Cycling in the rain

I googled for "windscreen wipers for glasses" and found a lot of people saying they should exist, and maybe even a patent, but no products apart from a novelty item that doesn't look to take prescription lenses.

Is there any better answer for cycling in the rain other than "keep stopping to wipe the rain off"?

Is there a visor?

Would swimming goggles be better?

I'm actually outside cycling in the rain surprisingly rarely, but it would be nice if it was more convenient when I was.

In your face advertising

Ow! Help me, I think.. zurker got me, in my irony. It hurts.

Dear Zurker,

You sent me an email asking "Do I hate in your face advertising?" Do I hate in your face advertising? YES, I HATE IN YOUR FACE ADVERTISING, STOP SENDING ME EMAILS.

Love,

Jack

Mark 4:2-20 Parable of the Sower

Listen! A farmer went out to sow his seed. ... Others, like seed sown on good soil, hear the word, accept it, and produce a crop—some thirty, some sixty, some a hundred times what was sown.”

Narrative device

This is another parable from the J K Rowling school of "try to persuade the listener it's obvious by acting all surprised that they don't know it".

Step one. Everyone agrees Jesus told a parable about a farmer sowing seed, and most of it didn't grow, but the ones that germinated paid for the rest.

Step two. For some reason, Jesus takes the disciples aside later and says "Don’t you understand this parable? How then will you understand any parable?"

Then he explains what it means. Is this so he could talk openly without being arrested? Is it because the "meaning" of the parable was intended to be passed only orally, so the teacher can check the student's understanding or leave it open to multiple interpretations? Or the "official" meaning was only added to the story later?

The puns

After a lot of planting corn, Jesus says “Whoever has ears to hear, let them hear.” That would be a great pun, but presumably "ear" and "ear" are different words in greek? :)

Theology

The theology is actually strange to read about having grown up in a broadly fluffy-christian culture. People who are have a vaguely Christian background but not super-observant often have the impression that "it will all turn out ok". Which I mostly like. And people definitely play up the idea that however much it might be difficult to get saved, God will do Her/His best to make it happen somehow.

But this is one of the passages strongly suggesting most people won't be saved, because of their own choices or bad luck. That you have to try as hard as you can just to have a good chance of being saved, and don't have any leeway to take chances with "maybe I can do this and get away with it".

Which in many ways is a much more powerful message, especially for the leader of a new sect struggling to grow rapidly in the face of persecution from the orthodox majority. "Don't quibble, come follow me now." Even if it's a potentially strange creed for a dominant religion.

I do like that flavour -- try as hard as you can is a compelling message. But even if I like the message for me, I don't like the suggestion that of most people, most will fail, I prefer a more optimistic one.

Bogus anti-lots-of-stuff internet censorship

The UK government have apparently recently wheeled out another "hey, lets ban [very very bad already illegal thing] and [perfectly normal but mildly taboo thing] and [lots of other things that happen to sound vaguely similar] from the internet" initiative.

It's almost a convenient microcosm of politics, because it's so obviously pointless. Whenever someone responds to sensible questions (eg. "wouldn't an optional opt-in system for parents work just as well") with stone-walling, they must be hiding their real reasons for supporting it.

What I wonder is, what's the best way to respond to things like that?

0. Demand that the proposal distinguishes between very very bad things, and accidental exposure to somewhat bad things, and mildly taboo good things. ("But surely you're not in favour of X?")

1. Explain why it's an ineffective idea. ("But we have to do _something_!")

2. Explain why this government, or the next government, is obviously going massively exploit the loophole they've created, even though they promise they won't. ("But that won't happen. Honest!")

3. Ask what people arguing in good faith actually want, and see if there's any simpler way of giving it to them.

4. Ask what people arguing in bad faith are trying to hide. (Seriously, a bogus pornography controversy and a royal baby on the same day, what's trying to slip under the radar?)