Hello 
I'm Siobhan Curran/Kisa Naumova, and this is my weblog. I tend to write about stuff like crossdressing, Macs, code, cats, wine and Second Life, but in general it's just an ongoing conversation about all sorts of stuff. If you'd like to know a little bit more about what this all is, I recommend starting on this page which has a little bit of info on who I am, and what I'm trying to do — or you could dive into my five years worth of archives if you like.
Otherwise, feel free to close this box and explore...
A Plan
I have, of late, been getting far too stressed out by the whole enormity of the concept of moving. Seeing it all as 'one task' has been doing my nut in, and setting myself the challenge of getting everything done at once has not been good for my headspace.
So, I reckon, I'm just going to hibernate for a couple of weeks until the Easter vacation — perhaps taking that time to 'prepare' for decorating, rather than attacking walls with Polyfilla willy-nilly.
Then, with my obligatory three-weeks 'off' (so to speak), I can really get cracking on it.
/me goes to hang clothes up where they belong...
I think the stench from under the floorboards would give it away...
Mote Frills
A quick side-step into Second Life fashion...
I'm an enormous fan of June Dion's work. There are shedloads of really nice outfits and stuff at BareRose — all really really cheap 
I'm currently loving this shirt, although I'm tending to wander around in the black version of it.
I know — who'd have thought eh? Me. Wearing something frilly...
Neko!
Ameshin rocks — these are the most perfect ears I've ever found.
"Hello, I'm neko Kisa. Rarrgghh!"
</Dead Ringers>
/me doesn't get that 
Twintegration
Oooh. That was bad
I mentioned the other day, that I was trying to find some way of pulling the little side-thoughts and side-conversations of mine that end up on Twitter into this blog somehow, and that I'd figured it out, but would probably never get around to writing the code.
Well, in a complete Change Of Idiom™, I managed to do it — and now this blog comes complete with Added Tweety Goodness™.
Loving the outfits. I am a big fan of Bare Rose. And it's nice to see you in something frilly for a change
As opposed to my more 'blokey' outfits?
OMGZOMG
photo secondlife audreyhepburn
It's like all my dreams come true at once 
SLurl
LOL You know what I mean! I don't usually dress up in frills either but it's nice once in a while. And anyway, from what I've seen, all your personas look good, no matter what they wear 
tail -f twitter
You're going to hate this one. It's got (sloppy) code, references to my "of little interest" three-way identity thing, and revolves around Twitter. I'd stop reading now to be honest.
I was logwatching earlier, and wishing I could extend my love of tail towards my two Twitter feeds. See, having hastily signed up two accounts, I find it very difficult to keep a track of the two conversastions that go on on them.
"Wouldn't it be great", I thought, "if I could 'mash' them together into one stream, and (even better) read it in the Terminal?"
So, I wrote this...
<?php
$twitter_url = array(
"Siobhan" =>
"http://twitter.com/statuses/friends_timeline/13257.rss",
"Kisa" =>
"http://twitter.com/statuses/friends_timeline/713663.rss") ;
$cache = "/path/to/cache/" ;
$filename = "/path/to/twitter_log" ;
foreach ($twitter_url as $who => $url) {
$simple = file_get_contents($url);
$p = xml_parser_create();
xml_parse_into_struct($p, $simple, $vals, $index);
xml_parser_free($p);
$tweets = array_reverse($index['DESCRIPTION']) ;
foreach($tweets as $id) {
$tweet = $vals[$id]['value'] ;
$time = $vals[$id+2]['value'] ;
$hash = $cache.md5($tweet).md5($time) ;
if(!file_exists($hash)) {
$insert = $tweet."n" ;
$handle = fopen($filename, 'a') ;
fwrite($handle, $insert) ;
fclose($handle);
touch($hash) ;
}
}
}
?>
...and call it with a cron job every two minutes, so I can have a Terminal window with tail -fn50 /path/to/twitter_log running.
I know (a) I should write it as a command-line PHP script rather than curling it as a web page (but I'm bloody lazy), and (b) it's incredibly sad and I should probably get a life or something.
It's just that I love this kind of thing — having a "wouldn't it be great..." thought, then spending a few minutes knocking out some code to do just that — tying little apps together to achieve some form of 'goal'.
(How very Unix of me )
I dunno, I wonder sometimes if people who've grown up without having to type programs into command-lines from pages of a magazine are really missing out on what computers are 'all about'. Or maybe that's unfair of me, and it's all just about different levels of experience and expectations.
Tell you what though Remember that film Electric Dreams? I mean, apart from the obvious "computer going insane and stealing your girlfriend" bit, I've always thought it would be great to get a whole load of X10 components and wire up the house so that Erin could control the coffee maker and stuff.
And if you set up a special twitter account, you could parse stuff sent to it from your mobile phone, and control your house while you were away
"Siobhan: wants Erin to turn off the heating"
"Siobhan: is nearly home and wants Erin to start the coffee machine"
"Siobhan: wants Erin to open the pod bay doors"
"Siobhan: open the pod bay doors Erin..."
Demon. Seed. Do you want to wake up one morning, the floor suddenly electrified and in the centre of your bedroom a spinning steel prism ready to shoot into your innards ready to give birth to a cybernic race of killing machines?
a cybernic race of killing machines?
Are they pretty killing machines in big dresses?
ah beat me too it — yeah Demon Seed. Intense dramatic unholy. Fabulous film. The computer not only steals your girlfriend but makes babies with her. Brilliant nonsense. All very psychedelic.
I saw some of that film on telly when I was a pre teen — it scared me shitless — hated it.
I remember (because I'm young) Weird Science, and that my dears, was what made me think computers were tres cool. Plus my amstrad that I got at 3, that Dad wrote me a program for. The more I typed, the quicker the panda chased the ball, genius!
Forgive my patchy memory (clouded as it is by a stream of drool at the thought of Kelly LeBrock), but I don't actually recall there being much in the way of computer action in Werid Science — apart from that bit where they made the second doll's boobies huge.
(Which yes, of course I've done that in Second Life 
)
What more do you need to remember?
Another formative tranny moment... the bit in Weird Science where one of the kids came down to breakfast wearing Kelly LeBrock's outfit.
See, I remember two things...
The enormous boobies.
The phrase "float an air biscuit"
Sorry — three things: I also remember my mother deciding it was "unsuitable" based on the cover having the words "It's purely sexual" on it
If we are playing who was the youngest when they saw their first computer I'm entering 6 months old, when my Dad took me into work as my mum was poorly. I'm also going to disqualify anyone who was born after 1985.
I remember punched cards and ticker tape
Ack, that game's boring — I always win. My first words were "Hello World!"
(Or at least they would have been — I opened my mouth and out came "Syntax error on line 10")
Well My Dad...
Yes?
It was either that or "It's my football!"
Yea, but did you say "Hello world" like wot I did: in octal?
I spent the bulk of my first watching of Weird Science wondering why two teenage boys owned bras that they could comfortably use as ceremonial hats. I don't recall if they had sisters, I just recall Bra-hats.
Yea, but did you say "Hello world" like wot I did: in octal?
No, but if you played back recordings of my crying when I was a few hours old to a Sinclair Spectrum, apparently you could play a rudimentary version of Jet Set Willy (without any audio)
And reel-to-reel tapes of my farts were sold in the back of magazines as quick cheats to get auto-docking on Elite
I just recall Bra-hats.
Great. Cheers Dan. I'm going to dream about bra-hats now
crying / farting
/me waves white flag.
I was too busy laughing at the exploding burglar alarm than to worry about why two geek kids had bras at all, much less why they'd be wearing them on their heads.
Wargames was where it was at for me. Lightman had a proper computer there, all clunky switches and LEDs and enormous disk drives.
I win because I am, I'm pretty sure, at least 10 years older than anybody else who has commented! I first used a computer to write nasty little programmes around 1975/76 — the days of time-sharing pre-PC.
To go back to the original point — about entering programmes at the command-line — I agree. In fact, I'd go further — if you've never messed about with things at the bit level you can't really understand what a computer is. On the other hand, you don't need to know that in order to use a computer effectively.
you don't Stephanie I saw my first computer in 1970
Damn given away how old I am.
My first word was "television" way back in '68.
Stephanie beats me by a few years when it comes to programming: I'd never seen a computer until '79. By '82 I was playing with Z80 code, then 6502 and 6809.
I can remember having to build circuits to make things like parallel adders and stuff, and starting to get a glimpse of how simple CPU's work... then I lost interest and gave it all up.
Demon Seed — I loved that film.
You know, I'm starting to notice a correlation between "being a man who likes to wear ladies' things" and "being someone with some form of connection to IT".
Hmm. I wonder if there's some sort of theory to be derived from that...
Ahem cough
Ooh, Jane, I still say using a computer in 75-ish trumps merely seeing one in 70
That flag I waved, it was just a bluff:
While still in the womb, I used to kick "Hello World" in binary.
Bah, all this "hello world" stuff — some of us were born long before K&R. When I was a baby we all lisped (there's a clue there to the year of my birth!)
Oh god, what am I doing? Revealing my decrepitude...
You guys are still debating this? Personally, I'm miles away, watching Pia make a tit out of herself
Yea' methinks I smell griefer 
In the belief that dissent and objections are absolute freedoms, I don't think that calling someone a fool for simply voicing an opinion is warranted.
Pia's opinion is as valid as yours, Siobhan. You, of all people, should recognize that. Why would say such a thing, anyway?
Carolyn Ann
I don't think that callin g someone a fool for simply voicing an opinion is warranted.
Granted, but there are different ways of voicing an opinion, some simple, others foolish. Allowing a perfectly reasonable challenge to the appropriateness of one form of expression to degenerate into a snidey rant, whilst pausing briefly to take a side-swipe at a bystander — in my opinion — qualifies as "making a tit out of yourself".
Why would say such a thing, anyway?
Because I feel that sometimes things need drawing attention to. And sometimes they need drawing attention to in a way that show just how I feel about them.
Sorry, Carolyn Ann, but you have made the classic error in confusing the political right of anyone to express an opinion with the illogical claim that everyone's opinion is a valid one.
Siobhan would have been quite wrong — in a political and ethical sense — had she called someone a fool for, as you put it, "simply viocing an opinion." But surely, she didn't do that. She implied that Pia's opinion was an idiotic one. And that's perfectly acceptable. All opinions are not equal. Some are true, some are false. Some are good, some are bad. Some are warranted by the facts, some are not.
Denying people the right to criticise opinions is just as wrong as denying someone the right express themselves.
And I think most of us would agree that Pia has made a tit of herself. One because she so clearly hasn't understood the cartoon she is complaining about. And two, because her indignation has caused her to make assumptions about Becky's intentions and character which don't ring true.
Once again, you've nailed it Steph.
No, I haven't, Stephanie. It's not illogical to assume that all opinions have validity. Who decides what's a valid opinion? You? Me? (I hope it's not me). Someone else? No one?
The ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) is an organization that provides, for me, the standard to which we need to hold free expression. Say what you want, in the manner you want. But never attempt to quiet those you disagree with.
By asserting that some ideas are more valid than others, we start to get into the hypocrisy that others eagerly engage in. Is the idea of a guy wearing a dress a valid idea? Some would argue it isn't. And if we're in the business of asking for tolerance (and maybe even acceptance) in a society, we should not be refusing others the chance to disagree. In providing insult and condescension to those who disagree we effectively quiet them, and prejudge their character and ideas.
I'm not sure this is the venue for a lengthy discussion about freedom of expression. I've written about it at length, and will continue to do so. For me, the fact that I write will guarantee that I offend some, and I'm not particularly concerned. I doubt I could be less concerned, actually. Which is (in a nutshell) what I said in response to Becky's question.
Carolyn Ann
PS I'm not addressing the issue of "ownership" in a blog; I'm still thinking that one through. I'll probably write my opinion on it later today.
Carolyn Ann
Well, it is absolutely impossible to have any kind of discussion with someone who genuinely believes all opinions are of equal worth!
For a start, your opinion that all opinions are of equal worth is only your opinion and therefore by your own standards can claim no more validity than the opinion of someone who asserts the contrary!!
Your argument is utterly illogical and therefore not valid. Look up the word "valid" in a dictionary before you make yourself look even sillier.
Some arguments are more valid than others because they are well-formed logically, because they are backed up by evidence or because they refer to a true state of affairs. Please tell me, how is it even possible to think without accepting this?
As I've said, I adhere to the idea promoted by the ACLU. They don't condemn ideas, even if they do work to ensure that equal time is given to all ideas, no matter how illogical or reprehensible. Don't forget: they were the ones that provided the defense for the Fascists to march in Skokie, Illinois.
I'm not disagreeing that some arguments have more going for them. But the idea that some ideas are invalid because they contain no factual backing does a disservice to the billions of religious believers. While I'm an atheist, I would never want to prevent anyone from believing in a deity, or any number of deities.
Are we to only accept those arguments that we agree with? Or the ones that reinforce our own notions of the world? Even if we think that someone has an invalid argument it doesn't negate the fact that they think it valid. Unless, of course, you're willing to shut them up in case they upset someone?
What Pia stated was a concern. Pia's argument might not seem to have any validity to you, but to Pia it did. I'm not (at this point) concerned about the venue of the dissent, merely that the dissenter shouldn't be shushed. (On the ownership issue, it's Becky's blog, and Becky is at liberty to reject or delete any comments whatsoever. Whether she chooses to do so or not is irrelevant.) So, yes: any idea can be argued to be valid. I can argue that the Moon is made of green cheese; it's not a question of whether you agree, but whether I have the right to make that assertion, and to believe it. I don't care what others think: I want my right to believe the Moon is made of green cheese to be inviolate.
And Pia has a right to voice an opinion. Becky has a right to object to that opinion being voiced in a forum owned by Becky, and you and I have a right to disagree with each other. Considering that I hold the opinion that freedom of expression is a right that is inviolable, and you consider that caveats and conditions need to be applied, I doubt that we'll agree. Which also brings me back to the point that I'm not sure this is a suitable, or appropriate, venue to be arguing about the 1st Amendment. (Which, I'll point out, Britain doesn't have. Britain doesn't have a Constitution describing the rights of its citizens. It has a loose confection of laws and customs that sort-of describe the rights, but nothing concrete.) So if I want to look silly, it's my prerogative to do so. I don't think I am: I simply refuse to apply any conditions and caveats that might abridge someones right to object to anything. Including cartoons or the the fact that the Moon is made of green cheese.
On a separate note, whenever someone publishes something, someone, somewhere, will object. After a bit you realize that no matter how many objections you get, if you don't write what you want you might as well pack it in and go home. I write what I want, I hold the principles I hold with enthusiasm, and I don't really give a toss what anyone thinks of me. (I might say I do, but I really don't. I can't be bothered to be that concerned.) If you're going to insist that I only write about valid ideas, I might as well go join a church. (And make the congregation's life, er, hellish...) Because what you're suggesting is exactly the same as the people who insist on religious ideas only. Or, like General Pace's unfortunate comments, insist that only "straight" (and non-adulterous) people have any say in what constitutes a "valid" statement.
Ergo, all ideas are valid. That doesn't mean they have to be accepted, or even respected. Just that they they are valid in the mind of someone. And I'd rather that than the rejection of the idea that I can't wear nail polish simply because I'm a man. Because imposing a validity test upon an idea is tantamount to censorship. And I can't abide censorship.
Carolyn Ann
PS Is there any other place to discuss this? I assume you want to continue the discussion? I'm not sure Siobhan's blog is the place? /CA
I think it's an increasingly pointless and circular argument. Valid, by the dictionary definition, states that for an argument to be valid it has to be clear, logical and convincing. By changing your definition of what valid means, you're making it impossible to argue against, and you're also defeating your own argument. If everything said is equally "valid", then what Siobhan said that initially got you on this high horse is totally "valid" and therefore warranted, and you had no right to say she was wrong to say it.
...except that you DO because everything YOU think is valid, according to your definition of valid... and we end up in a situation where the whole argument becomes pointless.
So it should be stopped. No-one's interested.
I can't help but agree.
Ok, let's say you became completelyinnocuous.org; I assume you'd retain all your archives? Wouldn't you be swapping the "Nobody knows I'm a lesbian" t-shirt for the one that reads "I'm smiling because they haven't found the bodies yet"?