A quick thought on axioms - I think the best way to think about them while using them is "to the extent that this makes sense, formal logic predicts (everything that follows from set of axioms that includes this)". Some people insist that axioms be true, and so they empirically go looking for these axioms and then set them on a throne (until deposed), pretending them to be a priori. Our experiences in the world are nothing but empirical -- there is no privileged path to a priori, so I don't understand how people come to believe in it or think it can be found. The phrasing above leads away from tendencies to think that way.
On Monday, I was reminded that when I am sufficiently tired, I should be especially careful on the computer - I did a number of separate stupid things. Oops.
Yesterday in the Hitchcock class, we saw "Shadow of a Doubt", which is an amazing film. I initially thought that some parts of it were misdone (some roles seemed overplayed initially), but those came to fit into the plot as it went on. Having the film professor around really helped the discussion afterwards, both in the ideas he brought up and in a totemic way -- I like talking about films and books at length, but I've found that most people don't like sufficiently geeky, abstract conversations so I tend to avoid them with most people I know here. Even among people I know who are capable of such things, many of them are math-y types who consider film analysis to be bs (as I once did when I was younger). The presence of the instructor helped people feel alright having the conversation. Part of this might be that talking about films is something that doesn't fit into most subcultures/cliques (aside: it's interesting how cliques transform between high school, university, and afterwards).
Today, on the Psychology free stuff desk, I was shocked to see a (shrink-wrapped) copy of L Ron Hubbard's "Self-Analysis". I'm not sure if it was meant as a joke for it to be there or not, but as I find it useful to know about such things, I grabbed it. It unfortunately will have to go in my pile of books too embarassing to read outside the house - such are my values that I'd rather be reading something about S/M or the Unabomber's Manifesto (an interesting anarcho-primitivist work) than a Dianetics work or a bible. This is largely because I wouldn't be ashamed to be into the first and the second, like reading Mein Kampf, is considered "out there" enough that people wouldn't reasonably assume someone reading about it is into it. But then, I know someone who would probably agree with most of the Unabomber's Manifesto, albeit on a theoretical level...
It's amusing that with all the ugliness frantic Y2K computer patching brought the world, BushJr decided to extend DST (through an energy bill) to cover most of the year starting this year. He essentially made a mini-Y2k with the need for custom timezones for those parts of the U.S. that observe DST. China, which is wider than the continental United States, sensibly has one time zone without DST. It might be amusing if the United States went that route, with an "Austin Time" to China's "Beijing Time".