"Any Monsters Under the Bed Tonight?"

A few weeks ago I got into a discussion with someone over the childhood fears we had, and the effects they still have on us later in life.  For example:  I find it difficult to sleep with the closet door open.  While it no longer has anything to do with the idea of something hiding in the closet, attempting to sleep without closing it leaves me feeling awkward.  (I've known people who wouldn't sleep without some sort of light on, who took giant steps when getting out of bed at night, or who would turn on a light briefly before entering a room at night.  Again, these were all habits that, although developed for irrational reasons in childhood, have just become ingrained into them and persist as adults.)

I initially was going to post a long entry about this afterwards, but it disappeared from my mind.  I've only just been reminded that I had wanted to (but not what I was going to say) by a link on another site to the Blue Moon Night Light — a LED-based night light that is designed to be placed under the bed.  The site in question (which I've since lost) linked it with commentary to the effect that this would be perfect for keeping away the monsters under a child's bed.

Of course, this got me thinking as to whether this would actually work or not.  Think about it: you're 5 or 6 years old, and you wake up in the middle of the night with shadows of all the junk under your bed being cast by the eerie blue glow that's emanating from underneath there.  In a situation like that, I'd probably have had to be dying of thirst before I would have considered getting out of bed.

On a related note: My Monster Grows Up, a short story inspired by this light.  I thought it was cute.

(As a side note: although I can't turn off IP-logging, I have temporarily disabled the requiring of an email address for a short period of time, in case anyone cares to post about any fears they may have developed as a child that still have some effect upon their adult behaviour.  I promise I won't check IPs of anyone who does.)

Stereo Troubleshooting

I'm looking for someone with experience with troubleshooting stereo amps, or other electronics.  (Greg, I'm looking in your direction.)  Basically, what's happening with mine is that the right speaker keeps dropping out.  If the fuse in the back of the amp is removed and then re-inserted, then the speaker will come back, only to drop out again several minutes later.

The amp itself is too old to bother taking to a repair shop (as repairs would likely cost more than it's worth).  I know it's not the fuse itself, as swapping the fuses for the left and right speakers has no change on which speaker drops out.  Further more, the channel itself never completely disappears, as you can always faintly hear some of the higher frequencies coming through.

Anyone?

Edit: And it hasn't messed up for the last hour or so.  Maybe it will stay like this.

Posted by g026r at 13:32 | 4 comments | Most recent by g026r

Now Say "Nuclear Wessels!"

Because it's silly; because I haven't posted in a little while; because I promised someone I'd take this photo; and most importantly, because there is only one way to properly drink a red liqueur that comes in a star-shaped bottle:

 Continue reading Now Say "Nuclear Wessels!"

Posted by g026r at 20:43 | 2 comments | Most recent by g026r

System Stuff

I've fiddled around with the Apache settings a bit in order to deal with some abuse of MovableType's search script.  Basically, I was having roughly 5 search queries a day for "Search" from one of two IP addresses.  Not much, but it was slowly filling up my logs with garbage.  There should be no adverse effect on any one else, but I always may have made a typo somewhere.  In other words:  let me know if you suddenly get 403 errors.  (You'll recognise them by the red background and the giant Lenin head that appears.)

As for whoever owns the machine(s) using the IPs 195.225.176.73 and 195.225.176.77:  I hope you catch something slow, painful, and fatal.

Posted by g026r at 06:21 | 2 comments | Most recent by g026r

Why, You Smurf the Smurf, of Course.

According to the CBC, some businessman currently has the idea to sell Petitcodiac River mud as a beauty treatment.  Now, I'll be honest and say that I wouldn't want to touch anything that came out of the Petitcodiac with my hands, let alone my face, but that's not the point.  What I want to know is: what the hell does the following quote mean?

"No worries about the mud or the pollution about that, the mud is still mud and we have great stuff in that mud."

To sum up what I got from that statement: mud, mud, muddy mud, mud, and mud.

Beware of Rabid Gnomes

The vacuum cleaner recently turned off on me whilst vacuuming.  A check of the manual revealed that this was likely the thermal cut-off (as I hadn't tripped any breakers), and was probably caused by a blockage in the hose.

So, the hose gets popped off, and examined.  Sure enough, there's a blockage in it — dead leaves, dirt, and a large chunk of wood.  While I understand the leaves and dirt (having a fair number of plants), the wood confuses me.  My guess is that at night, the elves sneak into the apartment, steal the vacuum cleaner, and use it to tidy up their woodland abodes.

Anyone know where I can find a decent trap with which to catch the fair folk?

You know, I really need to get around to creating a "General Silliness" category.

Poor, Poor Marie.

I'm thinking of doing some sort of recurring thing with certain entries.  It won't be as often as the Dunsany stories, nor will it require as much audience participation as the entry title game.  Basically, I'm thinking perhaps of reviewing the odder entries in my musical library.  (And trust me, there's some odd stuff.)  The idea would be to ignore (for the most part) the stuff that most people would consider unlistenable, and instead go for the songs that cause reactions of "Why would someone make a song about that?"

So, to kick this all off, here's a quick review/overview (plus link) of one of the stranger songs in Nick Lowe's discography (and that's without discounting songs about the Bay City Rollers and castrating Castro).

Read on for the rest.

 Continue reading Poor, Poor Marie.

The Lady Doth Protest Too Much, Methinks

Less than a day into the Harper government, and we've already got a minor scandal.  (Mmmm…  That's the sweet taste of integrity.)

Granted, it's rather minor and, in the grand scheme of the Westminster system, is both common and not really that big of a deal.  But, for those who are confused by what I'm referencing:  David Emerson switches parties, receives cabinet seat.

Now, as stated, this isn't really anything in the grand scheme of things, and the Conservative platform never went as far as the NDP one and suggested that any MP who changed parties should immediately have to run in a by-election.  To quote the Globe & Mail:

"Although Conservative-turned-Liberal Belinda Stronach's decision to cross the floor in the last sitting raised the ire of many Conservatives, Mr. Harper said during the recent campaign that he wouldn't force a by-election in such cases."

That said, they should expect to catch a bit of flak for it, given their vocal and plentiful protestations when Miss Stronach crossed the floor (hence the entry title).  It will be interesting to watch some of them try and spin their previous comments.  (Or maybe they'll just be smart, play it safe, and keep their mouths shut.  Granted, some of their members aren't exactly known for doing so.  As I said:  it shall be interesting to watch how various people respond to this.)

"It is Arthur, King of the Britons."

I've come to the conclusion that tax protesters are some of the craziest people to work their way through the court systems.  The only question is:  are they crazy before they become protesters, or is it something about becoming a protester that causes them to lose all touch with reality?  (Actually, I haven't just come to this conclusion; I arrived at it years ago.)

This popped back into my head thanks to a recent article on CBC: No name doesn't mean no tax, Yukoner finds out.  The article title is incorrect though, as a quick scan of the two page affidavit (Warning: PDF file) shows that he never claimed he had no name.  Rather, he claims that the name by which the government was trying to collect taxes wasn't his true name.

Actually, the affidavit is kind of a wonderful and concise introduction to the wacky world of tax protester name-games.  To wit:  he's got a true name which (much like demons) is the only one through which he is legally bound (and which is different than his commonly-known-as name of "John Douglas of the Doe family"), and that the names "JOHN DOUGLAS DOE," "John Douglas Doe," and "DOE, JOHN DOUGLAS" all refer to different people.  All that's missing is the unpronounceable-glyph argument, and I think we'd have covered all the bases.

There's one thing I'm curious about though: if he claims that any debts against the name on his birth certificate should be sent to the province of Alberta, does that mean that any cheques written to this name should also be sent to the province of Alberta?

Im Westen Nichts Neues

Whilst doing my standard "I'm bored, I'm going to browse random Wikipedia articles related to the first world war" schtick, I came across some references to a photographic process known as Autochrome Lumière.  Although those really interested in the process itself will want to search for other things, everyone else can be satisfied at knowing that it was an early form of colour photography.

More importantly, the entry on the autochrome process contained a link to this site:  World War I Color Photos.  It seems the French took a fair number of pictures during the conflict (proving, among other things, that yes, they were still wearing blue uniforms), many of which can be viewed online.  The photos are definitely showing their age, but the colours are still (for the most part) distinguishable.

I particularly like the following photo.  There's something about the guy with the beard that just makes me smile.

Zey Do Nothing!

So I recently acquired a pair of goggles.  Why?  Because I liked how they looked.

They were sold to me as vintage aviator/motorist goggles.  I knew they weren't aviator ones, as they were just all wrong for that sort of thing.  However, motorist was still a possibility, given the wide range of styles that were made for that.

Anyways, I eventually typed the maker marks (stamped onto the side of the frames) into Google in order to see if I could at least date the things.  (As I wasn't convinced they were vintage either.)  I got a date alright, but it turns out they aren't motoring goggles either — they're snow goggles.  (Although I'm still not sure if they're vintage, for various reasons.)

If authentic, the model was manufactured from sometime in the 1930s until sometime in the 1950s, in either Italy or Switzerland.  (Only the city, Mendrisio, is marked, and there're apparently two of them.  One source claims it's the Italian one, but I have no confirmation on this.)  Although they were sold to the general public, they're best known for having been issued to Austrian and German troops around the time of World War II.  (In particular, the version with aluminium frames and dark greenish-yellow lenses was apparently common among the German alpine troops.)

Although they weren't strictly military goggles (and are apparently next to impossible to date, and therefore determine if they were likely used for military or private purposes), it's still a tad disturbing, to say the least.

Posted by g026r at 09:02 | 7 comments | Most recent by g026r