Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Friday, March 27, 2009
Hate and the Art of Oppression
I learned hate. When I was a child, my mother always commented on how sweet I was; nothing unique about it, most mothers think their children are sweet- most children are, in my experience. In school, I was poor, geeky, gangly, unpopular, quiet, smart, and generally an outsider. The other children saw to it that I became intimately aware of my differences, my flaws, and my shortcomings. I was given to the wolves, and the wolves taught me rage, injustice, pain, and disgust.
This is not a unique story. Lord of the Flies, and countless other stories, songs, movies, books, and lessons, have taught us all that these are not instructions unknown to previous generations. If nothing else, we share with all other humans our indoctrination in violence and hate at the hands of one another.
Something about us seeks to defeat the different, conquer the unknown, whether it be by naming it, or killing it. There are lectures by Prof. Robert Sapolsky on the neurobiology of primate sexuality, where he talks about Composite faces. It turns out that the more individuals used to make a composite face, the more attractive the face is rated during testing. Sapolsky says we seek out others that are not so similar to us that they might be family, but not so different that they are of a different species. Our most basic instincts- to mate- are wired for "normal", "average", "sameness", why should anyone be surprised most aspects of our culture mimic that compulsive yearning?
Atheists scare people. They are seen as immoral, untrustworthy, degenerate, different, and unknowable. The majority of people in the world profess some religion- even some people that call themselves "Atheists" still speak of spirituality. The scared, mistrustful, masses react with aggression to those they see as fundamentally opposed to their "way of life".
Atheists make up as much as 12, or even 15, percent of the population (depending on how you define it and which surveys {like this or this} you look at). We are a part of this country, and we are not to be feared. Anyone who knows 10 people knows someone who would describe themselves as non-religious- whether they use a term like "Atheist", "Agnostic", "Secular", or something else.
Hate is a dangerous thing. It can be useful, spurring someone to do more than they might otherwise. Unfortunately, that can mean the difference between failure and accomplishment, or arguing and killing. Fear, biology, and tradition tell us to fear the invaders from over the hill- after all, they are who will come in the night to steal our mothers, daughters, fathers, sons, mules, and food. This fear, often without any conscious effort, easily turns into hate; hate we pass on to our children, who pass it on to their peers.
In 1984, the year Dan White was released from prison, there was a documentary about Harvey Milk, the first openly gay man to hold an elected position in the United States. That Documentary, The Times of Harvey Milk is current up at HULU. It is a staggering example of what can happen when people come together, despite their differences, and the tragedy one hateful person can inflict upon a community. It is a lesson, and a warning.
For Atheists out there, pay close attention to the speech Harvey Milk is giving after Proposition 6 is voted down (at roughly 47 minutes in).
[For those who couldn't hear it, what Jerry Brown says to President Carter is "Reagan already endorsed it, so I think it's safe."]
"A lot of people joined us and rejected Proposition 6, and now we owe them something. We owe them to continue the education campaign that took place. We must destroy the myths once and for all, shatter them. We must continue to speak out. And, most importantly, most importantly, every gay person MUST come out!
"As difficult as it is, you must tell your immediate family. You must tell your relatives. You must tell your friends- if indeed they are your friends. You must tell your neighbors. You must tell the people you work with. You must tell the people in the stores you shop in.
"And, once they realize that we are- indeed- their children, that we are- indeed- everywhere; Every Myth, Every Lie, Every Innuendo, will be destroyed once and for all. And once, once, you do, you will feel so much better!"
For Atheists and the non-religious, replace "gay"- in that speech- with the word you use to describe yourself.
Don't let the cycle continue, don't allow the fear and the hate to thrive- like they so readily do, in the darkness of secrecy: stand up and be counted. Singly we are but one or two, here or there; Together we are everyone, United we are everywhere.
I am a brother, an uncle, a son, an aspiring writer, and a person. My Name is Thomas Delaney Hand, I am an Atheist and a Skeptic.
Read More...
This is not a unique story. Lord of the Flies, and countless other stories, songs, movies, books, and lessons, have taught us all that these are not instructions unknown to previous generations. If nothing else, we share with all other humans our indoctrination in violence and hate at the hands of one another.
Something about us seeks to defeat the different, conquer the unknown, whether it be by naming it, or killing it. There are lectures by Prof. Robert Sapolsky on the neurobiology of primate sexuality, where he talks about Composite faces. It turns out that the more individuals used to make a composite face, the more attractive the face is rated during testing. Sapolsky says we seek out others that are not so similar to us that they might be family, but not so different that they are of a different species. Our most basic instincts- to mate- are wired for "normal", "average", "sameness", why should anyone be surprised most aspects of our culture mimic that compulsive yearning?
Atheists scare people. They are seen as immoral, untrustworthy, degenerate, different, and unknowable. The majority of people in the world profess some religion- even some people that call themselves "Atheists" still speak of spirituality. The scared, mistrustful, masses react with aggression to those they see as fundamentally opposed to their "way of life".
Atheists make up as much as 12, or even 15, percent of the population (depending on how you define it and which surveys {like this or this} you look at). We are a part of this country, and we are not to be feared. Anyone who knows 10 people knows someone who would describe themselves as non-religious- whether they use a term like "Atheist", "Agnostic", "Secular", or something else.
Hate is a dangerous thing. It can be useful, spurring someone to do more than they might otherwise. Unfortunately, that can mean the difference between failure and accomplishment, or arguing and killing. Fear, biology, and tradition tell us to fear the invaders from over the hill- after all, they are who will come in the night to steal our mothers, daughters, fathers, sons, mules, and food. This fear, often without any conscious effort, easily turns into hate; hate we pass on to our children, who pass it on to their peers.
In 1984, the year Dan White was released from prison, there was a documentary about Harvey Milk, the first openly gay man to hold an elected position in the United States. That Documentary, The Times of Harvey Milk is current up at HULU. It is a staggering example of what can happen when people come together, despite their differences, and the tragedy one hateful person can inflict upon a community. It is a lesson, and a warning.
For Atheists out there, pay close attention to the speech Harvey Milk is giving after Proposition 6 is voted down (at roughly 47 minutes in).
[For those who couldn't hear it, what Jerry Brown says to President Carter is "Reagan already endorsed it, so I think it's safe."]
"A lot of people joined us and rejected Proposition 6, and now we owe them something. We owe them to continue the education campaign that took place. We must destroy the myths once and for all, shatter them. We must continue to speak out. And, most importantly, most importantly, every gay person MUST come out!
"As difficult as it is, you must tell your immediate family. You must tell your relatives. You must tell your friends- if indeed they are your friends. You must tell your neighbors. You must tell the people you work with. You must tell the people in the stores you shop in.
"And, once they realize that we are- indeed- their children, that we are- indeed- everywhere; Every Myth, Every Lie, Every Innuendo, will be destroyed once and for all. And once, once, you do, you will feel so much better!"
For Atheists and the non-religious, replace "gay"- in that speech- with the word you use to describe yourself.
Don't let the cycle continue, don't allow the fear and the hate to thrive- like they so readily do, in the darkness of secrecy: stand up and be counted. Singly we are but one or two, here or there; Together we are everyone, United we are everywhere.
I am a brother, an uncle, a son, an aspiring writer, and a person. My Name is Thomas Delaney Hand, I am an Atheist and a Skeptic.
Read More...
Do Me A Favor
If you're tired of my rabid pro-Antitheist views (especially if you or someone you know is a creationist) take a look at this:
It's by a christian for christians.
Then go read the article where I first saw it: Bad Astronomy Blog
Read More...
It's by a christian for christians.
Then go read the article where I first saw it: Bad Astronomy Blog
Read More...
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Cancelled TV Shows
I watch a bunch of old canceled dramas, cause they're on Hulu, and because you never know- Firefly was canceled, and it was awesome. Currently, I'm watching New Amsterdam. The second episode, I figured out whodunit in about 4 minutes.
The premise is John Amsterdam was ensorcelled in the 1600s to live until he found his true love and his soul joined with hers, at which point he would become mortal again. Obviously, he's only just now found her, and he's a detective in the NYPD. Yeah, seemed like a shitty romantic action movie plot to me, too; especially when his true love turns out to be a down-and-out-on-love separated ER Doc.
I'm on episode 4. They're talking to a rape victim who escaped before she was killed. It's about as convincing as Santa Claus. And the FEMALE DETECTIVE, when the rape victim says "and then he did it" says "He penetrated you." Not a question, a statement. She had to spell it out to the victim at the hospital! So not a minute later the victim says "I kneed him in his... you-know." Does the Female Detective, whom we know to be concerned she understands the victim correctly given the earlier statement, spell out that the "you-know" is a PENIS? Nope.
So glad this show got canceled, I hope whoever wrote that scene died after a long and excruciating bout of dick cancer.
(I told my sister about it, she asked if they were going to use that bit to illustrate something. I said they wouldn't. They didn't.)
Read More...
The premise is John Amsterdam was ensorcelled in the 1600s to live until he found his true love and his soul joined with hers, at which point he would become mortal again. Obviously, he's only just now found her, and he's a detective in the NYPD. Yeah, seemed like a shitty romantic action movie plot to me, too; especially when his true love turns out to be a down-and-out-on-love separated ER Doc.
I'm on episode 4. They're talking to a rape victim who escaped before she was killed. It's about as convincing as Santa Claus. And the FEMALE DETECTIVE, when the rape victim says "and then he did it" says "He penetrated you." Not a question, a statement. She had to spell it out to the victim at the hospital! So not a minute later the victim says "I kneed him in his... you-know." Does the Female Detective, whom we know to be concerned she understands the victim correctly given the earlier statement, spell out that the "you-know" is a PENIS? Nope.
So glad this show got canceled, I hope whoever wrote that scene died after a long and excruciating bout of dick cancer.
(I told my sister about it, she asked if they were going to use that bit to illustrate something. I said they wouldn't. They didn't.)
Read More...
Skepticism, Atheism, and New Keyboards
Giving the new keyboard a whirl- let's hope the old keyboard was the problem, and not the port...
In a recent episode of HOUSE, a patient says "If there's no reason for all the bad things that have happened to me, this isn't a world I want to live in." House calls her an "idiot", which is right and wrong.
The episode deals with the Death Cat phenomenon. The episode does a good-ish job of explaining the "phenomenon"- the explanation being the cat seeking warmth. I'd like to extend this a bit.
DEATH CAT is a common happening, look online and you'll run into a psychic cat who can predict death. The problems with this reasoning are many. One, everyone dies, so anyone the cat lays down next to will die, eventually. Second, it's usually at a nursing home, a leper colony, or somewhere else where the likelihood of dying is vastly greater than normal- meaning the likelihood of randomly "predicting" deaths will be higher, too. Third, confirmation bias rears its ugly head- who remember everyone the cat lays down next to? So, the cat lays down to poor old Mrs Murphy and she dies three days leter, it's spooky. The cat then lays near old Werner Von Bruneiner, and he dies a week later. The cat next lies near Peggy for a night, and Penny for a night, and Gladus for a night, and nothing happens- but Peggy dies three years later, and Penny four and a half years later, and Gladus dies a decade later (because they're fucking old and decrepit enough to be in a Nursing Home!). Those three are non-events, when six months later, the cat lays next to Jonas McGrery and he dies the next day, everyone remembers Werner and Mrs Murphy; but they forget about Peggy and Penny. Or when the cat has a night by Mr. Davidson, and then he dies 3 months later, they remember the night the DEATH CAT slept with him. These aren't "predictions" they're coincidences, and the logical fallacy is confusing chronology (the order of events) with causality (how events influence one another).
Causality and chronology are different, somewhat obviously. The cat lays down next to the Elderly, then (on an ambiguous time line) the Elderly die, and it's less obvious for some people. Just because someone spilled salt (a widely used seasoning, used billions of times a day by people around the world) today, doesn't mean that's what caused them to break a finger the next day. What about the other hundreds of millions who didn't break finger, or the tens of millions that nothing very bad happened to, after they spilled salt? The fact is that bad things happen, and there are a lot of seconds in the day, and a lot of people in the world, for bad things to happen to for no reason. House says, about the cat, it's not really a phenomenon as there are millions of nursing homes, and tens of millions of cats at nursing homes, and it's no wonder that one of them coincidentally sleeps next to a couple of people who die.
Same goes for all superstitions- or other supernatural reasons (i.e. God, Satan, prayer)- for why good/bad things happen. The math is pretty convincing:
More than 6 BILLION (6,000,000,000) people on the planet, at the moment.
86,400 seconds in one 24 hour period (somewhat less than an actual day, astronomically speaking; but still)
That means, there are (# of People TIMES # of possible seconds for something to go bad) 518,400,000,000,000 chances for something to happen to any one person any one second, each day. (518.4 TRILLION)
If there's a 0.000000001 (that's one billionth) chance that something "unimaginably" horrible happens to any one person, any one second. (This would be extremely rarely bad: 1 in 1 billion chance.)
Which would mean, it could happen 518,400 times EVERY DAY.
Half a million horribly unimaginable events Every Day.
That's completely ignoring intelligent motivators- people wearing seatbelts, people using condoms, people generally doing things to consciously avoid horribly bad accidents; and the people actively trying to force unimaginably bad events onto someone else, by shooting them, for example.
Still, the sheer numbers are staggering. Even if it must take a full minute, there are 8.6 trillion chances; an hour makes it 144 billion; a day makes it 6 billion...
In other words, for an event that takes a whole 24 hours, if it's a 1 in 1 billion event, it happens 6 times every day, on average.
Whether that's a lot or a little would seem to be an extension of "the glass half full" debate.
House was wrong on one point, the girl isn't an idiot. She's stupid. Willfully, or perhaps even unintentionally, incapable of understanding- House gives her multiple examples and explanations throughout the show, which she then dismisses with some hokey bullshit.
I believe House is wrong on another point- he gives her shit, provides facts to refute her bullshit, and then makes his point, at which time she essentially says "but I still believe" and he just looks at her mysteriously and leaves. Why not say "So, what you're saying is 'Despite your facts and proof, I refuse to acknowledge reality?' Okay, that's fine, stupid. I refuse to believe you're sick, despite all the evidence to the contrary." Obviously that fucks up the narrative, a little, but he doesn't even begin the rebuttal, he lets her slide, giving her the last word. Which is chicken-shit true-believer pandering by another name, in my view.
Finally, I'd like to address her actual statement...
Uhm, holy fucking cock-smack by the penis of a million foot tall Zeus, Batman!?
It would be astounding if it was just a bit of "poetic" dialog on a TV show I watch. It's fucking unbelievably retarded, and scary, that I've heard people say that before. It's worse that they were proud of saying it!
How narcissistic do you have to be to refuse to live in a word that isn't about you? How selfish to need all of reality to be focused on you!
And don't give me that shit about "I don't think it's about me, I think it's about all of us!" or the more science-fictiony "I think it's about all conscious living beings" or the even more hippy "I think it's about all living things". That's not altruistic sentiment, because by being about a group (life, or conscious living things, or us) the speaker is a part of, it's about the speaker.
I swear these people don't go back and think about things even AFTER they spew them out of their pecker checkers! ("Mmmm, mmm, this one tastes fine!" for anyone lacking the proper mental visual.)
It's bad enough not to THINK BEFORE SPEAKING; how much worse is it to not think even AFTER speaking?
The people who say that kind of shit aren't serene peaceful supplicants, yearning for truth. They're arrogant fucking whores, demanding reality conform to their wishes. They're spoiled brats who never really understood that "Life isn't fair", and they are not princes/ses. These are people who don't fundamentally understand the difference between make-believe and reality. The exact same kind of people who strap bombs to their chests for some arbitrary number of sexually inexperienced children to molest in their fantasy cloud palaces.
I advocate not letting these people get away with feeling good about themselves. I advocate sticking it to them, and forcing people to deal with reality, not their misguided and warped perception of it. I advocate ridicule of anyone who refuses to acknowledge objective evidence and rigorous proof. I advocate scorning those who are too intellectually lazy, and/or dishonest, to try understanding the crap they are spewing.
There's a reason "god is in the gaps" and it ain't 'cause he makes sense...
Read More...
In a recent episode of HOUSE, a patient says "If there's no reason for all the bad things that have happened to me, this isn't a world I want to live in." House calls her an "idiot", which is right and wrong.
The episode deals with the Death Cat phenomenon. The episode does a good-ish job of explaining the "phenomenon"- the explanation being the cat seeking warmth. I'd like to extend this a bit.
DEATH CAT is a common happening, look online and you'll run into a psychic cat who can predict death. The problems with this reasoning are many. One, everyone dies, so anyone the cat lays down next to will die, eventually. Second, it's usually at a nursing home, a leper colony, or somewhere else where the likelihood of dying is vastly greater than normal- meaning the likelihood of randomly "predicting" deaths will be higher, too. Third, confirmation bias rears its ugly head- who remember everyone the cat lays down next to? So, the cat lays down to poor old Mrs Murphy and she dies three days leter, it's spooky. The cat then lays near old Werner Von Bruneiner, and he dies a week later. The cat next lies near Peggy for a night, and Penny for a night, and Gladus for a night, and nothing happens- but Peggy dies three years later, and Penny four and a half years later, and Gladus dies a decade later (because they're fucking old and decrepit enough to be in a Nursing Home!). Those three are non-events, when six months later, the cat lays next to Jonas McGrery and he dies the next day, everyone remembers Werner and Mrs Murphy; but they forget about Peggy and Penny. Or when the cat has a night by Mr. Davidson, and then he dies 3 months later, they remember the night the DEATH CAT slept with him. These aren't "predictions" they're coincidences, and the logical fallacy is confusing chronology (the order of events) with causality (how events influence one another).
Causality and chronology are different, somewhat obviously. The cat lays down next to the Elderly, then (on an ambiguous time line) the Elderly die, and it's less obvious for some people. Just because someone spilled salt (a widely used seasoning, used billions of times a day by people around the world) today, doesn't mean that's what caused them to break a finger the next day. What about the other hundreds of millions who didn't break finger, or the tens of millions that nothing very bad happened to, after they spilled salt? The fact is that bad things happen, and there are a lot of seconds in the day, and a lot of people in the world, for bad things to happen to for no reason. House says, about the cat, it's not really a phenomenon as there are millions of nursing homes, and tens of millions of cats at nursing homes, and it's no wonder that one of them coincidentally sleeps next to a couple of people who die.
Same goes for all superstitions- or other supernatural reasons (i.e. God, Satan, prayer)- for why good/bad things happen. The math is pretty convincing:
More than 6 BILLION (6,000,000,000) people on the planet, at the moment.
86,400 seconds in one 24 hour period (somewhat less than an actual day, astronomically speaking; but still)
That means, there are (# of People TIMES # of possible seconds for something to go bad) 518,400,000,000,000 chances for something to happen to any one person any one second, each day. (518.4 TRILLION)
If there's a 0.000000001 (that's one billionth) chance that something "unimaginably" horrible happens to any one person, any one second. (This would be extremely rarely bad: 1 in 1 billion chance.)
Which would mean, it could happen 518,400 times EVERY DAY.
Half a million horribly unimaginable events Every Day.
That's completely ignoring intelligent motivators- people wearing seatbelts, people using condoms, people generally doing things to consciously avoid horribly bad accidents; and the people actively trying to force unimaginably bad events onto someone else, by shooting them, for example.
Still, the sheer numbers are staggering. Even if it must take a full minute, there are 8.6 trillion chances; an hour makes it 144 billion; a day makes it 6 billion...
In other words, for an event that takes a whole 24 hours, if it's a 1 in 1 billion event, it happens 6 times every day, on average.
Whether that's a lot or a little would seem to be an extension of "the glass half full" debate.
House was wrong on one point, the girl isn't an idiot. She's stupid. Willfully, or perhaps even unintentionally, incapable of understanding- House gives her multiple examples and explanations throughout the show, which she then dismisses with some hokey bullshit.
I believe House is wrong on another point- he gives her shit, provides facts to refute her bullshit, and then makes his point, at which time she essentially says "but I still believe" and he just looks at her mysteriously and leaves. Why not say "So, what you're saying is 'Despite your facts and proof, I refuse to acknowledge reality?' Okay, that's fine, stupid. I refuse to believe you're sick, despite all the evidence to the contrary." Obviously that fucks up the narrative, a little, but he doesn't even begin the rebuttal, he lets her slide, giving her the last word. Which is chicken-shit true-believer pandering by another name, in my view.
Finally, I'd like to address her actual statement...
Uhm, holy fucking cock-smack by the penis of a million foot tall Zeus, Batman!?
It would be astounding if it was just a bit of "poetic" dialog on a TV show I watch. It's fucking unbelievably retarded, and scary, that I've heard people say that before. It's worse that they were proud of saying it!
How narcissistic do you have to be to refuse to live in a word that isn't about you? How selfish to need all of reality to be focused on you!
And don't give me that shit about "I don't think it's about me, I think it's about all of us!" or the more science-fictiony "I think it's about all conscious living beings" or the even more hippy "I think it's about all living things". That's not altruistic sentiment, because by being about a group (life, or conscious living things, or us) the speaker is a part of, it's about the speaker.
I swear these people don't go back and think about things even AFTER they spew them out of their pecker checkers! ("Mmmm, mmm, this one tastes fine!" for anyone lacking the proper mental visual.)
It's bad enough not to THINK BEFORE SPEAKING; how much worse is it to not think even AFTER speaking?
The people who say that kind of shit aren't serene peaceful supplicants, yearning for truth. They're arrogant fucking whores, demanding reality conform to their wishes. They're spoiled brats who never really understood that "Life isn't fair", and they are not princes/ses. These are people who don't fundamentally understand the difference between make-believe and reality. The exact same kind of people who strap bombs to their chests for some arbitrary number of sexually inexperienced children to molest in their fantasy cloud palaces.
I advocate not letting these people get away with feeling good about themselves. I advocate sticking it to them, and forcing people to deal with reality, not their misguided and warped perception of it. I advocate ridicule of anyone who refuses to acknowledge objective evidence and rigorous proof. I advocate scorning those who are too intellectually lazy, and/or dishonest, to try understanding the crap they are spewing.
There's a reason "god is in the gaps" and it ain't 'cause he makes sense...
Read More...
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Culture for the Masstards
On this addition of the attempt to bring us all to the same baseline, Abbot and Costello. (A treat to make up for an all-text CftM earlier this week).
According to the Wiki-goodness:
Abbot (the tall skinny straight man) and Costello (the shorter plumper laugh getter) came out of burlesque*. Each had spent many years in comedy before they met. They first worked together in 1935, when other performers in the show- including Abbott's wife- advised a permanent pairing. In 1938 the appeared on Radio, the next a month their most popular sketch, "Who's on First?", debuted for a national radio audience.
In 1941, their second movie, Buck Privates, made them stars. In 1942, Abbott and Costello were the top box office draw with a reported take of $10 million. They would remain a top ten box office attraction until 1952.
All the classics:
And for those that just wanna see it: (from the above)
* Burlesque was a humorous theatrical entertainment involving parody and sometimes grotesque exaggeration. Prior to Burlesque becoming associated with striptease, it was a form of musical and theatrical parody in which an opera or piece of classical theatre is adapted in a broad, often risqué style very different from that for which it was originally known
Read More...
According to the Wiki-goodness:
Abbot (the tall skinny straight man) and Costello (the shorter plumper laugh getter) came out of burlesque*. Each had spent many years in comedy before they met. They first worked together in 1935, when other performers in the show- including Abbott's wife- advised a permanent pairing. In 1938 the appeared on Radio, the next a month their most popular sketch, "Who's on First?", debuted for a national radio audience.
In 1941, their second movie, Buck Privates, made them stars. In 1942, Abbott and Costello were the top box office draw with a reported take of $10 million. They would remain a top ten box office attraction until 1952.
All the classics:
And for those that just wanna see it: (from the above)
* Burlesque was a humorous theatrical entertainment involving parody and sometimes grotesque exaggeration. Prior to Burlesque becoming associated with striptease, it was a form of musical and theatrical parody in which an opera or piece of classical theatre is adapted in a broad, often risqué style very different from that for which it was originally known
Read More...
Friday, March 20, 2009
Quote
Again, just a quote I want to keep somewhere searchable, not one I agree with per se.
one of my professors once said, "Any God who can be killed ought to be killed." To which I would add, any faith that can be undermined should be undermined. A God or a faith that needs you or me to prop it up has already died long ago. You do not need to defend a living God. Only dead gods seem to require that.
– John Shelby Spong
Read More...
one of my professors once said, "Any God who can be killed ought to be killed." To which I would add, any faith that can be undermined should be undermined. A God or a faith that needs you or me to prop it up has already died long ago. You do not need to defend a living God. Only dead gods seem to require that.
– John Shelby Spong
Read More...
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Before the Music Dies
I just finished watching the documentary BEFORE THE MUSIC DIES, on Hulu. It's a look at the state of the "Music Industry" circa 2005/6. As always, there are some points I disagree with; but overall it's an excellent film. Go watch it.
Some points/thoughts I had while watching:
Watch this movie, Before the Music Dies, and watch how people curse. Cursing is normal and natural. Restriction of cursing is understandable, I suppose, but absolute prohibition of it is stupid.
Radio is about percentages: if you retain 51% of the population, you're a winner. As you make a profit, you can lose that percentage. It's the dollars, stupid.
Brendan Marsalis makes the point that Coltrane and others came out and were hated for 5 yrs. Today, you don't have 5 years for your sound to catch on, gain fans, and become something-through the radio markets and "traditional" Record Company Route. "If it's really new, the people won't like it because they won't know what it is."
First half is "Why is it shitty, right now?" Second is, "Why it doesn't have to be, and how it isn't."
Here's the sad fact: Radio, that industry the record execs once loved for getting their content out to the masses, taught us all that music was free. The consumer knows why ads are there; but ads are an annoyance, not a means of funding the radio station. Sure, we all know the deal; but it takes thought to connect from These Annoying Ass Ads to "Oh, that annoyance is okay, because without it, we wouldn't have the radio." In fact, that's not the case, exactly; look at Public Radio, after all. That instruction "Radio is Free (ish)" became music is free, and with the availability of easy copying it became downloading/sharing without guilt.
How is this for a business model? Instead of a million people out there trying to get famous, get rich, and "be somebody" (whatever that means); artists being concerned with being artists. Musicians focused on making music; and when the record company comes and says "Hey, we can do something for you," saying "You can have this album, and distribute it, and do your thing, and leave us the hell alone." Basically, forcing the record company to accept your terms, and not vice versa. It takes a hell of a will to do; and I'm not saying it's the smartest move- but it's the way to remain "pure", "true", "uncorrupted" while still taking every authentic advantage that comes along.
"There are three types of artist. The first is the one who hurts to do what they do. ... The second is the type who tries to be like the first. The third type is one who does whatever they're told." -Erykha Badu
"I don't think that we need to panic; I just think we need to teach our children well." -Dave Mathhews
"It's important to sound like You, to feel like You, to be like You." -Erykha Badu
Read More...
Some points/thoughts I had while watching:
Watch this movie, Before the Music Dies, and watch how people curse. Cursing is normal and natural. Restriction of cursing is understandable, I suppose, but absolute prohibition of it is stupid.
Radio is about percentages: if you retain 51% of the population, you're a winner. As you make a profit, you can lose that percentage. It's the dollars, stupid.
Brendan Marsalis makes the point that Coltrane and others came out and were hated for 5 yrs. Today, you don't have 5 years for your sound to catch on, gain fans, and become something-through the radio markets and "traditional" Record Company Route. "If it's really new, the people won't like it because they won't know what it is."
First half is "Why is it shitty, right now?" Second is, "Why it doesn't have to be, and how it isn't."
Here's the sad fact: Radio, that industry the record execs once loved for getting their content out to the masses, taught us all that music was free. The consumer knows why ads are there; but ads are an annoyance, not a means of funding the radio station. Sure, we all know the deal; but it takes thought to connect from These Annoying Ass Ads to "Oh, that annoyance is okay, because without it, we wouldn't have the radio." In fact, that's not the case, exactly; look at Public Radio, after all. That instruction "Radio is Free (ish)" became music is free, and with the availability of easy copying it became downloading/sharing without guilt.
How is this for a business model? Instead of a million people out there trying to get famous, get rich, and "be somebody" (whatever that means); artists being concerned with being artists. Musicians focused on making music; and when the record company comes and says "Hey, we can do something for you," saying "You can have this album, and distribute it, and do your thing, and leave us the hell alone." Basically, forcing the record company to accept your terms, and not vice versa. It takes a hell of a will to do; and I'm not saying it's the smartest move- but it's the way to remain "pure", "true", "uncorrupted" while still taking every authentic advantage that comes along.
"There are three types of artist. The first is the one who hurts to do what they do. ... The second is the type who tries to be like the first. The third type is one who does whatever they're told." -Erykha Badu
"I don't think that we need to panic; I just think we need to teach our children well." -Dave Mathhews
"It's important to sound like You, to feel like You, to be like You." -Erykha Badu
Read More...
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Fuck.
Now, I don't think it's some coordinated movement against Climate Change Activists; but local police getting scared by the big smelly hippies? That seems plausible- after all, you never know how many of them have drugs, or gay porn.
(UPDATE/Clarity: I do imagine they may have been scared of some sort of eco-terrorism, and being spurred to ensure it didn't happen by wealthy business people. I still don't think it was a conspiracy; merely stupid.)
Read More...
Quotes
I need a place I can put quotes, for quick retrieval. I don't necessarily believe these quotes; but they interest me in some way. In other words, ignore this, it's just a brain dump.
from here.
"The real rulers in Washington are invisible, and exercise power from behind the scenes."
- Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter, 1952
"Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the Field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it."
- Woodrow Wilson, The New Freedom (1913)
"Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to befoul the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day."
- Theodore Roosevelt
"A power has risen up in the government greater than the people themselves, consisting of many and various powerful interests, combined in one mass, and held together by the cohesive power of the vast surplus in banks."
- John C. Calhoun, Vice President of the United States
"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies...The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the Government, to whom it properly belongs."
- Thomas Jefferson
"If the people only understood the rank injustice of our Money and Banking system, there would be a revolution before morning."
- Andrew Jackson
"There is an evil which ought to be guarded against in the indefinite accumulation of property from the capacity of holding it in perpetuity by…corporations. The power of all corporations ought to be limited in this respect. The growing wealth acquired by them never fails to be a source of abuses."
- James Madison
"In this point of the case the question is distinctly presented whether the people of the United States are to govern through representatives chosen by their unbiased suffrages or whether the money and power of a great corporation are to be secretly exerted to influence their judgment and control their decisions."
- Andrew Jackson
"I am more than ever convinced of the dangers to which the free and unbiased exercise of political opinion -- the only sure foundation and safeguard of republican government -- would be exposed by any further increase of the already overgrown influence of corporate authorities."
- Martin Van Buren, Eighth President of the United States
"As we view the achievements of aggregated capital, we discover the existence of trusts, combinations, and monopolies, while the citizen is struggling far in the rear or is trampled to death beneath an iron heel. Corporations, which should be the carefully restrained creatures of the law and the servants of the people, are fast becoming the people's masters."
- Grover Cleveland, 22nd and 24th President of the United States
"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted."
- Dwight D. Eisenhower
"There exists a shadowy Government with its own Air Force, its own Navy, its own fundraising mechanism, and the ability to pursue its own ideas of national interest, free from all checks and balances, and free from the law itself."
- Senator Daniel K. Inouye
"You don’t have a clue of what’s going on in the government, and neither do the American people. If they did, there would be a revolution in this country.”
- Texas governor and quintessential political insider John Connally
Read More...
from here.
"The real rulers in Washington are invisible, and exercise power from behind the scenes."
- Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter, 1952
"Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the Field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it."
- Woodrow Wilson, The New Freedom (1913)
"Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to befoul the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day."
- Theodore Roosevelt
"A power has risen up in the government greater than the people themselves, consisting of many and various powerful interests, combined in one mass, and held together by the cohesive power of the vast surplus in banks."
- John C. Calhoun, Vice President of the United States
"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies...The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the Government, to whom it properly belongs."
- Thomas Jefferson
"If the people only understood the rank injustice of our Money and Banking system, there would be a revolution before morning."
- Andrew Jackson
"There is an evil which ought to be guarded against in the indefinite accumulation of property from the capacity of holding it in perpetuity by…corporations. The power of all corporations ought to be limited in this respect. The growing wealth acquired by them never fails to be a source of abuses."
- James Madison
"In this point of the case the question is distinctly presented whether the people of the United States are to govern through representatives chosen by their unbiased suffrages or whether the money and power of a great corporation are to be secretly exerted to influence their judgment and control their decisions."
- Andrew Jackson
"I am more than ever convinced of the dangers to which the free and unbiased exercise of political opinion -- the only sure foundation and safeguard of republican government -- would be exposed by any further increase of the already overgrown influence of corporate authorities."
- Martin Van Buren, Eighth President of the United States
"As we view the achievements of aggregated capital, we discover the existence of trusts, combinations, and monopolies, while the citizen is struggling far in the rear or is trampled to death beneath an iron heel. Corporations, which should be the carefully restrained creatures of the law and the servants of the people, are fast becoming the people's masters."
- Grover Cleveland, 22nd and 24th President of the United States
"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted."
- Dwight D. Eisenhower
"There exists a shadowy Government with its own Air Force, its own Navy, its own fundraising mechanism, and the ability to pursue its own ideas of national interest, free from all checks and balances, and free from the law itself."
- Senator Daniel K. Inouye
"You don’t have a clue of what’s going on in the government, and neither do the American people. If they did, there would be a revolution in this country.”
- Texas governor and quintessential political insider John Connally
Read More...
Culture for the Masstards
In an on-going attempt to get everyone on the same baseline, I bring you another in the series:
This time, a double-header: Blogs vs Forums and Idiot vs Stupid. We'll look at them in reverse order. (A warning: kinda long)
Idiot vs Stupid
An idiot is someone who is ignorant or unskilled in knowledge. Stupid is the active inability to understand, comprehend, or apply knowledge/understanding/comprehension.
Everyone is an idiot, someway, somehow, somewhere, somewhen. It's impossible to not be an idiot, and to communicate. Idiot is derogatory in our society; and it should be used with an understanding of that, lest the user be stupid or an Idiot.
Stupid is more equivalent to "Retarded" that idea of non-politically correct inability via deficiency- though, technically "stupid" makes no effort to determine why the person is stupid; but merely that the person is such.
See the difference? Good. If not, well...
Blogs vs Forums
Both are full of people spouting their particular brand of bullshit. Both often feature controversial topics. Both tend to be more full of opinions than facts. Both require login (some do allow anonymous posting) and tag comments/posts with a name/userID/what-have-you. Yet, there are differences.
A Forum is a group effort. There are group-blogs, but it is not, necessarily the same thing. In many ways, the difference is akin to the difference between "religion" and "cult". Those links don't do it justice, so I'll provide an example: Some people say that Mormonism is a cult, some say it's a religion. The fact is it's whatever the speaker wants it to be- it fits both definitions. There is a side of this argument that speaks to the idea "common usage", that if the majority of people say Mormonism (to continue the example) is a cult then it is a cult, if they say religion it is such.
The problems with that are "Who counts?" Literally, who counts up the people and takes their official opinion on the matter. Also, who should be counted, should Mormons get to effect the common usage of their beliefs as religion or cult? (How many cults are happy being called cults, and don't maintain that they are actually religions?)
This same sort of thing can apply to Forums vs Blogs- especially when we only look at the mechanism each use for displaying/disseminating their content. The software is VERY similar- if not outright the same (look to those websites that are essentially a piece of forum software that contains ways of handling front pages, blogs, news, forums, among other things). Yet, there do exist some differences.
Blogs are always a hierarchical setting. Forums can be, and may appear to be even when they aren't; but blogs are always hierarchical. Blogs say: there are posters and there are commenters, one creates topics and performs maintenance and administration, one can only comment on posted topics. Forums say: There are administrators and there are non-administrators, one is capable of actually performing maintenance and administrative functions, both can post new topics and post comments about created topics. Though there is a lingo (i.e. "OP" = "original poster") and some mutual conceptions (i.e."First Post/Reply!", "First Page!") to Forums, there is no significant* functional distinction between the post creator and the people who post replies. On (most) forums, everyone is equal; on Blogs the bloggers may be equal, but the commenters are not equal to the bloggers.
Look at it this way:
Genius and Genius#2 are on a forum, arguing. Neither is an administrator. Genius cannot edit/delete posts made by Genius#2, and vice versa. The administrators can, of course; but on good (read: professional) forums the reasons such a thing might happen are posted, reviewable, and often subject to appeal.
Genius and Genius#2 are on a blog, arguing. Genius is the blogger, Genius#2 is a commenter. Genius#2 cannot go open a new topic to discuss Genius or some aspect of the argument. Additionally, Genius can disemvowel or delete Genius#2's comments/posts. If it's Genius's Blog, the rules don't have to be posted, and Genius is the final arbitrator of what is okay, and what isn't.
So, here's the difference:
Forums are a group effort to talk and discuss things amongst the group. A Blog is a way of disseminating information (often opinion), and though discussions can happen, that is secondary to the fundamental nature of simply "putting it out there".
Either can fulfill the role of the other, of course. If a website could be either, try looking to see how the website refers to itself. Remember, this is a guideline, nothing is ever 100% cut and dried, especially on the internet.
* There can be a distinction, like the ability to add a "formal" poll to the topic; but that's not exactly significant.
------------------
To end, allow me to address the elephant in the room.
Yes, this is in lieu of explanations. Yes, this is my way of warning people (see link above) who may not already know: This is MY Blog, MY Opinion, MY Rules- and not a democracy/fair/etc.
Read More...
This time, a double-header: Blogs vs Forums and Idiot vs Stupid. We'll look at them in reverse order. (A warning: kinda long)
Idiot vs Stupid
An idiot is someone who is ignorant or unskilled in knowledge. Stupid is the active inability to understand, comprehend, or apply knowledge/understanding/comprehension.
Everyone is an idiot, someway, somehow, somewhere, somewhen. It's impossible to not be an idiot, and to communicate. Idiot is derogatory in our society; and it should be used with an understanding of that, lest the user be stupid or an Idiot.
Stupid is more equivalent to "Retarded" that idea of non-politically correct inability via deficiency- though, technically "stupid" makes no effort to determine why the person is stupid; but merely that the person is such.
See the difference? Good. If not, well...
Blogs vs Forums
Both are full of people spouting their particular brand of bullshit. Both often feature controversial topics. Both tend to be more full of opinions than facts. Both require login (some do allow anonymous posting) and tag comments/posts with a name/userID/what-have-you. Yet, there are differences.
A Forum is a group effort. There are group-blogs, but it is not, necessarily the same thing. In many ways, the difference is akin to the difference between "religion" and "cult". Those links don't do it justice, so I'll provide an example: Some people say that Mormonism is a cult, some say it's a religion. The fact is it's whatever the speaker wants it to be- it fits both definitions. There is a side of this argument that speaks to the idea "common usage", that if the majority of people say Mormonism (to continue the example) is a cult then it is a cult, if they say religion it is such.
The problems with that are "Who counts?" Literally, who counts up the people and takes their official opinion on the matter. Also, who should be counted, should Mormons get to effect the common usage of their beliefs as religion or cult? (How many cults are happy being called cults, and don't maintain that they are actually religions?)
This same sort of thing can apply to Forums vs Blogs- especially when we only look at the mechanism each use for displaying/disseminating their content. The software is VERY similar- if not outright the same (look to those websites that are essentially a piece of forum software that contains ways of handling front pages, blogs, news, forums, among other things). Yet, there do exist some differences.
Blogs are always a hierarchical setting. Forums can be, and may appear to be even when they aren't; but blogs are always hierarchical. Blogs say: there are posters and there are commenters, one creates topics and performs maintenance and administration, one can only comment on posted topics. Forums say: There are administrators and there are non-administrators, one is capable of actually performing maintenance and administrative functions, both can post new topics and post comments about created topics. Though there is a lingo (i.e. "OP" = "original poster") and some mutual conceptions (i.e."First Post/Reply!", "First Page!") to Forums, there is no significant* functional distinction between the post creator and the people who post replies. On (most) forums, everyone is equal; on Blogs the bloggers may be equal, but the commenters are not equal to the bloggers.
Look at it this way:
Genius and Genius#2 are on a forum, arguing. Neither is an administrator. Genius cannot edit/delete posts made by Genius#2, and vice versa. The administrators can, of course; but on good (read: professional) forums the reasons such a thing might happen are posted, reviewable, and often subject to appeal.
Genius and Genius#2 are on a blog, arguing. Genius is the blogger, Genius#2 is a commenter. Genius#2 cannot go open a new topic to discuss Genius or some aspect of the argument. Additionally, Genius can disemvowel or delete Genius#2's comments/posts. If it's Genius's Blog, the rules don't have to be posted, and Genius is the final arbitrator of what is okay, and what isn't.
So, here's the difference:
Forums are a group effort to talk and discuss things amongst the group. A Blog is a way of disseminating information (often opinion), and though discussions can happen, that is secondary to the fundamental nature of simply "putting it out there".
Either can fulfill the role of the other, of course. If a website could be either, try looking to see how the website refers to itself. Remember, this is a guideline, nothing is ever 100% cut and dried, especially on the internet.
* There can be a distinction, like the ability to add a "formal" poll to the topic; but that's not exactly significant.
------------------
To end, allow me to address the elephant in the room.
Yes, this is in lieu of explanations. Yes, this is my way of warning people (see link above) who may not already know: This is MY Blog, MY Opinion, MY Rules- and not a democracy/fair/etc.
Read More...
Sunday, March 15, 2009
I wiki, you wiki, we all wiki on the wiki-goodness!
Get on the internets and you'll see some genius post a link to wikipedia.org. Not long after, Genius #2 will disagree with something int he wikipedia article and call all of wikipedia into question.
Let's use a real world example:
Genius: "A wikipedia article on expertise says it takes 10 years or 10,000 hours to become an expert."
Genius #2: "Yeah right. You know anyone can edit wikipedia, right? It's all crap."
Often that last sentence is implied, rather than stated.
But does Genius #2 have a point?
The quick answer is "Almost; but not really; but it depends on the article." ("Quick" not "simple", the simple answer is: "not really".)
The definitive study for the reliability of wikipedia is... three guesses, and the first two don't count... that's right: wi ki pedia.
And if you read all those articles, you can go home now; I won't say anything you can't find there. Except: The argument that "anyone can edit wikipedia" is, essentially, an ad hominem attack on a webpage. It's spurious, bullshit, not-logical, some might say "stupid". I'd say "stupid"; but I'm an asshole.
Wikipedia has its faults. Jello Biafra's page and the Dead Kennedys page are prime examples of this. Look at the history and discussion tabs for each of those. At one point, Jello fans and Jello haters were waging wiki war. Edits were made on both pages- and others- with each side trying to slant the articles toward their viewpoint. Jello's fans were saying "Jello is awesome", Jello's detractors were saying "Jello is a fuckhead." At one point Jello's page became locked, due to the- essentially- vandalism being wrought on it. This had many sources/causes; but came down to stances on Dead Kennedys material and who said/did what to who about what. Each side sought to interpret the facts in a way that made their side seem the only logical side. It got bad.
However, note a couple of things: When this happened, the community responded by locking out edits to keep the bullshit out of the article. Note also that we can go look and see when/where/what was changed and sometimes even why it was changed. To put it another way, for every asshole who wants to vandalize wikipedia, there is an asshole who wants wikipedia to be prestine and accurate and full of TRUTH.
Lastly, James Randi, during the Amazing Show with James Randi and at other times, has said that, on occasion, someone will intentionally put blatantly false information into his wikipedia article. He then tells about how swiftly such information is discovered, removed (or removed to the talk page), and generally dealt with. Anecdotal, sure; but this isn't supposed to be definitive, it's supposed to be further evidence of how wikipedia can- and does- regulate itself.
In the end, wikipedia has its problems, but so does Britannica. If you're looking for information about people- especially little known or controversial figures- be careful. If you're looking up long established scientific principles, you're probably okay. Wikipedia is full of citations, use them to check facts. In the end, wikipedia may not be the most accurate encyclopedia in the world; but it's better than citing this livejournal post a friend of a friend once read.
And if you encounter Genius #2, feel free to give them the link to wikipedia's article on wikipedia's reliability, criticism, or simply itself. They deserve it for being a jelly-brained half-wit. ;-)
Read More...
Let's use a real world example:
Genius: "A wikipedia article on expertise says it takes 10 years or 10,000 hours to become an expert."
Genius #2: "Yeah right. You know anyone can edit wikipedia, right? It's all crap."
Often that last sentence is implied, rather than stated.
But does Genius #2 have a point?
The quick answer is "Almost; but not really; but it depends on the article." ("Quick" not "simple", the simple answer is: "not really".)
The definitive study for the reliability of wikipedia is... three guesses, and the first two don't count... that's right: wi ki pedia.
And if you read all those articles, you can go home now; I won't say anything you can't find there. Except: The argument that "anyone can edit wikipedia" is, essentially, an ad hominem attack on a webpage. It's spurious, bullshit, not-logical, some might say "stupid". I'd say "stupid"; but I'm an asshole.
Wikipedia has its faults. Jello Biafra's page and the Dead Kennedys page are prime examples of this. Look at the history and discussion tabs for each of those. At one point, Jello fans and Jello haters were waging wiki war. Edits were made on both pages- and others- with each side trying to slant the articles toward their viewpoint. Jello's fans were saying "Jello is awesome", Jello's detractors were saying "Jello is a fuckhead." At one point Jello's page became locked, due to the- essentially- vandalism being wrought on it. This had many sources/causes; but came down to stances on Dead Kennedys material and who said/did what to who about what. Each side sought to interpret the facts in a way that made their side seem the only logical side. It got bad.
However, note a couple of things: When this happened, the community responded by locking out edits to keep the bullshit out of the article. Note also that we can go look and see when/where/what was changed and sometimes even why it was changed. To put it another way, for every asshole who wants to vandalize wikipedia, there is an asshole who wants wikipedia to be prestine and accurate and full of TRUTH.
Lastly, James Randi, during the Amazing Show with James Randi and at other times, has said that, on occasion, someone will intentionally put blatantly false information into his wikipedia article. He then tells about how swiftly such information is discovered, removed (or removed to the talk page), and generally dealt with. Anecdotal, sure; but this isn't supposed to be definitive, it's supposed to be further evidence of how wikipedia can- and does- regulate itself.
In the end, wikipedia has its problems, but so does Britannica. If you're looking for information about people- especially little known or controversial figures- be careful. If you're looking up long established scientific principles, you're probably okay. Wikipedia is full of citations, use them to check facts. In the end, wikipedia may not be the most accurate encyclopedia in the world; but it's better than citing this livejournal post a friend of a friend once read.
And if you encounter Genius #2, feel free to give them the link to wikipedia's article on wikipedia's reliability, criticism, or simply itself. They deserve it for being a jelly-brained half-wit. ;-)
Read More...
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Mish Mash Makes Music
Sometimes, I wonder if we'll be creative enough to find the solutions needed for survival in the future. And sometimes, I think we'll be alright:
(First seen/heard at BoingBoing)
(There are 7, in all.)
Read More...
(First seen/heard at BoingBoing)
(There are 7, in all.)
Read More...
$100 Million in Diamonds?
Notarbartolo's specialty was charm. Acting the part of the jolly jeweler, he was invited into offices, workshops, and even vault rooms to inspect merchandise. He would buy a few stones and then, a week or a month later, steal the target's entire stock in the middle of the night.
Antwerp provided a wealth of opportunity and a good place to fence hot property. A diamond necklace stolen in Italy could be dismantled and its individual gems sold for cash in Antwerp. He came to town about twice a month, stayed a few days at a small apartment near the Diamond District, then drove home to his wife and kids in the foothills of the Alps.
When he had stolen goods to sell, he dealt with only a few trusted buyers. Now, as he finished his espresso, one of them—a Jewish dealer—came in and sat down to chat.
"Actually, I want to talk to you about something a little unusual," the dealer said casually. "Maybe we could walk a little?"
They headed out, and once they were clear of the district, the dealer picked up the conversation. His tone had changed however. The casualness was gone.
"I'd like to hire you for a robbery," he said. "A big robbery."
read the whole thing at Wired.com
Read More...
Why Twitter Tweets?
Go here: http://twitter.com/Nancy_A?page=2
Scroll down to:
Ignore time stamps, read through it.
That's right, the ISS almost got killed today- supposedly by a piece of the satellite that got 'splodo a not-long-while back.
(First seen at: Bad Astronomy)
Read More...
Scroll down to:
Possible debris hit may force evacuation of ISS. http://tinyurl.com/bmovl5 Watching NASA tv now to get the latest,but only Russian audio now
Ignore time stamps, read through it.
That's right, the ISS almost got killed today- supposedly by a piece of the satellite that got 'splodo a not-long-while back.
(First seen at: Bad Astronomy)
Read More...
Throwaways
Throwaways are quickie ideas that might be of interest to others. Detailed fully in 6 Questions (Who, What, When, Where, Why, How, and Else) with no more than 2 Sentence Answers.
Who? Any Major Network, scripted TV show in primetime.
What? A web-exclusive episode, of the same quality and length as the regular show.
When? To be made available online during an off week- like when the Oscars cuts into the regularly scheduled broadcast.
Where? Hulu, or wherever the hell else the parent company wants to make it available.
Why? FOX has a lot of good shows- like HOUSE- and too many off weeks where they're showing stupid crap no one cares about: like the World Series (no, not the poker one).
How? Reduce costs around set, and from the special effects department/budget; and film it a little at a time during filming for other episodes. Same quality and length; but it can be assumed only fans are watching it, so it might delve further into the characters for no reason other than to explore them.
Else? The Internet is gonna steal your broadcast audience anyway; but this will train them to go to the site YOU, the creators and controllers, choose. It's like a gift to fans from the entire cast and crew; and should help foster loyalty- plus it's "interactive" because it's online where they can post comments.
Read More...
Who? Any Major Network, scripted TV show in primetime.
What? A web-exclusive episode, of the same quality and length as the regular show.
When? To be made available online during an off week- like when the Oscars cuts into the regularly scheduled broadcast.
Where? Hulu, or wherever the hell else the parent company wants to make it available.
Why? FOX has a lot of good shows- like HOUSE- and too many off weeks where they're showing stupid crap no one cares about: like the World Series (no, not the poker one).
How? Reduce costs around set, and from the special effects department/budget; and film it a little at a time during filming for other episodes. Same quality and length; but it can be assumed only fans are watching it, so it might delve further into the characters for no reason other than to explore them.
Else? The Internet is gonna steal your broadcast audience anyway; but this will train them to go to the site YOU, the creators and controllers, choose. It's like a gift to fans from the entire cast and crew; and should help foster loyalty- plus it's "interactive" because it's online where they can post comments.
Read More...
Legend of the Seeker
I spout a lot of HATE- exclusively the all-caps yelling, spittle flying, envisioning entrails, kind- here. I especially seem to hate all recent entertainment, and anything that hasn't been canceled. For instance, I hate everything Lord of the Rings; and I was particularly unimpressed with WATCHMEN; but I loved Firefly.
Today, I bring you something different. A new, currently on-going, series. It's not my normal bag of tea- it's fantasy- but Legend of the Seeker is definitely worth watching on HULU.
It's really not as unexpected a development as I first thought. The production team is very similar to Xena: Idiot Hooker, and Hercules: Gaying Up Mythical Assholes. I liked both of those, for the most part. I particularly started to hate Xena when they started into the Christianity thing. Though neither was MUST SEE TV, for me.
LEGEND OF THE SEEKER isn't the newest Raimi brother mythical half comedy with over-the-top tongue-in-cheek, especially in the effects department. Instead it's a drama: serious, honest, and never silly. The effects are there to add to the realism, convince the viewer to suspend their disbelief, and immerse themselves in the world. There are humorous aspects to situations or characters; but these are not the silly stupidity of Xena and Hercules followed by a knowing wink, these are the characters being fully fleshed out, and human.
The acting is superb, the storylines are brilliant, and Terry Goodkind is gonna earn himself a big mess of new fans. The series is based on Terry Goodkind's Sword of Truth novels. Of course there's some controversy from him and his fanbase; but I haven't read the books, and I didn't come to the series because of him or his reputation. I may go back and read the source materials; a trip into a genre I've never been overly impressed with.
I actually came to the series despite many misgivings. My sister told me about it; and I had caught up on all the other shows I watch online. Bored, with no emails or forum posts or any other means of distraction, I figured I'd watch the first episode. I almost didn't, when I saw that the first two episodes are combined into an hour and a half for Hulu; but the boredom forced my hand. I'm glad it did.
And, if you needed another reason, (and to piss off a particular person) the lead actress- Bridget Regan- is H-O-T.
I have no idea what channel the show is on, or when. I watched the first 13/14 episodes online; and I'll continue to watch it that way. I use Hulu for convenience, the link was above the cut.
Read More...
Today, I bring you something different. A new, currently on-going, series. It's not my normal bag of tea- it's fantasy- but Legend of the Seeker is definitely worth watching on HULU.
It's really not as unexpected a development as I first thought. The production team is very similar to Xena: Idiot Hooker, and Hercules: Gaying Up Mythical Assholes. I liked both of those, for the most part. I particularly started to hate Xena when they started into the Christianity thing. Though neither was MUST SEE TV, for me.
LEGEND OF THE SEEKER isn't the newest Raimi brother mythical half comedy with over-the-top tongue-in-cheek, especially in the effects department. Instead it's a drama: serious, honest, and never silly. The effects are there to add to the realism, convince the viewer to suspend their disbelief, and immerse themselves in the world. There are humorous aspects to situations or characters; but these are not the silly stupidity of Xena and Hercules followed by a knowing wink, these are the characters being fully fleshed out, and human.
The acting is superb, the storylines are brilliant, and Terry Goodkind is gonna earn himself a big mess of new fans. The series is based on Terry Goodkind's Sword of Truth novels. Of course there's some controversy from him and his fanbase; but I haven't read the books, and I didn't come to the series because of him or his reputation. I may go back and read the source materials; a trip into a genre I've never been overly impressed with.
I actually came to the series despite many misgivings. My sister told me about it; and I had caught up on all the other shows I watch online. Bored, with no emails or forum posts or any other means of distraction, I figured I'd watch the first episode. I almost didn't, when I saw that the first two episodes are combined into an hour and a half for Hulu; but the boredom forced my hand. I'm glad it did.
And, if you needed another reason, (and to piss off a particular person) the lead actress- Bridget Regan- is H-O-T.
I have no idea what channel the show is on, or when. I watched the first 13/14 episodes online; and I'll continue to watch it that way. I use Hulu for convenience, the link was above the cut.
Read More...
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Prisoner's Dilemma
In the iterated Prisoner's Dilemma the optimal strategy, under certain circumstances, is Tit for Tat.
The idea is, you can only every cooperate with someone, or defect from them. If you start with cooperation, and they defect, you defect until after they cooperate. If they're using- essentially- the same strategy, you'll never cooperate again. It's slightly more complex than that; go read the articles and see.
Every choice can be broken into some number of Prisoner's Dilemmas.
This never published, and I just went a cleaning- and found it- so if it seems out of context: it is.
Read More...
The idea is, you can only every cooperate with someone, or defect from them. If you start with cooperation, and they defect, you defect until after they cooperate. If they're using- essentially- the same strategy, you'll never cooperate again. It's slightly more complex than that; go read the articles and see.
Every choice can be broken into some number of Prisoner's Dilemmas.
This never published, and I just went a cleaning- and found it- so if it seems out of context: it is.
Read More...
Free Inch Nails
NIN is giving away it's newest album completely free in a variety of formats; and all they want, in return, is your email address.
http://dl.nin.com/theslip/signup
Read More...
http://dl.nin.com/theslip/signup
Read More...
Monday, March 09, 2009
I Watched the Watchmen.
Remember when you read Watchmen, and you sat it down, and you had that feeling? That weirdly warm belly feeling like "I just learned something" mixed with "Now, THAT was an adventure!"? The movie has lots of stuff in it, and it's missing some stuff; but the thing it's missing the most is that. It's like watching cynical, worn-out, world-weary, professionals in a play they hate, but once loved.
Read the book; forget about the movie.
Read More...
Read the book; forget about the movie.
Read More...
Saturday, March 07, 2009
Watch More Men?
The more I read about the WATCHMEN movie, the more I'm not interested in actually seeing it. Don't get me wrong, I will because I'm that kinda guy; but if I really had a choice, I doubt I'd go of my own volition.
Wired has two reviews up, one by a newcomer to Watchmen the other by a hardcore fanboy. The Newcomer gives it 6/10, the fanboy 7/10.
Both reviews mention the plots and the differences between the movie and the comic; though the fanboy's goes further into detail. And that detail reveals why I'm sure I won't like the movie. Ignoring the changed ending, they fucked with Rorschach, Ozymandias, and the whole principle of the book.
So it's a different medium, yeah? And there should be changes, yeah? And why did they get the funding to make this movie, huh? The source material was badass. So if you've taken the idea of the original, fucked it in the asshole, and then barely laid the original framework over the retard baby that's ass birthed as a result; have you made a new thing, or something based on something else?
Fight Club was an awesome movie. Even Chuck P, supposedly, said it was better than the book- in fact, I think, he said it was just as good, and that if you'd seen the movie first the book didn't compare. It took the original ideas, kept them, and then changed the ending almost completely. Yet it was a perfect adaptation- the same and not quite the same.
Watchmen, The Movie... They should've just changed the name and called it "inspired by".
Read More...
Wired has two reviews up, one by a newcomer to Watchmen the other by a hardcore fanboy. The Newcomer gives it 6/10, the fanboy 7/10.
Both reviews mention the plots and the differences between the movie and the comic; though the fanboy's goes further into detail. And that detail reveals why I'm sure I won't like the movie. Ignoring the changed ending, they fucked with Rorschach, Ozymandias, and the whole principle of the book.
So it's a different medium, yeah? And there should be changes, yeah? And why did they get the funding to make this movie, huh? The source material was badass. So if you've taken the idea of the original, fucked it in the asshole, and then barely laid the original framework over the retard baby that's ass birthed as a result; have you made a new thing, or something based on something else?
Fight Club was an awesome movie. Even Chuck P, supposedly, said it was better than the book- in fact, I think, he said it was just as good, and that if you'd seen the movie first the book didn't compare. It took the original ideas, kept them, and then changed the ending almost completely. Yet it was a perfect adaptation- the same and not quite the same.
Watchmen, The Movie... They should've just changed the name and called it "inspired by".
Read More...
Friday, March 06, 2009
Watch Men?
Here's my prediction- and I haven't seen the movie, I've only seen the trailers and the clip they showed on the Daily Show last night (currently watching it on Hulu)- Watchmen blows.
Why?
Because they removed the premise of the novel, and made it into an Anti-Bush-like government movie.
Fucking idiots. Here's hoping they all develop testicle cancer.
I'm gonna try and go see it Sunday, I'll post if I'm wrong.
Read More...
Why?
Because they removed the premise of the novel, and made it into an Anti-Bush-like government movie.
Fucking idiots. Here's hoping they all develop testicle cancer.
I'm gonna try and go see it Sunday, I'll post if I'm wrong.
Read More...
The Economist says "Make it Legal"
(First found at Boing Boing)
The Economist is saying:
Here's why I doubt we'll be dropping this particular prohibition...
Look at the Kennedy legacy.
A single generation after prohibition and we had a political dynasty that was/is, arguably, the most powerful in America ever, but certainly within the 20th century.
And it was all built on the backbones of a fortune made in illegal alcohol sales.
The Kennedys made their money during prohibition; and when prohibition ended, they couldn't keep making money running booze. That's when they moved into politics.
BoingBoing seems to agree, to some respect:
Read More...
The Economist is saying:
Next week ministers from around the world gather in Vienna to set international drug policy for the next decade. Like first-world-war generals, many will claim that all that is needed is more of the same. In fact the war on drugs has been a disaster, creating failed states in the developing world even as addiction has flourished in the rich world. By any sensible measure, this 100-year struggle has been illiberal, murderous and pointless. That is why The Economist continues to believe that the least bad policy is to legalise drugs.
“Least bad” does not mean good. Legalisation, though clearly better for producer countries, would bring (different) risks to consumer countries. As we outline below, many vulnerable drug-takers would suffer. But in our view, more would gain.
Here's why I doubt we'll be dropping this particular prohibition...
Look at the Kennedy legacy.
A single generation after prohibition and we had a political dynasty that was/is, arguably, the most powerful in America ever, but certainly within the 20th century.
And it was all built on the backbones of a fortune made in illegal alcohol sales.
The Kennedys made their money during prohibition; and when prohibition ended, they couldn't keep making money running booze. That's when they moved into politics.
BoingBoing seems to agree, to some respect:
But it won't happen, because the criminals don't want it, law enforcement doesn't want it, and the prison systems ... don't want it.
Read More...
Thursday, March 05, 2009
Is Alochol Bad for Women?
According to Charlie Stross:
But were those reports accurate?
Stross says no, and provides some proofs. He goes on to sum up the abstract- which appears to be the only portion of the actual study the reporters looked at:
There is a general sentiment, among many people, to accept what one group says or another. I'm choosing to accept what Charlie Stross and Sandy Szwarc have to say. Why? Read Stross's post, and the article at Junkfood Science. The numbers tell a different story than what some are reporting, and the paper's authors are trying to say. How could that be?
(from Junkfood Science, linked and cited in Charlie Stross' post)
Drink. It's good for you- if you're a woman and have no more than 2 drinks every day.
Read More...
[A] lot of headlines and newspaper column-inches were devoted to the shocking findings of a recent survey of women's health that apparently indicated that drinking any alcohol at all correlated with an elevated risk of cancer:
Even small amounts of alcohol increase a woman's risk of cancer" (The Guardian)"
"Drink a day increases cancer risk" (The BBC)
"Even a little alcohol ups cancer risk in women" (Reuters)
Daily drink for middle-age women cancer risk (Washington Post, syndicated)
But were those reports accurate?
Stross says no, and provides some proofs. He goes on to sum up the abstract- which appears to be the only portion of the actual study the reporters looked at:
"Alcohol is evil. We know this because it is True. And it's especially bad for women because, well, women shouldn't drink. If you run a study to confirm this belief and the facts don't back you up, the facts are wrong. So tell the public the Truth (alcohol is always evil) and bury the facts; the press won't be able to tell the difference because they're (a) lazy (or overworked, take your pick) and (b) statistically innumerate."
There is a general sentiment, among many people, to accept what one group says or another. I'm choosing to accept what Charlie Stross and Sandy Szwarc have to say. Why? Read Stross's post, and the article at Junkfood Science. The numbers tell a different story than what some are reporting, and the paper's authors are trying to say. How could that be?
(from Junkfood Science, linked and cited in Charlie Stross' post)
“[Moderate drinking] is a level of consumption that generally has been found in scientific studies to be associated with a relatively low risk of harms,” said Robert Brewer of the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.* “But low risk does not mean no risk.”
* The newspaper failed to disclose that Dr. Brewer is manager and director of the Alcohol Team at the CDC; serves as Principal Investigator for Alcohol-Related Disease Impact software, funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation; and has authored numerous publications on alcohol and alcohol-related health effects.
Drink. It's good for you- if you're a woman and have no more than 2 drinks every day.
Read More...
Story Time
"John Jacob Johnson, III was born on a farm in rural Alabama to Mitsy McCallister Johnson and John Jacob Johnson, Jr. He played football for Southern Redneck High School, and went to the University of Alabama on an athletics scholarship. Alas, he suffered a tragic, career ending, ankle sprain in his junior year.
"Forced to face the heartbreaking reality of working for a living, he switched his major from Athletics to Business. He threw himself into the books, trying desperately to earn himself a way off the farm in little Hickrape, Alabama. He got a part-time job, as an 'errand boy' for a local law firm. Undaunted by the proposition of blowing old conservative fruits for $3 a trick, he graduated Cum Laude and immediately applied to Law School. His impressive ability to suck a golf ball through a three foot section of garden hose impressed the registrars, and earned him one of the few coveted spots.
"It was there he met his wife Milley, whom he would marry and later kill- getting away with it because of his connections and experience as a trial judge. So thoroughly did he plan and perpetrate the murder, that he wasn't even a suspect. He used the 'grief' of the 'tragedy' as a springboard into a federal judiciary seat. Still willing to slurp down as many hot loads as it would take, 'Big Gay Jay'- as he was called behind his back- quickly climbed the federal ladder.
"None were surprised when the latest President gave Judge Johnson the nod for the Ultimate Bench. His confirmation hearings went through without a hitch- after all, Big Gay Jay personally knew the taste and proclivity of many a sitting Senator. So it was that three months ago, Judge Johnson, chin unusually dry, became Supreme Court Justice Johnson."
"Thank You for the history lesson, you plastic surgery enhanced sack of vacuousness, laugh vacantly while I glare at you in contempt."
Ah hahahahahah
"Good. We go now, to Justice Johnson's first news conference, a rarity for seated Supreme Court Justices."
"Yes, thank you all for coming- but, then, the huge erection erasing power of a name with a title as earth shatteringly huge as mine is hard to resist, isn't it? As you know, I'm Justice John Jacob Johnson, III; and I am the most junior member of the Supreme Court of the United States of America. I've called you all here today to lay out some basic facts, you sniveling retards. Pay attention, or I will use every ounce of my not-insignificant power to utterly fuck this Union, harder than any man since the current President's predecessor!
"You smug motherfuckers keep tossing around some drivel so often, I've found myself using it, and that is un-fucking-acceptable. The particular term I'm here to address is 'Activist Judges'. Since more than half of you are unable to find your assholes with both hands if you're given an eight finger head-start; I'm going to explain this to you again, in language a half retarded spider monkey could understand. Take notes.
"There are THREE branches to the Federal Government. The Executive, which executes the Laws; the Legislative, which makes the Laws; and the Judicial which ensures that the laws are- you know- legal. There are checks and balances placed between the branches, so that no one of them can become all-powerful and thereby negate either- or both- of the others.
"One of these checks and balances is the ability of the Executive to command the Armed Forces. One check is the requirements upon the Legislative should it seek to change the fundamental documents governing our federal government- like the Constitution of the United States of America. A different check is the Executives ability to appoint the members of the federal Judiciary. Another check is the ability for the Judiciary to deem a law unconstitutional, which would require the constitution be amended before such a law could be considered legal in the United States of America.
"This last, is pretty much what 99% of the time of the Supreme Court of the United States of America is consumed by: the legality of laws, their interpretations, and usage. In other words, activism. That's right, the Supreme Court (of the United States of America) is designed to be the Nine most activist judges in the land. In fact, almost all Federal Judges are, by design, ACTIVIST JUDGES, you brainless bags of syphilitic shit!
"Why? Because we make sure that the Executive- especially in its capacity as a police force- doesn't overstep the bounds, intents, or capabilities outlined in the laws the Legislature passes. That's why we're here. Guilt and Innocence are matters for juries to decide; judges make sure everything is legal.
"Thus endeth the lesson. But I will now answer one further question. A question that many of you have been wondering as you stare at me, red faced, ranting, with foamy spit spraying from my lips: Why are you doing this? I'll tell you why.
"Not only am I offended by how stupid and sheep like you idiot sons of bitches out there in the electorate are; but I am indescribably contemptuous of the manipulative fucks you domitable assholes allow to fill your heads with the rancid cow shit, you fucking douchebags are all too happy to spew at one another. I am a Supreme Court Justice. This post is for Life. That makes me gangsta. Know what a REAL gangsta does when he's given a podium, an audience, and the ability to speak? Rewind this tape.
"Peace, bitches!"
It is many weeks later before the Governor Goat Fucking scandal of Delaware replaces Justice Johnson's exit from the stage on the Mainstream News Networks. He throws the microphone down, and turns to march off, confident in the knowledge that no more dicks shall intrude upon the sanctity of his oral cavity, unless he so wants it. Some terse words are exchanged with a cameraman blocking the way, as the judge tries to exit. The sixty-three year old man, dressed in the robes of his office, throws a beautiful front kick into the waiting nutsack of the cameraman. This causes the man to fall over, grab his bleeding sack, and drop his camera; allowing the judge the room he needs to clear the stage. As the judge walks away, the camera picks up two distinct sounds accompanied by two distinct images. The first, the plaintive moans of the cameraman, his face twisted in ball busted pain. The second, the judge saying, "This is MY house, motherfucker!" and whistling as he walks away, his robes parting just enough for the entire world to get a small glimpse of sixty-three-year-old-ass-cheek.
----
The Civics Lesson, for kids! (c) Thomas Hand 5 March 2009
Read More...
"Forced to face the heartbreaking reality of working for a living, he switched his major from Athletics to Business. He threw himself into the books, trying desperately to earn himself a way off the farm in little Hickrape, Alabama. He got a part-time job, as an 'errand boy' for a local law firm. Undaunted by the proposition of blowing old conservative fruits for $3 a trick, he graduated Cum Laude and immediately applied to Law School. His impressive ability to suck a golf ball through a three foot section of garden hose impressed the registrars, and earned him one of the few coveted spots.
"It was there he met his wife Milley, whom he would marry and later kill- getting away with it because of his connections and experience as a trial judge. So thoroughly did he plan and perpetrate the murder, that he wasn't even a suspect. He used the 'grief' of the 'tragedy' as a springboard into a federal judiciary seat. Still willing to slurp down as many hot loads as it would take, 'Big Gay Jay'- as he was called behind his back- quickly climbed the federal ladder.
"None were surprised when the latest President gave Judge Johnson the nod for the Ultimate Bench. His confirmation hearings went through without a hitch- after all, Big Gay Jay personally knew the taste and proclivity of many a sitting Senator. So it was that three months ago, Judge Johnson, chin unusually dry, became Supreme Court Justice Johnson."
"Thank You for the history lesson, you plastic surgery enhanced sack of vacuousness, laugh vacantly while I glare at you in contempt."
Ah hahahahahah
"Good. We go now, to Justice Johnson's first news conference, a rarity for seated Supreme Court Justices."
"Yes, thank you all for coming- but, then, the huge erection erasing power of a name with a title as earth shatteringly huge as mine is hard to resist, isn't it? As you know, I'm Justice John Jacob Johnson, III; and I am the most junior member of the Supreme Court of the United States of America. I've called you all here today to lay out some basic facts, you sniveling retards. Pay attention, or I will use every ounce of my not-insignificant power to utterly fuck this Union, harder than any man since the current President's predecessor!
"You smug motherfuckers keep tossing around some drivel so often, I've found myself using it, and that is un-fucking-acceptable. The particular term I'm here to address is 'Activist Judges'. Since more than half of you are unable to find your assholes with both hands if you're given an eight finger head-start; I'm going to explain this to you again, in language a half retarded spider monkey could understand. Take notes.
"There are THREE branches to the Federal Government. The Executive, which executes the Laws; the Legislative, which makes the Laws; and the Judicial which ensures that the laws are- you know- legal. There are checks and balances placed between the branches, so that no one of them can become all-powerful and thereby negate either- or both- of the others.
"One of these checks and balances is the ability of the Executive to command the Armed Forces. One check is the requirements upon the Legislative should it seek to change the fundamental documents governing our federal government- like the Constitution of the United States of America. A different check is the Executives ability to appoint the members of the federal Judiciary. Another check is the ability for the Judiciary to deem a law unconstitutional, which would require the constitution be amended before such a law could be considered legal in the United States of America.
"This last, is pretty much what 99% of the time of the Supreme Court of the United States of America is consumed by: the legality of laws, their interpretations, and usage. In other words, activism. That's right, the Supreme Court (of the United States of America) is designed to be the Nine most activist judges in the land. In fact, almost all Federal Judges are, by design, ACTIVIST JUDGES, you brainless bags of syphilitic shit!
"Why? Because we make sure that the Executive- especially in its capacity as a police force- doesn't overstep the bounds, intents, or capabilities outlined in the laws the Legislature passes. That's why we're here. Guilt and Innocence are matters for juries to decide; judges make sure everything is legal.
"Thus endeth the lesson. But I will now answer one further question. A question that many of you have been wondering as you stare at me, red faced, ranting, with foamy spit spraying from my lips: Why are you doing this? I'll tell you why.
"Not only am I offended by how stupid and sheep like you idiot sons of bitches out there in the electorate are; but I am indescribably contemptuous of the manipulative fucks you domitable assholes allow to fill your heads with the rancid cow shit, you fucking douchebags are all too happy to spew at one another. I am a Supreme Court Justice. This post is for Life. That makes me gangsta. Know what a REAL gangsta does when he's given a podium, an audience, and the ability to speak? Rewind this tape.
"Peace, bitches!"
It is many weeks later before the Governor Goat Fucking scandal of Delaware replaces Justice Johnson's exit from the stage on the Mainstream News Networks. He throws the microphone down, and turns to march off, confident in the knowledge that no more dicks shall intrude upon the sanctity of his oral cavity, unless he so wants it. Some terse words are exchanged with a cameraman blocking the way, as the judge tries to exit. The sixty-three year old man, dressed in the robes of his office, throws a beautiful front kick into the waiting nutsack of the cameraman. This causes the man to fall over, grab his bleeding sack, and drop his camera; allowing the judge the room he needs to clear the stage. As the judge walks away, the camera picks up two distinct sounds accompanied by two distinct images. The first, the plaintive moans of the cameraman, his face twisted in ball busted pain. The second, the judge saying, "This is MY house, motherfucker!" and whistling as he walks away, his robes parting just enough for the entire world to get a small glimpse of sixty-three-year-old-ass-cheek.
----
The Civics Lesson, for kids! (c) Thomas Hand 5 March 2009
Read More...
Monday, March 02, 2009
MurdocSpace
For the last year, maybe 18 months, I've been dealing with MySpace telling me I'm- and treating me like- a spambot. Links are blocked, messages are blocked. I must enter Captcha at too many turns- like when I send a reply message.
The worst part? I have no recourse but to take it... except canceling the account. That's not an alternative, for me, because of who I have contact with there and no where else. So, I removed my formatting, turned the profile to FRIENDS ONLY, and will be adding no new content there. In other words, I'm using it as a very shitty email drop.
Has anyone else run into these issues?
Read More...
The worst part? I have no recourse but to take it... except canceling the account. That's not an alternative, for me, because of who I have contact with there and no where else. So, I removed my formatting, turned the profile to FRIENDS ONLY, and will be adding no new content there. In other words, I'm using it as a very shitty email drop.
Has anyone else run into these issues?
Read More...
NEVER Talk to the Cops.
This goes along with my post a day or so ago.
Found At:
http://www.boingboing.net/2009/03/02/15yearold-girl-beate.html
Notice the loving way he throws her down by her hair, punches her in the head and then picks her up by the hair? Aren't cops lovable?
"Aww, wook at da' wittle po-po. Who's the cutest wittle coppie woppie in all the land? It's you! Oh yes it is!"
Read More...
So You Say You Want a Revolution?
I've had an idea kicking around my cranial-meat for a while.
SYSYWAR ("Sissy War") will be an irregular introduction to gadgets. The point being as much to discuss new technological innovation you can hold in your hand and throw at bastards; as to discuss the meaning behind the technologies and how it works. (For long time readers, think "Culture for the Masstards" for techies.)
Today's installment, Radio Free Radio!
The idea was first massively advertised by the satellite radio stations. Essentially, it's "take everything you love about radio, subtract everything you hate, and CRANK IT UP TO 11!" The really nice thing? If you're willing to spend some initial time at it, it works (and your time spent tends to decrease the longer you participate).
The sites, and there are others; but these are the type I'd send my mom to- because I wouldn't be worried about her getting spyware and viruses from just going there:
(In no particular order)
Pandora
Jango
Slacker Radio
To give you an easy example, we'll take Jango. At the main page, I put "Nine Inch Nails". The program assumes I want to listen to NIN and similar bands. So, skipping ahead I get "Cherub Rock" from the Smashing Pumpkins, "Intermission" from Tool, "Opus Dei" from Laibach, and "Fell on Black Days" by Soundgarden. Additionally, it recommends other bands I might want to add to my new "station". Marilyn Manson, KMFDM, Tool, Smashing Pumpkins, A Perfect Circle, and Nirvana are its suggestions. Not bad, right? Confused on why? Essentially, the station is only playing tracks similar to NIN, I can add other bands to refine the sound I'm looking for- General 90s: Nirvana, Smashing Pumpkins; Industrial: KMFDM, Gothic: Marilyn Manson, A Perfect Circle; Metal(ish): Tool, KMFDM.
Pandora, as it loads, tells you that it's a means of placing the Music Genome Project into users' hands. The idea is the same for all of them. Add Groups you like, rate individual songs/groups and an algorithm sorts all listed tracks on the server sending you ones that are similar. It's radio, if radio didn't suck, and wasn't actually being pumped out of Durham, NC instead of down the block.
The real difference between the services is how customizable they are, and the extra features. Jango focuses on social networking, almost, and allows a general choice of "Popular Tracks, Happy Medium, or Wide Variety" for how obscure the track list should go. Pandora has more information about the bands and songs, will tell you WHY a song/band was selected, and a detailed list of what choices you've made for your station. Slacker allows more general customization- like obscurity, and era, for instance- and Slacker also has the slab of tech we're about to discuss. All have links to lyrics or artist info or to buy tracks. And all have the ability to create a station and share it with friends. Wil Wheaton has shared a station on Slacker Radio he created based on Bauhaus and similar bands, take a look/listen.
SLAB'O'TECH
The gadget to bring this technology out of your computer- should you be so inclined is the new Slacker G2 Personal Radio Player. Basically, it connects with Slacker radio when it finds a WiFi source and gets new music based on your previous tinkerings; but otherwise operates exactly like the website. So, going for a run/walk/jog/ride? Don't want to take along a laptop with an air card? Problem solved. (Wil Wheaton's review, which inspired this post.)
WHY THIS IS GOOD
I love radio because it exposes me to music I wouldn't normally hear if I was stuck with my playlist in [Preferred Mediaplayer] on Shuffle and Repeat All. Yet, I hate listening to radio- except for NPR News- because they play CRAP with a capital "UTTER-FUCKING-BULLSHIT-ASS-DRIPPINGS-RECTAL-PROLAPSE"! I can't stand 99% of what's on the radio stations available in my area. I want punk and metal stations, for instance, which we don't have at all. Now I can create them; and all of these services are free, or have very good free versions.
WHY THIS IS NEW
Technically, it's not; and I'm not concerned with that, too much. SYSYWAR, like CftM, is also about collating information and putting it into a place you can easily reference or send your friends. Now you have a post you can send your friends to, when they ask you what bands they should look into when they only like Echo and the Bunnymen, Leadbelly, and Snoop Dog. (Hint: Send them Here)
The G2, however, is fairly recent, so there's that.
Read More...
SYSYWAR ("Sissy War") will be an irregular introduction to gadgets. The point being as much to discuss new technological innovation you can hold in your hand and throw at bastards; as to discuss the meaning behind the technologies and how it works. (For long time readers, think "Culture for the Masstards" for techies.)
Today's installment, Radio Free Radio!
The idea was first massively advertised by the satellite radio stations. Essentially, it's "take everything you love about radio, subtract everything you hate, and CRANK IT UP TO 11!" The really nice thing? If you're willing to spend some initial time at it, it works (and your time spent tends to decrease the longer you participate).
The sites, and there are others; but these are the type I'd send my mom to- because I wouldn't be worried about her getting spyware and viruses from just going there:
(In no particular order)
Pandora
Jango
Slacker Radio
To give you an easy example, we'll take Jango. At the main page, I put "Nine Inch Nails". The program assumes I want to listen to NIN and similar bands. So, skipping ahead I get "Cherub Rock" from the Smashing Pumpkins, "Intermission" from Tool, "Opus Dei" from Laibach, and "Fell on Black Days" by Soundgarden. Additionally, it recommends other bands I might want to add to my new "station". Marilyn Manson, KMFDM, Tool, Smashing Pumpkins, A Perfect Circle, and Nirvana are its suggestions. Not bad, right? Confused on why? Essentially, the station is only playing tracks similar to NIN, I can add other bands to refine the sound I'm looking for- General 90s: Nirvana, Smashing Pumpkins; Industrial: KMFDM, Gothic: Marilyn Manson, A Perfect Circle; Metal(ish): Tool, KMFDM.
Pandora, as it loads, tells you that it's a means of placing the Music Genome Project into users' hands. The idea is the same for all of them. Add Groups you like, rate individual songs/groups and an algorithm sorts all listed tracks on the server sending you ones that are similar. It's radio, if radio didn't suck, and wasn't actually being pumped out of Durham, NC instead of down the block.
The real difference between the services is how customizable they are, and the extra features. Jango focuses on social networking, almost, and allows a general choice of "Popular Tracks, Happy Medium, or Wide Variety" for how obscure the track list should go. Pandora has more information about the bands and songs, will tell you WHY a song/band was selected, and a detailed list of what choices you've made for your station. Slacker allows more general customization- like obscurity, and era, for instance- and Slacker also has the slab of tech we're about to discuss. All have links to lyrics or artist info or to buy tracks. And all have the ability to create a station and share it with friends. Wil Wheaton has shared a station on Slacker Radio he created based on Bauhaus and similar bands, take a look/listen.
SLAB'O'TECH
The gadget to bring this technology out of your computer- should you be so inclined is the new Slacker G2 Personal Radio Player. Basically, it connects with Slacker radio when it finds a WiFi source and gets new music based on your previous tinkerings; but otherwise operates exactly like the website. So, going for a run/walk/jog/ride? Don't want to take along a laptop with an air card? Problem solved. (Wil Wheaton's review, which inspired this post.)
WHY THIS IS GOOD
I love radio because it exposes me to music I wouldn't normally hear if I was stuck with my playlist in [Preferred Mediaplayer] on Shuffle and Repeat All. Yet, I hate listening to radio- except for NPR News- because they play CRAP with a capital "UTTER-FUCKING-BULLSHIT-ASS-DRIPPINGS-RECTAL-PROLAPSE"! I can't stand 99% of what's on the radio stations available in my area. I want punk and metal stations, for instance, which we don't have at all. Now I can create them; and all of these services are free, or have very good free versions.
WHY THIS IS NEW
Technically, it's not; and I'm not concerned with that, too much. SYSYWAR, like CftM, is also about collating information and putting it into a place you can easily reference or send your friends. Now you have a post you can send your friends to, when they ask you what bands they should look into when they only like Echo and the Bunnymen, Leadbelly, and Snoop Dog. (Hint: Send them Here)
The G2, however, is fairly recent, so there's that.
Read More...
Angel of Death?
Remember Zoe Bell? Yeah, that Zoe Bell.
Ed Brubaker has created a TV series for the net, starring Zoe Bell as the assassin Eve.
Go watch it.
Read More...
Ed Brubaker has created a TV series for the net, starring Zoe Bell as the assassin Eve.
Go watch it.
Read More...
Sunday, March 01, 2009
Has Capitalism REALLY Hit the Fan?
Capitalism Hits the Fan: A Marxian View from UVC-TV 19 on Vimeo.
Analysis follows:
In short, the first 15-22min are instructive, the last bits are interesting; but fundamentally flawed.
In the comments- at vimeo- on this video, you can see a number of ideas discussed. Some (most? I didn't read more than the first handful) are marxist/socialist, some are capitalist (including the linked PDF from the Chicago Federal Reserve Bank's Letter from March 1997), some are anti-corporate, yadda yadda yadda. The thing that unites them is they each represent a fascinating singular viewpoint, and none of them do more than superficially present a straw man of any other views. But that's the comments (which we'll come back to), now for the video...
Are his facts accurate? Yes. He never claims they are more than generalizations- which they appear to be on closer inspection. For 150 years productivity, profit and wages rose each year. Was it always at the same rate? Probably not. Was it 1975 when wages started their stagnate/downward trend? Looking at the PDF linked above, it was 1972 when real hourly wages peaked. They explain the numbers they use:
"It is obtained by deflating the average hour earnings figure that the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) obtains every month from its Current Employment Survey (CES) of establishments by the BLS’s Consumer Price Index for Urban Consumers (CPIU)."
That seems a reasonable way of deriving the numbers; and the Newsletter continues with an analysis of why it's not if you care for that. (I'll dig deeper into that PDF in a moment).
Generally, Professor Rick Wolff's facts and analysis of the 150 years from 1820-1970 is correct- as you'd probably expect from someone at the Department of Economics at the University of Massachusetts - Amherst. His assertion that this isn't a financial crisis is emotionally/politically motivated. This crisis may have resulted from many things- in fact, I think it's safe to say that it did- but to compare it to the body isn't very valid. Everything in life, today, is far more entwined than it was 100 years ago. 100 years ago a mechanics wasn't expected to understand basic nutrition, basic finance, basic law (and basic copyright law), basic electronics, and various other basics essential to navigating life in the modern era. That's not to say such understanding wouldn't help a mechanic 100 years ago, it's to say that they weren't expected by their society to know those things.
Today, the RIAA will crucify your grandmother if her granddaughter doesn't understand that torrenting music is illegal (basic copyright law). The MPAA will attempt to crucify anyone who doesn't adhere to the warnings they put on all VHS tapes and DVDs- on the DVDs you can't even skip their warning (even the one written in a language you don't understand). No more pensions, IRAs, 401(k)s, etc etc (basic- maybe even moderate- finance). A mechanic can get sued if he allows a customer to drive a car out of his shop- even if he fixed the one piece he was asked to fix (basic law). Undernourish your kids and see what DHS says (basic nutrition). Setup the router so you can safely navigate the internet for entertainment, education, and porn (technically entertainment; but SO much more, really); set up the flat screen 1080i television, the MP3 streaming wifi enabled home stereo and entertainment system, the cable box DVR, the DVD/Blu-ray player, etc (basic electronics).
Just because we're that entwined, doesn't mean this didn't start in the Financial sector. If we had done things differently, we MIGHT not have seen this crash happen, or spread as far as it did. That's a maybe; not a definite. If we had done things differently- say a dictatorial political system with a communist market- we may have been Russia in the early 1990s.
His fact that the American working class was the only one that could have been leveraged was new to me; and fit many things I had heard and read. For many years I wanted to move to the UK and live there awhile. I knew most people there rented- though I still don't know why exactly, tax law seems to have some effect on it. I knew that is the commonly accepted de facto living arrangement in Europe and Developed Asia: renting over buying.
His facts are solid, if general, and his ideas are fairly valid. Despite the fact that this started in the Financial sector, it's spread to many- if not all- sectors and is resulting in massive job losses. It's a world disaster/crisis/whatever.
His plan is interesting. Read the comments to see where it falls short from the marxist/socialist mindset. He's detailed cooperatives, not communists; but ignoring jargon and revolutions, it's an interesting idea. I doubt, as one commentor said, that workers already have the power. How can you "refuse low wages" when you're too broke to provide yourself food, water, and shelter? How can you refuse "higher prices" when it's milk, eggs, flour, rice, water, and shelter whose prices are increasing?
A digression on worker's power...
When I lived in Birmingham, I stayed at an Apartment for two years. When I got in, the price for that place was $675 a month (2 bed room, 1 bath, with water, sewer, and garbage included). When I left it was $725. When I left, the rented that apartment- to whoever moved in after me- for $750 + $30 for the included. The apartment wasn't in a bad neighborhood- though a prostitute did try to pick me up in the parking lot once, and many of the immigrants had their apartments invaded. (I was walking the dog one morning, barely awake, when I brushed through a piece of fishing line. It tripped a very loud, and annoying, alarm; designed to wake the families before thieves could make off with their kids' bikes or break down their doors). It was in Homewood, on Valley Ave, right off Green Springs. And the only place cheaper- on that road- was about $50-$60 cheaper a month, but about three-four times less safe. Imagine trying to walk to work from further away. I originally moved there from a place near Cahaba Heights that was 2 Bedrooms, 2 Baths, for $715 (garbage and sewer included). They arbitrarily raised rent rates every year- the longer the buildings stand the less is actually needed for the owners to turn a profit, until they're so old they should be torn down. Moving further away might have resulted in less rent; but more travel time to work, more gas in general travel, and basically less net gain.
Workers at the lowest end of the spectrum don't have much power. Look at who pays the most in taxes. Don't you think it's highly likely they're the same people spending the money on most non-essential (i.e. non-grocery, non-gas) supplies? They have the power, and they're not the middle class, they're the upper middle class and higher. This is where the ideals of a consumerist, materialistic, greed based value system fucks us. Plus advertising. In America, Taco Bell during the early to mid 1990s had a 59c, 79c, 99c menu. Wonder why they don't now? Because if you price something too low it's perceived value is always lower than it's price. Take the same item, price it at $1.09- instead of 79c- and its value seems greater, though the only thing that has changed is the price point. This works ont he psyche of people invested int he rat race, and who have won. People struggling to get by don't give a shit if it tastes a little funny and is half broken, if it's cheap and plentiful (and won't give them cancer today) it's gonna have to be good enough.
Back to his models...
Look at those silicon valley start-ups. As one commentator noted, venture capitalists supplied many of them with enough money to actually get the product out there. Then the VC's would, usually, own the largest portion of the company (compared to any other single investor, at least). Even if the VC's were bought out- control reverting to the workers- how did those companies end up? Oracle. Compaq. Google. Go look up which ones are publicly traded, and which ones make their Board of Directors public. Go see who is on those boards. Who is the CEO- and where did that person come from? It's not a pretty picture for the idea of cooperatives. Which might be a fault of the capitalist market, and the fallible human's need to indulge their greed; but if it is, we'd have to change the entire system before the cooperatives we were changing the system for could actually work in the long-term.
Lastly, the commentors. As I have said, I didn't read many of them. Comments can be useful; but they can also be rather useless. Most don't fully consider the ideas purported by others- even when they directly address those others. I did, however, go look at the Fed of Chicago's newsletter.
Let's be clear, I thought it would be the pro-capitalism view, and it is. It is also 12 years dated- which is significant in light of the last six months to a year. I didn't manage to make it through more than the first page.
There are, however, major methodological problems with using the average hourly earnings series to gauge long-term trends in wage rates. First, they cover only wage and salary compensation. Fringe benefits and contributions for social insurance programs, important parts of workers’ total compensation, are left out.
Because these components of compensation have been increasing more rapidly than wages and salaries over most of the period covered by figure 1, average hourly earnings understate compensation growth. The earnings data are also limited to production and nonsupervisory workers. The nearly 20% of workers excluded from the average are more likely to be highly skilled and highly paid. Because such workers have experienced more rapid wage growth since the early 1970s, their exclusion imparts another downward bias to the measured rate of average wage growth. Finally, though it covers a large fraction of employment, the CES is subject to substantial biases in sample selection; for example, it excludes workers at newly opened establishments.
In other words, because CEOs don't get covered- and their wages and benefits have grown vastly- the figure is inaccurate. My general refutation is: FUCK YOU!
Also, it doesn't cover NEW companies. Yet, it will soon; but more importantly: where do you think the new companies get their data for salaries from? Cause I'm betting established companies.
Fringe benefits are good; but they're also a crock of shit. In the 1950s you got a pension. Today, you get far less money, devoted to matching your 401(k) or IRA contributions. They have their benefits over the old style pensions- but mostly for upper middle class and above. Many people feel the "choices" and "freedom" of IRAs and 401(k)s are worth it; but I contest those "freedoms" and "choices" blow when compared to a pension for 90% of people. Health insurance could be worse if employers didn't help; but it's still ridiculous- even for Hospital employees. Why? Because of businesses we like to call the Insurance Companies (who are highly unregulated, and about the worst of the worst when it comes to greedy corporate fucks). Go look at what some sites that show median salary, and see how much higher they rate things like retirement packages and health care.
Don't get me wrong, Health coverage is even more expensive- a lot of the time- if the employer doesn't help with it; but it's not exactly like a benefit when a large chunk of salary gets pulled out of each check. What's the term for something that's not a benefit, but not a disadvantage, either? That's how I see health care compensation at most companies.
Do I have a solution?
Nope. But I'm not a professional economist, either. I think Professor Wolff makes some interesting points; but I also think he can (literally) afford to view things the way he does. I also think he knows quite a bit about what he's glossing over. All in all, it's definitely a must see lecture, because it illustrates an alternative viewpoint and sparks discussions. His solutions are maybe a little better- because of who they benefit- than most of the ones I hear currently; but they're also less likely. We're a hierarchical society, trying to disrupt the hierarchy isn't a small thing- and despite the benefit 99% of people will resist that change.
Of course, it'd be easier to substantially change if we could get those 99% to actually think about what/how/why the system is/does/causes the things/ways/beliefs it is/does/causes.
Read More...
NEVER EVER EVER Talk to the Cops.
I have a lot of friends who get into trouble. I get into trouble, too. Being as close to 7' as 6', and loud, and an asshole (read: blunt and intentionally tactless) I'm easily visible, and likely to be remembered. Unfortunately- as so many people have told me- I remind everyone of someone.
Enter the police. I remember one go-getter putting me in the back of a hot patrol car, while he tried to be super cop and get me to confess. The only problem: neither of us knew what the fuck I was supposed to be confessing. He had caught me buying smokes- I was 17- but there was an APB (maybe a "warrant", maybe just an "Action Alert", who knows what they really call 'em) for me for questioning.
Fortunately, for me, I liked to read these old hacker journals. Kult of the Dead Kow- still around, in a way, but they dropped the K's- 2400, etc etc. One of the issues I had discussed the case of a hacker. It was written, in a very compelling way, as a first-person account of his arrest, and how that later helped convict him of a lesser crime. The article was intended as advice for how to deal with the cops. Essentially, it said "Don't EVER EVER talk to cops. There is no 'off the record;' they can lie to you. Cops DO NOT have the authority to make a 'deal'."
Turns out, those 'zines I was reading 3-4 years after they had first been published, were right.
(After the cut, 2 videos- each about 22 minutes- the first being a criminal defense attorney and law school professor. The second being a cop, who affirms everything the professor says, and gives the cop's-eye version of why.)
Prof. James Duane of the Regent University School of Law:
Officer George Bruch of the Virginia Beach Police Department
Read More...
Enter the police. I remember one go-getter putting me in the back of a hot patrol car, while he tried to be super cop and get me to confess. The only problem: neither of us knew what the fuck I was supposed to be confessing. He had caught me buying smokes- I was 17- but there was an APB (maybe a "warrant", maybe just an "Action Alert", who knows what they really call 'em) for me for questioning.
Fortunately, for me, I liked to read these old hacker journals. Kult of the Dead Kow- still around, in a way, but they dropped the K's- 2400, etc etc. One of the issues I had discussed the case of a hacker. It was written, in a very compelling way, as a first-person account of his arrest, and how that later helped convict him of a lesser crime. The article was intended as advice for how to deal with the cops. Essentially, it said "Don't EVER EVER talk to cops. There is no 'off the record;' they can lie to you. Cops DO NOT have the authority to make a 'deal'."
Turns out, those 'zines I was reading 3-4 years after they had first been published, were right.
(After the cut, 2 videos- each about 22 minutes- the first being a criminal defense attorney and law school professor. The second being a cop, who affirms everything the professor says, and gives the cop's-eye version of why.)
Prof. James Duane of the Regent University School of Law:
Officer George Bruch of the Virginia Beach Police Department
Read More...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
