Well, I heard back from Nova yesterday about the interview.
No go.
Oh well. As I said, I didn’t feel confident after the interview. That in itself doesn’t mean much, as I have yet to feel confident about any interview I’ve had, but still it’s hard to be let down when you kinda expect it. That old line about how it’s better to be an pessimist because you won’t be disappointed by the bad.
As to how I feel about it, that is mixed. I’m kinda sad since it would have been awesome to go live and work in a foreign country. Visiting isn’t going to have the same effect of ‘broadening my horizons’ that living there would. I’m also a little relieved since I won’t be so far removed from my family for so long so abruptly. I do like my family muchly, and it would be a little lonely to be so far away from them. Even communication by phone and IM systems would be difficult due to time zone issues.
And, as a side note, it would be awesome to visit Izumo in October. Just the whole 神無月/神在月 thing. I would romanize Izumo as Idumo, except that it’s a ‘well known’ place name. Can’t just go romanizing those how ever I want. Toukyou. Tookyoo. Wuu!
Anyway, in addition to this, here’s proof of Japanese people being completely crazy.

Yup, that’s a real drink. And it’s popular too.
On to a few other things….
I saw a link to this video on the global warming situation on CAD. Watched it. I was then appalled by the fact that anyone could call this ‘tough to argue.’ It’s incredibly easy to point out one huge, and utterly glaring, problem.
Each box has either the best case scenario or the worst case scenario. Never does it have both. The man admits that he has simplified, but this is something too major to overlook. The problem lies in that he says that by placing your bets in the ‘yes’ column, you completely eliminate the ‘utter and complete global catastrophe’ possible result.
That’s not true. Working under the assumptions he lays down, if man-made global change is true and we take action we could still get that result.
It may be too late.
We may do the wrong thing.
We may not do anywhere near enough.
And, using his logic, the only proper response to any potential disaster is to take the most rigid and draconian measures.
A baby could drown in a bucket of water. Let’s outlaw all buckets of water. If we don’t, then we are allowing for the possibility of babies drowning, and we wouldn’t want that guilt on out shoulders.
It shouldn’t matter what side of the argument on global warming you are on, that man has a horrid argument.