zengar: (Default)
I'm one of those people who actually tries to be familiar with the proposals on the ballot before hand, especially since one Maine question a few years back regarding gay couple's rights was so artfully written that "yes" meant no and "no" meant yes. (I can't recall whether the question was for or against)

I've been having some real problems doing this with the San Francisco Clean Energy Act. I can find no indications of what the actual wording is or what it will actually do, merely endless variations and repetitions on the material from the proponent's website or the opposition's page. Not only do these two sites sound like they are talking about almost completely different bills, neither of them provides any sort of external support for their interpretation. At the bottom of the clean energy act site's "about" page there is a section of text in a [blockquote] format that looks like it may be the text of the act, but nowhere does it say so or even that it is actually a quote from somewhere else.

Anyone know where I can find out whether PG&E is using scare tactics to maintain a monopoly or whether the board members are trying to use dislike of PG&E to grant themselves powers we would be wise to keep away from them? I have a sneaking suspicion that the answer is "yes" to both.
zengar: (Default)
Considering that California is the land of environmental and health consciousness, I wonder how likely it is that next winter I will be living somewhere that the heat won't be being controlled by an aged mercury switch thermostat. One where the number I set it at will have some relation to the temperature I want the room to be, rather than having to adjust it regularly because it is merely measuring the rate of temperature change, not the actual value any more. Thanks to today's fresh coating of rain on those single pane windows I mentioned a while ago, I've currently got it set to 80, and that's not a temperature I'd really like if I was actually getting it.

Come to think of it, I don't think I've ever even used a thermostat of any other sort. The one time I remember using anything other, it was just a simple dial with the number 1-10 and 'off' written on it. Which was a lot more useful and honest, now that I think of it.

Edit: yes, I know, a lot of you are in places where the outside air is much colder than it is here. However, it's still colder out there than I want it in here, and I bet the lack of insulation more than makes up for the difference in temperature.

Okay, WTH?

Nov. 23rd, 2007 11:22 am
zengar: (Default)
I know that stores started playing christmas music today, if they hadn't already done so earlier. I don't like this fact, but I have come to expect it. But when did radio stations start jumping on that bandwagon? I knew that in a couple of weeks they would toss out their normal playlists and start in on a random selection of "seasonal" tunes, frequently to the degree of transitioning from country to soul. But previously the stations gradually eased their way into that by slipping songs that fit their normal genre into rotation before switching completely over. Not this time however.

Could this be a east-coast/west-coast thing? maybe something just specific to San Francisco? Or is normal radio just that desperate to not have me as a listener?
zengar: (Default)
My internet connection is currently bouncing up and down like a superball in an earthquake. At least internet radio gives me warning when it drops again, so I don't loss anything, and it only stays down for 30 seconds to a minute at a time, but this is the first time it's done anything like this. I've done my testing and the problem isn't on my end, so lets see how long it takes them to fix this.
zengar: (Default)
The world does not need the B52's song Rock Lobster being covered by a metalcore band. For that matter, my opinion is that the world doesn't need metalcore. What is the point of calling something music if it's such a wall of noise that you can barely distinguish the BEAT, much less a melody? Forget about lyrics. Half of it went by as unpleasant background while I was doing something else without me having a clue what it was. Eventually, I picked up enough notes that seemed familiar that I checked on the title, and THAT is when I found out.

According to Wikipedia, this particular "band" was a practitioner of "mathcore." Mathcore was (or is) an offshoot of metalcore, which itself is a mixture of heavy metal and punk. The supposed differentiation of mathcore is "a high level of technical musicianship," which brings to mind some of the beautiful covers I have heard of Metallica songs. Why do people capable of "technical musicianship" or of writing complex and interesting melodies do so in genres that obliterate any evidence of such things? I suppose that in at least the examples I'm referring to, perhaps the singers voice wasn't up to the standards of any other genre, but in that case HAVE SOMEONE ELSE SING.

For that matter, the current track (I'm about to change stations) reminds me that I like most songs from Rage Against the Machine... until the singer starts in. At which point, if I had forgotten that was the prelude to one of their songs, I become full of rage at my radio (ironically enough) because of the way my hopes got raised and then dashed. Maybe that is the point


zengar: (Default)

May 2011

1 23 4567
89101112 1314
1516 1718 192021


RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 19th, 2017 11:37 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios