Josh's Commentary Track

Comment on 'The Arena Games'

Parmeter — Fri, 10 Dec 2004 10:22:59 GMT

Parmeter said:

You know, my sister ran into him not too long ago still working in the video store. I could ask her if she'd go by there and give a report. :)

Comment on 'The Arena Games'

josh — Fri, 10 Dec 2004 10:47:11 GMT

josh said:

That'd be cool. Then again, we'll be there in a few weeks, and I can see it for myself.

Comment on 'The Arena Games'

Parmeter — Fri, 10 Dec 2004 11:37:34 GMT

Parmeter said:

That's probably a good idea. Nothing like the accuracy of a third-hand description in the first place.

Comment on 'U.S. government moves to muzzle dissident voices'

Parmeter — Mon, 13 Dec 2004 07:53:32 GMT

Parmeter said:

Sounds a little like "The Three Americas" conflict.

I had this history prof in college that liked to go about how there are three different and distinct Americas: The one we think it is, the one it really is, and the one we hope it will be. In this case it looks like we have a confict between a beurocrat's version of the first and second and everbody else's version of the thrid. Not really all that surpising considering, and in all likeliness, it will be taken care of in the lawsuit.

So far, it doesn't appear to have an effect on people finding out about the siutation or even expressing an opinion on it.

Comment on 'U.S. government moves to muzzle dissident voices'

Joshua — Tue, 14 Dec 2004 04:51:20 GMT

Joshua said:

Well, sure, there's always an element of idealism in defending "basic" freedoms (which are rarely so basic), but this is an administration with a pretty deplorable record on "basic" constitutional guarantees already (Guantanamo, PATRIOT, etc).

How does changes in administrations, or even "zeitgeist" affect the "three Americas" model? Were all the depressed Kerry voters just down because their "America we think" was so different from "America it really is"?

Comment on 'U.S. government moves to muzzle dissident voices'

Parmeter — Tue, 14 Dec 2004 07:21:25 GMT

Parmeter said:

Not a whole lot changes the model as it is measured on an individual basis, not a group basis. The prof illustrated this by picking Adams, Franklin, and Washington and used their personal diaries, corespondance, etc. to pull out what each of them thought the three Americas were. It was interesting to see the differences between what each of them envisioned.

More like the "Real America" (Bush v2.5) turned out different from the one they "Hoped it would be" (Kerry v0.5). Which is probably true of any situation where the media had gotten the public as churned up as it did in this last election. I bet that you can go back and look at how some of the people who voted for Nixon reacted to his defeat by Kennedy and see the same sort of emotional output. It is an unfortuante thing that we have as many people as we do who live and die vicariously through sports and elections. As if their own lives really didn't seem worth living.

About the only thing that got me in this past election is how well the media was rewarded for the fear-mongering and the chicken-little act. That is the huge voter turnout. It makes me afriad that in future national elections they're going to try to pull the same trickery and tactics to provoke the same reaction again.

Comment on 'U.S. government moves to muzzle dissident voices'

Josh — Tue, 14 Dec 2004 08:02:28 GMT

Josh said:

The prof illustrated this by picking Adams, Franklin, and Washington and used their personal diaries, corespondance, etc. to pull out what each of them thought the three Americas were.

Hold on a moment... Maybe I'm not getting this, but if the three Americas are: a) What is, b) What we think it is and c) What we want — isn't b) objectively measurable? The other two are subjective, sure, but — and, again, I may just not be familiar with the model — isn't b) at least fairly objective?

It is an unfortuante thing that we have as many people as we do who live and die vicariously through sports and elections. As if their own lives really didn't seem worth living.

Sports as worthless as elections? And I thought I was cynical. No, I think elections can be important, but importance is inversely related to election scope (ie, you can have a much larger impact with local elections). Sure, there's lots of mountains being made out of political molehills, but I wouldn't call elections unfortunate.

About the only thing that got me in this past election is how well the media was rewarded for the fear-mongering and the chicken-little act. That is the huge voter turnout. It makes me afriad that in future national elections they're going to try to pull the same trickery and tactics to provoke the same reaction again.

Bah. You lost me after "the media". Having worked in the media, I can say with first-hand certainty, that "the media" doesn't exist. It's a mythological entity. If our media organizations were staffed by robots and martians, I'd concede your point, but they aren't, it isn't, it doesn't work that way.

Voter turnout is always higher when the country is involved in active conflict. The conflict isn't imaginary, our invading Iraq wasn't invented by chicken-littles in "the media".

And how do you regard the media being rewarded for this? I see more and more criticism being heaped on "the media" every day — and not just from Ann Coulter, Goldberg and the other right-wing nuts (O'Reilly, Hannity, etc). There was a lot of hand-wringing over the Rathergate scandal, the "end of an era" with both Rather and Brokaw retiring.

What reward?

Comment on 'U.S. government moves to muzzle dissident voices'

Parmeter — Tue, 14 Dec 2004 10:14:54 GMT

Parmeter said:

Is there a reply button I'm missing? Oh well. Onwards!

"Hold on a moment... Maybe I'm not getting this, but if the three Americas are: a) What is, b) What we think it is and c) What we want — isn't b) objectively measurable? The other two are subjective, sure, but — and, again, I may just not be familiar with the model — isn't b) at least fairly objective?"

As I understood the concept, it was more of past, present, and future sort of thing. The First America is deterimined by what we have done in the past as citizens. This colors the Second America as it is compared to our memories. And of course, we all know how well people remember things, so it makes trying to determine just how good the present is a very hard thing. And it is often done with a very negative effect. "Back in my day" and the like sort of thing. Trying to be objective with the memories of others, if not yourself, is a very hard thing.

Sport & Elections: I hold that our Government does not change very much or very quickly. For each election that we witness, the amount of change which occurs as a direct result of that election is incredibly small. Conversely, the amount of hype and pomp which goes into each election is the inverse of that effect. Do elections mean something? Yes. But when you have people (on all sides) going off and threatening to move to another country becuase their canidate didn't win, you have found the point at which people have invested too much of themselves in something which isn't going to change very much, if anything, at all.

Now, I never said anything about Iraq or that invasion.

I said the "fear-mongering and chicken-little act". There were commentators on all sides preaching that if their side didn't win, then the terrorists have. That is fear-mongering. That is saying that sky is falling and that the American people aren't going to survive. If anything, the concequences are, or have been so far, imaginary.

Go back and look at the post-election polls on why people voted. They didn't vote becuase they love the nation. Or even that their selected canidate was a best fit to their beliefs. They voted becuase so that somebody else wasn't going to win. The voted becuase they feared.

As you said, you were in "The Media". So are you going to say that there is no connections between the amount of money spent by political cannidates and what gets put into papers and the airwaves? There is more going on there behind those scenes. Deals to block stories and others with their own ajendas, personal, prefessional, or otherwise. This is what I mean by "The Media".

Do I mean a conspirital organization set to own the world? No. Just humans and their desires, dreams, and personal greed who are out for themselves, whether or not they realize it.

Comment on 'On privatizing the Social Security "problem"'

Parmeter — Tue, 14 Dec 2004 10:31:15 GMT

Parmeter said:

The only winners in this game are the companies which get the 2+ trillion dollars for nothing in return. So, yeah, I'm against this one all the way.

About the only change I would back would be the elimination of the tax altogether or at making it optional and you have to sign up to participate instead of it being automatic. What that would do economically in the short term (more teens and young adults with cash) and in the long term (those same teens and young adults not saving their cash for retirement) is something of a different issue.

Comment on 'MP3 Players, Immediate Follow-Up'

Parmeter — Mon, 03 Jan 2005 11:28:48 GMT

Parmeter said:

Hmm...Did you get a gen 1 or gen 2 TiVo? If I remember correctly, you can get the second generation ones to do streaming audio to different devices if you wanted to list to music while working out. That does assume that you're doing that in your apartment which may or may not be the case.

In other news, started calling places for reception today at lunch. Must be something having to do with the local zoning ordinances, but 175 people/room seems to be poping up quite a bit.

Comment on 'MP3 Players, Immediate Follow-Up'

josh — Fri, 07 Jan 2005 08:08:11 GMT

josh said:

Actually... We have a ReplayTV, TiVo's rude uncle. I use the word "TiVo" to describe it, the way most people use "Kleenex", "Xerox" and such. Besides, "I ReplayTV'd that last night" just doesn't roll off the tongue.

Anywho... What I am looking at, are boxes from the likes of LinkSys, NetGear and Creative (I don't have links at work) that stream mp3s from the wireless network to a stereo in another room of the house. With such a beast, you can listen to any song in your collection, from any room in the house, at any time. The jist of the complaint here, is that all currently available varieties of such devices use the wireless/B configuration, which will slow down my network. No thank you.

Comment on 'MP3 Players, Immediate Follow-Up'

josh — Fri, 07 Jan 2005 08:29:21 GMT

josh said:

This is the kind of thing I have in mind. This would be very cool, but it's way out of my price range, right now.

Comment on 'Just War? Really? Hunh?'

Parmeter — Mon, 24 Jan 2005 08:01:30 GMT

Parmeter said:

What did you expect from the "Moral and Ethics" mouthpiece of the Southern Baptists? Rational dissent?

Anyways, its been a while since you updated. Whatcha been up to?

Still working on wedding stuff. Took friday off to look at more sites and I think we have it narrowed down to three. We're going from there to see how many people to invite to take care of that and to do some cost estimates. Her mom is a bit freaky when it comes to money — so things have to be done in certain ways.

Work is being work and mostly busy during the day. Have more than a few things to catch up on since taking the day off. Yeash.

Remember the GM I was telling you about back at Christmas? I've got a brand-new story that you'll you crack up at.

Comment on 'Just War? Really? Hunh?'

josh — Tue, 25 Jan 2005 12:48:26 GMT

josh said:

What did you expect from the "Moral and Ethics" mouthpiece of the Southern Baptists? Rational dissent?

Well, I think it's a mistake to dismiss anyone out-of-hand as irrational or incapable of logic. Or, at least, literacy.

Comment on 'Just War? Really? Hunh?'

Parmeter — Wed, 26 Jan 2005 08:46:42 GMT

Parmeter said:

Not that i was trying to make that particular dismissal — more that the SoBaspt wouldn't try to bring up any sort of rational dissent with the President's policies.

Moving along.

In other news, I found out about this little fun bill last night:
http://www.senate.mo.gov/05info/bts_web/Bill.aspx?SessionType=R&BillID=41

I really don't know what to say to somebody who would make nudes for art classes illegal. SECTION 67.2550 if you're curious.

Comment on 'Sick.'

Parmeter — Wed, 09 Feb 2005 13:28:28 GMT

Parmeter said:

Being sick does suck. Especially if it is due to something food-related. Keep going in the feeling better direction.

We had our power go out for about two hours sunday night after the pole that has the transformer etc. behind our place catch on fire. Kinda made it hard for the downstairs neighbors to have their party, but as all good college students they seem to take such a thing in stride. And continued to drink.

Besides sickness, how are things going?

Comment on 'Respect the Designer'

Parmeter — Mon, 14 Feb 2005 12:31:57 GMT

Parmeter said:

Yeah. I know a few execs who think like that. Unfortuantly for you and many others, companies like IT! do have that magical "Website inabox with eMoney add-on!"(*). The only problem is that most of the time due to whatever human fraility you want to blame, my personal favorite is greed, they miss that nice little "(*)" part and don't ask questions.

Any time you get into these creative areas you end up with as many or fewer people who do it becuase they are good and can as you do husksters who just want you cash and disapear. As a good example, did you catch that bit on slashdot about the sculpture in Chicago? Not allowed to take a picture of something in a public area becuase the "artist" is worried about copyright? I have a hard time believing that the "artist" isn't anything more than a scammer of some breed or another as there is plenty of caselaw which says otherwise.

Comment on 'Respect the Designer'

Parmeter — Mon, 28 Feb 2005 07:59:40 GMT

Parmeter said:

Hey. If you haven't seen it yet:

http://www.glsconference.org/default.htm

Supposed to be in Madison. Might be worth while to check it out.

Comment on 'On the ethics of feeding tubes'

Parmeter — Wed, 23 Mar 2005 09:12:24 GMT

Parmeter said:

I'll say this: Becuase of the amount of attention that this has gotten in the news I have to wonder what we are not being told about in its stead. At first, I would have thought that the news we are not being told about is the fully unconstitutional and illegal law passed by Congress telling the courts that they could take up the issue, especially now that the focus has been taken off of the "Palm Sunday Accord". However, there are any number of items which could be actively burried with the amount of attention that has been paid to the issue in the last week. Hopefully this will all be over soon.

Comment on 'Ban on gay marriage ends domestic violence (not really!)'

Parmeter — Fri, 25 Mar 2005 07:29:58 GMT

Parmeter said:

If only we would let it be so simple. Marriage in its modern sense is very much a religious institution and beholden to religious ideals. As the orthodoxy-religious become more shrill in their cries, be aware that everything they consider in their "territory" will be defended with more and more zeal until it is either broken by them or ignored by everybody else.
On the whole, taking Marriage out of government hands does leave us with legal holes to fill in. How does one decide custory of children? How does one determine the ownership of shared property? The scopes of these questions should illustrate the extent to which our society is dependant upon the idea of a "legal" marriage. If it is taken out, something must be put in its spot to address these and countless other questions.
The best solution I have heard thus far has been a Libertarian one (and I might add, one borrowed from Heinlein). Make it a contract and nothing more. Counties and States can come up with their own standard form for such a thing, but must allow those who want their own arrangements to do so. It would have to be registered to the state in some way. Mostly to make it binding, but also to make sure that should a dispute occur, it can be adjudicated properly. By its very nature it would cover the questions of custory and shared property and all of the other things we think of when it comes to legal marriage.
The best part is that, since it is a contract, one could not limit under current law the parties involved except by age. Two men want to enjoin into this contact? Sure! Three women and two men? Why not! The more traditional man and woman would likewise be equally welcome. And best of all it would take the religious aspect of the current legal regime and remove it.

Comment on 'On coverage'

Sal D'Agostino — Thu, 31 Mar 2005 17:17:23 GMT

Sal D'Agostino said:

Isn't it so interesting how Americans become involved in an issue these days? What makes this entire process so disheartening is that a few weeks from now, so many will have forgotten about Terri and about this fight, and we will move on again to wondering if Britney Spears is actually pregnant, or if Jennifer Lopez is doing well in her new marriage. And how easy is it for those in Washington to leech onto an issue which some feel could be "tough" for their opposing political party. What a complete joke. Does anyone actually care about the FACTS of the case? Does anyone realize that this poor woman has actually been in this state since 1990? Where have they been the last 15 years exactly?

I turned to my wife tonight and told her flat out that if I ever was in the state which Terri was in, I would like her to let me go. That is my choice, and since I have dedicated my life to her, I believe in my heart that is all I need to do. It is no one else's business...

but then again no one asked for my opinion.

Comment on 'On coverage'

Josh — Thu, 31 Mar 2005 17:36:43 GMT

Josh said:

Yeah. Liz and I had a similar talk. I haven't talked to my parents, or brothers, about it yet. It seems to impersonal to do over the phone.

I've thought about it, and I think what I would basically say is: I don't think I want to be in that state, if it came to that, but if it did, whoever has the unfortunate luck to be my next of kin on that day, you had gosh darn better respect them. It's an unimaginably difficult decision that person makes, it would be such a nightmare to lack your family's support on that.

Oh, and what hypocrisy on "sanctity of marriage". Hah!

Comment on 'Web Design World Buzz'

Parmeter — Tue, 12 Apr 2005 12:25:20 GMT

Parmeter said:

I am slowly discovering the joys of web-app production. My first assignment as a "Software Engineer" is to create a web page report. I've been looking through some of the other pages to get my head around all of this. Things have changed significantly since '95 and '96. Some of it bugs me in looking at it through that particular lense of knowledge. I won't call them wrong, but I don't think that they've been given a full measure consideration before they were implimented.

Comment on 'Web Design World Buzz'

Josh — Tue, 12 Apr 2005 13:38:49 GMT

Josh said:

What are you using to build the app? Perl? PHP? .Net?

I don't think that many things have changed since '96, other than an explosion in the number of language options.

What about it is bugging you, or striking you as not being given a full measure of consideration? Do you mean, things in the app you are upgrading?

Comment on 'Web Design World Buzz'

Parmeter — Tue, 12 Apr 2005 18:41:29 GMT

Parmeter said:

Studio Interdev is what I've been using. I figure that is somewhere between v.6 and .Net in those terms. Outside of the basic html stuff it has been a mish-mash of vbscript and javascript.

It isn't the idea of dynamic content on the web that I think hasn't been fully considered. It's the method of achiving it. On the dominate user platform (IE on Windows) there is almost unfettered access to the computer through the web browser. Who thought that was a good idea? I think there has to be a better way than to have a browser be both a complier and intrepreter of mulitple languages as well as a renderer of html and images.

It may not be en vouge to suggest it, but what was wrong with dedicated client-server applications? Why move these things to a platform designed from the ground up to serve scientific, static data?