Tomorrow is the final stage of my move. If my computer has survived, if my apartment situation works out, I should be fully up and running by Sunday.
Unless, of course, I get very distracted for New Years.
Once up and running, everything should start to move. I expect to be selling a product by April, and my daily wisdom will pour forth like manna from the heavens. And, like the usual manna, it will be flat, dry, tasteless, and fragile.
Here's a few ranty tidbits to tide you over: The Wall Street Journal (which I don't usually get, but have access to here) has had a series of "old news no news" articles. Such as today's astounding revelation that Japan's youth are, generally, even less willing to put up with wage slavery than I am. Wow! Stunner! Totally unexpected, ever since it became obvious ten years ago.
They also have a desperate apologist article for the inversion of returns on two year and ten year bonds. Now ten yearors are offering worse returns than two yearors. In the past, this has always led to an "economic slowdown". That's "condescending economist speak" for "this is really gonna suck". However, they're saying that this time, it could be different! Even the guy who's job depends on the economy doing well says the economy will do okay! You can trust him, it's not like he has any bias!
Sort of like saying, "well, the moon has always been solid when we've rammed stuff into it before, but maybe this time, it'll turn out to be an optical illusion! The guys who funded the mis-aimed satellite say so!"
So that article is two for two! Both old news and propaganda. (The upcoming American economic crash/depression has been obvious for at least five years, the only real disagreements are whether it's coming in five years or fifteen. At least now we know it's probably closer to five years than fifteen.)
The really sad part is that the Wall Street Journal is really a pretty respectable paper in comparison to the local papers both here and in Seattle.
Oh well, at least Pennsylvania courts rejected "intelligent design" as a scientific theory. I'd say "score one for our team", but it's not even a score: our goalies just managed to deflect the puck.
A score for our team would be if people realized the simplest definition of science: "Science is vivisecting God and finding he is made of clockwork."
You can quote me on that.