zhasper.com

So, dmiessler apparently tagged me - although, if it wasn't for google's blog alerts + the cache, I wouldn't know. Right now, dmiessler.com is taking me to reddit...

So, I have to pick 5 favorite feeds? Hrm... Let's see what gReader says:

From your 221 subscriptions, over the last 30 days you read 5,875 items, starred 10 items, and shared 114 items.

Guess when I was on holiday....

Hrm.

In no particular order, I'm going to tag:

• gayety.net -
• The Bartlett Diaries - Andrew has to be one of Australia's best politicians. I don't always agree with him, but his openness and accessibility is fantastic. He's one of... no, he's the only Australian politician I know of who actually does what I'd like all politicians to do.
• Dare Obasanjo aka Carnage4Life - rapidly replacing Scoble as MS's chief blogger (at least, in my gReader he's #1).
• Fag On FOSS - I deny all accusations of nepotism and bias.
• Stilgherrian

  (Yes, I'm still a bit behind - give me another week or two and I might have caught up with the feeds again...)

Just made a few changes to the stylesheet used on the site.

First, I stole quote.png and a bit of css from dmiessler (Why do I write about him so often? Does this qualify him as an internet crush?)

Second, I copied (and tweaked) this:

# ol#notes blockquote:before {
# content : " "attr(cite)" said: ";
# margin-left : 20px;
# font-weight : bold;

Remove the reliance on ol#notes, change the margine from 20px to -20px, and remove the font-weight, and viola, we have what you see now.

Of course, I have now idea how this is going to look in your aggregator of choice - probably no different at all.

I'd like for the URL there to be an actual hyperlink; but according to the 5 minutes worth of reading I did just now, CSS alone can't do this - it would have to involve javascript.

Hrm. I'm thinking that perhaps a drupal input filter would be a better choice. hrm.

As I've said before, when Daniel Miessler is right, he's right.

His latest post (well, the latest that I've read, anyway - I'm about 4 days behind at present), is a response to Scott Adam's lunatic idea that the Big Bang is proven to be intelligent by the fact that I'm writing this post.

Daniel saith:

Anyway, here’s my response to one of his key paragraphs in his latest post. Scott says,

So, does the universe have the capacity to acquire and apply knowledge? Clearly it does, because the big bang caused evolution (say the scientists), which led to creatures with brains, and those creatures acquire and apply knowledge while remaining part of the universe.

…and my response…

<snip>

Ah, I think I found it. You used the word “caused”. You said, “the big bang caused evolution (say the scientists)…”, and that word leans heavily toward thought and design.

I think when you choose a more precise wording, say, “resulted in”, you end up with a more accurate picture. This picture shows that randomness and time are the guiding forces, and that all ordered things that result from it “just happened”.

They weren’t “caused”. They aren’t linked to the big bang in any way other than to say that the big bang must have happened for them to take place. And certainly not in the direct way that you speak of — where the randomness of the universe “gathers and applies knowledge” because something in it does.

See? He nails it. This is why I read his blog, and you should too.