues with the 2-10-2004 Critical update patch from Microsoft. If you install it on an Exchange 2000 server, it interferes with the web mail interface. Specifically, clicking on a message results in a 404 error if you're using Internet Explorer as your web browser.

Netscape and Mozilla seem to work fine, so the bug seems to be in the code Microsoft uses to add functions to IE users that are not available in other browsers.

This happens when the patch is installed on the server, and it doesn't seem to matter if the client has the patch installed.

Gang rape in Japan now against the law (It wasn't before)

Mainichi Interactive - Top News

Japan set to criminalize gang rape

The first major revision to Japan's criminal penalties in almost 100 years is set to include jail terms for gang rapists, according to the Justice Ministry.

The planned revision to the Penal Code, introduced in 1907, has been prompted by demands from crime victims for more serious punishments.

Following a headline-making case of gang rape committed by students from prestigious Waseda University, the Justice Ministry has called for criminalization of gang rape for the first time in Japan.

Under the revision program tabled to an expert panel for discussion, the ministry plans to institute at least four years imprisonment for gang rape.

The proposal apparently also includes increasing maximum prison terms for serious crimes such as murder, rape committed alone, assault causing injury, and molestation.The maximum term for an individual who commits more than two of these crimes is set to be increased from 20 years to 30 years.

Thanks to the improvement in identification procedures using state-of-the art technology, the ministry also plans to give law enforcers to more time than now to charge criminals.

The ministry plans to submit a bill for the revision program to the Penal Code and the Criminal Procedure Law after the expert panel issues an opinion report.(Mainichi Shimbun, Japan, Feb. 11, 2004)

This is interesting for a lot of reasons. Read the whole article, and you'll find penalties for "molestation" are being toughened in addition to criminalizing gang rape.

For those who don't know, there is a very disturbing sub culture of men who will feel up, harass and just about rape women on the big city subways of Japan. I don't know how wide spread this is, but stopping the practice has been hindered by a lack of laws against the practice, and the difficulty in catching some anonymous hands violating a woman who is facing the other way, and unable to turn around due to the confines of the train.

I've heard of books on how to molest women that are popular in Japan, and proponents of the activity who go on talk shows to advocate their actions.

All in all, it's a pretty depressing situation for women in Japan. Hopefully this will be a significant step to fight sexual violence against women.

Chainsaw + breasts = OUCH!

IOL : Actress's breasts sliced in chainsaw mishap

Actress's breasts sliced in chainsaw mishap

February 11 2004 at 01:21PM

Berlin - A German actress was taken to hospital after an artist injured her breasts while trying to cut open her bra with a chainsaw during a rehearsal for a stage show, she told a newspaper on Wednesday.

"It was the worst moment of my life. I thought, Sibylle, you're going to die," the actress, former porn star Sibylle Rauch, told Bild newspaper.

The chainsaw operator, performance artist Marko Koenig, said Rauch was lying down during the rehearsal on Monday and suddenly bent forward just as he was applying the saw to her bra.

"I couldn't pull back the chainsaw quickly enough and cut her breast and stomach. It was terrible," he told Bild.

The hospital in Karlsruhe, south-west Germany, where Rauch was treated, declined to give details of her injuries. "We are not authorised to comment on our patients," a spokesperson said.

To add insult to injury, the former porn star in question had a very nice rack.

The end of Cheap Oil and the devastation to follow

So, there are people who say the world is running out of oil, and that the oil will become more and more expensive to mine. The ultimate results would be dire. We would lose pretty much all of the productivity and production capability we've gained since the 1700's. Food production would be crippled by the loss of inexpensive oil, and thousands, millions, billions could die.

And I get to be part of the generation that would see it happen. Great.

In the context of a contracting oil supply Bush's "War on Terror" becomes more a war for survival to give the US control of the scant Oil reserves left in the world.

It's all pretty depressing, as it means my kids (when I have some) would stand a good chance of starving to death, or be killed off in a global war.

Alternate fuel sources are not rolled out to the scale where they would be necessary to sustain us through the collapse of oil, and it may already be too late to ramp up and install the necessary infrastructure.

And of course, the Baby Boomers who have helped ignore the problem for so long will be dying off from old age when the worst happens. Gen X, Y and "Why Me" aren't much better, as we're a bunch of whiners fostering the culture of victimization, and we aren't doing much more to develop alternate fuel sources and agricultural methods.

Naturally, there are plenty of people who think the whole idea is for the tinfoil hat crowd.

Welcome to the end of the world friends.