Small steps...
Mar. 3rd, 2008 09:03 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
alexpgpI was in executor mode today; paid a bunch of bills, went to visit the lawyer. Some ideas I had got shot down; others appear to be workable.
A major breakthrough occurred in cracking the riddle of my father's ancestry: the certificate of marriage registration he filed with my mother gave names to his parents and confirmed his birth place, so that's a start.
The phone was quiet today. I spent a little time trying to get registered on the Free Chess Server, which wasn't easy as they apparently have had a lot of trouble with people registering multiple accounts via, for example, Hotmail and then manipulating results for their own nefarious purposes. (To be frank, I can't figure out what those might be on a free server playing a game that doesn't involve monetary stakes... are bragging rights so valuable in cyberspace?)
In any event, they don't allow registrations with webmail-based addresses (which knocks me pretty much out), so I went online to get the help of an administrator, the finding of which - or at least of which could help me - took some time, but once I found one available, things went smoothly. Now, all I have to do is find the time to play. <grin>
* * * I heard an interesting line on one of the evening entertainment shows, which seem to now also the showbiz glitz of Hillary vs. Obama. It may not be word for word, but I'm pretty sure one of the talking heads tonight said "Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are fighting it out to see who will be the next President of the United States."
Not "who will run for office," but "be the next President." As I said, it's an interesting take.
Apropos of which, the show highlighted how a bunch of Hollywood celebrities are stumping for "the candidates." Jessica Alba, among others, is for Obama. Jack Nicholson's for Hillary. I'm pretty sure the answer is "no," but I wonder if endorsements like this have any monetary value as viewed in a "campaign finance reform" light, or are celebrity endorsements the new "soft money"?
Cheers...
A major breakthrough occurred in cracking the riddle of my father's ancestry: the certificate of marriage registration he filed with my mother gave names to his parents and confirmed his birth place, so that's a start.
The phone was quiet today. I spent a little time trying to get registered on the Free Chess Server, which wasn't easy as they apparently have had a lot of trouble with people registering multiple accounts via, for example, Hotmail and then manipulating results for their own nefarious purposes. (To be frank, I can't figure out what those might be on a free server playing a game that doesn't involve monetary stakes... are bragging rights so valuable in cyberspace?)
In any event, they don't allow registrations with webmail-based addresses (which knocks me pretty much out), so I went online to get the help of an administrator, the finding of which - or at least of which could help me - took some time, but once I found one available, things went smoothly. Now, all I have to do is find the time to play. <grin>
Not "who will run for office," but "be the next President." As I said, it's an interesting take.
Apropos of which, the show highlighted how a bunch of Hollywood celebrities are stumping for "the candidates." Jessica Alba, among others, is for Obama. Jack Nicholson's for Hillary. I'm pretty sure the answer is "no," but I wonder if endorsements like this have any monetary value as viewed in a "campaign finance reform" light, or are celebrity endorsements the new "soft money"?
Cheers...
