Technology should be a good thing. In its pure definition it means use of science, generally to advance some field or process. From manafacturing to medicine judicial use of technology makes us more efficient. Jobs that used to take many laborers and hours can now be performed with a much smaller percentage of laborers and man-hours. To many, technology is seen as robbing working people of jobs or decreasing their hours from simplification, and this is to a large extent true in our current system. The question, is where do the benefits of technology go?
An example: A call-site with a staff of 100 workers, paid $10/hour, takes 5000 calls/day. An automated line is developed which reduces the need for human assistance by half, in other words, only 2500 calls must be answered by workers. So, our workers' average calls/day has dropped from 50 to 25. What happens now? The standard corporate solution is to layoff half the workforce, or most of them, and make the remaining part-time. Thus, the benefits of the new technology are reaped only by the CEOs and shareholders. Is this the only way to operate? Why can't these technological benefits be assed on to the workers. Instead of a mass layoff, why don't we reduce the workweek from 40 to 35 hours (keeping the salary unchanged)? How about investing in education of your workforce? What about some paid vacation? These ideas are fast becoming unheard of. They don't fit into the standard model of "doing business."
Of course, it's not too hard to find examples of different systems, just look 50-60 years back in America or across the Atlantic. Some European countries still display this attitude of shorter workweeks, longer vacation, and more benefits, though how long this disparity will last under the pressures of modern "free-trade" and globalization is debatable. The point is that technology is not the problem, the distribution of its benefits is. Instead of going directly to CEO and shareholder accounts they should be more equally distributed throughout the workforce they affect.

Study finds differences between "gay" sheep and "straight" ones . Very weird thing to be studying if you ask me, but maybe helpful to the gay community. If it can be scientifically proven that gay people aren't making a choice to be gay but are rather genetically different than it is patently illegal to discriminate. Maybe.

And...this is just disturbing

(The sheep is on top)
Inflatable Party Sheep designed to be the friend you've always needed, the love you have always dreamed of. It's the little lamb you can love and will love you back. For all your sheep loving friends - bring out the beast in them. For centuries men the world over have known that a sheep is the next best thing to a woman. It is soft, sexy, and disease free!

A new study has found that over 2/3rds of US crops are contaminated with genetically modified material. The Independent reports that... "The test found that at "the most conservative expression", half the maize and soyabeans and 83 per cent of the oilseed rape were contaminated with GM genes - just eight years after the modified varieties were first cultivated on a large scale in the US." Fun times. So eight years later...plenty of time to figure out just what the fuck these genes do. The tomacco is here and here to stay. At this point there is little hope of any of our crops remaing "pure." This is a problem. Now I don't know that I necessarily think genetic altering is a bad thing. It could lead to many innovations, leading to healthier and disease-repellant crops. But, and this is a big but, we don't know what else they might do. So we have a soy bean that matures more rapidly and is less likely to be eaten by a specific pest because we have spliced in some lemon-gene. What if it also leads to clogging of the arteries, growth of tumors, hair-loss, who knows what else. And that's the thing we just don't know, and now it may be too late to prevent every soy bean eaten from now on to be contaminated. Fucking Monsanto!

This is a good article too I think and a good idea for Kerry. Bring the whole team along I say.

This strange new study by Stefan Koelsch highlights a connection between human understaning of music and language. The study consisted of segments of music being played and then immediately after a volunteer (who had no musical experience, ie: never played an instrument, etc.) was shown a word that was either "related" or "unrelated." Take a look at the music samples and the word lists: .

Apparently when the volunteers heard a related word key areas of the brain responded with high levels of activity. When the unrelated word was shown no such response was garnered. The relevance of this "priming" of the brain is seen in many other activities of language. For example, in other studies it has been shown that participants respond differently after reading a passage relating to a particular topic and then seeing a similar word afterwards (ie: a passage about sailing is read and then the brain mapped as the next word is read, desert or ocean). The study gives credence to the theory that music and language evolved along the same lines in terms of human understanding, just how related remains to be understood fully. Some suggest that music (or tonal recognition, and harmonic relations) may have played an important role in the development of language.

Paul says I'm like Elvis. In the early stages, he qualifies. I guess I'm just too fabulous for reality. What can I say? The ups and the downs, the rebounds, what have you. I'm learning to be a very optimistic person. Not about the world in general, or America, or people in general, just about me. I am learning to enjoy life as it comes. To make choices (or not) and to not dwell on could-have-beens or should-have-beens. I've found that goals are an unhealthy construct most of the time. They make you struggle for eventual happiness while ignoring what can be found in each moment. So I don't believe in the whole sacrifice today for the future bullcrap. In fact I think it's hardcore business propaganda to pump us as hard as possible during our most productive years. How else do you convince all of us to work so damn hard? It's the end goal, the financial security, eventual prestige, what have you that pushes us to produce. So I don't buy it. I look at my poor father, who worked for a damn long time, had a great retirement plan and so forth. He lost most of his retirement in the whole Enron fiasco (his company has nothing to do with them, but that's where the money was invested), and now is out of work and pretty much at the same financial security level as me. What the hell did prodigiously working for years and years get him? So, I scorn the future, and care about today. But I am learning to be happy, which is the important part of this rant. Most of us are unhappy because we're not where we "want to be" but I want to be happy because I am, right here right now. There is no other place I'd rather be-heeee! Jesus Jones thank you for those words of inspiration.