So yeah, turns out I’m (AFAIK) the only recovering furry porn addict on the entire internet. Not something I’m proud of, but something I’m glad I got off my back. Comments after the jump, please 
Archive for 2004
Recovering Furry Porn Addict
Tuesday, November 23rd, 2004Things we focus on
Friday, November 19th, 2004I’m a geek. I care about geeky things. So you wouldn’t blame me if I walk down the street and notice people with iPods. Or notice people with bags from Telecom or Vodafone stores or carrying boxes containing new cellphones. Or Dick Smiths. Or even from photocopy stores.
Or notice crashed ATMs, crazy licence plates, logic in madness, patterns, the things between the lines.
Cos I do. What weird things do you notice that you think others wouldn’t?
Glutnix Hearts Half-life 2
Thursday, November 18th, 2004I can’t believe how many frames I get on Half-Life 2! Well, not an earth-shattering frame-rate, but it’s higher than I expected Here’s my box’s specs:
CPU Type: AMD Athlon XP, 1250 MHz (6.25 x 200)
Motherboard Name: Asus A7V333 (5 PCI, 1 AGP Pro, 3 DIMM)
Motherboard Chipset: VIA VT8367 Apollo KT333
System Memory: 512 MB (DDR SDRAM)
Video Adapter: nVIDIA GeForce4 Ti 4200 (Leadtek WinFast A250 LE) (64 MB) (DirectX 8.1)
Operating System: Microsoft Windows XP Professional Service Pack 2
Game: Half-Life 2 Retail Collectors Edition
So the game suggested:
800×600
Model Detail: Medium
Texture Detail: Medium
Water: Simple Reflection
Shadow Detail: High
AA: None
Filtering: Trilinear
Shader Detail: High
Wait for Vertical Sync: Disabled
This game kicks serious ass. This is one game you will have to play! Kick ass! I know my setup isn’t the best around, but it’s extremely playable at recommended settings And it’s mightily more playable than Doom 3 
I’ll try and run a benchmark sometime and see how I get on.
The story is great The character animation is phenomenal! The gameplay so far has been exciting! And Headshots with the pistol! Headcrabs! Airboats! And so much more!
Yay!
Yay! Filing Cabinet!
Tuesday, November 9th, 2004Yay! My filing cabinet arrived today! It’s a Precision Classic 2-drawer in Kashmir Blue, with lock. It’s part of my whole Getting Things Done regime that I hope to kick off when I get a free day to just get onto sorting all my loose crap sitting in my new In-tray
You gotta focus on the positive sides of things. My Podcast on Webfroot is going really well. You should tune in, listen to it, and send me your feedback! If you send in a recording of your comments on the show, I’ll play it on the next episode! If you’ve got content and/or music that you think I should play, send that in to me too! Come party together on the show It’s all about having fun!
Oh, and don’t forget the Wellington Firefox Party!
Factchecking is Important
Tuesday, November 9th, 2004After an e-mail was forwarded to me containing a copy paste of an earlier revision of USA average IQ’s by state, the results were too good to be true. So I fact-checked the email’s ass. Here’s my reply. Names were removed to protect the guilty.
States and their average IQ and who they voted for.The IQ numbers were originally attributed to the book “IQ and the Wealth of Nations”, though they do not appear in the current edition. The tests and data were administered via the Raven’s APT, and the The Test Agency, one of the UK’s leading publishers and distributors of psychometric tests. This data has been published in the Economist and the St. Petersburg Times
(name removed) wrote:
This is so funny and indeed REAL
While indeed funny and a somewhat uplifting prospect, I wanted to be sure…
I couldn’t find any validating proof on www.economist.com or www.sptimes.com for this years election.
However, I did find a similar study done in May 2004 for the 2000 election, here:
http://tinyurl.com/3kreqAfter that, I googled for ‘IQ election‘ (sans quotes) and found the original source of the email you posted.
http://chrisevans3d.com/files/iq.htm
It turns out the reason I couldn’t find anything on economist.com is because they retracted the article on the basis of it was ‘unable to be verified and possibly a hoax’.
==
In the future, I ask that if anyone want to send stuff they percieve as true, that they *provide links to trustworthy sources that back it up*.
Linking to the page that provided the article is also a smart idea, because it could be updated with newer, more enlightening information…
This is so funny and indeed REAL
…Especially before claiming it’s REAL. Proof makes it real
Do your part to keep it real
Cheers