cgranade::social

Commencing the Metashell Project

Mon, 04 Dec 2006 06:41:03 GMT

This entry was cross-posted to cgranade::streams.

Well, folks. It's time. The open-source Metashell project (hosted at Google Code, read the blog) is underway. Sure, it started as a class project, but it is time to try and make something wonderful out of it. I strongly encourage anyone who's interested to go and read about it, and to give it a try. There isn't a snapshot up yet, but the Linux users among you can download MonoDevelop and use it to compile a copy. It can't do too much yet, but it does have enough there to be interesting and to be fun to mess with.
That said, to say that Metashell is rough around the edges is a significant understatement, and it serves to drive the point home that I'm not good at everything. Thus, I do want help. I want someone to write a nice installer and to get it to compile under Windows, for starters. More than anything, though, I want this project to get attention. I think that, even if the project itself isn't that well written, that the ideas behind it are sound, and I hope that developers writing all kinds of software can glean some inspiration from it. If it sounds conceded to write that, it is. I'll admit that much. I can't justify why I feel conceded about it, but I hope that at least my conceit isn't too offensive to anyone, and that you give my work a fair chance.
In short, if you want, it's there to download and play with. The Metashell project has commenced. Spread the word.

It's over.

Mon, 27 Nov 2006 17:14:22 GMT

Well, I haven't used this social space in far too long, but what worse time than now? Chinook is dead, and I can't sit in silence about it. I miss her. She was put to sleep today while I sat here and surfed the web, not knowing what was going on some several thousand miles away.

A Rebranding of Self.

Wed, 16 Aug 2006 08:23:46 GMT

I have realized that no one service can provide me with what I want. None. Well, not yet anyway. Thus, I am returning to LiveJournal to explore the social side of blogging, while continuing to use Blogger to explore the publishing avenues offered. In addition, I am also adding a degree of spontaneity with my new mobile-phone published photo blog. To complete this transition, I have rebranded my little islands of content, and with them, my very identity.

Introducing:

cgranade::projects
I have ideas. Strange and sometimes wonderful ideas. Here, I maintain an informal scratch pad of some of these ideas.
cgranade::mobile
A nifty facial expression worn by a dear friend, or a bird doing something funny. Life presents spontaneous moments which deserve to be shared. Here, I explore the nature of a spontaneous lifestyle through low-resolution camera phone pictures.
cgranade::social
I am, like most humans, a being of social connections. Here, I explore personal relationships through banality, inside humor and personal news.
cgranade::streams
To quote Network, "I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not gonna take this anymore." Here, I explore pressing political issues of the day, as well as how technology interacts with these problems.

I can only hope that you all enjoy this rebranding as much as I do.

technorati tags:social, rebranding, me, cgranade, blogging

Another bad joke thread.

Wed, 09 Aug 2006 07:52:49 GMT

Following the horrible tradition set by this post, inspired by the antics of Caleb (not an LJ user), masstreble, thetakogun, and myself, we present this list of horrible, horrible jokes. Same crew, sans masstreble (he's in another city right now).

It's like there's a party in my mouth and everyone lit themselves on fire. (Cheyanne Pepper)

It's like there's a party in my mouth and someone shit on the floor. (Shit?)

It's like there's a party in my mouth and someone pulled my finger. (?)

It's like there's a party in my mouth and there was a murder, and now everyone's running around the mansion trying to solve it. (Bloody Mary)

It's like there's a party in my mouth and everyone was stoned. (Pot)

It's like there's a party in my mouth but no one showed up. (Plain Cream of Wheat)

It's like there's a party in my mouth and I'm fucking your mom. (?)

It's like there's a party in my mouth and I've got a box of Mardi Gras beads. (Breasts)

It's like there's a party in my mouth and breasts. (masstreble)

It's like there's a party in my mouth, and then I ate it. (Uh... huh. Suuure you did.)

It's like there's a party in my mouth, and ... lesbians? (Tuna -- this one is purely thetakogun's)

It's like there's a party in my mouth, then I swallowed it. (thetakogun's idea of a protein shake)

It's like there's a party in my mouth and everyone's just there for the snack bar. (?)

It's like there's a party in my mouth and the cops showed up and sent everyone home. (Short bit of flavor - wish I had more)

It's like there's a party in my mouth and then the bard did something stupid. (?)

It's like there's a party in my mouth and the fighter's drunk. (?)

It's like there's a party in my mouth and your mom's the cleric. (?)

It's like there's a party in my mouth and the creepy old guy is hitting on me. (Sour Milk)

It's like there's a party in my mouth and there's this cute wallflower... (?)

It's like there's a party in my mouth and then I had the clean the place up. (?)

It's like there's a party in my mouth and some guy camped out the stereo and is only playing AC/DC. (?)

It's like there's a party in my mouth but we're all outta booze. (Virgin $MIXED_DRINK)

It's like there's a party in my mouth and now there's videos of me all over the internet. (WTF?)

It's like there's a party in my mouth and I wasn't invited. (Rice Cakes - you hear it crunching, but there's nothing there)

It's like there's a party in my mouth except the aquariam is a bong. (Pot - again)

It's like there's a party in my mouth but who invited all these ravers? (Wintergreen Lifesavers)

It's like there's a party in my mouth and everyone is saying "I'm shuper, thanks for ashking!" (Buried Treasure)

It's like there's a party in my mouth and everyone there has parties in their mouths. (WTF? If we knew, we'd make lots of money...)

It's like there's a party in my mouth and no one's wearing pants. (Don't want to know.)

It's like there's a party in my mouth and everyone's just watching football. (Potato Chips)

It's like there's a Communist Party in my mouth! (Vodka)

It's like there's a party in my mouth and everyone's Mormon. (Coke)

It's like there's a party in my mouth and I had to buy the pizza. (Celery - took more than you got out of it)

It's like there's a party in my mouth, but my mom keeps brining in cookies. (?)

It's like there's a party in my mouth, but it was a dry one. (Saltines)

It's like there's a party in my mouth, and then I punched someone. (Potatoes)

It's like there's a party in my mouth, and someone brought really horrible beer. (Bad beer)

It's like there's a party in my mouth, but we blew out the speakers. (Thai food.)

It's like there's a party in my mouth, but I got disconnected. Damn lag. (NO CARRIER)

It's like there's a party in my mouth, but we're just power leveling. (Protein shake - no, not that kind)

It's like there's a party in my mouth, but I lost in the primaries. (Liberman)

It's like there's a party in my mouth, but my site got hacked... I mean shut off. And it took a few days to get to me. (A series of tubes.)

It's like there's a party in my mouth, but my dog's missing. (Korean food)

It's like there's a party in my mouth, and we're not electing Bush. (America.)

It's like there's a party in my mouth, but I was sent to buy batteries. (Another one I want no knowledge of.)

It's like there's a party in my mouth, but I've got one more in me. (This post.)

It's like there's a party in my mouth, but I don't give a rat's ass.

Moving to Blogger.

Mon, 06 Jun 2005 19:07:08 GMT

Tired of the lack of functionality with LiveJournal, so am moving to Blogger.
See me at my new home: std::cgranade on Blogger.

Leave it to Texas.

Mon, 06 Jun 2005 18:47:54 GMT

Given the opportunity, Texas will always surprise you. Not often in a nice sense, or the sort of sense which we would even remotely desire. Take this, for instance. Once again, we see two primary themes which I tend to harp upon in this journal:

The security fad which, in reality, does naught for us.
The idea of justice, by which one who has served his or her time may redeem themselves.

With regards to the first, as the article mentions, most sex crimes are perpetrated by an aquaintence or relative of the victim- not by a random stranger. No doubt, the latter does occur, but not with anywhere near the frequency required to justify this kind of arrangement. Furthermore, who is to say that these random strangers are already registered? What if this is their first infringement?
Also, consider the broadness of "sex offender." The term is not so straightforward as it may appear. Under some definitions, walking around one's own house in the nude is enough to be branded with this devastating label. Regardless of one's positions, it is obvious that this is certianally not in the same category of acts such as rape, pedophilia or the like. Rather, its morality is highly debatable. By my upbringing, there is no moral issue with such a thing, but I recognize that some people do not agree. (This explains why I don't walk around their houses in the nude!)
Consider as well, the proven "sex offender" (in quotes since we have not agreed on a definition- let's just pretend we have, and that this guy/gal did something really bad... the whole "dead girl or live boy" syndrome). S/he ostensibly served his/her time to society, as it were, and has been released. Rather than treat them as actual citizens, we treat them as second rate, regardless of any progress they have made. Is their act unforgivable? Probably. Does that mean we should forever seperate them? No... forgiving and advancing are different things. Even then, what about forgiving the unforgivable? For the Christians in the audiance, is this not a central tenent of the teachings of Jesus?
In light of these factors, I must admit with much chagrin that once again, Texas has blindsided me.

Quotes.

Sun, 05 Jun 2005 04:28:15 GMT

The serious quotes:

"They said 'no' and they said it's a national security issue. And I said what about my constitutional rights? And they said 'not at this point ... you don't have any'." - An exchange with the TSA.

"So this is how liberty dies- with thunderous applause." - Padmé Amidala, Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith.

"American jailers at the Guantanamo prison for foreign terrorism suspects splashed a Koran with urine..." - Reuters News.

"In fact, the people inside the towers were better informed and far more knowledgeable than emergency operators far from the scene." - A report on 9/11. (Via BoingBoing, "Listen to the authorities and die.")

"Information on a blog site is not viable or credible." - Jenny Nash, spokesperson for the Department of State.

"At the bottom, it read, 'Is this real? Or is it Memorex?'" - A description of a faked election results tape.

The not-so-serious quotes:

"Target opponent chooses a number. You may have that player lose that much life. If you don’t, that player sacrifices all but that many permanents." - Card text for a black card in MTG.

"If this sees print as is, I'm going to pound my forehead against a cement wall until I get a little scab." - Discussion of a Magic card (also black).

Technorati tags omitted for this entry.

What meaning, life?

Tue, 31 May 2005 19:47:46 GMT

Very rarely do I make explicit reference to my mundane meatspace life. Thus, I feel justified in breaking this trend occasionally, such as to note one of the more interesting responses to a question from my history professor today. He asked the class why we might want children, to try and illustrate a point about population growth. Many different responses were given, almost none of which answered the question directly, but rather neatly danced round it. One of the responses, however, did, and in a very disturbing manner.

"Because having kids is what life is all about."

Let me paraphrase, then, and extrapolate to the human race: "the human race exists so that the human race might exist." In other words, the human race under this model is a machine which exists for the sole purpose of sustaining and continuing its existance. What purpose our arts, our sciences, our toils? We have no purpose but to propagate, and these are but distractions. Under such a dangerous model as this, there is none of the beautiful selfishness that allows us to educate ourselves, to enrich ourselves, to express ourselves. Individuals are part of a faceless machine, which has one purpose: to exist. Ultimately, then, the question of the meaning of life is answered then.

I don't particularly like this model, so rather than be purely negative, let me elaborate on an alternate model. Rather than live so as to propagate life, live so as to fulfil your own desires, and so as to enable others to do so as well. Then, the rearing of children becomes about allowing the maximum number of people to reach fulfilment. Of course, this idea might lead to overpopulation (have lots of kids! maximize fulfilment!) if naively applied, so let me delve a small bit farther. If we accept that overpopulation is a threat, then the logical course of action in order to maximize opportunity is to maintain a sustainable world, thus allowing for a lower population level for a much longer period. Thus, more people will have been born, though less will exist at any one time.

With this alternate model is rescued the opportunity for one to define one's own purpose, or even to have a purpose. Selfishness has been restored, and in such a way as to allow human expression to once again be returned to us. What meaning, life? To give life meaning. In the process of giving life meaning, our arts and works are allowed to exist; our thoughts and feelings become signifigant.

Go now, and give live meaning.

This is the second article in the series, What Meaning.
Technorati tags: life philosophy
My Technorati Profile.

Neoconservatives, meet pseudolibertarians.

Mon, 30 May 2005 22:25:30 GMT

What defines a neoconservative? Largely a seperation from the conservative ideals of, oh, say, conserving tradition, and a focus on fundamentalist "resotration," or "morality." But we cannot expect that the conservative movement is the only movement to suffer such a betrayal, or such an incursion. Contrary to this expectation, however, I do not tend to observe the fundamentalist incursion into many other American political movements. That is, at least, until now. As of late, the likes of Lew Rockwell and Gary North, who seem to be in the habit of attempting to co-opt the libertarian movement for Christian Reconstruction ends. By Christian Reconstruction, I mean the building of a "Christian" nation a la Marget Atwood's Handmaid's Tale (no referral- I don't get money from that link). If this seems scary, well, it is. Especially when you consider the methods that Gary North applies towards his ends. It is surely no accident that the writings of Rockwell and North are both littered with traditionally libertarian quotes such as "taxpayer funded compulsory education," or traditionally libertarian stances such as "anti-state, pro-market." To call them libertarians, however, would be a travesty, as it would elevate them and their "causes" to the level of legitimacy, and as it would tarnish the idea of libertarianism. These sick individuals are not at all libertarians- they sell libertarianism to you in exchange for cooperation in the creation of a Christian state the Draconian likes of which have not been seen since the Dark Ages. Don't be fooled by their promises of liberty. Freedom is their enemy, as that would imply that there is something outside of the 613 Laws of Moses. At any rate, the discovery of this pseudolibertarian (call it plib for short) movement is worrysome in that it may reveal a deeper and broader trend of fundamentalist incursions into every walk of life. Under assult from fundamentalists, will liberalism, environmentalism or any other movement survive? I strongly desire that this be only the paranoid ranting of yet another ignorant blogger, but I cannot help but worry about the spread of fundamentalism. When both sides of a debate are fundamentalist, what meaning has debate, logic, or rational thought?

Technorati tags: politics neocons religion fundamentalism pseudolibertarians
My Technorati Profile.

Was I wrong?

Sun, 29 May 2005 19:06:27 GMT

Occassionally, I am just plain damn wrong. Way the hell, outta-left-field wrong. At such times, I must reevaluate myself and my positions. Well, such a time has come again. Maybe the Nine Inch Nails don't suck as much as I thought.

Technorati tags: politics music MTV Nine Inch Nails
My Technorati Profile.

A new manifesto.

Sat, 28 May 2005 17:56:28 GMT

WE hold these TRUTHS to be self-evident:

What meaning, honesty?

Tue, 17 May 2005 12:47:56 GMT

There exists a chasm in the right wing between classical conservatives and neoconservatives; this division is painfully obvious to even the most casual observer of politics, even if the labels are not universally known. At any rate, the latter group seems to be obsessed with morality above all else, and thus are not associated (on the face of it) with an end-justifies-the-means approach. In viewing actual actions, however, one reaches an alternate conclusion: most neocons are willing to do just about anything to get into power, or to stay in power once there. This is evidenced by such things as the Downing Street Memo, as well as the USCCR report on the 2000 election. Both of these offer verifiable evidence of neocons committing apparent falsehood, which runs counter to the stated ideals of honesty and integrity. Is this a contradiction? Well, we must ask what meaning is there to honesty in the face of a malleable truth. Witness the changing stories as to the rationale for invading Iraq- these rationales are not constant with respect to time. On the other hand, the war was always about bringing to democracy. It was never about WMDs. Obviously, the recorded truth itself is being changed a la 1984. Therefore, what meaning honesty? Allegiance to the current party reality?

Technorati tags: politics neocons
My Technorati Profile.

A defense of LiveJournal, and of blogging in general.

Tue, 17 May 2005 02:58:04 GMT

Blogging in general, and LiveJournal in particular, are the target of much criticism. Among such are complaints that the blogosphere exhibits an elevated sense of self-importance, that blogging is largely topical, that blogging encourages gossip chains, and that blogging can't change anything. In order to address these issues, we must first explore the idea of blogging itself, and more properly define it.
To answer this problem, let us realize what blogging is: a combination of a social, technological, economic and cultural factors. That is to say that blogging is not a purely technological phenomenon; many of the underlying technologies are not new by the standards of the Internet. Nor is blogging purely social or cultural. To say so would be to ignore the economic contribution, whereby Internet access is now nearly as prevalent as telephone access. At this critical point, just as the telephone forever changed the face of communication, so does the Internet. In particular, the Internet allows for a very decentralized form of communication. Let me repeat this last point, as it is crucial to understanding what blogging is: the Internet allows for a very decentralized form of communication whereby no single party has exclusive control of content distributed via the Internet. This may not seem remarkable when compared to snail mail or to telephones, which exhibit similar properties, so why is this important? The answer comes in the recognition that the decentralization property behaves in a synergistic fashion with other properties of the Internet. Namely, the Internet can be used as if it were a broadcast medium, and that the Internet does not require that one communicate with one entity at a time. Finally, publishing content to the Internet does not cost more money with the amount of content, but rather with the amount of consumers. Thus, it becomes relatively inexpensive to publish content to huge audiences via a decentralized process. This leads to an information glut, which is precisely where blogging comes in.
In order to make sense of the ensuing chaos, a structure is required. This is problematic, however, in light of the decentralized nature of the Internet mentioned above. Thus, it falls to individual content publishers to begin adapting ad hoc standards and protocols. One of the earliest such developments was the realization that most updates come in the form of "posts," or small articles. Perhaps out of expedience or out of laziness, software to allow for the management of such update patterns started to emerge. Along with this realization came the understanding that posts often would propagate by referencing other posts; thus, trackbacks and pings. In order to manage the reading of many blogs, users began to seek automated aggregators, or feed readers. The convergence of these and other trends leads to the communication structure endearingly known as the blogosphere.
Having explored blogging thus, let us restate two primary criticisms of the blogosphere structure to be addressed on an individual basis. First, that the blogosphere encourages topicality and gossip chains. Second, that the participants within the blogopspheric structure exhibit an inflated sense of importance and impact.
With respect to the first such criticism, the same can be said for nearly every mode of communication- the post, telegraph, telephone and television are all extremely prone to topicality. Consider the bulk of telephone conversations. Do they not consist of "chatter," "banter," or "drivel?" Certainly, things are accomplished by means of the telephone- consider the number of business deals solidified by this medium. That is not to say, though, that the Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR) is relatively low. That blogging follows this pattern of low SNR is not surprising, nor at all intrinsic to the structure of the medium. Rather, it is a reflection of human nature. Any means of human communication by definition has a low SNR. Unlike other such media, however, the blogosphere provides information consumers a process and toolset by which to manage this problem. Using feedreaders, trackbacks, folksonomies and the like, filtration of information becomes increasingly easy. Therefore, I prefer the problems of blogging to those of many other media due to the availability of ready solutions.
Insofar as the second criticism goes, there are certainly those bloggers with an inflated ego. What I intend to argue here, however, is that this is not intrinsic to the structure at all, but rather once again an artifact of human nature exhibiting itself through a new medium. Towards this end, consider the egotism of communicators via other media: people are by nature prone to egotism. Thus, should we be at all surprised by any trend toward egotism in a human communication network? I contest no. However, to answer the question in detail, what do we mean by a trend towards egotism? This in itself spawns another problem. Do we refer to the blogosphere as seen by a filtering consumer, or a casual browser? The latter observes many different trends, caused by the lack of a homeostatic motivator. This same lack leads to paranoia and sensationalism in the mass broadcast media (TV news and the like). By means of a positive feedback loop, small perturbations in the background noise are blown out of proportion. This is similar to setting a microphone on a speaker- neither creates noise itself, but the system acts to amplify preexisting noise. By a similar fashion, the raw blogosphere cannot by its decentralized structure exercise homeostasis except by the will of individual communicators. Any experience with humanity shows that people are very good at amplifying noise if left to their own devices. Thus, it is conceivable that a casual observer might observe an explosion of noise, leading him/her to record a greater effect than an observer practicing active filtration. This raw greater effect may have the tendency to act as a catalyst to already engorged egos. Within the bounds of a passive filtration system such as that offered by folksonomies, feedreaders with filtering systems, and by selective consumption, however, egotism tends to be weeded out more than it is amplified. Within the bounds of an active, decentralized filtration system such as the decentralized moderation layer of /., extremism and egotism tends to be damped out even to the eyes of casual observers. Returning to the criticism at hand, we are forced to say that the propagation of egotism across the blogosphere is an artifact observed without the use of filtration, and not a true inherent problem of the medium. Furthermore, the amplification effect is caused by human nature, and not by the structure of the medium. With the case of broadcast media, Stevhen Johnson in his book Emergence makes a convincing argument to suggest that the economic structure of broadcast media leads to a positive feedback system, on top of the preexisting human factors at play. Thus, by comparison to other media, not only does the blogosphere not exhibit a greater magnitude of positive feedback, the homeostatic motivations inherent in the medium are stronger in the presence of even passive filtration.
In conclusion, while blogging may exhibit its problems, they are not inherent to the medium, and are not as great in magnitude as those found in other media. Therefore, I put my stock into the potential offered by the new structure of the blogosphere rather than in archaic centralized broadcast-only media.

Technorati tags: blogs
My Technorati Profile.

[Update] Security fad costing us our security.

Wed, 11 May 2005 06:46:43 GMT

Note: this entry is an update to the previous entry entitled "Security fad costing us our security."

The Real ID Act has passed. What does that mean? That the DHS will administer driver's licences in the US. This is the same DHS who, as described in the aforementioned entry, admitted that they can't seem to get security right regardless of how much money is spent. Now, according to Real ID, anyone without such an ID card will be prohibited from opening a bank account, flying, or taking the train- to say nothing of entering federal buildings. With how much I trust DHS (read: not even close to as far as I can see them), what's a citizen to do? Move, I suppose. Canada is looking really damn nice right about now. I suppose I should have done more advocacy on the issue, but then again, I get the distinct impression that no one listens, and it was fucking finals week! As for the first point, the ultimate motivator for politicans in a representative democracy is supposed to be the election, but that is no longer a viable mechanism as the process of falsifying an election in the US has been perfected down to a science. If I seem a bit jaded, that's because I am. Any semblance of faith that I may have had in "the system" has been destroyed repeatedly. This latest instance is just that- the latest in a string of instances of the failings of the "system."

Technorati tags: Real ID security politics
My Technorati Profile.

Second Life Client for Linux Considered Helpful.

Wed, 11 May 2005 03:10:24 GMT

As masstreble points out, Linux succeeds on the back of creative and inventive users (I would like to point out that not all users are such- look at me, for example), and that such users would invariably add to the Second Life community. Furthermore, more people means a higher likelyhood that a potential user already knows at least one SL resident already, and may thus be persuaded to join. Users who join having already known someone are likely to be socially active under the guidance of their SL seniors, thus strengthening and enriching the community. Look at LJ, and see what allowing all users in can do! Admitetly, making a MMOG cross-platform is more technically challenging than a web app using open standards, but the implications are the same: by allowing variety and diversity, the creative pool grows, creating a better service for all involved.

Technorati tags: Second Life Linux communities
My Technorati Profile.

Security fad costing us our security.

Sun, 08 May 2005 23:52:16 GMT

According to this NYT article (no reg required), DHS now admits that many of their security measures were not much more than empty deterrents installed after the security craze following 9/11. What this article glosses over entirely, however, is the point made by those more versed in security than I that we excel at preventing yesterday's attacks. Furthermore, since terrorism, by definition, focuses on where people gather in order to make a large impact, by installing machines with substandard effiency, we have created another gathering place for people in a hurry- distracted people. That is directly outside the security checkpoints. Just like how strengthening a car can make it more dangerous, or how increasing the reliability of transmission lines makes the failures more severe, by increasing security, we have undermined security. As for why haven't the terrorists struck again, consider their supposed goals: to instill terror. At that they have succeeded so wonderfully that another attack would only undermine their goals by serving to inure us to violence. On the other hand, our responses have angered so many, enemies of the current administration now have no trouble finding new recruits to prepare another wave of violence.
The universe is a subtle place, and our lack of subtlety may well be our undoing. The simple-minded obsession with continuing the arms-race over security is ineffective, overly costly, destructive, and dangerous. If we continue this foolish course of action, we will find ourselves without freedom, security, and perhaps without life. In short, wake the fuck up, people.

Technorati tags: politics security 9/11 Bush rants
My Technorati Profile.

Heads Should Roll.

Fri, 06 May 2005 10:40:02 GMT

Heads should be rolling... and questions should be asked. Most notably, we should be asking ourselves if we care more about freedom or screwing an intern. More about trust or screwing an intern. More about the lives of the next generation, or about screwing an intern. Here we have a very incriminating memorandum, and it goes ignored in the US- at least by mass media. Word has been circling through the blogosphere, but is it enough? How many people will this reach? Enough to take some real, definitive action? This memorandum, if it is valid, would serve as strong evidence to show that the Bush administration has been manipulating the facts all along to justify his war. Even if the memorandum is not authentic, shouldn't we investigate it? This is no small charge... were Bush and Blair in the private sector, this would be racketeering. Why isn't an impeachment trial already underway?

Technorati Tags: politics impeachment

Testing Technorati

Fri, 06 May 2005 09:34:15 GMT

Technorati Profile

No wonder.

Thu, 05 May 2005 11:17:29 GMT

Browsing the web, I saw this article reporting about a Phoenix man who died from a taser shock, and the political aftermath of the incident. The article refers to a similar incident that happened in Ohio this Febuary. In the Ohio case, a man died after having been tasered nine times in a row. My response? No shit, sherlock! Tasers aren't as dangerous as many weapons, but nine times will kill most people pretty easily! The whole idea is a short spike that disables the target. Delivering so many dosages is likely to do much more than stun the target. Yet, who gets the blame? The taser manufacturers. Of course, I don't simply side with business because they're business. In fact, I don't really side with the manufacuturer in this case at all. I simply don't like to see this kind of passing of the buck. If they had shocked the victim once before he died, then the taser is probably defective and unsafe. On the other hand, how can the manufacturer be responsible for the blatant abuse of their product?

On "Christian" Gaming.

Thu, 05 May 2005 10:39:16 GMT

Fellow consumers of the wonder that is BoingBoing may have noticed a post about an NYT article on Christian Gaming. I myself went through and read the article, and read a small amount about one particular example of the "movement," the "Christian" FPS entitled Spiritual War. Astute readers may have noted the heavy use of quotation marks to surround the word Christian when referencing gaming. This is because the movement is, despite what anyone may claim, economic in nature. As the power concentrated in the hands of fundamentalists grows, so do the markets which sell "Christianity" prepackaged and ready to buy for only $19.95. Certianally, those who design such "games" may convince themselves of higher motives, and may have even hold such higher motives. The problem is, that almost by definition, the movement will not succeed without an economic basis, causing the movement to become economic in nature.

As for these "higher motives," what implications do they have for the quality of games? Again, almost by definition, this means a serious reduction in quality, or variety at the very least. By restricting themselves to a narrow view of a religion as the sole source of inspiration for games, we can expect to see a seriously deteriorated standard for plotlines, character development, etc. For instance, the article mentioned the adversity of Christian studios to "moral relativism," embodied most strongly in RPGs. In other words, not only do such developers not engage in introspection, but they also actively shy away from it, and decry it. Only by taking a few steps in the shoes of the "villian" can we understand what the right so freely calls "evil."

Obviously, if there are consumers who strongly desire such gimped products, then by all means develop them- I do not advocating censorship. To do so would be nothing more or less than a complete betrayal of my stance on such issues. No, what scares me is that we live in such a day and age that we desire less functional products, less probing entertainment, less stimulating discourse, less robust drama, etc. I suppose that it does amaze me how close we are to the world of The Handmaid's Tale. Hopefully in time we can cure ourselves of the disease that is fundamentalism, milantism, and purism. Not, mind you, that I advocate the abolishment or discarding of religion. Rather, the most destructive and obnoxious expressions thereof are things I would not miss. When it comes right down to it, such a movement does not infringe upon my freedoms or rights in any way, nor does it at all impoverish me. Therefore, the sole point of this rant is to share what I see as a rather sad reflection on the state of culture. To the extent that it does not affect me, I am mostly apathetic. I have a certian weakness, however, for responding to things such as this which really do not concern me... oh, well.

PS: Sorry for a lack of links... I am feeling kinda lazy right now.

What to write?

Fri, 29 Apr 2005 11:49:42 GMT

As noted by masstreble, my entries, as it were, tend to be mini-essays on various topics. Rants, if you will. I have many ideas for such rants, however, and not as much time to dedicate to them. Thus, as this is a largely public forum, I submit to public opinion as to what rant I should commit to immortality on the Internet. As I am not a paid member, I cannot create a poll directly, so please reply to this entry with a choice from the following list of possible topics:

A review of the movie Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
A critique of Intelligent Design arguments.
A critique of the idea that math is a "universal language."
A rant about something UAF related, such as Nanook Springfest.
For the CS majors, PHP Considered Harmful.
How I am an optimistic, pessimistic cynic without conflict.

If you have a desired topic other than those six, let me know, and I'll see if I can rant on it. On the other hand, I suspect that the vast majority of the people reading this couldn't give a damn if they tried, so I don't expect any responses. This is just an expirement, and responses would be a nice surprise.

Shortest. Post. Ever.

Thu, 28 Apr 2005 22:40:42 GMT

I am sick. It sucks.

On The Recent Controversial Sun Star Article

Thu, 21 Apr 2005 10:14:59 GMT

Consider this a soliciting of comment on the recent Sun Star article criticizing Residence Life for a lack of dorm security. As for myself, I find the behavior of the "journalists" down right atrocious. Their "example" of breaking into Bartlett was unnecessary, and did not strengthen their argument. Rather, it betrays the good faith shown them by those who held open the door for them. Furthermore, the trio did not seem to have made any attempt whatsoever to contact any employee of UAF with respect to the issue, but dispensed their own opinions as if they were "news." Such content might have been acceptable as an op-ed piece, but it was not in anyway fit to be printed as if a genuine news article. Of course, blame also lies heavily in the court of the Dept. of Residence Life, which did not attempt to engage in rational discourse, but extended the DA hours- something that the students will ultimately pay for in the long run. I do not appreciate being forced to pay for a service which I did not only not ask for, nor desire, but actively opposed! Examples such as this are what ultimately prompt many students to leave campus.

On a more positive note, I largely appreciated Tim Barnett's comments, and hope that cooler heads shall prevail in this matter. Hopefully, with the help of a rational discussion, students and staff may be able to resolve this issue in a way that is beneficial to all. My RHA experience, however, leads me to state that this is naiveté, especially in the face of such egotistical behavior such as that which the Sun Star staff displayed.

Though I did appreciate Mr. Barnett's comments, I must, however, take issue with one point: the implementation of CCTV systems. Such systems are very infringing of privacy, and are expensive besides. The costs, both social and economic, of CCTV monitoring are staggering, and I do not see their use justified. The implementation of CCTV systems in the MBS complex has further decreased my desire to traffic said complex. In the eventuality that CCTVs are installed in any other halls, chances are great that I would take the opportunity to move off campus. I urge Mr. Barnett, if he reads this, to not consider this an attack on his person of any kind, but rather to consider it at face value. This statement is a simple assertion of my opposition to a specific suggestion made. I have been given no reason whatsoever to take issue with Mr. Barnett as a person thus far, and see no likelihood that this will come to pass.

In closing, I would like all readers of this entry to carefully consider the issues at hand, and to evaluate the behavior of the Sun Star "journalistic" staff for themselves. If you feel so motivated, please discuss below your own insight into this unfortunate incident.

What does LJ mean for me?

Sun, 03 Apr 2005 01:26:06 GMT

For what purpose do I engage in the use of LiveJournal? To what ends to I use this tool? I use LJ with the intent of providing myself with another means of communication with my RL friends. That is to say, I categorize LJ along with the postal service, the telegraph, the telephone, with e-mail and instant messenger services, with VoIP and, perhaps most importantly, the Nerland table at the Commons. Thus, I don't compartmentalize LJ away from other such forms of communication, in the same way that if I communicate with someone via phone, I act as if the phone conversation actually happened when I next see them. Similarly, I incorporate my LJ conversations with RL friends into my experience base relating to said friends. The primary difference I see between LJ and other mediums is that unlike other mediums, LJ is open for observation by other parties (in cases where Protected mode is off), which prompts my analogy to a dinner table at a semi-public cafeteria.

Put differently, if you don't want people to act as if you came into the Commons and said something, then don't say it on LJ either. LJ users have feelings, concerns and sensitivities exactly equal to the people they represent. I realize that I sometimes do not act as such, but this is a personal fault upon which I am working at resolving. This fault stems from the fact that it can be hard to see the connection between a user and a person, as it can be obscured by the medium. I realize that my trouble with this is not by far unique, but then, I wish to solve this issue for myself rather than bury or compartmentalize what is fundamentally a representation of another person.

Anyway, that's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Where are we going, and why are we in this handbasket?

Mon, 28 Mar 2005 11:13:15 GMT

Between corrupt politicians taking advantage of a family tragedy, and self-righteous pharmacists deciding not to do their jobs because they can get over their own sense of their religion's place, one must fight hard to avoid being depressed... or simply become apathetic. Of course, these are both almost non-issues from the stand point of society as a whole. That is to say that while these issues are important on a local scale, their importance fades to damn near zero for the population as a whole.
With respect to the Schaivo case, I have not much to say but that if you don't think pulling the plug is the right decision, then don't do that. No need to drag the whole federal government into what is essentially a family dispute. With regards to the latter issue, what bothers me more than idiotic pharmacists is that they are allowed to continue their employment in spite of their blatant disregard for the perscribing doctors; really, such a disregard can become dangerous, and should be treated as a criminal action. ("Hey, I don't believe in Ritalin- you don't get it, despite the fact that you are one of those few people who actually do derive medical benefit from it.") Insofar as preventing access to pharmacuticals goes, I am not sure at all that this is a widespread enough thing as to truly do more than inconvienence people, but that such a practice is even an issue for discussion speaks volumes on our nation's lack of proportion. That someone is safely enjoying their sexuality is not a cause for me to be concerned, but rather something like the warlust of our government is.
One wonders if it is even appropriate anymore to call it "our" government, for it is clear that their interest in serving "us" is only to foster an illusion of representation. We don't need "leaders" for political office, we need representatives. Hitler was a leader, after all, but he's not the type that I want for president.

PS: I noticed that this post suffers from the anonymous-they syndrome (use of "us" and "our" without defining such groups), and thus would like to clarify: "us" refers to the the population of the United States of America.