Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Eventually, making fun of the stats will not be nearly as fun. Eventually.
So I'm looking at my stats, wondering if I need to be paranoid that there are so many people logging on before the blog even existed. I mean, I thought time travel was all complicated and stuff. Apparently: A) I was wrong, and B) people who time travel have no apparent sense of quality control. And neither do people in Singapore, Germany, or the Ukraine, or people who use Macs. OR MAYBE, its just one person who is logging in from all those different locations! Hmmm. Hadn't thought of that. Tricky time travelers!
Saturday, November 20, 2010
And now for a short and sweet after that last bit o' ranting
Would you be surprised to learn that even after this latest election, 27 of the 50 top richest Representatives/Senators on Capital Hill will be Democrats? Yeah. Me too.
Would you be surprised to learn that the overall net assets of said 50 richest INCREASED in 2009? Yeah. Me too.
Would you like to see all that in a snazzy slide-show format? Yeah. Me too.
SOURCE: The Hill, "Wealthy lawmakers increased their riches as U.S. economy sputtered in '09"; <http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/116489-wealthy-lawmakers-increased-their-riches-as-economy-sputtered-in-2009->; accessed: 11/20/2010
Would you be surprised to learn that the overall net assets of said 50 richest INCREASED in 2009? Yeah. Me too.
Would you like to see all that in a snazzy slide-show format? Yeah. Me too.
SOURCE: The Hill, "Wealthy lawmakers increased their riches as U.S. economy sputtered in '09"; <http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/116489-wealthy-lawmakers-increased-their-riches-as-economy-sputtered-in-2009->; accessed: 11/20/2010
Lessons in "Don't Be Evil" ... aka "Better read the fine print, dude!"
NOTICE to all ADHD types: If you want to "get to the point," you should skip the first paragraph. You'll save sooooo much time.
Maybe you know Google's informal corporate motto is "Don't Be Evil." (It was clearly stated in their 2004 Founder' IPO Letter[1]. Don't you still have your copy?) Or maybe you don't. Either way, it seems to have gotten even more informal over the years. In 2006, Google started arguing vociferously that big telecom companies should NOT be allowed to control internet access[2] while in the very same year agreeing to censor itself in China[3] (It should be noted that Google decided as of March 2010 it will no longer censor itself in China[4], but this decision only came after an apparent hack of its servers to find info on Chinese dissidents in December of 2009[3]). Gotta love the irony! And maybe you missed Google CEO Eric Schmidt possibly playing the "Get Out Of Hypocrisy Free" card in 2008 with a paraphrase of the classic "What istruth evil anyway?" line[5]. Suffice it to say, all this kind of makes one do a double take when reading a post labeled "Google Quietly Drops Its 'Don't Be Evil' Motto"[6]. Is that April 1, 2009 post date a "ha ha" moment or just a coincidence?
Now in the spirit of any good ol' blog post, I reveal that everything I have said heretofore has only a tangential bearing on anything that will be said hereafter: namely, the company referenced will be the same.
So I posted an image on this blog like all internet idiots, without first screening it properly. Four days later, I realized I had left my email address and user number available for all the World Wide Web to see. Probably not good material to be putting out there. So, I quickly prepped a new copy, uploaded it, and replaced the offending materials. However, Blogger.com (i.e. Google, Inc.) was still displaying a copy of the old image in the "click-on-an-image-to-post-it" screen, indicating that it was still alive and well in some back-alley nether-world of the Internets. "So how," I ask myself, "do I kill it really dead?" I did a quick search and found that apparently, when creating a Blogger.com (Google, Inc.) account to which I can post images, unbeknownst to me AND without my consent, a Picasa.google.com account (can you spy the Google, Inc?) was created for me in which the images are stored. I further found that by logging onto said Picasa account, I would be able to finally and fully delete this image. This I did, and can now can rest assured that said image is expunged from Inter-xistence, right? (At this point the adoring public screams, "SO WHAT!?")
AH HA, so in order to access the Picasa account that was created for me without my permission, I had to give my consent to create said account (which was already created without my permission--repeat ad nauseum) by agreeing to the terms of use for Picasa (that's spelled: G-o-o-g-l-e, I-n-c.) for the account which was already... (John Q. Public says: "Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah!")
Now, if you know me, you know I am a fine print reader. It annoys most people to no end--including myself (especially when the bank / insurance / real estate / [insert favorite legalese source here] agent-person putting the paperwork in my hands is surprised that I take the time to read it, and, more than once, comments, "Nobody else reads this stuff"). In recent years I do not read as much as I did (ususually more a skimmage), but I did read the Picasa notice even though I knew I HAD TO AGREE in order to remove the image stored in the account which was... (J. Q. P.: "Zzzzzzzzzzz...")
Why? First of all, the "Click-Here-To-Agree" page bothered me right off. Check what it looked like below.
Did you notice that tiny box with "Google Terms of Service" scrunched into it? So did I. Now, call me old fashioned, but when you stuff 21,135 characters (not including spaces) / 117 paragraphs / 466 lines / 4,233 words /11 pages (of the 1-inch margin variety) into a 3.5 x 1.5 inch box that CANNOT be expanded AND which takes SEVENTEEN (17, as in 1 followed by 7) clicks to scroll ACROSS and THIRTY-TWO (you do the math) clicks to scroll down, it looks a little shady. Kinda makes me get kind of suspicious. Like, a
maybe-you-would-rather-that-I-just-clicked-OK-instead-of-actually-taking-the-time-to-click-17-x-32-times-to-read-it-all kind of suspicious. In fairness, maybe Google, Inc (aka, Google, Inc.) just doesn't know how to make a re-sizable window that can wrap text on a web page. (Just in case that's the right answer: Attention all Google execs who are rabid fans of this blog and are completely unable to unravel this HTML enigma: Just copy the code on this very Blogger page. Should that prove too challenging, you should be able to find the code stashed away in one of the folders labeled "Another One Of Those Companies That We Own.")
So of course I copied the 11 pages of legalese out of the tiny window into Microsoft Word (did you really think I hand counted to get all those numbers? I must be better than I thought!) andthoroughly read kinda skimmed it all. I realized, regardless of what it said, I would eventually accept it because I wanted to--as much as possible--delete the image, but it still kind of surprised me what I would be agreeing to in retrospect (because they already...I think you get the point). Consider the following "wonderments":
So, to recap:
GOOGLE: Yes, Yes, don't worry! Of course you own the copyright to all your own personal, private stuff! Of course you can walk away at any time. Don't be silly!
[awkward pause]
GOOGLE [whispered in a hyper-speed, commercial disclaimer voice]: butyouaregoingtoletusignorethatfactforanyreasonwhatsoeverandyouaregoingtoletusshareyourstuffwithanybodywhatsoeverprovidedtheyareathirdpartyandnotsomefourthorfifthpartyyuckandyouaregoingtoletusdothisforeverandeverandeverandifyoueverdecidetochangeyourmindtoobadforyoubecauseyoushouldhavethoughtaboutthatbeforeyouletusmakeyouanaccountwithoutyourpermission.
[awkward pause]
GOOGLE [looking sheepishly into the middle distance]: What? No, no, I didn't hear anybody say anything. Why are you so suspicious?
MORALS of the story:
#1, Better read the fine print, dude! You know you're gonna say yes, but its better to know which organ you are selling in the process, right?
#2, If you think that ANYTHING that comes in contact with the World Wide Web is safe / secure / personal / private / [insert other cherished fairytale here] after that point, even if you are handing it over to a company that promises it "Don't Be Evil," YOU, my friend, are a bigger fool than I!
_____________________________________________________________
FOOTNOTES (for all the nerds in the audience who care about such things):
[1] "Don't be evil. We believe strongly that in the long term, we will be better served-as shareholders and in all other ways-by a company that does good things for the world even if we forgo some short term gains. This is an important aspect of our culture and is broadly shared within the company." [emphasis in original]SOURCE: Google Investor Relations website, "2004 Founder's IPO Letter" <http://investor.google.com/corporate/2004/ipo-founders-letter.html>; accessed 11/20/2010
[2] "The Internet as we know it is facing a serious threat. There's a debate heating up in Washington, DC on something called "net neutrality" – and it's a debate that's so important Google is asking you to get involved. We're asking you to take action to protect Internet freedom.
"In the next few days, the House of Representatives is going to vote on a bill that would fundamentally alter the Internet. That bill, and one that may come up for a key vote in the Senate in the next few weeks, would give the big phone and cable companies the power to pick and choose what you will be able to see and do on the Internet.
"Today the Internet is an information highway where anybody – no matter how large or small, how traditional or unconventional – has equal access. But the phone and cable monopolies, who control almost all Internet access, want the power to choose who gets access to high-speed lanes and whose content gets seen first and fastest. They want to build a two-tiered system and block the on-ramps for those who can't pay.
"Creativity, innovation and a free and open marketplace are all at stake in this fight. Please call your representative (202-224-3121) and let your voice be heard.
"Thanks for your time, your concern and your support.
"Eric Schmidt" [emphasis added]
" 'Allowing broadband carriers to control what people see and do online would fundamentally undermine the principles that have made the Internet such a success...A number of justifications have been created to support carrier control over consumer choices online; none stand up to scrutiny.'
"- Vint Cerf [PDF]
"Google Chief Internet Evangelist and Co-Developer of the Internet Protocol" [quoted from: http://commerce.senate.gov/pdf/cerf-020706.pdf]
" 'The neutral communications medium is essential to our society. It is the basis of a fair competitive market economy. It is the basis of democracy, by which a community should decide what to do. It is the basis of science, by which humankind should decide what is true. Let us protect the neutrality of the net.'
"- Tim Berners-Lee
"Inventor of the World Wide Web" [quoted from: http://dig.csail.mit.edu/breadcrumbs/blog/4]
SOURCE: Google Help Center, "A Note to Google Users on Net Neutrality:" <http://www.google.com/help/netneutrality_letter.html>; accessed: 11/20/2010
[3] "We launched Google.cn in January 2006 in the belief that the benefits of increased access to information for people in China and a more open Internet outweighed our discomfort in agreeing to censor some results.
" ... These attacks and the surveillance they have uncovered--combined with the attempts over the past year to further limit free speech on the web--have led us to conclude that we should review the feasibility of our business operations in China. We have decided we are no longer willing to continue censoring our results on Google.cn, and so over the next few weeks we will be discussing with the Chinese government the basis on which we could operate an unfiltered search engine within the law, if at all. We recognize that this may well mean having to shut down Google.cn, and potentially our offices in China."
Source: The Official Google Blog, "A new approach to China" <http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/new-approach-to-china.html>; accessed 11/20/2010
[4] "...since March 22 ...[Google] stopped censoring search services on google.cn, its Chinese search site."
Source: CNN Money, "China renews Google license, ending standoff" <http://money.cnn.com/2010/07/09/technology/google_china/index.htm>; accessed: 11/20/2010
[5] " 'In an on-stage interview with writer Ken Auletta of the New Yorker magazine, Schmidt said “Don’t be evil” is meant to provoke internal debate over what constitutes ethical corporate behavior, rather than representing an absolute moral position.
" ' “We don’t have an ‘Evilmeter’ we can sort of apply — you know — what is good and what is evil,” Schmidt said. . .' "
SOURCE: ZDNet blog by Tom Foremski, "GOOG CEO says 'Don't Be evil' is misunderstood" <http://www.zdnet.com/blog/foremski/goog-ceo-says-dont-be-evil-is-misunderstood/277>; accessed 11/20/2010
[6] Source: Silicon Valley Watcher, "Google Quietly Drops Its 'Don't Be Evil' Motto " <http://www.siliconvalleywatcher.com/mt/archives/2009/04/google_quietly.php>; accessed: 11/20/2010
Maybe you know Google's informal corporate motto is "Don't Be Evil." (It was clearly stated in their 2004 Founder' IPO Letter[1]. Don't you still have your copy?) Or maybe you don't. Either way, it seems to have gotten even more informal over the years. In 2006, Google started arguing vociferously that big telecom companies should NOT be allowed to control internet access[2] while in the very same year agreeing to censor itself in China[3] (It should be noted that Google decided as of March 2010 it will no longer censor itself in China[4], but this decision only came after an apparent hack of its servers to find info on Chinese dissidents in December of 2009[3]). Gotta love the irony! And maybe you missed Google CEO Eric Schmidt possibly playing the "Get Out Of Hypocrisy Free" card in 2008 with a paraphrase of the classic "What is
Now in the spirit of any good ol' blog post, I reveal that everything I have said heretofore has only a tangential bearing on anything that will be said hereafter: namely, the company referenced will be the same.
So I posted an image on this blog like all internet idiots, without first screening it properly. Four days later, I realized I had left my email address and user number available for all the World Wide Web to see. Probably not good material to be putting out there. So, I quickly prepped a new copy, uploaded it, and replaced the offending materials. However, Blogger.com (i.e. Google, Inc.) was still displaying a copy of the old image in the "click-on-an-image-to-post-it" screen, indicating that it was still alive and well in some back-alley nether-world of the Internets. "So how," I ask myself, "do I kill it really dead?" I did a quick search and found that apparently, when creating a Blogger.com (Google, Inc.) account to which I can post images, unbeknownst to me AND without my consent, a Picasa.google.com account (can you spy the Google, Inc?) was created for me in which the images are stored. I further found that by logging onto said Picasa account, I would be able to finally and fully delete this image. This I did, and can now can rest assured that said image is expunged from Inter-xistence, right? (At this point the adoring public screams, "SO WHAT!?")
AH HA, so in order to access the Picasa account that was created for me without my permission, I had to give my consent to create said account (which was already created without my permission--repeat ad nauseum) by agreeing to the terms of use for Picasa (that's spelled: G-o-o-g-l-e, I-n-c.) for the account which was already... (John Q. Public says: "Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah!")
Now, if you know me, you know I am a fine print reader. It annoys most people to no end--including myself (especially when the bank / insurance / real estate / [insert favorite legalese source here] agent-person putting the paperwork in my hands is surprised that I take the time to read it, and, more than once, comments, "Nobody else reads this stuff"). In recent years I do not read as much as I did (ususually more a skimmage), but I did read the Picasa notice even though I knew I HAD TO AGREE in order to remove the image stored in the account which was... (J. Q. P.: "Zzzzzzzzzzz...")
Why? First of all, the "Click-Here-To-Agree" page bothered me right off. Check what it looked like below.
Did you notice that tiny box with "Google Terms of Service" scrunched into it? So did I. Now, call me old fashioned, but when you stuff 21,135 characters (not including spaces) / 117 paragraphs / 466 lines / 4,233 words /11 pages (of the 1-inch margin variety) into a 3.5 x 1.5 inch box that CANNOT be expanded AND which takes SEVENTEEN (17, as in 1 followed by 7) clicks to scroll ACROSS and THIRTY-TWO (you do the math) clicks to scroll down, it looks a little shady. Kinda makes me get kind of suspicious. Like, a
maybe-you-would-rather-that-I-just-clicked-OK-instead-of-actually-taking-the-time-to-click-17-x-32-times-to-read-it-all kind of suspicious. In fairness, maybe Google, Inc (aka, Google, Inc.) just doesn't know how to make a re-sizable window that can wrap text on a web page. (Just in case that's the right answer: Attention all Google execs who are rabid fans of this blog and are completely unable to unravel this HTML enigma: Just copy the code on this very Blogger page. Should that prove too challenging, you should be able to find the code stashed away in one of the folders labeled "Another One Of Those Companies That We Own.")
So of course I copied the 11 pages of legalese out of the tiny window into Microsoft Word (did you really think I hand counted to get all those numbers? I must be better than I thought!) and
"... 11. Content license from you
"11.1 You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. This license is for the sole purpose of enabling Google to display, distribute and promote the Services and may be revoked for certain Services as defined in the Additional Terms of those Services.
"11.2 You agree that this license includes a right for Google to make such Content available to other companies, organizations or individuals with whom Google has relationships for the provision of syndicated services, and to use such Content in connection with the provision of those services.
"... 13. Ending your relationship with Google
"13.1 The Terms will continue to apply until terminated by either you or Google as set out below.
"... 13.5 When these Terms come to an end, all of the legal rights, obligations and liabilities that you and Google have benefited from, been subject to (or which have accrued over time whilst the Terms have been in force) or which are expressed to continue indefinitely, shall be unaffected by this cessation, and the provisions of paragraph 20.7 shall continue to apply to such rights, obligations and liabilities indefinitely.
"... 20.6 You acknowledge and agree that each member of the group of companies of which Google is the parent shall be third party beneficiaries to the Terms and that such other companies shall be entitled to directly enforce, and rely upon, any provision of the Terms which confers a benefit on (or rights in favor of) them. Other than this, no other person or company shall be third party beneficiaries to the Terms." [emphasis added]
So, to recap:
GOOGLE: Yes, Yes, don't worry! Of course you own the copyright to all your own personal, private stuff! Of course you can walk away at any time. Don't be silly!
[awkward pause]
GOOGLE [whispered in a hyper-speed, commercial disclaimer voice]: butyouaregoingtoletusignorethatfactforanyreasonwhatsoeverandyouaregoingtoletusshareyourstuffwithanybodywhatsoeverprovidedtheyareathirdpartyandnotsomefourthorfifthpartyyuckandyouaregoingtoletusdothisforeverandeverandeverandifyoueverdecidetochangeyourmindtoobadforyoubecauseyoushouldhavethoughtaboutthatbeforeyouletusmakeyouanaccountwithoutyourpermission.
[awkward pause]
GOOGLE [looking sheepishly into the middle distance]: What? No, no, I didn't hear anybody say anything. Why are you so suspicious?
MORALS of the story:
#1, Better read the fine print, dude! You know you're gonna say yes, but its better to know which organ you are selling in the process, right?
#2, If you think that ANYTHING that comes in contact with the World Wide Web is safe / secure / personal / private / [insert other cherished fairytale here] after that point, even if you are handing it over to a company that promises it "Don't Be Evil," YOU, my friend, are a bigger fool than I!
_____________________________________________________________
FOOTNOTES (for all the nerds in the audience who care about such things):
[1] "Don't be evil. We believe strongly that in the long term, we will be better served-as shareholders and in all other ways-by a company that does good things for the world even if we forgo some short term gains. This is an important aspect of our culture and is broadly shared within the company." [emphasis in original]SOURCE: Google Investor Relations website, "2004 Founder's IPO Letter" <http://investor.google.com/corporate/2004/ipo-founders-letter.html>; accessed 11/20/2010
[2] "The Internet as we know it is facing a serious threat. There's a debate heating up in Washington, DC on something called "net neutrality" – and it's a debate that's so important Google is asking you to get involved. We're asking you to take action to protect Internet freedom.
"In the next few days, the House of Representatives is going to vote on a bill that would fundamentally alter the Internet. That bill, and one that may come up for a key vote in the Senate in the next few weeks, would give the big phone and cable companies the power to pick and choose what you will be able to see and do on the Internet.
"Today the Internet is an information highway where anybody – no matter how large or small, how traditional or unconventional – has equal access. But the phone and cable monopolies, who control almost all Internet access, want the power to choose who gets access to high-speed lanes and whose content gets seen first and fastest. They want to build a two-tiered system and block the on-ramps for those who can't pay.
"Creativity, innovation and a free and open marketplace are all at stake in this fight. Please call your representative (202-224-3121) and let your voice be heard.
"Thanks for your time, your concern and your support.
"Eric Schmidt" [emphasis added]
" 'Allowing broadband carriers to control what people see and do online would fundamentally undermine the principles that have made the Internet such a success...A number of justifications have been created to support carrier control over consumer choices online; none stand up to scrutiny.'
"- Vint Cerf [PDF]
"Google Chief Internet Evangelist and Co-Developer of the Internet Protocol" [quoted from: http://commerce.senate.gov/pdf/cerf-020706.pdf]
" 'The neutral communications medium is essential to our society. It is the basis of a fair competitive market economy. It is the basis of democracy, by which a community should decide what to do. It is the basis of science, by which humankind should decide what is true. Let us protect the neutrality of the net.'
"- Tim Berners-Lee
"Inventor of the World Wide Web" [quoted from: http://dig.csail.mit.edu/breadcrumbs/blog/4]
SOURCE: Google Help Center, "A Note to Google Users on Net Neutrality:" <http://www.google.com/help/netneutrality_letter.html>; accessed: 11/20/2010
[3] "We launched Google.cn in January 2006 in the belief that the benefits of increased access to information for people in China and a more open Internet outweighed our discomfort in agreeing to censor some results.
" ... These attacks and the surveillance they have uncovered--combined with the attempts over the past year to further limit free speech on the web--have led us to conclude that we should review the feasibility of our business operations in China. We have decided we are no longer willing to continue censoring our results on Google.cn, and so over the next few weeks we will be discussing with the Chinese government the basis on which we could operate an unfiltered search engine within the law, if at all. We recognize that this may well mean having to shut down Google.cn, and potentially our offices in China."
Source: The Official Google Blog, "A new approach to China" <http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/new-approach-to-china.html>; accessed 11/20/2010
[4] "...since March 22 ...[Google] stopped censoring search services on google.cn, its Chinese search site."
Source: CNN Money, "China renews Google license, ending standoff" <http://money.cnn.com/2010/07/09/technology/google_china/index.htm>; accessed: 11/20/2010
[5] " 'In an on-stage interview with writer Ken Auletta of the New Yorker magazine, Schmidt said “Don’t be evil” is meant to provoke internal debate over what constitutes ethical corporate behavior, rather than representing an absolute moral position.
" ' “We don’t have an ‘Evilmeter’ we can sort of apply — you know — what is good and what is evil,” Schmidt said. . .' "
SOURCE: ZDNet blog by Tom Foremski, "GOOG CEO says 'Don't Be evil' is misunderstood" <http://www.zdnet.com/blog/foremski/goog-ceo-says-dont-be-evil-is-misunderstood/277>; accessed 11/20/2010
[6] Source: Silicon Valley Watcher, "Google Quietly Drops Its 'Don't Be Evil' Motto " <http://www.siliconvalleywatcher.com/mt/archives/2009/04/google_quietly.php>; accessed: 11/20/2010
Still Kickin' It With The Time-Warp Crowd
If this keeps up, I'll have to transfer my blog to a larger server to handle all of the traffic last year.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
And then you realize you are having WAY too much fun writing blogs to yourself.
Seriously, dude! Seriously!
Apparently I'm taking Alaska AND Space-Time by storm.
So I'm checking my stats page, grabbin' some screen shots. I'll let you digest all the info and throw some comments on after the fold. (In other words: "SCROLL DOWN!" [um....please?])
So, based on the raw data, at least two things are completely clear:
#1 - I'm HUGE in Alaska. Which is cool because I like moose, even though I've never had one as a friend and/or meal.
#2 - Considering the fact I created the blog today (November 16th, 2010), I think I'm already looking pretty good in the "Pageviews yesterday" and "Pageviews last month" department.
And to all of you who can negotiate the Space-Time Paradox without erasing yourselves from existence and STILL find my blog a compelling read: You are the real reason I took up blogging today in the first place. Thank You!
So, based on the raw data, at least two things are completely clear:
#1 - I'm HUGE in Alaska. Which is cool because I like moose, even though I've never had one as a friend and/or meal.
#2 - Considering the fact I created the blog today (November 16th, 2010), I think I'm already looking pretty good in the "Pageviews yesterday" and "Pageviews last month" department.
And to all of you who can negotiate the Space-Time Paradox without erasing yourselves from existence and STILL find my blog a compelling read: You are the real reason I took up blogging today in the first place. Thank You!
And....you may all now breath.
So, here are my first 3 posts transliterated into Hindi (I apologize in advance to all native speakers of transliterated Kannada, Malayalam, Tamil, or Telegu, but Hindi was first on the list. If it makes you feel any better, you can breath any time you want to.)
थे थिर्द ओने
बेकाउसे , इफ इट्स अ ब्लॉग विथ ओनली तवो पोस्ट्स , थें इट्स प्रोबब्ल्य जुस्त सोमेबोद्य फ्रोंतिंग . श्रेरिऔस्ल्य -- थ्री इस थे बारे मिनिमुम फॉर लेगितिमच्य . इ क्नोव थिस तो बे अन इन्वेतेराते फक्त बेकाउसे इ जुस्त नो रीड आईटी ओं थे इन्टरनेट इन थिस वैरी ब्लॉग ! वोइला ! व्हो क्नेव ठाट माय ओवन ब्लॉग वौल्ड बे अ वेरिताब्ले फॉण्ट ऑफ़ इन्वेतेराते फक्त ठाट इ जुस्त क्रेअतेद ! व्हो क्नेव ठाट इ कुलद उसे सो मानी एक्ष्क्लमतिओन पॉइंट्स इन ओने सेमी - पाराग्राफ ! इ लव थे इन्तेर्नेट्स !
थे सेकंड ओने
व्हेरें इ अन्स्वेर थे ३ बर्निंग क़ुएस्तिओन्स : अ ) एस . बी ) इ थिंक सो . क ) काल्लिंग बुज्ज़ लिघ्त्येअर ! कामे इन बुज्ज़ लिघ्त्येअर !
थे फर्स्ट ओने
व्हेरें इ पोसे थे थ्री बर्निंग क़ुएस्तिओन्स : अ ) दोएस आईटी वर्क ? बी ) दोएस आईटी वर्क लिखे इ थिंक आईटी वोर्क्स ? एंड क ) दो इ क्नोव वहत इन थे वर्ल्ड इ ऍम दोंग ?
And the sub-continent holds its collective breath.
Still trying to figure out the Hindi transliteration option. Developing....
the third one
Because, if its a blog with only two posts, then its probably just somebody fronting. Seriously--three is the bare minimum for legitimacy. I know this to be an inveterate fact because I just now read it on the internet in this very blog! Voila! Who knew that my own blog would be a veritable font of inveterate fact that I just created! Who knew that I could use so many exclamation points in one semi-paragraph! I love the Internets!
the second one
Wherein I answer the 3 burning questions: A) Yes. B) I think so. C) Calling Buzz Lightyear! Come in Buzz Lightyear!
the first one
Wherein I pose the three burning questions: A) Does it work? B) Does it work like I think it works? and C) Do I know what in the world I am doing?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)