Sunday, November 11, 2007

There's no Sex in your Violence

So, I promised Jordan that I'd put something up last night about XKCD. But I guess that this is really a post for Blake.

You'll notice that I haven't supplied a link to what XKCD might be for the unknowing. There's a reason. XKCD is a webcomic, and it kicks ass. The reason that I didn't post about it last night was that I was still busy trawling through the archives, which I have recently finished.

Sooooo.... Let me cut to the chase: In addition to being one of the best webcomcs I've ever read, XKCD has an unusual secret. Whoa Hold on. I just had a strange revelation: Unusual may be the only word in the English language that goes u-consonant-u-consonant-u. I challenge "U" to disprove me.

What is this unusual secret, you ask? It's URL. While most people (like Jordan and Google) will find that the comic's URL is xkcd.com, I happened to run across it being hosted on an entirely seperate and much funnier one:

cu.nniling.us

(that's right, you're going to have to type it in if you don't believe me)

Isn't that the best URL you've ever seen? It made me laugh only because I was busy poring through the archives absentmindedly for about half an hour before I even saw it.

Now, what is even stranger is that the nniling site is almost an exact copy. When at xkcd.com, all facets of the site (comic, archive, forums, blag, store, and about) are linked through xkcd.com, but when at cu.nilling.us only the blag and forums are linked through xkcd.com (for the obvious reason that updating the two in parallel would be a hellish waste of effort), while clicking archive, store, or about, will take you to a totally identical but seperate page hosted from nilling.us.

I find this incredibly cool. That is all. The only real question is why does this comic have two URLs? And why does the less funny one show up in Google?

Moving on:

Another aside: I was killing time thinking about what to write next, so I opened a new tab and hit the StumbleUpon button. It took me to an XKCD comic. Then it took me here.

Oh, this might be a good time to announce that the war is over. I'd love to say that I won, but it's a little more complicated than that.

Here's how I like to think of it:
1) Jordan's post was so badly written that I easily misinterpreted it.
2) Based on those misinterpretations I declared war and launched an offensive.
3) Rather than rebuffing my offensive, Jordan published a highly reformatted version of the original post which effectively removed the whole reason for declaring war in the first place.
4) I can now claim that I won because my attack went by undefended against and unchallenged. However, Jordan can claim that he didn't really lose either given that I wasn't actually attacking his ideas.

Things are pretty much like the war of 1812. The US will always claim that it won the war because they won some pretty good victories against Canadian troops on US soil (and because they're ignorant of most other parts of history as well). Canadians will sensibly claim that there was no winner given that neither side lost any territory. Although we could claim that the US technically lost given that they didn't fulfill their objective of taking over Canada, whereas we technically won given that we fulfilled our objective of not getting taken over. But it doesn't really matter anyway.

What I also wanted to clear up in this post was a lingering idea that I wanted to get to but didn't have time for: The whole basis of the conflict was totally irrelevant for 2 different reasons.

1) It was an American conflict. Girls here in Canada can already get on the pill with no problem by visiting their doctors. Every girl I knew in highschool who was on the pill, with the exception of one, was on it with parental knowledge because they had "really bad periods". Now, that may have been true, but it's also a rather convenient excuse given that it's impossible to disprove as well. The reason that this is an issue in America has a lot more to do with religious conflicts. Do you want to know why the girls getting the pill in this article were all "middle-school" and not "high-school" students? Because in the states if your highschool teaches any method of contraception except abstinence it immediately loses all federal funding. So, when your normal perspective is that contraception is immoral, then the idea of giving it to teenagers for free without their parents necessarily knowing is pretty scary/newsworthy. If that isn't your perspective, the article comes across with more of a "hmmm, saves them a trip to the GP I guess".

2) Contraception is already ubiquitous (although I suppose 'in Canada' may be important to add here as well). Who cares if kids can get the pill at school? If you're too afraid to make a doctor's appointment and get on the pill, all you need to do is go to the Health Unit. While they can't give you the pill (which is really a good thing, given that it's a prescription med), they will give you all the condoms you want, as well as the "morning after" pill. If you're too shy to go over yourself, you can send anyone to get condoms for you (or buy them anywhere), and any woman to get the MA pill (I think. If they make you take it there then I guess you'd have to go yourself). Seriously, a minimum of effort is involved already, why is it a big deal to make things slightly easier?

And that's all I have to say about that.

Let me cap off this post with some announcements:

1) Wolfgang has begun posting again. Read it, leave a comment, and maybe the next one won't be 10 months in the making.

2) Also, I didn't properly ring out the fanfare for Tingles (or Wolfgang's girlfriend), when I put up my link to her. This would be a good time to check her out since her latest post is a humourous look at Halo-themed pillow talk.

So, tune in next week when the Liam is the Awesome tour resumes, and I head back to beautiful Waterloo to see Wolfgang, Tingles, and some leftist radicals (and any RCG boys who want to get in on the fun). The weekends after that are open, but I'm going to try and spend some time in TO since I haven't been there in so long and there are so many people worth seeing.

Toodles.

7 comments:

/\sh said...

I'm pretty sure I wouldn't wear something made of condoms unless it was free... on that note i think they should market those to boys who are just entering the stage where they're getting their first condom ever... they'd make a killing

Danger said...

Your title suggests that there's "no sex in your violence," but that leaves me wondering...

Is there violence in you sex?

That is all.

Maranatha said...

Yes. And that fits for either common definition of sex as well.

Brother That'll Smother Your Mother said...

Liam, the war of 1812 was between the US and Britain, Canada did not exist then. Only idiots would claim a US victory as the US surrendered (interestingly, the news took so long to travel that the fighting in New Orleans went on for weeks). I have a real beef with people saying that 1812 was between the US and Canada; Canada was not in existence. One could argue that the people that went on to create Canada had recent ancestors at the time of the War of 1812 and it is therefore the same. If that is the case then I can give you some wiggle-room.

MTOD said...

I have posted.

Stu said...

Clothing made out of condoms? Now that's one way to recycle!

Haha. Gross.

Bet it would cost a fortune to make.

Unknown said...

Not if you hung around at your local health unit for a long time, Stu...