Search for
10 results found

Thu, 04 Oct 2007 18:53:21 -0600

Back in Healdsburg, my habits when crossing the street were pretty straightforward: when the street light said Don't Walk, I would wait, and when it said Walk, I would walk. Besides showing proper respect for the law, this rule had the advantage of making me that much less likely to be run down by tourists, unfamiliar with town, half drunk from wine tasting, and in no condition to notice pedestrians.

Still, I understand that, like religious texts, traffic laws can only be properly understood in the light of a common tradition of interpretation. So, when I started my stay in New York, I watched the behavior of those around me, and soon learned the local standard: when crossing the street, first check that there's no traffic, and then cross, regardless of what the light says. I took to this method quite comfortably, especially as I realized that my old Healdsburg rule would have made walking in New York next to impossible.

In Boston, though, I've had a rather harder time figuring out just how people decide when to cross the street. I could tell they weren't following quite the same rule that New Yorkers did, but I couldn't tell quite what they were doing. Recently, though, I think I've cracked it. The rule for crossing the street in Boston is this:

First, check for oncoming cars. Then, if you will have time to walk out into the street before they arrive, forcing them to stop, cross.

see in context

Thu, 30 Dec 2004 21:44:22 -0600

Coming soon to an intarweb near you: NewYear’sEveChat! Just find Julia or me on AIM tomorrow night, and it’s on! I am Platonism Elbow on AIM, if, um, anyone that would even care doesn’t know that already.

see in context

Wed, 18 Aug 2004 18:42:28 -0600

Of the seven things I have identified as Coming Soon in the history of this bloglet, two actually came soon, one had actually been done a few hours earlier and I just forgot about it, and four never came at all. So yeah, I try to avoid promising to do anything on here.

see in context

Fri, 03 Oct 2003 22:05:11 -0600

Coming soon: blogging by IM on

see in context

Sun, 21 Jan 2001 18:44:08 -0600

So this is it. I'm moving to a real domain name. Coming soon:

see in context

Fri, 15 Sep 2000 00:41:54 -0600

Coming soon: a bit of a guestbook.

see in context

Thu, 14 Sep 2000 16:58:10 -0600

Coming soon: Project - the weblog where I get out of having to write long pieces on things by just describing the idea that I want to write something about.

see in context

Tue, 15 Aug 2000 23:46:56 -0600

Coming soon, possibly, a very special episode of bloglet--how my trip home from Texas was delayed a full six hours.

see in context

Tue, 08 Aug 2000 02:00:33 -0600

Okay, point 1: Since of the two parties, one is liberal and one conservative, each party can be assured the votes of the extremists in its own camp--the only alternative for the extremists would be to vote for someone even more opposed to their ideas. This means that it is virtually always good strategy for candidates to move closer to the opposition, to rope in as many undecided voters as possible (this is only an approximation, but let it pass). However (and I only saw this tonight), point 2: This isn't in itself so bad; parties must listen to their extremists, but be tempered by their moderates. (A more detailed analysis of why they must listen to the extremists later). The problem comes with the set of issues that aren't questioned on the standard political spectrum--that aren't extreme left or extreme right. There is no incentive to address these issues, because they do not effect either the party bases or the disputed middle ground. More analysis like this coming soon to items.

see in context

Tue, 01 Aug 2000 01:12:42 -0600

Coming soon: a program to convert numbers into words, the result of a programming challenge between Kerne and me. (or at any rate, he was writing one, and I challenged him to a race. It's all very exciting.)

see in context