I just [chat] in your arms tonight....
It must have been something you said...
"Only a Sith deals in absolutes" - Obi-Wan Kenobi

Disagree?
It must have been something you said...
Posted by
_J_
at
11:00 AM
71
comments
Labels: [chat]
A rose dies. The life extinguished for whom none cry.
A smile, a laugh, all forgotten and lost within the dark.
Dark and black.
Black like my soul.
Unbearable tears refuse to fall; known only to They.
They who hurt. They who are pain. They who are dark.
Dark and black.
Black like my soul.
A love when lost drains hope and warmth.
Purpose dies upon the lost hopes; dreams fade into the dark.
Dark and black.
Black like my soul.
The day begins, begins and fades. Lost purpose and meaning unknown and unloved.
Worthless effort strewn across the wasteland of a life full of dark.
Dark and black.
Black like my soul.
I raise the knife to end the pain; the pain about which none care.
I am my own. Lost and alone. Alone in the dark.
Dark and black.
Black like my soul.
Tomorrow will come. Tomorrow and more. Meaningless, hopeless, inevitable life.
We take our steps and then look back. Back to the past. Back to the dark.
Dark and black.
Black like my soul.
The loss is a drop, a drop into an unbearable ocean.
An ocean of pain traversed by schooners of despair in the dark.
Dark and black.
Black like my soul.
I cry. I empty myself of all that I am. Feelings lost on a void.
Hope gone I am alone and nothing in the dark
Dark and black.
Black like my soul.
Posted by
_J_
at
5:26 PM
5
comments
Work has afforded me plenty of time to sit and think. The macro I mentioned earlier that reduced the amount of time it took to do a repetitive task has now grown to the point where it simply does everything without input from me, and all I have to do is watch it go. What I've been thinking about is the cycle of life and death, which I can blame Joseph Campbell for, as I've been reading his Hero with a Thousand Faces at my leisure.
What I think I've come to realize is that we (I don't know exactly who that encompasses, but certainly more than just myself) have decided to value life to such an extent that the value of death is becoming forgotten. Birth and other life milestones are taken to be the good aspects of life, while death is relegated to the negative, but I don't believe that should be the case. Rather, death should be final good part of one life that makes room for another birth. Take for example a forest fire, which must necessarily occur in order to clear out old wood and allow new trees to grow, but people seem to want there not to be fires in forests. Then earlier this summer there was an enormous fire that consumed the old growth that apparently would have been cleared by smaller, more regular fires, but since there weren't any, it burned out of control and made itself into a problem. It's as though the cessation of miniature cycles brought about by a misunderstanding of life and death had given way to a far larger and more dangerous cycle.
Conversely, the Ise shrine in Japan is a wooden structure that has been around for centuries, though its longevity isn't due to mankind's meticulous preservation of it, but because every twenty years it is newly reconstructed. As long as there are people and trees in the world, there will never not be shrine in Ise, and it's because of an acceptance of life and death in their natural roles that this is possible.
Human life, I think, requires a similar understanding. Anyone who is born must die, just like anyone who has died must have been born, and trying to avoid the last step as unwise as trying to postpone or avoid other steps in life (the smaller forest fires, as it were). I'm 25 (an adult), yet I still attend college (a young man's pursuit) and I have no career (a child's privelage). I'm an adult by age, yet I haven't truly passed into adulthood because there are aspects of my younger life that have not yet died to allow me to move on. It's not such a terrible thing to be an old boy, but it may shorten my time as an adult, and make difficult my elderly years, and my death may come before I'm ready.
I don't really have a conclusion to all of this, I am just thinking after all, but I can see how a love of life could lead to a poorer one in the absense of a need for death, and that seems like something one ought to avoid.
Posted by
MA17
at
8:50 PM
22
comments
Labels: philosophy
Our internets was teh down between 9:15 and 1:00 today. The problem was this:
The problem was not our link to KC, but rather KC's link to Sprint. This made me think about the internet and how there is no true incorporeal form of teh Internets, but rather "teh internets" is a series of connections. The website upon which I work exists on one server, this blog exists on another, and flickr exists on yet another server. Yet when those servers are connected they seemingly form "Teh Internets". Kind of like how Voltron doesn't exist, so much as there is a combination of cats. The same is not true for Captain Planet, though. Captain Planet IS a being unto himself. He's summoned by the power of those rings, not formed by the power of the rings.
While the internet was down I made some new Lol Raeks. Morning well spent.
Posted by
_J_
at
1:01 PM
10
comments
LINK
sadly i cannot figure out how to embed a flash video for a gawker blog.
If this wasnt real, i would think it was cut from an episode of studio 60
Posted by
Mike Lewis
at
10:06 AM
3
comments
By DAVID CRARY AP National Writer
NEW YORK (AP) -- Johnson & Johnson, the health-products giant that uses a red cross as its trademark, sued the American Red Cross on Wednesday, demanding that the charity halt the use of the red cross symbol on products it sells to the public.
Johnson & Johnson said it has had exclusive rights to use the trademark on certain commercial products - including bandages and first-aid cream - for more than 100 years.
It contends that the Red Cross is supposed to use the symbol only in connection with nonprofit relief services.
The suit, filed in U.S. District Court in New York, marked the breakdown of months of behind-the-scenes negotiations and prompted an angry response from the Red Cross.
"For a multibillion-dollar drug company to claim that the Red Cross violated a criminal statute ... simply so that J&J can make more money, is obscene," said Mark Everson, the Red Cross president.
Johnson & Johnson began using the red cross design as a trademark in 1887 - six years after the creation of the American Red Cross but before it received its congressional charter in 1900. The lawsuit contends that the charter did not empower the Red Cross to engage in commercial activities competing with a private business.
"After more than a century of strong cooperation in the use of the Red Cross trademark. ... we were very disappointed to find that the American Red Cross started a campaign to license the trademark to several businesses for commercial purposes," Johnson & Johnson said in a statement.
It said these product include baby mitts, nail clippers, combs, toothbrushes, hand sanitizers and humidifiers.
The Red Cross said that many of the products in question were part of health and safety kits, and that profits from the sales - totaling less than $10 million - went to boost Red Cross disaster-response efforts.
The suit asks the Red Cross to turn over the products in question to New Brunswick, N.J.-based Johnson & Johnson for destruction and also seeks unspecified punitive damages.
"The Red Cross products that J&J wants to take away from consumers ... are those that help Americans get prepared for life's emergencies," Everson said. "I hope that the courts and Congress will not allow Johnson & Johnson to bully the American Red Cross."
In a telephone interview, Everson said the Red Cross was confident it would prevail.
"Our lawyers have looked at this; we wouldn't be doing something we think is improper, and our position will be sustained in the courts," he said.
Everson noted that the Red Cross faces a budget deficit and relies on donations.
The lawsuit also names four licensing partners involved in marketing the disputed products.
Johnson & Johnson noted that it had contributed $5 million over the past three years to the Red Cross and will continue to make donations.
The company also said that it had offered to engage in third-party mediation to resolve the dispute, but that the Red Cross declined.
Posted by
Andrew
at
9:20 AM
5
comments
Labels: news
While going through files on my old PC i came across the constitution that i wrote for the Atheist/Agnostic Life.
After a very long dinner i found BASIC's consitution and just changed the words. I think the reason we did this was because of that other Christian organization started. The idea was to see what would happen if we tried to start an atheist organization. If it was rejected we could than say "This is the same exact thing as BASIC" or something. someone else (jay) might have a better memory on how this happened. Enjoy.
Posted by
Mike Lewis
at
9:06 PM
9
comments
Labels: Hanover