Is it too much to ask for a presidential (or any other position, really) candidate who:
1) Isn't ass-backward on social issues;
2) Doesn't want to tax-and-spend me (and the country) into oblivion; and
3) Doesn't stick his/her fingers in his/her ears and say "LALALALALALA" any time someone points out that the Second Amendment is, in fact, in the Bill of Rights?
America just re-elected a guy who's 1-for-3, and his opponent was probably also 1-for-3. Not a very fantastic set of choices there.
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Tuesday, August 7, 2012
Stop SB 249!
This post is turning out to be fairly long-winded, so here's the reader's digest version: if you live in California, please contact your state assemblyperson and encourage him or her to OPPOSE SB 249.
I don't frequently pay much attention to all things political, even on things that could potentially affect my carrer, like patent reform and last year's America Invents Act. But I'm paying attention to California's SB 249.
SB 249 started its life in early 2011 as a bill submitted by California State Senator Leland Yee, who also happens to be the state senator from my district, which would add provisions to the state's Food and Agricultural Code relating to district agricultural associations. *Yawn,* right? The bill got a Senate floor vote in May 2011 and passed.
Then, over a year later in May 2012, while the bill was still pending in the Assembly, Yee used a procedure known as "gut-and-amend" (which is not all that different from "bait-and-switch") to completely revamp the bill, turning it into a penal code revision to ban so-called "conversion kits," which the bill broadly and ambiguously defined as any combination of parts that can convert a firearm with a fixed magazine into an assault weapon as defined under previously existing law. Those relevant prior laws define an assault weapon to include any semi-automatic centerfire rifle with the capability of accepting a detachable magazine and having at least one of several prohibited features, such as a pistol grip, flash suppressor, or collapsible stock. Notably, existing California regulations promulgated by the CA Department of Justice specifically define a "fixed magazine" to include a magazine that requires the use of a tool to remove. In reliance upon the DoJ regulations, hundreds of thousands of law-abiding gun owners in California have used magazine locks commonly known as "bullet buttons" to bring their firearms into compliance with state law; the bullet button prevents the magazine release of a firearm from being actuated using a fingertip, instead requiring the user to activate the mechanism through a small pinhole opening using a small screwdriver or bullet tip -- a mechanism similar to the recessed "reset" button you used to find on digital alarm clocks.
Apparently realizing that the original wording of his bill was so overly broad and vague that it could potentially make criminals out of anyone who owned a legal, magazine-locked rifle and, separately, possessed the parts comprising a standard magazine release (even if those parts were not installed in any functional firearm), Yee then amended the bill again, revising the definition of "conversion kits" to only cover parts that were designed "solely and exclusively" for converting fixed magazine firearms into assault weapons. By this time, the gun-owning community had already picked up on Yee's latest assault on gun rights, launching a rapidly-spreading social networking campaign to oppose the bill. Yee and his chief of staff, Adam Kiegwin, then took to Twitter to denounce concerned gun-owners as fear-mongering racists, insisting that SB 249 was only meant to ban a device known as the "Mag Magnet," a magnetized button that attaches (via said magnetism) to an existing bullet button that then allows the bullet button to operate essentially as a standard magazine release. Given that the Mag Magnet is not designed "solely and exclusively" to convert fixed magazine firearms into assault weapons (it can be used legally to convert fixed magazine firearms into fully functional firearms when shooting out of state, or to convert fixed magazine receivers into fully functional rimfire firearms, which are not subject to the same restrictions as centerfire firearms), however, the only way for SB 249 to achieve this purported function is if it is interpreted so broadly that the words "solely and exclusively" essentially fall out of the bill.
Then the shooting in Aurora, CO happened. Sensing an opportunity to spin tragedy into political expediency, Yee gutted-and-amended SB 249 yet again, this time to override the DOJ's definition of "fixed magazine"; if passed, the current version of SB 249 would rewrite California assault weapons law to include any centerfire rifle equipped with a magazine lock. Thus, in yet another act of bait-and-switch, Yee reneged on all of the assurances offered by his staff just one week earlier that they were only interested in the Mag Magnet. Worse yet, Yee was unabashed about the fact that he was trying to leverage the tragedy in Colorado for his own political gain; in statements made to the press, Yee crowed that the events in Colorado provided "an opportunity" to go after magazine-locked rifles, and he wanted "to take advantage of that."
The potential ramifications of SB 249 are widespread and devastating. Law-abiding Californians own hundreds of thousands of magazine locked firearms; SB 249 would turn all of these law-abiding gun owners into felons. Moreover, the current draft of SB 249 provides no registration period for existing firearms; thus, gun owners would have to either turn in their firearms, have a gunsmith weld their magazines permanently into their firearms (a task that is highly unsafe, as removing the magazine is one of the first and most important steps in troubleshooting a jammed weapon), or convert their firearms into "featureless" configurations (configurations that do not include any "prohibited" features, such as pistol grips, forward grips, flash hiders, or collapsible stocks). The state would potentially face millions of dollars in liability for takings of these firearms under the 5th Amendment, not to mention liabilities for deprivation of 2nd Amendment rights.
To close, I'll just encourage everyone reading this in California to contact their state legislators and express your opposition to SB 249. For more information, check out the Stop SB 249 fact sheet here. And for those who like firearms videos, here's a video showing the absurdity and arbitrariness of California's assault weapons laws.
I don't frequently pay much attention to all things political, even on things that could potentially affect my carrer, like patent reform and last year's America Invents Act. But I'm paying attention to California's SB 249.
SB 249 started its life in early 2011 as a bill submitted by California State Senator Leland Yee, who also happens to be the state senator from my district, which would add provisions to the state's Food and Agricultural Code relating to district agricultural associations. *Yawn,* right? The bill got a Senate floor vote in May 2011 and passed.
Then, over a year later in May 2012, while the bill was still pending in the Assembly, Yee used a procedure known as "gut-and-amend" (which is not all that different from "bait-and-switch") to completely revamp the bill, turning it into a penal code revision to ban so-called "conversion kits," which the bill broadly and ambiguously defined as any combination of parts that can convert a firearm with a fixed magazine into an assault weapon as defined under previously existing law. Those relevant prior laws define an assault weapon to include any semi-automatic centerfire rifle with the capability of accepting a detachable magazine and having at least one of several prohibited features, such as a pistol grip, flash suppressor, or collapsible stock. Notably, existing California regulations promulgated by the CA Department of Justice specifically define a "fixed magazine" to include a magazine that requires the use of a tool to remove. In reliance upon the DoJ regulations, hundreds of thousands of law-abiding gun owners in California have used magazine locks commonly known as "bullet buttons" to bring their firearms into compliance with state law; the bullet button prevents the magazine release of a firearm from being actuated using a fingertip, instead requiring the user to activate the mechanism through a small pinhole opening using a small screwdriver or bullet tip -- a mechanism similar to the recessed "reset" button you used to find on digital alarm clocks.
Apparently realizing that the original wording of his bill was so overly broad and vague that it could potentially make criminals out of anyone who owned a legal, magazine-locked rifle and, separately, possessed the parts comprising a standard magazine release (even if those parts were not installed in any functional firearm), Yee then amended the bill again, revising the definition of "conversion kits" to only cover parts that were designed "solely and exclusively" for converting fixed magazine firearms into assault weapons. By this time, the gun-owning community had already picked up on Yee's latest assault on gun rights, launching a rapidly-spreading social networking campaign to oppose the bill. Yee and his chief of staff, Adam Kiegwin, then took to Twitter to denounce concerned gun-owners as fear-mongering racists, insisting that SB 249 was only meant to ban a device known as the "Mag Magnet," a magnetized button that attaches (via said magnetism) to an existing bullet button that then allows the bullet button to operate essentially as a standard magazine release. Given that the Mag Magnet is not designed "solely and exclusively" to convert fixed magazine firearms into assault weapons (it can be used legally to convert fixed magazine firearms into fully functional firearms when shooting out of state, or to convert fixed magazine receivers into fully functional rimfire firearms, which are not subject to the same restrictions as centerfire firearms), however, the only way for SB 249 to achieve this purported function is if it is interpreted so broadly that the words "solely and exclusively" essentially fall out of the bill.
Then the shooting in Aurora, CO happened. Sensing an opportunity to spin tragedy into political expediency, Yee gutted-and-amended SB 249 yet again, this time to override the DOJ's definition of "fixed magazine"; if passed, the current version of SB 249 would rewrite California assault weapons law to include any centerfire rifle equipped with a magazine lock. Thus, in yet another act of bait-and-switch, Yee reneged on all of the assurances offered by his staff just one week earlier that they were only interested in the Mag Magnet. Worse yet, Yee was unabashed about the fact that he was trying to leverage the tragedy in Colorado for his own political gain; in statements made to the press, Yee crowed that the events in Colorado provided "an opportunity" to go after magazine-locked rifles, and he wanted "to take advantage of that."
The potential ramifications of SB 249 are widespread and devastating. Law-abiding Californians own hundreds of thousands of magazine locked firearms; SB 249 would turn all of these law-abiding gun owners into felons. Moreover, the current draft of SB 249 provides no registration period for existing firearms; thus, gun owners would have to either turn in their firearms, have a gunsmith weld their magazines permanently into their firearms (a task that is highly unsafe, as removing the magazine is one of the first and most important steps in troubleshooting a jammed weapon), or convert their firearms into "featureless" configurations (configurations that do not include any "prohibited" features, such as pistol grips, forward grips, flash hiders, or collapsible stocks). The state would potentially face millions of dollars in liability for takings of these firearms under the 5th Amendment, not to mention liabilities for deprivation of 2nd Amendment rights.
To close, I'll just encourage everyone reading this in California to contact their state legislators and express your opposition to SB 249. For more information, check out the Stop SB 249 fact sheet here. And for those who like firearms videos, here's a video showing the absurdity and arbitrariness of California's assault weapons laws.
Monday, July 23, 2012
Misinformation about Scary Looking Black Rifles
As a result of the tragedy in Aurora, CO, it seems that the public has once again directed its outrage at the AR-15. The morning after the shooting, "AR-15" was trending on Twitter, and one of the questions that kept getting posed was, "What legitimate reason is there for a civilian to own an AR-15?"
I'd like to answer that question with another question: what legitimate reason is there for a civilian to own this rifle:
If you answered target or competition shooting, hunting, home defense, for use as a ranch gun (i.e., a rifle that one keeps around a ranch to ward off critters such as coyotes), or really any other reason that you deem legitimate, then congratulations! You also just named a legitimate reason for a civilian to own this:
Why? The Ruger Mini-14, the wood-stocked rifle in the first picture, shoots exactly the same round as the AR-15 in the second picture and, like the AR-15, is semi-automatic (meaning that you need to pull the trigger each time you fire a round; not to be confused with fully automatic, where rounds are continuously fired as long as you hold down the trigger). There are, of course, mechanical and design differences in how the internals of the two rifles actually work, but ultimately, they both spit the same ammunition out of the business end in the same manner. The AR-15 is just blacker and, to some, scarier looking.
As expected, the media, politicians, and the internet are busy spouting off all sorts of misinformation about the AR-15. Among the things I've heard or read so far, with reasons why the assertions are bogus in parentheses:
I'd like to answer that question with another question: what legitimate reason is there for a civilian to own this rifle:
If you answered target or competition shooting, hunting, home defense, for use as a ranch gun (i.e., a rifle that one keeps around a ranch to ward off critters such as coyotes), or really any other reason that you deem legitimate, then congratulations! You also just named a legitimate reason for a civilian to own this:
Why? The Ruger Mini-14, the wood-stocked rifle in the first picture, shoots exactly the same round as the AR-15 in the second picture and, like the AR-15, is semi-automatic (meaning that you need to pull the trigger each time you fire a round; not to be confused with fully automatic, where rounds are continuously fired as long as you hold down the trigger). There are, of course, mechanical and design differences in how the internals of the two rifles actually work, but ultimately, they both spit the same ammunition out of the business end in the same manner. The AR-15 is just blacker and, to some, scarier looking.
As expected, the media, politicians, and the internet are busy spouting off all sorts of misinformation about the AR-15. Among the things I've heard or read so far, with reasons why the assertions are bogus in parentheses:
- The AR-15 is an "assault rifle" (it's not; although there is no hard and fast definition of an assault rifle, the concept generally requires a rifle capable of fully automatic fire. Also note that the "AR" in the name comes from the phrase "ArmaLite Rifle," which is what ArmaLite - the company that first built the rifle - uses to designate its products; it does not stand for "assault rifle." Alternately, an "assault rifle" is simply a rifle used to assault someone, in which case even a 200 year old muzzle loader can be an assault rifle)
- The AR-15 is an "assault weapon" (an "assault weapon" is a legal fiction that has no meaning outside of a specific law defining the term. In CA, some AR-15 variations are in fact "assault weapons" by law, but the distinction is arbitrarily based on the appearance of the rifle, not the way it functions as compared to other firearms)
- The AR-15 carries a more lethal payload than a hunting rifle (the AR-15 fires a .223 caliber round, whereas most big game hunting rifles utilize larger caliber and more deadly ammunition, such as the .243 Winchester, .270 Winchester, .308 Winchester, and 30-06 Springfield. In the below, for example, .223 Remington is #8, whereas .243 Winchester, .270 Winchester, .308 Winchester, and 30-06 Springfield are #10, 13, 14, and 15, respectively)
- The AR-15 fires farther and more accurately than a hunting rifle (accuracy over long distances is largely tied to the size of the round fired, because the extra weight of a larger round stabilizes the trajectory for a longer distance; because the AR-15 fires a smaller round than many hunting rifles, as noted above, it loses its accuracy more quickly over distance)
- The AR-15 is unsuitable for hunting (given the previous two misconceptions about lethality and accuracy, I'd have expected the AR-15 to be touted as the hunting rifle of all hunting rifles - after all, if you're hunting, wouldn't you want a rifle that is more lethal and more accurate over long distances? In truth, the AR-15 is unsuited for taking big game, because its ammunition does not reliably kill and bring down larger animals such as deer. The AR-15 and its .223 caliber round, however, are gaining popularity for hunting smaller game, such as wild pigs or, as mentioned above in the context of the Mini-14, "varmints" like coyotes)
- The AR-15 fires more rounds without reload (while it may be true that after-market large capacity magazines are more prevalent for AR pattern firearms, any firearm capable of accepting a magazine - including magazine-fed hunting rifles and magazine-fed handguns - can fire as many rounds without reload as the magazine permits; there is nothing special about the AR-15 in this regard)
- The AR-15 is not suited for home defense (on what basis is this assertion made? Someone please tell that to this young man: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-q2zHIovOE&feature=player_embedded#! )
- The AR-15 is a military weapon that should not be in civilian hands (Putting aside the minor nitpick that the military does not use the AR-15, because all of its rifles are selective fire and the AR is semi-automatic only, I'm sure this is also what King George III and his generals felt about the flintlock muskets owned by civilians at the time of the American Revolution; like the AR pattern rifles today, flintlock muskets were the standard infantry weapon issued to military servicemen at the time)
- Anyone buying an AR-15 intends to use it on people (the AR-15 is one of the most commonly owned firearms in the country; I highly doubt that all of those folks, or even anything larger than an infinitesimally small fraction of them, have diabolical intentions of turning them on their fellow human beings.)
At this point, you're probably wondering, if the AR-15 is nothing special, then why is it one of the most commonly owned firearm platforms in the country? The AR-15 does have advantages that make it a hot seller, but by and large, those advantages have nothing to do with whether or not it's more useful to an aspiring mass murderer. For example:
- The platform is highly modular, allowing individual owners to customize and adjust their AR-15s to suit their particular needs. Need a better barrel for competition shooting? Swap out the barrel for an aftermarket part, or swap out the entire upper receiver assembly (which includes the barrel). Need a shorter stock for a shooter with shorter arms? Swap out the stock for a smaller one, or if you've got an AR-15 with an adjustable stock, adjust it.
- After-market parts are abundant, largely because of the aforementioned modularity; it's easy for accessory-makers to design and manufacture replacement parts.
- Relative to many other rifle designs, the AR-15 is easy to disassemble and maintain. In fact, many AR-15 owners assemble their ARs from scratch using a stripped lower receiver and parts kits.
- A KISS (keep it simple, stupid) AR-15 build can be had on a relatively low budget.
So what is the answer to avoiding future tragedies like the one in Colorado? I don't know; if I did, I could probably convince the public to appoint me ruler for life of the country on the basis of my policy-making prowess. What's clear to me, though, is that attacking the weapon used is just knocking down a straw man.
Sunday, July 8, 2012
Monday, June 11, 2012
Don't Stop Believing
Of course, it all begins with the original. Classic, it's awesome, and people keep re-making it. 'Nuff said.
Next up chronologically is the Rock of Ages musical version, which I annoyingly cannot find a full version of on YouTube at the moment, so this will have to do. The backing instrumentals stay pretty true to guitar and piano of the original, though being a Broadway show, the cast of course takes liberties with their performances. Not a big fan of the unnecessary reminder that south Detroit is in "Michigan!" Overall, though, it seems like the main goal was to stick close to the original but convert it into an ensemble performance. Also, the album version of the recording includes this awesome instrumental cover as an "after-credits" type bonus:
Then Glee came along, and all hell broke loose. Some fans of the original (myself included) loved the Glee remake. I thought the way they arranged the song for show choir was clever, and while it shared some similarities with the Rock of Ages arrangement, overall it was a completely separate and different piece from both the Rock of Ages version and the original Journey version. From what I've been able to gather, that's also what a lot of people hated about it. Peruse some of the YouTube comments on either the Glee track or the Journey original and you'll see people bemoaning that Glee took what was originally a rock anthem and turned it into something else, notwithstanding the fact that the instrumental backing still features a healthy dose of electric guitar. The Glee version also dramatically changed the key of the song, probably to make it a bit more manageable for Cory Monteith, but is that really a huge crime? I think some people just feel that Journey shouldn't be touched, period, which I find to be mildly ridiculous.
The Glee version also spawned a pretty cool cover by Sam Tsui. Musically not super different from the Glee version, though of course it has Sam's own imprint on it.
After owning the pop charts and introducing a whole generation of tweens to Journey, Glee took a second bite at the apple with a refreshed version of Don't Stop Believing (one of three tracks in an epic Journey medley) in its Season One finale episode, appropriately titled "Journey." This version is clearly a close sibling of the version that aired in the Season One premiere, but the cast had expanded over the course of the season so the arrangement features even more backing vocals, as well as a few new solos. It also sounds like they added more strings to the instrumental, which I'm sure enraged the Journey die-hards even more because it shifts even further from the song's rock origins. Personally, I think this is one of the best arrangements to come out of Glee over its three seasons and counting. From Season Two onward the show seemed to drift away from creative show choir arrangements, and a lot of the later songs have much more of a "karaoke" feel, which I find unfortunate.
And that brings me to the version that spawned this post in the first place, the new Rock of Ages movie soundtrack version. My impression so far is that it seems like a total mish-mash of the Glee versions, the Rock of Ages Broadway version, and the original Journey version... and somehow, it works. It opens with a Glee-Regionals-esque string and piano rendition of the now well-known intro. The electric guitar fades in after awhile and becomes more prominent throughout the rest of the track, which sounds much more rock by the end. The vocals have more of a rock feel than the Glee versions, although they still seem much more pop in comparison to Steve Perry. Interestingly, there are already comments on YouTube for this version opining that this version is superior to the Glee version -- tacitly admitting that the Glee version is the standard to beat, which I don't think is what the Glee haters had in mind at all.
While I think my favorite remake is still the Glee Regionals version, this is definitely a close second. If it had included the badass instrumental riff that was at the end of the Broadway version, it might have even topped Glee in my book.
I couldn't figure out a good way to close out this post, so I'll just tack in this clip, which is awesome because it combines one of my favorite TV shows, Scrubs, with Journey.
Monday, June 4, 2012
http://www.androidcentral.com/asus-transformer-aio-gets-official-dual-booting-dual-function-windows-8-and-ics-device
Holy overkill, Batman! Runs Windows 8, and the 18.4" screen undocks to become a way-too-big Android 4.0 tablet? That's a little too much. What does one do with an 18.4" tablet that's not exactly portable? Still, props to Asus for trying crazy stuff.
Tangentially, just saw on Engadget that the stylus input for the Asus Taichi is provided by N-Trig, which is unfortunate. More tablet makers need to partner with Wacom; N-Trig DuoSense isn't terrible, but Wacom input just seems to be better.
And speaking of Wacom stylus input... Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1!
Holy overkill, Batman! Runs Windows 8, and the 18.4" screen undocks to become a way-too-big Android 4.0 tablet? That's a little too much. What does one do with an 18.4" tablet that's not exactly portable? Still, props to Asus for trying crazy stuff.
Tangentially, just saw on Engadget that the stylus input for the Asus Taichi is provided by N-Trig, which is unfortunate. More tablet makers need to partner with Wacom; N-Trig DuoSense isn't terrible, but Wacom input just seems to be better.
And speaking of Wacom stylus input... Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1!
Samsung Galaxy S III for Verizon?
http://www.engadget.com/2012/06/04/samsung-galaxy-s-iii-us-carrier-launch-att-verizon-sprint-t-mobile-uscc/
On one hand, I'm glad Verizon didn't get passed up for the latest iteration of the Galaxy S like it did last time (no, the Galaxy Nexus doesn't count). On the other hand, I just bought a Galaxy Nexus 6 months ago! Why do Android phone makers insist on a product life cycle that is shorter than the attention span of a gerbil? It almost makes me want to switch to an iPhone. Almost.
On one hand, I'm glad Verizon didn't get passed up for the latest iteration of the Galaxy S like it did last time (no, the Galaxy Nexus doesn't count). On the other hand, I just bought a Galaxy Nexus 6 months ago! Why do Android phone makers insist on a product life cycle that is shorter than the attention span of a gerbil? It almost makes me want to switch to an iPhone. Almost.
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
The 10 Most Awesome Pools in the World?
http://gizmodo.com/5914228/the-10-most-awesome-pools-in-the-world
The second on the list (above) looks pretty awesome, although the height might terrify me. Same with #5. Would like to try #6 and #9 sometime for sure.
The second on the list (above) looks pretty awesome, although the height might terrify me. Same with #5. Would like to try #6 and #9 sometime for sure.
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
Friday, May 25, 2012
HAND Stylus
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/hand/hand-stylus?ref=live
I'd been looking at getting a capacitive stylus and was close to pulling the trigger on the Wacom Bamboo Stylus since it had the smallest diameter tip I could find on the market (6mm), but then today I stumbled on this stylus on Kickstarter. The tip is 4mm - thinner than any other passive (i.e., not Wacom or Ntrig) stylus I've seen - and it's retractable to prevent wear. Seriously considering funding this instead of buying something currently available.
I'd been looking at getting a capacitive stylus and was close to pulling the trigger on the Wacom Bamboo Stylus since it had the smallest diameter tip I could find on the market (6mm), but then today I stumbled on this stylus on Kickstarter. The tip is 4mm - thinner than any other passive (i.e., not Wacom or Ntrig) stylus I've seen - and it's retractable to prevent wear. Seriously considering funding this instead of buying something currently available.
Kung Fu Superstar
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOHQhpaLAnA
It was bound to happen sometime... and the trailer features wing chun movements! Granted, some of them are completely bizarre from a WingTsun perspective, but it's just cool to see WC/WT in a video game.
Cookoo!
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/cuckoo/cookootm-the-watch-for-the-connected-generation
This one looks more aesthetically pleasing than the Pebble watch, but probably less functional, which is too bad. If only they could somehow mash them together. 42 more days to raise another $70k or so.
This one looks more aesthetically pleasing than the Pebble watch, but probably less functional, which is too bad. If only they could somehow mash them together. 42 more days to raise another $70k or so.
Picking a career by picking colors
http://www.careerpath.com/career-tests/color-test/
I think this career test is confused, because it told me I'm a "Creator" and that I should be an Advertising Executive, Architect, Web Designer, Creative Director, Public Relations, Fine or Commercial Artist, Interior Decorator, Lawyer, Librarian, Musician, Reporter, Art Teacher, Broadcaster, Technical Writer, English Teacher, Photographer, Medical Illustrator, Landscape Architect, Exhibit Builder, or Package Designer. I can't see myself being any of those other than lawyer (current occupation), and maybe a librarian. I doubt that those who know me would consider me a creator.
Then again, maybe the fact that it correctly identified my current occupation makes it pretty accurate. But how exactly does a lawyer count as a "creator"? It doesn't seem to bear any connection or resemblance to the other jobs in the list. I don't feel like I really "create" anything as a lawyer.
I think this career test is confused, because it told me I'm a "Creator" and that I should be an Advertising Executive, Architect, Web Designer, Creative Director, Public Relations, Fine or Commercial Artist, Interior Decorator, Lawyer, Librarian, Musician, Reporter, Art Teacher, Broadcaster, Technical Writer, English Teacher, Photographer, Medical Illustrator, Landscape Architect, Exhibit Builder, or Package Designer. I can't see myself being any of those other than lawyer (current occupation), and maybe a librarian. I doubt that those who know me would consider me a creator.
Then again, maybe the fact that it correctly identified my current occupation makes it pretty accurate. But how exactly does a lawyer count as a "creator"? It doesn't seem to bear any connection or resemblance to the other jobs in the list. I don't feel like I really "create" anything as a lawyer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)