I’m drowning my sorrow in whiskey and gin.

Yeah the sun will be shining,
And my children will burn

Joe Gregorio:

I can use a hammer to drive a nail while building a house, or I can use it to cause bodily harm, in neither case is the morality of the action tied to the tool, and in a similar way the blind action of a free market is free of morality.

You know, a gun never killed nobody, You can ask anyone, People get shot by people, People with guns.

Queen — Put Out the Fire (which I’ve referred to earlier)

My girlfriend’s run off with my car,
And gone back to her mom and pa’,
Telling tales of drunkenness and cruelty,
Now I’m sitting here, sipping of my ice cool beer

Well nobody wants to burn in Hell,
But everybody’s got a soul to sell.

At least Zeldman thinks so. He suggests a land line phone, but I really wouldn’t like one of those. I’d be far more interested in a phone sans music player. Admittedly because I already own an iPod that I’m more than happy with, but also because 8 gb really doesn’t suffice for me, and I’d rather have two devices that solve their job greatly than one that doesn’t do each just as good.

Gmail gets a lot of credit from most people for its great spam protection. I have a Gmail account, but I don’t use it. I only log in every X months, because I feel I have to. Often, some spam messages get through. Now, I know spam filters can’t be 100% correct, but when I logged in yesterday, and found a spam message from an Amazon scam¹, it wondered me why they didn’t catch it. Aside from being from a lycos.co.uk address, which isn’t really a safe bet for spam, it used a basic scam trick that Thunderbird started catching some years ago: it linked to some website, but making it look like it was linking to another. So, it seemed like it linked to an Amazon login page, but in reality it linked to some fraud site. Why doesn’t Gmail catch such stuff, when it’s so obvious?

1. I knew it was a scam, since Amazon don’t know my gmail address. ↩