Time to clean off the cobwebs, I guess.
What was originally a mild interest into using my voice professionally, combined with my usual interest in advocating Linux as a cheap recording solution, has made some very big strides into my new site, The Penguin Producer. It has eaten up a huge amount of time over the last year, but I find the process rewarding; I now have a good bit of reference material to check on when doing things, and I like that some of my articles are being used elsewhere.
However, in the interests of keeping that site completely focused on the topic at hand, and because I am interested in opening up a broader dialogue, I'll get back into personal blogging here, as well as the occasional foray into deeper things. Probably more of the former than the latter; I do not have the free time I used to have in coming up with this stuff, and most of that time has been spent on the Penguin Producer.
I've had some interest in doing podcasting, but have been uncertain exactly how to approach the process. I tried with a friend, but the whole thing felt wrong; I'm not really comfortable talking about stuff informally, as I tend to prefer explaining how things work, and how to do things, rather than just saying that this thing is good, and how I'm looking forward to that thing, and while I'm good at faking it; I just don't understand how to be a "fan" of anything, unless that something has a specific tangible usefulness.
Which is pretty ironic considering how determined I am to learn how to create something as completely intangible as media. What is its purpose? Why am I so crazy over the idea of making drawings, podcasts, videos, and other projects. And if I'm really so all-fired interested in these other areas of endeavor, why am I not also interested in music? It's frustrating.
Recently, the Mint guys have come out with a fork of the Nautilus file manager for their distribution, and they are calling it "Nemo." So far, every podcast seems to associate that name with the clownfish from the movie, "Finding Nemo."
What the hell, folks? Have none of you read the book "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea?" The "Nautilus" was the name of the submarine, and Captain Nemo was its inventor and pilot. Where the hell does clownfish come into this?!
Yeah, it's probably a pretty stupid point, but it's annoying to hear people wondering about how they came up with the name; I don't know if its elitism, but even if you've never read the book, there are still the movies based off of the book.
Finances have been difficult for me, and now they've reached a point where I'm about to move in with a friend in order to split costs. Up until now, I've been living alone, content that no matter what I do, nobody will be there to watch; I can relax and enjoy whatever I wish, and nobody could interrupt it... and if it's an embarrassing little pleasure, there'd be nobody to pass it on.
I'd be lying if I said I'm looking forward to it. The very idea that I won't have complete control over my environment is a terrifying thought, mainly due to the idea that uncomfortable truths about me will be seen and passed on by my potential roommate... I've spent a lot of time and effort keeping my self to myself... I do not like being embarrassed.
Sunday, August 12, 2012
Saturday, December 24, 2011
Ron Paul's Newsletters and Response
I am a supporter of Ron Paul. I do enjoy his current position, and I do see him going further as time goes on.
However, I have seen, both in this presidential run, and the last one, comments regarding a set of newsletters. These newsletters contained articles that had racist, anti-semitic, and other really nasty things. A popular example used is the following quote:
But there are those who won't stop asking about them. They argue that he knew these comments were in the articles, because he knew details about the newsletters' content when he advertised them. They claim that these prove that the congressman is a bigot and an anti-Semite.
First of all, the advertising clip demonstrated he knew the general content of the newsletters. He did come up with them in the first place as a means to educate the public. Second, it is well-known that many of the articles were ghost-written. Third, he was busy operating his medical practice at the time. Fourth, he has not located and outed the guilty party.
When talking about the advertisement, keep in mind, that he did not give the hint of bigoted talk you would hear from a typical racist; he extolled the virtues of the free market, and talked about the faulty policies he did not believe in. In fact, in absolutely none of the videos I've seen with him talking has he ever taken such a stance on race, or even quipped wise against specific races. In fact, even attempts at wisecracks (such as the one regarding Bachmann) don't seem to slip very easily from his mouth.
I don't care how well-schooled you are, or how much self-control you possess, sooner or later, comments will slip. And considering how hesitant and sputtering his speech can be at times, I can't really believe he's THAT good at public speaking.
There are two reasons why he would withhold the name of the ghost writer. First is the possibility that such a person is a friend; in fact, some have stated a likelihood that the guilty party is Lew Rockwell. Yes, such friends can be bad for you, but at the same time, we all have at least one friend we would vehemently disagree with, but would still help in hard times. That's just human nature. And you don't throw friends under the bus because it suits you.
The only other reason I can think of is that he really doesn't know. This is a less likely scenario, I'll grant you, but these letters are at least 2 decades old. If there was a guilty party, they may be harder to track at this point.
As for the negligence, how many stockholders owned stock in Enron or Haliburton? How many of them take a personal interest in these projects? At the time of these newsletters, Ron was a doctor, not a politician; he was not thinking about political office, and likely trusted the people who were maintaining the articles, and besides, they didn't say (theoretically) anything he didn't already understand. In this case, we know what happens when you assume.
This is a lot of rambling, but here's the point: I hear a lot of "he has to answer for these newsletters," but apparently, the answers he gave for them are apparently not satisfactory. So I pose to you, media and questioners: what exact questions are you asking? What specific information will you accept as sufficient from him? Or are you unwilling to accept anything other than confirmation that he is a horrid, bitter man with bigoted stands toward his fellow man?
However, I have seen, both in this presidential run, and the last one, comments regarding a set of newsletters. These newsletters contained articles that had racist, anti-semitic, and other really nasty things. A popular example used is the following quote:
"Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began"Now, this sort of thing should have been caught. Ron Paul has acknowledged the issue, and has both apologized for the oversight, and disavowed the statements. Certainly, no new articles have appeared to demonstrate that he has let the issue continue.
But there are those who won't stop asking about them. They argue that he knew these comments were in the articles, because he knew details about the newsletters' content when he advertised them. They claim that these prove that the congressman is a bigot and an anti-Semite.
First of all, the advertising clip demonstrated he knew the general content of the newsletters. He did come up with them in the first place as a means to educate the public. Second, it is well-known that many of the articles were ghost-written. Third, he was busy operating his medical practice at the time. Fourth, he has not located and outed the guilty party.
When talking about the advertisement, keep in mind, that he did not give the hint of bigoted talk you would hear from a typical racist; he extolled the virtues of the free market, and talked about the faulty policies he did not believe in. In fact, in absolutely none of the videos I've seen with him talking has he ever taken such a stance on race, or even quipped wise against specific races. In fact, even attempts at wisecracks (such as the one regarding Bachmann) don't seem to slip very easily from his mouth.
I don't care how well-schooled you are, or how much self-control you possess, sooner or later, comments will slip. And considering how hesitant and sputtering his speech can be at times, I can't really believe he's THAT good at public speaking.
There are two reasons why he would withhold the name of the ghost writer. First is the possibility that such a person is a friend; in fact, some have stated a likelihood that the guilty party is Lew Rockwell. Yes, such friends can be bad for you, but at the same time, we all have at least one friend we would vehemently disagree with, but would still help in hard times. That's just human nature. And you don't throw friends under the bus because it suits you.
The only other reason I can think of is that he really doesn't know. This is a less likely scenario, I'll grant you, but these letters are at least 2 decades old. If there was a guilty party, they may be harder to track at this point.
As for the negligence, how many stockholders owned stock in Enron or Haliburton? How many of them take a personal interest in these projects? At the time of these newsletters, Ron was a doctor, not a politician; he was not thinking about political office, and likely trusted the people who were maintaining the articles, and besides, they didn't say (theoretically) anything he didn't already understand. In this case, we know what happens when you assume.
This is a lot of rambling, but here's the point: I hear a lot of "he has to answer for these newsletters," but apparently, the answers he gave for them are apparently not satisfactory. So I pose to you, media and questioners: what exact questions are you asking? What specific information will you accept as sufficient from him? Or are you unwilling to accept anything other than confirmation that he is a horrid, bitter man with bigoted stands toward his fellow man?
Friday, December 9, 2011
The Before-Death Experience
The Hitchhiker's Guide has this to say about the before-death experience:
It is said that before you die, your life passes before your eyes. This is, in fact, true; the process is known as "living." This is a horribly tedious process, sometimes pleasant, such as times when one is enjoying tea and fairycake, and other times, less so, such as when attempting to explain to the Vogons just why their planet should not be demolished to make way for a hyperspace bypass. And less so when listening to the reaction on the part of the Vogon who, in a fit of inspiration, decides to share a poem about the types of muck found between their toes one midwinter night.
Some people will seek to shorten this process, especially when listening to said poetry, in order to be on time for tea in the afterlife; fairycakes optional. Others, unwilling to experience the unpleasantness of "dying," particularly those who have not yet heard a Vogon reading poetry, will do everything in their power to extend the period, only to discover just how tedious the whole "living" process really is, until they can no longer stand it, and die anyway, usually in the middle of a dream of tea in the afterlife. Of course, these people tend to become confused as to whether they will ever wake up on time to have their morning tea, and then decide that it's not important, as there's a perfectly good cup in front of them.
Sunday, August 14, 2011
Linux Creativity Podcast
Here I am, preparing to begin a podcast from Linux. There are a few things I am sure I want:
- I want the podcast to sound professional, as if it was syndicated as part of a larger network. Even if it's not, it definitely gets the attention of someone who might otherwise just ignore it. This means that the podcast will need to have:
- Opening Music for the intro, small riffs for the bumpers, and closing music for the outtro. I'd consider creative commons, but I'd be leery of non-commercial or share-alike licenses. Attribution won't be a problem, though.
- Discrete sections, including the opening, commentary, news, main topic, mail, tip, conclusion, and closing.
- A steady release rate, preferably weekly.
- An easily-remembered name.
- A primary domain name (something.com).
- A content-managed website, preferably with a forum and a show notes section.
- Co-hosts with some experience in the fields I'll be covering (dialog sounds more natural than prepared scripts, and it would help to have someone coming from a creative background, as opposed to my extensive Linux background.)
- Consistency.
- I want to focus on the audio technologies in Linux. I am comfortable with:
- Jack (for sound channel manipulation)
- Ardour (for recording and mixing)
- LADSPA, LV2, and VST plugins (for audio filtering)
- Jamin (for mastering the final).
- I want to cover topics regarding the professional creative use of Linux. There are a lot of podcasts out there that cover Linux for technicians and business people, I want to focus on the creative tools of Linux. At first, I intend to focus on audio production (such as creating podcasts in Linux... how's that for meta?), but I have spent time getting comfortable with programs in other fields of creative endeavour, such as writing, computer graphics, and video.
Friday, July 8, 2011
The Simple Linux Desktop
These days, there are a number of major desktop environments out there that can make the Linux desktop behave like a Windows or Mac desktop. This is a good thing, where people from those environments are concerned, as they won't have to do a lot of learning right away. Everything they expect, such as icons, the taskbar, desktop menus, and other common items are right where they would normally look for them.
But what about those of us who prefer the spartan way of computing? Those who find the window manager shouldn't have gained any more features than drawing borders around windows, and where the desktop is just the screen where windows appear often finds the presence of start menus, taskbar, eye candy, and icons an unnecessary distraction, while the number of programs required to run in order to produce those visual elements robs the simple performance of whatever app is being used at the time.
In an effort to remove the complexity of the desktop environment, I've found the use of several tools work just as well for a desktop, provides a flexible user interface, and still gets the work done.
One thing I would like to note: originally, I cursed the existence of the "useless" Windows key, but since working on this desktop project, I've come to love it for its one major benefit... the very uselessness I originally hated it for. Since it's useless, I can make a use for it, and not have to use any of the other keys that more frequently already have uses in other software packages.
Before we begin, I will make a point of noting here: This is an advanced setup process. Compiz will probably be the easiest part to set up due to its graphical setup and reasonable defaults once the plugins are enabled. The rest of the tools, while having GUI tools for setup, are much better handled in their text configuration files, where the flexibility of this desktop will shine.
With that being said, however, keep in mind that once the tools have been configured, they don't need to be modified again unless you plan to redecorate. Constant tweakers need not apply, this is for those folk who just want a simple desktop to set up and use without worries that it's going to change on them.
The desktop itself needs to have all the elements necessary to create windows, borders, and just enough interaction to do things with those windows and borders. Older hands prefer classic window managers like twm, fvwm, or *box, but we can actually have a lot of eye candy from a much more flexible (and potentially-pleasing) window manager, Compiz.
Unlike the classic window managers, Compiz lacks most of the desktop elements one would expect with a window manager, such as desktop buttons, icons, or even a root menu (a sort of "start menu" that appears when clicking on the wallpaper). Any additional features will need to be added by other specialized programs later. But don't think this makes it too simplistic.
Compiz has a configuration program called "ccsm", which means "Compiz Configuration Settings Manager." This application has a GUI interface to a whole host of settings, which include both special effects, such as the desktop cube and wobbly windows, as well as the more important stuff, such as which keys and mouse buttons can affect windows in which ways.
To save you some trouble, here are the basic Compiz plugins to activate to have a completely usable standalone desktop with Compiz:
Now, I would be lying if I said I didn't want some of the more awesome effects of such a nice window manager, and since I'm saving massive amounts of resources by not using a full desktop, I can have several extra toys running:
Now that the window manager is active, let's next focus on the visual elements of the desktop. The basic tools are the toolbar and the task tray; items that are needed for one to be able to switch between windows, and to hide items that don't need to be displayed to function. Additional items can be found in simple notification widgets, such as a system monitor.
Tint2 is probably the most lightweight and simplistic taskbar I could find, especially as it includes a task tray, doesn't include a start menu, and even has a clock included. Additionally, this toolbar has alpha blending, meaning it can be translucent without being transparent. Finally, it does not interact with windows on the desktop, which means it isn't going to reduce the desktop size one iota (toolbars should only be seen when needed). If you activate the "Widget Layer" feature of Compiz, you can then set a hotkey to show it only when you actually need it, leaving the desktop entirely empty for other uses when you don't.
Conky is a system monitor widget with a lot of optional extras, from temperature monitor, to music player information, to RSS Feed reader. In my case, I just use it to function as a desktop clock, performance monitor, and disk space notifier. It sits in the background, translucent, and doesn't interfere with the rest of the windows, which works for me. Some tips: enable argb_visual features to allow Conky to interact with Compiz's transparency, enable double-buffer to prevent the annoying flickering seen in the default setup, and browse other peoples' configurations via Google for ideas on how you can use it.
Of course, a good-looking desktop that is unusable is a waste of time and effort, right? Of course. Two tools will be useful for launching applications.
Keyboard Launcers
xbindkeys is a simple tool with a simple purpose: Wait for special keyboard combinations, and then run the specified program. This allows me to set up Win-F1 through Win-F12 (and combinations including Win, Alt, Ctrl, and Shift) to launch programs.
Now, there is not a lot of documentation regarding which codes are assigned to which keys. However, if you launch xbindkeys with the "-mk" switch, the program will sit and give you the exact keypress names it expects as you press the keys themselves. This can be a boon to making the configuration files as needed.
The only downside to this program is that it does not also detect mouse activity.
Mouse Menu
Some people prefer the old start menu. Nothing wrong with that, although it seems like more trouble than its worth... but that's just me. For those who really need a good standalone root menu (remember, Compiz does not have one), there is myGtkMenu. This program is simple: it reads a text file you make, and shows a menu. The configuration file is just a list of three-line entries, separated by spaces, consisting of item name, program to launch, and path (if any) to the program's desired icon (or else just NULL). Submenus can be created, all you need is a name, and the icon name, following which all items in that menu have an additional tab before they're entered (if you're familiar with Python, this should be pretty simple to understand).
Now, keep in mind that XBindKeys won't detect mouse presses, but Compiz will. If you plan to set this menu up, you can use the "Commands" plugin in Compiz settings to add the command to open the menu, and assign a key/mouse binding for it.
Now, it wouldn't be much of an explanation without some screenshots, would it? So, here are two.
The first one is a screen in normal mode; note that aside from the browser, there is no task bar.
Now, we see the window is darkened, and the task bar is present. The screen is in "Widget Layer" mode, which is what the task bar is assigned to.
At this point, I've described my own desktop (plus the menu; I prefer using xterms to launch programs). It's simple, but immensely flexible, and I doubt I'll be seeing it mucked about by upstream authors anytime soon, so I can forget about fighting the interface, and just use my computer as I want to.
I hope you enjoy this, and find inspiration with it!
But what about those of us who prefer the spartan way of computing? Those who find the window manager shouldn't have gained any more features than drawing borders around windows, and where the desktop is just the screen where windows appear often finds the presence of start menus, taskbar, eye candy, and icons an unnecessary distraction, while the number of programs required to run in order to produce those visual elements robs the simple performance of whatever app is being used at the time.
In an effort to remove the complexity of the desktop environment, I've found the use of several tools work just as well for a desktop, provides a flexible user interface, and still gets the work done.
One thing I would like to note: originally, I cursed the existence of the "useless" Windows key, but since working on this desktop project, I've come to love it for its one major benefit... the very uselessness I originally hated it for. Since it's useless, I can make a use for it, and not have to use any of the other keys that more frequently already have uses in other software packages.
Before we begin, I will make a point of noting here: This is an advanced setup process. Compiz will probably be the easiest part to set up due to its graphical setup and reasonable defaults once the plugins are enabled. The rest of the tools, while having GUI tools for setup, are much better handled in their text configuration files, where the flexibility of this desktop will shine.
With that being said, however, keep in mind that once the tools have been configured, they don't need to be modified again unless you plan to redecorate. Constant tweakers need not apply, this is for those folk who just want a simple desktop to set up and use without worries that it's going to change on them.
The Desktop
The desktop itself needs to have all the elements necessary to create windows, borders, and just enough interaction to do things with those windows and borders. Older hands prefer classic window managers like twm, fvwm, or *box, but we can actually have a lot of eye candy from a much more flexible (and potentially-pleasing) window manager, Compiz.
Unlike the classic window managers, Compiz lacks most of the desktop elements one would expect with a window manager, such as desktop buttons, icons, or even a root menu (a sort of "start menu" that appears when clicking on the wallpaper). Any additional features will need to be added by other specialized programs later. But don't think this makes it too simplistic.
Compiz has a configuration program called "ccsm", which means "Compiz Configuration Settings Manager." This application has a GUI interface to a whole host of settings, which include both special effects, such as the desktop cube and wobbly windows, as well as the more important stuff, such as which keys and mouse buttons can affect windows in which ways.
To save you some trouble, here are the basic Compiz plugins to activate to have a completely usable standalone desktop with Compiz:
- In the "Effects" section:
- "Window Decoration" actually draws the window borders. Yes, you really do need a plugin for that feature.
- In "Window Management":
- "Application Switcher" allows the standard ALT-Tab window-switching behavior.
- "Move Window," which allows windows to be moved around on the desktop.
- "Place Windows," which determines where brand new windows appear on the desktop. I prefer "Smart Placement," which places new windows in areas with little window covering.
- "Resize Window," which allows windows to be enlarged or shrunk.
Now, I would be lying if I said I didn't want some of the more awesome effects of such a nice window manager, and since I'm saving massive amounts of resources by not using a full desktop, I can have several extra toys running:
- In "Desktop:"
- "Desktop Cube," which is like virtual desktops on steroids. Despite the name, it does not necessarily need to be a cube; the number of faces are actually flexible, although they all need to be placed in a horizontal arrangement... no complex "desktop multihedrons" unfortunately.
- Rotate Cube, which allows you to switch "faces" on the cube using the mouse and/or the keyboard.
- In "Effects:"
- "Animations;" opening, closing, minimizing, maximizing, restoring, and shading windows all have special effects assigned to them. If you have a task bar, they usually interact with that. If there is no taskbar, windows usually "disappear" into the mouse, regardless of its actual location on the desktop. It looks pretty slick to watch windows just get "sucked" into the mouse pointer.
- "Animations Add-ons" add more animations for the windows to perform.
- "Wobbly Windows" can give the windows a stretchy, rubbery feel. Also, if you hold down Shift while moving a window, it will snap to the nearest window or desktop border.
- In "Extras:"
- "Screenshot" is a useful option; instead of taking a full-screen snapshot, you can hold down the Windows key, drag the mouse using the left mouse button, and the screen will show an outline. Let go of the mouse button, and everything in that line will become a screenshot in the chosen directory, and can even be shown in your preferred image program.
- In "Window Management:"
- "Group and Tab Switcher" essentially allow you to "glue" windows together. Grouping windows will mean that if you move one window in a group, they will all move as one. Tabbed windows are even slicker; if you set up a group of windows into a tab session, then holding the mouse over the border will show all the tabs in that group; clicking on any of the tabs (or using Windows-Left or Windows-Right) will cause the window to visibly "flip over," revealing the desired window on the back of the previous window.
- "Maximumize" works similar to "maximize," but instead of the window filling up the whole screen, it simply grows to fill the available unused space it's in. Unlike Maximize, however, it does not return to its original size; "Minimumize" will simply shrink the window down to its absolute minimum size possible.
- Shift Switcher allows Windows-Tab to change windows, but unlike the Application switcher, which treats the windows like a slide show, this one shows the windows as if you were flipping through records.
Desktop Components
Now that the window manager is active, let's next focus on the visual elements of the desktop. The basic tools are the toolbar and the task tray; items that are needed for one to be able to switch between windows, and to hide items that don't need to be displayed to function. Additional items can be found in simple notification widgets, such as a system monitor.
Task Bar
Tint2 is probably the most lightweight and simplistic taskbar I could find, especially as it includes a task tray, doesn't include a start menu, and even has a clock included. Additionally, this toolbar has alpha blending, meaning it can be translucent without being transparent. Finally, it does not interact with windows on the desktop, which means it isn't going to reduce the desktop size one iota (toolbars should only be seen when needed). If you activate the "Widget Layer" feature of Compiz, you can then set a hotkey to show it only when you actually need it, leaving the desktop entirely empty for other uses when you don't.
System Monitor
Conky is a system monitor widget with a lot of optional extras, from temperature monitor, to music player information, to RSS Feed reader. In my case, I just use it to function as a desktop clock, performance monitor, and disk space notifier. It sits in the background, translucent, and doesn't interfere with the rest of the windows, which works for me. Some tips: enable argb_visual features to allow Conky to interact with Compiz's transparency, enable double-buffer to prevent the annoying flickering seen in the default setup, and browse other peoples' configurations via Google for ideas on how you can use it.
Launching Applications
Of course, a good-looking desktop that is unusable is a waste of time and effort, right? Of course. Two tools will be useful for launching applications.
Keyboard Launcers
xbindkeys is a simple tool with a simple purpose: Wait for special keyboard combinations, and then run the specified program. This allows me to set up Win-F1 through Win-F12 (and combinations including Win, Alt, Ctrl, and Shift) to launch programs.
Now, there is not a lot of documentation regarding which codes are assigned to which keys. However, if you launch xbindkeys with the "-mk" switch, the program will sit and give you the exact keypress names it expects as you press the keys themselves. This can be a boon to making the configuration files as needed.
The only downside to this program is that it does not also detect mouse activity.
Mouse Menu
Some people prefer the old start menu. Nothing wrong with that, although it seems like more trouble than its worth... but that's just me. For those who really need a good standalone root menu (remember, Compiz does not have one), there is myGtkMenu. This program is simple: it reads a text file you make, and shows a menu. The configuration file is just a list of three-line entries, separated by spaces, consisting of item name, program to launch, and path (if any) to the program's desired icon (or else just NULL). Submenus can be created, all you need is a name, and the icon name, following which all items in that menu have an additional tab before they're entered (if you're familiar with Python, this should be pretty simple to understand).
Now, keep in mind that XBindKeys won't detect mouse presses, but Compiz will. If you plan to set this menu up, you can use the "Commands" plugin in Compiz settings to add the command to open the menu, and assign a key/mouse binding for it.
Now, it wouldn't be much of an explanation without some screenshots, would it? So, here are two.
The first one is a screen in normal mode; note that aside from the browser, there is no task bar.
Now, we see the window is darkened, and the task bar is present. The screen is in "Widget Layer" mode, which is what the task bar is assigned to.
At this point, I've described my own desktop (plus the menu; I prefer using xterms to launch programs). It's simple, but immensely flexible, and I doubt I'll be seeing it mucked about by upstream authors anytime soon, so I can forget about fighting the interface, and just use my computer as I want to.
I hope you enjoy this, and find inspiration with it!
Saturday, June 12, 2010
Giving Microsoft Windows the Linux Desktop
I am a Linux user. I am such mainly because I'm most comfortable with the way Linux does things, and there's absolutely no limit to the customizations I make. As a result, I've become comfortable with the interface I've grown accustomed to.
In my case, window focus follows the mouse, clicking on a window does not cause it to pop to the top, covering other windows, and moving or resizing said window is simply a matter of holding Alt and dragging (left or right, respectively) in it. Additionally, I use a trackball, and in Linux, I configured it that holding one of the trackball buttons turned the trackball into a scrollball, and releasing the button would immediately return the trackball to the normal mousing mode. And finally, I use an extremely spartan desktop; I run Compiz standalone (meaning that I don't have a desktop environment), with xbindkeys and MyGtkMenu working as hotkey controller and desktop menu, respectively, GKrellm as the system clock and status tracker, and stalonetray as a tray tool.
This kind of interface does not exist in Microsoft Windows, as the click-to-focus-and-raise model is pretty much standard. And while there's a vague imitation of focus-follows-mouse in the accessibility options, clicking in a window still activates and raises said window.
Given that my current job, which is a work-from-home kind of dealie, requires me to use Windows, I felt the need to modify it to more closely behave like my Linux desktop. Given the lack of customization options available for Windows, this seemed like a pretty daunting task.
I eventually discovered tools, however, to make the Windows desktop function almost perfectly like my Linux desktop.
First, I want to get rid of all the extra baggage that comes with a Windows desktop, so I want to get rid of the taskbar at the bottom. All of it. Nothing visible but desktop, perhaps with the exception of the system tray. So, I download and install the Emerge Desktop, which is a minimalist and modular shell replacement for Windows. It has a system tray program and a task tray program which do the work I want; I can now have nothing but process icons lining the bottom of the desktop, at 16x16 resolution, with tasks on the left, and the tray on the right. Nothing else. This may be too minimalist for some, so there are other shell replacements for Windows as well; a popular one is bblean, a replication of the Fluxbox environment for Windows.
Second, I use gkrellm on Linux, and by gum, there's a Windows port of it. This is a good thing, and something I take full advantage of. Now, I have a system clock. I've yet to muck about with the other krells, but time will bring opportunities for experimentation.
Next, sloppy-focus. Windows is notorious for its click-to-raise tendencies; and I always preferred the stacking order to remain until I consciously decided to raise a window, regardless of whether I'm typing in a window, or clicking on window elements, such as buttons, menus, or a scroll bar. Windows does have a focus-follows-mouse feature, but clicking in a window still follows the original click-to-raise model. Enter True X-Mouse. This tool causes Windows to perform the focus-follows-mouse action correctly. It also introduces Linux-style copy/paste to Windows (highlight to copy, middle-click to paste), but this interrupts the middle-click features in Firefox, and even in Linux, I tend to use the Ctrl-C/Ctrl-V model, so in HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\<appro@fy.chalmers.se>\TXMouse, I create the strings "ExemptedClasses" and "ExemptedModules", setting them both to "*". At this point, I have focus-follows-mouse, and no middle-click paste, which works for me. (If you don't see the above key, you can make it).
Next, I want the ability to move or resize windows using the left and right buttons in combination with the ALT key; this means I can move or resize a window, even if the appropriate titlebar or border is not onscreen. So, we make use of another utility that allows this: Win-X-Move.
At this point, mouse-based users are done; the desktop heavily resembles and behaves like a Linux desktop. However, I still am using a Logitech Marble trackball with 4 buttons; two big, two small. My Linux configuration makes the left small button a "scrollball emulator"; holding the button causes the trackball to simulate a scroll wheel that can scroll both horizontally and vertically. The small right button is meant to be a middle button. However, the SetPoint software does not quite meet the needs; universal scroll is a press-to-engage, press-to-disengage process, and the right-hand small button cannot be programmed to be a middle button. So, I replace SetPoint with X-Mouse Button Control, which is a much more flexible mouse button remapping tool, and Marble Mouse Scroll Wheel, which sets the scroll functionality to perfectly match the linux variety.
Now, onto the virtual desktops. True, Emerald Desktop has its own virtual desktop manager, but it's relatively anemic, and doesn't work with Vista/7 without administrator rights. So, instead, I installed VirtuaWin, a tray app that will handle multiple desktops without much difficulty, and has an incredible flexibility with the use of hotkeys.
Finally, we come to the shortcuts. I tend to use F1-F2 in combination with Win, Win-Ctrl, Win-Shift, and Win-Alt to launch programs. There's enough of a space (48 combinations) there to handle the bulk of the applications I use on a regular basis, and then some. I also use Win, Win-Shift, Ctrl, and Ctrl-Shift with the number pad to quickly access the various websites I use on a regular basis (36 combinations).
For the above combinations, I found that AutoHotKey not only fits the bill, but also provides the ability to use "hotstrings," which replaces something you type in with something else, either for the purpose of a correction of a misspelled word, or also for the expansion of acronyms/keywords. This tool also allows me to make executables that will launch whole groups of applications simultaneously.
Well, that's my Windows desktop. I still don't have Alt-Click to raise/lower, snap to edge, desktop cube, or wobbly windows, but this is a lot closer than I started with. If anyone knows a way to accomplish these from Windows, I'd certainly appreciate the suggestion.
In my case, window focus follows the mouse, clicking on a window does not cause it to pop to the top, covering other windows, and moving or resizing said window is simply a matter of holding Alt and dragging (left or right, respectively) in it. Additionally, I use a trackball, and in Linux, I configured it that holding one of the trackball buttons turned the trackball into a scrollball, and releasing the button would immediately return the trackball to the normal mousing mode. And finally, I use an extremely spartan desktop; I run Compiz standalone (meaning that I don't have a desktop environment), with xbindkeys and MyGtkMenu working as hotkey controller and desktop menu, respectively, GKrellm as the system clock and status tracker, and stalonetray as a tray tool.
This kind of interface does not exist in Microsoft Windows, as the click-to-focus-and-raise model is pretty much standard. And while there's a vague imitation of focus-follows-mouse in the accessibility options, clicking in a window still activates and raises said window.
Given that my current job, which is a work-from-home kind of dealie, requires me to use Windows, I felt the need to modify it to more closely behave like my Linux desktop. Given the lack of customization options available for Windows, this seemed like a pretty daunting task.
I eventually discovered tools, however, to make the Windows desktop function almost perfectly like my Linux desktop.
First, I want to get rid of all the extra baggage that comes with a Windows desktop, so I want to get rid of the taskbar at the bottom. All of it. Nothing visible but desktop, perhaps with the exception of the system tray. So, I download and install the Emerge Desktop, which is a minimalist and modular shell replacement for Windows. It has a system tray program and a task tray program which do the work I want; I can now have nothing but process icons lining the bottom of the desktop, at 16x16 resolution, with tasks on the left, and the tray on the right. Nothing else. This may be too minimalist for some, so there are other shell replacements for Windows as well; a popular one is bblean, a replication of the Fluxbox environment for Windows.
Second, I use gkrellm on Linux, and by gum, there's a Windows port of it. This is a good thing, and something I take full advantage of. Now, I have a system clock. I've yet to muck about with the other krells, but time will bring opportunities for experimentation.
Next, sloppy-focus. Windows is notorious for its click-to-raise tendencies; and I always preferred the stacking order to remain until I consciously decided to raise a window, regardless of whether I'm typing in a window, or clicking on window elements, such as buttons, menus, or a scroll bar. Windows does have a focus-follows-mouse feature, but clicking in a window still follows the original click-to-raise model. Enter True X-Mouse. This tool causes Windows to perform the focus-follows-mouse action correctly. It also introduces Linux-style copy/paste to Windows (highlight to copy, middle-click to paste), but this interrupts the middle-click features in Firefox, and even in Linux, I tend to use the Ctrl-C/Ctrl-V model, so in HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\
Next, I want the ability to move or resize windows using the left and right buttons in combination with the ALT key; this means I can move or resize a window, even if the appropriate titlebar or border is not onscreen. So, we make use of another utility that allows this: Win-X-Move.
At this point, mouse-based users are done; the desktop heavily resembles and behaves like a Linux desktop. However, I still am using a Logitech Marble trackball with 4 buttons; two big, two small. My Linux configuration makes the left small button a "scrollball emulator"; holding the button causes the trackball to simulate a scroll wheel that can scroll both horizontally and vertically. The small right button is meant to be a middle button. However, the SetPoint software does not quite meet the needs; universal scroll is a press-to-engage, press-to-disengage process, and the right-hand small button cannot be programmed to be a middle button. So, I replace SetPoint with X-Mouse Button Control, which is a much more flexible mouse button remapping tool, and Marble Mouse Scroll Wheel, which sets the scroll functionality to perfectly match the linux variety.
Now, onto the virtual desktops. True, Emerald Desktop has its own virtual desktop manager, but it's relatively anemic, and doesn't work with Vista/7 without administrator rights. So, instead, I installed VirtuaWin, a tray app that will handle multiple desktops without much difficulty, and has an incredible flexibility with the use of hotkeys.
Finally, we come to the shortcuts. I tend to use F1-F2 in combination with Win, Win-Ctrl, Win-Shift, and Win-Alt to launch programs. There's enough of a space (48 combinations) there to handle the bulk of the applications I use on a regular basis, and then some. I also use Win, Win-Shift, Ctrl, and Ctrl-Shift with the number pad to quickly access the various websites I use on a regular basis (36 combinations).
For the above combinations, I found that AutoHotKey not only fits the bill, but also provides the ability to use "hotstrings," which replaces something you type in with something else, either for the purpose of a correction of a misspelled word, or also for the expansion of acronyms/keywords. This tool also allows me to make executables that will launch whole groups of applications simultaneously.
Well, that's my Windows desktop. I still don't have Alt-Click to raise/lower, snap to edge, desktop cube, or wobbly windows, but this is a lot closer than I started with. If anyone knows a way to accomplish these from Windows, I'd certainly appreciate the suggestion.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Sounding Off
I finally got around to learning how to use the JACK Audio Connection Kit, which, as far as I'm concerned, is easily a contender against the big names like Pro Audio, Cubase, or any sound program by Adobe. Sadly, Audacity doesn't cooperate with the virtual patch panel, but the Ardour DAW seems to fill in the gaps quite nicely. Combine this with Jack Rack (a tool to integrate various sound filters into the patch panel) and Jamin (a audio mastering interface), and there's a nigh-professional sound editing system at my fingertips. And if I need to do some post-processing, well, Audacity will fit the bill quite nicely.
I could use this to produce some interesting things; I have had some recent interest in performing audio theatre podcasts, perhaps do some voice-over work in the longer-term future... who knows?
Jack Audio Connection Kit
Audacity Sound Editor
Ardour Digital Audio Workstation
Jack Rack Audio Effects Toolkit
Jamin Audio Mastering Interface
I could use this to produce some interesting things; I have had some recent interest in performing audio theatre podcasts, perhaps do some voice-over work in the longer-term future... who knows?
Jack Audio Connection Kit
Audacity Sound Editor
Ardour Digital Audio Workstation
Jack Rack Audio Effects Toolkit
Jamin Audio Mastering Interface
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Cleaning up Scanned Documents with the GIMP
Recently, I've decided that I don't really want to keep a lot of paper documents lying around, such as bills and receipts, but I also don't want to lose the information they contain. So, I decided to scan them into my computer, and store them as images, eventually to be converted into PDF format.
After scanning in the first document, I came across the problem that no doubt a lot of you encounter; the scanned document is sort of off-kilter, no matter how determinedly I aligned the paper on the glass. Additionally, the document's background seemed to be inconsistently shaded at best. Of course, there's also the ever-present black border where the paper did not cover the glass. Obviously, this would not do.
After an hour attempt, I started to put together a method of cleaning up documents to the point that they would be cleanly replicated on the image file, to the point that signatures could even look realistic. This article describes just how this happens, and how it can be corrected. For simplicity's sake, I will describe this using the free Photoshop workalike known as the GNU Image Manipulation Program (or Gimp, as it's usually shortened to).
The following image shows the basic layout of a scanner and the document placed in it.
The blue box at the right is the scanner's lamp and imaging system; it goes over the glass at a consistent rate, and constantly takes snapshots of its location as it goes. Under perfect conditions, where the paper is perfectly aligned and flat, where the lamp is the only source of light there is, and where the lamp/sensor itself is perfectly aligned, this can result in a perfectly clean scan with no artifacts or strange bending.
However, such perfect scanners generally cost in the megabucks, so the typical scanner is generally "close enough," in that the document is clean, clear, and not too badly warped, and is mostly legible. The developers of such scanners expect the cleanup to be done in software, so the tolerances can be a bit more off than the more expensive devices.
You'll notice with the above pictures that the blue lamp/sensor device isn't completely aligned with the paper. It will still scan straight, but it results in one of the more common faults of scanned documents: shear. This means that one side of the scan will be captured earlier than the other side, causing the whole document to look crooked, as the above illustration shows. What makes this a bit more annoying is that rotation alone won't fix the problem, as it will simply rotate the text as well as the lines and borders.
Another problem that often pops up is the strange "fog" of color that warps over the image, usually marbled based on imperfections in the paper; the lamp puts out a steady light that is reflected off the paper and returned to the sensor on the assembly.
As you can see, the first example shows a perfect scan, if the paper is perfectly flat and even. The second example is a bit more realistic; paper consists of millions of miniature bumps, and is usually something less than perfectly flat, especially if it was handled in some way, and definitely if it was recently folded or crumpled. In this case, those areas that are further from the glass (and lamp) become slightly darker, and the texture of the paper itself can affect the darkness somewhat. This is the source of the colored (or gray) "fog" that can cover a good portion of the paper.
Example Document Used
The following document will be used for the examples; it was scanned using the green channel at 300dpi with an 8-bit grayscale. It was originally part of a larger, but mostly-obsolete document I had stored in a 3-ring binder for a while (for those curious, it was from the "Encrypted Root Filesystem HOWTO" website).
The reasons for my scanning choices are as follows:
The first step involves a calculation: You need to determine how wide your total scan is, and then place a vertical guide at the exact (or bordering) halfway point. Then, you need to locate a line long enough on the document to compare ends, and align a horizontal guide exactly where the vertical guide and the document's line meet:
In the case of my example, my flatbed scanner has a maximum width (at 300dpi) of 2563 pixels, so 1281 would be an appropriate location for the cross. Also, notice the dotted blue line going across. On the far left and far right of that border, the blue line is above and below it, respectively.
Now that the guides have been placed, we can now use the shear tool in the Gimp. In the toolbox on the right, look for the shear tool:
Up will pop the shear dialog box, which contains two options and four buttons:
When you make changes to the values in the magnitude options, the displayed image will automatically update as a preview. The easiest way to ensure you don't overshoot the mark is to use the up and down arrows to the right of the entry fields to take the changes one step at a time. In this case, we want to change the "Shear magnitude Y."
The above picture shows the before; here you see the shear box with both 0 entries, and the image below with the two guides. Notice that the horizontal guide shows just how bad the shear is on the document. In the following image, however, all of this is corrected:
Here, you can see that the lines are now matched up, and since the guide lines are always perfectly horizontal and vertical, you know that the document has been corrected. Something to keep in mind, however: when you try this, you'll notice that while you're doing the shearing, the lines will become jagged and uneven. Once the process is completed, the jagged lines will be corrected, and everything will be smooth and straight.
Now, you'll notice that the image does have a hazy gray color over most of the surface. Most of the time, the haze is paler than anything else on the page, which means that cleaning it up is just a levels tool away.
The levels tool is designed to change how light the lights are, and how dark the darks are. You can activate the levels tool by going to the "Colors" menu and clicking on "Levels..." You will then see the dialog box shown below:
Most of what you see on this dialog box is unimportant for our purposes; all we're interested in is the histogram and the input level controls. The histogram is the big white box above, with the black "mountain" shown in it. Beneath it, you see three triangles under a gradient. We'll call those triangles the blackpoint, greypoint, and the whitepoint, as they mark where the black, middle gray, and white are in the image.
The histogram is essential to the task of cleaning the fog. You'll notice the mountain showing up at the far right of the dialog. That mountain happens to be just above the very light gray part of the grayscale. This means that each of those shades of gray have a lot of pixels of that brightness. At this point, you probably realize that the mountain describes the pixels in the scanner fog, which is usually in that brightness range, as compared with the actual text, which is considerably darker.
Underneath the histogram, we have the grayscale with three triangles. Those triangles generally adjust where the black color starts lightening up, and where the white color begins to darken. To fix the problem with the scanner fog, we need to move the white arrow to the point just left of the mountain, which will turn all the pixels of scanner fog pure white, essentially losing those pixels as data (don't click OK just yet):
But, now we have a new problem: the text in the document has become quite faint! Well, that can be corrected as well. Notice the low, long hill on the left side of the histogram? Those are the pixels that contain the content, much of which was black on paper. We just need to move the black slider to the right so that hill is above the black region at the bottom:
As you can see, the document has been darkened again, but the fog is still gone. As you can see, the "fog mountain" in the histogram is now above the pure white region, making all "fog" pixels white, while the "content hill" is now completely above the pure black region, meaning that much of the content is now back to black. For the most part, the corrections are mostly done. To remove the punch-holes on the left-hand side, a quick swipe of white paint will fix it in no time.
Now, you'll notice that the borders are a little off, and, of course, the black border is still there. Cropping is the word for this occasion; a tool that will delete everything outside of a rectangular region you select. Simply open the tool, adjust the borders to match where you want the page cut, and voila. To begin, you need to select the crop tool from the toolbox:
Then click and drag from one corner of your desired selection to the other, using the boxes along the edges, and over the corners to resize the selection to crop. It is recommended that you also make use of the zoom function if you want to crop only what is necessary to clear away the outer edges:
To complete the cropping process, you simply need to click on the inside of the crop selection, and it is done.
You might notice that the gray regions are not all that even. This can have multiple reasons, but the main reason is often that the printer that produced the image was not perfect, either, putting more ink/toner into some dots/regions than others. In this document's case, it was getting near the time when fresh toner would be needed. Even though these techniques cleaned up the document quite nicely, remember that nothing changes the fact that unless you actively change the document yourself, you can at best get on the screen exactly what was on the paper you scanned.
Well, enjoy this technique, and good luck!
After scanning in the first document, I came across the problem that no doubt a lot of you encounter; the scanned document is sort of off-kilter, no matter how determinedly I aligned the paper on the glass. Additionally, the document's background seemed to be inconsistently shaded at best. Of course, there's also the ever-present black border where the paper did not cover the glass. Obviously, this would not do.
After an hour attempt, I started to put together a method of cleaning up documents to the point that they would be cleanly replicated on the image file, to the point that signatures could even look realistic. This article describes just how this happens, and how it can be corrected. For simplicity's sake, I will describe this using the free Photoshop workalike known as the GNU Image Manipulation Program (or Gimp, as it's usually shortened to).
Common Issues and their Causes
The following image shows the basic layout of a scanner and the document placed in it.
The blue box at the right is the scanner's lamp and imaging system; it goes over the glass at a consistent rate, and constantly takes snapshots of its location as it goes. Under perfect conditions, where the paper is perfectly aligned and flat, where the lamp is the only source of light there is, and where the lamp/sensor itself is perfectly aligned, this can result in a perfectly clean scan with no artifacts or strange bending.
However, such perfect scanners generally cost in the megabucks, so the typical scanner is generally "close enough," in that the document is clean, clear, and not too badly warped, and is mostly legible. The developers of such scanners expect the cleanup to be done in software, so the tolerances can be a bit more off than the more expensive devices.
You'll notice with the above pictures that the blue lamp/sensor device isn't completely aligned with the paper. It will still scan straight, but it results in one of the more common faults of scanned documents: shear. This means that one side of the scan will be captured earlier than the other side, causing the whole document to look crooked, as the above illustration shows. What makes this a bit more annoying is that rotation alone won't fix the problem, as it will simply rotate the text as well as the lines and borders.
Another problem that often pops up is the strange "fog" of color that warps over the image, usually marbled based on imperfections in the paper; the lamp puts out a steady light that is reflected off the paper and returned to the sensor on the assembly.
As you can see, the first example shows a perfect scan, if the paper is perfectly flat and even. The second example is a bit more realistic; paper consists of millions of miniature bumps, and is usually something less than perfectly flat, especially if it was handled in some way, and definitely if it was recently folded or crumpled. In this case, those areas that are further from the glass (and lamp) become slightly darker, and the texture of the paper itself can affect the darkness somewhat. This is the source of the colored (or gray) "fog" that can cover a good portion of the paper.
Example Document Used
The following document will be used for the examples; it was scanned using the green channel at 300dpi with an 8-bit grayscale. It was originally part of a larger, but mostly-obsolete document I had stored in a 3-ring binder for a while (for those curious, it was from the "Encrypted Root Filesystem HOWTO" website).The reasons for my scanning choices are as follows:
- 300dpi is the typical resolution for a mid-grade laser printout of a document.
- The green channel generally has the least defects (less splotchy fog, and more smooth, faint fog)
- The 8-bit grayscale will cover approximately 256 shades of gray (makes an excellent starting point toward clearing the fog).
Correcting Document Shear
The first issue that will need to be resolved is the straightening of the document. This is not very hard to accomplish, but it does require some patience and practice... and a little help with the guide and shear tools in the Gimp.The first step involves a calculation: You need to determine how wide your total scan is, and then place a vertical guide at the exact (or bordering) halfway point. Then, you need to locate a line long enough on the document to compare ends, and align a horizontal guide exactly where the vertical guide and the document's line meet:
In the case of my example, my flatbed scanner has a maximum width (at 300dpi) of 2563 pixels, so 1281 would be an appropriate location for the cross. Also, notice the dotted blue line going across. On the far left and far right of that border, the blue line is above and below it, respectively.
Now that the guides have been placed, we can now use the shear tool in the Gimp. In the toolbox on the right, look for the shear tool:
When you make changes to the values in the magnitude options, the displayed image will automatically update as a preview. The easiest way to ensure you don't overshoot the mark is to use the up and down arrows to the right of the entry fields to take the changes one step at a time. In this case, we want to change the "Shear magnitude Y."
The above picture shows the before; here you see the shear box with both 0 entries, and the image below with the two guides. Notice that the horizontal guide shows just how bad the shear is on the document. In the following image, however, all of this is corrected:
Here, you can see that the lines are now matched up, and since the guide lines are always perfectly horizontal and vertical, you know that the document has been corrected. Something to keep in mind, however: when you try this, you'll notice that while you're doing the shearing, the lines will become jagged and uneven. Once the process is completed, the jagged lines will be corrected, and everything will be smooth and straight.
Correcting "Scanner Fog"
Now, you'll notice that the image does have a hazy gray color over most of the surface. Most of the time, the haze is paler than anything else on the page, which means that cleaning it up is just a levels tool away.
The levels tool is designed to change how light the lights are, and how dark the darks are. You can activate the levels tool by going to the "Colors" menu and clicking on "Levels..." You will then see the dialog box shown below:
Most of what you see on this dialog box is unimportant for our purposes; all we're interested in is the histogram and the input level controls. The histogram is the big white box above, with the black "mountain" shown in it. Beneath it, you see three triangles under a gradient. We'll call those triangles the blackpoint, greypoint, and the whitepoint, as they mark where the black, middle gray, and white are in the image.
The histogram is essential to the task of cleaning the fog. You'll notice the mountain showing up at the far right of the dialog. That mountain happens to be just above the very light gray part of the grayscale. This means that each of those shades of gray have a lot of pixels of that brightness. At this point, you probably realize that the mountain describes the pixels in the scanner fog, which is usually in that brightness range, as compared with the actual text, which is considerably darker.
Underneath the histogram, we have the grayscale with three triangles. Those triangles generally adjust where the black color starts lightening up, and where the white color begins to darken. To fix the problem with the scanner fog, we need to move the white arrow to the point just left of the mountain, which will turn all the pixels of scanner fog pure white, essentially losing those pixels as data (don't click OK just yet):
Now, you'll notice that the borders are a little off, and, of course, the black border is still there. Cropping is the word for this occasion; a tool that will delete everything outside of a rectangular region you select. Simply open the tool, adjust the borders to match where you want the page cut, and voila. To begin, you need to select the crop tool from the toolbox:
Well, enjoy this technique, and good luck!
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Making Markets in EVE Online
In EVE Online, trading has a simple concept: Buy low and sell high. If you're lucky, you can find an excellent trade route to make your fortune. However, many traders do not seem to understand another simple concept: You make your own luck.
Instead of trying to look for places with low and high prices, why not place orders far and wide, and then sell the purchased goods in a high-trade location?
I have found that if you purchase goods at 40-60% of their default prices, and then sell them at 60-80% of their default prices, you can actually make a profit from every single sale. In order for this to work, you need to span the purchase orders as far as you can safely travel, then travel out to pick up the goods, and bring them back up to a high-population area to sell, such as Jita. Remember to use the star charts to avoid potential ambush points; always avoid locations with recent podkilling.
Essentially, when trading, you can either wait for the market to give you a profit, or mold the market to give you your profit.
Edit:
Another page does a much better job of explaining methods to avoid becoming subatomic particles during your collection runs: http://alexiamorgan.blogspot.com/2009/06/24-tips-to-surviving-lowsec.html
Instead of trying to look for places with low and high prices, why not place orders far and wide, and then sell the purchased goods in a high-trade location?
I have found that if you purchase goods at 40-60% of their default prices, and then sell them at 60-80% of their default prices, you can actually make a profit from every single sale. In order for this to work, you need to span the purchase orders as far as you can safely travel, then travel out to pick up the goods, and bring them back up to a high-population area to sell, such as Jita. Remember to use the star charts to avoid potential ambush points; always avoid locations with recent podkilling.
Essentially, when trading, you can either wait for the market to give you a profit, or mold the market to give you your profit.
Edit:
Another page does a much better job of explaining methods to avoid becoming subatomic particles during your collection runs: http://alexiamorgan.blogspot.com/2009/06/24-tips-to-surviving-lowsec.html
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Self-Made vs. Pre-Made Computers
I have broken down and purchased something I never thought I would... a branded computer.
Not since the Commodore 64 have I ever purchased a pre-assembled computer, as I've had enough bad experiences with the ones I've dealt with on a more professional level. IBM, Gateway, Dell, Hewlett-Packard, Compaq, and especially E-Machines and Packard-Bell (ugh!), it didn't matter. I would (and generally still do) avoid pre-assembled computers like the plague.
"Why is this?" I can hear you ask.
If I didn't build a computer, then there would always be a chance that the parts would be 'custom-made' to 'interact with each other,' and any replacements I make would potentially result in hard-to-track problems as parts used to dealing with one another suddenly no longer have the 'one another' to interact with.
This is doubly so when part of the pre-installed software interacts with these specialized parts for the sake of 'security' or 'stability.' Essentially, the idea seems to be focused on 'vendor lock-in,' because anything not vendor-based is a 'security risk.' Packard Bell was particularly obsessive in this area. And then, there is the shovelware; you know, all those nigh-useless, house-branded programs, registration, and advertisement icons that are preinstalled with the computer when you buy it? On top of this, specialized software can have bad results if uninstalled. Shovelware doesn't. And the vendor does not make it easy to tell which is which.
So, with all this dislike of mass-produced computers, you are wondering why the breakdown. Where the premade/selfmade dichotomy breaks down is in one area: laptops.
A laptop is designed to be self-contained; very few parts are replaceable in a laptop; you need to be comfortable with the display and the keyboard. And since they are integrated with the case, which is integrated with the motherboard... well... there's not much left to choose from. You can't change the keyboard layout, can't choose a bigger display or a quieter case, and removing the inbuilt pointing device would be more work than it's worth.
In any event, I've bitten the bullet, and purchased one of the cheaper laptops, specifically an Acer 5515-5831 laptop. I've completely wiped Windows (and the hidden restore partition) from the computer, and am installing Gentoo now. We'll see how it works.
Not since the Commodore 64 have I ever purchased a pre-assembled computer, as I've had enough bad experiences with the ones I've dealt with on a more professional level. IBM, Gateway, Dell, Hewlett-Packard, Compaq, and especially E-Machines and Packard-Bell (ugh!), it didn't matter. I would (and generally still do) avoid pre-assembled computers like the plague.
"Why is this?" I can hear you ask.
If I didn't build a computer, then there would always be a chance that the parts would be 'custom-made' to 'interact with each other,' and any replacements I make would potentially result in hard-to-track problems as parts used to dealing with one another suddenly no longer have the 'one another' to interact with.
This is doubly so when part of the pre-installed software interacts with these specialized parts for the sake of 'security' or 'stability.' Essentially, the idea seems to be focused on 'vendor lock-in,' because anything not vendor-based is a 'security risk.' Packard Bell was particularly obsessive in this area. And then, there is the shovelware; you know, all those nigh-useless, house-branded programs, registration, and advertisement icons that are preinstalled with the computer when you buy it? On top of this, specialized software can have bad results if uninstalled. Shovelware doesn't. And the vendor does not make it easy to tell which is which.
So, with all this dislike of mass-produced computers, you are wondering why the breakdown. Where the premade/selfmade dichotomy breaks down is in one area: laptops.
A laptop is designed to be self-contained; very few parts are replaceable in a laptop; you need to be comfortable with the display and the keyboard. And since they are integrated with the case, which is integrated with the motherboard... well... there's not much left to choose from. You can't change the keyboard layout, can't choose a bigger display or a quieter case, and removing the inbuilt pointing device would be more work than it's worth.
In any event, I've bitten the bullet, and purchased one of the cheaper laptops, specifically an Acer 5515-5831 laptop. I've completely wiped Windows (and the hidden restore partition) from the computer, and am installing Gentoo now. We'll see how it works.
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Feelings and Hatred
I can admit to caring about people to a certain degree, but I never understood the need people have to depending on another person so much as to be completely torn up when something happens, whether it is time away, or offense strong enough to engender hatred.
I am probably just cold, but it seems to me that someone else's feelings should be their feelings, and unless they are attempting to force me to feel them, I have no business being offended or hurt by them.
Hatred is another thing I don't understand. Now, I'm pretty selfish; every action I take is designed to give myself something I want with as little effort as possible. Hatred, however, seems to be the complete opposite; the desire to keep someone else from having what they want, no matter how much effort is required, or how little one gets as a result.
What makes a person so dependent on another that their feelings depends on the feelings of another, whether the feelings are complimentary or contrasting? What makes the feelings of another so important that the feelings of a loved one become your own, and the feelings of a hated one become the opposite of your own?
I am probably just cold, but it seems to me that someone else's feelings should be their feelings, and unless they are attempting to force me to feel them, I have no business being offended or hurt by them.
Hatred is another thing I don't understand. Now, I'm pretty selfish; every action I take is designed to give myself something I want with as little effort as possible. Hatred, however, seems to be the complete opposite; the desire to keep someone else from having what they want, no matter how much effort is required, or how little one gets as a result.
What makes a person so dependent on another that their feelings depends on the feelings of another, whether the feelings are complimentary or contrasting? What makes the feelings of another so important that the feelings of a loved one become your own, and the feelings of a hated one become the opposite of your own?
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Emmanuel Goldstein
"The programmes of the Two Minutes Hate varied from day to day, but there was none in which Goldstein was not the principal figure. He was the primal traitor, the earliest defiler of the Party's purity. All subsequent crimes against the Party, all treacheries, acts of sabotage, heresies, deviations, sprang directly out of his teaching. Somewhere or other he was still alive and hatching his conspiracies: perhaps somewhere beyond the sea, under the protection of his foreign paymasters, perhaps even -- so it was occasionally rumoured -- in some hiding-place in Oceania itself. . ."
- George Orwell, "Nineteen Eighty Four"
Behind the hysteria of terrorist claims is one single face, Usama Bin Laden. A man who is claimed to be behind the terrible events of 9/11. He may even be as deadly and as guilty as they say. However, it's amazing just how many people just focus on the race, associating it with religion, which they further associate with terrorism, and always link them up with the name of Usama Bin Laden.
Results of calculations: All people of middle-eastern descent are terrorists, or in league with them, and should be suspected for violent crime. Therefore, we will send huge military forces into the middle east to... secure its freedom.
Just a second... what about Jose Padilla? Jose was of hispanic descent, and hispanics mean Mexico, so that must mean that terrorists are coming from Middle America, too. Suddenly, border security must be increased to keep illegal immigrants out, lest a terrorist slip through.
Wait, what about "Jihad Johnny?" Here's an American man who was found to be alongside the terrorists. So... terrorists aren't just those of Middle-Eastern descent, but also Americans? Wow... we'll really need to up internal security in the States. National Identity cards, electronic surveillance, telesc... er... cameras, secret courts, extraordinary rendition, and the ability to send state militias to other states, as a matter of fact. Might as well beef up those police forces while we're at it. Oh, and let's not forget about cracking down on drugs... they support terrorism after all!
Be careful. Usama Bin Laden and all his agents are out there. They could be anywhere. They could be anyone. Even... me.
Even you.
- George Orwell, "Nineteen Eighty Four"
Behind the hysteria of terrorist claims is one single face, Usama Bin Laden. A man who is claimed to be behind the terrible events of 9/11. He may even be as deadly and as guilty as they say. However, it's amazing just how many people just focus on the race, associating it with religion, which they further associate with terrorism, and always link them up with the name of Usama Bin Laden.
Results of calculations: All people of middle-eastern descent are terrorists, or in league with them, and should be suspected for violent crime. Therefore, we will send huge military forces into the middle east to... secure its freedom.
Just a second... what about Jose Padilla? Jose was of hispanic descent, and hispanics mean Mexico, so that must mean that terrorists are coming from Middle America, too. Suddenly, border security must be increased to keep illegal immigrants out, lest a terrorist slip through.
Wait, what about "Jihad Johnny?" Here's an American man who was found to be alongside the terrorists. So... terrorists aren't just those of Middle-Eastern descent, but also Americans? Wow... we'll really need to up internal security in the States. National Identity cards, electronic surveillance, telesc... er... cameras, secret courts, extraordinary rendition, and the ability to send state militias to other states, as a matter of fact. Might as well beef up those police forces while we're at it. Oh, and let's not forget about cracking down on drugs... they support terrorism after all!
Be careful. Usama Bin Laden and all his agents are out there. They could be anywhere. They could be anyone. Even... me.
Even you.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
De-mock-racy
I take online courses, and am just beginning an economic theory course, so I'm ready to sit back and have a little enjoyable bit of debate. And then, the "D" word comes into it.
Democracy.
It is tiring to hear the same old arguments operating under the assumption that if you can vote, you can decide how the government behaves. This may be the case if you have a major media outlet, or you are part of a majority, but it is not the same for those people who do not get their votes enacted.
Look at what happened during the Republican primaries. Ron Paul was particularly liked by the disenfranchised, those people who have been marginalized by the majority of people for decades, centuries, even. People who regularly are viewed with suspicion and disgust by police and "law-abiding citizens" alike. People who are vilified by the media, plays the bad guys in movies, and are the targets of raids by military-loaded swat teams. People who were not harming anyone else, except that they were doing (or in possession of) those things the majority look upon with disgust. Drugs. Prostitution. Protesting outside of a licensed area. Building without the city's permission... on their own property. Braiding hair without a hairstyling license.
Who speaks for the hated? Who represents those the law forgot? When did prohibition and regulation replace the keeping of peace? To use a cliché, where's the outrage?
Democracy.
It is tiring to hear the same old arguments operating under the assumption that if you can vote, you can decide how the government behaves. This may be the case if you have a major media outlet, or you are part of a majority, but it is not the same for those people who do not get their votes enacted.
Look at what happened during the Republican primaries. Ron Paul was particularly liked by the disenfranchised, those people who have been marginalized by the majority of people for decades, centuries, even. People who regularly are viewed with suspicion and disgust by police and "law-abiding citizens" alike. People who are vilified by the media, plays the bad guys in movies, and are the targets of raids by military-loaded swat teams. People who were not harming anyone else, except that they were doing (or in possession of) those things the majority look upon with disgust. Drugs. Prostitution. Protesting outside of a licensed area. Building without the city's permission... on their own property. Braiding hair without a hairstyling license.
Who speaks for the hated? Who represents those the law forgot? When did prohibition and regulation replace the keeping of peace? To use a cliché, where's the outrage?
Friday, August 29, 2008
Childhood and Conflict
I just finished watching a movie on the NBC website, regarding an old television series I used to love as a child. The series is Knight Rider, and the movie is the testing film that NBC used to determine the viability of a new series. They decided it was time to bring KITT back.
The child in me is overjoyed at the prospect of a new series surrounding the super-car that I grew up wishing I had. I mean, here we had KITT, an indestructable car with a personality, the ability to affect the world around it, a scanner that could function as the perfect lookout, and the communicator that would allow Michael Knight to remain in contact. And I had idolized Michael as a child, a man who would defend "the helpless, the powerless, in a world of criminals who operate above the law." I would eat it up.
Michael and KITT were involved with an organization known as the Foundation for Law and Government. These were seen by the show as the "good guys," the enemies of this group were usually very immoral people, willing to kill in order to ___________ (fill in the blank). Michael would walk around, sometimes perform "questionable acts" such as breaking and entering, kidnapping, and even assault, but it was always in the interests of defending people. Of course, he was never apprehended by the police during those times, it was always the murderous "bad guys," who knew that Michael was a threat to their plans. Much action and collateral damage followed.
Now, here I am, unwilling to believe in law at all, seeing the police, representatives, military, and all other "public servants" as a gargantuan gang whose sole purpose is to keep their paychecks coming, and finding new ways to enrich themselves, all the time enjoying their ill-gotten and deceptively-maintained power. The ones that do have attacks of conscience either quit or keep their concerns under their hat.
I am conflicted as a result of this.
I am an anarchist. I do not follow the stereotype; most anarchists do not believe in chaos, and in fact, find the use of government to be a means to encourage chaos to certain peoples' benefits. I do follow two simple rules: do everything to help myself, and do nothing to harm anyone else. The second rule is popular, while the first tends, among those that support the concept of government, to be reviled as a multitude of sins. Those same people believe in protecting me from me, when in fact, it's my responsibility.
So, now, a childhood favorite is returning, and I am both excited at the series' return, and more than a little bit apprehensive regarding the premise behind it. The foundation is still a quasi-government organization with the full backing of the federal police force, and KITT and the new Michael are under their employ.
Now, I don't own a television, and for good reason. Little is on television that has any value, and much of that tends to be biased and designed specifically to alter my opinion toward the producer's design. So, I can't help but wonder if its return was explicitly timed in order to return public opinion to the existing regime's side in the face of increased disillusionment of government in general; after all, they're the "good guys," right?
I don't know, but I know that more shows like this will come up. Maybe Airwolf is next?
...or perhaps the new Miami Vice? There's one for the cop-glorification zealots; a show glorifying property crime in the name of mob rule.
The child in me is overjoyed at the prospect of a new series surrounding the super-car that I grew up wishing I had. I mean, here we had KITT, an indestructable car with a personality, the ability to affect the world around it, a scanner that could function as the perfect lookout, and the communicator that would allow Michael Knight to remain in contact. And I had idolized Michael as a child, a man who would defend "the helpless, the powerless, in a world of criminals who operate above the law." I would eat it up.
Michael and KITT were involved with an organization known as the Foundation for Law and Government. These were seen by the show as the "good guys," the enemies of this group were usually very immoral people, willing to kill in order to ___________ (fill in the blank). Michael would walk around, sometimes perform "questionable acts" such as breaking and entering, kidnapping, and even assault, but it was always in the interests of defending people. Of course, he was never apprehended by the police during those times, it was always the murderous "bad guys," who knew that Michael was a threat to their plans. Much action and collateral damage followed.
Now, here I am, unwilling to believe in law at all, seeing the police, representatives, military, and all other "public servants" as a gargantuan gang whose sole purpose is to keep their paychecks coming, and finding new ways to enrich themselves, all the time enjoying their ill-gotten and deceptively-maintained power. The ones that do have attacks of conscience either quit or keep their concerns under their hat.
I am conflicted as a result of this.
I am an anarchist. I do not follow the stereotype; most anarchists do not believe in chaos, and in fact, find the use of government to be a means to encourage chaos to certain peoples' benefits. I do follow two simple rules: do everything to help myself, and do nothing to harm anyone else. The second rule is popular, while the first tends, among those that support the concept of government, to be reviled as a multitude of sins. Those same people believe in protecting me from me, when in fact, it's my responsibility.
So, now, a childhood favorite is returning, and I am both excited at the series' return, and more than a little bit apprehensive regarding the premise behind it. The foundation is still a quasi-government organization with the full backing of the federal police force, and KITT and the new Michael are under their employ.
Now, I don't own a television, and for good reason. Little is on television that has any value, and much of that tends to be biased and designed specifically to alter my opinion toward the producer's design. So, I can't help but wonder if its return was explicitly timed in order to return public opinion to the existing regime's side in the face of increased disillusionment of government in general; after all, they're the "good guys," right?
I don't know, but I know that more shows like this will come up. Maybe Airwolf is next?
...or perhaps the new Miami Vice? There's one for the cop-glorification zealots; a show glorifying property crime in the name of mob rule.
Friday, July 11, 2008
Feeling Hot-hot-hot
I don't know about my soul, but it feels like my head is burning... along with just about the rest of me.
One of the unpleasant things about living in a desert is the extreme heat generated during the summer months. However, this is, in fact, all my fault, as it was my brilliant idea to actually move to the state of Arizona in the first place. Soon enough, I will be leaving. Possibly next spring.
It's no secret that I'm not a fan of the government, so it stands to the question of where I'd go to get as far away from that as possible. Now, from what I can tell, Alaska can probably come close, if not Antarctica. However, life in those places would be short and brutal, due to the decidedly not-hot climates they sport. Alaska less so than Antarctica, but still, crops are not going to grow very well, and finding sufficient wood to make furniture, charcoal for metalcasting, and other useful tools would be a full-time job, precluding any time for the aforementioned crafts.
Two major locations come to mind off the top of my head in more reasonable climates. Nevada is well known as a libertarian state; no other state allows prostitution, and few states have a better tax system than Nevada. However, the climate is not quite different enough for this born-and-raised easterner to find comfortable. New Hampshire comes closer, and there is a major movement that gives it a sweet bonus in that New Hampshire is where the activists go. I am already seeing much in the way of public resistance to the criminal behaviour of government, and I certainly like that already. In addition, those who are assaulted by the state have allies who willingly attend their trials, for moral support and publicicty, if nothing else.
Civil disobedience is a useful tactic against a political system. It may not give one a benefit to stand in trial, forego the lawyer, and state, as plain as they can, "I am performing peaceful civil disobedience in protest of an immoral law," but it would definitely get some people talking. This is the kind of behaviour that allowed Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King, Jr. to stand out in the annals of United States history, and the word "Ghandi" is practically a synonym for peacefully disobedient protester.
The reason that civil disobedience works against the state when violent defense of one's rights does not is that much of the state's power is through consent. It rules through the misdirection that those who defend themselves against the state are, in actuality, violent criminals who need to be locked away for the good of society. Without the violent component, there is nothing for the state to show in its propaganda. The disobedient become victims in the eyes of those who see them, and the state becomes that much more violent by comparison. Of course, the government cannot have that, so they often use the "mercy tactic;" in which they say "Since you are not a danger to society per se, we will be merciful, gracious, and an all-around good guy and let you off with a warning." What else can they do? Politicians need to eat, and while violent protest can be spun into a crazy man with a gun, a peaceful protester following in the footsteps of Ghandi and Martin Luther King would have a lot more press against the politico than for him.
There are limits to the practice, though. One of the most useful things one needs when practicing civil disobedience is a following. A group of people who willingly join them, either as an observer or a participant, in order to display the fact that such protest is not a singular crazy person, but an actual percentage of the population. People with cameras and accounts on sites like YouTube can be a crazy-awesome benefit to the practice as well, as such can be pointed to in future advocacy. "You think he was violent? Check this video out!" Singularly, however, a person can be overwhelmed, and any observers can otherwise be silenced, rendering the civil disobedience useless and inert.
One who is known for their civil disobedience can eventually become too hot-hot-hot to hold.
One of the unpleasant things about living in a desert is the extreme heat generated during the summer months. However, this is, in fact, all my fault, as it was my brilliant idea to actually move to the state of Arizona in the first place. Soon enough, I will be leaving. Possibly next spring.
It's no secret that I'm not a fan of the government, so it stands to the question of where I'd go to get as far away from that as possible. Now, from what I can tell, Alaska can probably come close, if not Antarctica. However, life in those places would be short and brutal, due to the decidedly not-hot climates they sport. Alaska less so than Antarctica, but still, crops are not going to grow very well, and finding sufficient wood to make furniture, charcoal for metalcasting, and other useful tools would be a full-time job, precluding any time for the aforementioned crafts.
Two major locations come to mind off the top of my head in more reasonable climates. Nevada is well known as a libertarian state; no other state allows prostitution, and few states have a better tax system than Nevada. However, the climate is not quite different enough for this born-and-raised easterner to find comfortable. New Hampshire comes closer, and there is a major movement that gives it a sweet bonus in that New Hampshire is where the activists go. I am already seeing much in the way of public resistance to the criminal behaviour of government, and I certainly like that already. In addition, those who are assaulted by the state have allies who willingly attend their trials, for moral support and publicicty, if nothing else.
Civil disobedience is a useful tactic against a political system. It may not give one a benefit to stand in trial, forego the lawyer, and state, as plain as they can, "I am performing peaceful civil disobedience in protest of an immoral law," but it would definitely get some people talking. This is the kind of behaviour that allowed Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King, Jr. to stand out in the annals of United States history, and the word "Ghandi" is practically a synonym for peacefully disobedient protester.
The reason that civil disobedience works against the state when violent defense of one's rights does not is that much of the state's power is through consent. It rules through the misdirection that those who defend themselves against the state are, in actuality, violent criminals who need to be locked away for the good of society. Without the violent component, there is nothing for the state to show in its propaganda. The disobedient become victims in the eyes of those who see them, and the state becomes that much more violent by comparison. Of course, the government cannot have that, so they often use the "mercy tactic;" in which they say "Since you are not a danger to society per se, we will be merciful, gracious, and an all-around good guy and let you off with a warning." What else can they do? Politicians need to eat, and while violent protest can be spun into a crazy man with a gun, a peaceful protester following in the footsteps of Ghandi and Martin Luther King would have a lot more press against the politico than for him.
There are limits to the practice, though. One of the most useful things one needs when practicing civil disobedience is a following. A group of people who willingly join them, either as an observer or a participant, in order to display the fact that such protest is not a singular crazy person, but an actual percentage of the population. People with cameras and accounts on sites like YouTube can be a crazy-awesome benefit to the practice as well, as such can be pointed to in future advocacy. "You think he was violent? Check this video out!" Singularly, however, a person can be overwhelmed, and any observers can otherwise be silenced, rendering the civil disobedience useless and inert.
One who is known for their civil disobedience can eventually become too hot-hot-hot to hold.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
The Writing on the Wall
Well, after looking at the results for the Super Tuesday election, it's become apparent that sanity will not come via a shortcut. Ron Paul can continue to try, but he is operating from a severe disadvantage.
I had hoped he would make it. I want the world to return to sanity. However, this is not to be. Of course, there is likely going to be questions about what I mean by "Sanity." Perhaps I will post a Mind blog about this.
Ultimately, fear wins out over bravery, as the "safer" candidates were chosen; all three of the other Republicans were successful in various states, and McCain has managed to pull out ahead.
Well, at least he's not into torture, so there is a little hope, at the very least.
I had hoped he would make it. I want the world to return to sanity. However, this is not to be. Of course, there is likely going to be questions about what I mean by "Sanity." Perhaps I will post a Mind blog about this.
Ultimately, fear wins out over bravery, as the "safer" candidates were chosen; all three of the other Republicans were successful in various states, and McCain has managed to pull out ahead.
Well, at least he's not into torture, so there is a little hope, at the very least.
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Poetry for Thought: Modifications of "First they came…" by Martin Niemöller
The original poem is as follows, translated from the German in which it was written:
When the Nazis came for the communists, I remained silent; I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats, I remained silent; I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists, I did not speak out; I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews, I remained silent; I wasn't a Jew.
When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out.
- "First they came…" by Martin Niemöller
It's a good argument against political apathy. Just because what is happening politically is not happening to you right now does not mean it never will. We have a similar situation in the United States where the Republicrats (Republicans and Democrats are two sides of the very same party) are performing the very same act right under our noses, and it is up to us to smell the salts before it is too late.
To help clarify, I am going to wax poetic now. If you don't care for poetry, this is your cue to stop reading. ;)
Thank you, I'll be here until Friday.
When the Nazis came for the communists, I remained silent; I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats, I remained silent; I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists, I did not speak out; I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews, I remained silent; I wasn't a Jew.
When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out.
- "First they came…" by Martin Niemöller
It's a good argument against political apathy. Just because what is happening politically is not happening to you right now does not mean it never will. We have a similar situation in the United States where the Republicrats (Republicans and Democrats are two sides of the very same party) are performing the very same act right under our noses, and it is up to us to smell the salts before it is too late.
To help clarify, I am going to wax poetic now. If you don't care for poetry, this is your cue to stop reading. ;)
It's funny
I was afraid of drugs harming people, so I made them illegal. It's funny, there seems to be harder drugs now.
I was afraid of guns killing people, so I made them illegal. It's funny, there seems to be more violence now.
I was afraid of immigrants taking jobs, so I made them illegal. It's funny, there seems to be more offshoring now.
I was afraid of a free market cheating people, so I limited it. It's funny, there seems to be more black markets now.
I was afraid of dissent breeding terrorists to kill people, so I made dissent illegal. It's funny, there seems to be more people protesting.
I was afraid of freedom, so I made it illegal. It's funny... I still feel afraid.
I was afraid of drugs harming people, so I made them illegal. It's funny, there seems to be harder drugs now.
I was afraid of guns killing people, so I made them illegal. It's funny, there seems to be more violence now.
I was afraid of immigrants taking jobs, so I made them illegal. It's funny, there seems to be more offshoring now.
I was afraid of a free market cheating people, so I limited it. It's funny, there seems to be more black markets now.
I was afraid of dissent breeding terrorists to kill people, so I made dissent illegal. It's funny, there seems to be more people protesting.
I was afraid of freedom, so I made it illegal. It's funny... I still feel afraid.
"First They Came..." US edition
When they came for those with vices, I remained silent; I had no vice.
When they came for the gun owners, I remained silent; I had no guns.
When they came for the Arabs, I remained silent; I was not an Arab.
When they came for the activists, I remained silent; I was not active.
When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out; I was not spared.
When they came for those with vices, I remained silent; I had no vice.
When they came for the gun owners, I remained silent; I had no guns.
When they came for the Arabs, I remained silent; I was not an Arab.
When they came for the activists, I remained silent; I was not active.
When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out; I was not spared.
Thank you, I'll be here until Friday.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Stream of Counsciousness: Self-reliance and Societies
I will occasionally post stream-of-consciousness posts, just for the sake of getting a list of possibly-related concepts out of my brain and onto the global one. There are no guarantees that this will lead to a point, but you never know. Usually, something initiates the stream of consciousness, a website or a word, which I will call a "seed."
The seed site of this particular stream of consciousness: http://journeytoforever.org.
I am an anarchist, with a bent on self-reliance and the free market. I do not like the idea of being dependent on anyone else, but I also believe in property and the benefit of free trade of that property. In fact, the field of economics began life as a system of barter in order to allow value to be measured by the use of a general-purpose commodity. Being the more valuable commodities due to their malleability, resistance to oxidation (such as rust), and relative rarity, gold and silver became popular mediums of exchange... especially when specifically-designed coins became the main purpose for those metals.
The use of metal coins were the first instance of money, and ever since then, people have sought to gain control of as many as possible, due to the belief that the more coins one had, the more command one had over everyone around them. They were, of course, right.
As time progressed, people worked less and less for their specific needs, and more and more for the vague needs that they might eventually have, because they had the money to purchase those things down the road. Money, as it seems, became more important than one's direct needs. In time, barter was all but forgotten in the haze of history, relegated to economists and history buffs; the average person scoffed the notion of barter as a quaint anachronism.
Barter isn't the only thing that was lost in the mists of time; self-reliance took a back-seat to the division of labor, and with the division, the role of the individual shrank to a small part of what one once was. Then specialization arrived to make the role of the individual much smaller.
Instead of a self-contained machine, each person became merely a piece of a much vaster machine, controlled by manager pieces, and ultimately controlled by a small number of people at a much higher level. These higher-levels go by different names, such as CEO, President, Congress, His Majesty, General, Carl Rove, Alan Greenspan, Warren Buffet, Ben Bernanke, Paris Hilton, and so on.
Society is basically the subsuming of the individual in the group. This is in no way limited to politics, but also in business, as well as religions, families, and even certain traits or ideologies.
The sayings that enforce this are numerous: We are a part of something larger. We are a community. We are a nation. We are a people. We represent white pride, or black power, or gender equality, or Allah's will, or the Power of Christ, or the middle class, or the common worker, or...
The list could go on forever to identify all the different groups of people out there representing... well, anything, and ironically, there are likely more groups than there are people who represent them. Why are they even important in the first place?
Some forms of grouping are beneficial. Individuals sometimes need the assistance of others in the pursuit of their goals. Examples of beneficial systems are families, friendships, and... deeper relationships. Communities themselves, the collection of neighbors, also have a beneficial purpose; people who live close to one another and know one another inevitably develop friendships all around, and will trust one another more than they will outsiders.
Outsiders. This is probably the most telling reason why groups are such a harmful influence. Outsiders are generally looked at with curiosity in better situations, and with scorn or contempt in worse ones. Suddenly, with the classifications of "insider" and "outsider," rational reason goes out the window, and emotional judgments are substituted for concrete thought. "Us vs. Them" is a major theme, using such arguments as "They want to hurt/suppress/ignore/enslave us," "They are the Enemy," "We have the favor of (name of specific deity here)," "The Man is keeping us down," and so on.
There are certainly some who obviously seek to unbalance things in their favor, but then, everyone does to one degree or another. Even the ones that are too blind to see it due to their own piety. I work every day to increase my favor. I've changed strategies several times, and I am in the process of doing so again. There is nothing wrong with working to improve one's lot in life. However, why the rage? If you fail at your goal, why is it someone else's fault? Can't you take responsibility for your own mistakes and failures without assuming that someone else's actions can be controlled?
Control. Why do people assume that others need to be controlled by something? If others need to be controlled, by whose standards should that control be? For a great many people, the control needs to be by the person making the assertion. After all, who better to decide how society should be than the one who is making the claim that society must be kept safe/secure/orderly/profitable/fed/housed/cared for. And each claimant has their own vision of how society can be kept safe/secure/orderly/profitable/fed/housed/cared for.
Vision. Whose is right? Whose is wrong? Is it always the "other guy?" Must I follow the dictates of the "other guy" in order for the "other guy" to feel safe/secure/orderly/profitable/fed/housed/cared for? Does the other guy really presume to know how I wish (or plan) to be safe/secure/orderly/profitable/fed/housed/cared for? Do I really have a say as to how I am safe/secure/orderly/profitable/fed/housed/cared for?
Forgive the constant "safe/secure/orderly/profitable/fed/housed/cared for," but ultimately, this is the full collection of platitudes that charity cases demand for the less-fortunates. I am living in an apartment, with a desk, chair, and a couple stacked mattresses, but I am comfortable. I have work, and I am doing fine for now.
However, my ultimate goal is not the same as many others. I don't care about a large pile of cash, infinite credit (from whom?), miles of land, phenomenal cosmic power, supreme command over the masses, mass popularity on a global scale, or even the kind of love that adorn the greatest ballads (whatever that means).
I just want to live on my own, on a moderate plot of land, probably somewhere between 3-5 acres, in a single-story house, with my own garden to provide me food, animals to provide me other forms of food (meat, eggs, milk, cheese, butter, etc.), a workshop to make all the things I need (tools, furniture, building materials, house extensions and modifications, appliances), generators to make my own energy, and a small (maybe 5-15K/year) income for the purpose of covering those few things I do need or want to purchase (raw materials, books). I want all these things to be owned by me, and me alone (no government telling me what I may or may not do with my own property).
And with this, the thought stream comes full-circle. I came across the above website during my research about plans for building tools, and the Journey to Forever includes an article (originally written in 1910) about all kinds of simple-to-make tools. It also includes an interesting article about the benefit of weeds. There is much more, but so far, these two, along with a dead-tree acquisition (Storey's Basic Country Skills), have given me a new set of plans; originally, it was just for the workshop alone, but if I can provide my own food as well as my own stuff, then it would be remiss for me not to make an attempt at it.
The seed site of this particular stream of consciousness: http://journeytoforever.org.
I am an anarchist, with a bent on self-reliance and the free market. I do not like the idea of being dependent on anyone else, but I also believe in property and the benefit of free trade of that property. In fact, the field of economics began life as a system of barter in order to allow value to be measured by the use of a general-purpose commodity. Being the more valuable commodities due to their malleability, resistance to oxidation (such as rust), and relative rarity, gold and silver became popular mediums of exchange... especially when specifically-designed coins became the main purpose for those metals.
The use of metal coins were the first instance of money, and ever since then, people have sought to gain control of as many as possible, due to the belief that the more coins one had, the more command one had over everyone around them. They were, of course, right.
As time progressed, people worked less and less for their specific needs, and more and more for the vague needs that they might eventually have, because they had the money to purchase those things down the road. Money, as it seems, became more important than one's direct needs. In time, barter was all but forgotten in the haze of history, relegated to economists and history buffs; the average person scoffed the notion of barter as a quaint anachronism.
Barter isn't the only thing that was lost in the mists of time; self-reliance took a back-seat to the division of labor, and with the division, the role of the individual shrank to a small part of what one once was. Then specialization arrived to make the role of the individual much smaller.
Instead of a self-contained machine, each person became merely a piece of a much vaster machine, controlled by manager pieces, and ultimately controlled by a small number of people at a much higher level. These higher-levels go by different names, such as CEO, President, Congress, His Majesty, General, Carl Rove, Alan Greenspan, Warren Buffet, Ben Bernanke, Paris Hilton, and so on.
Society is basically the subsuming of the individual in the group. This is in no way limited to politics, but also in business, as well as religions, families, and even certain traits or ideologies.
The sayings that enforce this are numerous: We are a part of something larger. We are a community. We are a nation. We are a people. We represent white pride, or black power, or gender equality, or Allah's will, or the Power of Christ, or the middle class, or the common worker, or...
The list could go on forever to identify all the different groups of people out there representing... well, anything, and ironically, there are likely more groups than there are people who represent them. Why are they even important in the first place?
Some forms of grouping are beneficial. Individuals sometimes need the assistance of others in the pursuit of their goals. Examples of beneficial systems are families, friendships, and... deeper relationships. Communities themselves, the collection of neighbors, also have a beneficial purpose; people who live close to one another and know one another inevitably develop friendships all around, and will trust one another more than they will outsiders.
Outsiders. This is probably the most telling reason why groups are such a harmful influence. Outsiders are generally looked at with curiosity in better situations, and with scorn or contempt in worse ones. Suddenly, with the classifications of "insider" and "outsider," rational reason goes out the window, and emotional judgments are substituted for concrete thought. "Us vs. Them" is a major theme, using such arguments as "They want to hurt/suppress/ignore/enslave us," "They are the Enemy," "We have the favor of (name of specific deity here)," "The Man is keeping us down," and so on.
There are certainly some who obviously seek to unbalance things in their favor, but then, everyone does to one degree or another. Even the ones that are too blind to see it due to their own piety. I work every day to increase my favor. I've changed strategies several times, and I am in the process of doing so again. There is nothing wrong with working to improve one's lot in life. However, why the rage? If you fail at your goal, why is it someone else's fault? Can't you take responsibility for your own mistakes and failures without assuming that someone else's actions can be controlled?
Control. Why do people assume that others need to be controlled by something? If others need to be controlled, by whose standards should that control be? For a great many people, the control needs to be by the person making the assertion. After all, who better to decide how society should be than the one who is making the claim that society must be kept safe/secure/orderly/profitable/fed/housed/cared for. And each claimant has their own vision of how society can be kept safe/secure/orderly/profitable/fed/housed/cared for.
Vision. Whose is right? Whose is wrong? Is it always the "other guy?" Must I follow the dictates of the "other guy" in order for the "other guy" to feel safe/secure/orderly/profitable/fed/housed/cared for? Does the other guy really presume to know how I wish (or plan) to be safe/secure/orderly/profitable/fed/housed/cared for? Do I really have a say as to how I am safe/secure/orderly/profitable/fed/housed/cared for?
Forgive the constant "safe/secure/orderly/profitable/fed/housed/cared for," but ultimately, this is the full collection of platitudes that charity cases demand for the less-fortunates. I am living in an apartment, with a desk, chair, and a couple stacked mattresses, but I am comfortable. I have work, and I am doing fine for now.
However, my ultimate goal is not the same as many others. I don't care about a large pile of cash, infinite credit (from whom?), miles of land, phenomenal cosmic power, supreme command over the masses, mass popularity on a global scale, or even the kind of love that adorn the greatest ballads (whatever that means).
I just want to live on my own, on a moderate plot of land, probably somewhere between 3-5 acres, in a single-story house, with my own garden to provide me food, animals to provide me other forms of food (meat, eggs, milk, cheese, butter, etc.), a workshop to make all the things I need (tools, furniture, building materials, house extensions and modifications, appliances), generators to make my own energy, and a small (maybe 5-15K/year) income for the purpose of covering those few things I do need or want to purchase (raw materials, books). I want all these things to be owned by me, and me alone (no government telling me what I may or may not do with my own property).
And with this, the thought stream comes full-circle. I came across the above website during my research about plans for building tools, and the Journey to Forever includes an article (originally written in 1910) about all kinds of simple-to-make tools. It also includes an interesting article about the benefit of weeds. There is much more, but so far, these two, along with a dead-tree acquisition (Storey's Basic Country Skills), have given me a new set of plans; originally, it was just for the workshop alone, but if I can provide my own food as well as my own stuff, then it would be remiss for me not to make an attempt at it.
Saturday, January 19, 2008
Election Issues
I support Ron Paul for president. I don't want four more years of a welfare-warfare state. I don't want four more years of Patriot Acts, extraordinary renditions, and draft threats. I don't want four more years of paying unconscionable amounts into a system that really only benefits the bureaucrats employed by it.
Now, I've had that sinking feeling for a short while, ever since the New Hampshire primary, wondering if it is even worth the effort to support a libertarian candidate who did not even finish in the top three in the "Live Free or Die" state. That night, I was absolutely depressed over that event.
However, as time went on, I considered some basic facts; all states prior to February 5 had delegates taken away from them, due to the fact that they WERE before February 5. Those states, while good PR for their winners, lost a lot of electoral clout by that stunt. But they also gave time to the hundreds of states voting on February 5th to consider their options.
Now, on the day of the New Hampshire primary, a very nasty smear piece came out about Ron Paul being a racist. What was the evidence? Articles in a single newsletter over a period of time, making statements that are on their face very racially inclined. However, how does one make the claim that a typewritten document reflects Ron Paul's personal beliefs? The only thing this proves is that during the time of these articles' publication, Ron's hand was a little too slack in quality control... which could be a bad thing in the Presidential race... if that slackness were to have persisted to this day, 15 years later, after having no doubt faced the accusations multiple times during his congressional run.
If he was slack then, and faced with those damning pieces of evidence of that slackness for all the congressional races since, I don't think he's going to be repeating that mistake, do you? And until someone can summon up an example of Ron Paul actually saying something incriminating, I am not going to put any credence to the claim that Ron Paul is a racist. And no, I refuse to fall into the guilt by association trap; racial groups support Ron Paul for the same reason that truthers, brothel owners, and anarchists (such as myself) are behind him.
Because we are being targeted by laws that are unconstitutional; just because hate speech is reprehensible (and a complete waste of otherwise good energy), this does not mean that it should be outlawed. Just because prostitution involves sex (and runs a risk of diseases) does not mean that the law has to puritanically crack down. Just because anarchy is marketed as the violent Darwinism of Mad Max, this does not mean that we support such a horrid lifestyle.
Just because the people oppressed by laws are supporting a candidate who supports freedom, does not mean that he agrees with them; in fact, the following quote perfectly sums up this particular situation: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
The movie "The American President" (rather apt for this situation as well) does this one better:
"America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You've gotta want it bad, because it's going to put up a fight. It's going to say, 'You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours.'"
You want to claim that this is the Land of the Free? Then you cannot just protect popular speech. You must also protect the most vile, hateful, poisonous of speech imaginable.
Not so easy, is it? Perhaps freedom is a little too scary for you?
Ron Paul stands on the side of freedom, even at the potential cost of his election. He stands alone on many votes. He stands alone in a group of warhawks. He stands alone against the War on Drugs. He stands alone on a great many things, thereby not only earning the name "Dr. No," but also "Goldbug," "Unelectable," and worse by people who have forgotten the reason for this country's birth.
Such bravery alone makes him worth the Presidency.
Now, I've had that sinking feeling for a short while, ever since the New Hampshire primary, wondering if it is even worth the effort to support a libertarian candidate who did not even finish in the top three in the "Live Free or Die" state. That night, I was absolutely depressed over that event.
However, as time went on, I considered some basic facts; all states prior to February 5 had delegates taken away from them, due to the fact that they WERE before February 5. Those states, while good PR for their winners, lost a lot of electoral clout by that stunt. But they also gave time to the hundreds of states voting on February 5th to consider their options.
Now, on the day of the New Hampshire primary, a very nasty smear piece came out about Ron Paul being a racist. What was the evidence? Articles in a single newsletter over a period of time, making statements that are on their face very racially inclined. However, how does one make the claim that a typewritten document reflects Ron Paul's personal beliefs? The only thing this proves is that during the time of these articles' publication, Ron's hand was a little too slack in quality control... which could be a bad thing in the Presidential race... if that slackness were to have persisted to this day, 15 years later, after having no doubt faced the accusations multiple times during his congressional run.
If he was slack then, and faced with those damning pieces of evidence of that slackness for all the congressional races since, I don't think he's going to be repeating that mistake, do you? And until someone can summon up an example of Ron Paul actually saying something incriminating, I am not going to put any credence to the claim that Ron Paul is a racist. And no, I refuse to fall into the guilt by association trap; racial groups support Ron Paul for the same reason that truthers, brothel owners, and anarchists (such as myself) are behind him.
Because we are being targeted by laws that are unconstitutional; just because hate speech is reprehensible (and a complete waste of otherwise good energy), this does not mean that it should be outlawed. Just because prostitution involves sex (and runs a risk of diseases) does not mean that the law has to puritanically crack down. Just because anarchy is marketed as the violent Darwinism of Mad Max, this does not mean that we support such a horrid lifestyle.
Just because the people oppressed by laws are supporting a candidate who supports freedom, does not mean that he agrees with them; in fact, the following quote perfectly sums up this particular situation: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
The movie "The American President" (rather apt for this situation as well) does this one better:
"America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You've gotta want it bad, because it's going to put up a fight. It's going to say, 'You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours.'"
You want to claim that this is the Land of the Free? Then you cannot just protect popular speech. You must also protect the most vile, hateful, poisonous of speech imaginable.
Not so easy, is it? Perhaps freedom is a little too scary for you?
Ron Paul stands on the side of freedom, even at the potential cost of his election. He stands alone on many votes. He stands alone in a group of warhawks. He stands alone against the War on Drugs. He stands alone on a great many things, thereby not only earning the name "Dr. No," but also "Goldbug," "Unelectable," and worse by people who have forgotten the reason for this country's birth.
Such bravery alone makes him worth the Presidency.
Certain Thoughts from a Certain Mind
Blogs seem to be a good way to be respected for the expression of one's thoughts... never mind the benefits of organizing one's thoughts. However, do you mix the deeper topics with the less-cerebral topics like current events, or can you? After all, they originate in the same mind, and many times, one depends on the other for substance... the deep thoughts influence the lighter ones, while the light thoughts are what spur the deep considerations.
After a little time thinking about things, I decided to do two blogs, one dedicated to the deep topics, the conceptual paradigm-shifters and mental exercises, and the other dedicated to the personal and day-to-day events that often bring such exercises about... or something completely unrelated. No point diluting depth with trivia, right?
So, why even have a blog focusing on concepts and paradigms? Well, I tend to think differently than the people around me; strange looks are pretty commonplace for me. I consider greed, laziness, and ego as virtues, for example, and government and police as vices. I don't believe in equality, and certainly not in law.
All of the above would be enough to demonize me to the darkest pits of hell with very little effort, because the people who do the damning do not understand the concepts I live with, the assumptions and paradigm I understand to be a reality. So, it would be apparent that making a personal blog without another to give the supporting arguments for my assumptions would be a socially-suicidal move... forever relegated to the loons and kooks of the universally-despised.
Not quite something I look forward to, lemme tellya.
So, with the Certain Mind blog, I can at least give the curious the opportunity to see things from my side of reality. Maybe it can spread to the general populace? I'm not holding my breath, but who knows?
There will be a redesign of the layout; I don't plan to leave the generic templates in place for long... just for now until I have something that is unique and pleasing to the eye.
After a little time thinking about things, I decided to do two blogs, one dedicated to the deep topics, the conceptual paradigm-shifters and mental exercises, and the other dedicated to the personal and day-to-day events that often bring such exercises about... or something completely unrelated. No point diluting depth with trivia, right?
So, why even have a blog focusing on concepts and paradigms? Well, I tend to think differently than the people around me; strange looks are pretty commonplace for me. I consider greed, laziness, and ego as virtues, for example, and government and police as vices. I don't believe in equality, and certainly not in law.
All of the above would be enough to demonize me to the darkest pits of hell with very little effort, because the people who do the damning do not understand the concepts I live with, the assumptions and paradigm I understand to be a reality. So, it would be apparent that making a personal blog without another to give the supporting arguments for my assumptions would be a socially-suicidal move... forever relegated to the loons and kooks of the universally-despised.
Not quite something I look forward to, lemme tellya.
So, with the Certain Mind blog, I can at least give the curious the opportunity to see things from my side of reality. Maybe it can spread to the general populace? I'm not holding my breath, but who knows?
There will be a redesign of the layout; I don't plan to leave the generic templates in place for long... just for now until I have something that is unique and pleasing to the eye.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)