Sanjeev.NET

Sanjeev Narang notes about poetry, quotations, scrabble, trivia, vocabulary, word lists, word oddities, word play, seattle and washington lists.

Snow Text

Wednesday, January 05, 2005
pee

"SNOW TEXT"

Write your name in Snow ....

Looming pitfalls of work blogs

Monday, January 03, 2005
Simple lessons:

1. If you work, then don't blog from work.
2. Remain anonymous.

BBC NEWS | Technology | Looming pitfalls of work blogs

"Looming pitfalls of work blogs"

As ever with the net, every year seems to bring with it a new word born out of how humans have turned technology into something useful for them.

This year, "blog" was included for the first time in the US Merriam-Webster dictionary. It entered the Oxford English dictionary last year, reflecting its entry into mainstream language.

There are more than five million blogs, or online diaries, and the number is growing.

But increasingly, people are landing in hot water with employers over blogs about their work.

A new term has emerged as a result. According to UrbanDictionary.com, to be "dooced" means "losing your job for something you wrote in your online blog, journal, website, etc."

How I Learned French in One Year || kuro5hin.org

How I Learned French in One Year || kuro5hin.org

"How I Learned French in One Year "

Tips and Methodology:

1. Spend 1 to 2 hours every day.
2. Pick a famous fiction book in French that you have read in English (like Harry Potter).
3. Read Schaum's Outline Series.
4. Use Google.fr
5. Use wordreference.com.
6. Use 3x5 cards with phrases to remember (memorize and test them on 1 day, 3 day, 1 week, 2 weeks, 2 weeks intervals)
7. Join French.Meetup.com.
8. Barron's Mastering French Level 1.
9. Rip French DVDs for mp3 soundtracks and listen to them after watching the movie in English subtitles.
10. Solve Schaum's Outline Series grammar problems.
11 .Meet some real French people.

The Ayn Rand Institute: U.S. Should Not Help Tsunami Victims

Sunday, January 02, 2005
A very valid point. Private charity should not be confused with public donations.

The Ayn Rand Institute: U.S. Should Not Help Tsunami Victims

"U.S. Should Not Help Tsunami Victims"

Our money is not the government's to give.

As the death toll mounts in the areas hit by Sunday's tsunami in southern Asia, private organizations and individuals are scrambling to send out money and goods to help the victims. Such help may be entirely proper, especially considering that most of those affected by this tragedy are suffering through no fault of their own.

The United States government, however, should not give any money to help the tsunami victims. Why? Because the money is not the government's to give.

Every cent the government spends comes from taxation. Every dollar the government hands out as foreign aid has to be extorted from an American taxpayer first. Year after year, for decades, the government has forced American taxpayers to provide foreign aid to every type of natural or man-made disaster on the face of the earth: from the Marshall Plan to reconstruct a war-ravaged Europe to the $15 billion recently promised to fight AIDS in Africa to the countless amounts spent to help the victims of earthquakes, fires and floods--from South America to Asia. Even the enemies of the United States were given money extorted from American taxpayers: from the billions given away by Clinton to help the starving North Koreans to the billions given away by Bush to help the blood-thirsty Palestinians under Arafat's murderous regime.

The question no one asks about our politicians' "generosity" towards the world's needy is: By what right? By what right do they take our hard-earned money and give it away?

The reason politicians can get away with doling out money that they have no right to and that does not belong to them is that they have the morality of altruism on their side. According to altruism--the morality that most Americans accept and that politicians exploit for all it's worth--those who have more have the moral obligation to help those who have less. This is why Americans--the wealthiest people on earth--are expected to sacrifice (voluntarily or by force) the wealth they have earned to provide for the needs of those who did not earn it. It is Americans' acceptance of altruism that renders them morally impotent to protest against the confiscation and distribution of their wealth. It is past time to question--and to reject--such a vicious morality that demands that we sacrifice our values instead of holding on to them.

Next time a politician gives away money taken from you to show what a good, compassionate altruist he is, ask yourself: By what right?