Mitch Hedberg is dead. That makes me sad. Pope died, at least he was old enough to die.
2 many ppl dead!
We are not allowed to stow away camel-cash in the various spots in the coffee shop, since the only people that seem to find 'em are the people who work there, which, if you put yourself in their spot,as I did, is an annoyance.
Work is boring, but it pays... So in work-time, which I gladly shorten, because I can finish up a given task quickly (Thank God for that!), I am here, sitting in front of my work-computer, typing away on the livejournal. so, yay, for nothing. Hope it rains in my dream tonight, if I dream. Dream is such a cannot-find-the-right-adjective thing. You get a dream, not because you want to dream (most of the time), and it sneaks in, taking away part of your sleep-time, even though you are sleeping, and, then, you get a dream, not necessarily out of your choice, but something random, only so that, some day, when something happens in the real world, that even has a remote resemblance to the dream you are going to have tonight, you will think that it has happened before. Now, I don't know if this is because somebody theorised about it based on experience, or it was a random brain-fart that everybody believes in.
BTW, was having an interesting conversation with Michael. He was talking about the best/excellent chefs. Here is the question. Suppose what qualifies a good chef is the different dimensions he adds to his recipe(which is true in most cases, you'll agree if you READ a book by MALCOLM GLADWELL called BLINK- the various "tasters" analyse the quality by the number of dimensions such-and-such a thing has, like texture, flavor/aroma. So, if the expert taster judges me to be the best cook, it is based on the dimensions he perceives. Now, what separates an expert taster from you and me is that he can SENSE these dimensions, and you and I cannot. So, why is the best chef the best chef, if I cannot discern what makes him the best cook ? So, let us assume that there is another excellent cook in competition with this previous "best cook". Then, by previous assumption about dimensions and what-not, the new cook's food will not be properly understood by the previous best cook. So, he will win the best chef contest, yet the food may not appeal to a common man's palate. So, why is he the best cook ? Of course, if what he cooks appeals to our palate too, that's a different story, but then, we will be taking the position of the taster, and will sooner or later get hit by some food that we will not be in a position to judge.
The real question, therefore, is "Do we really need to have the excellent chef competition, or food-tasting as a profession"?
OJ's in trouble, since Johnnie Cochran died...
Confucius say: Man standing on toilet is high on pot.
Terry Schiavo died, at LAST.
We are not allowed to stow away camel-cash in the various spots in the coffee shop, since the only people that seem to find 'em are the people who work there, which, if you put yourself in their spot,as I did, is an annoyance.
Work is boring, but it pays... So in work-time, which I gladly shorten, because I can finish up a given task quickly (Thank God for that!), I am here, sitting in front of my work-computer, typing away on the livejournal. so, yay, for nothing. Hope it rains in my dream tonight, if I dream. Dream is such a cannot-find-the-right-adjective thing. You get a dream, not because you want to dream (most of the time), and it sneaks in, taking away part of your sleep-time, even though you are sleeping, and, then, you get a dream, not necessarily out of your choice, but something random, only so that, some day, when something happens in the real world, that even has a remote resemblance to the dream you are going to have tonight, you will think that it has happened before. Now, I don't know if this is because somebody theorised about it based on experience, or it was a random brain-fart that everybody believes in.
BTW, was having an interesting conversation with Michael. He was talking about the best/excellent chefs. Here is the question. Suppose what qualifies a good chef is the different dimensions he adds to his recipe(which is true in most cases, you'll agree if you READ a book by MALCOLM GLADWELL called BLINK- the various "tasters" analyse the quality by the number of dimensions such-and-such a thing has, like texture, flavor/aroma. So, if the expert taster judges me to be the best cook, it is based on the dimensions he perceives. Now, what separates an expert taster from you and me is that he can SENSE these dimensions, and you and I cannot. So, why is the best chef the best chef, if I cannot discern what makes him the best cook ? So, let us assume that there is another excellent cook in competition with this previous "best cook". Then, by previous assumption about dimensions and what-not, the new cook's food will not be properly understood by the previous best cook. So, he will win the best chef contest, yet the food may not appeal to a common man's palate. So, why is he the best cook ? Of course, if what he cooks appeals to our palate too, that's a different story, but then, we will be taking the position of the taster, and will sooner or later get hit by some food that we will not be in a position to judge.
The real question, therefore, is "Do we really need to have the excellent chef competition, or food-tasting as a profession"?
OJ's in trouble, since Johnnie Cochran died...
Confucius say: Man standing on toilet is high on pot.
Terry Schiavo died, at LAST.