|
I went for a walk and brought my camera.
 ( +18 )How's it going:  sore |
|
misc
|
May. 30th, 2009 @ 07:26 pm
|
|---|
|
I immediately gave up trying to take pics of the bands due to the smoke machines and the camera I had brought.
 ( +17 )How's it going:  hungry |
|
Only took 3 pics; here they are.
 ( +2 ) |
|
Cats
|
May. 13th, 2009 @ 02:02 pm
|
|---|
|
Because everyone seems to love 'em.
 ( +5 ) |
|
 ( +12 ) |
|
 ( +17 ) |
|
So the main criteria I use for determining if I can eat an animal is if it has a central nervous system, with the reasoning that if it has one, it can suffer. I was reading this article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/20/opinion/20grescoe.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
which got me thinking, "Well, jellyfish don't have central nervous systems, do they?" Apparently not: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jellyfish#Body_systems
Actually, it turns out that central nervous systems are a feature specific to vertebrates, which means octopus and squid would fall into my category of "things I can eat", but I wouldn't feel right about eating them given that they have been shown to be actually quite intelligent: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cephalopod_intelligence and have a similar number of neurons as cats: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_by_number_of_neurons
Conclusion: I need a new basis for determining whether something is able to suffer.
Tangent: All this reading is making me question if oysters and clams are able to suffer given their extremely simple nervous systems, but part of me is wondering if I'm just looking for an excuse to eat them.
I think I'd be OK with eating jellyfish, at least in a moral sense.
For the vegetarians out there: What criteria do you use to determine what you can eat?How's it going:  contemplative |
|
So as you probably know, I got rather heavily into Facebook. There's lots of good things about that site, but there's a few things that bug me. Anyway, I was reading this article: http://www.newsweek.com/id/195621 and this quote kind of stuck out:
"Part hall monitors, part vice cops, these employees are key weapons in Facebook's efforts to maintain its image as a place that's safe for corporate advertisers..."
It got me thinking: Is a place that's safe for corporate advertisers where I want to spend so much time online? Is this something I want to contribute to?
Well, no - I've only got so many hours in a day and I'd rather spend them in places I don't have to self-censor as much. As enjoyable as it is to subvert their website with offensive postings & trolling & such, it's a given that it'll eventually get me banned.
I'm not going to give up Facebook entirely, however - too many of my friends are there to ignore it, and the events section is unmatched anywhere on the internet. So, I'll stay for their content and events, but I don't think I will contribute anything publicly on facebook anymore.
The one thing I know I'm going to have cravings for is the Twitter-like updating of my status. Perhaps I'll open a Twitter account to satisfy that need. |
|
Unfortunately I left pretty early, so here's all that I took.
 ( +7 )How's it going:  rushed Listening to: coil |
|
Holy shit, go see it if you have the chance.How's it going:  impressed |
|
 ( +10 )
|
|
Stade
|
Apr. 15th, 2009 @ 03:24 pm
|
|---|
|
 ( +5 ) |
|
 ( +9 )Listening to: connexion bizarre cb_20090413-0419_b.mp3 |
|
 ( +2 )How's it going:  amused Listening to: Stendeck - Sonnambula |
|
 ( +12 ) |
|
